Do shop owners in the UK have the right to defend their shops?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

I guess I'm asking on 2 front- both legal and moral.

If some family owns a family shop, not some multi-national thing, they're making a decent living, are probably apolitical or even charitably minded; can/should they, defend what is essentially their livelihood from those who would destroy what little they have?

[onehandle]

1. Legally? Dunno. Morally? It's just stuff, so gunning down rioters? No. ADDITIONALLY...

We are talking about a Giant Densely Populated City.

If they had the kind of firepower we have, there would have been Thousands killed.

[GKirk]

7. Well now guns weren't even mentioned...

...but if I was protecting my property I probably would choose to use a gun to do that.
This seems like it would be the proper time for open carry. And no I wouldn't 'gun down'
rioters I would only use the gun if the rioters were threatening my life.

I doubt if any of this applies to people in London.

[spin]

33. Defending your store with a firearm might be hard in the UK ...

they have the type of gun control that those who oppose RKBA in the United States can only dream of.

[onehandle]

41. And the low gun death rates to go along with it.

I will not respond to this part of the thread. Address me in my first response to the OP above, if you wish.

[dtexdem]

38. No, it's not 'just stuff' -- it's how people make a living.

So it's what supports their lives.

But does defending the shops necessarily mean 'gunning down rioters'?

[cableman24]

2. I would say on a moral ground, yes, they should be able to defend themselves.

[onehandle]

8. The question was about defending their shops, not themselves.

But of course possessions = people to some.

I will not respond to this part of the thread. Address me in my first response to the OP above, if you wish.

[Xithras]

17. It's not a mere "possession"

For most small business owners, their shops are their entire life. That's their savings, their employment, their healthcare, and their income all rolled up into one small building. When their business burns, they don't just lose "stuff". They become instantly unemployed, their savings cease to exist, their retirement plan ceases to exist, and all income stops immediately. The more successful ones might have an insurance plan that can float them until they rebuild, but most small family businesses DO NOT have that kind of insurance. Most small businesses operate on thin budgets, and either buy the cheapest insurance they can find, or go without any at all.

That's why 3/4's of the small businesses destroyed in the 1992 L.A. riots never reopened (1,100 in all). The families that owned them were left destitute.

[MicaelS]

42. Then how about a skilled independent tradesman?

Who owns his own work truck, as he's a plumber, or carpenter or electrician. All his tools are in that truck. That truck is stolen, he has no way to feed his family, no way to pay his bills. No way to keep a roof over their heads. What if he can't afford 100% insurance? In this case possessions really are his family's life. Should he and his family go homeless and hungry to preserve the life of a thief?

[Rex]

3. Don't know UK law on that, but here in TEXAS

ya ya'll already know...we would be shooting them deader then dead and reloading before the body hits the floor.

[socialshockwave]

4. Of course they do. Small businesses are not "The Man"

or nameless, faceless corporations. They have faces to them.

[MicaelS]

5. Can they? Yes.. BUT

If they use "excessive violence" they will probably be prosecuted.

[William769]

6. Private property is just that private property.

I myself would use any means necessary to protect it.

[safeinOhio]

13. That's what insurance is for.

[William769]

21. My insurance is Smith & Wesson.

Hell of alot cheaper.

When rioters go after small business they are nothing but thugs and should be treated as such. Now if they go after what they are supposed to be rioting about the Government, well thats a different story.

[snagglepuss]

23. Hundreds of flats were destroyed by fire. Insurance doesn't replace

irreplaceable artifacts. Business destryed have left hundreds without jobs, insurance won't cover loss of liviehoods, in Enfield alone Sony's largest UK warehouse employing 750 people was burnt to the ground.

[Upton]

9. Yes they do have that right..

those looting and burning are nothing more than criminals. Anything they get, they richly deserve and brought on themselves..

[surrealAmerican]

10. Would you?

Whether they have a right or not, it would hardly be worth risking their lives for.

I'm guessing if it were me, I'd stay away and stay safe, and file an insurance claim if the place got looted. Yes, it could cost my savings, but better that than my life.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

19. I remember once when I was in middle school

someone broke in and stole my dad's tools. He's always been a carpenter/general contractor. Yeah he was covered, a bit; but the loss of work while he filed claims and bought new tools and tried to rebuild his business after clients moved on to people who could actually work meant there were some really lean months for us. He fell behind in the mortgage, parked the car down the street to avoid the repo man and me and my brother ate a lot of Hamburger Helper and washed it down with powered milk. I'm pretty darn sure that if my dad had gotten within arm's reach of the crook(s) somebody would have gotten hurt.

[surrealAmerican]

34. ... and the person who ended up hurt ...

... could easily have been your father. You could have wound up in rather worse shape were that the case. He may have been lucky that he never met the crook(s).

[Nuclear Unicorn]

48. I know. Believe me, I know.

That episode hurt my father, my family, for years. His credit rating was shot with all that entails for a man who is his own employer.

I can't imagine killing another human being over what some might describe as "mere possessions" but at the same time they weren't mere possessions, they were how 1 man fed and housed his 2 kids. I'd be horrified to think my father would shoot and kill the crook(s) if he caught them in the act but then, the crook(s) seemed to have little care whether or not a man and his 2 kids ended up homeless and hungry.

Yeah, I'm conflicted, biased and ambivalent. It's why I've asked for input from others.

[Zywiec]

11. Absolutely!

And if this continues there will be little sympathy for people burning buildings.

[Ozymanithrax]

12. Whether it is a family or a multi-national, yes they have the right to defend their shops...

In those shops run by multi-nationals, there are workers who should, if they chose, defend their livelihood from people who would destroy things or take them.

[safeinOhio]

16. So you'd been in favor of the India Tea Co.

shooting dead all of those that tossed the tea in the harbor?

