If they break into someone's house they know they shouldn't be their, then they should not be protected by the law. The only thing they would get from my house is a baseball bat.


ps yes the yanks have more breakin's but whats the population over their 250/350 million ?

UK 60 million (well what they know about)

Probably because they have more guns. I don't think that we should have guns.

Quote:

Also, if you take away the idea of Reasonable Force, what do you replace it with? If it is just scrapped, you will eventually end up with somebody getting killed because they nicked something insignificant.

I am not saying that we should be allowed to try to kill criminals (most people would have a very hard time trying to deliberately kill someone anyway), just that if a criminal does die in the event of a burglary it should be a case of tough sh*t m8. I leave any new legal framework to the judges to work out, thats their job. It is grossly unfair to hold up to the cold light of legal analysis something that a homeowner has done one dark night, in a panic when being threatened by who knows what.

Quote:

Thirdly, if a burglar knows a householder is armed (which if the reasonable force rules are relaxed, they may actually assume), what is to stop them taking a gun (or other weapon) and killing (or otherwise incapacitating) the householder before they burgle?

True. Lets go with the 'arm homeowners' argument for the minute.....If we all had guns in our homes burglaries would probably decrease (as they have in the US) because most would-be burglars would not want to take the risk. We would then be left with the hardcore burglars who probably go tooled up at the moment anyway, and are probably responsible for the murders that I mentioned in a previous post.

And how many *accidental* gun deaths? And how many burglars go *armed*?

So "reasonable force" is redefined to allow you to use a baseball bat, for instance. So the burglar "ups the ante" by carrying an iron bar...

You are free to believe whatever you want, however I can guarantee that whatever scenario I may come up with you could think up some sort of allegedly plausible reason for why it isn't "credible" and so on and so on.

Sorry, I'm still not going to play.

My views on guns and burglars are already mentioned in my last post.

Quote:

So "reasonable force" is redefined to allow you to use a baseball bat, for instance. So the burglar "ups the ante" by carrying an iron bar...

But the burglars have already upped the ante, they have got the upper hand. We are forced to react to circumstances as they change them. We cannot take the upper hand, in terms of force used (because of the reasonable force concept), until the burglar plays his hand, by wich time it is probably too late as we are now a statistic.
Let me paint a scenario: I am in a karate tournament. I know the rules and they are that (amongst other things) no blows to the head or genitals are allowed. The fight starts and my opponent kicks me in the knackers (he's fighting to a different set of rules)and I am down and out. I didn't have a chance to re-adjust my strategy to cope with the low blow before it was too late. If I had fought from the beginning with the knowledge of the rules he was using I would have had more of a chance against him. (Thats why we sometimes fight using "dojo rules" ie. anything goes.)
In a similar vein: If you are in a situation where you don't know what your opponent is going to use against you it is foolish in the extreme to wait for him to declare his hand. You have to hit him first and put him down, it's his fault for putting you in that situation in the first place. I am not advocating (for the most part)guns/blasting away/not challenging the intruder first. I am just saying that the homeowner should be allowed to up the ante first and not automatically incur a penalty under the law.

Quote:

You are free to believe whatever you want, however I can guarantee that whatever scenario I may come up with you could think up some sort of allegedly plausible reason for why it isn't "credible" and so on and so on.

Go on, try. I challenge you to come up with a good scenario:) I don't think you can.....

*NONSENSE*!

I have already quoted the case of the *armed* householder who was acquitted after shooting a burglar in the leg because the burglar *was* coming towards him and it was agreed that this was self-defence.

We are talking about *taking revenge* by for instance "kicking seven bells" out of someone or by shooting them *in the back*. These, as I have pointed out several times already, go beyond the grounds of *reasonable force*.

Then either he or you got it wrong. If he got it wrong he would be cautioned for breaking the rules and if he did it again he would be ejected from the tournament.

However if *you* decided that, because *he* had breached the rules, you were going to get revenge by kicking him in the same place, were I the referee I would have no problem in ejecting you from the tournament since you already knew better.

And as I have pointed out and will keep doing so, provided what you do does not *go beyond* reasonable *self-defence* you should not have a problem. Kicking seven bells out of someone or shooting them in the back is *not* "defending yourself"!

Which part of "I'm not playing" is giving you trouble?

