UK home defence

Discussion in 'General Self Defense' started by pdg, Apr 4, 2018.

  1. Tez3

    Tez3 Sr. Grandmaster

    • Supporting Member
    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2006
    Messages:
    24,929
    Likes Received:
    3,775
    Trophy Points:
    308
    Location:
    England
    Flowers left for burglar 'an insult'

    I think things could take a nasty turn, hopefully the police will sort but it could be difficult. The dead man and his family are travellers so the likelihood of violence is always going to be high. The battle of the dead burglar's shrine: Police ride in on horseback as traveller's family put flowers up for a THIRD time after locals twice tore them down - and relatives demand OAP apologise for killing him | Best News | Best News Tv | Global Goals | Progress | Funny | Trending
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. oftheherd1

    oftheherd1 Senior Master

    Joined:
    May 12, 2011
    Messages:
    4,068
    Likes Received:
    626
    Trophy Points:
    263
    I would guess it would only be controversial if you disagreed with the law as written.

    At Homicides. UCMJ Arts. 118, 119, & 134 you can find this about murder:

    Murder While Doing An Inherently Dangerous Act. UCMJ art. 118(3)

    1. In General. Alternative theory to unpremeditated murder.
    2. Intent.
    3. Specific intent not required. United States v. McMonagle , 38 M.J. 53 (C.M.A. 1993) (firing a weapon indiscriminately in an inhabited area during a sham firefight in Panama during Operation JUST CAUSE). (Bolding added by me for emphasis).
    Also at Homicides. UCMJ Arts. 118, 119, & 134 lists the elements of proof.
    (3) Act inherently dangerous to another
    • (a) That a certain named or described person is dead;
    • (b) That the death resulted from the intentional act of the accused;
    • (c) That this act was inherently dangerous to another and showed a wanton disregard for human life;
    • (d) That the accused knew that death or great bodily harm was a probable consequence of the act; and
    • (e) That the killing was unlawful
    I'm not going to search every state or other federal law, but I expect there are states that have the same definition of law, granted that this is from the UMCJ and cases that have been tried. Or, maybe the congress just wanted to be hardcore with the military. :( ;)
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  3. oftheherd1

    oftheherd1 Senior Master

    Joined:
    May 12, 2011
    Messages:
    4,068
    Likes Received:
    626
    Trophy Points:
    263
    Some people just seem to look for excuses to do objectionable or illegal things.
     
  4. Steve

    Steve Mostly Harmless

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Messages:
    14,427
    Likes Received:
    2,399
    Trophy Points:
    263
    Location:
    Covington, WA
    You’re quoting the UCMJ? Apples and oranges, my friend. You can also be courtmartialed for adultery. I don’t think you get courtmartialed in the civilian world. Lol

    I get you might not look at every state. But at least find one state or federal definition. I won’t say there isn’t one, but I would say intent being the difference between murder and manslaughter is the rule, not the exception. If you think I’m wrong, you’re going to have to do better than the ucmj.
     
  5. Tez3

    Tez3 Sr. Grandmaster

    • Supporting Member
    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2006
    Messages:
    24,929
    Likes Received:
    3,775
    Trophy Points:
    308
    Location:
    England

    There has been problems with this community for a very long time, they can be discriminated against but also they do disrupt other communities at lot. Dale Farm: Who are the UK's travellers?
     
  6. oftheherd1

    oftheherd1 Senior Master

    Joined:
    May 12, 2011
    Messages:
    4,068
    Likes Received:
    626
    Trophy Points:
    263
    Interesting. I didn't realize they were a considered a separate ethnic group, or that they were, or apparently considered themselves to be similar the Romany Gypsies.
     
  7. Tez3

    Tez3 Sr. Grandmaster

    • Supporting Member
    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2006
    Messages:
    24,929
    Likes Received:
    3,775
    Trophy Points:
    308
    Location:
    England

    The problem I think is that the Romanies don't like the travellers much, because people lump them together and the Romanies don't like the reputation the travellers have which I must admit, as in the Op, they seem determined to live up to. I know little about either group, whether they are the same or different. We did have a traveller group park themselves up on one of the garrison playing fields a few years back, they didn't cause much trouble other than people not being happy at them being there but it cost a few thousand pounds to clear up after them when they left. The playing field couldn't be used for a long time because of the rubbish, sewage etc left behind.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. pdg

    pdg Black Belt

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2018
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    140
    Trophy Points:
    43
    While there are good and bad elements in both, they are very different groups, with very different values (especially when it comes to outsiders).

