Protecting yourself from criminals in U.K.---Sounds criminal

I was just shocked by this story......and invite comment from U.K people. Its something I don't understand.....making people who protect home and hearth criminals. Is there real outrage there? Or do quite a few people align with the idea that violence in any context is criminal.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...r-burglars-shot-was-plagued-by-break-ins.html

 

A lot depends on when the shotgun was fired, if the intruder's injuries are in the chest or the back. If in the chest, then the shots were fired in self defence, if in the back, then the danger was passed.

The arrests may even be a cautionary measure. The man and his wife will get bail while the incident is investigated.

It's not as if the intruders got away with it. They are under arrest too and charges will follow.

 

Did you read this part towards the bottom of the story?

In 2009, the millionaire businessman Munir Hussain fought back with a metal pole and a cricket bat against a knife-wielding burglar who tied up his family at their home in Buckinghamshire. Hussain was jailed for two and a half years, despite his attacker being spared prison.
Appeal judges reduced the sentence to a year’s jail, suspended.
The case prompted David Cameron to announce that home owners and shopkeepers would have the right to protect themselves against burglars and robbers.

 

Being arrested on suspcion of a crime is not making anyone a criminal. Preliminary arrests are normal practice in this kind of situation, necessary to proceed with the investigation as the details are not going to be at all clear (not that this applied to the alleged burglars too).

If it is considered that they used reasonable force in defending themselves, I've no doubt they will be released. The UK law if different to that of much of the US in that we don't have the automatic right to kill anyone who sets foot on our property. There are significant rights in self defence (especially in your own home) but there is still a measure of reasonable force where use of a firearm would naturally be at the upper end.

I'm sure there will be some outrage from the usual suspects (generally not with any concern for the people involved) but I would hope and expect most British people would let the legal process proceed, observed with the appropriate checks and balances.

 

Can you point out where the law was changed? It's not America. Prime Ministers cannot just make statements that reverse procedures.

 

Exactly. It's all about the context, and investigating the chain of events - the fact that someone has been arrested means that the police are investigating (and wanting to talk to them under oath), which is entirely normal. In fact, I'd be quite concerned if they didn't investigate the circumstances where someone got shot! I'd expect someone who shot a person to be arrested during an investigation, but whether they are then charged depends on what the investigation discovers about what happens. Nothing wrong with that at all.

You ARE allowed to defend yourself and your property in the UK, and to do so using force, but only necessary force. What you aren't allowed to do is use unnecessary force to do so, such as continuing to attack/hurt someone when there is no longer any danger. It's not that 'any violence is criminal' or anything, just that any serious violence like this will be investigated (and an arrest is a perfectly normal part of that procedure, obviously), and that the questions will be asked about whether what was done was at all necessary or appropriate.

We don't know the full details in this case yet, but as an example, if they had shot the 'intruder' because he was directly attempting to do them serious harm and they needed to defend themselves, that wouldn't be exactly unreasonable, and in all likelyhood there would be no charges (if there were any doubt, of course, there would be charges, and the court would be left to decide). If, on the other hand, they saw him breaking into their car and just leaned out of the window of the house and just gunned him down on the spot, that would be an entirely different matter! Shooting them while they are runing away is another big no-no - the danger is over, so it's unnecessary to do so. It might well be that the circumstances are actually somewhere in between those extremes, but that's what the police need to investigate to determine whether charges should be brought (and also what a future court might need to decide to determine whether the shooter should be convicted of something).

Shootings in the UK are very unusual, because not many people have guns. Not even many criminals have guns, so most won't attempt to do anything other than run away if they are faced with one. Every shooting incident will be taken vary seriously be the police, and will be thoroughly investigated - I would guess that almost every incident would result in the shooter being initially arrested to be formally interviewed as part of the investigation. Not every one results in charge or conviction, though - it depends on the circumstances.

That's exactly as it should be, IMO - although any original criminality on the part of such 'intruders is clearly wrong, and should be dealt with by the legal system appropriately, we shouldn't allow a system to develop where anyone seen doing something that is suspected as being 'criminal' can be shot at willy-nilly, regardless of how much or little actual threat the pose to anyone else!

 

Everyone involved was arrested so that statements can be taken under caution. When they are charged and convicted, THEN they will be criminalised.

 

If you can believe it, in England a man was charged with use of a deadly weapon because he used a book to defend himself. The laws in England are insane.

 

That wasn't a self defence case. The attacker had fled but Hussain sought out his brother-in-law (IIRC), gathered weapons and tracked the attacker down. They proceeded to beat the him close to death, leaving him with permenant brain damage (a key piece of evidence was a cricket bat striking so hard that it broke). Whatever you think about the attacker, there is no way you can call that either self-defence or reasonable force.

