Shop Man Goes Free After Killing Mugger

[jody]

Shop Man Goes Free After Killing Mugger

A shopkeeper who killed an armed mugger in self defence during a "frenzied" attack will not be charged.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Convicted armed robber Liam Kilroe was wielding a knife as he approached Mr Singh near his Skelmersdale shop on February 17.

During a struggle, Kilroe was stabbed by his own knife and died at the scene.

Mr Singh was arrested on suspicion of murder but later released.

There you have it folks, UK says it’s illegal for you to keep and bear arms, you are supposed to take the gun or knife or club from the violent criminal attacking you and defend yourself.

Even then you may be “arrested on suspicion of murder” but there’s a chance the all powerful government from whence all rights flow may condescendingly release you and you may, just may avoid a prison sentence for saving your own life.

[THX1138]

1. Same thing

would happen here: gun, knife, bazooka, the weapon used doesn't matter. If you kill someone you don't get to just wipe the powder off your gun and stroll home, an investigation needs to take place, facts need to be confirmed, witness statements need to be taken. And in the end this guy walked anyway. I'm not sure what your point is

[sir pball]

2. Here

You wouldn't be arrested on murder charges before the investigation. Yes, a full-fledged inquiry into the shooting/stabbing/beating/whatever would take place, and I imagine the police don't want you to leave town without telling them, but there's a world of difference between all that and actually being thrown in jail for homicide.

[jody]

3. You obviously missed in the UK, law-abiding citizens cannot use firearms for self-defense. n/t

[iverglas]

27. and you, jody, obviously missed

the truth.

By the usual mile.

[SteveM]

5. The cost of hiring an attorney isn't the "same thing" as an investigation.

[iverglas]

26. in England, a solicitor is provided free of charge

to anyone being questioned in connection with possible criminal charges who cannot afford one.

And if you think that an individual being investigated in the US in connection with an investigation that could result in possible serious criminal charges doesn't retain counsel ... well, it would be a rather foolish and very unusual individual who didn't.

Just ask old Pennsylvania state Senator Bob Regola!

Of course, he still didn't avoid perjury charges ...

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news/westmoreland/s_554417.html

A legal defense fund, set up last spring by Hempfield resident Brad Mellor, has raised more than $14,000 to pay attorneys representing the first-term Republican from Hempfield and his son.

Sen. Regola, 45, of Hempfield is charged with felony perjury and firearms counts and misdemeanor offenses of false swearing and reckless endangerment.

He allegedly gave authorities conflicting statements about how he stored the 9 mm Taurus pistol used in the shooting of Louis Farrell, 14, in July 2006. Farrell's body was found in his backyard, next door to the Regola home. Coroner Kenneth Bacha ruled that the gunshot wound was self-inflicted.

Regola is accused of lying during an inquest last March, denying that his son, Robert "Bobby" Regola IV, now 18, kept the weapon in his room. The senator's son was later adjudicated delinquent of a misdemeanor gun offense in juvenile court.

Some people oughta take legal advice when it's offered. Assuming it was.

The investigation into the actions of Regola and Regola Jr. went on for a long time before any criminal charges were laid, and they had counsel throughout.

[blowtorchevans]

28. not just for those who can't afford a solicitor

to anyone being questioned in connection with possible criminal charges who cannot afford one.

The right to have legal advice and a lawyer at the police station is not means tested. Even if Mr. Bill Gates were one day to be arrested in the UK and interviewed in connection with a suspected offence - he'd still be entitled to free representation at the Police Station.

If you have your own lawyer then you can ask for him/her or if not then the duty solicitor will be called - available, of course, day and night. The pool of duty solicitor is made up of local criminal defence solicitors - and there are financial reasons for being on the duty rota.

[iverglas]

30. heh

I was gonna say that, since that's how it always seems on Coronation Street and East Enders. ;)

Now here in Canada, one can pick any lawyer one wants on legal aid (i.e. after the duty counsel stage, for trial), as long as the lawyer accepts the legal aid tariff. Not like what happened to poor Ken and Deirdre, having to mortgage the house to pay for the vile Tracy's barrister!

[blowtorchevans]

31. soaps

never watch them....flicked onto BBC1 yesterday waiting for Panorama to come on ....so I caught a bit of Eastenders - what is it that they find to argue about. Bet they get the odd wide-boy wiv a shooter on there occasionally.

Ken and Deidre - now I have heard of, are they still on - thought they'd gone with Albert Tatlock.

[iverglas]

32. heh heh

More characters get shot on East Enders in a year than people actually get shot in England in a decade. ;)

Albert Tatlock ... before my time! But over here, you see, Brit soaps are fun because they're foreign. Not to mention that they're completely different from US soaps. The cast can actually act. There's been the odd stab at creating a Cdn version of Coronation Street and such, but it just hasn't panned out. Not like the Aussies with Neighbours!

My grandfather was born in East Ham (and his mother in Romford), so it's old home week for me!

But speaking of wide boys, you heard about Mike Baldwin. Died in Ken's arms, he did.

[SteveM]

45. In his shoes, I might want to hire an attroney with a track record...

The shop owner is probably a "genuine member of the middle class" (to paraphrase Elton John), and would rather avoid the luck of the draw (or wrecker rotation, 'round here).

Glad to see you back, Iverglas. I was wondering dark thoughts until I saw where you were booted from DU for a time. What a relief ...and an addition to the resume!

[iverglas]

47. what's this now??

Booted from DU?! Moi?? Never!! No, I was booted from the other place I'd been finding more fun, so I wandered aimlessly back here. That was a genealogy forum (and I think I may now hold a record there for bannings). Infested by morons. Stupid people of a markedly right-wing bent. Not at all like this place!

If anybody wants any genealogy done while I'm unable to indulge my obsession with the subject elsewhere for this month, lemme know. I'm good. Took me a couple of hours last year to trace one young DUer's roots back to a US revolutionary war soldier, whose gravesite in Kentucky was coincidentally being memorialized that very month, and beyond (a sheriff of Nottingham, in fact! although that work had all been done already, I just hooked her up to it), starting only with her quite mistaken theory that her gr-grfather, whose name she wasn't absolutely clear on, had snuck into the US from England sometime in the late 19th century by posing as the son of people who weren't his parents. No idea where that had come from, but now she's eligible to join the DAR, lucky her, lucky DAR.

[blowtorchevans]

66. No problem and also the UK's position on Self-defence.

As I say above you can either ask for a representative of a firm of your choice to be contacted or take a duty solicitors. All the local firms that under take criminal defence work will be on the rota. If it turns out you have now faith in the firm that initially represents you that you can sack them and instruct another.

As to the law, the excerpt below is taken from a website primarily to assist Judges in directing juries as to the law in particular circumstances - it is given after the jury has heard the prosecution and defence present their respective cases and is part of the summing up.

http://www.jsboard.co.uk/criminal_law/cbb/mf_06a.htm#48

"If you think that D was or may have been acting in lawful self-defence, he is entitled to be found not guilty. Because the prosecution must prove D's guilt, it is for the prosecution to prove that D was not acting in lawful self-defence, not for D to establish that he was; and you must consider the matter of self-defence in the light of the situation which D honestly believed he faced.

You must first ask whether D honestly believed that it was necessary to use force to defend himself at all. (Add, as appropriate:) This would not be the case if D .

If you are sure that D did not honestly believe that it was necessary to use force to defend himself, he cannot have been acting in lawful self-defence, and you need consider this matter no further. But what if you think that D did honestly believe or may honestly have believed that it was necessary to use force to defend himself?

You must then decide whether the type and amount of force D used was reasonable. Obviously, a person who is under attack may react on the spur of the moment, and he cannot be expected to work out exactly how much force he needs to use to defend himself. On the other hand, if he goes over the top and uses force out of all proportion to the attack on him, or more force than is really necessary to defend himself, the force used would not be reasonable. So you must take into account both the nature of the attack on D and what he then did. (Here refer briefly to any features of the evidence which may have a bearing on these issues, eg the speed of the attack, the number of attackers, whether or not he/they had and/or used any weapon(s), and the nature of D's response.)
If you are sure that the force D used was unreasonable, then D cannot have been acting in lawful self-defence; but if you think that the force D used was or may have been reasonable, he is entitled to be acquitted."

[iverglas]

67. if I may just gratuitously add

the words of my great-great-great-great-great-grandparents' great-grandson:

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

Reginald Woolmington was a 21 year old farm labourer from Castleton. On November 22, 1934, three months after his marriage to 17 year old Violet Kathleen Woolmington, his wife left him and went to live with her mother. On December 10 Reginald stole a double-barrel shotgun and cartridges from his employer, sawed off the barrel, throwing it in a brook, and then bicycled over to his mother-in-law's house where he shot and killed Violet. He was arrested on January 23 the following year and charged with the willful murder of his wife.

