Secret Squirrel has pondered the expression, "A man's home is his castle.", and finds that in Britain it is not so,nor are his possessions his,indeed they belong to anyone in particular who cares to make the effort to break in to his castle.Indeed in a burglary event, the common Englishman had best help the burglar carry the possession he takes out to the car,and woe betide those who dare to lay a hand on said burglar, in any way shape nor form, in any manner whatsoever,nary lifting a hand to defend themselves nor their possessions,else they face the long arm of the law, and the lawsuit in the court,brought about by, and initiated by, the burglars themselves.Read on a tale of one who did attempt to go against the directives of complete passivity.........
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2600303.stm
Burglar sues farmer
The farmer jailed for the manslaughter of a 16-year-old burglar is being sued for up to £15,000 by one of the people who broke in to his home........But more details of the compensation claim have emerged as Fearon sues Martin for being unable to work since being shot in the legs during the raid........
In October last year, his conviction was reduced to manslaughter by the Court of Appeal and his sentence reduced to five years for the killing and three years for injuring Fearon.
And consider now.....
In 1988, Ted Newberry, a 76-year-old from Ilkeston, Derbyshire, lay in wait on his
allotment shed for an expected intruder, then shot a 12-bore gun at a Mark Revill when he tried to enter. Revill was badly injured and Mr Newberry was prosecuted on charges of wounding, but was acquitted by a jury.........In the allotment shed case, although the jury acquitted Mr Newberry of the criminal wounding charge, the injured intruder won compensation for his injuries (the award was £12,000 reduced to £4,000 because of his contributory negligence) even though he’d been acting criminally...
In short the misrule of the day is " I'm here to rob you, defend yourself and I'll
sue."...........and he'll win too.
In America, it's different,while American law on defense of the home differs somewhat from state to state, the millions of residents of the large, "liberal" states of California and New York, for example, can presume anyone who breaks into their homes means to do them harm and can act accordingly. A more explicit Oklahoma statute, passed in response to a spate of violent burglaries, allows householders to use force no matter how slight the perceived threat. Has this "vigilante" legislation resulted in "excess violence"? Just the opposite, the American burglary rate is less than half the English rate. And while 53% of English burglaries occur when someone is at home, only 13% do in America, where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. Violent crime in the US is at a thirty-year low.
In Britain, there is an unrelenting tide of thievery and burglaries sweeping the land. Day burglary is commonplace and dangerous for the homeowners because burglars know that even if the homeowner is present, they are defenseless and at the "mercy" of the thief. There is really no right to self-defense.In Britain, people live in fear in their own homes, afraid of muggers and burglars not even possessing the right to defend their homes, themselves or their families with anything that could be called a weapon,never mind the fireplace poker, even the bumbershoot is not permitted,and the portion of convicted burglars sent to jail, is at only 40%,the rest are let off with suspended sentences or social services.Society's to blame,for
disturbing them.As it is there are 280,000 domestic burglaries in England and Wales last year but clear-up rates are low at just 13 per cent, and a quarter of all burglars caught by police are let off with a caution.There is no justice, their is no defense of the system, nor is there defense of the person.The criminal at large reigns as King of it all.In America it is the direct opposite,the person is King in themselves, and may defend life,limb,and property to the very greatest fullest extent,even to the extent that the perpetrating burglar looses his or her life in the pursuit of their criminal activities.There a man's home is his castle,and he is his own police constable.
The current English law on self-defence favours criminals over those seeking to defend their own home. Joyce Lee Malcolm - Professor of History at Bentley College and author of Guns and Violence: The English Experience - argues that England must return to its common law traditions and that the traditional common law right of self-defence should be restored.The average Briton's traditional right to defend himself and his family must be rescued from a legal policy gone badly wrong.Seventy-two percent of those polled recently branded the current law on home defence "inadequate and ill-defined."In Britain presently self-defence is considered "vigilantism" and burglars sue for injuries sustained(both those at the hands of the person defending,self,home and property, and also should they injure themselves in some fashion during the physicality of the breakin as well, in short property liability).Clearly it is all so very improper and we must readjust the laws,rules, and regulations of these events such that we follow the American sanctity of home,hearth,person and property,and once again make full meaning of the term,"A man's home is his castle."
No comments:
Post a Comment