Andy and Tracey Ferrie were questioned by police for more than two days following the incident in Welby, near Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire, early on Sunday. The couple, the victims of three previous break-ins, were confronted in their bedroom by several men who had smashed their way into their home.
Using a legally held shotgun, one pulled the trigger on the intruders, leaving two with minor wounds.
Yesterday it was announced the Crown Prosecution Service would not bring charges.
Response: The Guardian gets a cop to write an article called How to defend your home against burglars – the safe way. It says,
So what’s the right course of action when you come across a thief in your own home? It’s a question I don’t want to have to answer, so I’ve done all I can to prevent a burglar targeting our home in the first place. Follows these steps, and the chances are you will never have to deal with that question either.
The steps he suggests are not bad advice – I assume he thought, wrongly, that it was too obvious to need saying that you can always replace the letterbox in the door with a US style outside mailbox – but, um, what is the right course of action when you come across a thief in your own home?
In my case I keep a self-cocking pistol crossbow in the bedroom which I can both load and fire reasonably quickly. It is the most powerful weapon I can legally own without paperwork that is also at least vaguely practical for home defence.
A full size crossbow would be too large for the confines of a home. The pistol only puts out around 13 ft/lbs of force – a bit more than a legal limit air rifle. It is nowhere near firearm territory, but still enough to ruin a burglar’s day and more than enough to scare them off.
I have no doubt that if the situation ever arises where I have to use it I will have no end of legal troubles arising from the matter. Not least because British law seems to want victims to lie about why they had a weapon in the first place. Just happening to have a 9 inch meat cleaver to hand because you “like steak” is OK, but stating that you kept the knife specifically to deal with burglars will bring about all sorts of grief for malice aforethought.
In the case in the OP the couple in question “just happened” to have the shotgun. They of course would never have been allowed it for the purpose they wound up using it for.
Still, if I’m ever in the situation where my wife and children need defending I think I’d rather have to contend with after the fact legal problems than the alternative.
I just wish the government would let me have the right tools for the job.
I’ll say again what I’ve said before :
F*ck him and his ‘get a dog’ bullsh*t.
We only have one Doberman right now. But Bogie loves me, and I love him, and I’ll be good and G*d-d*mned if it’s his place to protect me from burglars. It’s my job to protect him from burglars. With a Smith and Wesson, which is the right and proper tool to have when burglars come a’knocking.
Nothing makes me madder in these discussions than this suggestion – that it is somehow moral to get and keep an animal that is 100% dependent upon you, its owner, just to protect you when it all goes pear-shaped. In other words, to expect an animal to do for you, what you are not prepared to do for him, viz., to protect him from bad times.
Grr. It makes me so angry when I see this inane and inhumane suggestion so tritely trotted out – again.
Regarding the reported case – on balance, this seems like a good outcome that comports with the law as it should be – justifiable use of deadly force in the face of a reasonable fear of imminent great bodily harm. Usual caveats that we are only going by publsihed reports.
Now, what do you-all say about this one?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2198282/I-aimed-right-heart-Second-World-War-veteran-92-lays-wait-intruder-coolly-shoots-dead.html
llater,
llamas
Does anyone know of an actual case of a dog biting a burglar in the UK? I have a sneaking suspicion that if that happened the authorities would immediately have the dog killed…
A pistol crossbow can be useful – my brother in law and I were target practicing with one and accidentally put a neat hole through the rather heavy steel siding of my shed. More than enough to do something to a burglar. I’d practice loading in the dark, though.
When the subject of crime comes up, I am always reminded of the old saw, “The police – when seconds count they are only minutes away”.
I still think it’d be a hoot if some rich benefactor (or malefactor, I’m not choosy) were to seek a federal court injunction enjoining the US government from allowing Brits into the country. After all, if they’re so dangerous they can’t be allowed access to arms, and if in the US they will have access to arms, then the only way to protect Americans from them is to keep them out.
Imagine the UK government in a US court, trying to defend its gun laws and the responsibility of Britons at the same time, and snicker.
I saw that article the other day, llamas. What’s my reaction? Good for him. And even though he didn’t get to shoot the two accomplices, I’d bet that they are sufficiently rattled that they’ll think twice about breaking into another house in the future.
People being arrested for defending themselves against attackers – attackers in their own home.
And the (demented) Guardian newspaper argueing that X, Y, Z, measures can stop a group of men smash their way into your home.
