Self Defence UK.

[manta49]

There was a earlier post about an incident in the UK were a couple were arrested and questioned after shooting two buglers at their house. Saying how bad the laws were in the UK regards self defence and citizens can't defend them selves. There seems to be a lot of bs talked about the laws in the UK. The latest on the couple arrested below.

Quote. The Crown Prosecution Service.

A couple who were arrested after a shotgun was fired at intruders during a break-in will not face charges, the Crown Prosecution Service has said.


The law is clear that anyone who acts in good faith, using reasonable force, doing what they honestly feel is necessary to protect themselves, their families or their property, will not be prosecuted for such action.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-19496531

[sgms]

Sounds like there laws are just half a step up from those in California.

[thallub]

The law is clear that anyone who acts in good faith, using reasonable force, doing what they honestly feel is necessary to protect themselves, their families or their property, will not be prosecuted for such action.

Yeah, but they were arrested. Arresting law abiding folks who simply shoot home invaders should not be the norm. What would have happened to the couple if their gun was not registered?

This Oklahoma lady killed a home invader. She was not arrested. The prosecutor gave her a pass. There are reports the sheriffs deputies bought her a new self defense shotgun.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-woman-...ry?id=15285605

[danez71]

For those that would like to learn some facts to base their opinions on....

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/s...e/#The_Law_and

[manta49]

Quote. For those that would like to learn some facts to base their opinions on.

Posters don't want to base their opinions on facts. They would rather make it up as they go along. Why let the truth get in the way of their opinions.

[noelf2]

Well I read it Manta, so give a little credit. I think it's more important that you fill in your countrymen to their rights to self defense. I'm in GB fairly often and have many relatives there (wife is British, and has a big family). Based on discussions with them, I don't think they're aware of their self defense rights either. Setting us straight doesn't do much, but getting the word out to your own people would be helpful I'm sure. As American oldtimers/forefathers would say, "you're barking up the wrong tree".

[Woody55]

The law - as written in the Act or as stated in the common law - really isn't all that different than most states in the US.

However, in application it may differ because our cultures differ.

Both US and UK law require that the actor's fear be reasonable and that the amount of force used be reasonable. The jury decides what's reasonable.

If someone shot an intruder with a shotgun because he moved his hand when ordered to freeze, I have little doubt that a Texas jury would think the fear generated by the move and the amount of force represented by the shotgun were perfectly reasonable. I'm not so sure about a UK jury.

[manta49]

Quote. noelf2 Well I read it Manta, so give a little credit. I think it's more important that you fill in your countrymen to their rights to self defense. I'm in GB fairly often and have many relatives there (wife is British, and has a big family). Based on discussions with them, I don't think they're aware of their self defense rights either. Setting us straight doesn't do much, but getting the word out to your own people would be helpful I'm sure. As American oldtimers/forefathers would say, "you're barking up the wrong treeote.

Just trying to point out a few facts. After reading some misconceptions on the forum regards the law on self defence in the UK.
Most people in the UK are well aware of their rights regards self defense.

[Webleymkv]

The problem that I see with U.K. law is the term "reasonable force" as that is, IMHO, simply too vague and open to various interpretation. For example, one person might feel that shooting someone who is beating you would be "reasonable force" while another person might view that as an unnecessary escalation of force.

Now, U.S. law is not nearly as uniform as U.K. law because U.S. law varies somewhat from state to state. This is because the U.S. is a much larger country in terms of both geography and population than the U.K. and as such there are much greater cultural differences from one part of the country to another. However, most U.S. state laws specifically regard deadly force as justifiable if the person who uses deadly force can articulate a clear and reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm. For example, here are the self-defense laws of my home state (Indiana):

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/cod.../ar41/ch3.html

In particular, note this:

(c) A person is justified in using reasonable force against any other person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.

Do you notice how much more specific Indiana law is on the matter than U.K. law? If we go back for a moment to my example of someone being beaten, I think we can all agree that a beating would, in most cases, satisfy the definition of "serious bodily injury" so the use of force in self-defense would be justified under both Indiana and U.K. law. However, under U.K. law, the use of deadly force would be open to interpretation as to whether or not that level of force would be "reasonable" while under Indiana law, that question is already specifically answered.

[manta49]

There is no perfect system in any country. The last few cases that i remember in the UK two buglers were stabbed to death in separate cases. It was viewed as self defence and didn't go to court so no jury was involved.

One big difference in the law in the UK and the USA is if you want a firearm in the UK you have to apply for a firearms certificate. To get a certificate you have to show reason for wanting a firearm vermin control target shooting ect.

Self defence is not seen as a good reason for owning a firearm except in N Ireland were they have being used to good effect in the past. One of the conditions on the certificate is that the firearm must be locked in a approved safe when not in use. Only removed form the safe when you are going shooting or cleaning the firearm ect . One reason why the people in question were arrested would be to find out if they violated the conditions for owning a firearm.

[g.willikers]

Do the citizens of G.B. actually have the right to self defense?
Having the right to self defense, but denied the means, neuters that right, doesn't it?

