Whaley Bridge shooting

mexico1970 said:
People should have a legal obligation to shoot robbing thieves breaking into your house, don't fucking rob houses.
Click to expand...

Exactly this. If you've got uninvited people on your property mooching about, especially in the early hours of the morning, all bets are off. They shouldn't be there it's as simple as that. There are so many horror stories about burglars being violent, that they have to expect people will respond to their presence with that thought in the forefront of their minds. Don't want to be injured or killed? Stay the fuck off other people properties.
 
paulchapo said:
Exactly this. If you've got uninvited people on your property mooching about, especially in the early hours of the morning, all bets are off. They shouldn't be there it's as simple as that. There are so many horror stories about burglars being violent, that they have to expect people will respond to their presence with that thought in the forefront of their minds. Don't want to be injured or killed? Stay the fuck off other people properties.
Click to expand...
Wow, the Clarkson wannabe got a bite.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
That’s okay, it wasn’t aimed at you.
Click to expand...

It must be Mexico 1970 as I quoted him in my post.
The thing is nobody wants to be put in a situation like this in the first place. The same as nobody wants to injure or kill anybody. Fear drives the action, which in the cold light of day in a courtroom, the law might deem was an overaction. That's easy for them to say. When it's the early hours of the morning and intruders are on your property and you know no help will get there in time to save you, then you have to assume your life could be in danger. That's because it very much could be. The intruders have the option to leave or course once they know they've been discovered. If they don't you have to assume they will take whatever they want by force if you try and stop them. It's then fight or flight. Passive compliance could still get you seriously injured or dead. It's not a risk I'd take, it would be fight for me if they didn't leave.
 
paulchapo said:
It must be Mexico 1970 as I quoted him in my post.
The thing is nobody wants to be put in a situation like this in the first place. The same as nobody wants to injure or kill anybody. Fear drives the action, which in the cold light of day in a courtroom, the law might deem was an overaction. That's easy for them to say. When it's the early hours of the morning and intruders are on your property and you know no help will get there in time to save you, then you have to assume your life could be in danger. That's because it very much could be. The intruders have the option to leave or course once they know they've been discovered. If they don't you have to assume they will take whatever they want by force if you try and stop them. It's then fight or flight. Passive compliance could still get you seriously injured or dead. It's not a risk I'd take, it would be fight for me if they didn't leave.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree, however, suggesting anybody who enters your home without permission should be fair game to be murdered isn‘t and will never be part of English law.

Proportional force always will be though.

If you are in fear of your life, then you use what force you deem appropriate.

That doesn’t give you carte blanche to necessarily shoot someone in the face.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
I don’t disagree, however, suggesting anybody who enters your home without permission should be fair game to be murdered isn‘t and will never be part of English law.

Proportional force always will be though.

If you are in fear of your life, then you use what force you deem appropriate.

That doesn’t give you carte blanche to necessarily shoot someone in the face.
Click to expand...
How about a knee ?
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
I don’t disagree, however, suggesting anybody who enters your home without permission should be fair game to be murdered isn‘t and will never be part of English law.

Proportional force always will be though.

If you are in fear of your life, then you use what force you deem appropriate.

That doesn’t give you carte blanche to necessarily shoot someone in the face.
Click to expand...

I doubt he took the decision lightly. Aside from any possible mental torment he may suffer for taking someone's life, there are the legal repercussions to face, not to mention possible revenge attacks from the scrotes mates and family.
 
paulchapo said:
I doubt he took the decision lightly. Aside from any possible mental torment he may suffer for taking someone's life, there are the legal repercussions to face, not to mention possible revenge attacks from the scrotes mates and family.
Click to expand...
Absolutely and we’ve seen in this thread that there are differing viewpoints.

If he’s told the police that he’ll shoot them if they come back and he’s done so, then that’s different to fearing for your life at 4am etc.

Each case is different and proportional force will always be at the centre of it.

What it can never be is if you find someone in your house, you’re free to kill them without consequence. Nuance and context are important.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
Dunno, but he was described as a fuckwit in the scenario that was painted, so he must have done something to have become a fuckwit, no?
Click to expand...

Let's take the legal scenario out of it because it will sort itself out and we have no control over it plus its boring because there is not really any need to even discuss it.

You're the sole decision maker in what happens to this chap. What do you do?
 
hilts said:
Let's take the legal scenario out of it because it will sort itself out and we have no control over it plus its boring because there is not really any need to even discuss it.

You're the sole decision maker in what happens to this chap. What do you do?
Click to expand...
The farmer? Listen to the evidence and make a decision based on that, which is all I’ve done since reading the anecdotal account.

If he’s told the police he’s going to shoot them if the return, then that shows premeditation.

If they’ve burgled him 17 times, then that has to be factored into the verdict and diminished responsibility will need to be considered.

The fact they’ve visited 16 previous times and he hasn’t been killed suggests that the burglars’ MO doesn’t include violence.

Based on this evidence and this alone, it seems to be manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility or murder.



For our mutual Mexican acquaintance, this doesn’t mean that you can‘t defend your property, it just means it has to be a proportionate response to what is happening, just like the law states.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
The farmer? Listen to the evidence and make a decision based on that, which is all I’ve done since reading the anecdotal account.

If he’s told the police he’s going to shoot them if the return, then that shows premeditation.

If they’ve burgled him 17 times, then that has to be factored into the verdict and diminished responsibility will need to be considered.

The fact they’ve visited 16 previous times and he hasn’t been killed suggests that the burglars’ MO doesn’t include violence.

Based on this evidence and this alone, it seems to be manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility or murder.



For our mutual Mexican acquaintance, this doesn’t mean that you can‘t defend your property, it just means it has to be a proportionate response to what is happening, just like the law states.
Click to expand...

Go on don't be shy:-) based on the little we know what are you doing ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top