Discussion in '2nd Amendment' started by FLA2760, Jan 18, 2008.

  1. FLA2760

    FLA2760 Guest

    I received this in an email from US Concealed carry. :x

    Burglars have rights too, says
    [British] Attorney General
    by By Melissa Kite and Andrew AldersonA fresh row broke out last night about the rights of householders to fight back against intruders after the Government's most senior lawyer defended the rights of burglars.

    Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, flew in the face of the Prime Minister's pledge to look again at the law with a view to giving homeowners more rights when he said that existing legislation was adequate.

    He said that criminals must also have the right to protection from violence, prompting David Davis, the shadow home secretary, to accuse the government of being dangerously split on the issue.

    Lord Goldsmith's intervention came as Sir John Stevens, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, dismissed fears that giving homeowners greater freedom when tackling burglars would lead to an "arms race" that would put them in greater danger.

    He denied that a change in the law, which currently gives homeowners the right to use "reasonable force" when tackling intruders, would encourage burglars to become more aggressive.

    In an interview with The Telegraph, Sir John - who last weekend came out in favour of the Right to Fight Back campaign, launched by this newspaper two months ago - said: "I am convinced that enabling householders to use whatever force is necessary will discourage burglars.

    "The fact that a would-be intruder knows a householder can respond without the fear of being prosecuted will undoubtedly deter criminal acts." Sir John, who will step down next month after five years as commissioner, said fellow police officers were confident that it would act as a deterrent.

    "We are on the ground," he said. "We smell it, we see it, we hear it. We know what we are talking about."

    Last week, Tony Blair told the House of Commons that he would look at strengthening the law and a Tory MP has introduced a private member's bill to do so.

    Lord Goldsmith, however, appeared to take issue with the Prime Minister's pledge to act. "We must protect victims and law abiding citizens," he said.

    "But we have to recognize that others have some rights as well. They don't lose all rights because they're engaged in criminal conduct."

    Mr Davis said: "They certainly do lose quite a lot of rights. The Government ought to make up its mind. The Prime Minister says one thing and the Attorney General says another.

    "Of course all human beings have rights, but when somebody enters your home to commit a crime they give up a large portion of them."

    Some critics of a change in the law have voiced concerns that burglars will feel they have to carry guns, knives and other weapons to protect themselves from householders.

    Sir John, however, did not see this as a problem. "I have confidence in the good judgment and common sense of the public in knowing how far they should go."

    He said that householders should be able to use whatever force is necessary even if - in exceptional circumstances - it involved killing the intruder.

    He spoke of his regret about the repercussions over the verdict on Tony Martin, the farmer who shot dead one burglar and seriously injured another during a break-in at his farm in August 1999.

    There was a public outcry when Martin was found guilty at Norwich Crown Court and sentenced to life in prison. The charge and sentence were later reduced to five years for manslaughter.

    Sir John did not suggest that the jury had reached the wrong verdict, but added: "The Tony Martin case is unfortunate because it has skewed the debate [on the public's right to protect their home]. But it is a fact that burglars have acted with greater confidence since the Tony Martin verdict and that has to be a matter of regret."

    Lord Goldsmith, however, warned of the dangers of using the Martin case to make bad law: "There are very few cases that have given rise to this problem. Besides Tony Martin, there's only one I know about.

    "It's always possible to extrapolate from one case and think that something is happening across the country when it isn't."

    Mr Blair's announcement of a review of the law came three days after the Conservative Party threw its weight behind a new parliamentary attempt to win more rights for householders to protect them from burglars.

    The Telegraph revealed last weekend how Patrick Mercer, the Tory MP, would introduce a Private Member's Bill to change the law in favour of homeowners.

    In an article in this newspaper today, Mr Mercer described Mr Blair's promise to consult before taking action as a "classic delaying tactic".

