In the U.K I am under the impression that if a robber enters your premises you are not allowed to physically injure said robber. As an American this shocks me. What I want to know, is what are some Sup Forums opinions on this topic.
Link related
americas1stfreedom.org
Other urls found in this thread:
dailymail.co.uk
twitter.com
My opinion is i hate this country and it's cuckolded citizens and wish i had freedom and liberty
That's what I was thinking. It's honestly sad. Great Britain was once the mightiest empire in history. They have fallen hard and will continue. America will likely face the same demise.
Reasonable force! I.e. You can't keep beating on him when he's on the ground unconscious.
But yea the west is lost
RIP
You don't even have reasonable force. They send your asses to jail for pulling a kitchen knife on a home invader.
That's what I was under the impression regarding U.K law.
Merica' p
Pic from home state
God, how pathetic.
Are Americans really resorting to this to try and explain why you're murder rate is the same as a South American banana republic?
It's easy really, we're not lying, it's just that you're countries minorities aren't minorities anymore and worse yet you've armed them.
In regards to reasonable force in burglaries. Reasonable force is pretty lenient. If someone is caught in your house after breaking in you could shoot them.
You can't however, shoot someone on your driveway, yes this is your property and you can ask them to leave and once doing so they are technically trespassing but to shoot them when unarmed is not an equal response.
This whole debate comes from a famous instance in which a farmer shot a burglar who had entered his house, but the burglar saw the owner armed and ran out the house, then once he had left the farmer shot him in the back and killed him. This was unreasonable because he was in no danger as the robber had already left. Had he instead moved towards him and been shot there would not have been such an issue.
In regards to America, only a few states have the castle laws. Any other has pretty much the same law as us. In regards to those that do have the castle laws it is because in America many robberies are carried out with firearms and so the right to shoot firs and ask questions later is something people want.
The level of American sycophancy on Sup Forums is truly ridiculous by the way.
In Britainistan, a rape and murder of an 8 year old girl by a Muslim is not counted as a crime if he is not arrested.
Hmmm good point... except one thing, that's completely wrong.
I think you mean 'if no one is prosecuted', which is to say you can commit a crime and not be arrested, such as speeding.
In this regard you'll find that the USA and every other country does not record a crime on the basis of 'he said she said', someone has to be found guilty of a crime for it to be a crime, you know Magna Carta and all that. Might be hard to remember given you're no longer an Anglo country.
Oh, if you're white you'll go to jail for 3 years for getting upset, 6 years for cursing at a football match.
To your first argument, America doesn't care about murder rates we care about freedom. In America murder rates are only high in low income, often black communities. In many cases these residents are subject to all murders. Outside of these areas murders are very low. Americans believe in self defense and freedom. Murder rates don't bother true Patriots because we believe in freedom of defense. Freedom from oppressive governments like colonial England from confiscating American weapons during the civil war from law abiding citizen without due process. It is the last defense against oppressive regimes. We will never give up our weapons because it is a part of our culture. Have you ever fired a semi-automatic ar-15? Bet not. It's is an awesome experience and many Americans would die for their God given right to own firearms. Why should I give up my weapons if I have never broken the law? What if an intruder enters my home with deadly intent? Are you so cucked that you think some random person is going to blow your head off on the street because people own guns in America? Afraid Brit bong. Afraid of the awesome power that weapons hold against oppressive regimes and violent criminals.
>reddit spacing
> Resorting to memes.
Look, all Western countries are pretty much the same.
There is one difference. In the UK we're starting to own up to our issues and stop filibustering. We need to reassert the freedom of speech especially over religion, we need to massively reduce immigration.
You'd think by many Americans on here that you have no issues though. That every American suburb is something from the 1950's. We all know it isn't and within our lifetime white Americans will become a minority. A written constitution hasn't protected your liberties, with things like the Patriot act trampling on them like a heard of elephants.
If we are to have any chance of survive we have to stop falling for these divide and conqueror tactics and realise we are all in the same boat.
>In regards to reasonable force in burglaries. Reasonable force is pretty lenient. If someone is caught in your house after breaking in you could shoot them.
What a load of shit.
There's that FAMOUS, FAMOUS, case where some yobs broke into a guys house in the middle of the night and started beating the crap out of him, so he grabbed his gun and shot one.
And he got sent to prison, and was vilified by damn near the entirety of britain.
Every other month there's a story about some brit brandishing a knife to scare away a home intruder and THEY get fined or jailed.
You're so completely full of shit it's coming out your ears.
You have NO right to self defense in Britain as shown by numerous famous court cases.
