England: "Violence Has Been Embedded In Our Culture"; but not for the victims

 Violent gangs are now "embedded" in our culture, experts have warned after six people were stabbed to death in the capital in seven days. The comments come after figures released this week show knife crime increased by 14 per cent year on year in 2016 to levels not seen since 2011. 

What capital?
Sounds like Washington DC, Chicago, Philly, Baltimore ... what's you're guess?

Never mind ... you're wrong.

It's ... LONDON!

 The debate surrounding knife crime was thrown again into the spotlight after six people aged between 17 and 48 were killed in London between April 22 and Friday afternoon, with at least one believed to be gang related.

Oh, the Brits are so quick to denigrate America (as are all Europeans ... we must provide a service to them by providing them someone to criticize for not being as "civilized" as they are!) that it feeds my personal sense of Schadenfreude to report that ... Gun Violence is not the only source of violence in the world.

In fact, after the government of Great Britain decreed the GUNS (Evil!) would no longer be allowed to be owned by private citizens, the number of deaths by "Gun Violence" has certainly been reduced (but not yet to "ZERO"), the country continues to reel under the level of violence.

Most of the violence is arrogant propterty damage or theft, or Assault .. which doesn't necessarily end up in murder.
In England, there's little reason for the YOBs not to assault you; they know you cannot defend yourself against two or more of them.  And there are always more of them, because the worst they have to fear, if caught in the act, is that they will be assigned an ASBO ... an Anti-Social Behavior Order.

Consider it a traffic ticket; they do.

Well, we have the same problem; but the difference is that America acknowledges that its CITIZENS have he right to defend themselves.

Not so in Jolly Old England.

HOW CAN THIS BE?

Don't the Brits have all these gun laws, meant to eliminate violent gun crime?

Doesn't work, does it?

We have had this conversation before; my ASBO opponents have supported the position that ... okay, so they have a lot of violent assaults (because their citizens are essentially disarmed, they can't fight back), but the number of assaults which end up in a death are 'fewer".

That only means that the violent felons can more easily intimidate their victims ... who are powerless to resist an assault by two or more assailants.

Or even a single assailant, who knows that the worst that can happen to HIM, is much less than the worst that can happen to YOU!

And the beat goes on.



If they (the "Bad Guys") don't have guns, they'll find another weapon to intimidate the poor, sick, lame, disarmed and old people who are their victims of choice.   Knives are also restricted, as are firearms, but much more difficult to regulate because "there is a societal need for knives, unlike guns".  (Check your privileges; there is a societal need for guns when knives are often used in assaults!)

Mr Wilson, a criminology professor at Birmingham City University, who is also a former prison governor and an author, added: "Without a doubt, we are seeing a lot more young people using knives in the context of gangs and organised crime."
He also pointed to a "widening gap" between the rich and poor and improved techniques in the ways police can record offences.

DISPROPORTIONATE vs "GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE" defense:

For some time, Brits who were attacked *(typically in their own home, or on their doorstep)* were only allowed to use "Proportionate Force" in their defense.

For example, if you're an 80 year old widow who is attacked by six 20 year old YOBS who proceed to batter you with fists and boots ... you were subject to prosecution if you grabbed a kitchen knife to defend yourself.

You see ... that was "Disproportionate" defense.  (If you had a shotgun and used that, your charge would be "Grossly Disproportionate" defense.)   Either way, expect to take it without grease or even a kiss be prosecuted.

tsk tsk tsk.


No, the poor Brits are not only unable to find weapons to defend themselves, but if they use a lethal weapon to defend themselves against the YOBS, they  find themselves liable to civil action for using"Grossly Disproportionate" means of defending themselves, their property and their family.

(It use to be that The Brits were subject to imprisonment if they used  "Disproportionate Means" of defense ... which is to say if some Yob is kicking your ass across your kitchen because you won't give him your money, and you poke him in the thigh with your kitchen knife ... he was only using his fists, but you used your knife, and so YOU are the bad guy.)

