General discussion

From my side of the fence (pond) this is unimaginable for me

Melton Mowbray, Leics (UK)

"Farm tenant arrested after burglars shot was 'plagued by break-ins'

A farm tenant and his wife who were arrested after two suspected burglars were shot at their isolated home had been the victims of a number of robberies."

"A second man was later treated for gunshot injuries after arriving at Leicester Royal Infirmary, 10 miles from the scene of the shooting. Neither of the men is said to be seriously injured. "

"They have been robbed three or four times. One of them was quite nasty. "

"The case will reignite the debate over a householder's right to defend his property, which began in the late 1990s after the farmer Tony Martin shot two burglars at his remote Norfolk home. In 1999, Martin fired at Brendan Fearon, 29, and Fred Barras, 16, after they broke into the house in Emneth Hungate.

Three shots were fired, Barras was hit in the back and despite escaping through a window died moments later. Martin was convicted of murder and jailed for life, which was reduced on appeal to manslaughter and five years' jail. "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9516776/Farm-tenant-arrested-after-burglars-shot-was-plagued-by-break-ins.html

Discussion is locked
Follow
Reply to: From my side of the fence (pond) this is unimaginable for me
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: From my side of the fence (pond) this is unimaginable for me
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Comments
- Collapse -
What does the law there expect a person to do

when confronted by robbers in their own home? In the US, we've grown up with the notion that, at some point, there are no rules against defending oneself with whatever weapon is handy. Do you have a law in the UK that forbids robbers from carrying carrying a gun? Well, in the US, we have a law that forbids robbery. One who commits robbery should expect to possibly meet Mr Smith & Wesson up close and personal. We can't imagine a system that only permits an attempt to call police or do what one can to survive. But, then again, you may have a law that specifies what a robber may or may not do to his victim. Silly Brits. Happy Devil (kidding of course)

- Collapse -
follow what's Just

even when it's not Legal. Sounds like they have Pilate running their legal system.

- Collapse -
(NT) No James, a system that saves tens of thousands of lives R
- Collapse -
(NT) where you pull that from? http://pull_it_FYA.info?
- Collapse -
No, you paragon of incivility, I got it from comparing the

death rates from hand guns in the two countries. Divide the 35,000 deaths due to hand guns in the US by twenty, the difference factor between England and Wales and the USA and you get 10's of thousands of lives saved. I'd suggest you stop thinking WYA Mr. O'Daniel.

And this is a perfect example of why the quasi-liberals among us sometimes get fed up here. We're attacked first and most frequently. I haven't spoken to you in years, assuming you call what we are doing speech, and you come screaming out of Extreme Right field with that insult.

Rob

- Collapse -
WYA?

could you be more specific please?

- Collapse -
(NT) Ask Edward and his FYA. He'll enlighten you.
- Collapse -
FYA

I went to the source. You.

- Collapse -
It depends on what you're willing to put up with. in the UK

this was a controversial ruling (that of Mr. Martin, 1999) I was there at that time, and I reacted like I suspect everyone here did. But theft is not a capital crime, and housebreakers in the UK are rarely if ever armed. Farmer's on the other hand always have a shotgun or two around. It is the position of the Govermnent of both Parties and of the Police Forces to sit hard on gun violence very hard regardless of who perpetrates it. That way they can control the arms war which has taken over the United States. a situation where Criminals will always be better armed than the home owner.
And look at what they've achieved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

US 10.27deaths per 100,000 population.

Northern Ireland 6.82

Canada 4.78

Scotland 0.58

England/ Wales 0.46

Note that we are comparing Apples with Apples, Gun deaths per hundred thousand of population, size of population is removed from the equation.

A person is over 20 times as likely to be killed by a gun in Britain as in the Untied States, more than twice as likely as in Canada, about 17 times more likely in Scotland, but less than twice as likely in Northern Ireland.

I have taken a lot of stick here for quoting the Utilitarian Credo, "The greatest good for the greatest number." Well, this is it. Suppressing functioning-gun ownership in the UK saves a lot of lives. Divide last years death toll due to guns, not just people being shot during robberies, but all the accidents, and all the suicides, by 20, and see what you get. Nobody's going to overthrow the US Government, or the British Government, or the Canadian one. Just because the Second Amendment has been rammed down your throat by the NRA and Olin Matheson, and Winchester and Colt and Browning and all the other arms manufacturers, doesn't mean their reasoning is true and accurate, or even a long shot. But it certainly stimulates the sales of the weapons and makes the 1% very very rich. And the 1% pay people to carry their guns.