Woolmington claimed he did not intend to kill her. He wanted to win her back so he planned to scare her by threatening to kill himself if she did not come back. When questioning her about returning, he attempted to show her the gun that he was to use to kill himself. By accident, the gun went off shooting Violet in the heart.

The Trial judge ruled that the case was so strong against Reginald that the onus was on the defendant to show that the shooting was accidental. At trial the jury deliberated for an hour and 25 minutes. On February 14, 1935 he was convicted and sentenced to death.

On appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal, Woolmington argued that the Trial judge misdirected the jury. The appeal judge discounted the argument using the common law precedent as stated in "Foster's Crown Law" (1762).

... In every charge of murder, the fact of killing being first proved, all the circumstances of accident, necessity, or infirmity are to be satisfactorily proved by the prisoner, unless they arise out of the evidence produced against him; for the law presumeth the fact to have been founded in malice, unless the contrary appeareth...

The issue brought to the House of Lords was whether the statement of law in "Foster's Crown Law" was correct when it said that where a death occurred it is presumed to be murder unless proven otherwise.

The House of Lords could not find any basis for the claim in Foster's Crown Law. In articulating the ruling, Viscount Sankey made his famous "Golden thread" speech:

Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception. If, at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given by either the prosecution or the prisoner, as to whether the prisoner killed the deceased with a malicious intention, the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal. No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained. When dealing with a murder case the Crown must prove (a) death as the result of a voluntary act of the accused and (b) malice of the accused.

The conviction was overturned and Woolmington acquitted.

Viscount John Sankey, my second cousin four times removed, was a Labour peer and Lord Chancellor 1929-1935 in Ramsay MacDonald's Labour government. Rumpole of the Bailey popularized the "golden thread that runs through the English law" line.

One wonders where the yanks think they got all this stuff, doesn't one? ;)

[selador]

38. bull... completely false

i have been involved in a # of homicide investigations, and read investigative reports on scores of others.

i have seen NUMEROUS examples of cases of self-defense where the shooter was NOT arrested.

it is simply false to believe that if you kill somebody, you automatically get arrested (let alone booked).

for example, recent case near my jurisdiction. ex breaks into his ex's house through a window. she also happened to have an order against him. he had a knife. new boyfriend blew the guy away with a gun.

cops came, investigated. no arrest. they did take the gun as evidence pending autopsy results and ME decision, and took statements. that's it.

the guy gave a full statement, cops said "looks good to us" and that was it.

another case. pizza delivery driver going down the street. a crazed looking man ran up to his car, slides across the hood (bo duke style?) and ran up to his door and pulled it open.

driver, who held a CCW blew the guy away. note this guy did not have a weapon. cops came. guy said he thought he was about to be carjacked. cops took statements, took gun as evidence. no arrest, no charges. no big deal.

later investigation revealed the person who was shot had tried his first hit of acid and apparently was freaking out and probably didn't intend to hurt the guy. that's sad of course, but clearly based on the driver's observations, he was justified to shoot , and he did.

so, it's complete crap to claim that if you shoot and kill (or wound) somebody the cops automatically arrest you. i know it is not true.

[iverglas]

48. utterly sick and sickening

pizza delivery driver going down the street. a crazed looking man ran up to his car, slides across the hood (bo duke style?) and ran up to his door and pulled it open.

driver, who held a CCW blew the guy away. note this guy did not have a weapon. cops came. guy said he thought he was about to be carjacked. cops took statements, took gun as evidence. no arrest, no charges. no big deal.

later investigation revealed the person who was shot had tried his first hit of acid and apparently was freaking out and probably didn't intend to hurt the guy.

Vomit inducing.

If the individual who thus killed another human being for no reason at all had not had a firearm to hand, no one would be dead. No one would have been hurt, no one's car would have been jacked, and the whole thing would have been a minor blip on the radar of everyday life.

He may have had a reasonable fear that he was about to be killed or seriously injured, and such a fear could justify an assault and even a non-intentional killing.

Except he didn't say that was what he was afraid of, it seems. He thought he was about to be carjacked. Carjacking, as I understand it, involves evicting the occupant(s) of a car by force or threat of force and taking the car: a form of robbery (theft with violence or threats). Did he have some reason to believe that if he had got out of the car, he would have been killed or seriously injured? If so, one might have thought he'd say so.

That someone killed another human being for no reason at all actually kind of makes me unhappy. Apparently it makes some people chortle and rub their hands with glee when people like that don't have to account for their actions. And that makes me puke.

I wonder whether the individual who committed this totally gratuitous homicide has considered the wisdom of locking his fucking car doors now? Hell, why bother with the inconvenience. If anybody else pulls such a stunt again, he can just kill 'em. With impunity, with that firearm that makes such joyous events possible.

In some dark and smelly corners of the world, anyhow, where the gratuitous killing of a human being is apparently regarded as "no big deal".

[selador]

49. lol

"the individual who thus killed another human being for no reason at all had not had a firearm to hand, no one would be dead."

no way of knowing that. that's called speculation

it wasn't gratuitous. it was legally justified.

here's a hint. if you are sitting in your car, and a crazed man runs up to your car door, pulls it open and starts to reach towards him, you can wait as long as you want to determine his intentions

but the law, nor common sense, doesn't require you to

[iverglas]

50. "but the law, nor common sense, doesn't require you to"

"wait as long as you want to determine his intentions", I assume was what you were saying.

Here's a hint.

The law in civilized societies requires that people do what is reasonably possible to avert injury or death to themselves without harming the person who they fear is about to cause it. (Nothing to do with waiting. But don't let me interrupt your strawfest.)

And common decency requires that they do just that.

Of course, someone who "lol"s at the idea that it is inappropriate to kill a human being when there is an alternative would seem to have run pretty low on that.


it wasn't gratuitous. it was legally justified.

I would be legally justified in calling you poisonous toad (if I happened to choose to do that). You might nonetheless think it was gratuitous. See how the two things are completely unrelated?

[selador]

51. not gratuitous thanks. :)

"The law in civilized societies requires that people do what is reasonably possible to avert injury or death to themselves without harming the person who they fear is about to cause it. (Nothing to do with waiting. But don't let me interrupt your strawfest.)"

that's arguably true (not legally in many circumstances, but certainly not legally in most). but what exactly is a person in a CAR stuck in TRAFFIC supposed to do when a crazed man runs up pulls his door open and reaches?

say "he"llo?"

"Of course, someone who "lol"s at the idea that it is inappropriate to kill a human being when there is an alternative would seem to have run pretty low on that."

the alternative is that the person in the car NOT shoot him.

which would mean, based upon the facts/circumstances available to him, place himself in undue danger.

{it wasn't gratuitous. it was legally justified.

I would be legally justified in calling you poisonous toad (if I happened to choose to do that). You might nonetheless think it was gratuitous. See how the two things are completely unrelated?"

they are sometimes related, but that's not the point

it was justified AND it wasn't gratuitous. it was, frankly, a CLASSIC good shoot.

the cops who investigated did the right thing, and so did the guy in the car based upon what he knew

we'll never KNOW what the guy would have done. and that's irrelevant to legality/gratuitousness. the issue is facts and circumstances as a "reasonable person" (legal standard) would apprehend them

[iverglas]

52. the shifting sands

The story started out:

another case. pizza delivery driver going down the street. a crazed looking man ran up to his car, slides across the hood (bo duke style?) and ran up to his door and pulled it open.

driver, who held a CCW blew the guy away. note this guy did not have a weapon. cops came. guy said he thought he was about to be carjacked. cops took statements, took gun as evidence. no arrest, no charges. no big deal.

But how we've had these two references to "reaching".

but what exactly is a person in a CAR stuck in TRAFFIC supposed to do when a crazed man runs up pulls his door open and reaches?

Reaching where or to what or for what, we don't know. He didn't have a weapon, you said. What was he reaching to/for? The pizza in the back seat?

I wouldn't presume to say what anyone *should* do in such a situation. What I would do, I think, is get out of the car. I would be concerned for my safety. Removing myself speedily from the unsafe situation would seem like the rational thing to do.

That's the real deal, you see. Someone who is really concerned for his/her safety in a situation is not going to stay in the situation an instant longer than s/he has to. If there is a way of getting out of the situation, s/he is going to take it.

