[Flipside]

The Queen....

Ok, now I know this applies more to UK members, but a few days ago a man dressed in a Batman uniform climbed onto Buckingham Palace to protest that it was easier to get onto the balcony than see his own daughter.

The response to this is to start trying to instigate a law that allows trespassers on the Queens property to be shot by guards if nexessary. Fine fair enough you might think, were it not for the fact that, should the average person feel their life is in danger from an intruder and shots them for their own safety, you are probably looking at a good few years in Jail.

So, once again, our country is trying to divide the law up into two halves

[vyper]

I think it's outrageous an unarmed man could be shot. It has always been the case that the police must identify themselves three times, as armed police, and order the person to stop givng them as much time as possible to do so.

This kind of shoot on site behaviour is more American/European than traditionally British.

[Petrarch of the VBB]

I was amazed by the way the papers put it.
"Thankfully the royal family were not in residence"

Oooh dear,  they'd be in SO much danger if they were in.

[Flipside]

The papers don't like 'Fathers 4 Justice', and keep trying to edge them towards looking like 'mini-terrorists', it sells more papers than simply accepting the fact that fathers get the sh*t end of the stick when it comes to access rights for their kids.

Edit : Besides it might remind people that the right to protest is still free in this country.

[aldo_14]

I believe the fear is from suicide bombers who would technically be unarmed (in the sense of no apparent weapons beyond several kgs of explosives shoved up their arse).

I think the current SO19(IIRC) legislation will apply, though, i.e. need to give a warning/threat of force and allow adequate time.

It's....contentious, regardless.  I've not really read much about the exact situation, though, so i've not decided what to make of it.

[vyper]

[q]Edit : Besides it might remind people that the right to protest is still free in this country.[/q]

Yep. Apparently tourists (dunno from where) were commenting on tha fact the guy would've been shot in thier country. MY personal response would've been "welcome to a free(ish) country".

[Flipside]

My problem is not so much the right for the Queen as a public figure and a target, to defend herself, it's more with the fact that the public, who are equally targets, not just from terrorists, but from common criminals such as burglers, rapists etc, are not allowed to take similar measures to protect their lives in their own homes, and can even be punished for doing so.

We don't have the luxury of being able to afford Police Officers to walk around our houses every night

Edit : And yes, in most situations, the person should be given an oppurtunity to leave or surrender before being subdued, anything less is barbarism.

[Rictor]

Yeah, I read about this. Way to pick the old Batman costume, not one of the cooler looking new ones (Bat-Nipples anyone?).

And no, an unarmed man should not be shot (at least not fatally), especially if he is dressed as freaking Batman. I understand the suicide bomber arguement, but if the guy hangs a big "Fathers 4 Justice" banner, I think its pretty clear he's not there on behalf of al Queda.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Flipside
My problem is not so much the right for the Queen as a public figure and a target, to defend herself, it's more with the fact that the public, who are equally targets, not just from terrorists, but from common criminals such as burglers, rapists etc, are not allowed to take similar measures to protect their lives in their own homes, and can even be punished for doing so.

But you are allowed to use reasonable force to stop them. If you have a gun you probably don't need to kill a burgler at all. Just wave the gun menacingly and the tosser will probably run away to change his trousers.

If he comes at you you can blast him away and you probably won't have to do anything more than answer a few questions and clean the blood splater off of your stuff.

[Flipside]

Theres something unsettling about the idea of Batman with a utility belt stuffed with Semtex though

The only down side is that his kids are now off school with 'stress' (would you, as a teenager, be able to go into school after your Dad had been on the BBC dressed as Batman?)

@Kara : Well, that is the law, but theres such a spate of burglers suing for Assault and ABH that people are scared to do it

It's always surprised me that less 'permanent' methods of subduing are even more illegal than a baseball bat, such as Gas or Stun Guns, the argument being that if the person has a respiratory or heart problem it might kill them. My answer is 'If the person has a respiratory or heart problem, what are they doing climbing through windows?'

[aldo_14]

Well, to be fair, the royal family has a somewhat higher risk of targeted attacks against them, be it terrorism, large scale theft (this being the less likely IMO) or assasination, simply due to their status.

Like when the IRA blew up Lord Mountbatten.... whilst the Monarchy aren't an effective target in terms of affecting political change, they're a strong symbolic target.

Another issue is that when someone is killed trying to rob a royal - or even a government - high security building, it will almost certainly be by a formally trained operative (be it army, police or some other).  Whereas someone who shoots a burgler, doesn't have the same level of risk assessment training, i.e. it becomes a lot hazier when evaluating their logic.  As such, I can understand why a jury may be required to cast judgement on the validity of that action.

[Ghostavo]

Originally posted by vyper
This kind of shoot on site behaviour is more American/European than traditionally British.

[Rictor]

edit: oops, got the topics mixed up. PhE4R.

[kasperl]

Seriously, I can understand this somewhat. But I'd do it the other way, just call Buckingham Palace a high-security military zone, and use normal military law. I think there are quite some laws allowing soldiers to shoot trespassers on bases.

As for the burglar suing, that is indeed quite wrong, sometimes. Other times, there really has been excessive violence. (Beating when he's down should be punished, right?)

[Clave]

They should have shot him.  A warning shot to the head would discourage anyone else....

[kasperl]

Clave:

I just hope that's sarcasm.....

[Flipside]

Kasp : I agree that it's too easy to get carried away and actually assault someone beyond the point of simply 'stopping' them, that's why I'm more in favour things like knockout gas and big nets that fall from the ceiling etc Not only does it not harm the offender, but means you can set your house up like Dr Dooms Lab of Destruction

[kasperl]

Untill the bloody cat starts triggering stuff.....

Seriously, I think that weapon controll is a good thing, but a burglar alarm should be OK. Starting with knockout gas, you;ve got something that can be used offensivly quite easy. (Dark alley, bag o' gas, unsuspecting bystander, muggers/rapists dream, right?). Nets, well, I don't know how much they help to a guy with a knife.

[Tiara]

Originally posted by vyper
This kind of shoot on site behaviour is more American/European than traditionally British.

In France you get hit by a baguette and are released...
In Germany you get a sausage up your nose and wiener schnitzels in your ears and are released...
In Italy they wipe your ass with a steaming hot Pizza and are released...
In Holland you are offered a joint by the arresting officers and are released...

:p:D

[Flipside]

Hehehehe I know what you mean. The thing is, at least where I live, burglar alarms and car alarms are constantly going off. The technology is imperfect, as you say, with things like cats etc. So quite often, the first time people react to an alarm is usually to phone the Police to complain about it keeping them awake.

So much for neighborhood watch, Sad but True