Brit fights off a burglar with a sword

That's awesome.
I keep my Swamp Rat Rucki hanging near the door in its leather Dundee rig.
Mine is sharp though, I don't think the burglar in my version of this story would have made it down the street.
 
A 1796? Right up at the top of the "I'd just as soon not get hit with that" list, dull or not!
But first we must make sure it is not a samurai sword...
 
I find it very sad that his thoughts and efforts to not harm the BG are so strong. A criminal, breaking into a home , and the home owner and young daughter at great risk.No sense of reality there. The laws of course are on the side of the criminal.
There are many cases there where the home owner ends up with a long prison term and the BG walks free !
Not a place that I would want to live !!!
 
I can not tell you how glad I am to live in the USA, and in a part that allows me to carry guns.

If 15 hot hollow points from a .40 caliber art enough, I might have to switch to the pump shotgun, or the 30 rounds in my AR. Honestly, they might get a khukri or combat ax in the mix too! The sword, battle axes and pole ax are a bit unwieldy indoors!
 
He looks like the "I say, old chap" kind of Briton. I wonder how the conversation went.

"I say, Old Chap, you seem to have lost your way and ended up in our quarters..I shall have to escort you back out of this enclave with a sound drubbing of Her Majesties finest steel!"

"No need fer all thot, Guv' nah! Can we not just ring up the ole Bobbies on th' telly?"

:D
 
I love the bit about him arguing with the police about who pays for them to mail his sword back to him. I hate the part were he was scared that defending himself might not be a proportional response to somebody who smashed down 2 doors and then charged him with a club and a crazed look on his eyes.
 
Funny!
"I say, Old Chap, you seem to have lost your way and ended up in our quarters..I shall have to escort you back out of this enclave with a sound drubbing of Her Majesties finest steel!"

"No need fer all thot, Guv' nah! Can we not just ring up the ole Bobbies on th' telly?"

:D
 
I love the bit about him arguing with the police about who pays for them to mail his sword back to him. I hate the part were he was scared that defending himself might not be a proportional response to somebody who smashed down 2 doors and then charged him with a club and a crazed look on his eyes.

That's the way English law is................A victim can get in more trouble the the bad guy!
From what I've read and a friend born there, you do not have the right of self defense as we see it??:rolleyes:
 
Technically, British law isn't that bad.

There is a great misconception that British law doesn't allow a person to defend themselves. I will admit there are cases, as there are in every country, where the law seems to fail the person we perceive to be in the right, but these cases number in the minority and we only know of them because they stand out as an oddity and people yell about injustice etc. However, if you actually look at written law you'll see its perfectly possible to defend yourself up to and including the killing of another person in the act. See below the source direct from the UK's Crown Prosecution Service.

Source - http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/

tl:dr (loose translation) - if you use force you believe to be necessary at the time of the incident to stop your attacker and to prevent injury to you or others then you are not at fault. If you continue to attack an assailant once he/she is "stopped" then you are no longer defending yourself.

Another area of contention is weapons.
If you pick up an item to defend yourself so long as its not something you've purposefully had waiting to attack someone with then you're fine, in the example op gave us the lad picked up a sword that was a collector piece, was not intended for use against people but in this case to display to the attacker to discourage further attack or whatever (little detail in the report about why the sword was there but anyway he's OK grabbing it in a rush). British law doesn't expect you to know the limits in the heat of the moment. So later you can honestly say, look, I collect swords, one was there, I grabbed it, etc etc etc. You get the picture.

On the other hand, if you purposefully put a sword next your front door with an aim of stabbing intruders, that's intent, this included modified house hold objects for weapons.... think nails and baseball bats. Pre-planned assault. No getting around it.

Anyway this is just my interpretation, and in my opinion be it wrong or not, I think British law is pretty straight forward and fair on the subject of self defence. There are some strange grey areas, such as preemptive attacks but these are pretty much covers by you believe at the time that you or your family/friends are in imminent danger and you fear for your safety you can use enough force to stop someone and leg it!

Do correct me if I'm wrong, Its all education in the end. [emoji4]
 
"you struck him three times ? Under these conditions you had the right to stick him only once ! "

Here in the USA a friend , after a home invasion , said "they expect you to have acted calmly and cooly.I'd like to see them react like that "
 
Really?? It isn't that bad if you have NO PLAN to protect yourself or your family from violent criminal attack, but you JUST HAPPEN to somehow be able to do so - but if you PLAN to defend yourself and/or your family if you are attacked, then YOU are the BAD GUY and MUST BE PUNIHSED? oh, yeah... I can see how that "isn't that bad". ??!??!??

Technically, British law isn't that bad.

On the other hand, if you purposefully put a sword next your front door with an aim of stabbing intruders, that's intent, this included modified house hold objects for weapons.... think nails and baseball bats. Pre-planned assault. No getting around it.
 
Really?? It isn't that bad if you have NO PLAN to protect yourself or your family from violent criminal attack, but you JUST HAPPEN to somehow be able to do so - but if you PLAN to defend yourself and/or your family if you are attacked, then YOU are the BAD GUY and MUST BE PUNIHSED? oh, yeah... I can see how that "isn't that bad". ??!??!??

You make a good point. But with respect, you are missing the picture. And before you reply to this make sure you've read all the information in the source provided, I gave only a "loose translation".

If you put a sword next to your door, with the intent to stab an intruder, you are at fault.

If you put a sword next to the door with the intent to scare/display the item. You haven't physically harmed anyone, you are well within your rights. Who's to say that once that man decides to try his luck you can't then use it physically?

The law isn't cryptic. It clearly indicates that what distinguishes a man saving himself and his family from a man who just wants an excuse to murder / harm another is intent, and honest held belief. You'll notice I said nothing about defense, just intent to stab someone given an excuse. :) you can plan, but plan with intelligence. Plan to stop attackers, don't plan to kill them, if it comes to that or mistakes are made then the law is on your side. Every life is precious, aim to help everyone.
 
Perhaps this is the key sentence in the differences between our views.

While I agree that every life is important, I don't believe that every life is "precious". I don't believe Hitler's life was precious; nor Theodore Bundy's.

And while I believe every life is important, to me, the lives of innocent, law-abiding people are more important than the lives of vicious, violent criminals. The laws in many countries, and the sensibilities of some bleeding hearts, lead me to believe that they may view the lives of violent criminals as more important, or at least just as important, as the lives of their innocent victims.

On that - I couldn't disagree more.

Every life is precious, aim to help everyone.
 
Sad that its come to this for the people of Great Britain. Disarmed and left helpless by their own Government......Keep vigilantly America the left wants yours too.
 
Back
Top