Note to Guardian writers – I am Mr Punyverse and I can smash my way into a home that is in line with all your security measures.
Buy a firearm and learn how to use it.
There’s some discussion of this on ESR’s blog buried in the comments of a recent sequence of articles about his search for a new martial arts school.
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4494
The general advice seems to be that if you don’t happen to have access to a firearm, attack quickly and loudly and brutally. Surprise and attacking first are key. A lot of this seems predicated on the assumption that home invaders are likely to rape and murder you so it is worth the risk of getting stabbed if the burglar has a knife.
I don’t know how well this advice transfers to the UK. I suspect that since hot burglary in the UK is less risky that there is more of it but the burglars are less likely to be murderous.
Found it. Here: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4488#more-4488
The discussion is about martial arts for self defence but it’s more general also.
ESR writes:
[…]
Note that this is still the case if the burglars are armed. Hot burglaries are a special case this way; the goblins who specialize in them are hardened to violence and submitting puts you and yours at a high risk of being murdered anyway, with rape and torture more than possible first. As badly as getting stabbed or shot would suck, the outcomes from allowing them to control the situation would probably be worse.
Of course, if you can disengage and get to a firearm that’s better. But…do you keep one loaded and accessible? Don’t count on having time to load. Even if it’s loaded, if they come at you fast you may not be able to grab and ready it before they engage. Also makes a difference how they’re armed; I’d run from a knife or blunt instrument, but I’d charge a gun. Tough to run from a bullet. In most of these scenarios, scream and charge is the best option.
Tom, a UK blogger who really should be a Samizdata reader from what I can tell, responds:
“I wrote” to “best option” should be blockquoted, above. I didn’t write it.
I wonder- how long will it be before you need a licence for a water-pistol? At present, kids are allowed to carry these things around unsupervised!!!! there must be votes in regulating, and ultimately banning, such proto-weapons!!!
I too read the story the other day, applauded the householders, felt sympathy for how they must feel after the ordeal and, once again, wearily regretted that anybody saw any reason to arrest them in the first place.
As for courses of action, in England I had a sword. In addition to that, working on the old Klingon maxim that “there are always weapons” various blunt instruments, stabbing weapons, etc. were usually in reach.
Here in Texas, I have (in addition to the above) guns. Lots of guns. At least one is on my person at all times (except in bed, when it’s immediately to hand) and other loaded firearms are accessible in most rooms of the house.
Naturally, I hope never to need to fire upon a home invader, but there’s a non-Klingon maxim that runs “better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it”.
We over on CCIZ have been discussing this too, as you would expect.
One of our commentors, Talwin, left this piece of advice for the general citizenry…
http://nightjack2.wordpress.com/2008/07/24/a-survival-guide-for-decent-folk/
Cynical in spades, but as it is written by a serving police officer, something we all should learn and inwardly digest, I suggest.
Sound advice, doubtless. I’m sure my landlord will be only too pleased to replace the front door, fit a burglar alarm and CCTV to my house, and change the letting agreement so I can keep a dog. The American-style mailbox – that can go in the middle of the road instead of my non-existent front garden, and my mail will be perfectly safe in it because…er…
And best of all, when I fail to take these elementary precautions, if I get burgled or attacked and beaten up in my own home, IT’S ALL MY FAULT!
Self cocking crossbow looks awesome, can anyone recommend a particular model?
I read someone recommending wasps nest killer spray as a superior option to pepper spray for self defence.
It has a longer range than pepper spray, is probably just as incapacitating and can be legally bought in the UK.
Also want to make the point about how useless most martial arts, especially eastern martial arts are for self defence. The situation has got a lot better since the advent of MMA as there is now an arena for testing whatever bollox you happen to be selling. There are still a lot of people teaching a lot of Bullshido and selling the idea that there are some secret techniques that an unarmed decrepit 80 year old could use to deal with a 20 year old thug.
If a technique relies on fine motor control it’s not going to work in a real confrontation because when we enter our fight/flight/freeze primal survival mode we lose our fine motor control.
Would recommend reading the work of Geoff Thompson or Rory Miller for any one interested in learning about the actual reality of violence.
this youtube channel also has some good stuff:
http://www.youtube.com/user/TFTGroup
Delighted to see that the householders were not prosecuted for defending their own home.
I may be optimistic, but I get the impression that increasingly, the authorities tend to be considerate towards people using a degree of force to defend their homes. I think one area where people such as us have made a difference has been in calling attention to just how daft things had become.