Glad I live in a country where I can legally "disarticulate" a burglars head from their body with a firearm. Man why do people burgle homes in this county? it's really fucking dangerous!
>Shoot aggressors
Literally that easy. Just kill the people who try to kill you. For fucks sake self defense law is derived from english common law. You These britcucks invented this stuff.
> Americans don't care about murder rates blah blah
Are you seriously trying to say 'it's fine if our country is Balkanised, it was always like that'.
You're tax money pays for these police, their time, the damage they cause and anyone who's not a delinquent who gets caught up and killed in it.
> Oppressive regimes.
What? Like your own state, who regularly kills more of you own citizens in a year than die in your wars? Who are larger than many counties militarises? Who have the right to use lethal force at all times and can employ military equipment like drones to do so?
> Strawman.
I at no point have said give up your weapons. What I will say though is don't try ridiculous mental gymnastics to try and explain you're huge murder rate compared to other counties.
I can't even be bothered to answer the other points as it seems like unintelligible rambling.
>In the U.K I am under the impression that if a robber enters your premises you are not allowed to physically injure said robber.
it's worse in australia. if someone breaks into your house, you can't kill them unless they have a deadly weapon, are facing you, and are advancing towards you. if they turn around and start walking away, killing them is murder (this does include someone turning around and walking away with your daughter in tow). if you kill them with a gun, the first thing the prosecutor will try to do is get your guns taken away and charge you with improper storage of a firearm AND murder, since you obviously "had no need to shoot" because you had to get your gun first.
if you do end up killing someone, self defence is not a full defence, it will only get your murder charge downgraded to manslaughter.
once the trial is over, you will also be sued by the victims 100% of the time.
Derivativa potestas non potest esse majora primitiva
Under English Law, a mans home is his castle - refuse to recognize the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom.
No that didn't happen.
They may have beaten him up and then been shot at another time but you have that law also, it's called killing someone in cold blood, ie. after the event had happened.
Even in the most gun friendly state in America, you couldn't shoot someone in the street because they threatened you yesterday on your driveway.
I mean, just think about what you're saying. How could you beat someone up if they were armed with a gun?
>Look, all Western countries are pretty much the same.
No, America has a chance, and you live in a police-state.
There was a case not so long back of an old timer, farmer dude, who shot burglars - Jury decided in his favor.
dailymail.co.uk
You probably are allowed to defend yourself if you're under threat of your life and you can't escape (proportionate force and all).
Don't shoot someone in the back, and you'll probably be fine if the individual had a knife or blunt object on them and they weren't running away from you.
I'm sorry but you don't.
I was kind of trying to be diplomatic but America is demographically dead at 60% white. We still have a chance, but it's slim at 87% white.
Thank you.
Killing the people who are trying to kill you is not "cold blood", it is defense.
God how dense can you be. Try reading the point.
I said the instance you likely saw was one where they were attacked in the past and then when shooting them at a later date this was not considered defence, as it wouldn't be in America.
user. above has already provided a link to a case where the shooter walked free because his life was in danger.
GB was a force back when everyone else were helpless pussies. Brit manlets haven't had balls for centuries now.
You have Jews. You're done m8.
We're importing Asians, and they are good at getting rid of Jews, and we can support enough of them to do the job. You can't.
>in the past and then when shooting them at a later date
That never happened.
self defense is idiotic. if someone initiates force against you, the emotion chip in their brain simply switches off their consciousness and they wake up in the MAGFA facility reprogrammed and good as new.
The moment you allow people an inch of freedom they will misbehave, if you want a society and species to run counter to their nature, giving them leeway in their actions is a fantastic way to see it destroy itself. Now that we have completely mapped out humanity in a physical sense, we know exactly the best way forward to proceed. The chip in everyone's brain helps them be better humans, without any externalises.
Everyone is just, courageous, temperate and wise.
t. the world in 2089
America is not the Balkans retard. Our police officers protect themselves against criminals with unregistered firearms. There are more firearms than people in the usa. Come fire a .357 magnum and tell me it's not incredibly badass. Almost all gun related murders occur in black communities. And if you ever stepped foot into my home, I would blow your kneecaps off with a double barrel that I keep under my couch. I sleep with a gun on my nightstand. Your a cuck bongo boy. America is all about freedom unlike your disgrace of a country.
>at this point in time it becomes too late
whip your head back, breaks the nose, didn't any of these people have older brothers?
Nothing we can do.
that's a reason to not call the cops after beating the robber up and tying him. instead make some deep web content while you're at it
or stomp on their foot, that gives them a limp for a solid week
Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
I think you'll find next to Israel the USA is the home of Judaism.
