Is this the way to treat a Mugger?

[Belgarold]

I am not directing this at anyone in particular so please do not P.M. me asking why I am attacking, that is not my intention.

But rereading this thread I want to ask a question of everyone involved. I believe that we have gotten far afield from the point of this thread.

A wonderful anecdote about a courageous and amazing human being turning the tables on a desperate man that turned to crime has turned into, to me, a dirty argument about guns and gun control.

This is very sad to me. The is a wonderful story of triumph over violence and crime. And, yes, this type of happy ending doesn't come along very often but that is no reason to cynically dismiss it.

And what if the man held the fear of being attacked in his mind and held a gun. Two people would have been destroyed that day. Killing another human is as destructive as a bullet to the heart (or should be) and the desperate man would be dead.

But instead we all (and I am putting myself in this category as well) should be ashamed. Instead of celebrating a human success story we use it as a bully pulpit for a political slugfest about guns.

That I find very sad.

Humbly I just wish to thank MMI for the story. It gave me hope and the 'victim' is one of the most courageous men I have ever heard about. I applaud him.

[denuseri]

Looking at post 4 where the threads author posted a clairification I fail to see where this thread has went far afield at all.

But I do agree with Belgarold that it is a wonderful story of kindness, a down right miracle if you believe in such things that all turned out the way they did for both parties and that we should all thank MMI for bringing it to our attention even if it was done under the pretense of opening up a debate.

[MMI]

I would be very careful about making personal attacks in the thread, it is frowned upon here...

... And I need to ask a question, "Is it criminal to want gun control?" I wonder when that law came into being.

I agree the story was a wonderful one and Diaz deserves some real form of recognition, a knighthood, perhaps. As for your comments about the NRA, I couldn’t agree more. I suspect even a lot of people who support widespread gun-ownership shudder when they read some of the crap the NRA peddles. As to your question, it’s certainly not criminal to want to control guns in the UK, and we aren’t paranoid about walking through towns and cities unarmed. There are places we avoid, and that’s just as effective a means of defence as packing heat.

But, alas, denuseri has found me out as I knew I would be. I started this thread knowing it would cause emotions to run hot, as mine do, over gun control. I think this is an important issue and it cannot be discussed too often if opinions are to be changed, or moulded, or reinforced. I apologise if my subterfuge has been misinterpreted

If I am attacked personally as a result, so what? I'm a big boy. I’ll endeavour not to make personal attacks on anyone here, too, although I can be very sarcastic at times, and I suppose that’s almost as offensive as a personal attack.

I also know people here are drawing upon personal experiences which cannot help but influence their positions. Sometimes they could feel that what is being said here is totally insensitive and so far removed from reality as to have no bearing on life as we know it. So far as I can see, most, if not all posts have been kept on an impersonal and hypothetical level.

Besides I have locked horns with people here on several occasions on this and other topics. We may argue vehemently, but I'm sure we'd be prepared to stand each other a drink at the bar if we met. My round. What are you all having?

Now ... back to the argument ...

I have tried to find a summary of the laws in America relating to the use of guns for self-defence. One of the problems I have encountered, obviously, is that there are fifty states and the Capital District … 51 legal systems! So I told myself the job was done when I found this summary issued by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services -

Use of Deadly Force for Lawful Self-Defense
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/wea...f_defense.html
…
Summary
1. Never display a handgun to gain "leverage" in an argument, even if it isn't loaded or you never intend to use it.
2. The amount of force that you use to defend yourself must not be excessive under the circumstances.
• Never use deadly force in self-defense unless you are afraid that if you don't, you will be killed or seriously injured;
• Verbal threats never justify your use of deadly force;
• If you think someone has a weapon and will use it unless you kill him, be sure you are right and are not overreacting to the situation.
3. The law permits you to carry a concealed weapon for self-defense. Carrying a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman or a "good samaritan."
4. Never carry your concealed weapon into any place where the statute prohibits carrying it.
This is not a complete summary of all the statutes and court opinions on the use of deadly force. Because the concealed weapons statute specifies that concealed weapons are to be used for lawful self-defense, we have not attempted to summarize the body of law on lawful defense of property. This information is not intended as legal advice. Every self-defense case has its own unique set of facts, and it is unwise to try to predict how a particular case would be decided. It is clear, however, that the law protects people who keep their tempers under control and use deadly force only as a last resort.

