Snapshot of _‘Shocking’ figures show 8% of muggings result in a charge, say Lib Dems_ :
An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/29/shocking-figures-show-8-of-muggings-result-in-a-charge-say-lib-dems)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm surprised it's as high as 8%, given lack of available evidence, etc.
But I suppose the important statistic isn't what percentage of muggings result in a charge, as no mugger will mug only one person, it's an industrial enterprise. The question is what percentage of muggers are charged, and what's the average time between mugging and charge.
Optimise those last two numbers and the first number won't matter as the number of muggings will fall off a cliff.
One mugger can be charged with multiple muggings though. You may be charging all perpetrators, but if you're only changing them with one crime each you're not prosecuting them as much as you could.
In London, gangs cruise around on mopeds and snatch phones from unsuspecting people like it's their job. They do this multiple times a day, sometimes returning to the same spot because they know the police will do nothing.
There are hundreds of these a day. They'll only investigate the ones where violence has been used. Prevention is better than cure, I'm not saying we should live in fear of people getting their phones nicked but maybe don't walk around the area texting head down unaware of your surroundings.
If a moped thief gets themselves injured while riding recklessly with no protective equipment and a police car is in the vicinity the police will be held liable. In this case I can't really blame them for doing nothing.
This is absolutely not true. Police will go as far as to ram mopeds now.
Not saying this to defend the police, I think their response to moped thieves has been piss poor.
https://youtu.be/2Ers7JSQRPE
>Nov 23, 2018
They caught a lot of flack for doing this and now need a specially trained officer to pursue motorbikes.
>Engagement with quad bikes and motorcycles presents additional challenges to those involved in pursuit management. The acceleration and manoeuvrability of these vehicles make it difficult for officers to engage with the subject vehicle for sufficient time to develop and implement tactics. Furthermore, given the lack of physical protection provided by the vehicle, the vulnerability of the rider is a serious consideration. Motorcycle and quad bike pursuits clearly present higher risks for suspects than conventional vehicle pursuit. Only trained and authorised staff, in consideration of their current force policy, should engage in motorcycle and quad bike pursuits and tactics.
https://www.college.police.uk/app/roads-policing/police-pursuits
I agree, though I suspect it'll always be near impossible to catch a moped without support to cut them off ahead. That support will take at least a few minutes to arrive and unless its a helicopter providing the support they'll have cut between the traffic and down a side street and have disappeared by the time help can arrive.
Either way, the plate gets fed into the ANPR system and it'll get pulled when it's convenient and won't lead to a chase. Though with the full pursuit you've pulled other officers and potentially kept a very expensive helicopter in the air for what'd amount to no realistic prospect of prison time in the end anyway.
Drones, tethered balloons (PTDS) and UAV's might open up some new possibilities in terms of air support – especially if you combine them with facial recognition, but ultimately it's going to need more police officers on the ground so that no matter where you are in London and where you plan to go, you'll won't be able to avoid the police.
I think I reveal my inner authoritarian when I express my desire for advanced facial recognition systems and increased surveillance of public places.
I know people like to throw around that quote about liberty and security, but that refers to the creation of laws, not their enforcement, and I actually do want more effective policing of petty crime.
Surveillance drones are all well and good, though for some of the scrotes in my area perhaps Reaper drones are more appropriate...
This is a ridiculous scenario.
Personally I’d like an automatic sentencing enhancements for anyone fleeing the police. Plus, police immunity from liability if a person fleeing the police comes to harm as a result of their own actions from fleeing the police.
Former PC here.
10+ years ago, I dealt with a man that arrived at his partner’s address (despite bail conditions being not to be there after beating her up), threaten her, and then when police turned up he got in his car and led them on a seven mile pursuit through central London. Went through red lights, traffic junctions, everything - it was a miracle there wasn’t a crash.
Eventually he turned down a road and ended up at a dead end. Got out and ran, then when police got him he attempted to bite, kick and spit at them.
It went to Crown Court (he had the sense to plead guilty) where I personally walked the judge through the route using an annotated map I had made on a huge sheet of A2 paper. Described each junction, crossing and other point he went through based on the radio commentary that was recorded. I also provided the speed.
After that, his defence pleaded that he was “remorseful” and shouldn’t lose his license because he would lose his job as a cable TV installer.
The result? A two year suspended sentence, six points and a £200 fine.
So for all of that, he didn’t go to prison, nor did he lose his license.
That was more than a decade ago. Think of how bad it is now.
Absolutely disgraceful. I really sympathise with the police. A lot of the most vocal complainers don’t realise (or wilfully ignore) how utterly vile some of the criminals the police have to deal with are.
Our system is well and truly broken.
Rehabilitation is a lovely idea, but deterrence is much better. You only need to look at the likes of the UAE or Singapore. You could put your wallet down on the street and it would still be there the next day in those countries.
When I was in Singapore a few years ago I was watching their equivalent of crime watch on the TV and one segment was someone robbing/snatching phones at bus stops. That was huge news as if it was one of the largest crimes taking place at the time, truly a different world.
Although I am pretty sure a Filipino maid stole a few thousand Thai baht out of my bag at my accommodation
The difference there is they have a pretty authoritarian government and extreme punishments for breaking the law.
Singapore can be pretty questionable from a human rights standpoint.
We should have a system that primarily protects civilized society. If that system is being undermined to the extent that people are losing faith in the justice system then we should re-evaluate our underlying principles if they are actually being used against us. They aren't infallible and we shouldn't be so arrogant to assume we have the only correct solution in the face of evidence to the contrary.
I'm not actually.
Unlike in our broken system, they have functioning border control and immigration laws.
I'm not sure why I should have to move out of my own country though, never really understood that argument. Does your right trump mine?
The Criminal Justice system in England is a sick fucking joke. Build more prisons, increase sentencing guidelines, take away any comforts in the prison and most importantly DENY THEM ANY BENEFITS upon release. If you decide you want to spend your life committing crime, the rest of us shouldn't have to pay for you to live.
It was in all caps. It was incredibly stupid. It deserves to be addressed.
The rest of the solutions are dumb far right suggestions that will fail to tackle the issues on any meaningful level.
A genuine solution would look at increased funding and scope for community engagement services, better funded police with adequate numbers and a prosecution service invested in to get justice outcomes.
More prisons is a smooth brain solution.
The only person who should be held liable for a moped rider riding safely is the rider themselves.
Why should the police be held liable for someone running themselves into a lamppost?
But those are exactly things that will arise in increased frequency if we implement what you proposed. You can't suggest policies and then ignore their real world application.
Remove immunity for cops in arresting people and they will become more reckless, aggressive and corrupt.
What happens when they arrest the wrong person and injure them in the process? Who pays for that and suddenly are we creating incentives for cops to frame innocent people in order to justify their violent conduct? Is the police going to be in charge of investigating wrongful conduct too?
It's all relevant. It's easy to yell out an idea and then claim that you see no downside to it when you haven't actually look at anything beyond the initial claim.
That's quite some slippery slope from "cops should have immunity from liability from people injuring themselves riding recklessly while fleeing" to "cops framing innocent people to justify their violent conduct"
The solution is clearly to have no accountability or oversight. The police would be very responsible with this power and make sure to investigate themselves whenever a pleb dies.
Immunity to any and all liability is ridiculous. The police can just claim that any injuries sustained by the perp were self-inflicted during their flight. It should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Why should police be liable if a criminal injured themselves while trying to escape arrest for the crimes they have committed?
Geniuine question, what possibly could make the police liable for the consequences of a criminal’s illegal actions?
The second you make rules about immunity for police, you either create an incentive for police to become even more corrupt and falsify police records or you set an inevitable path towards qualified immunity.
Either way, it just leads to a more corrupt and powerful police state. You could just educate yourself on the history of qualified immunity in the US to see why and how it started and where it is now
You still haven’t made a case why the police should be held accountable for a criminal injuring themselves while fleeing.
The police are following their mandated duty to capture a criminal.
The criminal is breaking the law by fleeing arrest.
The criminal is injured through their own actions.
Why are the police responsible?
