[Closed] Protecting your property.

Whether it is right or not isn't something that anyone with only the media for information can judge. In spite of what the majority of the right wing press would have you believe this is the normal outcome for situations like this.

Indeed, it's very rare for charges to even be brought, let alone be found guilty by a jury of twelve peers. I'm glad they were arrested and questioned. Anybody who shoots somebody else unarmed [i]should[/i] be arrested and questioned and punished if undue force is used.

Is the bbc regarded as right wing press? That's where I read it! If someone is stood by your bed in the middle of the night in a balaclava I personally think you have the right to shoot him sock in the bollox regardless of the consequences to him.

I think what gonefishin was trying to say is that the right wing press would have us believe that gaols are full of well meaning homeowners who were simply defending their little castles from nasty men in balaclavas...who are also possibly gypsies, immigrants, or even worse, both.

I'm glad someone here can read!

Is the bbc regarded as right wing press? That's where I read it! If someone is stood by your bed in the middle of the night ......

I haven't read that in any of the BBC reports. It seems strange that the guy had a loaded firearm next to him in bed.

But anyway ..... the fact that someone has wronged you doesn't automatically give you the right to do whatever you want with them. Even the Geneva Convention prohibits the shooting of prisoners.

Like most people I know nothing concerning what precisely happened in that incident, so can't pass judgement and therefore have to rely on the police's judgement.

Judith Walker, Chief Crown Prosecutor for the East Midlands, said: "I am satisfied that this is a case where householders, faced with intruders in frightening circumstances, acted in reasonable self-defence.

"The law is clear that anyone who acts in good faith, using reasonable force, doing what they honestly feel is necessary to protect themselves, their families or their property, will not be prosecuted for such action.

How is a shotgun at close range "reasonable force"

Back in August, on a long drive, I was listening to Jeremy Vine(?). He was speaking with victims of violent home robberies (tied up naked, threatened with guns/machetes axes etc). These people (the victims) were all suffering years after their ordeals.

Love to know how 'reasonable force' is defined. If you are terrified (possibly fearing for your life) and have the opportunity to incapacitate/knock out a burglar you're not just going to give 'em a tickle are you.

So if you become a prisoner in your home tied to a chair say, do you really think the genera convention is crossing his mind as he threatens to stab you if you don't give up your pin number?

From the media reports that the burglars were expecting an empty house I'd say 'reasonable' would be shouting "f*** off or I'll shoot", i don't condone burglary, but I condone shooting people even less.

So if you become a prisoner in your home tied to a chair say, do you really think the genera convention is crossing his mind as he threatens to stab you if you don't give up your pin number?

You're being very silly wrightyson 🙂

The reference to the Geneva Convention was merely to illustrate that there are rules and norms that have to be abide by - even in a war situation.

You are not entitled to execute someone simply because they have unlawfully entered your property.

So if you become a prisoner in your home tied to a chair say, do you really think the genera convention is crossing his mind as he threatens to stab you if you don't give up your pin number?

[img] [/img]

If I/my family were in the process of being violently burgled I would read the Geneva convention, if by that time they hadn't violated my family, me or my property I would proceed to give the offenders a hug and sit round and hold hands whilst they came round to the error of their ways.

8)

The law seems to be reasonable, I think. These two don't deserve to be punished. Tony Martin probably did...

I think what gonefishin was trying to say is that the right wing press would have us believe that gaols are full of well meaning homeowners who were simply defending their little castles from nasty men in balaclavas...who are also possibly gypsies, immigrants, or even worse, both.

Don't forget immigrant gypsie peadophiles. I won't leave the house now as I read they're on every street corner.

Back in August, on a long drive, I was listening to Jeremy Vine(?).

molgrips - Member
The law seems to be reasonable, I think. These two don't deserve to be punished. Tony Martin probably did...

Why? Not trying to be provocative but what was/is different?

the fact that someone has wronged you doesn't automatically give you the right to do whatever you want with them

Thats a big leap.

You are not entitled to execute someone simply because they have unlawfully entered your property.

There you go again

Not trying to be provocative but what was/is different?

He shot someone in the back as they ran away.

Reasonable force is the minimum force required to make the threat go away. With multiple violent intruders, it could well be reasonable to fire a shotgun at them, with someone who's not violent or is trying to escape it isn't.

Definitely right to arrest and question them to find out the circumstances.