I know the above isn’t complete by any means, but nevertheless, I have noticed that, in a place where it is legal to carry concealed weapons it is felt necessary to issue warnings about the exact same things that I have used to support my argument that guns should be controlled: you can only use “deadly force” if you are in fear for your own life, or another person’s; and if you shoot in self-defence, you’d better make sure you are right. Also, a gun does not entitle you to be a vigilante … and so on.

[denuseri]

Most all of the following I got from Wikki:

Its just FYI.

In the United States, carrying a concealed weapon (CCW, also known as concealed carry) is the legal authorization for private citizens to carry a handgun or other weapons in public in a concealed manner, either on the person or in close proximity to the person. The choice of permitted weapons depends on the state; some states restrict the weapons to a single handgun, whereas others permit multiple handguns or martial arts weapons to be carried.

Carrying a concealed weapon (CCW) is a more generalized term. Various states give different terms for licenses or permits to carry a concealed firearm, such as a Concealed Handgun License/Permit (CHL/CHP), Concealed (Defensive/Deadly) Weapon Permit/License (CDWL/CWP/CWL), Concealed Carry Permit/License (CCP/CCL), License To Carry (Firearms) (LTC/LTCF), Carry of Concealed Deadly Weapon license (CCDW), and similar, with at least one exception, Tennessee, which issues a "Handgun Carry Permit," since state law does not require a person with a permit to carry the handgun concealed.

Although the current trend towards adopting concealed carry laws has been met with opposition, no state which has adopted a "Shall-Issue" concealed carry law has reversed its decision. As of February 2008[update], 48 US states allow some form of concealed carry (though 9 of them have discretionary "may-issue" policies, a few of these being effectively "no-issue" in practice) and all but 6 provide for some variant on non-concealed "open-carry". The states of Wisconsin, Illinois and the District of Columbia do not have any form of concealed-carry licensing; Wisconsin allows for open carry in most situations, while Illinois only allows it in rural areas subject to county restriction. The District of Columbia had a blanket ban on ownership, possession and carry of handguns in its jurisdiction which began in 1976; this was struck down June 26, 2008 by the United States Supreme Court.

Some states require concealed carry applicants to participate in a training course, which includes a classroom at a minimum. Depending on the state, a practical component during which the attendee shoots the weapon for the purpose of demonstrating safety and proficiency, may be required. Such courses are often completed in one to two days. The classroom topics typically include firearm mechanics and terminology, concealed carry legislation and limitations, liability issues, carry methods and safety, home defense, methods for managing and defusing confrontational situations, and practice of gun handling techniques without firing the weapon.

Most required CCW training courses devote a considerable amount of time to liability issues. Even when self-defense is justified there can be serious civil liabilities related to self-defense. For example, if innocent bystanders are hurt or killed there could be both civil and criminal liabilities even if the use of deadly force was completely justified. Some states also technically allow an assailant who is shot by a gun owner to bring civil action. However, a majority of states who allow concealed or open carry forbid suits being brought in such cases, either by barring lawsuits for damages resulting from a criminal act on the part of the plaintiff, or by granting the gun owner immunity from such a civil suit if it is found that he or she was justified in shooting.

Therefore, while state laws vary, generally use of deadly force is recommended as a last resort, when life or limb is endangered, when escape or retreat are foreclosed, and warnings are given but ignored. However, increased passage of "Castle Doctrine" laws allow persons who own firearms and/or carry them concealed to also use them to protect property, and/or to use them without first attempting to retreat.