I don't advocate shooting or 'kicking seven bells' either. I just think that if, in the unpredictability of a fight, something excess does occur, the homeowner should not be punished for it. Sh*t sometimes happens. Making us timid in our own defense (because of the'reasonable force' rule) can get us injured or killed.

Quote:

Then either he or you got it wrong. If he got it wrong he would be cautioned for breaking the rules and if he did it again he would be ejected from the tournament.

My point is that in real life the intruder dosn't get a caution for breaking the rules, and I don't get a second chance at him.

Quote:

However if *you* decided that, because *he* had breached the rules

In real life by the time I decided that he had breached the rules I would be down or dead. But hey, at least I didn't exeed 'reasonable force'

Quote:

, you were going to get revenge by kicking him in the same place, were I the referee I would have no problem in ejecting you from the tournament since you already knew better.

already done *big grin at the memory*, and I won with that one(though it wasn't in the knackers but it was technically illegal-but only he and I knew that)

Quote:

And as I have pointed out and will keep doing so, provided what you do does not *go beyond* reasonable *self-defence* you should not have a problem. Kicking seven bells out of someone or shooting them in the back is *not* "defending yourself"!

And my point origionally is that I don't believe that Martin knew where he was shooting them.



[qoute]Which part of "I'm not playing" is giving you trouble? [/QUOTE] The part where you won't play:D

what did he think he was shooting at then, u don't aim with a full shot pattern round, at close range you'll blow a hole straight through somebody, he meant to kill somebody he's been a farmer for a long time so shotgun will be second nature no way did he mean to injure, although i do understand that the story is he shot out of fear & surprise you don't fire twice in different locations out of fear.

Maby Barras turned and ran into the path of the next shot.....
I just think that if sh*t happens to *******s they should have very little recourse in the law. I don't think that vigilante behaviour should be allowed.

Let me get this straight ramrod.... is your argument now that he committed suicide? :shrug:

:p ;)

I'm sorry!!! But this thread has been going round and round in circles for ages and i've just lost my head......
i plead insanity due to heatstroke, m'lud :naughty:

:rofl: No, I'm saying that it was so dark that no-one could see sh*t. Especially Martin who had just had 2 torchlights shone in his eyes.

So, let me get this straight, you think that, if you feel threatened, it is *ACCEPTABLE* to blast away with a shotgun (thus targetting *anyone* in its cone of effect) no matter who they may be???

Remind me never to catch *you* by surprise!

If you don't know *where*, or indeed *who* you may be shooting at with a shotgun then firing it "blindly" is an act of *extreme* irresponsibility!

PS I know the quoting system on this style of forum is a pain, but please could you check to make sure the quote closure tags are working properly, thanks.

If I was burgled 30 times with no joy from the police, had an uncle who was brain damaged by a burglar on the same premises Yes, I might be inclined to fire away if I was confronted by multiple intruders at night in pitch darkness. Who knows till they are put in similar circumstances......

Quote:

Remind me never to catch *you* by surprise!

In a situation like that it is inadvisable to catch anyone by surprise. You will provoke a fight or flight response which is an ancient reflex that is built into all of us.

Quote:

If you don't know *where*, or indeed *who* you may be shooting at with a shotgun then firing it "blindly" is an act of *extreme* irresponsibility!

Nevertheless he was firing at multiple intruders who should not have been there (miles out in the country at night on private premises) and who probably meant him ill. In a situation like that you probably want to fire in their general direction. Martin says that he was not even aware of firing untill it was over. Hell, they shouldn't have been there and shone torches in his face in the dark, thereby blinding him. What were they thinking doing that to a man in his home?

Quote:

PS I know the quoting system on this style of forum is a pain, but please could you check to make sure the quote closure tags are working properly, thanks.

yes, noticed it after the edit time had expired:shrug:




btw....still not come up with a decent scenario?:D

That was the reason he got prosecuted... because they WERE running away and he shot them in the back... that wasnt self defense... he thought "right you little fookers... Im gonna have you"... not good...

So, next time - shoot them in the face :D

He didn't know that they were running away, it was too dark. He just knew that he had intruders.

So luckily, in the dark, he caught him straight between the shoulder blades? That was a shot in the dark... pardon the pun :D

Besides... there was a sense of "tongue in cheek" with my initial post... https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2003/08/4.gif