Violent attack, Cruisers injured, St Vincent & Grenadines, Union Island

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Delfin

There are many jurisdictions in the world where it certainly is forbidden to protect yourself, if by protection one means lawful and effective deterrence. That was what I was referring to. Effective deterrence, at least to me, means the ability to immobilize a threat with deadly force if need be, with clear communication to anyone interested that you likely have that capability. By outlawing such deterrence, sane bad people know that the odds are they only have to deal with an unarmed, or ineffectively armed victim. Insane bad people are a bit harder to deter....

That is simply not true, in the main, Most common law and napolenic law countries allow you to defend yourself and allow you to resort to force, upto and including lethal force , especially within your curtilage, ( which of course brings into question if a boat is your castle).IN public the laws vary entirely , but while many jurisdictions allow you to "stand your ground " in your curtilage, that does not extend to public places and most likely means of transport ,

What most countries., however do not allow, is the use of lethal or potentially lethal pre-meditated means to defend yourself, this includes all those things that might be consider "man-traps". The use of firearms is permitted, but the acquiring of one for personal protection is generally not a reason in most countries to acquire a firearm ( as this is a premeditated action) .

Hence I can use my legitimate target shooting firearms to defend my home, but I cannot acquire or hold a firearm for the purposes of defending myself.

These issue have nothing to do with public firearms policy , Its stems from a predominantly European belief that it is the function of the state to protect its citizens. ( there being far to much history , where the state persecuted its citizens).

On top of that many states define self defence laws have the condition of "reasonable response", i.e. shooting dead an unarmed burglar could get you jailed for manslaughter. The key thing here is a comment from a judge a few years ago "shooting a burglar for simply being a burglar is ridiculous"

The basis is that you must be reasonably certain you are in danger , or in some jurisdictions, mortal danger.


Deterrence is not the same as defence, Deterrence aside from passive systems, is a premeditated effort to secure a particular outcome. The use of force, including lethal force in this situation is very complex, especially where the deterree ( sic) has not demonstrated any hostile actions ( note that the mere act of trespass is not in most jurisdictions regarded as hostile).

IN the case just discussed, clearly the intruders were armed ( with machetes) and any reasonable person would be entirely justified in assuming that one would rightly fear for ones life. Hence any form of defence, including the use of firearms would undoubtably be "reasonable"


The last line of your argument is , of course the good people with guns versus the bad people argument ( see NRA). The fact is that perpetrators of petty crime ( the ones the fast majority of people come in contact with), in countries with stricter( or stricter) firearms policies , almost never are armed, because they never expect their victims to be armed and most petty criminals have no desire to engage in physical conflict, Armed criminals tend to be confined to terrorists, organised crime and drug gangs, which ordinary people never come in contact with.

Once you potentially arm everyone , then the petty criminal is going to be armed too, because the likelihood as that the defender will be armed , resulting in a kind of "small arms race".

For example , here, armed burglary or armed muggings against private people and dwellings are almost never ever armed ( because of the very severe penalties). Hence most people go from cradle to grave never seeing a firearm of any type, much less one in use. ( even though muggings and petty theft/burglary are not uncommon)

Im not addressing the issue of suitability of a firearm defence, merely challenging your perspective that one cannot defend oneself in many jurisdictions, Yes such countries may have judicial outlooks that differ from the US, but that might be regarded by many as a good thing.


dave

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by SaltyTanned

Eric Sommer is still rotting in jail more than a year after simply wrestling an intruder and shoving him overboard. I believe one must very quickly sail far away after using any weapon.

How do you things evolving after repelling an attack with a firearm?

IN many countries the use of a firearm in any conflict results in a very serious investigation. The discharge of such a weapon is considered unusual and will warrant a police investigation and potentially charges of the excessive use of force.

However , fleeing is likely to have you placed on a Interpol watch list, thats going to severely cramp your style and cruising plans, not to mention you better be capable of outrunning the the local LEO operation.

Its an unfortunate situation , but if you respond with deadly force and more importantly , thats result in a death , then you can expect a world of inconvenience, incarceration ( remand) or huge delays, having money helps of course.