During the range portion of the course the applicant typically learns and demonstrates safe handling and operation of a firearm and accurate shooting from common self-defense distances. Some states require a certain proficiency to receive a passing grade, whereas other states (e.g., Florida) technically require only a single-shot be fired to demonstrate handgun handling proficiency. Some states (e.g., Florida) recognize the safety and use-of-force training given to military personnel as acceptable. Such states will allow a military ID for active persons or DD214 for legally discharged persons in lieu of formal civilian training certification. Active and retired law enforcement officers are also generally exempt from qualification requirements, due to a federal statute permitting retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons in the United States.

"Opt-out" carry prohibition laws have been hotly contested. Opponents claim these statutes are not helpful in reducing criminal carry of firearms, as only lawfully-carrying individuals will disarm when on the property. It is also in fact harmful to otherwise lawfully-carrying individuals, as concealed-carry licensees who do not notice the sign are immediately in violation of a law, with a possible consequence of the revocation of their ability to carry concealed or to others who may decide to leave the firearm locked in their vehicle, increasing the chance that it will be stolen.

Opponents also point to recent school, mall, church and other public shootings in areas where the owner or State has prohibited concealed carry as evidence that criminals are in fact drawn to posted places, as the population of such a place is likely to be less armed than a place in which concealed carry is allowed.

I am curious as to what exactly the laws conserning guns in Great Brittian and other countries are?

Also what are the demographics of crime rates there from the laymans prospective as a counterpoint since it seems that when we talk gun control the area of focus is allways the United States.

How much crime is committed and how much is resisted and by what means?

The "turn the other cheek'/ satyagahra method of dealing with those who would harm us is unfortunatly only as effective as the compassion of the aggressor permits.

[Thorne]

MMI has said that the gun-control he sees is not to the degree that you are predicting, and most gun-control advocates do not adhere to. Mongering fear is "the spew" that the NRA have been 'spoon-feeding' to their members and their lobbyists for years. And I need to ask a question, "Is it criminal to want gun control?" I wonder when that law came into being.

No, it is not criminal to want real gun control, as opposed to actually banning guns for all but a very select few, as proposed by MMI. Gun control means just that: controlling who can own firearms. But limiting it to only the military, some police and a few farmers is not control, but banning. That leaves the average citizen without any means of self defense other than their hands and edged weapons. And from articles I've seen, in England it is illegal even to use those. Self defense, it seems, is against the law there.
One has to remember that any law, whether to ban weapons or to prohibit jaywalking, are only effective when people obey them. Criminals, by definition, do not worry about breaking the law. They do it as a matter of course. So believing that banning guns will result in eliminating those weapons which criminals have, or may have, is naive at best. All that does is reassure the criminals that their victims are unlikely to have any means of protecting themselves, thereby making it easier, and safer, for the criminals to do their things.

[MMI]

I only have an outline knowledge of the actual laws in place here, but I shall immediately embark on the necessary research.

Meanwhile, as I currently understand the law, you may apply for a shotgun licence or a firearms licence if you can provide to references from reputable people (who may be investigsted before the licence is approved), have a clean record and can demonstrate you have a legitimate reason to have a gun. Farmers can obtain the shotgun licence fairly easily as they can show they need it for pest control. People who work in hunting jobs, or who come from a family with known hunting connections are also likely to be able to demonstrate a reason. Guns must be kept in secure lockers or cupboards, which will be inspected before the licence is issued and upon every renewal. If a gun is not being used for its intended purpose, it must be locked away in that cupboard.

A policeman may carry a gun if he is specifically authorised to do so, while he is on duty, and appropriately trained - with refreshers every couple of months.

Self defence is not considered a valid reason to own one. One has to understand that we do not live in fear of each other. We do not believe there are killers waiting around every corner, about to break into our house, rape our daughters and kill our sons. If we pass a stranger on the street, we do not worry that he is about to point the barrel of a gun up our nostrils while he demands our watches, mobile phones and wallets. There are violent people among us, sure, but few of them are armed with guns; quite a lot are armed with knives. (It is illegal to carry an offensive weapon (including knives - from hunting knives to penknives - cricket bats, iron bars, screwdrivers and chisels, or anything else you can hurt or maim with ... a pencil perhaps, if it is used that way). We only consider self-defence is a relevant argument if we are facing an attacker, and believe an attack on our life is imminent. If we contemplate an attack, and then deliberately go out to confront the attacker, we are in danger of committing the same crime ourselves. Having a weapon "just in case" you are attacked isn't self-defence, it's arguably making preparations to commit an assault yourself, because, if you foresee the possibility of attack, you can take steps to avoid it.

