self-defence

In dealing with personal defence the questions to be answered are such as:  ‘What are you going to do if – you have intruders in the house – a gang is damaging your property – armed intruders break into your house, cinema, shop, school?’ etc. 

The police have no legal obligation to protect individuals from violence.  You alone are responsible for dealing with such incidents in the first instance.  In addition you have a civic and moral duty to be prepared to protect yourself and others.  All laws relating to assault and the carrying of weapons must thus be amended to allow citizens to act in such situations without fear of prosecution.  

Reasonable force.  This term should be abandoned – it is a contradiction in terms. Personal violence is inherently unreasonable because it is always life-threatening and automatically invokes our ‘flight or fight’ survival response.  Our bodies change involuntarily to protect us and our minds  focus solely on what we can do to survive – we become less human.  Given that few of us experience violence, the idea that the righteousness of our actions in a few frenzied seconds of terror and panic can be determined calmly in a court of law is both ludicrous, offensive and an asset to the criminal.  

Weapons.  The current laws forbidding the carrying of weapons should be repealed and replaced by one relating to their use:  brandishing one in public would be an automatic offence (fine) and also make the brandisher a legitimate self-defence target for other citizens;  threatening with one would be an automatic jail sentence.

The law banning the carrying of knives has not prevented any killings but has had law-abiding people prosecuted for carrying multi-tools and Swiss Army knives etc.  90 years of very strict firearms ‘control’ legislation has not prevented spree killings, or a relentless increase in firearms crime.  It has however, given criminals a cast-iron. Government-backed guarantee that their victims will be defenceless. 

To claim that the availability of weapons encourages their use is not supported by evidence and, in a politician, shows a profound lack of trust in the people.  The Swiss have more firearms per head of population than the US and very little armed crime and even in the ‘infamous’ US itself, burglary and house invasions are quite rare.   

The only thing that might have stopped Michael Ryan at Hungerford, Thomas Hamilton at Dunblane, Derrick Bird in Cumbria or so-called terrorists taking to our streets as in Mumbai is the possibility that any citizen, anywhere, might be in a position to return fire. 

Incidentally, being safe with a firearm is blissfully easy – well within the intellectual compass of the average six-year old.

See also http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/repeal-the-terrorism-laws

Source:  http://www.alternativeparty.org.uk

Why is this idea important?

In dealing with personal defence the questions to be answered are such as:  ‘What are you going to do if – you have intruders in the house – a gang is damaging your property – armed intruders break into your house, cinema, shop, school?’ etc. 

The police have no legal obligation to protect individuals from violence.  You alone are responsible for dealing with such incidents in the first instance.  In addition you have a civic and moral duty to be prepared to protect yourself and others.  All laws relating to assault and the carrying of weapons must thus be amended to allow citizens to act in such situations without fear of prosecution.  

Reasonable force.  This term should be abandoned – it is a contradiction in terms. Personal violence is inherently unreasonable because it is always life-threatening and automatically invokes our ‘flight or fight’ survival response.  Our bodies change involuntarily to protect us and our minds  focus solely on what we can do to survive – we become less human.  Given that few of us experience violence, the idea that the righteousness of our actions in a few frenzied seconds of terror and panic can be determined calmly in a court of law is both ludicrous, offensive and an asset to the criminal.  

Weapons.  The current laws forbidding the carrying of weapons should be repealed and replaced by one relating to their use:  brandishing one in public would be an automatic offence (fine) and also make the brandisher a legitimate self-defence target for other citizens;  threatening with one would be an automatic jail sentence.

The law banning the carrying of knives has not prevented any killings but has had law-abiding people prosecuted for carrying multi-tools and Swiss Army knives etc.  90 years of very strict firearms ‘control’ legislation has not prevented spree killings, or a relentless increase in firearms crime.  It has however, given criminals a cast-iron. Government-backed guarantee that their victims will be defenceless. 

To claim that the availability of weapons encourages their use is not supported by evidence and, in a politician, shows a profound lack of trust in the people.  The Swiss have more firearms per head of population than the US and very little armed crime and even in the ‘infamous’ US itself, burglary and house invasions are quite rare.   

The only thing that might have stopped Michael Ryan at Hungerford, Thomas Hamilton at Dunblane, Derrick Bird in Cumbria or so-called terrorists taking to our streets as in Mumbai is the possibility that any citizen, anywhere, might be in a position to return fire. 

