A Civitas report on crime, ominously called The Failure of Britain’s Police, argues that forces of law and order have lost control. Police in Britain are so overwhelmed by the sheer volume of crime that even recent extra recruits are making no difference according to the report published today.
The comparison with New York figures is startling. In 1991 there were 22,000 robberies in London. In 2002 there were 44,600, an increase of 105 per cent. In 1991 there were 99,000 robberies in New York City. In 2002 there were 27,000, a decrease of 73 per cent. To draw equal with New York’s achievement, London would thus have to gain no fewer than 178 percentage points in its fight against street crime.
The report concludes that to halt the rising levels of street crime, substantial increases in numbers of policemen, as seen in New York, are necessary. Zero tolence policing is called for to set clear boundaries and re-take the public places from anti-social elements.
However, that has not been the Home office’s priority. Their approach is predictable:
In the face of staggering volumes of crime, the police and the Home Office are reduced to ‘bringing crime under control’ by legalising or decriminalising many offences on the grounds that they aren’t so bad after all.
Oh, and here is the government’s story about crime figures. Crime is 9 per cent down and believe this, if you can:
These figures show Government measures to reduce crime are working. Crime is continuing a downward trend and the risk of being a victim remains at its lowest level for 20 years.
I know whether I feel safe in London or not. How about this radical solution – allow people defend themselves!
“- allow people defend themselves”?? – you muppet!
Surely the quickest and most effective crime suppression would be provided by more amnesties for guns, knives, crowbars, baseball bats, screwdrivers, bricks, bottles, balaclavas, white baseball caps, sportswear……………
Lets rid the streets of these dangerous articles which corrupt the impressionable youth into crime.
The Telegraph has a piece on this today, too. Among their observations:
It’s tempting to indulge in a little post hoc and couple the rise in crime with the rise in immigration to the UK.
A recent court decision here in America posited that the citizen has no legal right to police protection, and that the government shall be held harmless by the courts for not providing it, regardless of any and all consequences.
Coupling that with the destruction of the right of self-defense, which is well in train throughout our country (though we’re still a tad behind Britain) makes for a frightening picture of the American future: a populace ravaged by both “private” and “public” predators, and unable to defend itself against either.
O my people! O my city!
Speaking as a devil’s advocate here, where do you guys draw the line between self-defence and private citizens acting as judge, jury and executioner?
I’m not trolling, I genuniely want to know.
I was told by a Texan that ‘if somebody is on your land without your permission after dark then it is his problem if he is shot’.
What about public spaces?
What strikes me as peculiar about all this crime talk is that it has coincided with a huge rise in public surveillance cameras in Britain.
Do they not work? In which case, are they worth the privacy they invade?
Might cameras even make people _less_ vigilant about helping and watching other members of the community? Could cameras make people complacent?
Or are the police bending some of the figures in another familiar bid for more funding and more powers over the rest of us?
Something, somewhere doesn’t add up, I feel.
Pleading self-defense should not automatically excuse a person from responsibility for their actions. If someone ends up dead, then an investigation regarding the legitimacy of that action is certainly called for… but in many situations, there should be a presumption of self-defence (such as on private property).
Pro-self-defence advocates such as us are not calling for a blanket open season on anyone who might an intruder or mugger, but certainly if they do indeed turn out to have been an intruder or mugger, then if they suffer violence at the hands of the people they seek to prey on, then we have no sympathy for them whatsoever and also regard such an outcome as a legitimate exercise of the right of self defence… for self-defense and therefore logically the means to carry it out, is indeed an objective right, not a state granted privilege.
To say a person has a ‘right to self-defence’ (as the law does in Britain) but then to deny them them means to actually effectively conduct that defence is not just logically bizarre, it is a monstrous injustice.
Keep in mind that in New York City people also have the right to self-defence but are not allowed to have the means to do so effectively. However, people who manage to defend themselves anyway are usually not actively persecuted by the government, which seems to be the case in London.
Ronald Dixon is now being actively persecuted by the Brooklyn District Attorney for defending his family with an unlicensed handgun. Mr. Dixon awoke early one morning and discovered an intruder in his home. Mr. Dixon had recently moved from Florida where he had legally purchased a handgun, to Brooklyn where he was in the process of getting the gun licensed as required by the City. He used that gun to shoot the intruder, who had a long history of criminal behavior.
Mr. Dixon is being prosecuted for having an unlicensed handgun. The shooting occurred in January. Mr. Dixon is ex-military and has no criminal record.
He should have been given an award. Instead, he’s fighting the prosecution. Do a Google search. It will make you quite angry.
Tim Hall wrote:
—-
Speaking as a devil’s advocate here, where do you guys draw the line between self-defence and private citizens acting as judge, jury and executioner?
—-
Generally the defender (or an innocent person) must be in “immediate danger of suffering death or permanent injury”. The attacker must have the means, opportunity, and intent to cause grievous personal injury or death. The same sort of criteria the police must satisfy before using deadly force. If someone calls you up and says they are going to beat you with a baseball bat you would be wrong (and illegal) to go to their place and shoot them. If they came to your place, knocked down your door and you shot them as they came in with the baseball bat you would be justified in stopping the attack using deadly force. If they fell to the floor, but were still alive, it would be wrong (and prosecutable) for you to then put additional bullets in them.
All of this is very well understood law. At least in the parts of the country where I am willing to travel. I live and travel where I can legally carry my handgun with me — about half of the states.
Joe Huffman
NRA Personal Protection Instructor
Tim-
As far as public spaces go, if you ever pull a weapon on me, no matter where you are, expect to die. I wouldn’t kill someone for punching me, but a baseball bat, knife, gun, or any other aid would be the end of it.
I think it’s judge, jury, and executioner when someone says “well I think it was that guy, so now I’m going to kill him.” But if you present a threat to my life – and yes, flashing a weapon counts, because I don’t know how likely you are to use it – I will use deadly force on you.
The law might not take my side in all these cases, but any jury (here) would.