Because ... as you say ... sticking around is going to place him/her in undue danger. Staying in situ and going for a gun creates new risks. The simple risk potentially involved in being in close proximity to the apparently problematic person. The risk of dropping the gun, being slower on the draw, firing and missing, having the gun taken from one and possibly used against one. Just all sorts of possibilities that one cannot assess, all sorts of eventualities that one cannot foresee.

A person who is really concerned about his/her safety in a situation gets out of the situation if there is a way of doing so.

A person who is more concerned about his/her ... how to put it ... ego ... will take the risk of remaining in the situation and doing something that will feed his/her ego, even while creating additional risks.

Is it always easy to determine whether one can escape from a situation safely? Nope, no more than it is easy to foresee what will happen if one takes other measures to avert the danger. But if someone slid across the hood of my car and went for the door handle, I'd likely be out my side before s/he was in the other side. I hope. I may not be as quick-witted at all times as I sometimes have been.

What the hell kind of an idiot tries to carjack a pizza delivery car that is stuck in traffic? Can an ordinary person not spot someone as pretty obviously off kilter as it appears that individual was, simply from his behaviour? Does an ordinary person really not just figure the best course is to get the hell out of such an individual's way?

People who have been or expect to be victimized generally just have a little bit too much of the ego in operation in situations like that, a little too much need to prove they are not victims, and are just a little less likely to do the sensible thing and, eek, run away. And they are exactly the people who ought not to be driving around with firearms.

[selador]

53. you have no idea

what you WOULD do, nor would i

in that situation. again, that's speculation

fwiw, one has no "duty to retreat" under US law, and note also that imo that was not a PRACTICAL solution.

the guy was supposed to do what? slide across from the driver's seat to the passenger seat (turning his back to the supect?) not to mention he probably had some pizzas and stuff in the way, and exit out the passenger door?

you actually advocate TURNING YOUR BACK on a person in this situation.

what you choose to do with YOUR personal safety is purely YOUR choice. more power to you.

but this man made reasonable actions to protect his, reasonable from a legal sense, and a moral sense.

[iverglas]

55. mea culpa

ran up to his door and pulled it open

I read that, and pictured it in my mind, as sliding across the hood left to right, from the driver's perspective, and opening the passenger side door.

I still think that the time and effort taken to reach for and fire a handgun could have been better used to get out of the car. Or was it in his hand already? The person who opened the door had no weapon. No one would have ended up dead if the driver had not had and fired a handgun. Whether the law / a court has to find that the person acted in accordance with the rules of self-defence is not relevant to that point: that if the driver had not had and fired a handgun, no one would be dead.

one has no "duty to retreat" under US law

And I don't give a crap. I've made that abundantly clear over the years, I believe.

The law of any one or more jurisdictions at any given time is not relevant to the principles that should govern the law.

The Criminal Code of Canada provides a pretty classic statement of the historic principles of the self-defence excuse/justification:

34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if

(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and

(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.

"Otherwise preserve himself" covers many things. "Retreat" is one of them, if there are reasonable grounds to believe it would work.

But not for those who are more concerned about ego than about life and limb, as I've noted. "Retreat", that's for cowards. Real men "stand their ground" and blow away unarmed kids on bad trips.

Could he have retreated? We don't know. But we do know that if he had not had and fired the handgun, no one would be dead, unless we imagine some other whole series of events happening that would pretty likely not have happened.

you actually advocate TURNING YOUR BACK on a person in this situation.

Nah, I don't advocate any such thing, necessarily, i.e. unless it looked like a reasonable way of avoiding death or injury in a situation where someone had a reasonable apprehension of such death or injury, but you go ahead and say I do.

what you choose to do with YOUR personal safety is purely YOUR choice.

And what a society does to deter people from killing each other is the society's choice. And a civilized society imposes a high standard on people who claim an excuse or justification for doing that.

[selador]

59. a civilized society (article cited)

composed of citizens, and not subjects respects the rights of citizens to act in their own self defense.

because waiting for the cops (i say with over 20 years of LEO experience) can mean death or grave injury.

i 100% support the right of those to use reasonable force to defend themselves...

"Sanderson jumped on top of the car. The driver removed his 9 mm Glock from its holster, placed it on his lap, and warned Sanderson that he had a gun.

Sanderson said something such as "Well, shoot me, then," according to witnesses.

The letter says Sanderson grabbed at the car door and reached in. The driver, who said he thought he was going to be assaulted, pulled the trigger.

"That (the driver) would interpret these events as an imminent threat of a felony assault or an attempt to inflict great bodily harm is not unreasonable," Larson wrote."

i 100% agree with larson here.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/shot192.shtml

note that larson did find the pulling of a gun, "highly questionable"

i strongly disagree. but then i suspect that larson has never been in a deadly force situation.

those of us who have know how fast things can move

[iverglas]

61. the false dichotomy rears its charming head

a civilized society (article cited)
composed of citizens, and not subjects respects the rights of citizens to act in their own self defense.

Who you talking to, friend? Were you under some bizarre impression that someone here disagreed? (Not that I'd ever use those particular moronic memes to express the idea, but whatever.) If so, what would the basis for that impression be?

because waiting for the cops (i say with over 20 years of LEO experience) can mean death or grave injury.

Acting in self-defence vs. waiting for the cops.

Yup, there are only those two options. Ever. Never any other option. Never. Nope, nobody who was ever unlawfully assaulted and had a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm has ever had any alternative but to use force to repel the assault that results in the death or injury of the assailant.

For sure, the individual in the scenario you have now provided details of couldn't have LOCKED HIS CAR DOOR in the time he took to lay hands on and brandish his firearm -- which he appears to have done, according to the account you quote, when the individual was on the car, not reaching into it -- and wait for the other individual to open the door. What was that about not waiting around? It's okay to wait around and do nothing at all to avert a perceived risk, like LOCK YOUR CAR DOOR when you have every opportunity to do that, when you have access to a firearm?

Would someone who did NOT have ready access to a firearm have locked his/her door, d'ya think maybe? Or got out of the car to avoid being a sitting duck for whatever might have been going to happen? Leaned on the horn to attract attention? But if you have a gun, it's okay to do NONE of those things, and just sit and wait for the risk to become elevated and then shoot?

So it seems.

"That (the driver) would interpret these events as an imminent threat of a felony assault or an attempt to inflict great bodily harm is not unreasonable," Larson wrote.

Didn't say I thought otherwise. Didn't ever say I thought otherwise. Said nothing at all about the legal excuse or justification for his actions. No newspaper report gives me enough information to have any worthwhile opinion on the subject. Said that if he had not fired his gun, nobody would be dead. So what's your point again?

In (father of dead kid) Jerry Sanderson's view, the driver initiated the confrontation with his son, then was able to shoot him without even trying to get away.

Although Larson argued that the case could not be successfully prosecuted, his letter was hardly approving of the driver's decision to pull a gun.

"Here, an encounter that may have ended without serious violence escalated after the gun was produced," Larson wrote. "The original decision to pull a gun, under all of these circumstances, seems highly questionable."

The prosecution decision was based not on an opinion as to whether the person who committed the homicide had a legal excuse/justification for doing it, but on the opinion that a jury would not convict. That may well say more about juries in that location than it says about the facts of the case or the law that applies to them.

On the facts and law, I'd tend to go with the assessment of the prosecutor, based on a four-month investigation, rather than yours, ta.


i suspect that larson has never been in a deadly force situation.
those of us who have know how fast things can move

We do indeed, don't we? And those of us who were in such situations where firearms were not present have an idea of just how different and more unpleasant they may have turned out if they had been.

[selador]

62. unless you strip search

all parties present, you have no ideas if firearms were present or not

one of the biggest fallacies of anti-gunners.

since 99%+ of the time they are around civilians with guns (since they conceal them) they don;t see them, hence they aren't there

[iverglas]

63. well quelle waste of time that was

you: i suspect that larson has never been in a deadly force situation.
those of us who have know how fast things can move

me: And those of us who were in such situations where firearms were not present have an idea of just how different and more unpleasant they may have turned out if they had been

What you have imagined I was referring to when I said "such situations" -- other than "a deadly force situation", the thing you said that I was responding to, and the only thing I could possibly have been referring to -- I just have no idea.