As for the law on self-defence in England, the following is an interesting starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-de...in_English_law.

[denuseri]

One has to understand that we do not live in fear of each other. We do not believe there are killers waiting around every corner, about to break into our house, rape our daughters and kill our sons. If we pass a stranger on the street, we do not worry that he is about to point the barrel of a gun up our nostrils while he demands our watches, mobile phones and wallets. There are violent people among us, sure, but few of them are armed with guns; quite a lot are armed with knives. (It is illegal to carry an offensive weapon (including knives - from hunting knives to penknives - cricket bats, iron bars, screwdrivers and chisels, or anything else you can hurt or maim with ... a pencil perhaps, if it is used that way). We only consider self-defence is a relevant argument if we are facing an attacker, and believe an attack on our life is imminent. If we contemplate an attack, and then deliberately go out to confront the attacker, we are in danger of committing the same crime ourselves. Having a weapon "just in case" you are attacked isn't self-defence, it's arguably making preparations to commit an assault yourself, because, if you foresee the possibility of attack, you can take steps to avoid it.

Sounds much the same as it is here in the states for the most part despite what appearences the media may portray to the world at large.

[Thorne]

Sounds much the same as it is here in the states for the most part despite what appearences the media may portray to the world at large.

I agree. Between the "news" media braying about street violence and Hollywood's fictional portrayals, I fear that much of the rest of the world believes that MMI's portrayal of American's on the street is more or less accurate. In fact, except in very specific areas, it's about as far from the truth as one can get.
Certainly in the inner cities, where gang's roam the streets and drugs and prostitution are rampant, you can feel as if you are taking your life in your hands just by walking on the sidewalk. But in the average community there is no such fear of our neighbors or random people on the street.

There are violent people among us, sure, but few of them are armed with guns; quite a lot are armed with knives. (It is illegal to carry an offensive weapon (including knives - from hunting knives to penknives - cricket bats, iron bars, screwdrivers and chisels, or anything else you can hurt or maim with ... a pencil perhaps, if it is used that way).

There are violent people among us here, too, even in the relatively safe communities. Much of this is because of the rampant use of drugs and, unfortunately, many (not most) of these violent people have access to illegal weapons. And like in Britain, anything which can injure someone can be considered a deadly or offensive weapon.

We only consider self-defence is a relevant argument if we are facing an attacker, and believe an attack on our life is imminent. If we contemplate an attack, and then deliberately go out to confront the attacker, we are in danger of committing the same crime ourselves.

And the same is true here.

Having a weapon "just in case" you are attacked isn't self-defence, it's arguably making preparations to commit an assault yourself, because, if you foresee the possibility of attack, you can take steps to avoid it.

Here I must disagree, respectfully. Having a weapon as a deterrent is the ultimate in self-defense. It's the reason why nations maintain military forces. It's the reason for police patrols. It's the reason we get inoculations for polio, measles, mumps, and a host of other diseases.
And certainly, in most cases, one can take steps to avoid attacks, such as staying away from high crime areas (unless you have to live there for economic reasons) or keeping your doors locked at night. These are all good ideas, too. But they are not always sufficient. Even in the best and safest communities, crimes can, and do, occur. Being prepared is not being paranoid, it's just being prepared. And being armed, whether with a gun, a knife or pepper spray, does not mean you intend or even want to have to use them. It only means that you are prepared to use them if necessary.

[MMI]

Hmmm ... we're moving towards a consensus ... where's the fun in that?

I wanted you to say, "It isn't so! America isn't like that" But you didn't. So I had to accept you really believed you lived in a highly dangerous society and were under constant threat. After all, you're there, and I'm not.