Dave

[SaltyTanned]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

I believe he killed the guy with witnesses around. One should abide the law and self defense does not include retailliation. Kicking in my companionway to get to me and my wife means that you're gonna either come to your senses when Mr Mossberg greets you, or you don't, kick in the entrance and be shot.

Not what I read. Eric heard noise on deck went up and found a man there who could not clearly say what he was doing there. Ensued a hand fight that ended in the perp being shoved overboard and he swam ashore. Many hours later he was found dead on the beach and from what I read the coroner said he died of drowning.

This happened in St Lucia, the neighbouring country to the north. Would it be very different in SVG? You fire in the air, the attacker swims off in the dark and is later found dead of lack of oxygen. Jail in SVG is probably not better than in St Lucia where Eric was beaten, became ill, and is still wating for a first hearing more than a year after the incident.

I can only imagine that adding a smoking gun to the story only makes it worse for the defender.

[xxuxx]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

IN many countries the use of a firearm in any conflict results in a very serious investigation. The discharge of such a weapon is considered unusual and will warrant a police investigation and potentially charges of the excessive use of force.

However , fleeing is likely to have you placed on a Interpol watch list, thats going to severely cramp your style and cruising plans, not to mention you better be capable of outrunning the the local LEO operation.

Its an unfortunate situation , but if you respond with deadly force and more importantly , thats result in a death , then you can expect a world of inconvenience, incarceration ( remand) or huge delays, having money helps of course.

Dave

I must agree with the above statement, and everyone should take note of it. As I am a proponent of the use of deadly force if faced with mortal danger to myself or my family, however, one must consider and understand the ramifications of ones actions and the ensuing litigious nightmare than will follow. As Dave says: "Having money helps." This is particularly true in the central American countries. When diabolical people enter ones life with the intent to harm, the results are always UNFORTUNATE, even if one is in the right. We hope and pray it just doesn't happen to us.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

That is simply not true, in the main, Most common law and napolenic law countries allow you to defend yourself and allow you to resort to force, upto and including lethal force , especially within your curtilage, ( which of course brings into question if a boat is your castle).IN public the laws vary entirely , but while many jurisdictions allow you to "stand your ground " in your curtilage, that does not extend to public places and most likely means of transport ,


dave

I wish that were true. From the UK Examiner: (I believe the UK would be a common law/Napoleonic country?)

"Tony Martin was a farmer, whose remote farmhouse had been broken in to many times. Martin feared future burglary attempts and the risk of being attacked by a violent burglar. When a pair of burglars broke in while he was home, Martin opened fire with a pump action shotgun. The 16-year-old burglar Fred Barras was killed, and 33-year-old Brendon Fearon was wounded in the leg. Later on that day, the police arrested Tony Martin and charged him with the crimes of murder and wounding with intent. At trial, Martin argued that he had acted in self defense, but the court found that he had fired while they were trying to flee. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison, although the conviction was later reduced to manslaughter with a 5 year sentence. The surviving criminal, who had over 30 criminal convictions, then sued Tony Martin for the injury he suffered during the burglary. The parole board refused to grant Tony Martin an early release because he “has shown no remorse and would continue to pose a danger to any other burglars.” Martin was eventually released from prison after spending years in prison and being vilified by the anti-gun groups in the UK for shooting criminals who had broken into his home."

A danger to future burglars?

[sailorboy1]

You can not shot people just because they are breaking into, or have broken into, your home!!!!!! That is not a proportional response.

You have be under threat of harm and you have a responsibility to reduce the threat to yourself before you resort to deadly force.

Now if someone breaks into your home and you run to the other side of the house and lock yourself into a room where you now have nowhere to run, and then the intruders break the door down and comes at you with a machete, I'm OK with blowing them away.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Delfin

I wish that were true. From the UK Examiner: (I believe the UK would be a common law/Napoleonic country?)

