Gullible? Nope. Concerned? Yup.
On the issue of self defense in England, I don’t think the gun bloggers are gullible. Tim Lambert thinks that they are. Tim notes (and I agree) that the British media is misrepresenting the law regarding self defense:
The Daily Telegraph’s campaign is nothing more than a beat up to create an issue to attack the government with. The truly disgraceful thing about their scare campaign is that it could convince people that self-defence is unlawful and frighten them out of defending themselves against an attacker, resulting in injury or even death of a crime victim.
That is, I think, a valid concern. In England, it is not illegal to defend yourself. However, under the letter of the law, it is quite difficult to legally defend yourself:
To show self-defence you must:
1. show that you reasonably fear immediate attack.
2. show that you had no alternative avenue of escaping the attack. If you can, you must run away.
3. your response must be proportionate to the threat. If someone threatens you with a balloon, you may not respond with a knife. If your own life is not under threat you cannot threaten somebody else’s life.
Fleeing is not conducive to any self defense. If you are attacked and your back is turned, you simply cannot effectively defend yourself. That combined with the fact that no one should be forced to flee from their own home under rule of law, makes the assertion that people in the UK already have the right to defend themselves against burglars or anyone else who threatens them a bit misleading. So, in England, if you’re backed into a corner, you can defend yourself.
December 13th, 2004 at 11:56 am
Sorry, but that page is wrong. Glanville Williams Textbook of Criminal Law says
December 13th, 2004 at 12:14 pm
So, there is no duty to retreat but there is an obligation to demonstrate by his actions that he does not want to fight. He must demonstrate that he is prepared to temporise and disengage and perhaps to make some physical withdrawal
Maybe i’m picking a nit as i never mentioned duty to retreat, but that seems pretty damn similar to If you can, you must run away.
I’m unfamiliar with british law and read the Criminal Law Act 1967 which states that they can defend themselves. However, the book you refer to makes mention of trying to run. Seems to me that (though not codifed into law per se) the obligation to run exists as a precedent for a legal defense.
December 13th, 2004 at 12:57 pm
The real trick is in the “proportionate force” part. Apparently, you’ve got to find out what weapons the home invaders are carrying and respond with something similar. But meeting clubs or kives with a club or knife doesn’t work real well if the intruder is 20 years old and the home-owner is 80.
December 13th, 2004 at 6:18 pm
Here’s my take on it. Remember Tony Martin, the English farmer who shot and killed a burglar in his house? He was convicted of murder of the burglar and wounded the crook’s accomplice. Moreover, the surviving crook (who has more than 30 criminal convictions) is seeking compensation under the Human Rights Act.
This farmer was in prison for over 3 years, all for defending his home.
All this talk of duty to retreat is a bunch of crap. If you’re in imminent, immediate fear of your life or someone else, that’s enough for use of deadly force in the state of Texas, and that should be reasonable enough for anyone. Proportionate force, my ass. Don’t bring a club to a gunfight – you’re going to lose, and I’m going to sleep just fine that night.
December 14th, 2004 at 4:31 am
Clearly Mr. Lambert is still in reaction over all the vicious balloon-beatings he received as a child.