Question for UK members

[Thumbcocker]

I don't want this to turn into a urination competition, I am asking a sincere question and hope maybe some of you can answer this. It is often stated in the context of firearms rights that the UK does not recognize self defense. My question is: is that accurate? A long time ago I read some of Blackstone's commentary on the laws of England and IIRC it was a pretty well settled point that lethal force was, historically at least, justified in a variety of situations and that included preventingfelonies. I realize that was a long time ago.


So to rephrase; what is the status of self defense in the UK, and if it underwent a significant change when and how did that occur.

[Col4570]

When applying for a Firearms or Shotgun Certificates,reasons for the application are requested.One cannot state the reason being Protection.Firearms are issued for sporting or target purposes.As for defending yourself and family in a possibly life saving situation,lethal force is not encouraged but each case would be viewed on its merits.An outstanding case was when a Farmer (Tony Martin) heard someone breaking into his home,he challenged them as they came up the stairs in the dark.They made threats to his life so he Fired his Shotgun into the Darkness,killing one and wounding the other.He served a short Prison sentence but public outcry and petitions won him freedom.It is worth saying that the wounded perp later on continued his criminal career receiving further sentences for his crimes.Defending oneself in recent years has been looked upon with much sympathy but lethal methods are still frowned upon.

[hithard]

My son in law is a barrister, loves to come to the land of liberty and shoot, alot! He always stresses the fact that your better to be beat to an inch from death than to kill the perpetrators or even cause them more harm than they have caused you because of the courts view. The courts view both sides as violence and either way it has no place in their society.

[hithard]

duplicate post

[Ballistics in Scotland]

When applying for a Firearms or Shotgun Certificates,reasons for the application are requested.One cannot state the reason being Protection.Firearms are issued for sporting or target purposes.As for defending yourself and family in a possibly life saving situation,lethal force is not encouraged but each case would be viewed on its merits.An outstanding case was when a Farmer (Tony Martin) heard someone breaking into his home,he challenged them as they came up the stairs in the dark.They made threats to his life so he Fired his Shotgun into the Darkness,killing one and wounding the other. He served a short Prison sentence but public outcry and petitions won him freedom.It is worth saying that the wounded perp later on continued his criminal career receiving further sentences for his crimes.Defending oneself in recent years has been looked upon with much sympathy but lethal methods are still frowned upon.

This is not entirely accurate, and the issue is hedged around with myth. I have the grant-or-renewal forms for both certificates in front of me at the moment. The law is extremely plain, that the applicant for a firearm certificate (which nowadays means almost entirely rifles) must fulfill two conditions. He must have a good reason for having the firearms, and he must be capable of doing so without being a danger to the public or the peace. It is for him to demonstrate the good reason, which will usually involve showing club membership or permission to shoot on suitable land and self-defence is not an admissible reason.

Usually the certificate will come with a condition on first being granted, limiting the use of the firearm to land which the police have approved as suitable. But on renewal it will be removed, permitting use on any land which the shooter considers suitable, though he is responsible for excessive optimism. Use on game (with the landowner's permission) of a gun authorized only for target shooting on authorized ranges will land you in trouble, though probably far short of the maximum penalty the laws provides. Well in places, it is a very crowded island.

With a shotgun, however, public safety or the peace still applies, but the applicant doesn't have to state any reason, and the police are entitled to refuse only if they have reason to think he doesn't have one. It is rarely done, and is only likely in view of drastic physical impairment. Actually saying "I want it to shoot burglars" might well cause the public safety clause to be invoked, on the basis that the law on self-defence is likely to be exceeded. Of course thousands of people living in isolated houses do keep shotguns for personal protection. They haven't had to lie about it, and nobody takes much notice because of the extreme rarity of shooting people, or indeed the kind of attack that could justify it.

Of course being found in possession of a deceased or severely damaged burglar is an extremely troublesome situation, and should be. The Crown Prosecution Service also have a two-part test: whether it seems likely that a crime was committed, and whether a prosecution is in the public interest. They might think a case should be tested in court, and it is a worrying time even if they decide not to. But the law on self-defence is clear. It is allowed, in proportion to the sort of danger in which you reasonably believe the assailant is placing you. That includes the use of a firearm against any deadly weapon. You don't even have to be right about the danger. If your neighbor gets so drunk after a day's forestry work that he accidentally walks into your house at night with his axe in his hand, or a burglar tries to intimidate you with a replica gun, he must take what comes.