Like I said, I am an optimist.
I used to be a small arms instructor in the army (and later for the police)………my Taiwanese wife and I both carry Colt 1911A1s in .45ACP. I taught her two to the chest followed by one to the head is the best course course of action.
I once caught a thief kneeling down trying to steal my bike.
I kicked him extremely hard in the side of the head.
He didn’t seem to mind. He said nothing and just sat here.
To all those commenters who express their displeasure that the Ferries were arrested following a shooting at their home – well, pardon me, but just what in the hell did you expect?
A person is shot, and them police are supposed to just take their word for what happened?
They were arrested (until we can sort out what really happened here, not just what two of the parties involved choose to tell us, and to preserve evidence), an investigation was conducted (so that we can be relatively-certain of what really happened) and then they were bailed (on police bail, nota bene – no surety required) until the CJS runs its course and the charges are formally dismissed. That’s the textbook process. They shot somebody – that has to be investigated, and until the whole story is clear, arresting the admitted shooters is not only reasonable, but absolutely required.
(I refer to them as ‘they’ because it’s not clear from the news reports I have read who did the shooting. It seems it’s her gun, but reports suggest he may have pulled the trigger.)
If I were the copper investigating a story presented as ‘husband shoots male intruder’, resulting in a relatively-trivial injury, there are at least three much-less benign explanations that immediately spring to my mind, at least one of which involves the wife as something other than “innocent victim.” Eliminating those other possibilities may take a day or two. Oh, well, FIDO. I have known of one or two people who were the victims of a shotgun in close quarters, none of whom were fit to appear in court under their own steam three days later, as the victim of this shooting was. Hmmmm . . . . .?
I don’t know whether Sunfish is still around, but maybe he would care to add some input on the presentation of the ‘perfect narrative’ and how surprisingly-often the true story turns out to be something else entirely.
I once worked an auto theft case that ended up in a giant warrant service. There was evidence literally bursting out of closets and crates. And yet it wasn’t adding up. The husband was in jail, it looked completely open-and-shut, and yet we couldn’t match what he appeared to have done with other data. It took a week to figure out that he wasn’t the kingpin (although he was involved) – it was the wife. And this was after months of investigation. He was misleading us (to cover for her) and she was playing the innocent victim – I had no idea he wasn’t running a legitimate business! How would I know? I was home, baking muffins!
Once the improved case was put to her, and after she had had the benefit of counsel, she flipped like a 2-minute egg, coughed to everything and blamed it all on spousal coercion. In other words, he was lying to take the fall for her. Once her deception was uncovered, her response was to put it all on him, in order to make him take the fall for her.
llater,
llamas
“arresting the admitted shooters is not only reasonable, but absolutely required.”
Sorry llamas, but I don’t follow your logic here. According to what’s been said, the couple reported the incident to the police immediately. There’s no reason to believe they were being anything other than helpful in assisting the police with their inquiries. The police really do not have any reason to assert they have committed a crime. So why arrest them on suspicion of a crime?
Yes, the police might not want evidence at the scene disturbed, but they have plenty in their armoury of powers to prevent that. Just because this involves a shooting, doesn’t make it different in principle from any other incident. Would you advocate, in general, the arresting of victims & witnesses to make the police’s job easier?
I am sure the cop meant well and looked into all the available statistics on burglary. But has it never occurred to him that the criminal you actually face may not be either professional or that altogether intelligent in his day job. If you find your self up against a strategically planned assault you have more problems than prior choice of martial art or personal weapon access and probably a good inkling of it. That isn’t as dangerous as the village idiot and 2-3 of his best friends showing up with no goal or plan other than reactionary violence.
George, in response to your request for recommendations for a crossbow, this is my home defence crossbow. It’s not particularly expensive, in fact the red dot sight I put on it cost the more than the crossbow itself. I’ve found it to be of good quality though, and it is surprisingly powerful. Phonebooks are an inadequate backstop for this bow, it pulverises them in short order and the bolts start going clean through.
Under range conditions I can put 6 shots in a 3 inch hole from 7.5 yards in under 15 seconds. In the middle of the night, in the dark… who knows?
It’s certainly better than nothing, which is what the powers that be want you to have in this open air prison we call a country.
I’d still prefer a 12 gauge.
