Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: British think burglars need protection

  1. #1
    State Researcher .40 Cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    COTEP FOREVER!, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,379

    Post imported post

    U.S. Concealed Carry
    Weekly Newsletter



    January 18th, 2007

    Dear Luis,

    Happy Friday morning!

    I've got an awesome newsletter for you this week... Let's get right down to it!

    We all know that our government has its problems... but I am featuring an article from Great Britain that I guarantee you will make it very obvious that it could be much worse!




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Michael Howard, the Tory leader, yesterday praised this newspaper's campaign. "I pay tribute to the highly effective campaign run over so many months by The Sunday Telegraph. It was the first newspaper to highlight this crucial issue and its persistence has been a key factor in winning this change to the law and in forcing Tony Blair's U-turn," he said. "We now need to ensure that Patrick Mercer's bill gets through parliament. The Sunday Telegraph's continued vigilance will be crucial in ensuring this."

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Centreville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,761

    Post imported post

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

    WOW. Sounds alot like some people over here, awwww, those poor criminals. We need to make their job easier. Too bad you law abiding citizens, we're sorry you worked so hard to earn what you have, but these criminals, they just can't get it together. So to help them feel better and safer, you can't defend yourself against them. You may as well throw out your security system, remove the locks from your doors, and leave your house wide open. Writing this makes me feel like the IRS just told me to thank them for paying taxes.

  3. #3
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    Some critics of a change in the law have voiced concerns that burglars will feel they have to carry guns, knives and other weapons to protect themselves from householders.
    Wait that doesn't make any sense! I thought guns and knives were banned there? HOW could a burglar POSSIBLY have a gun?!! You might as well say they'll bring a dinosaur with them!

  4. #4
    Regular Member MetalChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    1,215

    Post imported post

    Laaaaaaaawl! This article is from 2004!

    Anyway, things are only worse in England since then. I thank God every day that I'm back here in the good old US of A, where we at least still have some basic rights. From my time in England I got the impression that somehow the Nazis had actually come out on top...

  5. #5
    State Researcher .40 Cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    COTEP FOREVER!, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,379

    Post imported post

    Sorry about the dated material. Just got it today. The story holds true at any rate.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Centreville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,761

    Post imported post

    Regardless of when it was written, I can't believe there are people that compassionate and accepting of law breakers.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    .40 Cal wrote:
    U.S. Concealed Carry
    Weekly Newsletter




    January 18th, 2007

    Dear Luis,

    Happy Friday morning!

    I've got an awesome newsletter for you this week... Let's get right down to it!

    We all know that our government has its problems... but I am featuring an article from Great Britain that I guarantee you will make it very obvious that it could be much worse!




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Michael Howard, the Tory leader, yesterday praised this newspaper's campaign. "I pay tribute to the highly effective campaign run over so many months by The Sunday Telegraph. It was the first newspaper to highlight this crucial issue and its persistence has been a key factor in winning this change to the law and in forcing Tony Blair's U-turn," he said. "We now need to ensure that Patrick Mercer's bill gets through parliament. The Sunday Telegraph's continued vigilance will be crucial in ensuring this."
    I prefer the system out where I live. I have heard LEOs heresay, off the record, "If there is no body, there was no crime", while discussingdefense against home invasion and the abundance of abandoned mine shaftsin the desert.

  8. #8
    State Researcher .40 Cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    COTEP FOREVER!, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,379

    Post imported post

    Glad it was the police that said it and not you

  9. #9
    Regular Member MetalChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    1,215

    Post imported post

    .40 Cal wrote:
    Sorry about the dated material. Just got it today. The story holds true at any rate.
    That's cool man. My "laughter" wasn't really directed at you...I just thought it was funny that something from 3 years ago was just now being posted. And you're right in that it still holds true...England has if anything become even more criminal-friendly in the past few years.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    .40 Cal wrote:
    SNIP...giving homeowners more rights...
    I think this might be part of the problem.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Formerly of Ireland, now Martinsburg, WV, West Virginia, USA
    Posts
    77

    Post imported post

    O.K I'm in Ireland, thats in England, and you are in the USA but here goes anyway.

