But presumably it was loaded with pepper or the like, otherwise they'd have been dead?
Love all these violent fantasies people have about what they'd to a burglar with their collections of weapons. Never realised middle-aged middle-class IT managers were such badasses.
Junkyard - Member
licence to shoot folk but it will be popular just like the death penalty would bepersonally not impressed as people are putting possessions above a life- even if they are a robbing scrote
how low would you go?
1 chipped cup?
your £20 microwave?
your laptop?Posted 13 hours ago # Report-Post
Quite right J-Y; In fact I love your post in general that I would love to hear more of your thinking; why don't you come around at about 11pm tonight? Just come in the back door,it is a bit stiff you may have to push it. 😈
On a serious note,as he says possessions are unimportant*,and not worth a human life. But it is the fact that somebody has put your family at (potential) risk,which is a different trigger all together. Was there not a case in England last year where a guy stabbed a violent burglar who had already tied up his family? IIRC it went to court as well?
* My new Enigma Esprit frame is exempt from this unmaterialistic attitude to posessions.
duckman - Member
But it is the fact that somebody has put your family at (potential) risk
"potential" indeed - the likelihood if violence is very small.
Bit it gives folk something to froth about...
Just come in the back door,it is a bit stiff you may have to push it.
That is a euphemism right 😉
I agree there is potential to harm your family [there is in the supermarket or out in town] but there is also potential for you to attack them and end up dead.
However some seem to think if you are at the top of the stairs and them at the bottom then you are justified in shooting them because they are in your house. I say you are not unless they start to come up the stairs. It is an important difference
Some would shoot BECAUSE you are in their house rather than because they are actually under any personal threat.
my grandmas house got robbed (while she was in it) when I was about 15, I had all these revenge fantasies about what I'd have done if I was there or if they came back while I was there. Aren't you lot a bit old for that sort of stuff now?
Apart from the morality of potentially killing someone if shooting home intruders becomes accepted then home intruders will start bring their own guns, them being criminals they'll no doubt be able to get bigger and better guns too
However some seem to think if you are at the top of the stairs and them at the bottom then you are justified in shooting them because they are in your house. I say you are not unless they start to come up the stairs. It is an important difference
Some would shoot BECAUSE you are in their house rather than because they are actually under any personal threat.
Agreed, but the cause to believe that you or your family were at risk of harm would be somewhat skewed by having several uninvited men in your house in the early hours of the morning, don't you think? If I were put in that situation I would certainly feel happier shouting a warning, that I'd called the police etc if I were clutching a loaded shotgun in my hand. At least it gives you an option should the scrotes decision making ability be not completely up to scratch...
but the cause to believe that you or your family were at risk of harm would be somewhat skewed by having several uninvited men in your house in the early hours of the morning, don't you think?
I dont think it does tbh Gung ho types are going downstairs to do harm whatever.
TBH if I have a shotgun in my hand and I am upstairs and they are downstairs WTF am i doing going downstairs towards the threat with a gun ? It is not to protect me is it as i am armed and upstairs so not under any threat ?
Ring the cops sit at the top of the stairs pointing shotgun down stairs and job done.
if you go down it is only for one reason and it is not for a polite chat and you cannot approach danger to protect yourself.
This thread and others we have on this shows folk are happy to kill folk who are in their house.
This thread and others we have on this shows folk are happy to kill folk who are in their house.
To be fair for most people the circumstances outlined in this particular case provides the only opportunity they are ever likely to have to legally kill someone.
But of course trust the bleeding-heart lefty spoilsports on here to want to rob people of that one unique opportunity 😐
Could somebody use a graph to show me what % of people are killed by family members as opposed to intruders?
My understanding of things is thus:
The law states that you are free to use 'reasonable force' to defend yourself, family and others, from violent attack. This includes lethal force, if deemed necessary. Of course, the amount of force deemed 'necessary' is proportional to the attack/threat: if someone is coming at you with a knife, killing them may be justified. If they've simply pushed you in a heated argument, and you batter them senseless, that could be deemed excessive use of force.