Incidentally, being safe with a firearm is blissfully easy – well within the intellectual compass of the average six-year old.

See also http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/repeal-the-terrorism-laws

Source:  http://www.alternativeparty.org.uk

Let my home be my “castle” again

There are times when, I'm sure, we all feel a little unsafe or scared on the streets so when we are at home, we should feel completely safe and secure with the law on our side but the current system by which anyone breaking into a house has more rights than the home owner is completely backward and needs to be changed.  The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 goes part of the way to redress the balance but not far enough.

I fully accept that we can't lie in wait to attack anyone entering our property but homewowners should be allowed to use more than "reasonable force" to repel intruders. Why should I have to wait for an intruder to assault me before I assault him back?  I don't accept the general USA model where intruders can be shot but I do like the concept of "if you break into a house, you have no rights and have to accept the consequences", including getting hit with the cricket bat I keep by the bed  Similarly, if a burglar injures himself inside my house by slipping on loose carpet, or falls in a hole I hve dug in the garden, he should have no rights at all and should not be able to sue me for injury.

Why is this idea important?

There are times when, I'm sure, we all feel a little unsafe or scared on the streets so when we are at home, we should feel completely safe and secure with the law on our side but the current system by which anyone breaking into a house has more rights than the home owner is completely backward and needs to be changed.  The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 goes part of the way to redress the balance but not far enough.

I fully accept that we can't lie in wait to attack anyone entering our property but homewowners should be allowed to use more than "reasonable force" to repel intruders. Why should I have to wait for an intruder to assault me before I assault him back?  I don't accept the general USA model where intruders can be shot but I do like the concept of "if you break into a house, you have no rights and have to accept the consequences", including getting hit with the cricket bat I keep by the bed  Similarly, if a burglar injures himself inside my house by slipping on loose carpet, or falls in a hole I hve dug in the garden, he should have no rights at all and should not be able to sue me for injury.

Self Defense

For any man and woman to defend themselves and love ones, and anything they own (houses, cars etc) without the risk of being sent to jail themselves…unarmed and non-legal weaponary (taser at least)

Why is this idea important?

For any man and woman to defend themselves and love ones, and anything they own (houses, cars etc) without the risk of being sent to jail themselves…unarmed and non-legal weaponary (taser at least)

Self Protection

I think that individuals should have the right to defend themselves against personal attack – with reasonable force – and also to make a citizens arrest with, or without, reasonable force when their homes are invaded by burglars, without the fear of recrimination by the perpetrator.  Anyone committing such offences should forfeit their rights to seek redress against the innocent party.  We should return to the idea that "an Englishman's home is his castle" – this idea to include their person.

Why is this idea important?

I think that individuals should have the right to defend themselves against personal attack – with reasonable force – and also to make a citizens arrest with, or without, reasonable force when their homes are invaded by burglars, without the fear of recrimination by the perpetrator.  Anyone committing such offences should forfeit their rights to seek redress against the innocent party.  We should return to the idea that "an Englishman's home is his castle" – this idea to include their person.

Burglars Rights

I know burglars are human beings and it doesn't mean that they have any less rights – but by intently breaking into someone's property (and therefore disregarding others rights i.e privacy) it doesn't seem fair that their rights are defendable just as much as a citizen who respects others rights. surely a society that is better is one where everybody respects everybody – therefore a burglar wouldn't contribute holistically to a better society. i believe a deterrent to this is if the burglar doesn't have as many rights as they have today – therefore reducing the amount of burglars and the increasing the contribution towards a better society.

i'm not a lawyer and don't know any loopholes or cases but you do hear of those where a burglar injure his toe or falls on something sharp when breaking in and claims against the owner of the property. other laws have received criticism for not allowing an owner of a home to react against a criminal intruder OR making the owner feel like they cannot react because if they do they will be subject to the judicial system. 

to conclude, i believe that burglars should have less rights than they do currently. although killing another human is wrong – owners should have more rights against intruders; such as reasonable force or harm, i.e being able to hurt an intruders arm or leg in order to disarm them or encourage them to leave or use force to hold them until police arrive. not only this but any accidental harm a burglar experiences would be seen as there own fault as it was there decision to break into a property. finally, i propose that an owner isn't scrutinized because they may keep an object of protection with them in their bedroom – it may be forward planned but it doesn't mean they WANT to use it.

Why is this idea important?