@llamas
Here in South Carolina, firearms are regularly used in self-defense situations. The victims are not arrested by the police. I guess the police live in a world with a different logic, a different reality than you. Here’s just one example along with the Sheriff’s statement:
http://www.goupstate.com/article/20120410/ARTICLES/120419981
@ Vinegar Joe, who wrote:
‘Here in South Carolina, firearms are regularly used in self-defense situations. The victims are not arrested by the police. I guess the police live in a world with a different logic, a different reality than you. Here’s just one example along with the Sheriff’s statement:
http://www.goupstate.com/article/20120410/ARTICLES/120419981‘
What different reality would that be? In the case which you linked, although it does not specifically say so, I will wager you a large cherry pie that Mr Williams was arrested, taken to the Spartanburg County Sheriff’s Office and interviewed under Miranda warning. Indeed, his interviews with the police are specifically mentioned in this and other coverage.
No, make that TWO large cherry pies.
With two men dead, are you seriously suggesting that he would not be arrested? Of COURSE he was – no investigator in his right mind would want to say a word to him until he was Mirandized. And, to be Mirandized, you have to be arrested.
What he was not was charged with anything. Based on the circumstances described, probably rightly so.
Just like the Ferries – arrested, investigated, not charged, released.
Now, who’s got the ‘different reality’ here? Do you really, seriously believe that if you shoot somebody dead, all you have to say is ‘I woz defending myself’ and the police anywhere in the US are going to say ‘Oh, that’s all right then. Have a good day.’
You can take my word for it, as an ex-copper in the US – if you shoot somebody, you are going to be arrested. Even in South Carolina. Even Anywhere in the US. No Matter What. Arrest is the only way that you can be secured and your evidence obtained in an admissible way. You Are Going To Be Arrested. You’re going to be searched, and handcuffed, and taken to a police station, and locked up. You can bank on that.
Too many people make this easy conflation – they read this sort of story, and they just assume – oh, he wasn’t charged, so he wasn’t arrested. Or they just don’t think at all.
Now – would you like to try again?
llater,
llamas
The perception that someone who killed in self defense would not be arrested is probably because people don’t get arrested for that on television.
The police should have no power of automatic arrest and that means no arrests on suspicion. First they investigate then, if there is a case, they arrest. They should be able to say dont leave town and they should be able to take over the crime scene for a reasonable period but they should not be able to “secure” suspects without evidence of wrongdoing.
Not that interested helping the police do their job as many times their job is to see who they can fit up for the crime.
llamas wrote: “Of COURSE he was – no investigator in his right mind would want to say a word to him until he was Mirandized. And, to be Mirandized, you have to be arrested.”
I don’t believe that’s the case in Texas. Here, for example, is an example where a man was detained, but not arrested, Mirandized and then arrested after his inculpatory statement.
http://www.7thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/htmlopinion.asp?OpinionId=9534
Certainly my experience is that in English law it’s perfectly proper to interview somebody under caution prior to arresting them. Indeed the standard PACE caution is also appropriately used by private sector investigators, who have no power of arrest.
@ Mr Ecks, who wrote:
‘The police should have no power of automatic arrest and that means no arrests on suspicion. First they investigate then, if there is a case, they arrest. They should be able to say dont leave town and they should be able to take over the crime scene for a reasonable period but they should not be able to “secure” suspects without evidence of wrongdoing.’
Oh, for God’s sake.
The police have no ‘automatic powers of arrest’, either in the UK or the US. They can only arrest based upon probable cause, or a warrant.
And ‘probable cause’ is just another description for ‘suspicion’.
Are you saying that the police should only be able to arrest a suspect after their investigation is complete?
Let me know how that’s going to work.
They should be able to say ‘don’t leave town’? You’ve been watching too many movies. And what if the suspect decides he’s just going to leave town anyway?
A gunshot wound, in and of itself, is 90% of the way to probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed. A dead body, in and of itself, is 99% of the way to probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed.
Now, I will re-phrase what I said earlier, slightly.
There may well be cases where a person who has used deadly force is not arrested – because they have volntarily cooperated with the police to the extent of going to the station and allowing themselves to be detained, questioned and examined for extended periods.
That’s how you end up with the odd case where a person is not arrested after using deadly force, which is subsequently found to be lawful. But what the stories never add is that the person spent 2 days at the police station voluntarily, being interviewed and investigated.
So I will modify what I said – if you shoot someone, and you choose not to immediately and voluntarily cooperate with the police for as long as they want you to, You Will Be Arrested.