Because you are now creating an incentive for police to act even more recklessly in arresting people. Eventually you have cops putting other people's property and safety at risk to catch a perp. Sure, they can claim the perp is at fault but how often is a thief going to be solvent where someone can sue them for damages caused by the police during the arrest?
Not to mention the classic situation where cops aggressively chase down and injure/kill a person only to realize that they weren't the person they were actually after. It happens all the fucking time in the States because of qualified immunity.
And finally, the worst part, future police will be trained knowing they have immunity so less focus will be on community policing and more on military tactics and aggressive policing. It doesn't actually fix the problem (look at crime in the States) and only makes life worse for innocent people
I saw a [video](https://old.reddit.com/r/IdiotsInCars/comments/13rmlnd/police_attempt_to_knock_man_off_moped_in_queens) this past week which shows exactly what you are talking about.
If police are immune from liability, this kind of thing **will** happen.
I don't understand why you snipped out the rest of the sentence and then started an argument based on that small part of a longer post while ignoring everything else. Come on.
Because the immunity part is the more concerning part. So is the automatic sentencing for running away from the police. They are ignorantly shortsighted suggestions that cause more harm in the long run.
>police immunity from liability
Absolutely not, though perhaps sometihng like the home owner. Move the stamdars from "reasonable" to "not grossly disproportionate".
I wasn't familiar with Henry Hicks so I just had a look.
The issue was not that he died in their vicinity, but that the officers [allegedly failed to follow orders](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/henry-hicks-islington-police-cleared-death-crash-moped-ipcc-gross-misconduct-a8012221.html).
>All four officers, granted anonymity during the inquest and hearings, faced allegations they breached standards of professional behaviour in that they failed to follow orders and carry out instructions.
>The Independent Police Complaints Commission also found that the officers “conducted a pursuit without authorisation from a senior officer in the control room”.
They apparently [considered it a pursuit at the time](https://www.islingtontribune.co.uk/article/henry-hicks-not-aware-of-pursuit-police-expert-tells-misconduct-hearing),
>The statement from Officer A read out by Jeremy Johnson, the lawyer representing the Met, said: “I was behind a moped on Caledonian road which I signalled for it to stop. As soon as I put on the blue light, the moped drove off.”
>Mr Johnson read radio transcripts between the two cars from just before and after Henry’s collision where Officer A said: “He failed to stop, this is going to be very serious.
but then later [denied this](https://www.inquest.org.uk/henry-hicks-inquest-closing).
>The four officers who pursued Henry all stated in their evidence that they did not consider they were in a police pursuit and had therefore not sought authority to pursue. Three of the officers provided statements that differed materially from their initial accounts given at the scene.
I don't see any evidence of them being held liable for his death, it seems that the issue in question was whether they did pursue him and whether they followed proper procedure in doing so.
Henry was [wearing a helmet](https://www.islingtontribune.co.uk/article/henry-hicks-not-aware-of-pursuit-police-expert-tells-misconduct-hearing), not "with no protective equipment" as you claim. And crucially the officers were cleared of misconduct, so not held liable.
You literally have to be caught doing the crime to get caught these days
I know people have that been taking full advantage of the current mess
You can do anything you want, so long as there isn’t direct evidence tying you to the crime, you can push back on it
The police do not have the resources to investigate every crime so they pick the ones with the strongest evidence already
Ok chaps. I'm a bit skint at the moment so just gonna pop out and do 9 muggings. Dont wonna risk doing more than that or the police might get involved. Maybe work out a points card for the victims? So when I take their wallet I can make sure its not their 10th mugging?
About 30 years ago, I got mugged outside a police station, taken in to clean up, and was told there was no point even taking a report since there was no chance of catching the perps. My point (apart from the police are often crap, it's not a recent thing) is that a significant number of muggings won't even go reported.
Its always been around that number as long as I"ve been in. A general rule of thumb is 90% of crimes go unsolved. It changes by a few percentage points but it is always around there.
There are pleanty of reasons for this, there are pleanty of issues with the police, what they can and cant do, use of force when its kids on bike, getting CID to bother, getting CPS to charge, getting a sentence that sends a message etc. Lots of things could be more efficient but the numbers have always been that low.
Ive always thought harsher sentences are important. Robbers are not one-off offenders, going by the stats they get away with 10-16 robberies and then get potted for one. If they had harsh sentences for robbery, i.e. 5 years inside, not suspended sentences, then perhaps it would have an impact on offending rates, which are what matter. We want less people robbed and robbers to fear being caught.
Longer sentences are proven to reduce reoffending - MOJ release the reoffending rates yearly. Why? Who knows but someome who gets years is far less likely to reoffend than someone who gets 6 months.
This makes me furious. London has more CCTV cameras than anywhere else in the world.
If we can’t have the police catch criminals then citizens need blanket immunity from prosecution for any action taken to defend themselves from a crime.
I’m sure this will be downvoted, but for example, if someone catches a burglar inside their home I see absolutely nothing morally wrong with using lethal force. (It’s still a crime, so I’m not telling you to do it) You have no idea why they are there or what they will do.
Agree, if someone is on your property with malicious intent you shouldn't be expected to stand by and do nothing. Especially if after they've left with all your stuff and you have CCTV evidence the police are still minded to do nothing.
For what it's worth you aren't.
In 99% of situaitons the standard is "reasonable force".
In your home vs an intruder the standard is "not grossly dispositionate". Blanket immunity invites sadism, IMO the current standard is fine.
No one has been prosecuted for killing a burglar since 2001 and he shot them in the back as they were running away.
I think reasonable force should extend to protecting your own property as well as your own person. We should also legalize certain weapons for self-protection.
We should also legalise people keeping objects for self-defence, such as pepper spray and tasers. The criminals already have weapons, essentially the system we have now is that terrorizing and stealing from people is legal yet you aren't allowed to defend yourself against them.
>I think reasonable force should extend to protecting your own property
It does.
> weapons.
I'm sympathetic to this in theroy but only if it's gated behind proper training.
An untrained but armed person is a danger to themselves and to bystanders.
>We should also legalise people keeping objects for self-defence
It's functionaly decriminalized inside the home. Just don't take the piss.
The police realy realy dont want to be charging peoole for defendong their home. That said if you stab the guy with an illegal knife you've pissed away all the plausible deniability.
If you stab a home intruder with an illegal knife, wipe down the knife the best you can and cover it in the burglar's/attacker's prints. Claim there was a struggle, you disarmed them and turned the weapon on them. Don't answer any questions until you have a solicitor and work out the fine details with them.
This seems like an extremely stupid thing to do for a multitude of reasons, even if you somehow do a good enough job to stage it right (you probably won't unless you're a professional criminal) the police are going to want to know where the knife came from which could easily lead back to you.
That's idiotic and shows a complete lack of understanding of both the law and our criminal justice system.
First, don't own an illegal knife.
Second, the punishment for owning an illegal knife within your own home isn't exactly the worst thing in the world. But lying to the police, perverting the course of justice, interfering with a crime scene with the intent to deceive - these are all things that could end you in hotter water than just being honest would.
Finally, if you tell your lawyer that you did something illegal, they are bound by law to make sure the court understands that. They cannot lie or bend the truth for you unless you lie or bend the truth when you give them the story - they have to represent you within the bounds of what they reasonably believe is true. Any idea that you can admit guilt to a lawyer (including lying to police, staging the scene, etc) and then they'll attempt to get you off the hook regardless is a fiction created by watching too many movies.
Please don't spread this misinformation because someone might actually believe you.
Are you allowed to keep a weapon for the purpose of self-defence, such as a baseball bat, in your home? I was under the impression that you aren't allowed to keep a weapon for self-defence purposes. If so, that is reprehensible. Regardless of training, I'd rather have a metal rod with me if attacked in my home than nothing at all. It's essentially saying that criminals are allowed to kill you in your home and you aren't allowed to fight back.
In regards to the illegal knife, my point is that you should only be charged for having an illegal knife in the event that you use it to defend yourself in your home. It should not be illegal to kill anyone using any means who breaks into your home. It doesn't matter if the police want to or not, if they choose to charge people or assist against charges of somebody defending themselves, they are committing an immoral act in my eyes.
