H&I* Fires, 27 NOV 2007

Colorado has fairly citizen-friendly laws governing use of deadly force in your home (and on the street, for that matter). There is even protection from a civil lawsuit if the shooting was considered 'righteous' under the law... but “You want to make a bet?” Horn answered. “I’m going to kill them.” was entirely the wrong thing to say to the 911 dispatcher, IMHO. Premeditation, anyone? Still, I hope he avoids prosecution- and that reminds me, I need some #0 buckshot for my own tube-gun...

OTH the standard belief in the "British Isles" (which includes Eire, by the way) is that Americans frequently make sweeping statements that are incorrect. I personally find that using a broom is simple enough that I rarely mispeak about it... but perhaps it passes the time in Jolly Ol'*. *including Eire B^D

Matt: Well, what is the rule in the Isles? BTW, I know that geographically, Éire is part of the "British Isles," but don't say that to anybody I know from the Republic unless you're ready to run. (including my wife, LOL) Anyway, in every discussion I've had with citizens/subjects of aforementioned jurisdictions (and I've had many between layovers in Heathrow to family visits on Éire, to hanging out with RAF colleagues), all were, at the least startled, when I explained the castle doctrine and it's application and interpretation in the states I'm most familiar with (KY & SC). Then there was that high profile case some time back in the Sun about a guy who went to jail for shooting someone who broke into his home... Therefore, at least from our perspective, the governments of the British Isles do seem to care more about the felons than the homeowners. Could you please enlighten us as to where we are off the mark on this one?

I had a question; here goes: I read the article, and will go back and re read it again. Since he shot and killed his witnesses, it is only his word and the transcript from the tape. It would seem that he had a genuine reason to fear for his life; it isn't as if the perps were unarmed and we don't know if he asked them to stop. By armed I mean they had a crowbar. So, given the climate in Texas against criminals and the transcript, would you say that he might get off or be made an example of?

Again, I'll reiterate I wouldn't have gone out to shoot... but IIRC, Texas law allows him to go defend his property. Be interesting to see how it plays out. I'm sure you are right in many jurisdictions, Ry. But I'm not sure you are right in this particular one.

Rules for self-defence in the UK First of all, there is no "duty to retreat". There used to be such a duty in Common Law but that was specifically changed in 1967. Secondly, "reasonable" force can be used by anyone in the prevention of any crime or in making an arrest. You can use any REASONABLE force to defend yourself or another person or property. You are allowed to protect yourself with something you are carrying anyway (for example: keys, umbrella or a can of deodorant), but you may not carry a weapon. The prohibition against weapons is taken very seriously. Carrying a knife can theoretically lead to a 2-year prison sentence and being in possession of a firearm can be a 5-year penalty - even if no other crimes are involved. A private citizen cannot legally kill someone to defend property. Period. Neither can any Police Officer (caveat: one possible exception is the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, who guard the civilian nuclear power plants and are our only permanently armed police force.) The law does not attempt to make a definition of "reasonable" or "appropriate" force. This is deliberate policy - there would be an infinite number of caveats and hypothetical situations. It is up to a jury to decide whether too much force was used. The NRA likes to quote the case of Tony Martin, the UK farmer who defended himself with a shotgun when 2 burglars broke in to his house and was locked up for exercising his "god-given right to self-defense". Things they don't quote 1. Martin shot the first burglar (who was unarmed) inside his property. The burglar claims that there was no warning. 2. Martin then chased the other (equally unarmed) burglar outside and shot him as he was running away. Note the important aspects here: unarmed, outside, running away. 3. Martin then left the area. He was not the one who called the emergency services - this was done by neighbours when burglar number 1 regained consciousness 2 hours later and dragged himself to their door 4. The body of burglar number 2 was found by the Police in undergrowth the next day. It's not clear how the body got there - or if someone attempted to conceal it. It's possible that burglar 2 would have lived if an Ambulance had been called soon after he was shot. 5. During the investigation, it became apparent that there was some sort of dispute between the burglars' family and Martin. They knew each other. 6. Martin had not been surprised. He'd expected the burglary attempt. In fact, he'd been awake and waiting for them. 7. Martin did not have a licence for his pump action shotgun. 8. The jury was instructed that they could have returned a Manslaughter verdict if they so chose. The jury voted 10-2 for Murder. However, on appeal, this Murder conviction was reduced to Manslaughter (because of Martin's mental health problems) 9. Because of the success of his appeal, Martin's sentence was reduced to 5 years. He served 3 years (and if he'd expressed any repentance he'd have got out even sooner). The surviving burglar received a 3 year sentence and served 18 months. 10. Martin received 125,000 pounds from the Daily Mirror for his story. It is true that you can find reported cases of the police in the UK investigating allegations of assault involving citizens restraining burglars or defending themselves. There are very few examples where this gets to court - and even fewer where the jury convicts For example, this footballer seems to have been unlucky and had to restrain burglars twice. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/2668359.stm Charges have never been brought against him

