OK, what the hell has happened to the Brits?

"Dave" wrote in message
...

"Wdtabor" wrote in message
...

Yes, it is. Strongarm robberies, home invasion robberies, assualt and
battery,
and stranger rape are far more common than here in the states.

Don

Don't think so.

a firearm offence is any offence in which a firearm is 'used', whether...

Don is talking about the lower rate of other crimes, not firearm
crimes. Since (IIRC) the night-time burglary rate in New York is
about 20% of that in London, he has a point -- few people are
likely to climb through a window if they think the occupant has
a shotgun on the other side.

What the Brits have traded (mostly without realizing it) is a
slightly lower gun homicide rate (those previously-legal-gun
owners who go postal) in exchange for a vastly enhanced
rate for burglary and other crime. It seems like a bad bargain
to me.

But I'm surprised no one has mentioned Tony Martin. He
was a home owner who dispatched a low-life home invader
with his shotgun. He was convicted of murder, reduced to
manslaughter on appeal, and denied parole as he was deemed
"a danger to burglars". The public outcry is such that now
37% (BBC Radio 4 poll) think that a law to allow householders
to use any means to confront burglars is called for. So things
may well change for the better.

Too bad you folks are so civilized... You would only have to have a mob tar
and feather one magistrate, to put an end to such rulings... It is terrible
to see our staunch allies in two world wars, emasculated so...

Denny
"Tony Cox" wrote in message
. net...
"Dave" wrote in message
...

"Wdtabor" wrote in message
...

Yes, it is. Strongarm robberies, home invasion robberies, assualt and
battery,
and stranger rape are far more common than here in the states.

Don

Don't think so.

a firearm offence is any offence in which a firearm is 'used',
whether...

Don is talking about the lower rate of other crimes, not firearm
crimes. Since (IIRC) the night-time burglary rate in New York is
about 20% of that in London, he has a point -- few people are
likely to climb through a window if they think the occupant has
a shotgun on the other side.

What the Brits have traded (mostly without realizing it) is a
slightly lower gun homicide rate (those previously-legal-gun
owners who go postal) in exchange for a vastly enhanced
rate for burglary and other crime. It seems like a bad bargain
to me.

But I'm surprised no one has mentioned Tony Martin. He
was a home owner who dispatched a low-life home invader
with his shotgun. He was convicted of murder, reduced to
manslaughter on appeal, and denied parole as he was deemed
"a danger to burglars". The public outcry is such that now
37% (BBC Radio 4 poll) think that a law to allow householders
to use any means to confront burglars is called for. So things
may well change for the better.

"Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message
...
Too bad you folks are so civilized... You would only have to have a mob
tar
and feather one magistrate, to put an end to such rulings... It is
terrible
to see our staunch allies in two world wars, emasculated so...

It's not the magistrates so much as the liberal judges. Anyway,
the Brits aren't doing badly in Iraq, so there's still fire there.


"Tony Cox" wrote in message
. net...

But I'm surprised no one has mentioned Tony Martin. He
was a home owner who dispatched a low-life home invader
with his shotgun. He was convicted of murder, reduced to
manslaughter on appeal, and denied parole as he was deemed
"a danger to burglars". The public outcry is such that now
37% (BBC Radio 4 poll) think that a law to allow householders
to use any means to confront burglars is called for. So things
may well change for the better.

"Tony Cox" wrote in message
. net...
What the Brits have traded (mostly without realizing it) is a
slightly lower gun homicide rate (those previously-legal-gun
owners who go postal) in exchange for a vastly enhanced
rate for burglary and other crime. It seems like a bad bargain
to me.

No, no, there is no trade. The British have never had handguns
in the home or concealed on their person for protection. Never.
Not before, not after. The law didn't come in and make everyone
give up their handguns. We didn't have them before. This is not
the reason for burglary figures.

In fact (repeating again)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk_news/975561.stm

Since handguns were banned in 1997, crime went down by
10%, with burglary down by 21%. I don't know where people
keep getting the idea that burglaries, etc, went up, let alone
be "vastly enhanced". I'd be the first person to say that the
drop had absolutely nothing to do with banning handguns
though.

