UK: Householders And The Use Of Force Against Intruders

Found a leaflet whilst tidying up and thought it might be informative. It didn't work when I tried to paste it, but I found it on the internet anyway.

Here on FR its often a bone of contention regarding Brit's ability to defend ourselves at home - come to think, its a bone of contention in the UK. However, as this document shows, whilst the law might not be as steeped in our favour as some would like, its not quite the situation where we have to provide tea and cakes for the burglars that some think it is.

I dare say it would be vague given that its a leaflet and produced in simple language that the wider public could understand as opposed to a document by and for members of the legal profession, that many wouldn’t read past the first paragraph. But its as official as it gets and an attempt at a little bit of fact to counterract myths and misconceptions arrived at from horror stories. :-D

One of the best-made movies I’ve seen in recent months was “Millions” (by Danny Boyle). But I was stunned to see that the police basically told citizens that 1) they would be burglarized, and 2) there was almost nothing they (the police) could do about it, NOR was it likely the people would ever get their stuff back. (They handed out forms to file for insurance instead!) It was such a defeatist attitude on the part of the police, and firmly put the criminals in charge.

It just seemed like the citizenry in the movie had all their self-reliance sucked out of themselves, and ineffective government response was a very poor substitute. I recommend reading “More Guns, Less Crime” by John Lott. Count me as one of those who believes in the deterrence factor of guns, based on first-hand experiences of the people in my life.

Of course, but that is missing the point. (It was a great story, BTW, about a little boy whose mother had died, and how the family came to grips with it.) What bugged me was the way it was just so “accepted” that the police would come into a new housing development and tell people they would be burgled over the Christmas holidays, handing out the forms they’d have to have to file a claim with insurance.

And the real-life statistics I’ve read don’t belie that underlying message. Since guns were restricted or banned in the UK, home burglaries are up, personal crimes such as assaults are up, and rapes have exploded. It’s sort of that whole “when guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns” thing.

Look at that brochure: fully half of it talks about the “legal” boundaries of self-defense, or what the government says is allowable for you to do when you are attacked so that you don’t end up being prosecuted by the government. What do you suppose would happen to burglary rates if criminals knew they could die from a shot of a homeowner’s gun, as opposed to making their getaway before the police respond to a telephone call or alarm? Are unarmed citizens people free to protect their families or themselves, or victims? I know which I’d choose to be.

I’m open to being persuaded otherwise, however.

I'm old enough, and physically infirm enough, that standing invaders off with a cricket bat just isn't likely to work. S&W puts the Snap, Crackle and Pop back into my Rice Crispies.

It seems as though the UK has failed to consider anyone but the young and strong, maybe it's just another way to get some of your old farts out of the welfare system.

“I’m old enough, and physically infirm enough, that standing invaders off with a cricket bat just isn’t likely to work. S&W puts the Snap, Crackle and Pop back into my Rice Crispies.
It seems as though the UK has failed to consider anyone but the young and strong”

Good point and one often overlooked by the martial arts advocates.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.