I'm also more worried about the 'minorities' you already have.
That is what happened in another famous case that people bring up, I assumed this was the one you mean.
> He fucking thinks balkanisation means the actual geographic region.
Fuck me, did you go to school or is this a representation of the quality of said institutions?
>Are you seriously trying to say 'it's fine if our country is Balkanised, it was always like that'.
Yes.
>You're tax money pays for these police, their time, the damage they cause and anyone who's not a delinquent who gets caught up and killed in it.
See above. I don't pay for the niggers in Detroit because our country is balkanised.
To address the Brit who is mentioning murder rates, look at the statistics of who is involved with those. Blacks and Hispanics and usually involving gang and other criminal activity.
>Balkanization, division of a multinational state into smaller ethnically homogeneous entities. The term also is used to refer to ethnic conflict within multiethnic states. It was coined at the end of World War I to describe the ethnic and political fragmentation that followed the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, particularly in the Balkans
No you do sadly because it's operated on a state level. When I said balkanised I meant socially, ie there are areas that whites do not go for fear of being attacked. There are lovely regions of America that are mainly white. But you all pay into the same pot of money for services.
hence why Obamacare pushed premiums up.
You still don't know what I meant. Refer above.
>Thread about right to self defense laws
>He writes an emotional novel of loosely connected rants that touch on gun rights and minority crime sandwiched between anti-american slights.
This is good bait
I should have never interrupted your circle jerk, but he obviously understands the concept. The point, made hamfistedly, is that such models that resulted in Balkanisation, in-play at various times and places globally and, of course, The Balkans, are not applicable to the American model due to... factors
also, your fight is gay and for that reason, I'm out
Okay.
Here's the abridged version.
That publication is lying.
dailymail.co.uk
It says a lot about you denial.
Well it is applicable. In fact America is a case study in it and many Americans here are agreeing by saying 'we don't care about X region of my nation because it's not white'.
yeah, but it's really not. America is one of the few cases where ridiculous powers of federation "glued" the country in such a way as to prevent the outcome. If our federal powers were capable of this 140 years ago, imagine what lengths they'll go through now. I could go on, but like I said, I really don't care about this line of discussion at all
I said socially.
You're telling me Detroit is the same as rural Utah? One has no Muslim families, the other has a murder rate that El Salvador could be critical of.
But that's fine, because even though Detroit is an American city, you don't care because it's 80% black. That's balkanisation, it's effectively a separate region where the rules are not applied equally.
You are a bitch. I'm about to get my cock drained so I'm out Brit cuck. Have fun jacking off while I go hunting for bore, fish, backpack, snowboard, and shoot guns at the range.
These emotional appeal makes no difference to the fact that America has enormous problems in the future that you refuse to talk about.
America is experiencing FORCED Balkanisation, It's not natural. It's funded by George Soros and his "ANTIFA-employees" have been protesting that he didn't pay them recently.
The shekel drops.
Yes it is forced, nobody in America wants it just as nobody in Europe wants their enclaves to develop.
But neither party, Democratic, Republican, Labour, Conservative etc. will reduce migrations. So the working class continues to feel marginalised and have outbursts but nothing changes.
I don't know what the answer is but never forget neither of the two main parties represent your interests.
alright, I'll unload...
I personally believe that what's happening in America is a quasi-normalization of third-world standards divided along class lines, we know this, but the caveat is a return to lord/peasant status. Detroit is a great example, I'm from Flint myself. For every crackhouse in Detroit, there's a redneck a block over. What they have in common is socio-economic standards, which are poor by the classic American metric. To paint it as an ethnic split is not entirely accurate. It's easier to imagine modern-day US as an early-stage feudal system or serfdom. Nobody there owns shit, save a few "lords," and their allowed their patch to curl up on while slaving away for no savings with less options all the time. I believe in the future we will remove any ladder out of this, especially with the student bubble about to pop
the racial thing is in play, I know this better than anyone, but it's just a minor struggle for scraps in a hole that we'll never climb out of
Same is australia the right to self defence doesn't exist
> Normalisation of third world standards.
I agree, this is what's happening in Europe as well.
Minority and immigrant populations are bringing the third world in rather than us converting them to the first.
> Return to feudalism.
It's even worse, it's a highly refined form of capitalism. The working classes share of has remained stagnant or even reduced in some areas such as standards of living. The amount of capital owned by the American public is tiny in comparison to the large corporations.