You are also obliged by law to attempt to remove yourself from the scene/situation of violence, as much as is possible. For example, if somone across the road is calling oyu names and making threatening gestures, you are obliged to not make any move towards them, as this willthen be seen as a provocative act. If however you are cornered with nowhere to run, you are then allowed to use reasonable force. Like in your own home, with intruders present. In the case in question, the couple may well have felt that they had no chance to escape, with potentially violent intruders right there.
The use of reasonable force includes the use of a 'waepon of opportunity'; ie if you are cornered suddenly and feel your safety/life is in danger, you may use an object you have close at hand to defend yourself. So in this particular case, a couple who feared for their lives used a weapon of opportunity, and force proportional to the threat they perceived they faced. The court decided they had comitted no crime according to law. Hence they weren't charged with any offence.
I hope this somewhat brief and sketchy view of things helps to enlighten some people. Because the lack of understanding of law by some is rather worrying. Even more so, is the apparent desire by some to want to inflict violent retribution on others. I think the fact that some people would willingly want to injure and kill others, whatever the reason, is a good enough reason for certain weapons to remain illegal/heavily controlled in this country. The recent case involving the shooting of an unarmed boy in the USA, when the killer falsely claimed he was 'defending' himself, is yet another.
To me, the idea of taking a life over the theft of some material posessions is wrong, inhumane and grossly unjustifiable.
The second page of this thread refers to people on STW being happy to kill someone in their house, after a quick look at page one I have seen people say they would happily shoot someone but no-one say they would happily kill someone, (The last 4 people shot have only been wounded before the how do you know they would not be killed bandwagon starts)
no offence but what is your point? Do you think you would not be charged with attempted murder if you just shot someone in the street?
Are you suggesting that shooting someone is unlikely to kill them?
I imagine everyone who shoots a gun realises that there is a high chance the person will be killed and is [ in the loosest sense] trying to kill them or do serious harm and that is why they are firing the gun at them
Where is "Soldier of fortune" Hora on this thread?
duckman - MemberCould somebody use a graph to show me what % of people are killed by family members as opposed to intruders
about 70% of murders were committed by family members last year
and i suspect most of the others were also known to the victim
http://www.channel4.com/news/uk-murder-rate-falls-to-its-lowest-for-almost-30-years
and i agree with donk.....
D0NK - MemberApart from the morality of potentially killing someone if shooting home intruders becomes accepted then home intruders will start bring their own guns, them being criminals they'll no doubt be able to get bigger and better guns too
I've got no problem with this whatsoever. In fact I have no issue with ANYTHING that happens to a burglar.
If you choose to break the laws of the country, you cannot then expect the same judicial system to offer you any protection.
As has been said, cause & effect. If the burglar hadn't made the conscious decision to break the law and enter somewhere illegally, they wouldn't be in a situation to be shot by the homeowner. Simple.
but no-one say they would happily kill someone
trouble is that, unless the guy has been threatening you for a while, or has done this before to you, you are unlikely to be able to formulate the conviction required that the scum deserves to die in the short time you are exposed to them when confronted during the burglary.
So probably best to err. on the side of deciding that they don't deserve to die and just shoot them in the thighs if needed.
Out of context again, no-one has mentioned out in the street and the people who legally hold shotguns know how to use them hence the 4 (High profile) people who have been shot have only been injured. My point being no-one on here has expressed a wish to KILL someone.
It is not about possessions either - it is about the transgression into a 'personal' and 'safe' place - some victims liken this to a violation in a similar vein to rape.
one ex-crim on a radio show said that the burglary he committed was the thing he most regretted doing to someone else.
It is not about possessions either - it is about the transgression into a 'personal' and 'safe' place - some victims liken this to a violation in a similar vein to rape.
Spot on. They're only burglers once they've left the house. They're intruders until that point and you cannot know their intentions.
the people who legally hold shotguns know how to use them hence the 4 (High profile) people who have been shot have only been injured
shotgun i snot really a precision instrument though, is it - a mass off stuff comes flying out the barrels and spreads out, making a mess. Depends on proximity as to the effects.