I think that was mostly political rhetoric. I recall some clarification from the CPS (our prosecutors) on the issue and some minor proposals tacked on to leglisation going through parliament at the time but I'm not aware of any significant changes being made (or indeed being required).

 

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Melton-farmhouse-shooting-Andy-Tracey-Ferrie-face/story-16829503-detail/story.html

So that's that, then!

 

I am unfamiliar with UK Law. Over here, if you are arrested, you have a permanent record for that event. Is that true over there?

 

Over here in the U.S. you are arrested only when you are suspected of a crime. In case of justifiable homicide---a person is not arrested or charged unless there is evidence of wrong-doing. Its not automatic to assume someone is a criminal here in the U.S.

Arrested is not the same things as being questioned. But the British seem to view it that way.

 

Unless it's changed since I emigrated, no record exists until a conviction. And add this to your lack of knowledge (not intended as a backhand remark) - even if someone charged with a crime has 100 previous convictions, the jury must not be told of such until they have convicted him. If they don't convict, the previous record is not revealed to the jury.

 

An arrest isn't in any way an assumption of criminality over here - anyone who is going to be interviewed in relation to any sort of possible 'crime' (and shooting people is obviously a 'possible crime', whether or not it turns out to have been an 'actual crime'!) is likely to be arrested. In effect, in practise, over here 'arrested' pretty much does mean the same as 'being questioned' - it just means they can be questioned under caution in a taped interview, which isn't an unreasonable thing to want to do in the case of a person who has just shot someone. I guess it also means that there's no danger of the police mistakenly deciding in the first instance that they hadn't done anything wrong and finding out later that they then went out and shot someone else or something!

It doesn't create criminal record or anything, though, or have any negative effect on a person's standing. I'm not sure of the current status of how long a record of the arrest would be held, but it will just be a record to say they were arrested and not charged, because they were found to not have done anything wrong. It isn't the police that decide on charges, and isn't up to them to decide whether 'wrong has been done' by someone or whether the 'possible crime' was an 'actual crime' - they arrest, interview and investigate, and submit their evidence to the CPS for them to make the decision from that whether someone should be charged with a criminal offense, as was done in this case (and the CPS decided that no crime was committed in relation to the shooting, so they weren't charged, and that is an end to the matter).

It's just a procedural difference in the way that arrests are used, but nothing more than that - the people who were arrested aren't in any way branded as having done anything wrong as a result of the arrest - it was just standard procedure to arrest them for interview as part of the investigation to see if there was any wrong-doing on their part (or whether a 'crime' had actually been committed).

 

Actually---the U.K reasoning to arrest someone is pretty much the same as the U.S reasoning. The arresting officer can arrest if they are reasonably sure the person is a criminal.

So if all home-owners are arrested upon shooting a home intruder---then the first assumption is that these home-owners are criminals.

This is so foreign to me....and something most Americans feel repulsed by. To be considered automatically a criminal for defending your home or family.....is not acceptable.

That said.....I live in Oklahoma---all my neighbors have guns, we do and we all would shoot an intruder in our home without fear of being---a criminal. We don't have to be distracted from protecting our families by worrying about specific legalities.

Not all states here are like that. We have many states that are very similar to U.K.

 

Not 'reasonably sure' at all, but 'suspected'. Someone who has just shot someone else will automatically be 'suspected' of having done something criminal - that doesn't mean 'reasonably sure', and it certainly doesn't mean that they have, it just means it's 'suspected' that they might have (just on the grounds that somebody has been shot, and they shot him!). Any shooting incident would be a 'suspected' crime here - remember that those are very rare, and as a result will always be treated very seriously - relatively few people have guns, and UK law doesn't actually allow guns to be held legally just for protection of property (many farmers have them for pest control and/or hunting, and if they have them they can obviously use them in this kind of instance, but 'protection' is not considered grounds for issuing a gun licence).

They are arrested and read their rights:
"You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence." (that's slightly different from the US version)

That allows everything they say to be recorded, and allows for a properly taped interview to be conducted at a police station. When someone has just shot someone else, the police will always need to do that, to record exactly their side of the story (without them being able to claim that they said something different or whatever). Once their side has been told, they can compare witness statements and so on, and pass it on to the CPS. The CPS will always make the decision in something as serious as a shooting incident. The CPS reviewed the evidence, investigated the scene to check that things were as the shooters said they were, and accepted that there was no crime committed - the 'suspects' were then released with no charge, and stain on their character.