If you grasped and acknowledged that I was referring to "deadly force situations", you simply would not have replied:

unless you strip search
all parties present, you have no ideas if firearms were present or not

because when you're in that "deadly force situation", you probably don't have to strip search the person using the deadly force to determine whether s/he has a firearm. I kind of figured that the guy who had his hands around my throat causing me to start losing consciousness from lack of oxygen didn't have a firearm, so it seemed reasonable to try to effect an escape on foot when the opportunity subsequently arose. I did worry about him trying to run me down with his car as I made that attempt, but I decided that risk was worth assuming. Had I thought he had a firearm, I may well not have relied on my ability to dodge a bullet, which I would likely have been less successful at than at dodging a car.


since 99%+ of the time they are around civilians with guns (since they conceal them) they don;t see them, hence they aren't there

I doubt that I have been around a member of the public who had a firearm in 0.000000001% of the situations I have been in, in my life. In fact, I doubt that I have ever been in the presence of a member of the public who was in possession of a firearm without my knowledge. I must live through the looking glass. Or just in a society inhabited by rational people who don't spend their lives dreaming of bogeymen out to get what's theirs.



typo fixed

[selador]

64. this shows

your lack of critical thinking and logic

if you don't SEE a concealed item, it isn't there.

fascinating.

again, 100% lack of logic.

you CANNOT know this, if you ever go out in public.

so, you are obviously operating with a fake sense of omniscience.

[iverglas]

65. fake sense of omniscience?

As compared to, say, you, who apparently has perfect knowledge of what goes on where I am?

I CAN know that there are no firearms that I can't see in my vicinity when I go out in public, because I actually can trust the vast majority of the other inhabitants of my community not to be assholes. I am not certain that the drug dealing pimps who lived three doors down from me for a couple of years didn't have firearms on their premises, although I do doubt it. But I'm really very sure that when they were hanging out on the streetcorner doing what they did, they were not equipped with firearms. They really just were not that utterly stupid.

Nor is the vast majority of the inhabitants of my community, who, besides having precisely no desire to festoon themselves with firearms when they step out their front door, are well aware that doing so is illegal and they would be in a great big world of shit if they were caught.

Of course, if I frequented the nightclub scene in Toronto, say, I couldn't be nearly as sure. One good reason not to. I don't.

Who knows, maybe one of the hundreds of times I have been at the mall or the grocery store, there was a punk somewhere in my air space with a pistol in his pants. That's why I put that 1 at the end of all those 0s.

But hey, you keep telling me what I know and don't know. It's amusing, if nothing else.

[ManBearPig]

69. Are you kidding me?

If someone came charging at a cop like that, the cop would shoot them. Or maybe it's only ok for a cop to react in a lifesaving way and not a "civilian"?

[Retired AF Dem]

70. "killing of a human being is apparently regarded as "no big deal".

With over 6,000,000,000 people on this planet it isnt like we are in danger of running out of people.

[iverglas]

71. you volunteering?

I'm sure there are many who would be happy to breathe the air you're using up.

[east texas lib]

4. I demand that Mr. Singh be re-arrested and jailed immediately!

On the charge of "wrongful survival"! How dare he take the law into his own hands! The audacity!;-)

[bossy22]

6. scary as that may sound

i garuntee you there is a good sector of the UK pubic which would agree with that statement.

[blowtorchevans]

10. that's sheer nonsense. ....

I'll bet from your statement that you know very little about the UK.

[iverglas]

25. what's interesting

is that no one -- to my recollection -- has ever posted a report here of someone being convicted of an offence in the UK when self-defence was claimed and should have been accepted by whatever standards someone here would apply that actually have something to do with the law of self-defence (e.g. other than yay, a bad guy got what was coming to him!!1!1!!!).

There's always Tony Martin ...

[blowtorchevans]

29. Tony Martin

He was badly advised from the start by his legal team - it was clearily not a case of self-defence. In the end it was accepted on appeal that he was acting under 'diminished responsibility' - I'm sure this case has been much discussed on this message board - and his conviction for murder was quashed and substituted for that of manslaughter. The importance of that for Mr. Martin being that whereas murder automatically warrents a 'life sentence' with the Judge having no discretion in the matter - manslaughter doesn't. I think from memory that his new sentence covered the time that he had already served and he was then released from custody.

[Lex Talionis]

41. Not the average citizen. Its the nanny Elitist,

who have made it a "crime" to defend yourself in the UK. Google self defense in the UK.

[iverglas]

42. google truth and reality

You might learn something.

On the other hand, you might not. You might already know that the assertion that someone has made it a "crime" to defend yourself in the UK is an untrue statement and misrepresentation of reality.

I mean, unless "crime" means something different from crime. I suppose it must, or you wouldn't have put the word in quotation marks, presumably indicating that you are using it to mean something other than its plain and common meaning. What else it could mean, who would know?

Whatever. Maybe you'll tell us what you base your assertion on, whatever that assertion might be.

Otherwise, it will just sit there, looking like the false thing it looks like.

[Lex Talionis]

43. If someone breaks into your house in the UK and you kill them,

Are you not arrested like the gentleman who killed the mugger? People I work with in the UK tell me that defending your property is frowned on by officials. When I was in Belgium a few years back, one of my Belgian coworkers and myself were walking down a side street in Antwerp, some drunk or maybe a drug addict accosted him. I punched his lights out. Yea, I'm just that way. My friend was very upset said we would have to pay the asshole's medical bills if the cops came. Just the experience of an ugly American in Europe . I assume you live in the UK and am willing to be enlightened by you on any of this. You do know that putting a word in between these " " usually implies something else?

[iverglas]

44. you said it

If someone breaks into your house in the UK and you kill them,
Are you not arrested like the gentleman who killed the mugger?

Quite possibly. You might even be charged, if the police are of the view that you did not have a lawful excuse/justification for killing the burglar. Burglary is not punishable by death in the UK, and members of the public are not authorized to mete out punishment for crimes in any event. And burglary is not in and of itself an act such as would cause an ordinary person to have a reasonable fear of death or serious injury that could not be reasonably averted otherwise than by assaulting/killing the burglar, thus providing grounds for a self-defence excuse/justification.

And if a court is not satisfied that you committed the homicide in self-defence, you would then be convicted.

Your point?


People I work with in the UK tell me that defending your property is frowned on by officials.

You seem to be confused. The issue in this thread is self-defence, not defence of property. Killing someone in order to "defend" property is frowned on in any civilized society.


Just the experience of an ugly American in Europe .

If you say so.

Where I live, which is not the UK, "punching someone's lights out" because s/he accosted one, where s/he committed no assault and gave no grounds for a reasonable belief that one was in imminent danger of death or serious injury, is a crime. I think it is where you live too, actually.


You do know that putting a word in between these " " usually implies something else?

Yeah. You do know that I was wondering what you might have been implying?

If you were saying that it is a crime to defend one's self in the UK, you are making a false statement.

If you were saying that it is a "crime" to defend one's self in the UK, where "crime" means something other than crime, I have no idea what you're saying.

Note that the fact that you don't like something being a crime doesn't make it not a crime, or make it a "crime", whatever the meaning of that might be. But that's all quite beside the point, since the statement that it is a crime to defend one's self in the UK is false, regardless of what anyone might think of it were it true.

[Lex Talionis]

46. Maybe I should have worded it better.

"Where I live, which is not the UK, "punching someone's lights out" because s/he accosted one, where s/he committed no assault and gave no grounds for a reasonable belief that one was in imminent danger of death or serious injury, is a crime. I think it is where you live too, actually."

Trying to take someones wallet, or in my friends case a "Man Bag" and yes I kidded him most horribly about that, where I am from is grounds to punch their lights out, or worse. Haven't been arrested for it yet, and our mugging rate is way lower than most areas.

While my understanding is that its not a crime to defend yourself in the UK, you are encouraged to flee your home if an individual broke in while you are there to rob you. Is that correct?

"Your point?"
Break into my house at your own peril. Of course in the US, at least in my State, your home is still your castle. A majority of jurors around here understand that.

"Killing someone in order to "defend" property is frowned on in any civilized society."
excusing the commission of one crime, no matter how small, encourages the commission of others.

As far as "crime" goes. I do not consider it a to protect your property. Unlike more enlightened ones do.

[Turbo Teg]

7. Well

I guess if your a criminal in the UK, weapon retention is priceless! LOL.

[blowtorchevans]

8. Presumably...

in the USA the chances are high that the robber would have had a gun - it's likely that the shopkeeper would have too. It's just a simple arms race.

Chances are that he'd (ie the robber) have wanted to keep one step ahead of the shopkeeper by bringing the gun into play before the shopkeeper knew what was happening. At that point the shopkeeper can either hand over the cash or go for his gun - which, it seems to me, is something the robber would be alert to that particular eventuality.

In the UK, chances are that neither would have had a gun. It seems to me you have a better chance of defending yourself from a knife than a gun.

You have the prefect right to use self-defence in the UK - even if it means killing your attacker - and if you have a just happen to have a gun on you then you can use obviously use it. If that gun turns out to be an illegal gun then you'd be charged with possession of it.