    Michael Howard, the Tory leader, yesterday praised this newspaper's campaign. "I pay tribute to the highly effective campaign run over so many months by The Sunday Telegraph. It was the first newspaper to highlight this crucial issue and its persistence has been a key factor in winning this change to the law and in forcing Tony Blair's U-turn," he said. "We now need to ensure that Patrick Mercer's bill gets through parliament. The Sunday Telegraph's continued vigilance will be crucial in ensuring this."
  2. Yeah, a burglar has rights....the right to have my boot turned sideways up his...well you know.
    I'm glad I don't live in Great Britain.

  3. Kelotravolski

    Kelotravolski Member

    My definition of "taking it too far"? American History X. Right up to that point but before that I think he was 100% okay. (If you have seen it you know what I mean.) I know a great way to guarantee that you will never be killed robbing someone's house; Never rob someone's house! and if you cannot manage to do that one well then I do not care if you die.

    SHOOTER Z Well-Known Member

    I just can't place it maybe it's me but is there something in the water over there that makes most of them tottaly freakin STUPID? Maybe it's time the English people had another civil war and took back their country.....No that won't work too many sheep[and I'm NOT refering to the 4 legged kind]
  5. this is an old case - Tony Blair is no longer PM.

    Click HERE to go to page listing quite a bit of data on the case.

    Tony Martin - live alone farmer, shoots two intruders - killing one, wounding another. The other ends up suing for damages. Mr. Martin goes to prison for murder. Lots of dynamics at play; have to read quite a bit to get the whole picture.

    One article I found even blamed Mr. Martin, saying if he'd been of "right mind", the intruder wouldn't have been shot - so it's his fault. The key, the author says, if we are all good neighbors, they'll be no more crime.

    The crime however, wasn't committed by neighbors of course, but by "travelers" or "gypsies". Rural house, late at night, no neighbor is going to keep one safe.

    What a mess. Mr. Martin is out of prison now and not everyone is happy about it.
  6. azcarbine

    azcarbine Guest

    Where England has sunk to is exactly where the socialists in this country would like to see us. The test bed for their ideas are places like California and New York. Those places have already moved in the British direction. Lets all make sure it doesn't happen to us. The key to resistence is the right to bear arms. Thats why they hate guns so much. Much of this garbage has happened after they basically disarmed the British people. :(
  7. neothespian

    neothespian Member

    Ok, speaking as a Democratic Socialist AND a Britton:

    The UK is a very strange bird, and each "f'ed up" law has grounds in serious wars that have taken place in their streets up until a few years ago. Gun laws are a constant sore spot as well as the application of what is considered the most educated yet the most poorly managed police force in the world. England is NOT a Socialist country first off: It's a Democratic Monarchy that currently has alot of influence from the Labour party, which is strongly Democratic Socialist bent. This does NOT mean the majority are anti-gun. In fact, one of the most sucessful Democratic Socialist countries in Northern Europe has some of the most liberal gun ownership laws in the world equal to what the US has (Norway and Finland).

    Alot of the gun ownership laws are a holdover from the turn of the century, when wars between militant factions within the country were so severe, they were exploited by both the Kaiser and the Nazis in both world wars. In order to stem the flood of violence after the war and during the reconstruction period of WWI, severe gun bans were put into effect in order to turn the screws on groups such as the Ulster Front and Sein Fein. Combine this with a rash of gang violence that was so severe it almost matched the Roaring 20's ganland wars in the US and then the first round of Islamic Fundamentalist attacks in the UK in the 70's and 80's, and on top of THAT the renewed fighting of the IRA against the English occupation stemming from "Tax-free" land and buisness grants by the Conservative-led Thacher government in Northern Ireland, and you see why the country on the whole is worried about gun control. Never has one country been so close to absolute war every 5 years than the UK. It's a concept of fear and tension that NO ONE in America can understand: How a country so "Western" is actually as unstable as most African nations.

    When you view the country's history of political violence and the impression of being one of the few sole nations that resisted Nazi occupation, the entire population on the whole has been "turned off" from firearms for over 100 years. It's a group desensitization. After a while, there becomes so little that can be done other than to start with a clean slate. This is the theory and practice that many in the UK have taken in their approach to gun control.