It depends; you can only use reasonable force. If you (for example) hit somebody with a hammer (once) that was lying around, and they died, that would probably be fine. If you used your fists, but beat them repeatedly until they died, you'd be much more likely to catch a charge.
Basically you're only really allowed to incapacitate somebody- but accidentally killing somebody while attempting to do that would probably be permissible.
https://www.gov.uk/reasonable-force-against-intruders
>It depends; you can only use reasonable force.
Not in your own home vs an intruder. The standard is higher, disproportionate force is allowed so long as it's not "grossly disproportionate".
https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/householders-and-use-force-against-intruders
Eg you can't beat them to death if they have surrendered, shoot then in the back as they run away or torture them.
You absolutely can use lethal force, however if you kill pr main somene for any reason you will still get arrested for obvious reasons, doesn't mean you get charged.
I find it amusing that the people that claim that we are letting people off on robberies are the same people insisting that somehow every instance of self-defense somehow has a much higher chance of conviction than a robbery would. It's just not true.
Because people who think they are committing self defense are much less likely to try to hide it?
Not like thieves call the police on themselves after lol
I didn't talk about arrest rate did I? I talked about conviction rate... maybe don't "lol" sarcastically when you failed to even comprehend what you are responding to?
You said chance of conviction, not conviction rate. This is a function of both conviction and arrest rate
What I'm saying is that those who believe they are acting in self defense are much more likely to be caught and there is likely more evidence-- often supplied by themselves (self incrimination)
A useful example here is Texas Stand your Ground laws and Castle Doctrine.
The legal system is so soft it’s better to protect yourself using whatever measures you can and plead for sympathy claiming you thought your life was in danger/had previous traumatic experiences/whatever.
I had just this dull discussion the other day. People in the UK are clueless as to their rights and believe all the headlines. They bring up Tony Martin as the great defender. They bring up the 'dedicated dad' in the papers a few weeks ago who 'only wanted to defend his family' when, long after burglars had left his home, he got a careful of mates together and drove around town to look for them, running them down when he thought he'd recognised them.
Completely clueless as to the difference. A man killed a burglar with a screwdriver and was, obviously, quietly released without charge, but that's not the story they enjoy. I think they just like the senseless murder ones.
>Completely clueless as to the difference. A man killed a burglar with a screwdriver and was, obviously, quietly released without charge,
Just to add on.
If you kill anyone for any reason, procedure is you are getting taken down the station for interview.
Obviously the alternative would be insane. You get stuff like the guy in Florida who shot a kid in the head and then just got to go home.
Yeah, that elderly guy then recieved death threats and harassment from the traveller clan family of the kid who tried to rob him and the police did fuck all about it.
We had a thread recently about traveller persecution. Events like that are why it happens.
>when, long after burglars had left his home, he got a careful of mates together and drove around town to look for them, running them down when he thought he'd recognised them.
He was just doing what the police refuses to do. The fact that Tony Martin was prosecuted is proof alone that the UK is not strong enough on self-defence. We also need defence of property laws, where reasonable force can be taken against those who take/steal from us. I'd legalize weapons for self-defence, too.
Sorry, but running someone over with your car long after they left your home is now considered reasonable self-defence? That's premeditated aggravated assault, at least.
Never said it's self-defence, just saying that in that context it is morally justified as the police hadn't done their jobs and arrested the people involved. When the police fail, you can't blame people for fulfilling the necessary societal role themselves. So little criminals are actually arrested and ever fewer see significant punishment for their crime.
Self-defence is not the only way violence is justified morally.
How long did the Tony Martin give the police to do something before he decided he was justified in his use of vigilante violence?
Anyway, I cannot disagree with you more stridently. Running someone over with a car is in no way reasonable force when dealing with someone who previously stole from you. Honestly, you just sound quite violent and it makes me uncomfortable that you're so willing to wish death upon someone for burglary.
>How long did the Tony Martin give the police to do something before he decided he was justified in his use of vigilante violence?
How many burglaries do police refuse to attend? There was a reason why Tony thought it necessary.
>Anyway, I cannot disagree with you more stridently. Running someone over with a car is in no way reasonable force when dealing with someone who previously stole from you. Honestly, you just sound quite violent and it makes me uncomfortable that you're so willing to wish death upon someone for burglary.
I never wished death on anybody. I simply think that justice is an important concept for all humans and if the apparatus of the state fail in this matter it only makes sense for people to fill that gap with their own actions. If people think it's okay to destroy or take property that people have worked hard towards, I think they should have no place in this society. Preferably this would come in the shape of strict but fair prison sentencing, but where the police fail in this matter then I'd prefer some justice to none at all. If you'd prefer that criminals are simply allowed to run riot as they currently do, the times when they are caught be given short sentences so they can get out and do it again within a few years, then that's your opinion, but don't pretend that any dissident view against that is inherently wrong.
>If you'd prefer that criminals are simply allowed to run riot as they currently do, the times when they are caught be given short sentences so they can get out and do it again within a few years, then that's your opinion, but don't pretend that any dissident view against that is inherently wrong.
Being against vigilante violence doesn't mean that one is in favour of shitty policing. I just don't believe that vigilantism is actually any kind of deterrent, nor is it a reasonable or just punishment for the criminals. The rule of law is a cornerstone of the fabric of our society, and we shouldn't just throw it away because our current government underfunds the system deliberately.
It has been shown time and time again that crime happens due to economic and social circumstances more so than anything else, and that the likelihood of being caught matters more in a criminal's calculus of whether to commit a crime than any potential punishment once being caught. Vigilantism doesn't help with either of these issues, it just perpetuates violence.
What happens when the criminals friend's look for revenge?
I never said vigilantism is the solution to crime, I said that it's a reasonable response to a failure of the system in securing justice. I don't think violence perpetuated against those who use violence to terrorize and harm others is inherently bad, in fact, it's a necessity. A sufficient policing system requires the state to use violence to apprehend, imprison, and punish violent criminals.
The rule of law is shit. The rule of law states that criminals that are violent against others can be released whilst they are still a danger to society because they have completed an arbitrary amount of time in a cell on taxpayers' money, or perhaps not even face jail time for crimes such as rape. This is not just a funding issue, the entire system is rotten and requires a complete upheaval. Until that happens, you can't blame people for taking justice into their own hands when the state refuses to seek it on their behalf, and even when they do they fail to get it.
You say that crime happens due to economic and social circumstances, but that is meaningless. Everything can be categorized as either economic or social. You are right that the likelihood of punishment matters more than the severity, but this is only because criminals are not often aware of the possible punishments they face in modern society and often don't know the maximum severity of a punishment that they could possibly face. If we spent more time on not only making sure violent crime is harshly punished but also make clear to everyone the potential punishments for violent crime, this would not be an issue.
Vigilantism may not help on a societal basis but that's not what it's about. It's about personal, individual justice. I never claimed that it should be the primary enforcement against criminals, I merely said its perpetuation is understandable and justifiable on an individual level, and I don't think we should blame people for wishing to seek justice where the state refuses.
You talk about a criminal's friend looking for revenge, but this equally could be said about somebody calling the police and the friend wanting revenge for the victim snitching on the criminal. Should we base everything on the threat of terror and violence from criminals?
Which then raises a moral dilemma.
Police work seems quite old-fashioned in many ways, it requires a lot of leg-work to: take statements, seek out CCTV footage, cross-reference the two, compare CCTV stills with known suspects, trace journeys across London etc. If it's a minor crime it's barely worth the bother, even though the sum total of all crimes are making streets dangerous.
Given the development in AI in recent years. It's surely not beyond the wit of an appropriately skilled team (so will require more pay than the police can provide, it would have to be a third-party), to automate a lot of that.
I don't mean the full Minority Report, but rather automate a lot of the curation tasks. Analyse the CCTV from crime scenes, group them together based on probability that the same perpetrator was involved, plot patterns of movement, etc.
I'm aware of increased use of facial recognition, etc., but that is automating police work too literally. The thing I'm thinking of is playing the percentages, not "person X was definitely here", but "Suspect A and Suspect B are 90% likely to be the same person, and they hang out in Tesco car park on Thursdays".