[provis99]

25. well, actually, I sympathize with the East India Company

Frankly, the tea partiers were essentially like the bootleggers of the 1920s. They were smugglers who didn't want legitimate competition from Europe cutting into their profit margin. Their complaint was that Britain LOWERED taxes on the East India Company tea, making it more competitive with the illegal smugglers.

And to answer your question, (I assume you mean East India Company), if the tea partiers had attacked the East India Company ships in Galveston Texas, today, they would be justified in shooting the tea partiers under Texas law.

[safeinOhio]

27. and then we wouldn't have any

Second Amendment.

[provis99]

28. ?

[Ozymanithrax]

37. When you take a jump, you take a jump...

Did you know that FRanklin, Jefferson, and other colonials actually refunded the money lost by the East India Tea Company after a bunch of drunks destroyed it. Learned that in a college history course that did not teach that GW chopped down the cherry tree.

I think people have a right to protest but not to destroy others in pursuit of that right. I also think people have a right to defend their property and livelihoods. A right to riot, burn, pillage, and steal, not so much. Those shop keepers are not the problem, only a symbol. I think protesters occupying the House of Lords or House of commons would be a justified action. That is the peoples property.

I do understand that the people involved in those riots are mostly poor, unemployed, and young without a great deal of hope. There government failed them, utterly. That doesn't give them to the right to steal, burn, and pillage.

[tabatha]

14. Truly extraordinary speech by fearless West Indian woman in face of #Hackney...

http://www.twitvid.com/4JTZH

[southernyankeebelle]

15. You know in some country they have metal covers they pull down and

lock with a big lock. You know I don't think stealing wins these people anything. Protest yes but once they stop and start busting into shops is where I draw the line.

[snagglepuss]

20. Many shops had them and they were pryed opened. Witnnesses say cops left

certain areas being trashed to to go worse areas. In some places withnesses say cops stood by and did nothing.

[JVS]

18. They should have insurance.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

22. Please see my post above

Also, insurance rates will rise to cover any pay outs, so it is still the hapless shop owner paying.

[snagglepuss]

Hundreds of flats were destroyed by fire. Insurance doesn't replace

the irreplaceable nor does it compensate the hundreds of people who no longer have a workplace. NOr does insurance replace the historic building that have been destroyed forever.

[Xithras]

29. Most small family businesses do NOT have that kind of insurance.

If they operate a retail store, they might have minimal liability coverage to help with slip and fall claims, but that's about it.

Comprehensive business insurance that covers rebuilding from fire and theft (including replacing lost inventory) is VERY expensive, and most small family businesses simply can't afford it. I owned a small business for many years, and never had that kind of coverage.

Your big chain stores have that kind of coverage because they can get one policy that covers many stores, which makes the numbers pencil out. A small, single storefront mom and pop shop would be dedicating a large portion of their income to buying that sort of insurance, and few can afford the expense.

Most small businesses simply gamble that it will never happen to them. If it does, and their records survive, they're more likely to pursue a bank loan to rebuild based on their pre-disaster sales numbers. They'll take an immediate financial hit because of the expense associated with those loans.

[seabeyond]

40. insurance never covers the cost nor does it bring home the paycheck to feed the family. nt

[ChrisBorg]

47. The looters should have life insurance.

[SidDithers]

24. They shoud gladly and proudly allow their shops to be looted and burned...

those are the kinds of sacrifices that need to made in the name of the glorious revolutionary socialist uprising!

Sid

[KamaAina]

26. They did in South Central after the Rodney King verdict

the Korean-language channel even broadcast instructuions on how best to do so.

[Xithras]

31. Who can forget...

..the footage of the Korean shopkeepers on the roof of their East L.A. store, with their assault rifles in hand, taking potshots at rioters who attacked their building. When it was all over, their store was the only one on the block that hadn't been looted.

In the weeks after the riot, their store became a lifeline for the surrounding neighborhood. It was the only store still operating, and the only place people could buy food.

As I said elsewhere, these stores aren't simply "possessions".

[Freddie Stubbs]

30. My family had to defend their store during the 1968 Baltimore riot

My uncle had to shoot a man who was trying to burn down my grandfather's store. We have no idea if the man died. My grandfather soon sold the store, and most of our family left Baltimore for more civilized areas.

[OHdem10]

32. Of course they do, but once riots break out you put your life in

danger sticking around to fight it out with a big group.

Not justifying anything, but this is what happens when
you have people out of work with time on their hands
for long periods of time/

Does anyone remember the 60s in this country. Watts, Cleveland
NYC, ..........

[Throd]

35. Yes. Catching a bullet can be an occupational hazard that comes with looting.

[bdamomma]

36. Yes they have the right to defend their businesses.

[seabeyond]

39. yes. they do. and they have the right to defend their home from destruction. and their body. nt

[Dreamer Tatum]

43. With extreme prejudice, yes. nt

[Amonester]

44. Yes. They certainly do have that right, BUT...

They Have To Do It 'Wisely' which means, not to attempt to do it by themselves, but do it as shop owners do around here, when, for example, 'stupid sports fans' riot (for-the-'fun'-of-it) to 'celebrate' their favorite team's championship win: HIRE PROFESSIONAL PROTECTION AGENCIES.

Last time they did (here)... SURPRISE Surprise, they 'suffered' zero losses... none of their glasses got broken, no looting occured, no fire got set on. Albeit, they had to PAY the armed agents they HIRED... (they were acting like 'job creators' in a sense...)

[ChrisBorg]

45. Yes, vigorously and violently. The looters start the fight, victims get to end it.

If you are willing to risk your life to loot, so be it. I wouldn't take that bet but that is just me.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

46. Absolutely.