There have been government statements reiterating all this, and the number of convictions has been exceedingly small, even in relation to the small number of British people who have shot, shot at or intimidated burglars with guns. I don't believe there has been a single case where there wasn't a definite element of retribution or waiting for the day. Tony Martin's case really proves just the opposite of what many believe. He had been deprived of his shotgun certificate some time previously, for shooting a hole in the car of a man he caught stealing apples from his orchard. The gun he used to shoot his burglars was illegally held and so was another found hidden in an outbuilding.

There were endless inconsistencies in Martin's testimony. In particular he appears to have cut away the stairs of his house to protect himself from burglars, and yet fired a shot while they were downstairs, followed them and fired again as they were escaping. He was convicted of murder and the judge made a rather recommendation that he serve not less than nine years. There was some outcry, mostly from those who knew least about him, but what counted was that in prison he was diagnosed with a collection of disorders, including paranoia and one of the autism disorders, and the sentence was reduced to five years for manslaughter, of which he served three. He could have had as much for the asking in his first trial, if he hadn't refused his lawyer's recommendation that he try for diminished responsibility.

Of course his burglars were repulsive habitual criminals. The survivor tried to sue for crippling injuries, until a newspaper photographed him running and cycling without difficulty. But Martin does not impress as one able to distinguish all that, in the dark, from two kids on their first escapade.

2½ months ago Martin was arrested for again illegally possessing of firearms, which resulted in no charges. It may have been an airgun, freely ownable by most people but subject to a lifetime ban after a jail sentence, and was held to be inoperable due to its condition. Still, with him above all others, skirting this close to reoffending surely indicates a really dangerous case of not having all his buttons sewn on. He isn't much on which to pin the idea that the British are forbidden legitimate self-defence.

[Col4570]

Well that puts paid to my brief explanation.

[Gavetta]

marvelous legal writing skills. by ballistics in scotland.cheers

[Ballistics in Scotland]

marvelous legal writing skills. by ballistics in scotland.cheers

Thank you for those kind words, although I should point out that I'm in no way legally qualified, and anybody in the UK who needs guidance on firearms licencing should refer to the mostly accurate and even-handed government document, which has evolved from what was originally guidance to police forces:

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...v_2015_v16.pdf

It strikes most shooters as unnecessarily complicated and restrictive, and some of it can only have the slightest effect on public safety. What that is ever composed by anybody's government isn't? But it isn't like we get nothing for it. Home invasion by criminals armed to harm the householder is an extremely rare crime in the UK, mostly confined to the social intercourse between criminals themselves. Of course it drastically ups the ante on the penalty for simple burglary. But I think they don't much want to kill or maim the ordinary citizen because the ordinary citizen (inidividually or collectively, a.k.a. the law) doesn't much want to kill or maim them. It is very hard to distinguish the chicken from the egg on this one.

[stag15]

I think most commonwealth countries follow a similar system. Up here in Canada there is a similar set of rules, although it is my belief they are not as restrictive as the UK. You can defend yourself here IF you or a loved one is in danger, but defense has to be reasonable. No item can be carried on your person as a defensive weapon intended for use on people. Pepper spray, a gun, a knife, a cucumber. Whatever it is, it cant be seen as a weapon meant for people. Lethal force is likely justified if somebody is breaking into your house and about to assault you or a loved one with a weapon that is lethal. However it all goes on a case by case basis. If somebody is just stealing your TV and isn't about to kill you, and you shoot him in the back as he is running away, you are likely going on a vacation to Club Fed. But I might be wrong on this, I haven't been through the self defence lawyer circus yet.