So ... what if he is using a knife against you ... you are forbidden to use a firearms to defend yourself in Great Britain,   Are we to understand that if you shoot him with your single-shot shotgun because you are in fear for your life, you will be found guilty of using "Grossly Disproportionate" means of defense?

"Grossly Disproportionate":
Not defined.

The UK has included a helpful guide for those who find themselves who fear loss of property, well-being, or life in the case of an attack in their homes.

According to the Ministry of Justice, the changes will protect anyone who fears for the safety of their family, and in the heat of the moment uses force that is reasonable in the circumstances but in the cold light of day seems disproportionate.

"The public should be in no doubt that the law is on their side," Grayling said on Sunday. "That is why I am toughening up the current law for those who defend themselves and their loved ones."Householders who act instinctively and honestly in self defence are victims of crime and should be treated that way. We need to dispel doubts in this area once and for all." Force which is "grossly disproportionate" will remain illegal.

*link*


So, what is "Grossly Disproportionate" force?

In a 2016 article in the Guardian, Her Majesty's Government made a defining statement:
Householders can use a disproportionate level of force against an intruder in their homes if they reasonably believe it is necessary, the high court has ruled.
Judges ruled that the “householder defence” [sic], which relieves people of the responsibility of making fine judgments about proportionality in the heat of the moment, so long as it is necessary, was compatible with European human rights laws.
In a ruling handed down on Friday, they rejected a challenge brought by the family of a man who was left in a coma after allegedly intruding in a home in the early hours of the morning in December 2013.
Relatives of Denby Collins argued that the law, which was strengthened by the coalition government in 2013, was incompatible with the right to life guaranteed by the European convention on human rights.
While the judges stressed that their decision did not give people “carte blanche” to use any degree of force to protect themselves, they said that force was not necessarily unreasonable and unlawful “simply because it is disproportionate – unless it is grossly disproportionate”.

So, you got to ask yourself:  what the heck is "grossly disproportionate"?

Fortuitously, there has been an online debate (see below) on that very point ... necessarily so because The Brits (being, after all, "British") are loath to actually define terminology which they find distasteful.

Someone on the "PRO side had a few comments which might provide some insight:

We are able to protect our homes, but just not in a disproportionate manner. If an intruder has a gun, we can shoot the criminal; we do not have to wait for the burglar to shoot us. However, if they do not have a gun, if we then shoot them for them merely being in our homes, then this is disproportionate. Parliament has assigned 14years [sic] maximum sentence for burglary. To allow people to act as violently as they like so long as it is not ‘grossly disproportionate’ would be allowing people to take the law into their own hands. If Parliament has not given burglary a life sentence then neither should the public. This is nothing more than capital punishment executed by the public

If you are a Brit living in Jolly Old England, and find yourself at risk of spending your life in prison because you used lethal (aka: "grossly disproportionate" means to defend yourself ... you can kiss your ass goodbye.

The British Example is to do just that.   You do not have the absolute legal right to defend your self/family/home/property against intruders;  they will get a couple of years in Old Nick for intruding, but you will get life in the slammer if you inconvenience the poor unfortunates who only want to make a better life for themselves ... after they have beaten you senseless in front of your family, raped your wife, taken every valuable property you (formerly) owned, and ran away laughing at you.

SUMMARY:  The "Home Intruder" Difference between the consequences of British Law vs American Law:

British Law: 

Oh, do I know you?  You didn't have to break down the door .. oh, never mind.  The silver is in that cabinet over there, you don't have to break it.  It's not locked.  And I have twenty quid in my pocket .. it's yours, you don't have to hit me.
Please don't hurt us.  We mean you no harm.

American Law:

Who the f*ck are you? Eat hot lead!
Bang!  Bang!
Honey, call 911.  Tell them there's a clean-up on Aisle 12.  And get the kids into their rooms ... tell them they can play video games until the police take out the trash.  No, they can't play "American Viper" ... it's too violent.   While we're waiting, there's a nice Chianti in the wine cabinet, why don't I pour us a couple of glasses?

I'm so glad my great-great grandparents took the boat over here.