Whaley Bridge shooting

[hilts]

Where do you draw the line? Would you advocate shoplifters being shot in the face at point blank range?

How about fare dodgers on the tram?

No because neither are someone's remote home

 

[hilts]

Impossible to know without medical reports.

If I was in the jury

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

No because neither are someone's remote home

So if someone nicked a Yodel parcel out of your bin, you’d be cool with killing them?

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

If I was in the jury

Fair enough. 10/2 would be enough.

 

[fulabeer]

So if someone nicked a Yodel parcel out of your bin, you’d be cool with killing them?

I would shoot them in the face just for touching my bin!

 

[hilts]

The law can be a blunt instrument but where do you draw the line? Say in your case you are allowed to shoot someone breaking into your house, so you shoot me put I was only attempting to deliver a parcel but you thought I was breaking into your house so you have the right to kill me.

It's a problem that the hang em high brigade can never get their heads around, humans are prone to lynch mob mentality we have laws to stop that happening, does it always work? No, is it always fair? No but it's been developed over hundreds of years to ensure that society is relatively stable.

I will say this though we are living with the consequences of years of austerity in this country, police forces have been cut, as well as everything else and society is starting to break down in the most alarming way I have known

I would imagine the farmer has had plenty of parcels delivered, they tend to knock and holding a parcel is another giveaway.

I don't know all the details but I doubt this chap is a serial parcel delivery man killer.

 

[GortonBlue62]

So if someone nicked a Yodel parcel out of your bin, you’d be cool with killing them?

Keep it real mate.

In pursuit of the moral high ground your level of sanctimony has just gone off the scale.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Keep it real mate.

In pursuit of the moral high ground your level of sanctimony has just gone off the scale.

It’s not sanctimony. I’m trying to figure out where peoples’ lines are for shooting someone in the face.

 

[hilts]

Fair enough. 10/2 would be enough.

It must have happened at some point, jury get together decide he is guilty of the offence but think fuck that due to the circumstances. At the end of the day as a juror you can give any verdict you want. I think sometimes it's why they go for the easier manslaughter charge.

Couple of years in an open prison seems about right. He can probably never live in his farm again.

* this is all based on the events put in the thread.

 

[Semper aggressus]

The laws are crazy.

Oh no go on Mr Burglar, you fill your boots ransacking my house. Do you want a brew? I'll go and start loading the stuff into my car for you. Not a problem.

You should be allowed to beat the living shit out of some skank breaking in AND not be found guilty.

This fuckin country.

Agreed. You should have the right to protect yourself, your family and within reason your property.

I completely understand not shooting someone leaving or in the back, but if you warn them, and they come at you, armed or not, what else can you do? Absolutely you have to defend yourself, and if you’re a farmer with a gun it must be easy to get so scared you pull the trigger.

Imagine being faced with two or three handy-ish lads in hoodies wanting to ransack your house. I for one am certainly not going to offer them a brew. You fight with whatever you have, how do you know they won’t stab you or rape your missus? Any fucker breaking in, after you warning them, should expect a baseball bat across the temple or kitchen knife in the stomach at the very least.

 

[hilts]

It’s not sanctimony. I’m trying to figure out where peoples’ lines are for shooting someone in the face.

Above a yodel delivery guy i would guess:-)

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

It must have happened at some point, jury get together decide he is guilty of the offence but think fuck that due to the circumstances. At the end of the day as a juror you can give any verdict you want. I think sometimes it's why they go for the easier manslaughter charge.

Couple of years in an open prison seems about right. He can probably never live in his farm again.

* this is all based on the events put in the thread.

It will, but only to the point of a non verdict and a potential retrial. I can’t imagine 10/12 ignoring the law because of having sympathy with the defendant.

 

[SilverFox2]

Excellent. Anarchy will be fine as we all know who the good and bad guys are, right?

The anarchy point can surely be aimed
at the burglars can it not?

Incidentally I used Texas as an example to show that some US householder are dissatisfied with the service they get so yes do threaten to take the law into their own hands so thieves are warned.

 

[Blue Maverick]

It will, but only to the point of a non verdict and a potential retrial. I can’t imagine 10/12 ignoring the law because of having sympathy with the defendant.

OJ does not agree with this

 

[GortonBlue62]

It’s not sanctimony. I’m trying to figure out where peoples’ lines are for shooting someone in the face.

Of course you are. I should have realized that's what you're trying to do. Apologies.

 

[fulabeer]

When will we get all the tributes to what a great and caring lad he was.
Salt of the earth and all that.

The tributes will fail to mention what a thieving scumbag he was.
There is no excuse to rob somebody.
It costs the victims far more than monetary sums.

NO SYMPATHY...

 

[Blue Maverick]

I await they were just cheeky chappies line spun out, fuck em they won’t be stealing again.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

The anarchy point can surely be aimed
at the burglars can it not?

Incidentally I used Texas as an example to show that some US householder are dissatisfied with the service they get so yes do threaten to take the law into their own hands so thieves are warned.

It’s a different country, with different laws and everyone is armed to the teeth. The culture is certainly different.

Vigilantism will never be the best case scenario for any culture, in my opinion, anyway.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

It’ll come down to how the farmer explains what’s happened and whether that tallies in anyway with what the >>>injured<<< guy says.

Highlighted the farmer’s error.

Also, if, like Martin, he’s shot them in the back on their way out, he’ll get time.

Unless the scrote was reaching for a weapon.

Self defence vs proportion of reasonable action.

See above.

 

[Semper aggressus]

It’s not sanctimony. I’m trying to figure out where peoples’ lines are for shooting someone in the face.

Personally, for me it would be if I felt I or my wife were in danger of being killed or suffering life changing injuries. However to be honest, given I’ve no desire to face prison, I’d shoot them in the stomach rather than head or heart, though in a chaotic situation one may have very little time to aim that well.