I know burglars are human beings and it doesn't mean that they have any less rights – but by intently breaking into someone's property (and therefore disregarding others rights i.e privacy) it doesn't seem fair that their rights are defendable just as much as a citizen who respects others rights. surely a society that is better is one where everybody respects everybody – therefore a burglar wouldn't contribute holistically to a better society. i believe a deterrent to this is if the burglar doesn't have as many rights as they have today – therefore reducing the amount of burglars and the increasing the contribution towards a better society.

i'm not a lawyer and don't know any loopholes or cases but you do hear of those where a burglar injure his toe or falls on something sharp when breaking in and claims against the owner of the property. other laws have received criticism for not allowing an owner of a home to react against a criminal intruder OR making the owner feel like they cannot react because if they do they will be subject to the judicial system. 

to conclude, i believe that burglars should have less rights than they do currently. although killing another human is wrong – owners should have more rights against intruders; such as reasonable force or harm, i.e being able to hurt an intruders arm or leg in order to disarm them or encourage them to leave or use force to hold them until police arrive. not only this but any accidental harm a burglar experiences would be seen as there own fault as it was there decision to break into a property. finally, i propose that an owner isn't scrutinized because they may keep an object of protection with them in their bedroom – it may be forward planned but it doesn't mean they WANT to use it.

Support self-defence, don’t punish it

People who try to defend their property, their families and themselves from actually or potentially violent thieves and hooligans can find themselves in the dock.

This is completely against natural justice. It allows the cocky yob to exploit his 'rights' to steal and assault with impunity and forbids the victim from self-defence.

If I keep a baseball bat by my front door (I don't as it happens) and use it in defence I am deemed to have had prior intent to bash yobs' brains in and am automatically in the wrong from the start. Yet where is it more intelligent to keep such a weapon than by the front door?

The milksops who run my local police advise us, if threatened, to retreat upstairs and call 999. If I'm lucky, an officer will visit some hours later and take a statement. Meanwhile, my house may have been trashed and my family harmed.

Why is this idea important?

People who try to defend their property, their families and themselves from actually or potentially violent thieves and hooligans can find themselves in the dock.

This is completely against natural justice. It allows the cocky yob to exploit his 'rights' to steal and assault with impunity and forbids the victim from self-defence.

If I keep a baseball bat by my front door (I don't as it happens) and use it in defence I am deemed to have had prior intent to bash yobs' brains in and am automatically in the wrong from the start. Yet where is it more intelligent to keep such a weapon than by the front door?

The milksops who run my local police advise us, if threatened, to retreat upstairs and call 999. If I'm lucky, an officer will visit some hours later and take a statement. Meanwhile, my house may have been trashed and my family harmed.

Repeal ‘reasonable force’ Law for people confronting intruders

This law should be repealed or replaced by 'any force' is acceptable, whatever the outcome of that intervention.

Civil Liberties/Civil Defence – Redress the Balance

 

 

Why is this idea important?

This law should be repealed or replaced by 'any force' is acceptable, whatever the outcome of that intervention.

Civil Liberties/Civil Defence – Redress the Balance

 

 

Homeowners should not be shackled by ‘use reasonable force’ when defending their home. Only ‘unreasonable killing’ should be penalised, and only by the police, not civil courts

The onus, during a home invasion, is on the homeowner to use nothing more than 'reasonable force' in attempting to defend their home.

Under such circumstances as being burgled, most honest citizens, who are not boxers or cage fighters, don't really know what this means and risk being criminialised for defending themselves and their families.

Career criminals who make the lives of so many such a misery are protected in their unreasonable behaviour. (behaviour that is decided upon in a rational and cold blooded way) – wheras the victims, under extreme duress, are expected to be like saints.

Also-   make any prosecution of  homeowners solely at the discretion of the Police, bot the Civil Courts.

Why is this idea important?

The onus, during a home invasion, is on the homeowner to use nothing more than 'reasonable force' in attempting to defend their home.

Under such circumstances as being burgled, most honest citizens, who are not boxers or cage fighters, don't really know what this means and risk being criminialised for defending themselves and their families.

Career criminals who make the lives of so many such a misery are protected in their unreasonable behaviour. (behaviour that is decided upon in a rational and cold blooded way) – wheras the victims, under extreme duress, are expected to be like saints.

Also-   make any prosecution of  homeowners solely at the discretion of the Police, bot the Civil Courts.