I suspect (but cannot prove) that that is what happened to the Ferries. They called 999, but when the police arrived and asked them ‘what happened here?’ they said ‘we’re not going to say anything until we’ve spoken to a solicitor’ and the copper then said ‘fine, then you’re both under arrest on suspicion of ABH’, his probable cause for the arrest being the self-evident evidence of the man with a GSW, the 999 call saying ‘we shot a man’, and no further explanation forthcoming. In these circumstances, until an investigation is made, it is more likely than not that a crime has been committed.
(incidentally, if that is what occurred, that was actually the smart thing for the Ferries to do. Better to spend a few hours in custody waiting for a lawyer, than to say something in the heat of the moment that could come back to haunt them later.)
llater,
llamas
@ the othe rob –
– the tortuousness of Miranda law being what it is, no investigator in his right mind would want to speak to a suspect in a serious case – possibly a capital case – unless he was certain that the suspect was well-and-truly Mirandized. If you do not arrest, and you do not Mirandize (as you must know) there are far too many ways in which testimony can be subsequently excluded. There’s a whole squishy area where a voluntary statements may be admissible, but it depends on whether or not the suspect thought he was being custodially interrogated, and so forth. It’s actually best for the suspect to be arrested and Mirandized, as well, since he’s likely not a lawyer (and neither is the copper!) and can’t be expected to know the fine details of whether or not what he says will or will not be usable against him.
– we’re conflating US and UK law here – my fault as well. Sure, you can be questioned under caution in the UK. You can in the US, as well – it’s just that it’s such a morass of Constitutional issues that it seldom happens.
Back to the case at hand.
Once again, we have people arguing that people claiming ‘self-defense’ should be held to some special standard. They should not be arrested. They should not even be detained. They should have the absolute right to shoot burglars. And so forth.
(not you, you understand, but those are the kinds of things that are being said about this case).
But this is all being wise after the event. We know now that the person that was shot was burgling the Ferries’ home. We know that they shot him in the act. We know that they are upstanding, law-abiding citizens. We know that the burglar – was not. We know all that now, and there is proof for all of it.
But the officers who responded to the 999 call didn’t know any of that. They arrived at the scene of a shooting, they were being told one story, there were other, conflicting stories trickling in, the whole thing was just a mass of confusion. Maybe it was a case of lawful self-defense, as these two over here are saying – but they’re hardly disinterested witnesses, are they? Maybe they’re not saying anything at all (that would be my approach). Maybe this is a quarrel between them that’s gone bad, and now they’re trying to cover it up. Where’s the shooting victim? Is there even a victim? Oh, there is? Well, what’s his story? And so it goes.
Everyone from the Daily Mail on down is complaining that the police should have somehow magically known all of what we know now, at the moment that they rolled up to the scene, and automatically treat the Ferries as the innocent parties. And guess what? That’s a fatuous argument, no matter who is making it. The Ferries were actually treated entirely-correctly by the police and the CJS – they were arrested when it appeared that a crime had been committed (possibly because they chose not to say anything without counsel), and released as soon as it was clear that it had not.
llater,
llamas
llamas, you know as well as anyone that there is a vast difference between “detention” and “arrest”. I can’t tell whether there was an arrest in that Spartanburg case Vinegar Joe linked (none of the news reports I could find mentioned that point), but my suspicion is that there was not. I’m sure Mr. Williams was briefly detained and questioned, but I think he was then released without arrest. And yes, that’s the way we do things around here (I live in SC, too). Pretty sensible if the preliminary evidence backs up his story and there’s no flight risk.
What is the difference between a detention and an arrest?
@ Alisa
Laird is quite right to emphasise the difference. In a detention, the subject’s freedom of movement is temporarily restricted. Example include a traffic or Terry stop. This may happen, for example, because an LEO has reasonable suspicion that the subject may have information about a crime that has occurred. In an arrest, the subject’s freedom of movement is taken away (for whatever length of time). This may happen when an LEO has probable cause to believe that the subject has committed a crime. It goes without saying that reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause.
As I’m still more familiar with English law than much US law (outside of federal Internet stuff) I did some cursory research and found this rather useful page: http://lawforcops.com/contactnotes.htm
I suspect that in the cases referred to, where the people defending themselves were not arrested, they were detained for questioning. My personal view is that that is the preferred approach.