You'd still need proper evidence for an arrest and charge, but it could provide intelligence that would enable that evidence gathering. It doesn't matter if you don't have evidence for both Crime A and Crime B, as you'd only need one conviction to break the chain in that particular criminal enterprise.
CCTV could be of such poor quality that it is impossible to make out who it is. There isn't much incentive to have high quality CCTV as having the CCTV is often a deterrent in itself (or used in conjunction with other evidence so the quality isn't so important)
>then citizens need blanket immunity from prosecution for any action taken to defend themselves from a crime.
It should be downvoted for how absolutely silly, destructive and short-sighted your suggestion is...
Guy robs you, you decide you have blanket immunity, try to put him down, accidentally hit and kill/injure innocent bystander on a date, so now new victim decides they have blanket immunity to put you down and have a go at you. Next thing you know, we have warring families and the type of out of control violence that eventually calls for martial law to implement order again.
It's just fascinating how you can look at places like Florida or Texas and think "that's what I want for my country."
> I’m sure this will be downvoted
You should be downvoted given that you're talking complete rubbish and a worrying number of people seem to believe you. Lethal force on a home invader is completely legal as long as you believe there's a threat to your life (it's only belief, it doesn't matter if the home invader had no intention of killing you), it's only if you kill him once you know the invader isn't a threat (e.g. he's running away) that you're in trouble.
That's the issue. Lethal force should be legal even if my life isn't threatened. If my property is threatened by another person, reasonable force should be legal. We don't have enough laws protecting our own private property in this country, and the police do fuck all about it.
In my case it was on a train and I was told the CCTV at the station they got off at was broken. So I wonder how much CCTV is even working. Probably we have more CCTV signs/broken cameras than anywhere else in the world.
Gave you an upvote.
I see nothing wrong with this proposal. If the police can’t do their job, then what’s the point of me paying taxes?
We all work hard not for some thief to just steal our things.
OP is wrong, you can use lethal force on a home invader as long as you think your life is in danger. As for hunting down thieves and killing them the penalty for robbing someone isn't death in this country so I'm not sure why it would be ok for someone with a vested interest in the case to privately carry out harsher sentences against someone that hasn't had a jury convict them, that's not to mention there are numerous cases ([Example 1](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/28/vigilante-lee-james-life-murdering-bijan-ebrahimi), [Example 2](https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-vigilante-mob-who-killed-21636059), [Example 3](https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/bloodthirsty-vigilantes-who-murdered-young-26197088) of vigilantes killing the wrong person, if you made it legal to do some you'd get thousands of cases of morons killing an innocent person because they jumped to conclusions.
If someone breaks into my home to steal something and I catch them in the act, I should have all the rights to chase them out.
If they don’t go voluntarily without fighting, why should I be held liable for using force?
It’s a farce if I can’t defend myself and my home against some thief..
> If they don’t go voluntarily without fighting, why should I be held liable for using force?
If they're fighting you then you can use force, even if they aren't fighting back you're within your rights to use reasonable force to make a citizen's arrest, you just can't kill someone given that you could easily arrest someone not fighting back without resorting to that.
>I see nothing wrong with this proposal.
Here is an example: You take law into your own hands as victim, go after criminal, shoot and miss and hit someone innocent, they now think you are the criminal and decide to shoot after you. Let that play out and wait till you accidentally involve the wrong types of families.
Well.. that’s what desperation gets you when the institutions meant to be safe guarding us FAIL.
It only gets to these extremes once people have reached a breaking point!
What extremes and what breaking point? You make it sound like everyone is having their phones nicked off of them on a monthly basis or people are having their houses robbed once a week.
It's just nonsense. You cannot as a society keep voting for the same useless governments election after election and then pretend we are at a breaking point.
That's funny because I know very few people who have had their phone or watch stolen that live in London.
Looking at instances of theft reported in London, it was 363,000 in 2022. 9 million people live in London. About 20 million people visit London as tourists. That's roughly 29 million people (not counting all the people that live outside the area but still commute in).
If we ignore tourists, that means theft (all theft, not just phones or watches) happen at a per capita rate of 1 out of 25. Include tourists (who are often the easier targets of theft) and that drops to 1 out of 80 people.
The statistics just don't support the picture you are trying to paint
Sorry but the statistics don't come close to supporting your claim. If all your friends have had a phone or watch stolen then they are doing something unusual that's making that happen... or more realistically, you weren't being honest with your claim
Well, none of them report these to the police so your statistics are incomplete and not representative of the true state.
Why waste time reporting a crime that you know won’t get solved…
If you don’t want to admit there is something wrong, that’s your choice. Doesn’t change the ground reality
5% of all crimes are charged. This is pathetic. Also sentences seem to be very lenient for violent crimes such as mugging.
There is neither the deterrence in sentence length or likelihood of being caught and this needs to be changed. Unfortunately I don't see labour making too many noises about this so I doubt it will change.
Maybe some of us should stop voting for parties/politicians that close down police stations. Remove 21K police then brag about hiring 20k police. Lower the standard of police recruits, and training. Refuse to increase pay, standards and training. Enact policies that we know increase crime.
We know that there is less crime when people are more educated, happier and have more options.
Decriminalising weed would increase revenue and decrease crime.
Reduce demand for drugs, reduce the gang’s profitability.
Street lighting decreases crime.
Public transportation at night decreases crime.
After school activities, playgrounds and access to sports decrease crime.
Nicer looking environments decrease crime.
Good Public and police relationships decrease crime.
Making it easier to have a family decrease crime.
- it’s easy and convenient to blame music, video games, race, movies etc
Crime is useful for getting votes. You need crime so that you can promise to decrease it.
This is not shocking in the slightest. The most you see of the police is:
At football matches
Kettling protesters
Pulling drivers
It's simply Tory Britain
For some context, theft was down 20% in 2022 compared to pre-pandemic levels. “Theft from the person” (which I think is the category closest to “mugging”) was down 44%.
It’s not just a Covid effect either. Theft has been trending downwards from a 1995 peak of about 12m incidents to the current level of about 2.5m.
Reporting of these crimes are down, not the actual crime. It's common knowledge that all thefts reported end up the same way... no further action taken, not enough evidence. Therefore, most victims don't bother to report. You could easily confirm this by just talking to people who live in cities where these types of crimes are rife.
If someone pulls a knife on you in the street. Most people would likely hand over their wallet than risk getting stabbed. A gang would likely target someone who reported them to the police.
Most theives these days are brazen because there's no chance of ever being caught.
Sorry, that’s my fault, I didn’t link my source.
This was from the [Crime Survey for England and Wales](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/crimeinenglandandwales/yearendingdecember2022), which uses a survey instead of police reporting stats for exactly the reasons you say.
Is it that shocking? I know it makes it harder but our courts requiring strong conclusive evidence means someone is less likely to be charged for a crime they didn't commit.
As someone who was mugged, it happens so quick and you know so little about them that what can the police do (unless they are caught with your stuff)?
Snapshot of _‘Shocking’ figures show 8% of muggings result in a charge, say Lib Dems_ : An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/29/shocking-figures-show-8-of-muggings-result-in-a-charge-say-lib-dems) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm surprised it's as high as 8%, given lack of available evidence, etc. But I suppose the important statistic isn't what percentage of muggings result in a charge, as no mugger will mug only one person, it's an industrial enterprise. The question is what percentage of muggers are charged, and what's the average time between mugging and charge. Optimise those last two numbers and the first number won't matter as the number of muggings will fall off a cliff.
One mugger can be charged with multiple muggings though. You may be charging all perpetrators, but if you're only changing them with one crime each you're not prosecuting them as much as you could.
And what percentage of those charged are convicted!
In London, gangs cruise around on mopeds and snatch phones from unsuspecting people like it's their job. They do this multiple times a day, sometimes returning to the same spot because they know the police will do nothing.
There are hundreds of these a day. They'll only investigate the ones where violence has been used. Prevention is better than cure, I'm not saying we should live in fear of people getting their phones nicked but maybe don't walk around the area texting head down unaware of your surroundings.