Actually, the Conventions and Civil law are closer in alignment than you might think. You technically aren't supposed to shoot fleeing troops if they've taken themselves from the fight, such as be throwing away their weapons, and helmets, etc, and just running away to run away. If they are maneuvering away under discipline and with arms, they obviously intend to continue the fight. You saw some of the tension over that played out in the discussion of the "Highway of Death" in Gulf War 1. No one really questioned taking out the tank transporters, etc, but there was angst over shooting "people fleeing in terror" leave aside that they would re-constitute three terrain features over...

ry - I think premeditation is a stretch since he didn't invite the low-lifes to his property. The statements he made to the 911 operator could have been adrenalin-induced (which, [I bet] if it goes to court, is what the jury will hear). Texas is not the only state that has expanded castle doctrine to include your property line. Included in this expansion is usually the idea that if the property owner feels threatened, he/she can use deadly force. Running away does not always allay that feeling, especially if the individual is running towards a vehicle... Matt - Thank-you for your explanation of British law, which I know is similar to Irish law and which, I believe, proves John's sweeping statement. You may not see it since you are on the inside looking out, but to those of us on the outside looking in, who don't want to trust the gov't to protect us (look how well they deliver the mail) and don't want to sit back and allow thugs to violate our space and steal out property (which BTW, represents a part of one’s life for those who work for a living). All that said, a person could make a point that the Brit gov't encourages young people to choose a career in crime by the way the laws are so tilted in the favor of the criminal (maybe that’s one way to get them off the dole…).

Matt - 1. I take it from the tone of your response that you totally agree with the way things are done in the UK, and that's fine since you're the one who lives there. I have been to the UK many times and enjoy the lively political debates I have had in the pubs, but I would never want to live under your rules, just as you seem to not care much for ours so we both live where we like the status quo. How about that? 2. Yes, police in all the states that I have ever lived in (KY, NM, TX, FL, GA, SC, CO) have that authority with the caveat that there is always an internal investigation after every police shooting. 3. I guess our problem on this side is (in the UK) you have to wait until after the event for a judge/jury to decide if the force was reasonable and, as you mentioned, you can never shoot somebody who accosts you on the street since you weren't supposed to have a gun in the first place. 4. BTW, adding extra time to a sentence has not been proven to deter a lot of criminals. The UK has the strictest gun laws in the western world and yet you are experiencing a climbing crime rate (according to The Sun, anyway [see, John, I actually look at more than page 3]). 5. Maybe if I had used your NHS instead of our post office as an example you might have seen things differently, unless, of course, you are going to tell me that all of the horror stories I've read in the British press concerning the NHS are fabrications. Anyway, my point still stands that most of us (in the US) don't trust the gov't to take care of us and don't want the gov't to take care of us, even if we did deem them capable. Besides, very few people want to pay the taxes it would take to put a cop on every street corner. 6. The answer as to how the law is different here ( and, as has been pointed out is not the same everywhere since the Blue states tend to be closer to your way of doing things) is a firearm in your home (and some states on your property) is always “reasonable force” if you have probably cause to believe the scum-bag is planning to harm you, a family member, or an innocent bystander. On the street, it depends on that particular state’s concealed carry laws what you can and can’t do. For instance, FL has a stand your ground law which means the citizen with a CCP does not have to try to retreat before using deadly force, whereas, in SC, you have that obligation to attempt to extricate yourself peacefully before using deadly force.