    Not everyone is happy about this: The Police struggle with the application of lethal force on a population that is unarmed, yet when the police DO encounter an incident with a firearm, it is RARELY with just a pistol or shotgun, but with illegal high-power assualt rifles (REAL assualt rifles, not the media grabbing term "Assualt rifle") and against organized crime foot soldiers, not just random thugs. It's a curse of extremes for the police, and the effort to find a medium is a hard one.

    On the other hand is the population, who aside from gun control enjoy some of the most liberal of freedoms offered in Europe with freedom of speech regarded by nearly every citizen as the paramount reason they're "different" from the rest of the world. But, at the same time, they see their own violent history, the fall of countries left and right within their own view (even Belgium has faced the threat of a dissolved government within the past year!), and constant threats of loss of government identity with the European Union not being welcomed by all in the country. The more the people see destabilization, the more they push for anything to keep from facing the same fate. Independent, yet connected ecconomies with their own currency, CCD camera networks to constantly monitor everything, insistence on maintaining independent industry but only in key areas where the UK can maintain supremacy yet willing to outsource industry that can save the country the most on resources and finances. It all keeps to maintaining the "English" way of life.

    It comes down to fear and addressing an issue that the entire world is dealing with, but at the same time is seen as a problem that must be dealt with in a civil way...a British way.

    It's a hardcore approach, and not one that everyone even within their own corner of the world agrees with, but they are insistent on seeing it through. The parts that destroy such an "experiment" are the lawyers...the same lawyers that are tearing countries like the US, France and Canada apart. Litigate where there is money and soon you cannot eat a sandwich hot because someone made millions of pounds off of their tounge being burned by someone who MIGHT of had a racial motive in an oven that MIGHT of been defective.
  8. Very Good, Neo. Thank you for some first hand knowlege. The world is more and more complex everyday. Thanks for the insight into a subject that most of America knows very little about.
  9. It scares me that I find myself agreeing more and more with what Neo says. Quick! Someone slap me!!!! :)
  10. neothespian

    neothespian Member

    I just post it from the way I've lived for 16 years of my life. Alot of times we see things from one perspective but we forget: Not everyone is wired the same way, and if there are THAT many people who are willing to do something no matter how much irritation it is to both the people AND the government, there must be a driving force why they try so hard.

    The difference is that the jury is still out on if this experiment is going to work, and we as a people know this. THIS is why it's such a tense time. There's too much temptation to go either way: Totalitarian government or open weapons ownership.... and there are many countries on both sides of that arguement that will tell them that it's ok to go that way.
  11. elguapo

    elguapo Guest

    "But we have to recognize that others have some rights as well. They don't lose all rights because they're engaged in criminal conduct."

    When you think about it: yes, here in the USA, we do that as well. And, to a point, thier care and welfare is taken care of more than the victoms involved in the whole scenario.
    Sad? You betcha.
    Persecution of a person in their own abode for a right to defend themselves....well....thats for another thread. (Against my STRONG feelings on that matter)

    IN concurrance with Neo's post in another thread, about FA weapons, he is right, I seen those facts myself: Only two incidents that a person who has went to the Government, got permission to posses such a firearm, has committed such a crime. Two.

    I dare to ask, how we as the public in USA, and the right to keep and bear arms, puzzles the former Government which we broke away from? That, and other things (not trying a cheap jab, neo!)

    Yes, our country was a child from that mentality. Started with the Puritans....and went from there. Anyone want to guess how the Constitution took before it was ratified? Nay, the Bill of Rights? Same guys who fought the Revolutionary War were now in charge, and thought to see a country fit that they would live in, and be comfortable with.

    This "document", such as the Magna Carta in England, is now viewed upon as a "living document, to reflect the times" I am talking the Constitution here, and to me, that and the Bill of Rights are hand in hand: Scratch one, Scratch the other.
  12. fasinating info, Neo. Thanks for the post.