In the UK there are re-enactors who have weapons from every era, those armed with Matchlocks and Flintlocks are real and live, everything else depends on a warrant from the Chief Magistrate or Chief Justice of your area. You'll find people happily field stripping AK-47's while pretending to be East Bloc Forces. And stripping Bren guns and Browning .30 cal machineguns playing British and American WW2 forces. You can find WW2 weapons rescued from the snows and streams of Russia, sprayed black for sale for L600 (an MG 42) but with repairs via welding to the receiver area. It's a gun which would blow up in your face if it was fired. But it can be at least partly field stripped, and thus satisfies those atavistic urges I had when I was 8 and 10 and took apart and re-assembled my uncle's WW1 Luger and Steyr automatic pistol (and what a dog the Steyr was).

It is safer to hoseholders NOT to have a gun, than it is to have a gun. And you won't be contributing to the great swell of illegal weapons on the street. Doesn't it see odd to you that the US makes so many weapons that are smuggled illegally to Mexico, and to Canada? Why does the US Arms Industry make so many extra arms except to feed the illegal market?
"An estimated 500,000 guns are stolen each year," Wikipedia

In his first publication on the subject, in 1986, Kellermann studied all gunshot related deaths in Seattle over six years, and found that
* 54% of firearm-related deaths occurred in the home where the gun was kept
* 70.5% of these (firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept) involved handguns
* 0.5% of these (firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept) involved an intruder shot while attempting entry
* 1.8% of these (firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept) were judged by police as self-defense
* there were 1.3 times as many accidental firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept as self-protection shootings
* there were 4.6 times as many criminal firearm-related homicides in the home where the gun was kept as self-protection shootings
* there were 37 times as many suicides in the home where the gun was kept as self-protection shootings.

He concluded that "the advisability of keeping firearms in the home for protection must be questioned". Critics of this study noted that it was restricted to firearm-related deaths, effectively excluding incidents in which gun owners used their firearm to injure and frighten away an intruder. But the study also excluded incidents in which individuals were non-fatally injured in a firearm accident, criminal assault or suicide attempt, as well as instances in which a homeowner used a gun to threaten or terrorize another member of the household, as sometimes occurs in the context of domestic violence."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kellermann

Rob

- Collapse -
Making this statement may come back to haunt you
"The greatest good for the greatest number."

as it could be used to imply "The sacrifice of a few for the benefit of many" which, when arguing minority rights, runs into a problem with consistency of thought. I'll submit that a long spreadsheet of statistics on gun deaths will have missing data. That data will be the number of potentially deadly incidents that were avoided when guns were either present or simply thought to be present. I'm not advocating for gun ownership here but just expressing the futile nature of trying to put forth an intellectual argument that justifies punishing a person for expressing what is probably a human instinct. We can't legislate that.
- Collapse -
maybe there's a more satisfying feeling

using an axe or knife instead? Too bad for the seniors who are left totally defenseless without a gun since obviously they can't fight against being robbed. A robber dies. He never robs again. Who cares about deterrent? It's so easy for burglars and muggers to avoid being shot, just don't burgle or rob people. Britain has such a backward way of looking at the matter. No wonder it's called the Old World.

- Collapse -
Well...maybe they're right

Maybe the UK has developed a kinder and gentler class of criminals than has the US. Maybe these crooks expect to be held to higher standards than crooks elsewhere. After all...wouldn't the words "Stand and deliver" make you want to be more cooperative than "Gimme' all yer money or I'll see your brains on the pavement". Really now, doesn't the UK approach seem more assuring that your safety is the criminals biggest concern? Devil

- Collapse -
No they simply have a far lower crime rate

and a murder rate that is less than 1/3 of the US. They've worked out that killing people isn't a viable solution (so to speak) and that criminal activity is a poor way to live.

Rob

- Collapse -
No wonder it's called the Old World.

Sure IF you are living in the Middle Ages.

You were the guy asking me if I got/received the RNC Convention in New Brunswick, Canada. You don't even know we have TV up here. AND we get American stations.

Perhaps "Old World" is the way you speak...James (I'm from/still living in the Middle Ages) Denison?

- Collapse -
If the Home Office numbers quoted by Kees are correct

there are less than 1000 murders in the UK

Page 42 of http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb1011/hosb1011?view=Binary (it's the pdf-file, the link is on http://www.crimestoppers-uk.org/crime-prevention/latest-crime-statistics) shows the exact number of homicides (that's murder, manslaughter and infanticide) to be 642 in 2010/11 in England and Wales. That doesn't include Scotland and Northern Ireland, but I doubt if including those two countries would make it 1000, let alone "thousands".