Maybe keeping baton rounds loaded might be a better idea - the burglar isn't going to know and it would reduce the likelihood of a fatality.
Thats the point I am trying to make TG is that if you have a shotgun and if your house is broken into then you would have enough savvy to shoot someone in the legs where you would more than likely not kill them.Sorry if that upsets the people that want to be horrified at people killing for a £20 toaster.
so because someone broke the law you reserve the right to break a few yourself just to teach them a lesson?If you choose to break the laws of the country, you cannot then expect the same judicial system to offer you any protection
(pretty sure shooting people is a crime, in home intruder cases you're (maybe) getting off on a technicality)
If the burglar hadn't made the conscious decision to break the law and enter somewhere illegally, they wouldn't be in a situation to be shot by the homeowner. Simple.
Two wrongs dont make a right- it like saying he started the fight so I killed them. It is a OTT reaction to a transgression.
Out of context again, no-one has mentioned out in the street
I did the point is you seem to be arguing that shooting someone is not an attempt to murder/kill so presumably in the case of me shooting someone [in the street] I would not be charged with attempted murder. I can see why you side stepped the question though but what would I be charged with if I shot someone?
and the people who legally hold shotguns know how to use them hence the 4 (High profile) people who have been shot have only been injured.
Do they often practice how to shoot and only main intruders then? Just as likely they are crap shots 😀
you are right they are so highly skilled they intend to shoot to maim only and this would work fine in a court for anyone who shot anyone who did not die 😕My point being no-one on here has expressed a wish to KILL someone.
shoot someone in the legs with a shotgun at the likely small distances involved and you would make a hell of a mess - even a blank round at that distance will make a mess.
Maybe a small round like a .22 might be less messy and more repairable?
Not having shot anyone in the thighs this is just conjecture, obviously.
Even a badly aimed baton round at small distances is likely to be fatal, so all in all it is probably not a great idea, but what can you do to ensure that you can withstand any transgression and keep your family safe, whilst avoiding killing someone?
Plus there is always the chance that the transgressor is drugged/alcoholed up, which would mean that any disabling blow would need to be more severe.
as junkyard said stay upstairs out of the way, phone the police and shout to warn the intruders that you have done so. Don't approach them looking for "justice"but what can you do to ensure that you can withstand any transgression and keep your family safe, whilst avoiding killing someone?
andyrm - MemberI've got no problem with this whatsoever. In fact I have no issue with ANYTHING that happens to a burglar.
If you choose to break the laws of the country, you cannot then expect the same judicial system to offer you any protection.
As has been said, cause & effect. If the burglar hadn't made the conscious decision to break the law and enter somewhere illegally, they wouldn't be in a situation to be shot by the homeowner. Simple.
Ever heard of proportionality?
Don't approach them looking for "justice"
and if that doesn't work?
Get your shotgun out and accelerate Darwinism.
If they attack you shoot them /defend yourself. Do not put yourself in a situation of danger[ by going downstairs] in order to then justify defending yourself in case[before]they attack you.
Zulu-Eleven - Membershouldn't you lose your gun licence if a loaded gun is ever "to hand" ?
Why? The law says that firearms have to be kept 'secure'
Nowhere more secure than in the bedroom with me, is there?
For my brother in law to leave his cabinet unlocked or keep a shotgun 'ready' in the bedroom, he would have to get licences for my sister and their 2 year old, and register/reference his forearms to them too.
That said, I also knew someone whose shotgun cabinet was inside his fitted wardrobe...
If I drop the burglar into a James Bond-style tank full of sharks hidden under the foot of the stairs by pulling a lever; is that the same as shooting him?
For my brother in law to leave his cabinet unlocked or keep a shotgun 'ready' in the bedroom, he would have to get licences for my sister and their 2 year old
Not true. He "shouldn't" have a loaded shotgun in the bedroom (unlss it's in a locked cabinet in the bedroom but they're not the keepers of the gun so do not need a licence.
and register/reference his forearms to them too.