[bossy22]

9. actually

most robberies in the US dont involve firearms...i have to find the stats for you

most of the time the robber isnt expecting anything- he/she is scared, nervous and really doesnt think much in the act. its a fallacy to think that these guys are "professional" a once commonly used reasoning for gun control was that "you would be too afraid and the criminal would take your gun from you are use theirs more effectively".....it has ceased to be used recently

[blowtorchevans]

11. Even in this situation ?

I realise that it's not safe to rely on fiction for one's information, but when I see a similar scene played out on a 'Hollywood' movie, the shopkeeper often has a gun to hand under the counter - how is the robber to know that he doesn't.

I could well imagine a street mugger not having to resort to a gun...but still I am suprised. Look forward to your stats.

[bossy22]

12. they claim

they have a gun, but only a small amount do....the reason is, is because most robberies arent well-thought out and are done by "not the sharpest tools in the shed" They are improv jobs- most of the time the robber is trying to just get the out with the money.

[blowtorchevans]

13. We've got half-wits in the UK too...

who also pretend to have a gun on them. In the jurisdiction of England & Wales (I realise that some readers may not differentiate between UK, Britain and England, nevertheless, to be accurate...) there is no such charge has 'armed robbery' - although being armed with any weapon is an aggravating factor when deciding on sentence.

fairly recently it was decided by the House of Lords (they must have been going through a quiet patch) that a finger couldn't go to being 'in possession of an imitation firearm'.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldjudgmt/jd050310/bent-1.htm

[iverglas]

15. some of those stats

from the link in my other post:

... the proportion of robberies involving firearms shows an increasing trend in the U.S. (from 33% in 1987 to 41% in 1996) ...
For 1987-96, the average firearm robbery rate was 91 per 100,000 in the U.S., ...
For 1987-96, the average robbery rate was 238 per 100,000 in the U.S., ...

Maybe someone has ready access to more recent figures to see how things have been going in the last decade.


Oh look! A new report on firearms crime in Canada:
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/080220/d080220b.htm

Homicide and attempted murder, while fewer in number, were far more likely to be committed with a firearm. Guns were used against about one-third of all victims of attempted murders and homicides in 2006, compared with 14% of victims of robbery and 1% of victims of assault.

Just for comparative purposes.

[iverglas]

14. actually

most robberies in the US dont involve firearms

Nobody said they did. What was said was:

Presumably...
in the USA the chances are high that the robber would have had a gun

I don't suppose you'd feel like addressing the actual statement made, and the implications of it as suggested.

hack, hack. The straw flying around here is as thick as ever.

These stats are well organized, although out of date now (the rate of firearm use in robberies in Canada is generally on the decline):

http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/pol-leg/res-eval/other_docs/notes/canus_n_e.asp

# A greater proportion of robberies in the United States involve firearms. For 1987-96, 38% of robberies in the U.S. involved firearms, compared to 25% in Canada. Furthermore, the proportion of robberies involving firearms shows an increasing trend in the U.S. (from 33% in 1987 to 41% in 1996), compared to a decreasing trend in Canada (from 26% in 1987 to 21% in 1996).

# Firearm robbery rates are 3.5 times higher in the United States than in Canada. For 1987-96, the average firearm robbery rate was 91 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 26 per 100,000 in Canada.

# Rates for all robberies are 2.4 times higher in the United States than in Canada. For 1987-96, the average robbery rate was 238 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 101 per 100,000 in Canada.

I don't really think it's much of a stretch to think that the firearm robbery rate in the UK is an even smaller fraction of the US figure.

Since robbery is pretty obviously easier to commit with a firearm than without, one wonders what influence easy access to firearms in the US might have on the robbery rate itself.

[bossy22]

16. i think it is well known

knowledge that our armed robbery rate would be higher than the UK's. You try too hard to make people look stupid by trying to be confrontational.

btw your stats are over a decade old for both countries- i believe the US is now at 150 per 100,000 while Canada is 86 per 100,000

im also curious (truthfully) to find out how armed robberies in the US are reported- does that rate include robberies where a person claimed they had a gun (which i think it does in the UK)?

[blowtorchevans]

17. The difficulty is ...

to compare stats from one jurisdication to another. What is an offence in one county might not be in another - also the definition of offences differ so as to make it impossible to compare different countries.

Here is a link to a Home Office document for crime stats over 2006/07. Section 2.7 deals with Robberies and firearms...but it's not possible to know what was an imitation weapon or a real one. The section reports that for that year the number of robberies involving firearms in shops was 1003 - or just under 3 a day. Of course it's not known whether these were real, imitation or a finger in the pocket type

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0308.pdf

[iverglas]

20. comparisons

This is particularly difficult when comparing "violent crime".

Canada includes common assault (minor, no injuries) in aggregate "violent crime" numbers; the US does not, and so no comparison of "violent crime" rates can possibly be made without first factoring out common assault in Canada, which accounts for an overwhelming majority of assault charges. Canada no longer has a crime called "rape", and instead has various kinds/degrees of sexual assault, most of the offences charged not corresponding to "rape"; figures are therefore not comparable between the two countries.

I believe the England & Wales "violent crime" figures also include the equivalent of common assault.


Actually, I did a whole lot of this work some months back:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=127233&mesg_id=127313

The discussion there died a quick death upon presentation of the rather extensive info and analysis I provided ...

[iverglas]

18. oh, sigh

i think it is well known
knowledge that our armed robbery rate would be higher than the UK's. You try too hard to make people look stupid by trying to be confrontational.

Actually, I was trying, not too hard since it was not necessary, to point out that you were moving the goalposts. The chance is much higher in the US than in the UK that a would-be robber will be armed with a firearm. Right?

It just does seem to me that someone who replies to that statement with a statement that "most robberies in the US dont involve firearms" might be the one trying to make someone look stupid.


btw your stats are over a decade old for both countries

Funny how I pointed out rather pointedly that the stats were outdated, and included the information about the years they covered rather prominently.

I wasn't the one making statements that need substantiating, myself.


Re rate trends in the US:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/rob.htm



However, I would expect that robbery is included in the violent crimes for which rates have risen in the US in the last two years. (I believe there was a slight rise in robbery rates in Canada in the last reported period as well.)

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/06prelim/index.html#http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/06prelim/index.html

Preliminary figures indicate that, as a whole, law enforcement agencies throughout the Nation reported an increase of 1.3 percent in the number of violent crimes brought to their attention in 2006 when compared to figures reported for 2005. The violent crime category includes murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

(More/better info is available elsewhere of course, I'm just not seeing it on a quick google.)

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/070718/d070718b.htm

Police reported about 30,000 robberies in 2006, pushing the rate up 6% <to 94/100,000>. This is the second consecutive annual increase in the rate of robberies.

About 1 in every 8 robberies involved a firearm. Robberies involving a firearm increased 4% in 2006, although they are still well below their peak in 1991.

A consistent finding in studies of firearms crime is that the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime like robbery increases the rate of fatalities in the commission of the offence considerably. I wonder whether the offence is then counted as "robbery", "homicide" or both.

[bossy22]

19. kar

A consistent finding in studies of firearms crime is that the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime like robbery increases the rate of fatalities in the commission of the offence considerably. I wonder whether the offence is then counted as "robbery", "homicide" or both.

i know it is counted as a homicide during a felony IIRC.

[iverglas]

21. yes

I was looking back at the other thread I was just referring to above:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=127233

and saw the info that indicated that:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html

The supplemental homicide data showed that the circumstances were unknown for 35.0 percent of the murders that occurred in 2004. For the murders for which the circumstances were known, 22.8 percent of the murders involved another felony, such as forcible rape, robbery, or burglary.

So, to compare actual robbery rates inter-country, we'd have to add back in the cases that involved homicide in the course of a robbery -- for each country, of course. Probably having to extrapolate from cases where the circumstances were known, which wouldn't likely produce a reliable result.

[gorfle]

22. No doubt.

Since firearms, specifically handguns, are plentiful and easily obtained here in the U.S., it' is not surprising that they would be used in crimes more often here than other places. It's the price we pay for the right to bear arms.

[iverglas]

24. noooooo

It's the price we pay for the right to bear arms.

It's actually the price OTHER PEOPLE pay for SOME PEOPLE's exploitation of the firearms issue for reasons of political expediency.

Some of those "we the people" pay rather a high price. Did anyone actually ask them what price they put on their own lives, and whether your "right to bear arms" was acceptable to them?

Yes, no problem, I'll lay down my life so that you can play with guns. If I google that, will I find a list of names?