[robg]

I we defend ourselves with firearms we would end up in jail ,we can only use rifles etc on approved ranges or on land we have permission to shoot over ,have to use expanding ammunition for game, not allowed expanding ammunition unless you have land to shoot over expanding bullets are counted as cartridges .not allowed expanding ammunition for target work.only to zero.this is just the tip of a buracratic ice berg .then we have to renew certificate s every 5years.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

I think most commonwealth countries follow a similar system. Up here in Canada there is a similar set of rules, although it is my belief they are not as restrictive as the UK. You can defend yourself here IF you or a loved one is in danger, but defense has to be reasonable. No item can be carried on your person as a defensive weapon intended for use on people. Pepper spray, a gun, a knife, a cucumber. Whatever it is, it cant be seen as a weapon meant for people. Lethal force is likely justified if somebody is breaking into your house and about to assault you or a loved one with a weapon that is lethal. However it all goes on a case by case basis. If somebody is just stealing your TV and isn't about to kill you, and you shoot him in the back as he is running away, you are likely going on a vacation to Club Fed. But I might be wrong on this, I haven't been through the self defence lawyer circus yet.

As you describe it, that is exactly like the British situation, and I don't see much wrong with it. In the UK, remember, carrying a weapon intended for use against people drastically escalates how far things can go wrong for a criminal. The law doesn't deal well with theft of property which stands between you and disaster, such as equipment or records that can cause your business to fail, or the theft of your sandbags as floodwater reaches your doorstep. Killing someone over personal belongings should be repugnant anywhere. But there have been government statements, so far not contradicted by events, that the Crown Prosecution Service won't expect meticulous judgment in a householder surprised by a burglar in his home. But they will expect some.

[dtknowles]

As you describe it, that is exactly like the British situation, and I don't see much wrong with it. In the UK, remember, carrying a weapon intended for use against people drastically escalates how far things can go wrong for a criminal. The law doesn't deal well with theft of property which stands between you and disaster, such as equipment or records that can cause your business to fail, or the theft of your sandbags as floodwater reaches your doorstep. Killing someone over personal belongings should be repugnant anywhere. But there have been government statements, so far not contradicted by events, that the Crown Prosecution Service won't expect meticulous judgment in a householder surprised by a burglar in his home. But they will expect some.

I imagine that some of our criminal underclass would have a field day in England and Canada. I guess they don't know about the rules there. If they knew that their gang could just go jack a car then pull up to your house and take anything they wanted and you could not stop them then they could take off with the goods, stash the goods, ditch and burn the car.

Why doesn't this happen over there more often or does it. Are you aware of the Castle Doctrine. While it is repugnant to kill someone over trivial possessions it is not repugnant to kill someone who would violate the security and serenity of your home or person. It is not about the items that they are stealing is about the peace of mind they have stolen.

Our house was broken into during a popular spring festival that gets most of the town to turn out so almost nobody in the neighborhood was on the look out and it was back before security cameras were so popular. My wife was so shocked she could not figure out why they took the pillow cases until I explained that they used them as bags. The wife and daughters were so distressed we installed and alarm system.

I can see shooting someone for stealing my family's peace of mind.

Tim

[horsesoldier]

Mine as well DT. We had three chainsaws stolen in 2014 and I am still trying to get my piece of mind back. If wish we could change our laws to defend property

[Ballistics in Scotland]

I imagine that some of our criminal underclass would have a field day in England and Canada. I guess they don't know about the rules there. If they knew that their gang could just go jack a car then pull up to your house and take anything they wanted and you could not stop them then they could take off with the goods, stash the goods, ditch and burn the car.

Why doesn't this happen over there more often or does it. Are you aware of the Castle Doctrine. While it is repugnant to kill someone over trivial possessions it is not repugnant to kill someone who would violate the security and serenity of your home or person. It is not about the items that they are stealing is about the peace of mind they have stolen.

Our house was broken into during a popular spring festival that gets most of the town to turn out so almost nobody in the neighborhood was on the look out and it was back before security cameras were so popular. My wife was so shocked she could not figure out why they took the pillow cases until I explained that they used them as bags. The wife and daughters were so distressed we installed and alarm system.

I can see shooting someone for stealing my family's peace of mind.

Tim

As would a border Afghan just about anywhere civilized, until he learned that if you find a bit of dead ground where a week's patience will get you a clean shot at someone whose grandfather insulted yours, ingenuity and endurance don't count as an extenuating circumstance. It is what actually happens that counts, and what happens in the UK is that ordinary people have very little reason to fear deadly violence in their own homes.

