igm1 Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 Originally posted by dinp The 'get them before they get you' option should still be there though, as some person somewhere would just want an excuse to kill someone and get away with it! I'm saying all this but I'm sure my Dad wouldn't be able to stop himself hurting someone if they broke into our house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 Originally posted by dinp I certainly wouldn't plan to murder anyone, but if a fight broke out and they were giving as much as you and they ended up dying as a result, I dont see why I should be punished for that. I was doing my duty and protecting my family and property, whereas the lowlife was out to strip me of safety and possession. so you are in agreement with the current law as that is currently perfectly legal. What is not legal is using excessive force (depends on a jury as to what that is) nor any form of 'revenge' which would include continuing to attack them if they attempted to leave. Although to balance that last bit you would be within your rights to perform a citizens arrest and then use reasonable force to restrain them, which would basically be a continuation of the ongoing violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenback Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 Originally posted by dial What would a normal decent kid be doing running around the inside of a house in the early hours of the mornig uninvited? Shoot to kill, then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wattsy Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 OK then while we are on the subject of Criminals, i think we should send the B*****d that shot the Police Officer in West Yorkshire back to The Good Ole U S of A and put him on death row, why the hell should we keep him. Hes wanted by the FBI anyway, plus hes no good to society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenback Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 Originally posted by Wattsy OK then while we are on the subject of Criminals, i think we should send the B*****d that shot the Police Officer in West Yorkshire back to The Good Ole U S of A and put him on death row, why the hell should we keep him. Hes wanted by the FBI anyway, plus hes no good to society. AFAIK he will be extradicted after he's finished his sentence over here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wattsy Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 Originally posted by dial What would a normal decent kid be doing running around the inside of a house in the early hours of the mornig uninvited? I know and seen plenty of kids out at 2 & 3 in the morning they need a good clout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greybeard Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 Originally posted by Cyclone just don't shoot them in the back with an illegally held firearm whilst they are trying to get away from you. ......not just a little parting shot into the backside ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saxon51 Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 Hows about both barrels in the back of the knees? Won't (shouldn't) die, won't run far, hurts like buggery, crippled for life with luck, and he won't get away with any of your small stuff, or evade capture. Only drawback is the ruined carpet as far as I can see! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 Originally posted by markham Hows about both barrels in the back of the knees? Won't (shouldn't) die, won't run far, hurts like buggery, crippled for life with luck, and he won't get away with any of your small stuff, or evade capture. Only drawback is the ruined carpet as far as I can see! it's not about killing them, it's about continuing to attack them when they are no longer a danger to you. I heard a bit more on the radio about the proposals being tabled in the private members bill. The wording of 'reasonable force' would be changed to 'not grossly disproportionate'. Shooting someone running away would still be the latter. It's barely a change at all, just enough to make juries more lenient when judging someone. If they were going to change anything though I think it should be this change for all self defence law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 There is a lot of big talk in this thread. The truth is that 99.9% of people would do nothing (for any one of a number of reasons) in the event of actually discovering a burglar, and the remaining 0.1% would probably already be in the nick for ABH already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.