So, 55 million (the UK population) times 5.45 is 300 million approximately which is roughly the US population.
1000 UK homicides (a very rough estimate) times 5.45 is 5450, as opposed to the 14.748 homicides in the US a difference of 2.5 approximately, or 9328. It's not quite 10,000 but it's not far off. And I was including accidental homicides and suicides which far out number murders. So tens of thousands isn't wrong Edward or James or whichever of Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee I'm talking to.

And to be clear, I don't care about real criminals, even though robbery is not a capital crime any more. Judging by what you say, you feel you should be able to kill anyone you think is coming to steal from you. What I care about is the "slaughter of the innocents" which occurs every day in the US. Innocent adults and children being shot accidentally, or on purpose by deranged spouses or drive-by shootings or accidental discharge of firearms.

Complain all you want, Hate the figures all you want, but they're not wrong, your belief system is. But I don't expect you to change. You'd need to move away from the US, and spend decades getting the cotton wool out of your heads. I was a liberal in the US, and it took me a good decade to start to see things differently. Now most of you look like creatures from a very strange and vicious planet, and the Republican Party suggests comparisons I won't make.

Rob

- Collapse -
How do you feel about cops with guns

shooting 9 unarmed people in NYC. No even a poorly trained homeowner has done that one yet.

- Collapse -
How about the cops several years ago

shooting an unarmed guy in NYC getting off 24 shots and only hit him 7 or 8 times. And he was standing right in front of them.

Diana

- Collapse -
LOL, I know

they need to turn homeowners loose on the bad guys instead. Situational justice. It saves us tax dollars.

- Collapse -
Situational justice? sounds a bit like

situational ethics.

I thought that was a no no?

- Collapse -
Jesus clearly said

if the good man knew the hour the thief would be coming he'd not allow his home to be broken into.

I'm also reminded of 2 people dragged dead from the synagogue after lying to apostle Peter.

- Collapse -
don't believe the priest killed them though

that was suppose to be an act of divine retribution wasn't it.

This is about man's revenge, not an act of god.

Defending yourself at the time is different than hunting down someone and taking revenge for a perceived offense against yourself.

- Collapse -
quit twisting

"hunting someone down" isn't situational justice. It might be justice, it might be revenge, it might even be both at the same time, but it's not "situational". Perceived offense? David when he was scorned by Nabal was on his way to kill him when Nabal's wife came out to meet them, bringing food for the men. David thanked her for stopping him from taking vengeance unrighteously and be blood guilty. To kill someone for an insult was wrong, even then.

If you look at what this thread is about it's not chasing someone down, even if they deserve it, but dealing with them in appropriate and righteous manner at the place of offense at the time of the offense.

Vengeance in the Bible can mean justified taking of life, or unjustified taking of life. If the punishment fits the crime, even if it's also revenge, then it's justified. If someone is set on killing another because he felt his honor was insulted in some manner, then it's unjustified.
===============================================

1 Samuel 25:3 Now the name of the man was nabal; and the name of his wife Abigail: and she was a woman of good understanding, and of a beautiful countenance: but the man was churlish and evil in his doings; and he was of the house of Caleb. And David heard in the wilderness that nabal did shear his sheep.

And David sent out ten young men, and David said unto the young men, Get you up to Carmel, and go to nabal, and greet him in my name:

:And when David's young men came, they spake to nabal according to all those words in the name of David, and ceased.

And nabal answered David's servants, and said, Who is David? and who is the son of Jesse? there be many servants now a days that break away every man from his master.

But one of the young men told Abigail, nabal's wife, saying, Behold, David sent messengers out of the wilderness to salute our master; and he railed on them.

And she said unto her servants, Go on before me; behold, I come after you. But she told not her husband nabal.

Let not my lord, I pray thee, regard this man of Belial, even nabal: for as his name is, so is he; nabal is his name, and folly is with him: (nabal translates to FOOL) but I thine handmaid saw not the young men of my lord, whom thou didst send.

Now therefore, my lord, as the LORD liveth, and as thy soul liveth, seeing the LORD hath withholden thee from coming to shed blood, and from avenging thyself with thine own hand, now let thine enemies, and they that seek evil to my lord, be as nabal.

And it shall come to pass, when the LORD shall have done to my lord according to all the good that he hath spoken concerning thee, and shall have appointed thee ruler over Israel;

31That this shall be no grief unto thee, nor offence of heart unto my lord, either that thou hast shed blood causeless, or that my lord hath avenged himself: but when the LORD shall have dealt well with my lord, then remember thine handmaid.

