No Right to Self Defense

[Xiphos]

Don't defend your home, your family, or your life. You will be punished for not letting the nanny government from coming and working your homicide at the hands of burglars. They need to video your family being slaughtered to justify the cameras.

Man who 'stabbed to death burglar he found ransacking mother's house' is charged with murder | Mail Online

Council official's son who 'stabbed teenager he caught burgling his mother's house' is charged with murder

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 8:47 PM on 27th October 2009

A council official's son who stabbed two burglars after catching them breaking into his mother's home was today charged with murdering one of them.

Omari Roberts, 23, was hailed a hero after tackling 17-year-old Tyler Juett and a 14-year-old accomplice during a struggle.

But yesterday he appeared in court accused of killing Juett and wounding the younger raider with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

The Crown Prosecution Service said it decided to charge him because it was believed he used 'excessive and gratuitous force' during the incident.

Juett was fatally injured as he tried to burgle the home of Jacqueline McKenzie-Johnson and her family on the afternoon of March 13 this year.

His accomplice was also stabbed at the Johnsons' semi-detached house in Heathfield Road, Old Basford, Nottingham.

Neighbours living near the scene of the killing claimed the area had suffered a number of burglaries.

Yesterday Roberts listened as Nottingham magistrates heard how he first discovered the 14-year-old inside his mother's house.

Lee Shepherd, prosecuting, said the defendant had chased him down the street before returning to the property to find himself confronted by Juett.

The teenager suffered a 13cm wound that passed through his chest cavity and cut vital arteries during the ensuing 'scuffle', the court was told.

Appealing for bail for Roberts, Raj Chand, defending, said: 'This must have been a dreadful situation for any law-abiding member of the public.

'Someone said to me earlier that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, but I said that he was in the right place at the right time.

'An Englishman's home is his castle. He says he was in the right. He regrets what happened, but he was defending himself and his property.'

District Judge John Stobart said he was taking the 'rare decision' to grant bail because of Roberts' flawless record of reporting for bail since March.

But he agreed to remand him in custody at least until tomorrow after the prosecution said it wanted to appeal against the decision.

Outside court Mrs McKenzie-Johnson, 46, an acting team manager at Nottingham City Council, questioned the CPS's decision to prosecute her son.

She said: 'It's a surprise when you look at the basic facts, because a murder charge means intent. Where was the intent in this case?'

Ian Cunningham, the reviewing lawyer in the case, said: 'The Crown Prosecution Service has a policy on householders and the use of force against intruders, which was considered in this.

'I also discussed the case with the CPS principal legal adviser and have decided there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction.

'I have decided that when Omari Roberts disturbed two burglars and caused injuries to them - in one case fatally - his actions were not reasonable.

'I have also looked very carefully at the public interest in this case, and I am satisfied that the public interest requires a prosecution.'

Mr Cunningham said guidelines made clear anyone using 'reasonable force' to defend themselves would 'enjoy the full protection of the law'.

He added: 'However, the law also makes clear that people could be prosecuted if they act with excessive and gratuitous force.'

Roberts, who did not enter any pleas during the hearing, is next scheduled to appear before Nottingham Crown Court on November 10.

[countybear]

I concur with the State of Louisiana in this matter:

§19. Use of force or violence in defense
A. The use of force or violence upon the person of another is justifiable when committed for the purpose of preventing a forcible offense against the person or a forcible offense or trespass against property in a person's lawful possession, provided that the force or violence used must be reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent such offense, and that this Section shall not apply where the force or violence results in a homicide.
B. For the purposes of this Section, there shall be a presumption that a person lawfully inside a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle held a reasonable belief that the use of force or violence was necessary to prevent unlawful entry thereto, or to compel an unlawful intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle, if both of the following occur:
(1) The person against whom the force or violence was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.
(2) The person who used force or violence knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.
C. A person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and who is in a place where he or she has a right to be shall have no duty to retreat before using force or violence as provided for in this Section and may stand his or her ground and meet force with force.
D. No finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the possibility of retreat as a factor in determining whether or not the person who used force or violence in defense of his person or property had a reasonable belief that force or violence was reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent a forcible offense or to prevent the unlawful entry.

[Second Chance]

I concur with the State of Louisiana in this matter:

Hell ya!!!!!

[CTR man]

Those guys over in the UK need to get things like that sorted out real quick. That just isn't right.

[jmur5074]

And the state of MN says....:

609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.

The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.

[Five-0]

The lesson here is.......












Learn how to get rid of the body.

[Sapper_132]

The lesson here is.......












Learn how to get rid of the body.

+1

[TXCharlie]

On Page 99 of the November "American Rifleman", they said that the Brittish "Home Office" is trying to get Samuel Adams beer goblets outlawed.

It seems that glass goblets can be broken and used as a weapon, so Samuel Adams may have to start making their beer glasses out of plastic now.

The article also mentions the 2005 effort to get sharp-pointed kitchen knives outlawed.

[Odd]

Same reason bottles aren't sold at sporting events, isn't it? Not sure how wide spread that is yet. One of many camels.

