Couple Arrested After 'Burglars' Shot

My point was that despite what some are saying it's not ok to shoot anyone who has intruded into your property, even in the US

reply to post by Freeborn

This is not true, indeed in a lot of states this is true, however in some states you can shoot a person for being on your land. (I'm not saying I agree with that, but it is what it is)

But we don't need or want the same Right To Bear Arms - we are a different country with a completely different culture

reply to post by Freeborn


To be fair that's not true. You don't want the right, but I know many in the UK that do.

Originally posted by SecretFace

Originally posted by doobydoll
Don't be too sure that this couple will walk free from court ... .
news.bbc.co.uk...

A farmer who opened fire on two burglars who broke into his remote farmhouse has been found guilty of murder.
Tony Martin, 55, was sentenced to life at Norwich Crown Court for murdering 16-year-old Fred Barras by a majority verdict of 10 to two.

It's against the law to defend ourselves in England. Even if someone punches you, you will be arrested and charged for punching them back.

It is not against the law to defend yourself. In line with the Criminal Law Act you can defend yourself and use reasonable force that may otherwise constitute as criminal in circumstances of a non-threatening nature. Reasonable force is justified force, for example if someone come at you with a knife and you grabbed his hand, the knife went in to him and killed him, you would argue that your life is in danger and his death was caused by his own actions to inflict harm or cause death. If the attackers in this instance come at the person with weapon in hand, after breaking in to the house, it can be argued that their lives were in danger and thus reasonable force was the use of a weapon at hand.

Owning a gun can never be for self defence in the UK, but using a weapon to counter a threat to your life is not illegal. The CPS may try to say other wise as too the old bill, well Senior officers, normal coppers will shake your hand, I should know better than most on here as to how they work. What will get them up is the fact a firearm was used, had these people used anything other than a firearm then they would not have even been arrested and if arrested, would've been promptly released. It will create a lot of argument, my opinion still stands, if your life is in danger all and any form of defence should be used. If you can't justify it, then it is illegal. That it what you are taught in the Police and that is what many of the public don't realise.

If they get away with it, you open the flood gates to people owning guns in their homes, if they get put away for it, the government will lose out on Cameron saying that nobody should be punished for defending their home.

Bottom line, Britain is more violent than most realise, defend yourselves at all cost.

edit on 3-9-2012 by SecretFace because: (no reason given)

Not against the law to defend yourself in the UK?? How come Tony Martin went to jail then for defending himself and his property? Also the Hastings case which another member has posted? Explain that.

Originally posted by GunzCoty
reply to post by 46ACE

 

I would not want to kill a person over a TV anyway, you're right the last thing I would ever want is to shoot someone.

your respect for life is somewhat respectable, however, without any consequence to the intruder, it could be your wife or girlfriend that becomes the victim of the robbery. Your softness to the situation could mean a repeat visit. If someone is brazen enough to enter your home to steal something their mindset is not of stability. It goes deeper than just taking your TV

reply to post by Lil Drummerboy


No, you misunderstood me.

I would obey the law in my state and retreat to the furthest part of my apartment, if the intruder came into that part (and i have a very small apartment) he would be shot and killed.

I do have the right to bear arms, that is protected by the second amendment, and I have guns at home my wife can use if I'm out and I carry everyday. If I can avoid killing another person I would.

Here is my simplistic view on the matter.

You shouldn't be trying to break into my home in the middle of the night. You will get warned first, and I will do my best to ascertain whether you are armed or not, but I won't take any chances - in doubt, I'll shoot you.

If you are already inside the house, you stand a 99% chance of being shot. If at all possible, I will aim for your legs but don't get your hopes up because like I said before, I am not taking any chances. None whatsoever.

As for proving intent to commit grievous bodily harm....it's not too hard to plant a weapon on someone once you have shot them.

Bottom-line? Think of a pair of scales. On one side lie the lives and physical integrity of the people I love, on the other the life of the ass-hole breaking into my house in the middle of the night. What's to choose?

I'm sorry you chose the wrong house.

And lets make a distinction here: I don't care whether it is against the law or not to act the way I would, because the law can at best re-affirm my right to self-defence, it grants me absolutely nothing and further, cannot forbid something that is a fundamental god-given right.

Governments like to think they are all-powerful, same way the church likes to pretend they are God on earth. Neither is true.

Here is what I do know. Grant every citizen on earth the right to bear arms within the boundaries of their property, provided they complete a mandatory course first, and then give me some statistics on burglary rates.

This isn't rocket-science.

Since all these people are getting arrested for shooting burglars, I say shoot them then Hide the bodies. I am sure nobody will be looking for them anyway.

reply to post by GunzCoty


To be fair the vast majority DON'T want any change to our gun laws - sure some do - and that's entirely up to them.

reply to post by GunzCoty


So, essentially I was right - in the majority of states in the US it's not ok to shoot someone who has intruded into your property?

ETA
If you read the whole of my post you will see that in the very next sentence in the same paragraph I clearly state 'parts of the USA' - it's pretty clear really.

As you say both of our personal opinion's are pretty much irrelevant, especially mine - the law is what it is.

