I saw this in a magazine I just got in the mail today.

If these examples explained in this article are true, how can we as individuals defend what is valuable to us if the police force isn't as fast or reliable as it should be?

What are the tactics we can use to safeguard ourselves so we won't be falling in with a punishment as well?

I find this a bit interesting because it seems to me that I live in a society that is against justice. Since that seems to be the case, I was wondering what some of your thoughts would be. Suggestions to some example are greatly appreciated.

Thank you for reading in advance ladies and gentlemen!

HS!

Your location says you live in Tennessee. You are aware that your state issues concealed carry permits freely and that you have almost no restrictions on firearm ownership? The examples cited in the article are from England and Canada (the English one is a notorious case).

So the obvious answer is "Own a gun and know how to use it. Then get a permit to carry it."

American law has yet to fall into such ridiculous folly in general, and the southern states especially have passed various laws with names such as "Castle Doctrine" establishing your right to defend yourself and your property and denying prosecutors the ability to charge you with a crime for doing so.

This line from the article made me laugh, however:

"England is the cradle of modern liberty"

Hahaha.

In summary: You live in the dirty south. Go buy 5 handguns, 3 assault rifles, and 2 modified shotguns and embrace your inner redneck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine_in_the_US

@LordofDarkness

My thoughts? I’m glad that Texas is a long way from Canada.

Yeah the law is typically very anti-justice in cases like this, by which I mean cases of self-defense. (Especially in one's home but also on the street.)
In the US, especially in the South yeah but nationwide, we of course don't have nearly the gun restrictions as in most of Europe or even Canada, and especially England.

It's ridiculous though when the law treats people defending themselves from burglars as being criminals themselves for shooting the bastards...if someone breaks into my house without my permission I should have every right to blow his head off. If every home-owner had a gun, and the right to USE it to defend their property and lives, it might discourage home-invasions and car-thefts and such quite a bit. But no, as it is now, I just have to wait for the cops, who won't get there in time, and just follow a police report after I've watched some dirtbag run off with my TV and computer.
There was a case here locally where a homeowner shot and killed a teenager who was stealing his car out of his driveway with an accomplice in the middle of the night. The guy was charged with manslaughter, ridiculous; the kid had a knife on him, and reportedly ran at the guy, and he has a criminal record including violent crime. And he was stealing a car.
Fortunately, the man who shot him was acquitted of the charges.
And good riddance one more worthless scumbag gangbanger kid off the street...there's so damn many of them.

Like really, I hate these people who coddle criminals, say they're just victims of society and poverty blah blah.
We need judges and juries that will stand up for people's rights to self-defense, and we need a police system that actually STOPS crimes, rather than just investigating and trying to discourage future ones.
People with the right to defend themselves, and responsive police are two thing which will discourage crime and reduce the number of criminals out on the street. (and hopefully alive.)

Us Texans aint messin round, partner!

/end southern accent

Yep, we don’t take too kindly to firearms restrictions ‘round these here parts.

Just came across this as you posted...



I'm proud to live in CO, home of the "Make my day" law.

It should also be noted that the burglar Tony Martin shot dead also had something like ninety previous convictions for burgalry.

Well you need those to deal with all of the varmints down here. I mean, have you seen the size of our cockroaches?!


Incidentally, that’s still not as crazy as what you will find in Japanese vending machines…

The Tony Martin case had a number of other problems, one of the ones focussed on by the media mostly being about the burglers being from the "travelling community". This added a new slant to the case because of the problems surrounding the image travellers have.
And Tony Martin had a shotgun - shotguns are far from impossible to get a licence for here in England. Rifles are much more difficult to own legally, but I know many poeple who do. Handguns of any sort are illegal, period. Even our police can't carry them, and our Olympic pistol shooting team have to practice elsewhere in Europe.
I would, however, agree that the law is perceived to be skewed to the side of the criminals; the gutter press delights in reporting such tale because the "good guys" winning a court case simply wouldn't be interesting news. Granny locked up for refusing to pay exorbitant council tax rates? The courts are evil, they're too harsh! scream the headlines. Yet the opposite is also true, according to the news. Thankfully I've yet to need the police in an emergency, so maybe I'm still hopeful that they'll come when I need them.
But if someone is breaking into my house at night and I've no way out (I'd rather escape - my insurance will pay for damaged and stolen property) then I'll grab whatever's lying around and brain the intruder, I'll worry about the consequences later!