Perhaps other places do it differently, but personally I think it is absolutely right to go through that procedure in such a case. Aside from the fact that there may genuinely have been a crime committed anyway (had the intruders been shot in the back while running away, that would no longer have been considered using 'reasonable' force to protect themselves or their property - that's what happened in the infamous Tony Martin case, and why he was convicted of a crime), what if the police got to the scene, believed a story made up by the shooter, walked away and left the shooter to go out and look for someone else to shoot (a third member of the gang that broke in, for example - it was possible, until investigations supported the claim, that there was more going on than the simple 'break in' that was being claimed - what if it were actually a drug gang turf war or something)? What if they then claimed to not have said what the police said they had? The police generally wouldn't be assumed to be teling porkies, obviously, but still, the words wouldn't have been recorded. What if they had shown the officers a gun licence that later turned out to be a clever forgery, and they were actually armed drug dealers who then went on the run? The police err on the side of caution in a serious incident where guns are involved, and rightly so. Yes, it inconvenienced the couple for a day or two, but better that than the potential risks associated with not arresting them, IMO.

 

I understand your viewpoint but disagree. To be arrested is not a matter of policy...but an assumption that a person is involved in crime. Homeowners who kill intruders are routinely arrested for "suspicion of murder". That is a pretty strong assumption to take at the start of the crime. Even when its blatantly obvious that the intruder broke in--and police are giving their opinion that the homeowner is not at fault---the homeowner is arrested under "suspician of murder". Its just plain wrong. Its as wrong as routinely arresting every business owner who carries insurance for "suspician of arson" when a business burns down. The arrest in either case is meant to send a chilling message.



Protecting your family and home is not reasonable enough to assume innocence.

Here in the U.S.....an arrest is taken very seriously. The police arrest you when they view you as a suspect. I have no doubt its the same there. Once someone is viewed as a suspect---they are vulnerable to that assumption.

Reading this article---its obvious that people with commonsense are BEGGING that these people not be charged. The fear is obvious and so should the problem---that there is a very real possibility that a homeowner protecting property and family can end up in prison.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...owner-held-police-burglars-shot-break-in.html

And the shooting in the back---that bothers me alot that a person is a criminal if they don't shoot the intruder in the front. A person surprised by an intruder can't choreograph the perfect scenario. People have a whitewashed vision of what happens in a home invasion. A criminal running out of the home could be figuring out another way to come in. That is what I would be thinking. In a situation where the criminal makes a turn for a door.....I wouldn't feel any safer. Its human nature to keep firing in fear and adrenline until the threat is over----

A homeowner shouldn't be arrested til there is suspicion that he or she did something wrong. Killing a home intruder must be wrong in the U.K no matter what the situation. Then....with the pleas and public outcry from those who care in the U.K to not charge the homeowner---they are after weeks of deliberation---not charged.

 

When it comes to self defence, Britons live in the Dark Ages. The fanatical leftists that run most of the media and government pretend that modern technology does not exist for the purpose of individual freedom and protection.

I see similarities between the Amish and Labor Leftists. The Amish here live as though it is still the early 19th century. Technology is somehow sinful and evil. Outdated clothes, no electricity, no motorized vehicles or equipment, and no phones. A lifestyle based on a warped understanding of religion. British Leftists have the same feelings about weapons and personal defence. Modern guns are sinful in the hands of the common man. The life and welfare of the criminal far outweigh those of the innocent victim. It is too barbaric to fight back with a basic effective weapon like a sword, much less a modern handgun [the most logical personal defence weapon]. Leftists also think hyper-violent criminals can not be put to death, even if they were allowed to run free after multiple short stays in prison, to finally break into homes and murder the occupants.

The ideas of the British Left are as outdated as the American Amish.

 

Nothing should be assumed at first sight when the police arrive - that's the point of the investigation. If someone shoots someone in their own home, and says they were 'just protecting themselves', that doesn't necessarily make what they say the truth. Likewise, if someone shoots someone in their own home, and says they were 'just protecting themselves', that doesn't necessarily make what they say a lie either, or mean that they have used unreasonable force, or mean that they have committed any crime. As a precaution, though, and for the purposes of having a proper investigation, they are arrested and evidence is gathered to either confirm or contradict their story, and then a decision about charges made on that basis. I think that's entirely reasonable.

As for the 'shooting in the back' thing, I agree with you to an extent about choreographing the perfect scenario, but the key question is whether a person has acted reasonably in what they have done (it's not just about being shot in the back rather than the front). In the Tony Martin case, he shot them once on the stairs, but when they ran to try to get out of the window he shot again (in the back, but that itself isn't the critical feature - just a probable indication of directions of movement and so on), and one of them was killed. Obvously we don't have the full evidence to review, but the jury effectively decided (rightly or wrongly, but based on the full evidence which we don't have) that he had known that they were trying to escape, but had followed them and shot at them again, and with the actual intent to kill - that's what was seen as being unreasonable. Had he just shot at them to protect himself and his property, that would have been fair enough (as it was in this case), but he was (in the opinion of the jury) doing something different - shooting them with the intent to actually kill them (not just 'disable' or 'capture' them, but actually kill them), rather than allowing them to run away when he knew (in the opinion of the jury, based on the full evidence) that's what they were trying to do. That was a highly unusual case, though.