@llamas
I think that we may be approaching a meeting of minds. You are, of course, correct about the 20/20 hindsight aspect. The key issue, I think, is that those of us who do not write for The Daily Mail would argue that the proper initial response to a claim of self defence should be detention rather than arrest. “OK, we’re going to have to look into this. You’re not under arrest, but for the time being you’re not free to go, either.”
The page that I linked to, above, notes that in cases of investigative detention “Miranda is probably required if asking guilt-seeking questions.” Without wishing to compound our mutual sin of conflating laws, this is very similar to what I was taught in England.
This conversation brings to mind a notion that might be somewhat relevant. You write that being questioned under caution is “such a morass of Constitutional issues that it seldom happens.” My experience of moving to and living in the USA is that every form that one completes, from immigration and naturalization to job applications or even requests for insurance quotes, appears to be very concerned with whether one has ever been arrested (vs charged or convicted).
This suggests that merely being arrested carries a stigma and negative consequences that would better be avoided. If being questioned under caution, while detained but not arrested, is really so rare in the USA, perhaps it’s time for an effort to make it less so?
Smited!
It’s a good job that I like kittens.
Incidentally, all of the talk of dogs reminds me of an unpublished benefit of cats. Ours are very fond of their routines, like to watch out of the front window for our return and so forth.
If we ever had burglars, while the house was unoccupied, then instead of watching through the window they’d all be under the bed.
Sure, they’re unlikely to stop an intruder, but when I’m returning to what I hope to be a house with no humans in it they provide a very effective early warning mechanism.
My question is:
Why the hell did it take two days of interogation?
@ RRS: While I’ve attempted to explain my arguments against their arrest, I have no beef with local plod taking a couple of days on the initial investigation.
The primary focus of the investigation would have been to determine whether there were any prior connections between the householders and the alleged burglars.
There’s a reason for that. It’s not unheard of for people with a grudge against other people to attempt to misrepresent said other people’s presence on the first people’s property as a justification for the use of force.
It takes time to sort that all out.
Two days in detention?
think they were bailed but don’t know how long they were detained for prior to this
Thanks, Rob.
“OK, we’re going to have to look into this. You’re not under arrest, but for the time being you’re not free to go, either.”
Exactly. I understand the legal and the consequent reputational difference, but is there any immediate practical one, in the sense of being locked up?
“My question is:
Why the hell did it take two days of interogation?
Posted by RRS at September 8, 2012 02:48 AM”
Generally, because they can. And if they can, they will.
It’s the same principle blue & white tape will decorate a street all day to make parking easier for ‘scene of crime’ attendees. The same reason a major road is closed for half a day to ‘investigate’ an accident.
The inconvenience to the public is the purpose, not the consequence
Is it illegal to have an object in the home or on the street purely for the purpose of defence?
If so when did this happen?
Were we ever free born englishmen or have we always been serfs in Her Majesty’s Open Prison UK?
George: It happened in 1953, apparently.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/offensive_weapons_knives_bladed_and_pointed_articles/#a07
Matters are very different in TX. Next week I shall be flying to a city some hundreds of miles away, in order to buy a car, which I shall then drive home.
Yesterday, I spoke with a friend and made arrangements to borrow a lockable pistol case. With that in hand, I will be able to bring my sidearm as checked baggage on the flight, reholster it at the other end and have it available for the drive home.
Thankfully, in Texas we have a legal thing called “defense to prosecution” whereby if the prima facie evidence shows that a violent act was justified, then the perpetrator of the act cannot be arrested, only questioned.
“Justified” situations include defense against trespassers in the home, defense of a child or a third party, protection of a neighbor’s property etc. So here in the Yellow Rose State, a cop finding a burglar leaking blood with a homeowner holding a smoking gun is more likely to congratulate the homeowner than arrest him because the prima facie evidence shows trespass — the message being, don’t trespass.
Any burglar in the state of Texas — even the moronic ones — know that if you break into some else’s house, you are taking your life into your own hands (and handing it over to the homeowner). Amazingly, the burglary rate per 100,000 population in TX is still higher than the average for the U.S. (910 vs 714). I suspect that we have more moronic burglars in TX than the national average, too.
Oh, and the comparable burglary stat per 100,000 for England/Wales is 1,157 — 27% higher than Texas, 62% higher than the US.
And while I was looking up the above numbers, I came across this little snippet: in terms of total violent crime, the UK rate is 2,034 per 100,000, while in the US the rate is 466.