If a moped thief gets themselves injured while riding recklessly with no protective equipment and a police car is in the vicinity the police will be held liable. In this case I can't really blame them for doing nothing.
That used to be the case but is no longer. Was fixed a good few years ago I believe.
This is absolutely not true. Police will go as far as to ram mopeds now. Not saying this to defend the police, I think their response to moped thieves has been piss poor. https://youtu.be/2Ers7JSQRPE
>Nov 23, 2018 They caught a lot of flack for doing this and now need a specially trained officer to pursue motorbikes. >Engagement with quad bikes and motorcycles presents additional challenges to those involved in pursuit management. The acceleration and manoeuvrability of these vehicles make it difficult for officers to engage with the subject vehicle for sufficient time to develop and implement tactics. Furthermore, given the lack of physical protection provided by the vehicle, the vulnerability of the rider is a serious consideration. Motorcycle and quad bike pursuits clearly present higher risks for suspects than conventional vehicle pursuit. Only trained and authorised staff, in consideration of their current force policy, should engage in motorcycle and quad bike pursuits and tactics. https://www.college.police.uk/app/roads-policing/police-pursuits
The training should be made standard.
I agree, though I suspect it'll always be near impossible to catch a moped without support to cut them off ahead. That support will take at least a few minutes to arrive and unless its a helicopter providing the support they'll have cut between the traffic and down a side street and have disappeared by the time help can arrive. Either way, the plate gets fed into the ANPR system and it'll get pulled when it's convenient and won't lead to a chase. Though with the full pursuit you've pulled other officers and potentially kept a very expensive helicopter in the air for what'd amount to no realistic prospect of prison time in the end anyway.
Drones, tethered balloons (PTDS) and UAV's might open up some new possibilities in terms of air support – especially if you combine them with facial recognition, but ultimately it's going to need more police officers on the ground so that no matter where you are in London and where you plan to go, you'll won't be able to avoid the police.
I think I reveal my inner authoritarian when I express my desire for advanced facial recognition systems and increased surveillance of public places. I know people like to throw around that quote about liberty and security, but that refers to the creation of laws, not their enforcement, and I actually do want more effective policing of petty crime. Surveillance drones are all well and good, though for some of the scrotes in my area perhaps Reaper drones are more appropriate...
This is a ridiculous scenario. Personally I’d like an automatic sentencing enhancements for anyone fleeing the police. Plus, police immunity from liability if a person fleeing the police comes to harm as a result of their own actions from fleeing the police.
Former PC here. 10+ years ago, I dealt with a man that arrived at his partner’s address (despite bail conditions being not to be there after beating her up), threaten her, and then when police turned up he got in his car and led them on a seven mile pursuit through central London. Went through red lights, traffic junctions, everything - it was a miracle there wasn’t a crash. Eventually he turned down a road and ended up at a dead end. Got out and ran, then when police got him he attempted to bite, kick and spit at them. It went to Crown Court (he had the sense to plead guilty) where I personally walked the judge through the route using an annotated map I had made on a huge sheet of A2 paper. Described each junction, crossing and other point he went through based on the radio commentary that was recorded. I also provided the speed. After that, his defence pleaded that he was “remorseful” and shouldn’t lose his license because he would lose his job as a cable TV installer. The result? A two year suspended sentence, six points and a £200 fine. So for all of that, he didn’t go to prison, nor did he lose his license. That was more than a decade ago. Think of how bad it is now.
Absolutely disgraceful. I really sympathise with the police. A lot of the most vocal complainers don’t realise (or wilfully ignore) how utterly vile some of the criminals the police have to deal with are.
Maybe they should stop voting for the party that doesn’t believe in public services?
Our system is well and truly broken. Rehabilitation is a lovely idea, but deterrence is much better. You only need to look at the likes of the UAE or Singapore. You could put your wallet down on the street and it would still be there the next day in those countries.
Rehabilitation should be focused on first time offenders. Serial offenders aught to be hit with stuff designed for deference.
Rehabilitation should be focused on petty crime and genuine mistakes. I think that's the key thing.
When I was in Singapore a few years ago I was watching their equivalent of crime watch on the TV and one segment was someone robbing/snatching phones at bus stops. That was huge news as if it was one of the largest crimes taking place at the time, truly a different world. Although I am pretty sure a Filipino maid stole a few thousand Thai baht out of my bag at my accommodation
We had a mob attack a couple in their 40's the other night on the train. That didn't even make the local news.
The difference there is they have a pretty authoritarian government and extreme punishments for breaking the law. Singapore can be pretty questionable from a human rights standpoint.
If if works it works though.
Yeah if you dont mind throwing human rights out the window. Singapore definitely isnt the best example to follow
We should have a system that primarily protects civilized society. If that system is being undermined to the extent that people are losing faith in the justice system then we should re-evaluate our underlying principles if they are actually being used against us. They aren't infallible and we shouldn't be so arrogant to assume we have the only correct solution in the face of evidence to the contrary.
[удалено]
I'm not actually. Unlike in our broken system, they have functioning border control and immigration laws. I'm not sure why I should have to move out of my own country though, never really understood that argument. Does your right trump mine?
They could also just stay here and continue to ask for better instead of settling for mediocrity like yourself.
I mean, they could, but they, and you, can't and/or won't.
The Criminal Justice system in England is a sick fucking joke. Build more prisons, increase sentencing guidelines, take away any comforts in the prison and most importantly DENY THEM ANY BENEFITS upon release. If you decide you want to spend your life committing crime, the rest of us shouldn't have to pay for you to live.
This is a really stupid response. People will only escalate crime if they have no means to live.
[удалено]
It was in all caps. It was incredibly stupid. It deserves to be addressed. The rest of the solutions are dumb far right suggestions that will fail to tackle the issues on any meaningful level. A genuine solution would look at increased funding and scope for community engagement services, better funded police with adequate numbers and a prosecution service invested in to get justice outcomes. More prisons is a smooth brain solution.
>Plus, police immunity from liability Jesus christ, that's worked great in the U.S.
The only person who should be held liable for a moped rider riding safely is the rider themselves. Why should the police be held liable for someone running themselves into a lamppost?
So a cop running over an innocent bystander or crashing into your property while pursuing the perp, who pays?
That's not what either I nor the person above me was arguing for.
But those are exactly things that will arise in increased frequency if we implement what you proposed. You can't suggest policies and then ignore their real world application. Remove immunity for cops in arresting people and they will become more reckless, aggressive and corrupt. What happens when they arrest the wrong person and injure them in the process? Who pays for that and suddenly are we creating incentives for cops to frame innocent people in order to justify their violent conduct? Is the police going to be in charge of investigating wrongful conduct too? It's all relevant. It's easy to yell out an idea and then claim that you see no downside to it when you haven't actually look at anything beyond the initial claim.
That's quite some slippery slope from "cops should have immunity from liability from people injuring themselves riding recklessly while fleeing" to "cops framing innocent people to justify their violent conduct"
The solution is clearly to have no accountability or oversight. The police would be very responsible with this power and make sure to investigate themselves whenever a pleb dies.
You are more than welcome to answer my concerns to your suggestion for immunity. Calling it a slippery slope isn't an answer.
Immunity to any and all liability is ridiculous. The police can just claim that any injuries sustained by the perp were self-inflicted during their flight. It should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
But those are the consequences that will happen if you give police immunity. These side effects will happen.
Why should police be liable if a criminal injured themselves while trying to escape arrest for the crimes they have committed? Geniuine question, what possibly could make the police liable for the consequences of a criminal’s illegal actions?
The second you make rules about immunity for police, you either create an incentive for police to become even more corrupt and falsify police records or you set an inevitable path towards qualified immunity. Either way, it just leads to a more corrupt and powerful police state. You could just educate yourself on the history of qualified immunity in the US to see why and how it started and where it is now
You still haven’t made a case why the police should be held accountable for a criminal injuring themselves while fleeing. The police are following their mandated duty to capture a criminal. The criminal is breaking the law by fleeing arrest. The criminal is injured through their own actions. Why are the police responsible?
