Your country's prosecution of self defence?

Given the recent exoneration of Kyle Rittenhouse (hold what opinions you may), how do you perceive your country's general prosecution of self defence?

 

Overall I think the self defence law in the UK is generally well structured and well applied.
There is an ongoing smear campaign by the media to paint the law as if people are going to prison for defending themselves all the time when thankfully that is relatively rare (so long as they stayed within the law of course) and that the law is on the side of the criminal rather than the victim.
UK self defence law allows for pre-emption and any level of force required so long it is reasonable in the circumstances and doesn't step over into a revenge beating or vigilantism.
Weapons are strictly controlled which means thankfully having to face or deal with deadly force situations are so rare they aren't really part of the consideration for the vast majority of people.
The biggest problem with the law and self defence in the UK is not the law per se but the lack of funding and resources for the police and other agencies.

 

Surely self defence isn't something you can be prosecuted for, self defence is the legal defence used when you admit assaulting / GBHing/ Killing someone, you admit to doing it, but use the defence as to why it was acceptable in this circumstance.

As such if the courts decide that it wasn't acceptable, then your in a heap of legal trouble.

The UKs legal position is here:
https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/04/05/bashing-burglars-and-the-law-of-self-defence/

I wonder if the self defence legal defence is used more often in countries with higher rates of violent crime?

 

We are all waiting anxiously for the verdict in the Ahmaud Arbery case. This is our next powder keg that could repeat the violent cycle of the last year. The Rittenhouse case was a little tougher to chew on, given the chaos of the context in which self defense was ultimately accepted. Being in a riot with a rifle for protection...can lead to a successful SD push. Rittenhouse showed that.

Ahmaud Arbery though...all that evidence is public domain and it's a clear case of to me at least of a modern posse style lynching. So the defense claim is these white dudes were just defending their hood, but the prosecutor is saying hey it's Ahmaud who was shot defending himself from you random street thugs.

In America, running down the street while black is still not a very safe thing in some places. But if that jury comes back with not guilty, I'm worried the whole thing will blow wide open and self defense is going to become a kind of joke.

Because let's face it...people are saying if Kyle was black he'd be given life and of a bunch of black dudes rode down and killed a white kid....they would also get life. But you have a lot of people defending both Kyle and the Ahmaud posse and saying race is not an issue? Tell that to all the wrongfully dead or incarcerated black men in America. That's the race problem with self defense, it seems to usually be a factor of your skin color at least in US case law. Presumptions of innocence go out the window when your melanin is higher.

 

In my state in the USA, the standards are:

• A proportionate response to the attack, with a consideration disproportionate force. So if we are both about same age, gender size and physical condition and you punch me, I can punch back. I can't shoot you. But if you are a young tough in his 20's and I am a 70 year old man with infirmities, your punch could prove fatal, so I could use lethal force.
• Lethal force is authorized for self defense against "an imminent threat of grave bodily harm." That, with the proviso that the defender did not provoke the fight.

I think the big difference in most states in the US is we are allowed to own and carry appropriate weapons to defend ourselves, which is guaranteed by our Constitution. Legal firearms carriers do not contribute to crime. The rate of murders caused by legal firearms carriers is very low, lower than that of police officers. Our violent crime rate went down dramatically over the last few decades, but now is spiking up. As a result, handgun sales and new concealed carry permits over the last two years have broken all records.

I think race as a factor cuts both ways. I think Kyle R. was acquitted despite his being white. The BLM organization threatened jurors and promised riots if he was acquitted. I think he got off on the merits of his case. In the recent slaughter in Kenosha, Wisconsin, a black many who had an anti-white racist history was let out of jail on $1,000 bond for an intentional hit and run. A few days later, he ran his car through a parade killing five and injuring dozens. He should not have been out on the street. So yeah, there is racism, but it can benefit either side.

I carry a 9mm auto every day. I am well trained in its use and the legalities of self defense. Race is not a factor for me. I will act based on others' actions, not their color.

 

The US rate for incarceration, violent crimes and intentional murder is incredibly high compared the the majority of the developed world, why do you think that is?

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/murder-rate-by-country

Comparison of United States incarceration rate with other countries - Wikipedia

"the US held 21.0% of the world's prisoners in 2015," even though the US represented only around 4.4 percent of the world's population in 2015.

 

All due respect, there is no one "BLM organization". BLM is a rallying cry against police brutality, which is a real problem. It's sung by teachers, students, parents, doctors, lawyers, preachers, and every other type of non-violent person. 99% of people supporting BLM (including, apparently, Kyle Rittenhouse) are supporting peaceful protest against armed, excessive force by law enforcement.

BLM entities that fund raise, elect leaders and so forth, are as numerous as the stars. Also, most are not violent or make violent threats. Those who believe that, believe the hyperbolic rhetoric of people who would rather have you believe BLM is a Cobra Command type left-wing guerilla agency, when it's not. Those are the real fear mongers, the people who want you to label something as XYZ and associate it with violence. Leave that to the experts.

These are people who would not be marching if innocent or marginally guilty black men didn't keep dying at the hands of "law and order" types in America, with or without a real badge, they all apparently want to be the Law.

 

Because we lock up our criminals?

Or a least we used to. It seems to be getting pretty political lately.

 

Riots claimed to be under the aegis of BLM have committed billions in damage. National BLM has identified founders and leaders and has a national website. There is a national lead fundraiser for BLM, Susan Rosenberg, a white woman who is a convicted terrorist bomber. Those are facts. That does not sound like a peaceful, well meaning, social change organization to me.

 

Apart from the Las vegas shooting where the guns used were legally purchased.
And the Orlando shooting.
The Sandy Hook shooter used legally purchased firearms (his mothers). Although arguably he wasn't legally allowed to carry them.

A bit disingenuous no?

 

Yeah...black people in the US sure have benefited from racism.
I dunno what they're moaning about to be honest?

 

No. Those rare events skew the stats, but the overall stats still stand. Besides, I think you have enough problems to worry about on your side of the pond without worrying about ours. It would seem this is not the country for you, which is find by me.

 

Again, worry about your own country. Britain had slavery a lot longer than the US did. In 1086, slaves were 10% of the population in Britain. If your purpose is US bashing, I believe that violates forum rules.

 

What are you even on about? They skew the stats but the stats still stand?! Do they contribute to the stats or not?

 

Indeed. America is how American's want it. But let's not be disingenuous about things eh?

 

The stats support my statement. Those incidents figure in, but they don't change the overall conclusion. I probably said it wrong. You can continue this conversation on your own, without me.

 

Those rare events that happen every couple of weeks/days in America but are actually rare in the rest of the non-gun-obsessed world?
I mean...there's rare and then there's actually rare. They ain't rare events.

I've realised that mass shootings and active shooters are part of the feedback cycle. Gun owners need them to happen to justify being gun owners.
Without a lot of gun crime carrying a gun would start to seem ridiculous. Like carrying a hammer in a world without nails.
"Bad guy has a gun so I need a gun" makes sense.
But if no one got shot that much then walking round with the ability dish out death on your hip would be pointless.
Once the gun "arms race" has begun, and reached saturation point (America passed that point decades ago), you can't really reverse out of it.
If I lived in the US I'd have a gun.

 

So why do you have so many criminals? What is it about America that creates between 7 and 10 times the amount of prisoners per 100,000 citizens that the rest of the developed world has.

It's not exactly Small government is it!

 

And a good solid door, a house in a safe area, alarms, and maybe a gun, and also no booze or kids, booze/kids and guns don't mix.