    You wouldn't generally get trouble (except clearing up after them) from a group of travellers parking up near you - unfortunately the same can't be said for a few miles down the road.
     
  9. oftheherd1

    oftheherd1 Senior Master

    Joined:
    May 12, 2011
    Messages:
    4,068
    Likes Received:
    626
    Trophy Points:
    263
    Why better than the UCMJ? It is part of US (federal) law passed by congress, even if it does apply only to those congress says it does.

    But anyway, try these two below, and then I will consider my duty fulfilled. You asked for at least one and I have given you two besides the UCMJ reference.

    Murder Without Intent

    Homicide without the intent to kill

    Oh, as to adultery; I didn't look, but I suspect sodomy is still part of the UCMJ and many states, but you wouldn't likely find that prosecuted anywhere in the US either. So what's the point?
     
  10. Steve

    Steve Mostly Harmless

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Messages:
    14,427
    Likes Received:
    2,399
    Trophy Points:
    263
    Location:
    Covington, WA
    Regarding ucmj, unless you can show me where sedition or insubordination are illegal in civilian courts, I think it’s completely irrelevant. Adultery is still illegal. Sodomy... not sure. Didn’t look, but as homosexuality is no longer grounds for discharge, it may not be. And while adultery won’t likely result in a court martial, it could result in an article 15. At least, it would when I was in the military.

    Regarding the other links, it seems like you’re arguing the exception to the rule. The two discussions you link to are all about intent, and articulate in detail how the situations they’re discussing are exceptions to the rule.

    Why are you arguing this? I’m don’t get it. You’re grasping for straws, when what I’m saying is so clearly correct.
     
  11. Steve

    Steve Mostly Harmless

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Messages:
    14,427
    Likes Received:
    2,399
    Trophy Points:
    263
    Location:
    Covington, WA
    We have problems with travelers in the usa,as well.
     
  12. oftheherd1

    oftheherd1 Senior Master

    Joined:
    May 12, 2011
    Messages:
    4,068
    Likes Received:
    626
    Trophy Points:
    263
    From @Tez3:
    The above is what you said, not most of the time, sometimes, or any other qualifier.

    What in the world does that have to do with this discussion? Insubordination relates only to the military as a charge by law. But actually, in most businesses if you spend too much time disobeying or arguing with your boss, you will be fired. It will normally be codified in some way, but not have the force of a law against the State, but only the business considers if to be against the business, and punishes it. The military, in fact most militaries, consider it more serious and so punishes it more severely. Sedition is codified as shown in at least this one place: 18 U.S. Code Chapter 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

    But also think arguing that is completely irrelevant.

    I don't know what is being enforced or not myself. I left active duty quite some time ago. But again, I think it’s completely irrelevant. We were discussing an element of proof of only one crime, murder.

     
  13. oftheherd1

    oftheherd1 Senior Master

    Joined:
    May 12, 2011
    Messages:
    4,068
    Likes Received:
    626
    Trophy Points:
    263
    Sorry, I tried something with quotes inside quotes and it didn't work. The last part I wrote should be:

    Not having checked all States, Commonwealths, and Territories, I don't know the percentages, but like you, I do suspect most have either changed the law or decided not to prosecute it.

    But that isn't the statement you made. And intent was exactly what you were disagreeing with as an element of proof. That then answers that argument. Even if (which I doubt) those were the only two jurisdictions beside the military, that still shows your statement to be incorrect.


    How is it so clearly correct when I have shown you it isn't? That doesn't sound like the usual well stated and backed up arguments you make. BTW, how am I the only one in the discussion grasping for straws?

    Why am I arguing this? Good question. I think I have to go back to my opening statement that I should know better. But I think you bear at least as much responsibility as I do. You made an incorrect statement, and won't acknowledge that.

    I guess I don't get it either, so I think I will let it go.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Steve

    Steve Mostly Harmless

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Messages:
    14,427
    Likes Received:
    2,399
    Trophy Points:
    263
    Location:
    Covington, WA
    You’re right man. I was puzzled at why you were digging heels, and I was doing same. My bad. :)
     
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page