[Ramrod]

Originally posted by Graham
Could you explain that again when I put the comments back into here...

* * * * *
Me: You do not *prevent* someone from robbing you by shooting them with a gun!
You: Yes you do.

Me: however attacking them pre-emptively is not an "effective way" of preventing burglary either.
You: Yes it is.

* * * * *

I don't understand. You manifestly can stop a robbery or effectively prevent a burglary by shooting the perp!
How can you say that it wouldn't?

Fact: The *original* conviction was murder. He was, therefore, found guilty *of* murder. Now that the conviction has been reduced he is only guilty of manslaughter, however it does not negate the fact that he was, in the first place, found guilty of murder.

By saying that I assume that you feel that all those who have been found guilty of murder (through a misscarriage of justice) and then later aquitted, are still guilty of murder?!

He claimed he did. They said he didn't. There is no way to prove either.

So who is the more credible witness, the homeowner or the career **** who have gone to his home specifically to rob him? (lets ignore, for the time being, the forensic evidence that contradicted Feardons 'evidence')

The comments from several people in here imply that they'd "hit first and ask questions later"

Does the fact that you appear to be a lone voice for the prosecution not tell you something?
In most cases a quick "oy! what you doing?" would be enough to establish wether force was necessary.

As has been pointed out, what people *say* they will do and what they would actually do may well be very different.

I think that if they had a gun you could be sure that they would stay within the law once they had used it...by hook or by crook. Thats the difference between 'right' and 'lawfull'.