I'm aware of the castle doctrine, and that it can be interpreted to mean a lot of different things. At the worst it is often seen (though perhaps not by the courts) as the right to shoot someone for trespassing, which may be a big thing to a small man as long as it doesn't actually happen - which usually it doesn't. On the other hand it can mean a couple of very reasonable things. One is a greater presumption that violent attack appeared likely, than a court would grant someone who was threats or subjected to minor violence in a public place. It also means (reasonably again) that you aren't obliged to leave the premises with which your greater familiarity gives you an advantage, both practically and in self confidence.

But I doubt very much whether there are many jurisdictions in which it entitles you to inflict major violence when you don't reasonably fear major violence.

[dtknowles]

..................It is what actually happens that counts, and what happens in the UK is that ordinary people have very little reason to fear deadly violence in their own homes.

I'm aware of the castle doctrine, and that it can be interpreted to mean a lot of different things. At the worst it is often seen (though perhaps not by the courts) as the right to shoot someone for trespassing, which may be a big thing to a small man as long as it doesn't actually happen - which usually it doesn't. On the other hand it can mean a couple of very reasonable things. One is a greater presumption that violent attack appeared likely, than a court would grant someone who was threats or subjected to minor violence in a public place. It also means (reasonably again) that you aren't obliged to leave the premises with which your greater familiarity gives you an advantage, both practically and in self confidence.

But I doubt very much whether there are many jurisdictions in which it entitles you to inflict major violence when you don't reasonably fear major violence.

So it would seem that you acknowledge that many in the U.S.A. have more cause to fear violence in their home or on the street than those in U.K. This greater threat is justification for a more permissive environment for the use of force in self defense. I think that is why the Courts here are pretty loose in interpreting "entitles you to inflict major violence when you don't reasonably fear major violence" they will mostly let you use deadly force and consider reasonable fear whenever you are confronted with any threat in your Castle. That, with the presumption of innocence if you shoot dead someone in your house the courts would have to prove you had not reason to be afraid. I could claim and unarmed intruder was trying to grab one of the book ends on the shelf with which to attack me as justification and probably be acquitted. Shoot a truly armed intruder, you don't even go to trial unless you shoot them in the back.

Your nice civilized U.K. can be happy with your laws but things are different over here, every person I know well has had some sort of home invasion or violent confrontation or sexual assault with the exception of a few children.

Do you think that the proliferation of people who carry over here is just for the fun of it. I guess we have more criminals and they are more aggressive than those in the U.K.

Tim

[Lead Fred]

Old bumper sticker here in the colonies

"Id rather be tried by 12, than carried by 6"

This is what happens when Godless people run your country.

The single most inherit thing in this world is the RIGHT to life.

So sorry your gobermint has disposable citizens

[hithard]

" which may be a big thing to a small man as long as it doesn't actually happen "

Throwing stones,

[Ballistics in Scotland]

The UK isn't at all deficient in petty crime for gain, or in criminals using extreme violence among themselves. There is no doubt that murder is higher in the US, and the proportion who just want to be single again, or hasten a legacy, is probably much the same anywhere. So the figures probably don't fully reflect the difference in those prepared to arm themselves to attack strangers. Any urban policeman will tell you that when such a criminal has a gun, information leaks out of the criminal fraternity at a much faster rate. There is nothing odd about a city casualty department doctor never having seen a bullet wound.

Still, the US murder rate is nothing like as high as the murder rate in many other countries. Without the slightest slur on the circles you move in, random events come in clusters, and none of the Americans I know has personal experience of violence. There are many greater causes of death against which people could protect themselves and don't. So although "for fun" would be a very flippant way of putting it, carrying a gun surely does something for people that giving up smoking, drinking, lethal dietary indulgence or keeping excessively informal company wouldn't.

There is also the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg. Criminals surely know that a sizeable proportion of the law-abiding public is prepared to kill them, and a small minority discuss the prospect gleefully and experience the sort of dreams unsuitable for mentioning here. So what does that make them do? Wait for one with his back turned, or wait till drink or drugs bluntens their caution.

[Thumbcocker]

It would be very interesting to know how many of the 10,000 or so gun homicides here each year involve criminals whacking each other.

[therealhitman]

marvelous legal writing skills. by ballistics in scotland.cheers

My ignore list fortunately spared me the (undoubtedly) long winded barely intelligible yet self important anti-American rant. But I must assume that is sarcasm you used there.