I agree that in the heat of the moment that it might not be the easiest decision to be making whether to shoot again, but the jury had access to the full evidence and made the decision accordingly, so I'm not going to pass judgement on partial evidence to say they were wrong. Of course, people often do pass judgement on such partial evidence in such cases, and some will say how awful it was that Tony Martin ended up convicted, but they don't know what the jury knew when they made the decision. The same is true in this case - the reports only give a very brief account, and some poeople did indeed start campaigning on that basis, but its entirely probable that there was never any risk at all of the couple being actually charged. The police were just following would would have been standard procedure in a shooting case, and for what I think are quite understandable reasons.

The intention of the laws (and of the arrests of people in such circumstances) is not to stop people protecting themselves against intruders - that's the important thing to realise. It is to stop vigilantism - to stop people killing a petty thief in revenge for breaking in, or taking similar extreme and unnecessary action in the name of 'self defence' that isn't actually needed at all. There's nothing wrong according to UK law with, for example, threatening and then hitting (if the threat doesn't work) a burglar with a stick to get them to go away, or even hitting them with a stick to knock them down and hold them until the police arrive - however, beating them into unconciousness and then going on to beat them to death with that stick for breaking into the house is not 'self defence', it's just revenge. That is what there are laws against - going over the top to take revenge. Since a gun is an extreme weapon to be using, any instance where it is actually fired at and hits someone will be fully investigated to see whether it was 'self defence' or an over the top revenge reaction - that is absolutely as it should be, IMO.

 

That is factually wrong, in both the UK and US. If an arrest was an assumption of guilt, it would not be necessary to do anything else to bring a charge and it would not be the responsibility of prosecutors to positively prove guilt in court.

An arrest (of this kind) is on the basis of reasonable suspicion you may have committed a crime. If one person has been shot and another is holding a discharged gun, it is reasonable to suspect a crime may have been committed. There are circumstance where shooting someone is not a crime but it is necessary for the police to investigate and establish those circumstances. Arresting the suspect is an important tool in that process.

In a perfect world, anyone using violence to legitimately defend themselves would suffer any further inconvenience as a result but this isn't a perfect world. That inconvenience is unfortunately necessary to an extent to avoid allowing people to use violence illegitimately but get away with it by simply claiming "self defence".

I think that's a flawed comparison. Any business owner found near their burning building holding a petrol can would likely be arrested on suspicion of arson, even if they claimed a legitimate sounding reason.

Knowing UK police officers who themselves have worked alongside US ones, I think you're wrong. I got the impression that there were some significantly different attitudes towards apparently similar aspects of their job.

That isn't true. What is true in the UK is that it generally isn't considered reasonable force to shoot an attacker who is already fleeing. If someone is shot in the back it clearly could be an indication that this is the case but other evidence would be required to prove it either way.

Lots of things are "human nature" yet still illegal. Even in the US, you can't kill someone just because you feel threatened.

A couple of days in this case. I'd prefer the police took their time to carry out a thorough investigation rather than jumping to conclusions either way.

 

That is complete nonsense, as the evidence of this case clearly demonstrates. People are allowed to 'fight back' and are allowed to defend themselves here, including with guns if they have them (and the reason people don't generally have tuns is that most people don't want them, or feel the need to have them), as shown in this case - such assumptions as displayed above are not based in reality.

People are allowed to do what is necessary to protect themselves. They aren't allowed to go above and beyond that to take revenge. It's very simple - while people may protect themselves, it is for the courts to deal with punishing offenders, not for victims of crime to take it upon themselves to pass instant judgement, and impose and instant sentences of violent and harsh physical pubishments. That is how a civilised society should operate.

 

The biggest problem I see is the expectation for a person to make the same judgment about what level of force is necessary while in a life or death situation that a judge or jury will make while sitting in a nice, safe courtroom.

 

arrested is anything that prevents you from going about your business by your own volition. If you decide to talk with an officer then it is your volition. If the officer puts handcuffs on you you are arrested. They use syntax terrorism however to get around your rights and call it detain now days, but its arrest.

 

and when you are in fear for your life the proper response is?

In america its shoot them dead. We are a common law country and have nearly an identical bill of rights as you do.

 

If you feared for your life and shot an attacker dead rather than wounding them because there was no realistic alternative way of protecting yourself, that would certainly be justifiable in terms of self defence (although you would obviously be arrested and questioned about the matter, and rightly so). If you shot someone dead while they were desperately trying to get out of a window downstairs having already been shot by you upstairs (as Tony Martin did), it's probably alot harder to argue that you felt that you had no alternative but to kill them in order to protect yourself from harm!