Whaley Bridge shooting

[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.