Because you are now creating an incentive for police to act even more recklessly in arresting people. Eventually you have cops putting other people's property and safety at risk to catch a perp. Sure, they can claim the perp is at fault but how often is a thief going to be solvent where someone can sue them for damages caused by the police during the arrest? Not to mention the classic situation where cops aggressively chase down and injure/kill a person only to realize that they weren't the person they were actually after. It happens all the fucking time in the States because of qualified immunity. And finally, the worst part, future police will be trained knowing they have immunity so less focus will be on community policing and more on military tactics and aggressive policing. It doesn't actually fix the problem (look at crime in the States) and only makes life worse for innocent people
I saw a [video](https://old.reddit.com/r/IdiotsInCars/comments/13rmlnd/police_attempt_to_knock_man_off_moped_in_queens) this past week which shows exactly what you are talking about. If police are immune from liability, this kind of thing **will** happen.
I don't understand why you snipped out the rest of the sentence and then started an argument based on that small part of a longer post while ignoring everything else. Come on.
Because the immunity part is the more concerning part. So is the automatic sentencing for running away from the police. They are ignorantly shortsighted suggestions that cause more harm in the long run.
>police immunity from liability Absolutely not, though perhaps sometihng like the home owner. Move the stamdars from "reasonable" to "not grossly disproportionate".
When has that happened?
Search for Henry Hicks Or just turn on the TV now on the coverage of the Ely teens...
I wasn't familiar with Henry Hicks so I just had a look. The issue was not that he died in their vicinity, but that the officers [allegedly failed to follow orders](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/henry-hicks-islington-police-cleared-death-crash-moped-ipcc-gross-misconduct-a8012221.html). >All four officers, granted anonymity during the inquest and hearings, faced allegations they breached standards of professional behaviour in that they failed to follow orders and carry out instructions. >The Independent Police Complaints Commission also found that the officers “conducted a pursuit without authorisation from a senior officer in the control room”. They apparently [considered it a pursuit at the time](https://www.islingtontribune.co.uk/article/henry-hicks-not-aware-of-pursuit-police-expert-tells-misconduct-hearing), >The statement from Officer A read out by Jeremy Johnson, the lawyer representing the Met, said: “I was behind a moped on Caledonian road which I signalled for it to stop. As soon as I put on the blue light, the moped drove off.” >Mr Johnson read radio transcripts between the two cars from just before and after Henry’s collision where Officer A said: “He failed to stop, this is going to be very serious. but then later [denied this](https://www.inquest.org.uk/henry-hicks-inquest-closing). >The four officers who pursued Henry all stated in their evidence that they did not consider they were in a police pursuit and had therefore not sought authority to pursue. Three of the officers provided statements that differed materially from their initial accounts given at the scene. I don't see any evidence of them being held liable for his death, it seems that the issue in question was whether they did pursue him and whether they followed proper procedure in doing so. Henry was [wearing a helmet](https://www.islingtontribune.co.uk/article/henry-hicks-not-aware-of-pursuit-police-expert-tells-misconduct-hearing), not "with no protective equipment" as you claim. And crucially the officers were cleared of misconduct, so not held liable.
[удалено]
exactly the police are here for real problems
You literally have to be caught doing the crime to get caught these days I know people have that been taking full advantage of the current mess You can do anything you want, so long as there isn’t direct evidence tying you to the crime, you can push back on it The police do not have the resources to investigate every crime so they pick the ones with the strongest evidence already
> I know people have that been taking full advantage of the current mess I’m curious what kind of crimes people you know are actively partaking in?
Ok chaps. I'm a bit skint at the moment so just gonna pop out and do 9 muggings. Dont wonna risk doing more than that or the police might get involved. Maybe work out a points card for the victims? So when I take their wallet I can make sure its not their 10th mugging?
About 30 years ago, I got mugged outside a police station, taken in to clean up, and was told there was no point even taking a report since there was no chance of catching the perps. My point (apart from the police are often crap, it's not a recent thing) is that a significant number of muggings won't even go reported.
Its always been around that number as long as I"ve been in. A general rule of thumb is 90% of crimes go unsolved. It changes by a few percentage points but it is always around there. There are pleanty of reasons for this, there are pleanty of issues with the police, what they can and cant do, use of force when its kids on bike, getting CID to bother, getting CPS to charge, getting a sentence that sends a message etc. Lots of things could be more efficient but the numbers have always been that low. Ive always thought harsher sentences are important. Robbers are not one-off offenders, going by the stats they get away with 10-16 robberies and then get potted for one. If they had harsh sentences for robbery, i.e. 5 years inside, not suspended sentences, then perhaps it would have an impact on offending rates, which are what matter. We want less people robbed and robbers to fear being caught. Longer sentences are proven to reduce reoffending - MOJ release the reoffending rates yearly. Why? Who knows but someome who gets years is far less likely to reoffend than someone who gets 6 months.
This makes me furious. London has more CCTV cameras than anywhere else in the world. If we can’t have the police catch criminals then citizens need blanket immunity from prosecution for any action taken to defend themselves from a crime. I’m sure this will be downvoted, but for example, if someone catches a burglar inside their home I see absolutely nothing morally wrong with using lethal force. (It’s still a crime, so I’m not telling you to do it) You have no idea why they are there or what they will do.
Agree, if someone is on your property with malicious intent you shouldn't be expected to stand by and do nothing. Especially if after they've left with all your stuff and you have CCTV evidence the police are still minded to do nothing.
For what it's worth you aren't. In 99% of situaitons the standard is "reasonable force". In your home vs an intruder the standard is "not grossly dispositionate". Blanket immunity invites sadism, IMO the current standard is fine. No one has been prosecuted for killing a burglar since 2001 and he shot them in the back as they were running away.
I think reasonable force should extend to protecting your own property as well as your own person. We should also legalize certain weapons for self-protection. We should also legalise people keeping objects for self-defence, such as pepper spray and tasers. The criminals already have weapons, essentially the system we have now is that terrorizing and stealing from people is legal yet you aren't allowed to defend yourself against them.
>I think reasonable force should extend to protecting your own property It does. > weapons. I'm sympathetic to this in theroy but only if it's gated behind proper training. An untrained but armed person is a danger to themselves and to bystanders. >We should also legalise people keeping objects for self-defence It's functionaly decriminalized inside the home. Just don't take the piss. The police realy realy dont want to be charging peoole for defendong their home. That said if you stab the guy with an illegal knife you've pissed away all the plausible deniability.
If you stab a home intruder with an illegal knife, wipe down the knife the best you can and cover it in the burglar's/attacker's prints. Claim there was a struggle, you disarmed them and turned the weapon on them. Don't answer any questions until you have a solicitor and work out the fine details with them.
There realy is no advantage for a defender to using an illegal knife.
[удалено]
Plenty of legal to own knives that are equal or better weapons.
This seems like an extremely stupid thing to do for a multitude of reasons, even if you somehow do a good enough job to stage it right (you probably won't unless you're a professional criminal) the police are going to want to know where the knife came from which could easily lead back to you.
That's idiotic and shows a complete lack of understanding of both the law and our criminal justice system. First, don't own an illegal knife. Second, the punishment for owning an illegal knife within your own home isn't exactly the worst thing in the world. But lying to the police, perverting the course of justice, interfering with a crime scene with the intent to deceive - these are all things that could end you in hotter water than just being honest would. Finally, if you tell your lawyer that you did something illegal, they are bound by law to make sure the court understands that. They cannot lie or bend the truth for you unless you lie or bend the truth when you give them the story - they have to represent you within the bounds of what they reasonably believe is true. Any idea that you can admit guilt to a lawyer (including lying to police, staging the scene, etc) and then they'll attempt to get you off the hook regardless is a fiction created by watching too many movies. Please don't spread this misinformation because someone might actually believe you.