[gorfle]

33. I disagree.

It's actually the price OTHER PEOPLE pay for SOME PEOPLE's exploitation of the firearms issue for reasons of political expediency.

The fact that crimes are committed with the tools most useful for the preservation of liberty is in fact a price that we all collectively pay, as we are all at risk collectively at falling prey to such firearm crime. I would not characterize the price being paid as for any exploitation of any issue for any political reason. I would characterize it as the price of having ready access to the tools of liberty, as our founding fathers intended.

Some of those "we the people" pay rather a high price. Did anyone actually ask them what price they put on their own lives, and whether your "right to bear arms" was acceptable to them?

No doubt those who pay with their lives have paid the ultimate price. But it does not matter if the right to bear arms was acceptable to them or not, just like it does not matter if any of the other rights enumerated in our constitution matter to our citizens or not. They have them nonetheless, and are bound by the freedoms and responsibilities as a result of them, as are we all.

Yes, no problem, I'll lay down my life so that you can play with guns. If I google that, will I find a list of names?

I dislike your tone and insinuation that the sacrifice is made so that we can "play with guns".

We have a free society and part of that is the freedom to be armed so as to have the ability to protect that freedom. While firearms are most certainly used for leisure activities, they are first and foremost tools of liberty. The fact that some will misuse these tools is sad and inevitable, but no reason to abandon the tools.

[iverglas]

34. bafflegab

The fact that crimes are committed with the tools most useful for the preservation of liberty is in fact a price that we all collectively pay, as we are all at risk collectively at falling prey to such firearm crime.

And what are the lives lost by people killed in the process the price for? They paid it. Shouldn't someone tell them what was gained, and by whom?

And to whom are all these prices being paid? The people paying with their safety, and sometimes their lives, must be paying somebody.

I would not characterize the price being paid as for any exploitation of any issue for any political reason. I would characterize it as the price of having ready access to the tools of liberty, as our founding fathers intended.

Good for you. I would characterize it as the price people pay for having a right-wing government. Just seems like a really bad deal to me. Give up your safety, get Bush. Hmm.

No doubt those who pay with their lives have paid the ultimate price. But it does not matter if the right to bear arms was acceptable to them or not, just like it does not matter if any of the other rights enumerated in our constitution matter to our citizens or not. They have them nonetheless, and are bound by the freedoms and responsibilities as a result of them, as are we all.

I don't think that's an answer. Just a wee bit hard to tell.

What price is ordinarily paid for the right to practice one's religion? and by whom?

Where are we getting this notion that there is a price for rights in the first place? Aren't they natural and inherent and inalienable and all that fine stuff? Why on earth would anybody be paying anything for 'em, if everybody's born with 'em?

dislike your tone and insinuation that the sacrifice is made so that we can "play with guns".

Awwww.

While firearms are most certainly used for leisure activities, they are first and foremost tools of liberty.

Actually, they are first and foremost lumps of metal, with the characteristic of propelling small hard chunks of metal relatively long distances. What anyone uses them for is entirely up to the person doing the using, and not you. So you can say they're first and foremost tools for opening beer bottles with, if you like. It will have no more effect on reality than anything else you've said.

[gorfle]

35. Answers...

And what are the lives lost by people killed in the process the price for? They paid it. Shouldn't someone tell them what was gained, and by whom?

What we gain is the kind of society envisioned by our founding fathers - a society where the people have the means to secure their liberties by force if necessary - the essence of liberty.

And to whom are all these prices being paid? The people paying with their safety, and sometimes their lives, must be paying somebody.

The prices are being paid to all of us (U.S. citizens, of course). We are gaining liberty at the expense of safety and lives.

Good for you. I would characterize it as the price people pay for having a right-wing government. Just seems like a really bad deal to me. Give up your safety, get Bush. Hmm.

Well, I think you're wrong. The right to bear arms is not a symptom of a right-wing government, it's a symptom of of the kind of government that our founding fathers set up. The forfeiture of a small amount of safety is a really good deal when one considers the gains in liberty that we enjoy because of it. As Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".

What price is ordinarily paid for the right to practice one's religion? and by whom?

Off the top of my head, I would say one cost we bear as a society by tolerating people's right to practice religion is we have to put up with the constant battle of its intrusion into our government and educational systems. While certainly not as dear a price as dying, the fact that we are still having to waste money and resources battling evolution vs. creationism in our school systems is indeed a price we are paying by tolerating religious freedom in our society.

Where are we getting this notion that there is a price for rights in the first place? Aren't they natural and inherent and inalienable and all that fine stuff? Why on earth would anybody be paying anything for 'em, if everybody's born with 'em?

Iverglas, I would submit that all rights and freedoms come with a price, even if they are natural. As another example, I have the right to free speech. One consequence of that right is I have to tolerate speech that I don't like. We have the natural right to defend ourselves, and our founding fathers made it clear that arms were part and parcel of that right. The consequence of this right is that bad people will do bad things with firearms.

Actually, they are first and foremost lumps of metal, with the characteristic of propelling small hard chunks of metal relatively long distances. What anyone uses them for is entirely up to the person doing the using, and not you. So you can say they're first and foremost tools for opening beer bottles with, if you like. It will have no more effect on reality than anything else you've said.


You are right. Firearms are a means that could be used for a variety of ends. I am simply stating the reasoning, which I fully endosre, why the founding fathers set up the system as they did. They did not set up the right to bear arms and a decentralized military system as they did for the easy access to beer. Though they might have approved. :)

[iverglas]

36. well, I just dunno

I'd always heard that the price of liberty was eternal vigilance, not the lives of human beings who didn't offer them up voluntarily. Maybe they're just a bonus.

What we gain is the kind of society envisioned by our founding fathers - a society where the people have the means to secure their liberties by force if necessary - the essence of liberty.

The essence of what's that you say?

Where do you get this stuff?

The essence of liberty is having firearms to secure liberties by force if necessary. Hmm.

By that reasoning, the essence of orange is having red and yellow paint to mix to make orange if necessary.

Nonetheless -- you may gain what you say. Dead people don't gain shit. They apparently just pay. Isn't this, like, the essence of tyranny?

Iverglas, I would submit that all rights and freedoms come with a price, even if they are natural. As another example, I have the right to free speech. One consequence of that right is I have to tolerate speech that I don't like.

No you don't. You can wear earplugs or live in a cave. You're free!

I guess people who didn't want to get shot dead could wear full body armour or live in a cave, too ...

Funny how you could listen to speech you don't like 24/7 and still be breathing. Not seeing much of a price being paid there, myself.

Off the top of my head, I would say one cost we bear as a society by tolerating people's right to practice religion is we have to put up with the constant battle of its intrusion into our government and educational systems.

Mmmm, not seeting that as a cost of tolerating anything, myself. Practising a religion actually doesn't mean trying to make other people practise it. People trying to force other people to practise their own religion isn't a consequence/cost of allowing people to exercise the right to practise theirs.

Just strikes me as one of the costs (vs. benefits) of being human. Human beings are frequently assholes.

Conversely --

The consequence of this right is that bad people will do bad things with firearms.

No it ain't. The consequence of being human is that one belongs to a species and a society in which there are assholes. Rights really really just don't have consequences. People do bad things with firearms as a result of a number of things, including being assholes, being stupid, having personalities that are severely underdeveloped or compromised, having unmet needs, and on and on. And as a result of their having access to firearms. Not because they have a right to have access to firearms.


I am simply stating the reasoning, which I fully endosre, why the founding fathers set up the system as they did.

That's dandy. But it has nothing to do with the true nature /primary purpose of firearms. Objects are just objects.

And rights are handed out free of charge. Some people just don't get to exercise them as long as they should.

I wonder. Before firearms were invented, did people have the right to liberty?

[gorfle]

37. Replies...

I'd always heard that the price of liberty was eternal vigilance, not the lives of human beings who didn't offer them up voluntarily. Maybe they're just a bonus.

The price of liberty is indeed eternal vigilance. But you also need the ability to act once your vigilance dictates the need for action. Our founding fathers enumerated our right to bear arms as the basis for the ultimate action should we, in our vigilance, find it necessary.

I would not characterize the lives we lose as a result of our right to bear arms as "a bonus", it is a tragedy.

Where do you get this stuff?

They are from my interpretation of, among other things, the U.S. Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and other historical documents.

The essence of liberty is having firearms to secure liberties by force if necessary. Hmm.

I agree with your statement entirely.

By that reasoning, the essence of orange is having red and yellow paint to mix to make orange if necessary.

If you say so. I don't see what this has to do with liberty though.

Nonetheless -- you may gain what you say. Dead people don't gain shit. They apparently just pay. Isn't this, like, the essence of tyranny?

