5 ms·

Well that's a load of nonsense. How about backing some of it up? We do have a right to a jury trial. Self-defense is an important defence in several laws. There

Well that's a load of nonsense. How about backing some of it up? We do have a right to a jury trial. Self-defense is an important defence in several laws. There are assemblies/protests in central London every weekend pretty much. Regarding the 'right to remain silent' when arrested in the UK you do not have to say anything. As for the right to keep arms - we don't want it. If our police force believes they can do their job without all carrying firearms (and last night where they tracked down and killed the attackers within 8 mins of the first call to them proves they are right) the general public doesn't need them either.

marcoperaza 9y ago
For self defense, see the case of Tony Martin, who was convicted of murder for shooting intruders in his home. Castle doctrine would have protected his actions in all US states except Vermont. The right to remain silent in the US (and previously in the UK) means that your silence cannot be presented as evidence of guilt in court. In the UK, such evidence may be presented and the the jury is instructed that they may make negative inferences from your refusal to speak with the police. The right to a jury trial has been limited by changes that allow juries to reach majority (10-2) verdicts and by removing the right to a jury trial in cases where the government suspects jury tampering. I'm not trying to get into a debate about guns. But any list of rights no longer enjoyed by Englishmen wouldn't be complete without mentioning it. Whether it's for the better or worse is another issue.
- basisword 9y ago
  Re: Tony Martin He used an illegally held weapon to 'defend his property'. He lay in wait for the burglars and shot at them in the dark and again shot at them (killing one) as they attempted to flee. How in any world is that self-defence? As they were fleeing he was under no threat and therefore such deadly force is completely unreasonable and no longer being used in defence of anything anyway. Unless you want to live in a world where people are shot dead for accidentally wandering on to another persons land the concept of necessary and reasonable force is a fair one.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - marcoperaza 9y ago
    I agree that the right to self-defense is something that must be limited by tests of necessity and reasonableness, in general. But within your home, I think castle doctrine should be the guiding principle. Castle doctrine doesn't apply to people wandering across your land, it applies to people illegally inside your home.
    - Silhouette 9y ago
      There are a surprising number of officials who might have reasonable grounds and lawful basis for entering your property, possibly without your knowledge or consent. Emergency services responding to something like a fire or a call saying someone was hurt would be an obvious example. A more subtle example might be something in your home generating noise or radio interference that is affecting everyone else in the area and needs to be turned off. So, maybe a blanket law saying you can cause essentially unlimited harm or death to anyone entering your property without your consent isn't such a good idea? There are at least two main legal foundations in England for what we casually refer to as a right to self defence, but both of them rely on a test of reasonableness if force is used. Also, it's already acknowledged that someone's idea of what seems reasonable won't be perfect if, say, they are half-awake at 3am and find an intruder standing in the dark outside their child's bedroom, and so there is already an element of benefit of the doubt being given in such situations. Going beyond that would have to be based on either an argument that the current law isn't clear enough to make someone confident to act reasonably (which is a legitimate concern) or an argument that we want to legitimise the deliberate use of grossly excessive force (which, IMHO, is not).
- vacri 9y ago
  > I'm not trying to get into a debate about guns. But any list of rights no longer enjoyed by Englishmen wouldn't be complete without mentioning it. Well, if you're going back that far as to consider carrying guns as a lost right, what about the vote for women? That's been gained. As has welfare. Occupational health and safety. Universal healthcare. The right to be protected by a professional police force (and emergency services in general). The abolition of slavery. Abolition of debtors prisons. Legalisation of homosexuality. Environmental protections. There are a shitload of legal rights gained since the era of English self-arming. Cherry-picking rights from yesteryear is a crappy way to go about complaining of an issue. Guns aren't a legal mechanism; they don't belong on a list of legal processes.
- yarper 9y ago
  In the Tony Martin case, since he shot them in the back it wasn't ruled self defence.
- teamonkey 9y ago
  In the case of the Tony Martin case, he was determined as not acting in self defense and that his actions were an overreaction as well as premeditated to some extent. He shot the intruders in the back as they were fleeing and illegally owned a shotgun, his license having been previously revoked for violent behaviour. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)
yarper 9y ago
Actually the right to a jury isn't absolute [0], you can also be compelled to divulge encryption keys using a two year jail sentence [1] (no right to silence there). Self defence is still as you say, completely legal. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juries_in_England_and_Wales#Trial_without_a_jury https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juries_in_England_and_Wales#Tr... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#United_King...
sqldba 9y ago
> * The right to remain silent (your silence can be used as evidence of guilt in court) This one's active in Australia (or at least the east coast of Australia). There was specific legislation apparently made to combat "biker gangs". http://nswcourts.com.au/articles/the-right-to-remain-silent/ http://nswcourts.com.au/articles/the-right-to-remain-silent/ It also mentions the UK. Specifically: According to the law, for a serious indictable offence, unfavourable inferences (once not allowed) may be drawn if a defendant didn’t mention something which: * he or she could reasonably have been expected to mention in the circumstances; and * is relied on by the defence in the proceeding So... not exactly great... but not world-ending either. Basically if the police question you about where you were, and you have a lawyer with you, and you say you don't remember - you can't then go to court and say, "Well actually I was at XYZ" because that'll be used against you. I'm not sure exactly how that pans out in real life though. It is not unexpected that you'd lose your memory when in a high pressure situation like that.
- wildmusings 9y ago
  >So... not exactly great... but not world-ending either. Basically if the police question you about where you were, and you have a lawyer with you, and you say you don't remember - you can't then go to court and say, "Well actually I was at XYZ" because that'll be used against you. I don't think that's a proper reading of the change. What you're describing was never protected by the right to remain silent. The right to remain silent applies to just that, silence. You changing your story is and has been admissible evidence in all jurisdictions.