32And David said to Abigail, Blessed be the LORD God of Israel, which sent thee this day to meet me:

For in very deed, as the LORD God of Israel liveth, which hath kept me back from hurting thee, except thou hadst hasted and come to meet me, surely there had not been left unto nabal by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.

- Collapse -
the end of it.

But it came to pass in the morning, when the wine was gone out of Nabal, and his wife had told him these things, that his heart died within him, and he became as a stone.

38And it came to pass about ten days after, that the LORD smote Nabal, that he died.

39And when David heard that Nabal was dead, he said, Blessed be the LORD, that hath pleaded the cause of my reproach from the hand of Nabal, and hath kept his servant from evil: for the LORD hath returned the wickedness of Nabal upon his own head. And David sent and communed with Abigail, to take her to him to wife

- Collapse -
hunting someone down

implies looking for them to kill them does it not?

The only reason for an indvidual to kill is in immediate defense of another life.

Of course, you can always drag out the old what if scene ............

If you knew who and what someone like Hitler would become, would you murder him earlier? Most would say yes, but that is accepting precognition. Normally raving about knowing the future to justify current aberrant behavior is taken as de facto prove of mental incompetence.

- Collapse -
what does any of that

have to do with the situation in the OP of the thread?

- Collapse -
James it has to do with your post, not OP

they need to turn homeowners loose on the bad guys instead. Situational justice. It saves us tax dollars

Your apparent relish in the idea of someone, anyone just taking the bad guys out.

Also, your posts taken together seem to think it was justice he murdered her since she aborted his child.

A bit like stoning for adultery it seems. You'd probably like to see death penality for adultery etc bought back.

- Collapse -
see, that's what I mean by twisting

I say I'd like to see abortion stopped. You turn that into stoning people for adultery. You have a comprehension problem.

I say I'd like to see homeowners have a freer hand in Britain to deal with criminals breaking into their homes. You turn that into lynch mobs and posses out to kill everyone. You have a comprehension problem.

You really should quit trying to interpret what I say since you aren't very good at it, and especially when what I've said is plain enough to not need "interpreting by Roger" approach.

- Collapse -
Steven, it's a principle not a law. You try to do what is

best, safest, most equitable for the greatest number always recognizing that some situations require a different approach. Minorities would benefit from fewer guns too. Among other things the police or people like George Zimmernan would be less likely to pull a gun on them. The ordinary beat cop in England is still unarmed, even though he is now backed up by very well armed response units, and patrol cars have weapons in lock boxes.

Rob

- Collapse -
(NT) how would the elderly and infirm benefit?
- Collapse -
You should AVOID Wikipedia ...

which ANYONE can edit to their heart's content and track down the actual FBI statistics which show that the US figures on any type of death includes accidental and also justified police killings of criminals and innocent bystanders if there are any. Most other countries report only the killings and injuries among civilians and exclude those where the police or other government agent did the shooting.

Note that your "apples to apples" is actually apples to mangos (or any other dissimilar fruit you prefer).

As far as the UK way saving thousands of lives that is true as far as you go but you should finish what you start. It saves thousands of CRIMINAL'S lives at the cost of thousands of innocent victim's lives - victims who were usually elderly and beaten or stabbed to death by criminals they might well have been able to defend themselves from had they been allowed to be armed and capable of self defense. Yep, you should have finished.

As for the Kellerman study it has repeatedly been demonstrated to present a FALSE PICTURE as his "study" limited any defensive gun
use to that where the trigger was actually pulled and excluded any gun use which ocurred
outside the home (such as the front yard). When the presentation of a firearm by a homeowner within or without his home WITHOUT shooting scares the criminal away but is not included in the stats the conclusion is FALSE!

Don't take my word for it though, do a bit of RESEARCH before accepting trash as truth.
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kellerman-schaffer.html
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kellerman-buckner.html
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/papers-shade/StatisticalMisgivingsandLies.PDF
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html (neither pro not con but simply addresses the FLAWS of the "study")
or many others google will direct you to
https://www.google.com/search?q=kellerman+study

For what it is worth to you so many people of the left and the right are aware of the FLAWED STUDY and its FALSE conclusion that even the Brady Bunch no longer tries to cite it as a factual talking point and believe me when I say that Sarah Brady normally has no problem quoting and defending outright lies when the lie supports her gun banning agenda.

CNET Forums