The true position is (I think) that America and Britain are remarkably safe places for the vast majority of its citizens to live in. Many may never have seen an unholstered gun or heard a shot fired in anger. There's violence on the fringes, but it's not likely to affect most citizens, and if it does, then it's only on a rare occasion. Unfortunate for the few who are caught up in the violence, possibly tragic, even, but on the grand scale, barely noticeable.

So, if we are mainstream citizens, do we take steps to protect ourselves? Yes, certainly. We can arm ourselves. Or we can stay away.

If we arm ourselves and walk into the lion's den, can we then be heard to say we are innocent victims?

But what if members of the violent underworld go out looking for unarmed people to rob rape and kill? Should we be prevented from defending ourselves. To me, the answer is clear. No. You should not be prevented from defending yourself. In fact you may do whatever is necessary - but no more than necessary - to protect yourself. In England, self-defence is a complete defence to a charge of murder, but it is no defence if excesive force is used. For example, during the "Troubles" in Northern Ireland (NI laws are similar to English laws in this respect) a British soldier shot three times at the windscreen of a car that was speeding towards a road block he was manning. As the car crashed through the road block and sped away, the soldier fired a fourth shot through the rear window, killing the driver. At his trial, it was held that the first three shots were fired in self-defence, and if the driver had been killed by one of those shots, the soldier would have been exonerated: but the fourth shot was murder.

It is legitimate to use a gun in self-defence where you are facing a threat to your own life, but if you use a gun where there is no threat to your life, then you have gone too far. Maximum deterrence is only appropriate in a few limited circumstances.

And if you shoot an unarmed intruder by accident or mistake, you cannot claim self defence. All the more so if an innocent bystander is hit.

Furthermore, displaying a gun to an intruder is an implicit threat that you will use it, and this could cause him to legitimately fear for his own life, even if you do not intend to fire. If he shoots you first, he can claim self-defence and walk free.

So, my question now is this. If we live in a "safe" society, and, furthermore, the laws on self-defence are such that it is very easy to become the assailant rather than a victim defnding himself, why do we need to deliberately arm ourselves with guns? Or anything else for that matter. After all, we have police forces to protect us, don't we? And, by and large, don't they keep our streets safe? OK, they might not be around when a violent crime is actually being committed, but I don't think we pay them enough to be able to see into the future and to stop crimes before they are committed. While we are waiting for them to arrive, we must fend for ourselves as best we can, and I admit a gun could come in handy.

But the possibiity of such an incident affecting any particular citizen is remote (and for most people it would never happen), and so widespead gun-ownership to meet such a contingency would be over-reacting. A balance has to be struck between the safety of an individual and what we call "the public good". We consider freely available weapons to be contrary to the public good.

[Thorne]

So, if we are mainstream citizens, do we take steps to protect ourselves? Yes, certainly. We can arm ourselves. Or we can stay away.

If we arm ourselves and walk into the lion's den, can we then be heard to say we are innocent victims?

There are times when walking near the lion's den is necessary. For better or worse, the main courthouse and police department in my town are adjacent to the worst areas, so anyone having business there must get close to those areas. Not enough to get paranoid about, but certainly enough to keep you on your toes.
And, as you note below, sometimes the lions come looking for fresher meat!

But what if members of the violent underworld go out looking for unarmed people to rob rape and kill? Should we be prevented from defending ourselves. To me, the answer is clear. No. You should not be prevented from defending yourself. In fact you may do whatever is necessary - but no more than necessary - to protect yourself.

It is legitimate to use a gun in self-defence where you are facing a threat to your own life, but if you use a gun where there is no threat to your life, then you have gone too far. Maximum deterrence is only appropriate in a few limited circumstances.

And once again, we agree. But how can someone who was not present determine whether or not a victim had a justifiable fear for his life?

And if you shoot an unarmed intruder by accident or mistake, you cannot claim self defence. All the more so if an innocent bystander is hit.