From the media reports that the burglars were expecting an empty house I'd say 'reasonable' would be shouting "f*** off or I'll shoot", i don't condone burglary, but I condone shooting people even less

I am also interested as how they had timt to get to the safely secured shotgun in the timeframe of the burglary ,load it and fire it whilst under immenent threat that meant they had to shoot someone.

wrightyson - Member

Is the bbc regarded as right wing press? That's where I read it! If someone is stood by your bed in the middle of the night in a balaclava I personally think you have the right to shoot him sock in the bollox regardless of the consequences to him.

Measured, and proportionate?

🙄

I am also interested as how they had timt to get to the safely secured shotgun in the timeframe of the burglary ,load it and fire it whilst under immenent threat that meant they had to shoot someone.

I may be wrong but I understand the shotgun was by the bed. I think its easy in the cold light of day to rationalise these things however only they know how much they feared for there life, it has been known for intruders to kill people even when their main intent was to simply to steal property.

He shot someone in the back as they ran away.

Without looking it up I understand there was a history of burglary to his property and they were repeat offenders and he lived in a very remote area. I also recall he lay in wait which actually strengthens your argument however there are a lot of factors which have to be considered.

Without looking it up

Indeed.

there are a lot of factors which have to be considered

Indeed.

Btw, you do remember he was found guilty of murder by a jury of his peers, but later had it reduced to manslaughter by virtue of diminished responsibility. He killed a 16 year old boy by shooting him in the back. But he was, apparently, suffering from some kind of paranoid personality disorder.

As I said, there are a lot of factors to consider. Also they cant easily be compared.

I seem to recall that shotguns don't need to be in the same kind of secured cabinet as a Section 1 firearm. In theory, a sturdy, lockable wooden cabinet can be used, therefore easier to access.

Homeowner didn't kill anyone - he only wounded 50% of the intruders, which is a pretty poor showing in my opinion, especially with a Shotgun. Put in the same situation, I'd shoot the bastards, and try not to miss the other 50%.

And as for Tony Martin - He used a held pump-action (possibly sawn-off) shotgun with a magazine capacity >3 shells; so illegal on so many levels (2).

If you break into someones house, you lose your human rights. You have no idea what the intruders intent is, I would not be issuing any warnings.

If you break into someones house, you lose your human rights

I'm afraid you don't.

If you break into someones house, you lose your human rights

What about if you break other laws? Like speeding. Or tax avoidance. Or is it only "working-class" criminals who lose their human rights?

This happened about a mile away from my house!

A little inside info (from copper mate): the owners woke up at gone midnight to find masked men in their home. The guy did tell the scrotes to get out of his house. They declined. He shot at them after this warning.

Fair enough to me

If you break into someones house, you lose your human rights. You have no idea what the intruders intent is, I would not be issuing any warnings.

I seem to recall that shotguns don't need to be in the same kind of secured cabinet as a Section 1 firearm. In theory, a sturdy, lockable wooden cabinet can be used, therefore easier to access

But thats by the by if the shotgun was by the bed. It may be illegal but it explains why they had access to it so quickly.

Or is it only "working-class" criminals who lose their human rights?

*does not apply to Raffles.

Fine if shot in the front, probably deserved a stern talking to if the crim was shot in the back, either way I won't lose any sleep over it.

Someone breaks into someone else's house and gets shot? Oh well.

I'm afraid you don't.

I was in the US recently talking to a gun nut. "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" was the order of the day.....

You do in mine. It's not being burgled that worries me, it's only stuff after all but there's always a chance that their intent is more sinister. It's not a chance I'm willing to risk.

You should put a sign on the door warning would be burglars.
Save a lot of grief that way.

You do in mine.

Nope, again, I'm afraid I don't.

yes you would not understand as you dont have kids 😉

Whilst I can still say it

{ for clarity you are right on this thread]

Nope, again, I'm afraid I don't.

no i don't

The point is, they would count for absolutely nothing at the time and looking at the link; very little after. Which is the way it should be.

Which is the way it should be.

No it shouldnt

they would count for absolutely nothing at the time

They would, and they do.

Which is the way it should be.

It shouldn't and isn't, nor is it even remotely likely that it will ever be.

Mind you, the aroma of testosterone floating over from manly North Bristol has got all the girls around Knowle West quite frisky.

They would, and they do.

It shouldn't and isn't, nor is it even remotely likely that it will ever be.

Did you read the link? A chap shot someone and isn't in custody.

Mind you, the aroma of testosterone floating over from manly North Bristol has got all the girls around Knowle West quite frisky.

South of the river? Not even with a rented stunt cock.