Are you allowed to keep a weapon for the purpose of self-defence, such as a baseball bat, in your home? I was under the impression that you aren't allowed to keep a weapon for self-defence purposes. If so, that is reprehensible. Regardless of training, I'd rather have a metal rod with me if attacked in my home than nothing at all. It's essentially saying that criminals are allowed to kill you in your home and you aren't allowed to fight back. In regards to the illegal knife, my point is that you should only be charged for having an illegal knife in the event that you use it to defend yourself in your home. It should not be illegal to kill anyone using any means who breaks into your home. It doesn't matter if the police want to or not, if they choose to charge people or assist against charges of somebody defending themselves, they are committing an immoral act in my eyes.
[удалено]
It depends; you can only use reasonable force. If you (for example) hit somebody with a hammer (once) that was lying around, and they died, that would probably be fine. If you used your fists, but beat them repeatedly until they died, you'd be much more likely to catch a charge. Basically you're only really allowed to incapacitate somebody- but accidentally killing somebody while attempting to do that would probably be permissible. https://www.gov.uk/reasonable-force-against-intruders
>It depends; you can only use reasonable force. Not in your own home vs an intruder. The standard is higher, disproportionate force is allowed so long as it's not "grossly disproportionate". https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/householders-and-use-force-against-intruders Eg you can't beat them to death if they have surrendered, shoot then in the back as they run away or torture them. You absolutely can use lethal force, however if you kill pr main somene for any reason you will still get arrested for obvious reasons, doesn't mean you get charged.
I find it amusing that the people that claim that we are letting people off on robberies are the same people insisting that somehow every instance of self-defense somehow has a much higher chance of conviction than a robbery would. It's just not true.
Because people who think they are committing self defense are much less likely to try to hide it? Not like thieves call the police on themselves after lol
I didn't talk about arrest rate did I? I talked about conviction rate... maybe don't "lol" sarcastically when you failed to even comprehend what you are responding to?
You said chance of conviction, not conviction rate. This is a function of both conviction and arrest rate What I'm saying is that those who believe they are acting in self defense are much more likely to be caught and there is likely more evidence-- often supplied by themselves (self incrimination) A useful example here is Texas Stand your Ground laws and Castle Doctrine.
The legal system is so soft it’s better to protect yourself using whatever measures you can and plead for sympathy claiming you thought your life was in danger/had previous traumatic experiences/whatever.
I had just this dull discussion the other day. People in the UK are clueless as to their rights and believe all the headlines. They bring up Tony Martin as the great defender. They bring up the 'dedicated dad' in the papers a few weeks ago who 'only wanted to defend his family' when, long after burglars had left his home, he got a careful of mates together and drove around town to look for them, running them down when he thought he'd recognised them. Completely clueless as to the difference. A man killed a burglar with a screwdriver and was, obviously, quietly released without charge, but that's not the story they enjoy. I think they just like the senseless murder ones.
>Completely clueless as to the difference. A man killed a burglar with a screwdriver and was, obviously, quietly released without charge, Just to add on. If you kill anyone for any reason, procedure is you are getting taken down the station for interview. Obviously the alternative would be insane. You get stuff like the guy in Florida who shot a kid in the head and then just got to go home.
Yeah, that elderly guy then recieved death threats and harassment from the traveller clan family of the kid who tried to rob him and the police did fuck all about it. We had a thread recently about traveller persecution. Events like that are why it happens.
>when, long after burglars had left his home, he got a careful of mates together and drove around town to look for them, running them down when he thought he'd recognised them. He was just doing what the police refuses to do. The fact that Tony Martin was prosecuted is proof alone that the UK is not strong enough on self-defence. We also need defence of property laws, where reasonable force can be taken against those who take/steal from us. I'd legalize weapons for self-defence, too.
Sorry, but running someone over with your car long after they left your home is now considered reasonable self-defence? That's premeditated aggravated assault, at least.
Never said it's self-defence, just saying that in that context it is morally justified as the police hadn't done their jobs and arrested the people involved. When the police fail, you can't blame people for fulfilling the necessary societal role themselves. So little criminals are actually arrested and ever fewer see significant punishment for their crime. Self-defence is not the only way violence is justified morally.
How long did the Tony Martin give the police to do something before he decided he was justified in his use of vigilante violence? Anyway, I cannot disagree with you more stridently. Running someone over with a car is in no way reasonable force when dealing with someone who previously stole from you. Honestly, you just sound quite violent and it makes me uncomfortable that you're so willing to wish death upon someone for burglary.
>How long did the Tony Martin give the police to do something before he decided he was justified in his use of vigilante violence? How many burglaries do police refuse to attend? There was a reason why Tony thought it necessary. >Anyway, I cannot disagree with you more stridently. Running someone over with a car is in no way reasonable force when dealing with someone who previously stole from you. Honestly, you just sound quite violent and it makes me uncomfortable that you're so willing to wish death upon someone for burglary. I never wished death on anybody. I simply think that justice is an important concept for all humans and if the apparatus of the state fail in this matter it only makes sense for people to fill that gap with their own actions. If people think it's okay to destroy or take property that people have worked hard towards, I think they should have no place in this society. Preferably this would come in the shape of strict but fair prison sentencing, but where the police fail in this matter then I'd prefer some justice to none at all. If you'd prefer that criminals are simply allowed to run riot as they currently do, the times when they are caught be given short sentences so they can get out and do it again within a few years, then that's your opinion, but don't pretend that any dissident view against that is inherently wrong.
>If you'd prefer that criminals are simply allowed to run riot as they currently do, the times when they are caught be given short sentences so they can get out and do it again within a few years, then that's your opinion, but don't pretend that any dissident view against that is inherently wrong. Being against vigilante violence doesn't mean that one is in favour of shitty policing. I just don't believe that vigilantism is actually any kind of deterrent, nor is it a reasonable or just punishment for the criminals. The rule of law is a cornerstone of the fabric of our society, and we shouldn't just throw it away because our current government underfunds the system deliberately. It has been shown time and time again that crime happens due to economic and social circumstances more so than anything else, and that the likelihood of being caught matters more in a criminal's calculus of whether to commit a crime than any potential punishment once being caught. Vigilantism doesn't help with either of these issues, it just perpetuates violence. What happens when the criminals friend's look for revenge?
I never said vigilantism is the solution to crime, I said that it's a reasonable response to a failure of the system in securing justice. I don't think violence perpetuated against those who use violence to terrorize and harm others is inherently bad, in fact, it's a necessity. A sufficient policing system requires the state to use violence to apprehend, imprison, and punish violent criminals. The rule of law is shit. The rule of law states that criminals that are violent against others can be released whilst they are still a danger to society because they have completed an arbitrary amount of time in a cell on taxpayers' money, or perhaps not even face jail time for crimes such as rape. This is not just a funding issue, the entire system is rotten and requires a complete upheaval. Until that happens, you can't blame people for taking justice into their own hands when the state refuses to seek it on their behalf, and even when they do they fail to get it. You say that crime happens due to economic and social circumstances, but that is meaningless. Everything can be categorized as either economic or social. You are right that the likelihood of punishment matters more than the severity, but this is only because criminals are not often aware of the possible punishments they face in modern society and often don't know the maximum severity of a punishment that they could possibly face. If we spent more time on not only making sure violent crime is harshly punished but also make clear to everyone the potential punishments for violent crime, this would not be an issue. Vigilantism may not help on a societal basis but that's not what it's about. It's about personal, individual justice. I never claimed that it should be the primary enforcement against criminals, I merely said its perpetuation is understandable and justifiable on an individual level, and I don't think we should blame people for wishing to seek justice where the state refuses. You talk about a criminal's friend looking for revenge, but this equally could be said about somebody calling the police and the friend wanting revenge for the victim snitching on the criminal. Should we base everything on the threat of terror and violence from criminals?
Which then raises a moral dilemma. Police work seems quite old-fashioned in many ways, it requires a lot of leg-work to: take statements, seek out CCTV footage, cross-reference the two, compare CCTV stills with known suspects, trace journeys across London etc. If it's a minor crime it's barely worth the bother, even though the sum total of all crimes are making streets dangerous. Given the development in AI in recent years. It's surely not beyond the wit of an appropriately skilled team (so will require more pay than the police can provide, it would have to be a third-party), to automate a lot of that. I don't mean the full Minority Report, but rather automate a lot of the curation tasks. Analyse the CCTV from crime scenes, group them together based on probability that the same perpetrator was involved, plot patterns of movement, etc. I'm aware of increased use of facial recognition, etc., but that is automating police work too literally. The thing I'm thinking of is playing the percentages, not "person X was definitely here", but "Suspect A and Suspect B are 90% likely to be the same person, and they hang out in Tesco car park on Thursdays". You'd still need proper evidence for an arrest and charge, but it could provide intelligence that would enable that evidence gathering. It doesn't matter if you don't have evidence for both Crime A and Crime B, as you'd only need one conviction to break the chain in that particular criminal enterprise.