If it was feudal it would be better. At least in 1100 the lord had a responsibility to house and feed the serfs. Now you get a wage, and if that wage doesn't cover your food or a reasonable standard of living it's the market's fault not the owners.
To bring this back round though these threads are simply divide and conqueror. We all have problems and maybe instead of trying to out do each other in idiocy we should discuss them.
Yeah, but because it is forced, it doesn't actually exist.
Jeez. Y'all motherfuckers need FREEDOM. I almost dropped my cheeseburger.
I think you'll find it does if you take two seconds to walk through Detroit, just as if I was to walk through North Birmingham.
ITT:
>Americans being American
>Britbongs getting salty about gunless cuck-country
but like that user was saying earlier, the guns changes the equation as does the unenforceable nature of our laws given the rural population. The move to megaregions nullifies this and that's why the rich get such a hard-on for it
That's right, goy.
Aawwww, how old are you, sweetie?
>like colonial England from confiscating American weapons during the civil war
You mean war of independance? I don't think britain gave a fuck during your civil war.
Way too history there burger
Two things.
The availability of guns means the criminals also have an easy access to guns. This is represented in the high murder rate and burglary statistics.
The other aspect, is that to compensate your government has had to stay one step ahead with the militarisation of the police.
Should you give up your guns?
No, despite what I've just said guns are a part of American culture and most of you defend them. So keep them.
But remember this, guns are not the way you would defeat a tyrannical government.
Your ability to organise the political sphere is what would stop a tyrannical government.
If you had wanted to, you could have killed every single individual in Vietnam with atomic weapons, mass carpet boming etc etc.
What defeated you there was your lack of will to continue brought on by Vietnamese political resistance that left a military option as the only solution. In a civil environment this would be the same, the government would not eradicate it's own population but would loose the will to continue by mass resistance, not the resistance of a few hundred of even thousand armed Americans.
So just remember to be a polytheist and not devote all your attention to the shrine of firearms.
...
you have no idea the brain drain, the American people are wholly unfit to take over a bowl of fucking jello. The guns mean that they'll send poor cops to fight poor crackheads and farmers and it will be bloody. But we have elites and they are in control and always will be, end of story. So to get to the original point, it won't be balkanized america, it will be rats fighting in one shiny, united bucket of piss
>In regards to reasonable force in burglaries. Reasonable force is pretty lenient. If someone is caught in your house after breaking in you could shoot them.
In the UK? If that's what you're saying, you are wrong. I looked into this quite a bit after talking with my neighbor whose brother is in prison for killing an intruder with a cricket bat, or stick or whatever it's called.
>You can't however, shoot someone on your driveway, yes this is your property and you can ask them to leave and once doing so they are technically trespassing but to shoot them when unarmed is not an equal response.
Our laws vary by state, but in most you can't shoot people in your yard without your life being in danger.
>In regards to America, only a few states have the castle laws. Any other has pretty much the same law as us. In regards to those that do have the castle laws it is because in America many robberies are carried out with firearms and so the right to shoot firs and ask questions later is something people want.
Most states have castle doctrine. It has nothing to do with guns. You should know as it's derived from the English common law. "A mans home is his castle."
It's pathetic that the UK is now so fucking cucked. You'll want that ability to protect yourself if you keep up with your current immigration levels.
We've gone over all this through the course of the thread.
Here's an article of someone in the UK shooting an intruder and walking free. It actually discusses the previous case in which a farmer shot someone driving away with an unlicensed firearm and was given a sentence.
dailymail.co.uk
You're neighbour is probably lying. Nobody killing someone with a cricket bat for burglary would go to jail as the 'thin skull' rule does not apply if the accused had mens rea to commit another crime.
>1776+241
>licensing firearms
ISHYGDDT
>America has a chance
mate, you don't really believe this do you? Your country is 56% white
let them have their fantasy, it's all they've got
>unregistered firearms
"How do you do, fellow gun-owners?"
>you can't kill them unless they have a deadly weapon, are facing you, and are advancing towards you
Kek, it's even worse here. To be able to kill a robber you have to prove that he had the intent to kill you, not just scare you. Which means you have to let the attacker seriously wound you before you resort to lethal force.
Want to know what's even better? We have kidnapping laws, which means you can only hold a person for up to 60 minutes against their will while waiting for the police, before it turns into kidnapping. This is to prevent shopping centers and such from keeping shoplifters in "arrest" a whole day.
HOWEVER, the law also applies when homeowners keep burglars in check while waiting for the police. And when the police has had a busy night, they don't always show up in that 60 minute window. So what happens? The homeowner is charged with kidnapping.
Several absurd court cases involving this law.