But I'm surprised no one has mentioned Tony Martin. He
was a home owner who dispatched a low-life home invader
with his shotgun. He was convicted of murder, reduced to
manslaughter on appeal, and denied parole as he was deemed
"a danger to burglars". The public outcry is such that now
37% (BBC Radio 4 poll) think that a law to allow householders
to use any means to confront burglars is called for. So things
may well change for the better.

Tony Martin was a farmer and had a shotgun. Farmers (and
anyone else who has a locked gun cabinet) could own a shotgun
before. And they still can. I think Mr Martin should have been
acquitted. In my opinion he was fearful of his safety. However
I think the conviction had something to do with the fact that he
shot the burglar in the back while he was running away. When
he was first acquitted (before appeal) there was huge public
support for him.

The other burglar was going to sue him, but dropped the case
because of a huge public outcry.

As for what's happened since WWII, I think you'll find people
didn't have guns in the house back then either. But you'll find the
British forces are just as good as they ever were.

Paul

In article , "Paul Sengupta"
writes:

When
he was first acquitted (before appeal) there was huge public
support for him.

The Government can appeal an aquittal in Britain?

Here, in the States, if you are aquitted, that's it. No double jeopardy, no
second guessing of a finding of fact by a jury, only appeals of procedural
error.

Don


--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

"Wdtabor" wrote in message ...
In article , "Paul Sengupta"
writes:

When
he was first acquitted (before appeal) there was huge public
support for him.

The Government can appeal an aquittal in Britain?

Here, in the States, if you are aquitted, that's it. No double jeopardy, no
second guessing of a finding of fact by a jury, only appeals of procedural
error.

The principle of the prohibition on double jeopardy in the U.S. Constitution was
actually based on British law. Britain does have a prohibition against trying someone
anew for the same crime he has previously been acquitted. However, in certain cases
the prosecution does have avenues to appeal the acquittal (sort of an extension of the
first prosecution, not a second trial).

There has been move afoot both in the UK and in some other areas of the commonwealth
(such as Australia) to further broaden the cases where prosecution appeals could be made.
Some of this is internally generated by an attempt to increase the ability to combat serious
crime in the light of new evidence such as DNA testing. Part is also that bringing British
law in line with the EU law considerably weakens the double jeopardy and certain other
long standing principles of British law.

"Wdtabor" wrote in message
...
In article , "Paul Sengupta"
writes:

When
he was first acquitted (before appeal) there was huge public
support for him.

The Government can appeal an aquittal in Britain?


Not as far as I'm aware. Same double jeopardy rule.

But Paul is wrong. Martin was convicted of murder, not
acquitted. He appealed and the conviction was reduced to
manslaughter. He is right about the substantial public
support, especially in the shires where (as it happens) my
parents live.

"Paul Sengupta" wrote in message
...

No, no, there is no trade. The British have never had handguns
in the home or concealed on their person for protection. Never.

My grandfather did. So did most of his friends. As I remember,
the restrictions started shortly after the "Red letter scare" in the
20's when the government became worried about communists.


Tony Martin was a farmer and had a shotgun. Farmers (and
anyone else who has a locked gun cabinet) could own a shotgun
before. And they still can. I think Mr Martin should have been
acquitted. In my opinion he was fearful of his safety. However
I think the conviction had something to do with the fact that he
shot the burglar in the back while he was running away. When
he was first acquitted (before appeal) there was huge public
support for him.

The other burglar was going to sue him, but dropped the case
because of a huge public outcry.

The other burglar was going to sue because Martin allegedly
disabled him. He dropped the case only because a some tabloid
newspaper reporter caught him doing press-ups in the gym.
His 'case' was financed by legal aid (free for the poor). Martin
had to pay his own costs for defense.

Given that american constitutional law has it's roots in British common law
there are far more similarities than differences... A major difference is
that the Bill Of Rights of our Constitution specifically prohibits the
government from banning our firearms... That the federal government, and
many state governments, have almost from the moment of the signing of the
Constitution denied that such a guarantee exists, and given that our
Supreme Court chooses to persue it's own social agenda and make gun rulings
that are nothing less than a slap in the face of the framers of the
constitution, this is an issue that is not going to go away...

denny


"Tony Cox" wrote in message

Dennis O'Connor wrote:

A major difference is
that the Bill Of Rights of our Constitution specifically prohibits the
government from banning our firearms...

A major difference is the Bill of Rights, period. None of those rights existed
under British law at the time, and some still do not.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."