I'm not so sure about the unarmed intruder. Any intruder can be a threat unless he's physically incapable of attacking you. As I mentioned in a previous post, bare hands and shoes can do just as much damage as a knife or a gun, just not as quickly.
But hitting an innocent bystander is bad news all around, which is why gun owners must be required to learn how to handle their weapons, to minimize the risk of such a tragedy.

Furthermore, displaying a gun to an intruder is an implicit threat that you will use it, and this could cause him to legitimately fear for his own life, even if you do not intend to fire. If he shoots you first, he can claim self-defence and walk free.

If he attacked you on the street and managed to kill you, then he might be able to claim that you attacked him and get away with it. If he breaks into your home, or your place of business, he has already committed a felony, making him liable for all consequences.

But the possibiity of such an incident affecting any particular citizen is remote (and for most people it would never happen), and so widespead gun-ownership to meet such a contingency would be over-reacting.

This just seems counter-intuitive to me. It's like saying: The chances of falling down a flight of stairs is remote, so why bother with handrails? Or the chance of catching an STD is remote, so why bother with a condom? Regardless of how remote any possibility is, there is always that one chance. And I, for one, would rather be prepared for that remote chance than to have to explain to my children why I couldn't prevent their mother from being raped and killed by an "unarmed intruder"!

A balance has to be struck between the safety of an individual and what we call "the public good". We consider freely available weapons to be contrary to the public good.

Ah, the old "Kobiashi Maru" defense: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Which may be admirable, unless you're one of the few.
And I, at least, am not promoting "freely" available weapons, but controlled, licensed and regulated ownership of guns.
And in my opinion, criminals having to worry about law-abiding citizens being able to defend themselves with deadly force is in the public good.

[Thorne]

I've separated this from the rest of your post because I feel it deserves special attention.

during the "Troubles" in Northern Ireland (NI laws are similar to English laws in this respect) a British soldier shot three times at the windscreen of a car that was speeding towards a road block he was manning. As the car crashed through the road block and sped away, the soldier fired a fourth shot through the rear window, killing the driver. At his trial, it was held that the first three shots were fired in self-defence, and if the driver had been killed by one of those shots, the soldier would have been exonerated: but the fourth shot was murder.

Not having all the facts of this case I can only judge based on my own feelings, but this just seems wrong to me.
I must assume that the soldier was manning the barricade for a reason, probably to prevent the free movement of IRA terrorists. When the car sped towards the barricade, and the soldier, the driver was attacking a duly authorized representative of the law, using a deadly weapon (the car). This is a felony, in my book, and the soldier is justified, as you and the courts noted, in firing at the vehicle.
When the car broke through the barricade, even though it was no longer aimed at the soldier, the driver was still committing a felony and could be considered to be a danger to the public. (If he's willing to break down a barrier manned by an armed soldier, stopping for a little old lady in a crosswalk probably wouldn't be high on his list of priorities.)
It's my opinion that the soldier was performing his duty by trying to stop this criminal, even using deadly force. An average citizen, not being tasked with defending the public, might be considered to have acted wrongly, but not this soldier. He was screwed by the very system he was trying to defend.

This reminds me of another item I read regarding British justice. (I can't find the article anymore, but you may have heard it.) As I recall it, a British citizen was attacked in his home, possibly by a drug-crazed individual, and he defended himself with a knife. The attacker was wounded, but not killed. The citizen was arrested, tried and convicted of inflicting grievous bodily harm on his attacker! As I remember the article, the victim's prison sentence was longer than that of the attacker! Where's the justice in that? That tells me that the British government is more worried about its citizens having the balls to stand up for themselves than they are about fighting real crime.

[MMI]

Can't find that case, but what's your opinion about this one?

From the BBC News website on 30/01/2009
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7860347.stm

Neighbour jailed for sword death

A man who killed his neighbour with a samurai sword in a row over a football has been jailed for 11 years for manslaughter.

Father-of-three David Martin, 40, was killed by Gary Kelly, 38, in Mitcham, south-west London, last January.

The Old Bailey heard Mr Martin had earlier intervened when a 10-year-old boy said his two friends refused to return his ball.

He was then attacked in Kelly's front garden in Rutter Gardens.