I don’t know if the fact of an armed citizenry is wholly responsible for the above disparity, but I can’t help but think it’s a contributing factor.
Another area not mentioned in the article but frequently brought up by the ‘Oh My God, GUNS !!!’ crowd is martial arts.
For the most part, I suspect, many of these people have watched too many movies and simply cannot differentiate between Hollywood fantasy and reality.
In ANY case, martial arts are not for everyone. Regardless of type or style, they require dedication, commitment, practice and TIME. Otherwise you are likely to end up knowing just enough to get yourself killed or seriously maimed !!!! ( gee, when I saw this demonstrated, the opponent fell to the ground !! )
I’ll stick with firearms for defense, Thank You very much. Being on the far side of 60, I have neither the interest, coordination, patience or time to devote to learning ANY martial arts.
I have know about this stuff for some time now. It can shoot you in the eyes from over twenty feet away. It’s a must for every home. And if you you use it on a burglar in th UK and the police give you shit for it. Tell the useless pricks to fuck off, it’s legal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GlUD4sGTS4
Your lucky to live in a country where you are still allowed firearms for self defense Jerry.
As for martial arts many of them are just complete nonsense, more like dancing than fighting, with students practising techniques on each other that will only work with a compliant and helpful partner.
Some teachers are positively dangerous in that they teach their students knife defenses or disarms that would be absolutely useless in reality as they rely on fine motor skills which are just not available to most people when the physiological changes that accompany fight/flight/freeze occur. So you have students that believe they would be able to handle an attack from someone armed with a knife. This has probably got many people killed especially when there is alchohol involved.
Even fit strong people skilled in effective martial arts that actually look like fighting, Boxing, Judo, Brazilian Jujitsu etc can come a cropper if they expect a predator to behave like a sportsman. Nice people have been socialized to believe that it is only acceptable to use violence in a duel like situation.
Predators seek to attack first and a knife is usually felt before it is seen, so much for knife defense.
I guess even if you have a firearm you still face the problem of predators seeking to attack by surprise.
People need to be trained not just in how to use a firearm but also how to recognise and avoid predators.
So given that the definition of an offensive weapon given in that CPS link was:
I guess my burglar crossbow already meets that definition. I keep it with the intention of using it on any burglar who smashes his way into my home and then refuses to leave.
I could lie and say I want it for target shooting, but that isn’t true. I shoot it at targets only enough that I am confident I could hit a home invader with it. The reason I keep it is specifically to fire it at people who I believe pose a threat to my family.
Does that make me a criminal in the eyes of UK law?
“Spartanburg South Carolina”.
The power of names.
No doubt I will be denounced as silly (perhaps rightly so) – but names like that make hope leap in my heart.
according to Peter Hitchens the Ferries spent 3 days in custody!!!
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/
Those columns by P. Hitchins leave me with the feeling that he’s doing a parody, for shits and giggles (plus the money, of course).
I was saddened to scroll down the page and see that Rhodes Boyson has died, however. In my naive youth I was part of the campaign to “turn the authoritarian out of office”. Sadly we replaced him with a man who was not only much more of a statist authoritarian , but also an utter shit.
Rhodes Boyson, on the other hand, was a perfect gentleman on all of the occasions that I interacted with him. I can only console myself with the fact that O’Rourke has written extensively and accurately upon the folly of youth.
doesn’t sound like you’ve come on much Rob.
Sneering at Rhodes Boyson with the Trendies and Guardianistas in your youth.
Sneering at Peter Hitchens with the Trendies and Guardianistas now.
There’s no sneering involved, George.
But let’s not get into a battle over the relative merits of Guardian Hysteria vs Daily Mail Hysteria. I find both to be equally tiresome.
What part of Hitchen’s article did you think was hysterical?
George – I really don’t think that us having an argument would be very interesting to all the other people here. Besides which, I’m a guest here and I try to avoid getting into blazing rows on my hosts’ premises.
On the other hand, Kim du Toit wrote something that might be interesting to examine:
I’d be very grateful for a citation to support the assertion that the actor cannot be arrested. I’ve had a look through the TX penal code and the closest that I could find was Title 1 Chapter 2 (Link) which codifies defense to prosecution, but does so in the context of a trial, prior to which the accused would presumably have been arrested and charged.
They were fortunate – five years ago, even three, they would have waited for months for the CPS to reluctantly drop the case, assuming they weren’t actually charged.