marcoperaza 9y ago

For self defense, see the case of Tony Martin, who was convicted of murder for shooting intruders in his home. Castle doctrine would have protected his actions in all US states except Vermont. The right to remain silent in the US (and previously in the UK) means that your silence cannot be presented as evidence of guilt in court. In the UK, such evidence may be presented and the the jury is instructed that they may make negative inferences from your refusal to speak with the police. The right to a jury trial has been limited by changes that allow juries to reach majority (10-2) verdicts and by removing the right to a jury trial in cases where the government suspects jury tampering. I'm not trying to get into a debate about guns. But any list of rights no longer enjoyed by Englishmen wouldn't be complete without mentioning it. Whether it's for the better or worse is another issue.

basisword 9y ago
Re: Tony Martin He used an illegally held weapon to 'defend his property'. He lay in wait for the burglars and shot at them in the dark and again shot at them (killing one) as they attempted to flee. How in any world is that self-defence? As they were fleeing he was under no threat and therefore such deadly force is completely unreasonable and no longer being used in defence of anything anyway. Unless you want to live in a world where people are shot dead for accidentally wandering on to another persons land the concept of necessary and reasonable force is a fair one.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  I agree that the right to self-defense is something that must be limited by tests of necessity and reasonableness, in general. But within your home, I think castle doctrine should be the guiding principle. Castle doctrine doesn't apply to people wandering across your land, it applies to people illegally inside your home.
  - Silhouette 9y ago
    There are a surprising number of officials who might have reasonable grounds and lawful basis for entering your property, possibly without your knowledge or consent. Emergency services responding to something like a fire or a call saying someone was hurt would be an obvious example. A more subtle example might be something in your home generating noise or radio interference that is affecting everyone else in the area and needs to be turned off. So, maybe a blanket law saying you can cause essentially unlimited harm or death to anyone entering your property without your consent isn't such a good idea? There are at least two main legal foundations in England for what we casually refer to as a right to self defence, but both of them rely on a test of reasonableness if force is used. Also, it's already acknowledged that someone's idea of what seems reasonable won't be perfect if, say, they are half-awake at 3am and find an intruder standing in the dark outside their child's bedroom, and so there is already an element of benefit of the doubt being given in such situations. Going beyond that would have to be based on either an argument that the current law isn't clear enough to make someone confident to act reasonably (which is a legitimate concern) or an argument that we want to legitimise the deliberate use of grossly excessive force (which, IMHO, is not).
vacri 9y ago
> I'm not trying to get into a debate about guns. But any list of rights no longer enjoyed by Englishmen wouldn't be complete without mentioning it. Well, if you're going back that far as to consider carrying guns as a lost right, what about the vote for women? That's been gained. As has welfare. Occupational health and safety. Universal healthcare. The right to be protected by a professional police force (and emergency services in general). The abolition of slavery. Abolition of debtors prisons. Legalisation of homosexuality. Environmental protections. There are a shitload of legal rights gained since the era of English self-arming. Cherry-picking rights from yesteryear is a crappy way to go about complaining of an issue. Guns aren't a legal mechanism; they don't belong on a list of legal processes.
yarper 9y ago
In the Tony Martin case, since he shot them in the back it wasn't ruled self defence.
teamonkey 9y ago
In the case of the Tony Martin case, he was determined as not acting in self defense and that his actions were an overreaction as well as premeditated to some extent. He shot the intruders in the back as they were fleeing and illegally owned a shotgun, his license having been previously revoked for violent behaviour. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)

yarper 9y ago

Actually the right to a jury isn't absolute [0], you can also be compelled to divulge encryption keys using a two year jail sentence [1] (no right to silence there). Self defence is still as you say, completely legal. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juries_in_England_and_Wales#Trial_without_a_jury https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juries_in_England_and_Wales#Tr... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#United_King...

sqldba 9y ago

> * The right to remain silent (your silence can be used as evidence of guilt in court) This one's active in Australia (or at least the east coast of Australia). There was specific legislation apparently made to combat "biker gangs". http://nswcourts.com.au/articles/the-right-to-remain-silent/ http://nswcourts.com.au/articles/the-right-to-remain-silent/ It also mentions the UK. Specifically: According to the law, for a serious indictable offence, unfavourable inferences (once not allowed) may be drawn if a defendant didn’t mention something which: * he or she could reasonably have been expected to mention in the circumstances; and * is relied on by the defence in the proceeding So... not exactly great... but not world-ending either. Basically if the police question you about where you were, and you have a lawyer with you, and you say you don't remember - you can't then go to court and say, "Well actually I was at XYZ" because that'll be used against you. I'm not sure exactly how that pans out in real life though. It is not unexpected that you'd lose your memory when in a high pressure situation like that.

wildmusings 9y ago
>So... not exactly great... but not world-ending either. Basically if the police question you about where you were, and you have a lawyer with you, and you say you don't remember - you can't then go to court and say, "Well actually I was at XYZ" because that'll be used against you. I don't think that's a proper reading of the change. What you're describing was never protected by the right to remain silent. The right to remain silent applies to just that, silence. You changing your story is and has been admissible evidence in all jurisdictions.