"Tony Martin was a farmer, whose remote farmhouse had been broken in to many times. Martin feared future burglary attempts and the risk of being attacked by a violent burglar. When a pair of burglars broke in while he was home, Martin opened fire with a pump action shotgun. The 16-year-old burglar Fred Barras was killed, and 33-year-old Brendon Fearon was wounded in the leg. Later on that day, the police arrested Tony Martin and charged him with the crimes of murder and wounding with intent. At trial, Martin argued that he had acted in self defense, but the court found that he had fired while they were trying to flee. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison, although the conviction was later reduced to manslaughter with a 5 year sentence. The surviving criminal, who had over 30 criminal convictions, then sued Tony Martin for the injury he suffered during the burglary. The parole board refused to grant Tony Martin an early release because he “has shown no remorse and would continue to pose a danger to any other burglars.” Martin was eventually released from prison after spending years in prison and being vilified by the anti-gun groups in the UK for shooting criminals who had broken into his home."

A danger to future burglars?

Care to share the source? there appears to be no such media source as the UK examiner.

2 seconds on Google and it looks like that's straight from https://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/...il-for-murder/


From less kneejerk progun source...

http://www.parliament.uk/business/pu...-legislation1/


"How many cases?
An “informal trawl” by the CPS suggested that between 1990 and 2005 there were only 11 prosecutions of people who had attacked intruders in houses, commercial premises or private land. Only 7 of those appeared to have resulted from domestic burglaries.
Examples of prosecutions included a case where a man lay in wait for a burglar on commercial premises, caught him, beat him, threw him into a pit and set him alight.
Examples of decisions not to prosecute included a case where a woman took a baseball bat off a burglar and hit him over the head, fracturing his skull."

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

You can not shot people just because they are breaking into, or have broken into, your home!!!!!! That is not a proportional response.

You have be under threat of harm and you have a responsibility to reduce the threat to yourself before you resort to deadly force.

Now if someone breaks into your home and you run to the other side of the house and lock yourself into a room where you now have nowhere to run, and then the intruders break the door down and comes at you with a machete, I'm OK with blowing them away.

Absolutely agree. One of the purposes of a weapon is the give the perp a reason to run away so no one gets hurt. However, even discharging a weapon to break up a crime in progress has run people afoul of the law even in the U.S. That isn't fair.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by conachair

Care to share the source? there appears to be no such media source as the UK examiner.

2 seconds on Google and it looks like that's straight from https://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/...il-for-murder/


From less kneejerk progun source...

Use of force against intruders - UK Parliament


"How many cases?
An “informal trawl” by the CPS suggested that between 1990 and 2005 there were only 11 prosecutions of people who had attacked intruders in houses, commercial premises or private land. Only 7 of those appeared to have resulted from domestic burglaries.
Examples of prosecutions included a case where a man lay in wait for a burglar on commercial premises, caught him, beat him, threw him into a pit and set him alight.
Examples of decisions not to prosecute included a case where a woman took a baseball bat off a burglar and hit him over the head, fracturing his skull."

Always one to step in the nearest cowpie, aren't you...

Defenseless British citizens are attacked in their own homes by violent burglars every 30 Minutes - National self-defense | Examiner.com

Bad on me for referring to the source as the UK examiner, when it was examiner.com.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Always one to step in the nearest cowpie, aren't you...

Defenseless British citizens are attacked in their own homes by violent burglars every 30 Minutes - National self-defense | Examiner.com

Bad on me for referring to the source as the UK examiner, when it was examiner.com.

ah, Google straight to the source.

". An example is the Tony Martin case:" links straight to to the gun site above from where the Examiner copy /pasted the paragraph you did the same with.



not sure what the cowpie reference means. Must be your normal rudeness.


what about the UK parliament take on the 7 cases of burglary in 15 years?

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Always one to step in the nearest cowpie, aren't you...

Defenseless British citizens are attacked in their own homes by violent burglars every 30 Minutes - National self-defense | Examiner.com

Bad on me for referring to the source as the UK examiner, when it was examiner.com.

Delfin, please stop reporting US written pro gun nonsense. It's like readiing the NRA telling Switzerland is well armed when they nothing of the facts.

Tony Martin was a diagnosed paranoid depressive , who invented stories of being burgled. ( he was once or twice ) he held an illegal firearm without the appropriate license as his shotgun license had been subsequently rewoked as he had fired at the car of a man stealing a few apples from his orchard ( known as scrimping ) a very common occurrence , I used do it myself as a boy.