[manta49]

You can use anything that comes to hand in this case it was a firearm. It could be a knife ect.

[Jim Watson]

I just don't see how it can be legal to shoot or stab a bugler.
He is just playing his horn and even if you don't like it, that does not amount to an attack.

[manta49]

Jim Watson
Senior Member


Join Date: October 25, 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 9,093 I just don't see how it can be legal to shoot or stab a bugler.
He is just playing his horn and even if you don't like it, that does not amount to an attack.

Yes you can legally shoot a bugler if he violently attacks you with it.

[BlueTrain]

It's sometimes stated that having citizens defend themselves, particularly with firearms, makes crime rates go down. That theory didn't work whem hangings and beheadings were the penalties, although I admit there has not really been any lab testing of those theories.

Overall, however, the irony is that the pro-gun side said life is so dangerous that you need guns around to protect yourself, while the anti-gun side says life is dangerous because of all the guns that are around. While there's probably some truth to both sides of the argument, it sounds like both sides are arguing from the same premise and that it is advantageous to both arguments that life is dangerous and the more dangerous that people can be convinced that it is, the better the arguments sound. And that's probably why most people don't get so worked up about the issue.

[BGutzman]

Posters don't want to base their opinions on facts. They would rather make it up as they go along. Why let the truth get in the way of their opinions.

I did research from your own government sources and your own news papers and presented a report on this in college... I guess facts are only what you say they are.... I will dig through my files and post it if I can find it... In any case there plenty of media clips of the Bobbies getting the beat down. Its not that Im claiming carrying a gun is a 100% proof against this happening to an officer. What I do claim is a legally used gun in the face of a BG can equalize the disparity in physical force...

The UK Im sure has laws saying you can defend yourself but exactly how are the elderly and the very young suppose to do that? When guns are almost 100% banned how do these groups protect themselves in a nation such as the UK... hope and prayer? foul language? No disrespect but I see no reasonable means for the average person to defend themselves...

[manta49]

The police are armed here it doesn't stop them getting injured in riots.
See below.




www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoSPwCfmIDE

[BGutzman]

Here is a modified version of my college thesis... Keep in mind this was only modified in the most general way due to privacy concerns and this report was never intended for public consumption... Not that is will interest you but the sources are cited.

Cant seem to post the pdf regardless of how i try to do it. I will link this back to the old thread for your reading pleasure... (digging through my post)

http://thefiringline.com/forums/show....php?p=4707888 see post #69

[Webleymkv]

One big difference in the law in the UK and the USA is if you want a firearm in the UK you have to apply for a firearms certificate. To get a certificate you have to show reason for wanting a firearm vermin control target shooting ect.

Self defence is not seen as a good reason for owning a firearm except in N Ireland were they have being used to good effect in the past. One of the conditions on the certificate is that the firearm must be locked in a approved safe when not in use. Only removed form the safe when you are going shooting or cleaning the firearm ect . One reason why the people in question were arrested would be to find out if they violated the conditions for owning a firearm.

That itself is a huge detriment to U.K. citizens' right to self defense. A firearm is one of the few weapons which can take the size of the aggressor almost completely out of the equation. Armed with a knife, cricket bat, golf club, lug wrench, or most of the other potential weapons which are not heavily regulated in the U.K., small statured or frail people would still be at a significant disadvantage if they had to defend themselves from a larger, stronger person particularly if that person were also armed. This is because all of the aforementioned weapons require some degree of physical strength to be used effectively and the stronger the user, the more effective the weapon. A gun, however, is no more or less powerful in the hands of a strong person than in the hands of a weak person, thus it is an equalizer of sorts.

Now, I don't know how heavily regulated less lethal weapons such as chemical sprays, stun guns, and tasers are in your country, but if legal they would certainly be good things to have. However, these less lethal weapons can and have failed before and they're not really a good replacement for a firearm (there is a very good reason why police have not given up firearms for less lethal weapons). Instead, these weapons are best used when one also has a firearm to transition to should the less lethal weapon fail to have the desired effect.

Finally, the storage requirements severely hamper even those who have jumped through the beuracratic hoops to own a legal firearm. An unloaded gun locked away in a safe is pretty useless when someone is attacking you right now. Of course, that's pretty unsurprising since, as you noted, self-defense is not considered a sufficient reason to own a firearm in most of the U.K.

[BGutzman]

This is only a tease and not meant to be taken for real and not intended to insult anyone... Full respect to the debate at hand.

You dont suppose the UK anti gun laws are actually part of some new castle building strategy.... I guess every house needs a moat, steel gates, draw bridges and high walls..

[manta49]

Quote.Webleymkv. Now, I don't know how heavily regulated less lethal weapons such as chemical sprays, stun guns, and tasers are in your country, but if legal they would certainly be good things to have. However, these less lethal weapons can and have failed before and they're not really a good replacement for a firearm (there is a very good reason why police have not given up firearms for less lethal weapons). Instead, these weapons are best used when one also has a firearm to transition to should the less lethal weapon fail to have the desired effect.

