It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Narnia
I think it is ridiculous that the victim has less rights than the offender!
Also, does anyone remember that case in NY where a guy on the subway, in the early 90's, was jumped by a gang and he shot a few of them and was sued for millions of dollars for disabling one of the perpetrators. Needless to say, the victim of the crime ended up losing the law suit for millions of dollars. Makes absolutely no sense to me.
Originally posted by bolshevik
in the uk, you do have the right to shoot a burglar if you do so in self-defence. the central legal issue is that you have to use 'legitimate force', rather than, as in the tony martin case, shoot an unarmed teenager in the back as he is running away.
as someone else posted, the tony martin case is not the perfect case study for the issue (although the tabloid media have made it just that). in fact, the main reason why his conviction was reduced to manslaughter was that it was shown that he was not entirely sane.
last time i heard, he was considering a career in politics.
Originally posted by bolshevik
in the uk, you do have the right to shoot a burglar if you do so in self-defence. the central legal issue is that you have to use 'legitimate force', rather than, as in the tony martin case, shoot an unarmed teenager in the back as he is running away.
Originally posted by infinite
ah yes self-defence in the UK. You have to prove strongly that your life was in danger and had to act quick. If someone broke in your home and you attacked them in defence, you most only hit them once and make sure its a hard blow. If you hit the person and then hit them again to make sure,then your breaking the law. UK law is confussing
Originally posted by bolshevik
yes, the problem with the law is that there are no definitive terms: its just a huge grey area. also, if youre woken up in the early hours and confronted with an intruder, your idea of legitimate force will be entirely different than it would under normal circumstances.
Originally posted by Facefirst
Originally posted by bolshevik
yes, the problem with the law is that there are no definitive terms: its just a huge grey area. also, if youre woken up in the early hours and confronted with an intruder, your idea of legitimate force will be entirely different than it would under normal circumstances.
Wow. That is crazy. How do you rightly judge "legitimate force" then? I mean, one strong blow to the head with a Cricket bat? Or is it a blast from a shotgun? Which is more legitimate?
That is confusing to me, but then again, I am Amer-ikan.. lots of things confuse me
..