Strictly speaking, nobody has any "rights" until they have to answer to someone. Were you a wild animal you'd only have opportunities. However, if in captivity, you are caged in by that state of ownership which is only made sweeter by certain "rights" that your Lord and Master is kindly offering you. If you're not in a state of bondage you don't have any rights. That's what freedom is all about. Anything can (and will) happen.

Thank you for posting that article. I live in Edmonton Alberta (formerly of Toronto) and am familiar with the cases noted.

It is a sad truth that the rights of the criminals are defended over those of the victim. Charging the victim because they fought back? What were they supposed to do? Let the criminals do as they please, let them get a way then give a really good description to the police and hope they do their jobs and catch them?

Once upon a time women were told to submit if being raped as it was their best chance of living. Then courts began to use this submission as an argument that "they were willing". Similarly, if one doesn't attempt to fend off a burglar, the court could argue that the victim "let it happen" or even possibly theorize that the victim was working with the burglar in order to commit insurance fraud. However, fight back and you risk getting charged yourself. Talk about a catch 22.

Personally I wouldn't want a gun in my home for defense. However, I firmly believe that an individual should be able to do or use whatever is necessary to protect and defend his/her own property and family. Especially if the police aren't going to do it for them.

I've never been to Japan, so what's the problem with that vending machines?

This should answer your question...

This too:

Thank you Delta; you just made my Christmas this much better

LoL! I like that.

You are very welcome.

Hmm... Interesting. This is the first I've heard of the Castle Doctrine Law. I only hear similar cases like the ones in the article whenever a crime happens in Memphis.

Heh, that sure beats trying to bend over backwards to pick up a date.

>> Handguns of any sort are illegal, period. Even our police can't carry them <<


That is not correct.


Trained police officers do use both.

Ah, my mistake - it's been a while since I checked. However, only specially trained police can carry them, your average bobby has other means of defence and detainment that doesn't involve a firearm.
I'm still not sure how I'd feel about owning a gun personally, as there's always a strong possibility that any criminals you encounter would be better armed and more experienced than yourself and you may find that any weapon you own or carry could possibly be used against you.
And the general public are not allowed handguns at all, as far as I know. There was one case I heard of that challenged this, but I can't find any information on it so it's not worth posting just the hearsay on here.

No the general public are not allowed to own handguns.

C.I.D officers carried handguns as standard kit until 1987. A black woman in my home city attacked an officer with a blade and was shot dead.

There were riots on the streets, a subsequent investigation and, after this, firearms were removed from use from all officers except firearms divisions. This is something of a potted history, of course, but it is near enough give or take a year or two.

As for the public, whatever weapon one might choose it is also wise to undertake training in use of said weapon so that the criminal is at the disadvantage and not you.

Very true, I am currently undertaking mastery of the frying pan and the walking cane.

I also found this site rather interesting; it certainly clarifies a few things pertaining to UK law;
http://www.protectingyourself.co.uk/self-defence-law.html

Last time I went through Stansted Airport I noticed a couple of police officers that were outfitted pretty much like those in your picture. My immediate question to myself was: WTF are they going to use those machine guns for in this environment? The only sensible answer I could think of was intimidation - or possibly a policy of reassuring stupid people that if a situation should arise they can and will "do something". However, in any real firefight situation which involves numerous, presumably panicking civilians all over the place, a machine gun is just dead weight. Its only redeeming quality, that it can fire a lot of bullets in a short amount of time, is useless in a situation that calls for tactical precision.

Well, that would be true of any airport, anywhere in the world.

However, your assertion isn't the only sensible answer. They are also ready to be deployed tactically should a hijacking or hostage situation arise - not to start unloading across a populated departure lounge.

You've been watching too many films.

But certainly, intimidation is a practical aspect to their usage. You see that and you don't mess with the fuckers.

Guilty as charged.

I've been having an Almodovar streak lately. And Guy Richie's Rock'n'Rolla really cracked me up.

I am glad to say the shot police officer was not seriously hurt.

However....


After continually firing shots at police officers throughout last night, the police finally returned fire this morning and killed the cunt.

http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/national-...86081-27895327/