No all the above are illegal in the UK.


It is covered by s5 Firearms Act 1968 - "a person commits an offence if, without the authority of the Secretary of State...he has in his possession...a prohibited weapon or ammunition".

s5 1 (b) adds "any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid gas or other thing". As the stun gun discharges electrical current, it is covered by this. It is an offence to possess one even if the stun gun is incapable of discharge (i.e. no battery or is unpowered).

The definition of possession is quite wide and covers having and carrying one.

You can get up to 10 years

[BGutzman]

The vulnerable, the weak, infirm or old in the UK have a right to self defense, just not one that in general equals the disparity in physical force of a young thug....

Im off my soap box but it is a nation that I love and yet find condemable for its groupthink... not that were any better.... You need a pub every block to deal with the guilt.... enough said....

[Scouse]

The element of British laws that I find difficult to understand, is that it is illegal to keep any item for the specific purpose of self defence. As I understand it, that forethought means it is not in the eyes of the law a defensive weapon, but an offensive one, rendering it illegal and its use enough to send you to prison.

That is how I understand it anyway, I would dearly like to be corrected if I have got it wrong. Obviously that makes the PSNI permitting people to legally hold firearms for defence slightly anomalous, but I guess that is a product of local realities.

As for rights to self defence, in theory we have them as much as anyone anywhere in the States, what with the shared origins of the legal systems and principles and all. When in reasonable fear of attack one can use reasonable force to repel it - all the subjectivity of reasonableness aside, it is pretty simple. Problem for us is, we do not have the legal means to effective and ready self defence. The points made about the elderly and infirm are good ones I feel.

As for WebleyMKV's very reasonable comment about ''reasonableness'': I think this is a product of our system and it's differences to your own. The law knows very well what it means by reasonable, and has for centuries because it is a product of precedent e.g. that couple in the farmhouse shooting the two burglars was reasonable, another infamous case about a decade ago when a burglar was killed (with an illegally held shotgun this time) and another maimed (in a way that would send shivers down the spine of every man who has ever lived, if you catch my drift, though that is entirely beside the point) with evidence of concerted attempts to kill as they retreated was not reasonable. In practice, that it is not written down is not a problem, though I can see why in theory it would be. Obviously this can change and it is not as strong a protection as rights enumerated in a codified constitution but the way things work here produces moderation in politics and law, sometimes that is good, sometimes bad, but it is how it is.

When it comes to pubs on every corner, not sure that is anything to do with guilt.

[manta49]

Some information regards personal protection weapons in N Ireland.

Possession of a firearm for personal protection purposes places a great
responsibility on the holder. Any person who has been granted an FAC to possess a PPW will be expected to conduct their daily affairs in such a way that their own personal security and the security of the firearm is not jeopardised.
(b) Good Reason
(i) In the context of an application for a firearm for personal protection purposes the applicant is required by the Firearms (NI) Order 2004 to have ‘good reason’ for such possession. Whilst in most applications a verifiable real and immediate risk may be established by specialised police reports it may not be as obvious in others. In cases where a real and immediate risk is not verifiable by a specialised police report or is otherwise obvious, consideration must be given to all the known circumstances, bearing in mind the general duty of police to protect life by taking appropriate measures to address the risk. [Section 32(1) of the Police (NI) Act 2000 and article 1 of the PSNI Code of Ethics 2008.]
(ii) For the purposes of this Policy an applicant for a PPW will be deemed to have ‘good reason’ if it is established that:
(aa) there is a specific threat against the individual which creates a real and immediate risk verified by a specialised police report; or
(bb) in exceptional circumstances, a verifiable level of risk is established by other information; and
(cc) the possession of a firearm is a reasonable, proportionate and necessary measure to protect the life of the applicant.
(c) Specific Threat
(i) A specific threat is defined as:
(aa) A recent verifiable life threatening attack has been made on the applicant’s life and this level of threat remains; or
(bb) A verifiable personal threat to the life of the applicant has been made, which can be substantiated by a specialised police report or, in exceptional circumstances, in the absence of a specialised police report, other verifiable information or circumstances.
(ii) In establishing that a real and immediate risk exists FEB must consider all circumstances and all the information available to them. In exceptional circumstances the grant of an FAC for a PPW may be appropriate even though a real and immediate risk cannot be confirmed by specialised police reports but it can be verified by other means.
3. INTRODUCTION
(1) Summary
(a) This Policy explains the criteria under which Firearms and Explosives Branch will, on behalf of the Chief Constable, consider applications to possess a firearm for personal protection purposes, in accordance with the Firearms (NI) Order 2004 and the NIO Guidance on Firearms Controls in Northern Ireland.


PS The PSNI allow protection weapons for those people under real that not imagery.

[BGutzman]

Weres the law requiring the thugs to notify people of the attack in advance? The law itself makes it clear that the government is deciding what is a good enough reason... that makes it not a right to self defense... rights exist with or without government... A right doesnt require permission even if there are some limits on its exercise..