Originally posted by GreatOwl
They have to be arrested because unknown persons breaking into your home could very well be undercover cops looking for evidence of terrorist activity, and they don't want people shooting at anybody breaking into their home just because they don't know who it is. It would make the cops job a lot harder if whenever they broke into a home they got shot at. You;re not supposed to protect yourself, let the police protect you. That's their job. I know it sounds crazy, but that's the reality of the modern world.

I have read many insanely brainwashed and naively asinine statements over the years on ATS but this will forever stand as a beacon to freemen on how bad it can truly get... it is the absolute epitome of government indoctrination where self reliance, free thought and the ability to fight back is all but completely drained from early school-hood in order to make the perfect pacifistic servant.

Forgive my words if you find them sharp friend, but your words are against everything free men stand for.

Originally posted by kneverr

Originally posted by GreatOwl
They have to be arrested because unknown persons breaking into your home could very well be undercover cops looking for evidence of terrorist activity, and they don't want people shooting at anybody breaking into their home just because they don't know who it is. It would make the cops job a lot harder if whenever they broke into a home they got shot at. You;re not supposed to protect yourself, let the police protect you. That's their job. I know it sounds crazy, but that's the reality of the modern world.

I have read many insanely brainwashed and naively asinine statements over the years on ATS but this will forever stand as a beacon to freemen on how bad it can truly get... it is the absolute epitome of government indoctrination where self reliance, free thought and the ability to fight back is all but completely drained from early school-hood in order to make the perfect pacifistic servant.

Forgive my words if you find them sharp friend, but your words are against everything free men stand for.

edit on 3-9-2012 by kneverr because: bold

Took the words right out of my head.

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by GunzCoty

 

So, essentially I was right - in the majority of states in the US it's not ok to shoot someone who has intruded into your property?

Um… No you are not right
Use google, it’s your friend…….

en.wikipedia.org...

The only states that have weak, or no castle/stand your ground laws are…

District of Columbia
Idaho
Nebraska
New Mexico
New York
South Dakota

And of those Idaho and south Dakota allow you to kill an intruder without fear of prosecution. Nebraska allows you to kill an intruder but doesn’t make you immune from civil lawsuits.

All other states for the most part, allow you to use deadly force to defend yourself, your home, and in many cases, your property.

The overwhelming majority of states make it lawful for you to kill an intruder who is violently entering your home. Breaking into their house in and of it’s self is considered a violent act, so the home owner needs no more justification than that to fill you full of holes.

Originally posted by Mr Tranny

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by GunzCoty

 

So, essentially I was right - in the majority of states in the US it's not ok to shoot someone who has intruded into your property?

Um… No you are not right
Use google, it’s your friend…….

en.wikipedia.org...

The only states that have weak, or no castle/stand your ground laws are…

District of Columbia
Idaho
Nebraska
New Mexico
New York
South Dakota

And of those Idaho and south Dakota allow you to kill an intruder without fear of prosecution. Nebraska allows you to kill an intruder but doesn’t make you immune from civil lawsuits.

All other states for the most part, allow you to use deadly force to defend yourself, your home, and in many cases, your property.

The overwhelming majority of states make it lawful for you to kill an intruder who is violently entering your home. Breaking into their house in and of it’s self is considered a violent act, so the home owner needs no more justification than that to fill you full of holes.

edit on 3-9-2012 by Mr Tranny because: (no reason given)

Just FYI Idaho does have a castle law.

reply to post by hawkiye


I stated “weak, or no law”

Idaho has a castle doctrine but it doesn’t specifically remove the duty to retreat, so it is classified as a weak one.

I think someone posted "Shoot, shovel, and shut up." I will expand on the reasoning, because to some it may not be obvious what that means:

I believe the lesson to take from these unfortunate incidents, and I mean the defenders being arrested or prosecuted or imprisoned, is to learn to be as discreet and as cunning as the criminal classes that are causing the crimes to begin with. When you call the police, they are now looking for people to charge with crimes. It doesn't matter if you're morally in the right, the State often enforces immoral statutes. If you beat up a mugger or burglar, you may not want to call the police. I'm not saying don't protect yourself, I'm not saying don't shoot if you have to. I'm saying that when you're dealing with a burglar or other mischief maker, you're actually dealing with two enemies. The criminal and the cop that will come afterward. You have little defense against the second one.

That is basically what it boils down to, but I'd much rather plant a 50$ gun on them than have to bury their asses at 03.00 in the morning. The cops do it as soon as they can get away with it, observe, learn and replicate. Once the intruder has a gun, the matter ends there. Case closed.

Originally posted by Mr Tranny
reply to post by hawkiye

 

I stated “weak, or no law”

Idaho has a castle doctrine but it doesn’t specifically remove the duty to retreat, so it is classified as a weak one.

There is no duty to retreat on your own property in Idaho. Idaho has had the castle doctrine for a long time. It is not one single law there are several laws that address all the issues. That is why people say it does not have one as their is no single law deemed the Castle law.

www.legislature.idaho.gov...
www.legislature.idaho.gov...
www.legislature.idaho.gov...
www.legislature.idaho.gov...
legislature.idaho.gov...

I've said it before, I'll say it again: You guys need a revolution already.

If that would happen, I would cut the bad guy and see who goes to jail, but most likely the same result will happen.

Welcome to Nazi America, People!