Forensic evidence clearly proved at the trial that he lay in wait and shot the burgular in the back from a height advantage. He was never attacked and the burgulars were not armed

Martin was convicted 10:2 by a jury of murder , yet they could have returned a verdict of manslaughter and was refused bail, due to his mental condition , on appeal his sentence was reduced to manslaughter.

He was a sick delusional man and in no way some champion of gun rights.

Please please , pro guns people ,stop using made up facts about foreign situations you clearly KNOW NOTHING ABOUT.

In the UK you can use lethal force , but it must be proportionate and justified , you cannot kill some one merely because he is stealing something.


Please stop trying to export your views, the rest of the world has no interest or intent to adopt us guns laws, please leave it that way. Europe has a violent history , that make the US look like beatnik peace lovers. The last thing we need is more guns.


End of that


I debated the issue as it stands. , most countries allow self defence. But your reaction must be proportionate and that use of firearms is unusual and WILL result in investigation and possible incarceration.

So if someone climbs over your rails , be careful and think before you reach for that gun, threatening a person with a firearm is a serious crime in many jurisdictions. You must be threatened or believe you are going to be harmed to justify force, especially lethal force. Nor can you " lie in wait" and act with in appropriate force.

Dont rant on on about how you would like it to be, this is the reality. In many jurisdictions , the use of firearms can lead you to a world of trouble.

Dave

[johnmcntsh]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Delfin, please stop reporting US written pro gun nonsense. It's like readiing the NRA telling Switzerland is well armed when they nothing of the facts.

Tony Martin was a diagnosed paranoid depressive , who invented stories of being burgled. ( he was once or twice ) he held an illegal firearm without the appropriate license as his shotgun license had been subsequently rewoked as he had fired at the car of a man stealing a few apples from his orchard ( known as scrimping ) a very common occurrence , I used do it myself as a boy.

Forensic evidence clearly proved at the trial that he lay in wait and shot the burgular in the back from a height advantage. He was never attacked and the burgulars were not armed

Martin was convicted 10:2 by a jury of murder , yet they could have returned a verdict of manslaughter and was refused bail, due to his mental condition , on appeal his sentence was reduced to manslaughter.

He was a sick delusional man and in no way some champion of gun rights.

Please please , pro guns people ,stop using made up facts about foreign situations you clearly KNOW NOTHING ABOUT.

In the UK you can use lethal force , but it must be proportionate and justified , you cannot kill some one merely because he is stealing something.


Please stop trying to export your views, the rest of the world has no interest or intent to adopt us guns laws, please leave it that way. Europe has a violent history , that make the US look like beatnik peace lovers. The last thing we need is more guns.


End of that


I debated the issue as it stands. , most countries allow self defence. But your reaction must be proportionate and that use of firearms is unusual and WILL result in investigation and possible incarceration.

So if someone climbs over your rails , be careful and think before you reach for that gun, threatening a person with a firearm is a serious crime in many jurisdictions. You must be threatened or believe you are going to be harmed to justify force, especially lethal force. Nor can you " lie in wait" and act with in appropriate force.

Dont rant on on about how you would like it to be, this is the reality. In many jurisdictions , the use of firearms can lead you to a world of trouble.

Dave

And I believe Dave's post pretty much sums it up. Thanks Dave!

[s/v Jedi]

It's all nice and cozy what you can and can not do in the UK and USA, but this sh|t happened at Union Island, which, afaik, has been part of St Vincent and the Grenadines for a while now. If you think that it compares to "home" then you haven't been there.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

It's all nice and cozy what you can and can not do in the UK and USA, but this sh|t happened at Union Island, which, afaik, has been part of St Vincent and the Grenadines for a while now. If you think that it compares to "home" then you haven't been there.

I have been there. It's lovely. You need to keep you wits about you and your street wise radar on high power but much of London or large parts of any big UK city are far worse.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

It's all nice and cozy what you can and can not do in the UK and USA, but this sh|t happened at Union Island, which, afaik, has been part of St Vincent and the Grenadines for a while now. If you think that it compares to "home" then you haven't been there.

That's not the point , the point is that action involving firearms will inevitability brings issues for parties.

Dave