The Old Bailey had been told the incident was triggered when the boy telephoned Mr Martin, who heard him cry out in pain after being kicked.

"The boy decided to leave the football game and wanted to take his football with him," said Edward Brown QC, prosecuting.

"His friends, however, decided not to give him his ball back, teased him and played pig in the middle with him, and the like."

Mr Martin went to help and had picked up a bicycle belonging to one of the friends, and had also grabbed a boy by the scruff of the neck, the court heard.

Kelly, who had been drinking and smoking cannabis, and had nothing to do with the boys, came out of his house and threatened Mr Martin with a beer bottle.

Mr Martin returned home and took a piece of wood, used as a parrot perch, and headed back to Kelly's property.

Kelly emerged with the sword and part of a snooker cue which he used to attack Mr Martin in the front garden, said Mr Brown.

Mr Martin died when one of his major heart blood vessels was cut.

Kelly told the court he acted in self-defence.

Judge Christopher Moss said to Kelly: "You had lost your self-control by reason of provocation.

"Your use of the sword was quite deliberate."

Mr Martin's wife, Angela, had told the court in an impact statement: "It feels like my heart has been ripped out and part of me is missing."

... Although I've just discovered this one, which I understand is a leading case here regarding the use of weapons in self defence. This interesting fact here is that the intruders were armed with guns, while the victim-turned-killer had only a sword, but a lethal weapon neverthless.

But the principle to be drawn out of the decision is that, whatever the situation, you must act with moderation and self control if you are going to plead self-defence to justify your use of violence.

R v Lindsay (2005) AER (D) 349: The defendant who picked up a sword in self-defence when attacked in his home by three masked intruders armed with loaded handguns, killed one of them by slashing him repeatedly with that sword. The prosecution case was that, although he had initially acted in self defence, he had then lost his self-control and demonstrated a clear intent to kill the armed intruder. In fact, the defendant was himself a low-level cannabis dealer who kept the sword available to defend himself against other drug dealers. The Court of Appeal confirmed an eight-year term of imprisonment. In a non-criminal context, it would not be expected that ordinary householders who "go too far" when defending themselves against armed intruders would receive such a long sentence.

(Wikipedia: Self-defence in English Law, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-de...in_English_law)

[MMI]

And I've just found this on the UK Law Commission's website, which looks very learned indeed, and I look forward to reading it myself shortly. You'll see it covers several jurisdicitions, but not England - although Scottish Law is reviewed:

The Law of Murder: Overseas Comparative Studies
http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/comparative_studies.pdf

Enjoy ...

[Thorne]

Can't find that case, but what's your opinion about this one?

In this case I would probably have to agree with the court. There is little evidence of self-defense in the story as posted. The swordsman, though still on his property, had to come out of his house to confront his "attacker" and appears to have been just as provocative as his victim. They were both wrong, but Kelly is still alive. That's manslaughter, at least.

... Although I've just discovered this one, which I understand is a leading case here regarding the use of weapons in self defence. This interesting fact here is that the intruders were armed with guns, while the victim-turned-killer had only a sword, but a lethal weapon neverthless....

This one's a little more ambiguous, but it does appear that the sword wielder went too far. If he had killed his attacker with a single stroke I would have to say it was justified. But having sliced him several times, presumably after he'd been disabled, puts a different light on things. Again, barring evidence to the contrary, he went too far.

What's unusual, though, is that it's usually the guy who brings a knife (or sword) to a gunfight that winds up dead. I guess British criminals just aren't as proficient with guns as their American counterparts.
Maybe that's a good thing!

[Thorne]

Enjoy ...

You're kidding, right? One thing I've never been able to master is legalese. Just trying to read the first paragraph had my eyeballs turning inside out. Anybody have an English translation?

[MMI]

Well, I got further than you ... a few pages ... but then I lost the will to live ...

[Thorne]

Well, I got further than you ... a few pages ... but then I lost the will to live ...

Now, don't you wish you had a gun? So you could shoot yourself? Or perhaps the guy who wrote that crap?