It should be noted that there are differences of interpretation on this, both between US states and between the US as a whole and other countries. In many states in the US, it is considered reasonable for a homeowner to believe himself in immediate mortal danger, if there is an intruder in the house. Apparently, in Great Britain, this is not generally considered a reasonable belief.
I think a lot more people in the UK consider it a reasonable belief than you give credit.
Au contraire. This is one of the few instances, in the courts in the UK, where self defense is considered justified.
In other words, very much not unlike the United States. Same old story. Criminals are criminals - and strict gun laws will never change this. They’re merely one more charge to tack onto indictment.
I find this hard to believe. I’d class anyone who is uninvited in my home as being an immediate danger to my safety. Are you suggesting that attacking an intruder without him showing any weapon or aggression towards me is justified by UK courts?
Jjimm, are you sure you understand what Chronos is saying?
In the UK, just because there is an intruder in your house does not mean you are in immediate mortal danger and can kill them.
E.g. see the comments on the Tony Martin case.
I think you mean you can use deadly force if you are in immediate mortal danger, which indeed the UK courts have approved.
This thread is beginning to worry me!
Don’t you mean ‘I’d **wouldn’t necessarily ** class anyone who is uninvited in my home as being an immediate danger to my safety.’?
No, I’d class anyone who I found uninvited in my home as being a threat to my safety. Why else would they be there?
But surely the point is whether allowing millions of citizens to own guns cuts crime (especially gun deaths).
We all agree criminals shouldn’t have guns.
Here in the Uk we don’t want citizens or the local police to have them either.
No, the point is whether banning guns cuts crime.
Um, to rob you?
I didn’t understand the jutuxaposition of your two sentences:
I’d class anyone who is uninvited in my home as being an immediate danger to my safety. Are you suggesting that attacking an intruder without him showing any weapon or aggression towards me is justified by UK courts?
Because the UK courts will not consider ‘attacking an intruder without him showing any weapon or aggression towards you’ as justified, even if you think it is.
Have I understood you correctly?
Well I was responding to a US poster, so I put it in his context.
But yes, your statement is the way the thread was set up.
No, look at the replies to which I was responding:
Chronos wrote:
Italics mine.
jjimm replied:
Implying that the homeowner only has to believe himself in mortal danger.
To which I wrote:
IANAL - but I believe the courts will recognise it as self-defence if you can show you were in immediate danger, or that you had good reason to believe you were in immediate danger (which would not include “well he might have had a gun”, but would include if they made verbal threats, for example). It does not extend to property - no matter what the risk to your property, you cannot attack an intruder if they are not showing a direct threat to you.
I took it to mean that ‘in the US, if there is an intruder in the house, then it is considered reasonable for a homeowner to believe himself in immediate mortal danger’.
So the mere presence of an intruder allows deadly force by the homeowner in the US.
Not so in the UK.
I messed up my coding in the post to which this responds (sorry!).
But +MDI stated the case where the intruder did not show any weapon or aggression towards the homeowner, and (although I am not a lawyer either) I am confident you then can’t use legally deadly force in the UK.
Yes, that is why I asked about jjimm’s reply.
Some of the US debaters seems to believe that the UK has some bizarre peculiar legislation on these issues. But it is the other way around. UK laws are quite ordinary compared to other western countries, while The US has more liberal gun laws than any other Western nation. On the other side the US crime rate is and has been some of the highest in the Western world.
Another point that seems forgotten in this debate is that liberal gun laws can escalate violence. If burglars knows the homeowners is likely to be armed, they will arm themselves to protect their own lives, and then you have a spiral going escalating violence towards homeowners as well as burglars.
From Cecils answer it apperas that the crime in general in the UK might be higher than the US, but the US has a higher number of homicides. If this is true, it seems that a higher percentage of violent attacks results in death in the U.S. This is not more than common sense. People armed with guns do seldom engage in fist fights. This seems to prove my point on guns creating a higher level of violence.
It is to avoid such a spiral of escalating violence that the police in some European countries (UK and Norway at least) in general is not armed. The principle might be difficult to upheld due to recent increase of tough organized crime from Eastern Europe and Asia, but in general it is a good ideal.
In Norway (and a lot of other European countries) it is not that hard getting a license for a rifle or a shotgun (typical for hunting purposes), but the authorities are much more reluctant to give a license for a pistol or revolver. The reason for this is of course that such small weapons can more easily be carried around. Even if one accept the homeowners right to protect themselves with firearms, I can not see why it is necessary to give people in general the right to bear pistols and revolvers.
Further, some of the contributors in this debate seems to be of the opinion that it is commonplace for homeowners to be killed by intruders. As far as I know the risk (in US as elsewhere) is much higher to be killed by a family member, lover etc. I can hardly see that it is helpful for this problem to have guns lying around in every home.
It seems to me you’re neglecting just how much of an impact violent drug trafficking gangs have on homicide rates.
That’s not really the reason that British police are not armed - it’s simply that they never have been (going back to the Peelers, which were the foundation for the modern police foreces).
However, it’s certainly true that the current belief is that arming the police would cause an escalation of gun use among criminals. The police themselves do not want guns: