UK Judges Revive Right to Self-Defense

[mundaire]

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/artic ... fense.aspx

UK Judges Revive Right to Self-Defense
Posted on September 28, 2012

When British couple Andy and Tracey Ferrie were arrested in early September on "suspicion of causing grievous bodily harm," after using a registered shotgun to fight off a pair of home invaders, self-defense proponents in the U.S. and across the pond feared the worst. After all, in the U.K. the right to self-defense has been degraded into near non-existence; made apparent by the infamous case of farmer Tony Martin and incidents like that of British TV personality Myleene Klass. However, in a rare bout of sanity, U.K. officials have dropped all charges against the Ferries and sent a warning to would-be criminals, in what will hopefully serve as a blueprint for how such cases are handled in the future.

The incident took place in the early morning at the Ferries' secluded cottage, after the couple was awakened by the sound of breaking glass. To defend themselves, Mr. Ferrie retrieved his wife's clay shotgun, while Mrs. Ferrie picked up a nearby crowbar. When the Ferries encountered intruders Joshua O'Gorman and Daniel Mansell, Mr. Ferrie fired, wounding both criminals. It was at least the fourth time burglars have broken into the Ferrie residence. Records reveal O'Gorman to have 16 previous criminal convictions, while Mansell has eight, including a conviction for wounding with intent that landed him a six-year sentence.

Following their arrest, the couple spent 66 hours in police custody. Mr. Ferrie told the media that police threatened him with an attempted murder charge, adding, "I just crumpled. I saw myself being sent to prison for a long, long time. I was offered food but didn't eat for the whole 66 hours we were held." Mrs. Ferrie described the scene around her home as "something out of CSI." And Mrs. Ferrie's mother summed up the ordeal by stating, "They put Tracey and Andrew through hell." The couple was finally released without charges after mounting public outcry that included a defense from the couple's Member of Parliament, Alan Duncan.

Further vindication came September 26, when the wounded home invaders pleaded guilty to burglary and were sentenced to four years in prison. Presiding over the case was Judge Michael Pert QC, who rejected attempts by O'Gorman's attorney to obtain leniency for his client by citing O'Gorman's "near-death experience." Judge Pert remarked, "If you burgle a house in the country where the householder owns a legally held shotgun, that is the chance you take. You cannot come to court and ask for a lighter sentence because of it," adding, "Some might argue that being arrested and locked up for 40 hours is a trauma."

The comments were followed by those of the head of the English judiciary, Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, who made clear, "If your home is burgled and you're in there, you have the right to get rid of the burglar." The Lord Chief Justice added, "The householder is entitled to use reasonable force to get rid of the burglar… In measuring whether the force is reasonable or not, you're not doing a paper exercise six months later… You've got to put yourself in the position of the man or woman who has reacted to the presence of a burglar and has reacted with fury, with anxiety, with fear and with all the various different emotions which have been generated and has no time for calm reflection." And in a nod to England's classical liberal past, the Lord Chief Justice cited Sir Edward Coke, stating, "A predecessor of mine 400 years ago... said, 'Your home is your castle.'"

Unfortunately, this rediscovery of English values hasn't spread across the whole of society. Two weeks before the Lord Chief Justice's statements, Judge Peter Bowers made headlines after he remarked "It takes a huge amount of courage as far as I can see for someone to burgle somebody's house," before letting a convicted burglar go free. And Gill Marshall-Andrews of the Gun Control Network criticized the Lord Chief Justice, lamenting that his comments would "encourage people to use their guns for self defense which wasn't the purpose for which licenses are granted."

Marshall-Andrews has a point. Now that the Lord Chief Justice has made clear U.K. citizens have a right to self-defense, the U.K. should allow them easier access to the means to exercise that right. Such a change might seem like common sense to Americans, but we should welcome any minor step towards sanity by U.K. officials.

[TC]

Thanks Abhijeet....

TC

[Mack The Knife]

About time they did so.

[Vikram]

Recently, in quite a few instances the judges upheld this and even the police did not file a case against those who defended themselves. They are planning to change law more in favour of home owners protecting themselves. Yeah, about time.


Best-
Vikram

[Virendra S Rathore]

Finally Brits are walking back to sanity. Good one.
When is our turn ?

[essdee1972]

"It takes a huge amount of courage as far as I can see for someone to burgle somebody's house,"....... why didn't the judge put the burglar on the Queen's Christmas list for a VC? (with due respect to all legitimate VCs)

We, in India, still wait for the explicit right to defend our persons......

[3006rifle]

A few years back a friend of mine and his father-in-law, both confronted, break in robbers, inside their home with licensed firearms. The robbers apparently had only clubs, knives, machettes etc. My friend perhaps tried to scare the robbers rather than shoot them. Next morning we found both their dead bodies; beaten to death, faces beyond recognition. They both died without a single shot fired. Both their licensed guns lay besides their dead bodies a 12 bore shotgun and a .22 rifle. It was a ghastly sight.

[captrakshitsharma]

A few years back a friend of mine and his father-in-law, both confronted, break in robbers, inside their home with licensed firearms. The robbers apparently had only clubs, knives, machettes etc. My friend perhaps tried to scare the robbers rather than shoot them. Next morning we found both their dead bodies; beaten to death, faces beyond recognition. They both died without a single shot fired. Both their licensed guns lay besides their dead bodies a 12 bore shotgun and a .22 rifle. It was a ghastly sight.

Are you antigun or pro gun?

Well you better be prepared to use the gun when the situation arises.... Or else you make it worse...

[shooter]

good for the guy. No matter what the media says, living in the uk I can assure you that while it may be legal to shoot a guy in self defence, it is a big no-no socially and practically. The police will give one absolute grief and "reasonable force" interpretation depends on your lawyer, jury and the judge.

Lots of times, using firearms against edged weapons has not been qualified as "reasonable". I have posted on this very forum, several stories about insane decisions by law in the UK
Though this story is a welcome exception, I wont bank on it.

Both the legal outlook, and public opinion and outlook in India is much mre practial than europe and esecially the UK.

I know we all rant about the horrible laws in India but it is one of the few countries where self defence is a legitimate excuse to obtain a license and also where carry is legal.

Carry of a weapon is not that easy even in the USA. Every licensed weapon may be carried in india including long guns. Handguns may be open or concealed carry. Very few "gun friendly" nations have this freedom.

[Vikram]

Are you antigun or pro gun?

Rakshit, the gentleman also wrote this.

My friend perhaps tried to scare the robbers rather than shoot them.

Perhaps you missed it.


Best-
Vikram

[3006rifle]

My friend should have shot the robbers. If he had pulled the trigger he would have been alive today. He should have been explaining to the police why he had dead robbers in his house rather than the police explain to us why he was dead. He may have been arrested and his guns siezed; but he could have got bail and fought his case in court where his chances of victory was almost certain. It is only the harresment by the police that most people are apprehensive of. I would have any day preferred to spend sometime in jail rather than end up in the grave.

[captrakshitsharma]

I feel for you... Apology in the offering for thinking you were antigun... This ha been said time n again don't pull ou a gun if you don't want to use it ... Like the samurai code .. If the katana comes outa the sheath it should taste blood... But if blood spilling is not required keep the katana in it's sheath...

[mundaire]

I feel for you... Apology in the offering for thinking you were antigun... This ha been said time n again don't pull ou a gun if you don't want to use it ... Like the samurai code .. If the katana comes outa the sheath it should taste blood... But if blood spilling is not required keep the katana in it's sheath...

To quote Tuco (from the classic western "the good, the bad, the ugly"):



Cheers!
Abhijeet

[airgun_novice]

+1. Yes I agree - Pull out an display a weapon only when it's your intention to use it; else you only aggravate the situation. Quite unfortunate for the slain.

[brihacharan]

> While I appreciate the sanity & wisdom of the Judge who upheld the Right to Self-Defence, I wonder if this ruling may be treated as an exception in future cases.
> All laws perhaps have the provisio to be interpreted rather than applied verbatim.
> However its beyond my comprehension that while one draws arms to protect one's private property / life while being intruded upon be considered as an un-lawful act that could result in arrest / imprisonment etc. .... A soldier could shoot down someone who intrudes across the border into your country!
> Does the law arrest the soldier for this act?
> Protecting / Safeguarding one's country = Protecting one's life & private property - May be the scale is different - > But the intension is the same - ain't it?
> I think it's a case of interpreting the law rather than applying it blatantly.
Briha