People die in the name of good causes, too, you know. Even involuntarily.

No you don't. You can wear earplugs or live in a cave. You're free!

I guess people who didn't want to get shot dead could wear full body armour or live in a cave, too ...

Just so.

Funny how you could listen to speech you don't like 24/7 and still be breathing. Not seeing much of a price being paid there, myself.

Look, Iverglas, I don't want to trivialize the consequences of the freedom to bear arms. That is not my intent. There can be no doubt that the right to bear arms has the most serious of consequences when that right is abused - probably more serious than the abuse of any of the other rights enumerated in our Constitution. But, it is also true that the right to bear arms is arguably also more powerful for acts of good than any of the other rights enumerated in our Constitution, also. In my view, it is the right fundamental to all other rights, for it is the one that allows The People to use deadly force to demand and exact all their other rights should it be necessary.

There is no doubt - the consequences of the abuse of the right to bear arms are most dire. In my view, the consequences of being unarmed in the face of tyranny and oppression are more dire.

Mmmm, not seeting that as a cost of tolerating anything, myself. Practising a religion actually doesn't mean trying to make other people practise it. People trying to force other people to practise their own religion isn't a consequence/cost of allowing people to exercise the right to practise theirs.

Just strikes me as one of the costs (vs. benefits) of being human. Human beings are frequently assholes.

Nonetheless, I see it is a negative impact on society that we constantly have to struggle against superstition and mysticism in our institutions of government and education, and so as I see it it is a cost we bear for allowing freedom of religion. We'd have a lot less headache with such problems if we simply banned religion altogether. But that would be contrary to the vision of our founding fathers.

No it ain't. The consequence of being human is that one belongs to a species and a society in which there are assholes. Rights really really just don't have consequences. People do bad things with firearms as a result of a number of things, including being assholes, being stupid, having personalities that are severely underdeveloped or compromised, having unmet needs, and on and on. And as a result of their having access to firearms. Not because they have a right to have access to firearms.

Have you ever heard the saying, "With rights come responsibilities"? What does it mean? I think it means that when you have the freedom to do a thing you have a obligation to do that thing responsibly, or there will be consequences. We have the right to keep and bear arms. Most of us who exercise this right do so in a responsible manner. There are tragic consequences when people exercise this right irresponsibly.

That's dandy. But it has nothing to do with the true nature /primary purpose of firearms. Objects are just objects.

I do not disagree that objects are just objects. What I am trying to say is the primary purpose of firearms as far as the right to bear arms as enumerated by our founding fathers is concerned is that they are first and foremost tools for the preservation of liberty. Firearms are special objects and their intended use was enumerated very carefully and explicitly by our founding fathers.

And rights are handed out free of charge. Some people just don't get to exercise them as long as they should.

That is sadly so. But we bear arms as insurance that most will people get to exercise them for much longer than they might otherwise be able to.

I wonder. Before firearms were invented, did people have the right to liberty?

I would say that people have had the right to liberty for all time. But they usually did not have the means to secure it.

But note that our Constitution does not speak to the right to bear "firearms", but rather more generally, "arms". It would have been a noble and proper enumeration even in the times before firearms, and hopefully will continue to be so even after the obsolescence of them. I believe this vagueness on the part of the founding fathers was intentional.

[iverglas]

39. a few

Have you ever heard the saying, "With rights come responsibilities"?

Indeed I have. Far too often for my taste.

What does it mean?

Uh ... nothing. False statements don't mean anything. "With rights come responsibilities" is false, as a statement of fact. It is a misstatement of the nature of rights. Rights don't come with anything.

In any event, it's irrelevant to anything here. You're not saying "with rights come responsibilities". You're saying "with rights come a few deaths" (and, let us not forget, injuries and lost earnings and trauma and various other costs to a society and its members ).

But those things still don't come with rights. They come with actions -- the actions of people who had access to the means to carry out their choices.

But we bear arms as insurance that most will people get to exercise them for much longer than they might otherwise be able to.

What a strangely, er, communitarian thing to say.

And it's nonsense anyhow. Find me 10 people in the US who "bear arms" for anything like this, and I'll show you 10 members of some nutbar underground right-wing militia.

People die in the name of good causes, too, you know. Even involuntarily.

Indeed, some people choose to risk their lives and sometimes even choose to die in the hope of thereby furthering a cause they consider to be good.

People who are killed by other people claiming to be acting in a good cause, when they didn't choose to risk their lives or die, don't die in the name of that cause, they just die.

[gorfle]

40. More replies....

Uh ... nothing. False statements don't mean anything. "With rights come responsibilities" is false, as a statement of fact. It is a misstatement of the nature of rights. Rights don't come with anything.

Well, we will have to agree to disagree then. I believe rights do come with responsibilities, and the right to bear arms comes with more serious responsibilities than the rest because the consequences of irresponsibly using that right are deadly.

No man is an island, and our actions, even the acts of exercising our natural rights, come with consequences that must be weighed against the benefits received.

In any event, it's irrelevant to anything here. You're not saying "with rights come responsibilities". You're saying "with rights come a few deaths" (and, let us not forget, injuries and lost earnings and trauma and various other costs to a society and its members.

That is correct. Having a free society with largely unrestricted access to arms means that there will be people who abuse their right to bear arms. With the right to bear arms will come a few deaths, injuries, lost earnings, trauma, and various other costs to society and its members. Of course, with the right to bear arms also comes the benefit of being able to secure our liberties as envisioned by the people who made this country. I'm sure people died by the improper use of arms in the founders' day, too. But they were unwilling to gain a little safety by sacrificing what they viewed as an essential liberty. I believe this was a wise choice.

But those things still don't come with rights. They come with actions -- the actions of people who had access to the means to carry out their choices.

I believe you are just haggling over semantics at this point. Rights not acted upon are not terribly useful and may not as well exist. It is in the exercising of our rights through actions that we enjoy our rights. There is no doubt that the right to bear arms allows people to act using those arms. Some people will make bad choices about how to use those arms. This is tragic, but not sufficient motivation to deny all people the right to have access to the means to carry out their choices - since most firearm owners make proper choices with regards to exercising their rights.

And it's nonsense anyhow. Find me 10 people in the US who "bear arms" for anything like this, and I'll show you 10 members of some nutbar underground right-wing militia.

That is an awfully wide brush you are painting with, and I do not believe it for an instant. I bear arms for exactly this reason, among others, and I am not a nutbar nor in an underground right-wing militia. I am an Eagle Scout, college graduate, and an upstanding citizen who has never had more trouble than a traffic ticket.

There are some 80 million firearm owners in the United States. The reasons for ownership are wide and varied, but I'm quite certain I could find you 10 people in the US who bear arms for precisely the reason the founding fathers intended who are not members of some "nutbar underground right-wing militia". I believe you would be hard pressed to find any firearm enthusaist who is not deeply aware, appreciative, and respectful of the inherent reason behind our second amendment.

Moreover, it does not really matter what the reasons are that people exercise their right to bear arms today, any more than it matters what reasons people practice religion or free speech today. The point I was trying to make is that the reason that right was enumerated in our Constitutions is because the founding fathers wanted a decentralized military system with the arms in the hands of the people so that they could resist tyranny and oppression both from without and within. Even if you could not find a single person in the United States who bears arms for this reason today, it does not invalidate the reasoning of the founding fathers. Whether the people are even aware of it or not, they are part of a body of armed people able to resist oppression should the need arise.

[DemOkie]

54. A newbie observation, gorfle..

You do realize that there will be no convincing those that refuse to be convinced?

My suggestion is that those who find our country's firearms laws odious, refrain from visiting.

[iverglas]

56. you mean

no matter how hard someone tries to persuade me that the moon is made of green cheese, it isn't going to work?

My suggestion is that those who find our country's firearms laws odious, refrain from visiting.

Good advice, "newbie". I've taken it these last quite a few years. Having to visit Florida five years ago to retrieve my father's belongings after he died was not something I would otherwise have chosen to do. Firearms laws being one reason. There being quite a number of others as well.

[DemOkie]

57. Iverglas, I would hope...

that you would not be convinced by the ever so tempting "green cheese" argument.

At the same time, reasonable people may disagree. There is little point in trying to persuade someone that has made a rational decision, even if it conflicts with your own.

[iverglas]

58. what you believe

I believe rights do come with responsibilities

Sadly perhaps, that has nothing to do with reality. Rights come with nothing. Rights are inherent in the status of human being, which involves membership in human groups; and in the relationship between individuals and those groups, individuals have rights they may exercise.