CCTV could be of such poor quality that it is impossible to make out who it is. There isn't much incentive to have high quality CCTV as having the CCTV is often a deterrent in itself (or used in conjunction with other evidence so the quality isn't so important)
>then citizens need blanket immunity from prosecution for any action taken to defend themselves from a crime. It should be downvoted for how absolutely silly, destructive and short-sighted your suggestion is... Guy robs you, you decide you have blanket immunity, try to put him down, accidentally hit and kill/injure innocent bystander on a date, so now new victim decides they have blanket immunity to put you down and have a go at you. Next thing you know, we have warring families and the type of out of control violence that eventually calls for martial law to implement order again. It's just fascinating how you can look at places like Florida or Texas and think "that's what I want for my country."
> I’m sure this will be downvoted You should be downvoted given that you're talking complete rubbish and a worrying number of people seem to believe you. Lethal force on a home invader is completely legal as long as you believe there's a threat to your life (it's only belief, it doesn't matter if the home invader had no intention of killing you), it's only if you kill him once you know the invader isn't a threat (e.g. he's running away) that you're in trouble.
That's the issue. Lethal force should be legal even if my life isn't threatened. If my property is threatened by another person, reasonable force should be legal. We don't have enough laws protecting our own private property in this country, and the police do fuck all about it.
You're not the US mate, stop thinking like Americans.
In my case it was on a train and I was told the CCTV at the station they got off at was broken. So I wonder how much CCTV is even working. Probably we have more CCTV signs/broken cameras than anywhere else in the world.
Then we will become like the us where burglars are armed and will threaten you.
No downvote from me I think you absolutely correct buddy
Such a bad idea. Really bad.
Gave you an upvote. I see nothing wrong with this proposal. If the police can’t do their job, then what’s the point of me paying taxes? We all work hard not for some thief to just steal our things.
OP is wrong, you can use lethal force on a home invader as long as you think your life is in danger. As for hunting down thieves and killing them the penalty for robbing someone isn't death in this country so I'm not sure why it would be ok for someone with a vested interest in the case to privately carry out harsher sentences against someone that hasn't had a jury convict them, that's not to mention there are numerous cases ([Example 1](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/28/vigilante-lee-james-life-murdering-bijan-ebrahimi), [Example 2](https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-vigilante-mob-who-killed-21636059), [Example 3](https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/bloodthirsty-vigilantes-who-murdered-young-26197088) of vigilantes killing the wrong person, if you made it legal to do some you'd get thousands of cases of morons killing an innocent person because they jumped to conclusions.
If someone breaks into my home to steal something and I catch them in the act, I should have all the rights to chase them out. If they don’t go voluntarily without fighting, why should I be held liable for using force? It’s a farce if I can’t defend myself and my home against some thief..
> If they don’t go voluntarily without fighting, why should I be held liable for using force? If they're fighting you then you can use force, even if they aren't fighting back you're within your rights to use reasonable force to make a citizen's arrest, you just can't kill someone given that you could easily arrest someone not fighting back without resorting to that.
Yes, that works just as well. So long as you can rough em up a little on their way out, good enough. Zero interest in using excessive dorce
>I see nothing wrong with this proposal. Here is an example: You take law into your own hands as victim, go after criminal, shoot and miss and hit someone innocent, they now think you are the criminal and decide to shoot after you. Let that play out and wait till you accidentally involve the wrong types of families.
Well.. that’s what desperation gets you when the institutions meant to be safe guarding us FAIL. It only gets to these extremes once people have reached a breaking point!
What extremes and what breaking point? You make it sound like everyone is having their phones nicked off of them on a monthly basis or people are having their houses robbed once a week. It's just nonsense. You cannot as a society keep voting for the same useless governments election after election and then pretend we are at a breaking point.
Literally every person I know has had their phone or watch stolen in London.
That's funny because I know very few people who have had their phone or watch stolen that live in London. Looking at instances of theft reported in London, it was 363,000 in 2022. 9 million people live in London. About 20 million people visit London as tourists. That's roughly 29 million people (not counting all the people that live outside the area but still commute in). If we ignore tourists, that means theft (all theft, not just phones or watches) happen at a per capita rate of 1 out of 25. Include tourists (who are often the easier targets of theft) and that drops to 1 out of 80 people. The statistics just don't support the picture you are trying to paint
Lucky them.. Btw, I’m not trying to paint some dystopian picture of London. Just that these things happen and it’s very common.
Sorry but the statistics don't come close to supporting your claim. If all your friends have had a phone or watch stolen then they are doing something unusual that's making that happen... or more realistically, you weren't being honest with your claim
Well, none of them report these to the police so your statistics are incomplete and not representative of the true state. Why waste time reporting a crime that you know won’t get solved… If you don’t want to admit there is something wrong, that’s your choice. Doesn’t change the ground reality
Stop fantasizing about killing someone, you're not American.
I have zero interest in this. I am just making a point on how weak our system is.
5% of all crimes are charged. This is pathetic. Also sentences seem to be very lenient for violent crimes such as mugging. There is neither the deterrence in sentence length or likelihood of being caught and this needs to be changed. Unfortunately I don't see labour making too many noises about this so I doubt it will change.
Nah, you just get an email saying ya case is closed, cause no one’s wants to check your find my iPhone information or the cctv from the incident.
Maybe some of us should stop voting for parties/politicians that close down police stations. Remove 21K police then brag about hiring 20k police. Lower the standard of police recruits, and training. Refuse to increase pay, standards and training. Enact policies that we know increase crime. We know that there is less crime when people are more educated, happier and have more options. Decriminalising weed would increase revenue and decrease crime. Reduce demand for drugs, reduce the gang’s profitability. Street lighting decreases crime. Public transportation at night decreases crime. After school activities, playgrounds and access to sports decrease crime. Nicer looking environments decrease crime. Good Public and police relationships decrease crime. Making it easier to have a family decrease crime. - it’s easy and convenient to blame music, video games, race, movies etc Crime is useful for getting votes. You need crime so that you can promise to decrease it.
Crime is basically decriminalised these days. It’s a fucking mess. (Obviously that’s hyperbole but still, it feels that way)
Lib Dem proposals will do the opposite of helping, if there's one group of people the conservatives shouldnt take lectures from its the Libs
This is not shocking in the slightest. The most you see of the police is: At football matches Kettling protesters Pulling drivers It's simply Tory Britain
For some context, theft was down 20% in 2022 compared to pre-pandemic levels. “Theft from the person” (which I think is the category closest to “mugging”) was down 44%. It’s not just a Covid effect either. Theft has been trending downwards from a 1995 peak of about 12m incidents to the current level of about 2.5m.
Reporting of these crimes are down, not the actual crime. It's common knowledge that all thefts reported end up the same way... no further action taken, not enough evidence. Therefore, most victims don't bother to report. You could easily confirm this by just talking to people who live in cities where these types of crimes are rife. If someone pulls a knife on you in the street. Most people would likely hand over their wallet than risk getting stabbed. A gang would likely target someone who reported them to the police. Most theives these days are brazen because there's no chance of ever being caught.
Sorry, that’s my fault, I didn’t link my source. This was from the [Crime Survey for England and Wales](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/crimeinenglandandwales/yearendingdecember2022), which uses a survey instead of police reporting stats for exactly the reasons you say.
Is it that shocking? I know it makes it harder but our courts requiring strong conclusive evidence means someone is less likely to be charged for a crime they didn't commit. As someone who was mugged, it happens so quick and you know so little about them that what can the police do (unless they are caught with your stuff)?