I've long thought I should set up a blog just to store these UK stories on. It'd be interesting to correlate stories from the US and UK to see what the delay is. Right of self protection, public welfare, public safety, replacing cops with cameras, economic policy, etc. On some, like firearms, there's a big gap...so long as you don't live in San Fran. On others, gap's narrowing.

More interesting yet would be to look at how they were sold their bushel of rotten apples and compare to what we're being fed today.

[dadyswat]

The bad part is that is were the powers that be want to take us. Everyone had better watch very closely the arms treaty that Obama has given his OK to in the UN.

[Sapper_132]

The bad part is were the powers that be want to take us. Everyone had better watch very closely the arms treaty that Obama has given his OK to in the UN.

Can someone translate this for me please? I think this was a cause of Typing While Drinking...

[dadyswat]

No drinking, just got my fingers all tied up on the keyboard.

[MacLean]

RCW 9A.16.050

Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.


Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.
[1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.050.]

[TXCharlie]

I'm too tired to read any of them right now, but do you have one like us, that provides a defense for shooting someone stealing property at night in order to recover the property?

That's if there's no other way to recover it without putting yourself in unreasonable danger. Some people cite insurance, but insurance generally has deductibles that you can't recover any other way.

Criminal Mischief at night is a similar defense, but of course you have to reasonably believe that stopping it any other way will put yourself in danger of serious injury.

[Standard Dave]

There is alot more to this case than the content of the story posted from the Daily Mail newspaper.

It will all come out during the trial, matters this serious should surely be up to a court to decide not the police or a prosecutor.

BBC NEWS | UK | England | Nottinghamshire | Man charged over 'burglar murder'

[Xiphos]

There is alot more to this case than the content of the story posted from the Daily Mail newspaper.

It will all come out during the trial, matters this serious should surely be up to a court to decide not the police or a prosecutor.

BBC NEWS | UK | England | Nottinghamshire | Man charged over 'burglar murder'

Are you aware of deadly force being used by a homeowner in defense of their home and family, where they weren't strung up by the courts? Perhaps the articles I've read the last few years sensationalize it for attention. Kenneth Batchelor comes to mind but that's the only one I can think of.

[MacLean]

Are you aware of deadly force being used by a homeowner in defense of their home and family, where they weren't strung up by the courts? Perhaps the articles I've read the last few years sensationalize it for attention. Kenneth Batchelor comes to mind but that's the only one I can think of.

I've yet to see a British policeman stand up the way we would for self defense.

I mean no offense to any of them for it, but they see it differently than we do.

[TXCharlie]

My take on what I saw when I was in the UK, after doing some reading of the political magazines and just talking to co-workers, is that tradition is huge - More important than personal safety of police officers, even more important than public safety in some people's opinion.

Carrying a deadly weapon down the street in full view of the public would be horrific - would break tradition and be seen as a public hazard, no matter how it's spun.

I kept wondering when a dictator would send some jack-booted thugs to round us up into a boxcar and haul us off to an extermination camp - there IS no defense to the Government turning on the people, beyond the strength of your bones and muscles and whatever you can grab on the way to the crematorium - Or to being stabbed in an alleyway at the hands of a common criminal.

All that happened not so many miles away from them (in SEVERAL countries), and not so long ago - Certainly within my father's memory. Many people who lived the nightmare are still in the UK, yet no one else has learned from the Holocaust victims - It is not enough to say "never again". Words must be backed up with deeds if necessary, and the means must be available to carry out the deeds.

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, in the most horrific way that no one today could possibly imagine. Evil learns from its mistakes and is always at the peak of its mental conditioning, but goodness and honor forget their mistakes, go have have an ale at the pub, and toast virture rather than defending it".

[Dirk]

I could give a shit what the government tells me I have a right to do and right not to do, I will protect myself, and if that means capping a mother fucker, so be it. I'll be tried by 12.

[Standard Dave]

Are you aware of deadly force being used by a homeowner in defense of their home and family, where they weren't strung up by the courts? Perhaps the articles I've read the last few years sensationalize it for attention. Kenneth Batchelor comes to mind but that's the only one I can think of.

There are cases where people have used deadly force in self defence and not been convicted. I don't have time to reseach them at present.

The cases which have attracted media attention have been cases portraded as self defence or defence of property where the home owner has gone beyond defence and into punishment or revenge.
Tony Martin who shot two burglars killing one was convicted as he fired an illegally owned shotgun into the back of the burglars as they fled the property, that wasn't self defence that was either revenge or at a long stretch him trying to apprehend the suspects but he then failed to call either the police or ambulance after firing the fatal shots.

There is another case where the home owner chased a burglar from his home and then proceeded to stab him 33 times in the street outside.

The laws and history are different to the US and thats why we have a different attitude to what is self defence and what becomes something else.

The reasons government in the UK cannot use the police or military to round people up and impose dictatorship is that they swear allegance not to a country, a flag or a government like other countries but to the queen and to their service a soldier or police officer cannot be told to do anything by a politician.