Responsibilities are not inherent in anything. They are imposed externally. They involve duties that an individual or group owes to an individual or group, and they are generally accompanied by sanctions for failing to fulfil the duty.

It's fine talk to say that a firearms owner is "responsible" for doing this, that or the other thing. That remains nothing but an opinion if the responsibility in question is not imposed by something like a law, with a penalty to back it up.

It can be less fine talk if someone tells me that if I have such-and-such a right, I also necessarily have such-and-such a responsibility. I have the right of free speech, but I have a responsibility not to criticize the head of state, maybe? So say some. Fortunately, they're as wrong as anyone else who tries to link a responsibility to a right -- "wrong" in the sense that any opinion is wrong. Because all they're doing is expressing their opinion about what someone else should and should not do. The fact that they attempt to base that opinion on a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of the nature of rights doesn't help or hurt the merits of their opinion.


No man is an island, and our actions, even the acts of exercising our natural rights, come with consequences that must be weighed against the benefits received.

And in societies that recognize and protect the exercise of rights in constitutions, there are rules for the constitutional scrutiny of limitations on the exercise of those rights. Under those rules, the consequences and benefits of both the exercise of the rights and the limitations on the rights, for both the individual exercising them and the society in which they are recognized, are considered and weighed.

Other than that, i.e. where no justification is found for interfering in the exercise of rights, it's up to each individual to decide how s/he wishes to and does exercise them, weighing the costs and benefits according to whatever standard s/he might like. Your homemade rules for those decisions aren't relevant to anyone else's decisions, unless s/he chooses to pay them some heed.


So --

and the right to bear arms comes with more serious responsibilities than the rest because the consequences of irresponsibly using that right are deadly.

if someone decides to pay your homemade rules about firearms possession and use no heed, what then? Obviously, the rights in play did not come with those responsibilities, because that person will have broken no public rule and will be subject to no public sanction.

So why do you bother making pronouncements about responsibilities? Your words have no force. You're whistling in the wind. You might persuade a few people to do something you think they should do, but if they tell you to mind your own business, that's that.

If someone told me that my right of free speech came with a responsibility not to criticize the head of state, I'd tell him/her to mind his/her own business. I imagine you would too. So if you tell someone that his/her right to possess firearms comes with a responsibility to do thus-and-so, why would you think this means something or has some effect on something? Why would you not expect, at least some of the time, to be told to mind your own business by someone who then merrily goes along doing just exactly what s/he pleases?


Unfortunately, it isn't much possible to have a discussion in which the nature of rights is rather fundamental when one party is speaking from such a fundamental misconception of that basic concept.


But those things still don't come with rights. They come with actions -- the actions of people who had access to the means to carry out their choices.

I believe you are just haggling over semantics at this point.

Because it isn't "semantics" in the sense you mean, you see. It is, in the sense that we are haggling over the meaning of words. "Rights" has a meaning that is not what you are assigning to it.

[gorfle]

68. On rights.

Sadly perhaps, that has nothing to do with reality. Rights come with nothing. Rights are inherent in the status of human being, which involves membership in human groups; and in the relationship between individuals and those groups, individuals have rights they may exercise.

Responsibilities are not inherent in anything. They are imposed externally. They involve duties that an individual or group owes to an individual or group, and they are generally accompanied by sanctions for failing to fulfil the duty.

It's fine talk to say that a firearms owner is "responsible" for doing this, that or the other thing. That remains nothing but an opinion if the responsibility in question is not imposed by something like a law, with a penalty to back it up.

And of course, there are laws with penalties to back up irresponsible firearm use.

It can be less fine talk if someone tells me that if I have such-and-such a right, I also necessarily have such-and-such a responsibility. I have the right of free speech, but I have a responsibility not to criticize the head of state, maybe? So say some. Fortunately, they're as wrong as anyone else who tries to link a responsibility to a right -- "wrong" in the sense that any opinion is wrong. Because all they're doing is expressing their opinion about what someone else should and should not do. The fact that they attempt to base that opinion on a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of the nature of rights doesn't help or hurt the merits of their opinion.

You have the right to free speech, but you have the responsibility not to harm others with your speech, for example by endangering others (yelling "Fire" in a theater) or through libel or slander. And of course we have constructed laws to provide punishment for those who are lax in their responsibilities.

You seem to be making the case that if there were no laws providing disincentive for using your rights responsibly there would be no need to do so. I submit to you that in the case of firearms, firstly there are laws and penalties to deal with those who abuse their right to bear arms and secondly, even if there were no such laws people would still have the responsibility, as upstanding citizens part of a community, to act in a responsible manner with regard to the exercising of their rights.

And in societies that recognize and protect the exercise of rights in constitutions, there are rules for the constitutional scrutiny of limitations on the exercise of those rights. Under those rules, the consequences and benefits of both the exercise of the rights and the limitations on the rights, for both the individual exercising them and the society in which they are recognized, are considered and weighed.

Just so. And by so doing they codify both the right and the responsibilities and obligations that go with it.

Other than that, i.e. where no justification is found for interfering in the exercise of rights, it's up to each individual to decide how s/he wishes to and does exercise them, weighing the costs and benefits according to whatever standard s/he might like. Your homemade rules for those decisions aren't relevant to anyone else's decisions, unless s/he chooses to pay them some heed.

I do not believe this for an instant. Again, you are making the case that without provision of law to set limits on rights, all behavior related to a right is valid. If there were no laws concerning firearms, would any use of a firearm, no matter how irresponsible, be OK? Of course not.


If someone told me that my right of free speech came with a responsibility not to criticize the head of state, I'd tell him/her to mind his/her own business. I imagine you would too.

So what if someone told you that your right of free speech came with a responsibility not to endanger others with your words or slander or libel them? You seem to be saying that unless there were some law that said so, this would be OK to do. I submit that common decency among reasonable, civilized people would dictate such a responsibility. In short, the responsibility exists even with no law to codify it.

Your entire line of reasoning seems to be that absent law, any behavior is OK. I submit that there is moral and immoral behavior whether there is law or not.


Because it isn't "semantics" in the sense you mean, you see. It is, in the sense that we are haggling over the meaning of words. "Rights" has a meaning that is not what you are assigning to it.

You are, simply, incorrect.

[iverglas]

23. Sky news ... Fox news ...

News news.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUKL2777254920080227

"It is clear he was trying to rob Mr Singh of the day's takings and that Mr Singh resisted and defended himself in the struggle that followed," said John Dilworth, assistant district crown prosecutor for South West Lancashire.

The Director of Public Prosecutions Sir Ken Macdonald is determined to ensure that the law protects those who use reasonable force to defend themselves, he added.

... During a fierce struggle, Singh suffered knife wounds to his neck and back. The shopkeeper was arrested at the scene on suspicion of murder, treated in hospital, questioned and released on bail.

... Detective Superintendent Mick Gradwell, of Lancashire Constabulary, praised Singh for his bravery.

"This was a violent attack on Mr Singh by a convicted armed robber," he said. "My recommendation was Mr Singh should not be prosecuted and I am pleased that the CPS has agreed with that."

The police investigated the killing of a human being with the thoroughness that such an event requires. They recommended that no charges be laid. The prosecution service acted on that recommendation. And the story is?

That an arrest was made? Maybe someone needs to re-read his law books. That a person acted in self-defence does not mean that s/he did not commit a homicide (or assault). An offence was committed: a homicide; and the police had very reasonable grounds to believe this was the case (like the fact that Singh was sitting on top of the robber holding a knife when police arrived). The person who committed it claimed (and was determined to have) a lawful excuse/justification for committing the offence: self-defence.

English law is no different from US law in this regard, when it comes to the unadulterated law of self-defence. The law may have been adulterated in *some* US states, but that is irrelevant here.

The decision that was made was that the self-defence case could be successfully made at a trial, and so laying charges would be inappropriate. The police and prosecution service went farther and expressly recognized the validity of the self-defence claim.

If anybody ever kills me, no matter what I was doing or s/he says I was doing, I'd hope that the event would be taken as seriously.

[selador]

60. clarify

"That an arrest was made? Maybe someone needs to re-read his law books. That a person acted in self-defence does not mean that s/he did not commit a homicide (or assault)."

ALL killings of a person by another are BY DEFINITION a homicide. a homicide (the term) says zero about whether it was a crime or not. it merely says that the agent of the death was another person.

" An offence was committed: a homicide;"

a homicide is NOT an offence. not in the UK, and not here. an UNLAWFUL homicide - whether manslaughter, murder, etc. IS.

but homicide itself is not an offense.

i think, no offense, you need to be more precise with your terms, when you are telling somebody else to reread their law book