Let's get to the basis of all this discussion. In England, the government gives you your rights, including the designation and right to self-defense. In the US, the right to self-defense is considered an inherent, natural right. From these two separate concepts, the laws governing "self-defense" are determined and codified. Thus, in the US, the natural right to self-defense (ie, the part of the declaration of Independence that says "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" being "unalienable rights") trumps any equivocation or concept of "moral obligation" to anyone who is obviously acting immorally and who is or attempts to interfere with that unalienable right to life. In other words, once you have decided that my life is worthless (that encompasses actual life as well as physical injury or injury to my liberty or pursuit of happiness), you have instantly devalued your own to the same or less. The law of survival kicks in. And we are a nation who has a long tradition of surviving in hostile places have incorporated that into modern life where humans are still hostile and the terrain, whether mountains, plains or urban, doesn't negate that right or instinct to survival.

Yes. Reasonable force. I simply don't see the violent use of force against me to be reasonable at all, so why should I extend reasonableness to my attacker? Moreover, apply this to a 6'2" 250lbs thug against a 5'1" 115lbs lady. Moreover, say the thug is unarmed and doesn't want to kill the lady, only beat and rape her. Therefore, she doesn't get to use deadly force (as such would be unreasonable), she must face her attacker hand to hand (or hand to purse). How is this reasonable? (A raped woman is an easy trade off for not having a dead thug, right?) At least in my state, we have the right to use deadly force to protect yourself and others from "threat of death or grave bodily injury" whether at home or on the street. And while I do not believe we are a "Castle Doctrine" state, breaking into a home is almost always seen as positive proof of said threat. As for Martin (I'm taking your description of the situation as accurate, I've heard the name, but not much else), some things, such as following a fleeing burglar outside to shoot is not-"righteous". However, some of the assertions of wrongdoing you include are emblematic of the issues Americans have with the British system. 1. Martin shot the first burglar (who was unarmed) inside his property. The burglar claims that there was no warning. Good Shoot. A person who has broken in to your home is not there for benevolent purposes. He is a threat whether armed or not (which is not always easy to ascertain in the moment: just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there). There should be no need for a warning. In a potentially deadly situation, warnings give the attackers the advantage. Especially in a 2 on 1 scenario. 5. During the investigation, it became apparent that there was some sort of dispute between the burglars' family and Martin. They knew each other. Irrelevent. Being aquainted with the attacker does not make him less of a threat. 6. Martin had not been surprised. He'd expected the burglary attempt. In fact, he'd been awake and waiting for them. Irrelevent. Belief that an attack may be forthcoming does not make it less of a threat. In fact, preparing for the potentiality is only prudent. There would only be foul play in this if he baited them into trying to rob him and since you didn't assert that Martin set out a sign saying "Free silverware for the taking", I have to assume he didn't. 7. Martin did not have a licence for his pump action shotgun. Martin should not have to have a license for a shotgun. 8. The jury was instructed that they could have returned a Manslaughter verdict if they so chose. The jury voted 10-2 for Murder. However, on appeal, this Murder conviction was reduced to Manslaughter (because of Martin's mental health problems) This conviction should only have been for burglar #2, not Burglar #1 as that should have been ruled a righteous shooting. The fact that it wasn't is a travesty.

Yu...you enumerated my problems with the system well. Glad you did it and I didn't have to take the time, though I would add, the fact that someone came unarmed to a home invasion does not mean that they would remain "unarmed" (didn't have a gun?) or not cause harm using any weapon or tool he had brought or found. Burglars have turned into murderers and felony assaults using knives, crow bars and other blunt objects to injure or kill. Thus, again, entering someone's home without a "gun" or "knife" doesn't prove any intent not to harm or mean they pose no danger. That is a serious flaw in English law in my mind.

Matt, you and Alan of GenX@40 should get together to mutually cheer-lead for Canadian and British health care. I just know what the media provide. But I will make one observation. There is no such thing as free. Someone is paying. It may not be your parents, but someone is. *Nothing* comes from government (unless yours is doing some serious investing in ways most governments don't) for free. You obviously find the situation genial and it works for you, and you don't mind the bill. But not everyone agrees, and not always from purely selfish motives. And I've been the recipient of government-provided health care my entire life. One of the reasons I'm 70% disabled is... because I'm the recipient of government-provided health care. So I've got my reasons for feeling the way I do, too.