What about his elbows?
New legal doctrine according to STW: [i]Volenti non fit injuria[/i] now translates as "who's your daddy now?"
If you choose to break the laws of the country, you cannot then expect the same judicial system to offer you any protection
Yes you can. Even in police custody you can expect the judicial system to offer you protection.
It's a funny ol' thing this thing called "justice", ain't it ?
as junkyard said stay upstairs out of the way, phone the police and shout to warn the intruders that you have done so. Don't approach them looking for "justice"
Homeowner;(loudly from upstairs) "go away, I've called the police"
Nasty man; (loudly from downstairs) "Righto, better call the fire brigade too..."
Not being facieous, just making the point that the intruders don't have to be in the same room as you, (or even know you are there) in order to threaten you and your family. A justification for going downstairs and enforcing the vacation of the premises? Possibly, but flimsy I admit
I find it rather sad that people are carrying on so much about retribution and 'justice', yet no-one has yet mentioned why people comitt crimes; the issues and circumstances that drive certain people towards crime.
Personally i think that we as a society would do better to address these issues, rather than attempt to justifty retributive action against transgressors.
It's also rather sad to read some of the reactionary attiutudes displayed by someon here. I suspect that the vast majority of those claiming they would willingly shoot/hurt an intriuder in their home, would in reality experience the blind panic and utter terror that most people who've ever been unfortunate to be in such a position suffer. If you've ever been in such a situation, then you'l know that your ability to act in a cool, controlled and calm manner is somewhat diminished.
But then, it's really quite easy to be a tough guy on the internet.
Does Jeremy Vine know about this thread? Somebody should call him.
I call JV every time he comes on the radio just before I turn him off.
Personally i think that we as a society would do better to address these issues, rather than attempt to justifty retributive action against transgressors.
freakin' liberal...
The long-term answer to anti-social behaviour is a pro-social society where we really do get to grips with the causes of crime.
Family breakdown, drugs, children in care, educational underachievement - these provide the backdrop to too many lives and can become the seed bed of crime.
Love all these violent fantasies people have about what they'd to a burglar with their collections of weapons. Never realised middle-aged middle-class IT managers were such badasses.
Speaking as a working-class bloke who works in a mailing house, I can happily say I'm not an IT badass, and my collection of weapons are what I happen to have upstairs, whereupon I can stand safely out of the way and threaten dire retribution should the (hypothetical) intruders try to come upstairs. I have one advantage; my bedroom opens onto a landing that is parallel to the stairs, and the bathroom door, next to my bedroom, opens out against the bannister rail, so I could stand unseen behind the door and swing my arm down with the back of the axe head foremost, and smack someone coming up right between the eyes, which should prove something of a distraction at least. Any further attempts to come up the stairs would be met with the sharp edge, which would be pointed out, just so they are certain of the consequences of their actions.
Nothing badass, just using what's at hand to protect what's mine from those who prefer to take property from others rather than do a job of work to earn the money that allows them to purchase said items for themselves.
Middle class IT managers are right weapons. Well most of the ones I have met are.
However much you enjoy violent revenge fantasies in the name of protecting your family, I'm pretty sure the stats show that gun owners are more likely to end up shot themselves (or accidentally shooting a family member) than they are of 'getting' a burglar. I suspect a similar thing is true of have a go Internet hard men who pick up knives, clubs and axes etc.
my collection of weapons are what I happen to have upstairs, whereupon I can stand safely out of the way and threaten dire retribution should the (hypothetical) intruders try to come upstairs. I have one advantage; my bedroom opens onto a landing that is parallel to the stairs, and the bathroom door, next to my bedroom, opens out against the bannister rail, so I could stand unseen behind the door and swing my arm down with the back of the axe head foremost
Wow you really fantasise about this a lot don't you.
http://www.ruger.com/products/1022Carbine/models.html
.22 10rd rotary mag. That is as lethal as you would want to go really. keep a 1st aid kit handy and try not to use either is my thoughts