    You may find this hard to believe, BUT Criminals dont always pay a lot of attention to the law, in fact they have even been know to break it, I know that's hard to believe, but it's true.

    In fact here in ireland if you were to break into my home and for example break my valuable crystal glass trophy, and actually cut youself.. well you could sue me..
    or God forbid you should fall down the stairs and be injured, then i'd really have a problem.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    269

    Post imported post

    You could always move over here, we need more 1st generation Irish (I'm 3rd generation on one side, and 4th on the other, so I can't really call myself Irsh-American with any degree of sincerity).

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Centreville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,761

    Post imported post

    Wow, I feel for you Irish Ironsights. That truely sucks.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    .40 Cal wrote:
    SNIP...giving homeowners more rights...
    I think this might be part of the problem.
    Sorry for the misunderstanding, Irish_Ironsights.

    In these united States, we do not get our rights from the government. They are inherent in being human, unalienable. Thus the government doesn't give us rights; they're already ours.Thereare onlythree things government can do with respect to rights: 1) recognize them 2) protect them 3) infringe or deny them.

    I was referring to the attitude that government can give rights.Government can only give privileges. It sounds likegovernment over your way hasbeen doling out privileges to criminals while denying rights to therest of society.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    This could bring up an idea slightly more relevant to us. How many right do criminals give up in committing various crimes?

    Not to go into the whole shooting-when-not-in-self-defense issue again, but it does raise a valid point about what can be done to criminals, especially home-invading criminals. I believe it's been accepted around here than one cannot capture a home invader and torture him to death for a week in one's basement. So clearly criminals still retain some rights as a human being. But how far does it go?

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Sir John Stevens, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, dismissed fears that giving homeowners greater freedom when tackling burglars would lead to an "arms race" that would put them in greater danger. He denied that a change in the law, which currently gives homeowners the right to use "reasonable force" when tackling intruders, would encourage burglars to become more aggressive. In an interview with The Telegraph, Sir John - who last weekend came out in favour of the Right to Fight Back campaign, launched by this newspaper two months ago - said: "I am convinced that enabling householders to use whatever force is necessary will discourage burglars.
    And here we have 9 LEO political groups joining the Brady Bunch to try to deny us our 2nd Amendment rights. *sigh* It is as if Britain suffers some sort of collective guilt, like we see with the left in the US. Or maybe it is the history of being subjects and they are too use to asking for rights instead of asserting them. Or perhaps too many of their true freedom lovers immigrated here. Whatever it is, I really don't understand the mindset yet.


    imperialism2024 wrote:
    This could bring up an idea slightly more relevant to us. How many right do criminals give up in committing various crimes?

    Not to go into the whole shooting-when-not-in-self-defense issue again, but it does raise a valid point about what can be done to criminals, especially home-invading criminals. I believe it's been accepted around here than one cannot capture a home invader and torture him to death for a week in one's basement. So clearly criminals still retain some rights as a human being. But how far does it go?
    I think that in most places in the US it is generally accepted that if someone is in your house uninvited (and in some states a vehicle in which you are traveling as well) or attempting to forcefully enter your current abode or vehicle in which you are traveling, that there is a presumption that they intend you harm and that the level of harm is further presumed to be up to and including death or serious physical injury. As in any case when one is in imminent danger of death or serious physical injury, once that persumption exists, force may be used, up to lethal force, to eliminate the threat. In such a case that would mean until the intruder is no longer physically able to do you harm. Once the threat is eliminated, the situation is over except as far as contacting the authorities to remove the person, or to report their actions and flight from the scene. I don't see any criminal rights issue here unless one gets into the issue of say a home owner continuing past the point that threat is neutralized.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Formerly of Ireland, now Martinsburg, WV, West Virginia, USA
    Posts
    77

    Post imported post

    is is slightly off the point but still relative, if you want to be scared or wet yourself with laughter try this.

    In the U.K not in Ireland (yet)

    Corrections officers have been urged to show respect to inmates by knocking on cell doors before going in.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...nprison124.xml

    Now read that and tell me how bad things are getting !



  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    I think I now understand the low birth rate among native British. The men have surrendered their cajones. Absurd to the extreme.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •