'Expect to be shot if you burgle gun owners' - Judge says

CLAPTON

Of course there was a possibility that the 'victims' were not innocent atall.

As there is in many situation. e.g. a missing child or a missing women; the father / partner is always a suspect.

However to automatically and without any specific supporting reason, to arrest and imprison them for three days would and should cause outrage.

chewmylegoff

CLAPTON wrote: »

Of course there was a possibility that the 'victims' were not innocent atall.

As there is in many situation. e.g. a missing child or a missing women; the father / partner is always a suspect.

However to automatically and without any specific supporting reason, to arrest and imprison them for three days would and should cause outrage.

there was a specific reason. two people had gunshot wounds and the person they arrested admitted to shooting them...

arresting someone without a specific reason is when the police come around to your house, put you in the back of a van and chuck you in a cell with no explanation. that would and should cause outrage.

CLAPTON

chewmylegoff wrote: »

there was a specific reason. two people had gunshot wounds and the person they arrested admitted to shooting them...

arresting someone without a specific reason is when the police come around to your house, put you in the back of a van and chuck you in a cell with no explanation. that would and should cause outrage.

Basically the issue is, to you is that injuring some-one with a gun is automatically an arresting situation, whereas to me using reasonable force is a full defense.

The two people with gunshoot wounds were know criminals with a long history of burglaries so fully supporting the victims story.


So it would be good to test the matter in court to see what the law actually is.

Using reasonable force to protect yourself is fully within the law and as the police knew the 'shot' people were violent criminals using a gun was perfectly reasonable.

leveller2911

A few years ago,one evening we had an intruder enter our house when we were sitting in the living room.I called the police, I was told someone would turn up ASAP.It took them just under an hour to turn up so obviously the intruder was long gone.

I have a Firearms Certificate and if we felt genuinely threatend I wouldn't hesitate to shoot first ask questions later and would have a clear conscience.

chewmylegoff

CLAPTON wrote: »

Basically the issue is, to you is that injuring some-one with a gun is automatically an arresting situation, whereas to me using reasonable force is a full defense.

The two people with gunshoot wounds were know criminals with a long history of burglaries so fully supporting the victims story.


So it would be good to test the matter in court to see what the law actually is.

Using reasonable force to protect yourself is fully within the law and as the police knew the 'shot' people were violent criminals using a gun was perfectly reasonable.

the trouble is that you are applying hindsight to assume that the police knew everything you now know before they decided to arrest and investigate the circumstances, whereas in reality you only know what you now know because the police arrested and investigated. you cannot just make a snap decision that reasonable force has been used - the police need to investigate the circumstances and discuss the evidence with the CPS.

the individuals involved could elect to sue the police for wrongful arrest if they wanted to, using the arguments that you are using, but i rather suspect they would be advised not to waste their money.

Pete111

leveller2911 wrote: »

A few years ago,one evening we had an intruder enter our house when we were sitting in the living room.I called the police, I was told someone would turn up ASAP.It took them just under an hour to turn up so obviously the intruder was long gone.

I have a Firearms Certificate and if we felt genuinely threatend I wouldn't hesitate to shoot first ask questions later and would have a clear conscience.[/QUOTE]

I'm the same - I have a shotgun licence and there is a gun in the house. If I felt I needed to use it to defend myself or my family against an intruder I would certainly do that

The downside is that my shotgun is (quite rightly) kept under lock and key, the keys are kept well away from the gun cabinet and the cartridges are kept in a third location.

There would probably have to be an awful lot of faffing about in order to get myself in a position where I was 'armed and dangerous'. By which time the intruder will have a) left b)already instigated a kurfuffle.

As such, I will stick to grabbing the rather more convienent rounders bat that I keep under the bed just in case.

leveller2911

Pete111 wrote: »

leveller2911 wrote: »

There would probably have to be an awful lot of faffing about in order to get myself in a position where I was 'armed and dangerous'. By which time the intruder will have a) left b)already instigated a kurfuffle.



Ditto, takes me ages in front of a mirror to paint me face camouflage and another hour to get "kitted up"...:D

CLAPTON

chewmylegoff wrote: »

the trouble is that you are applying hindsight to assume that the police knew everything you now know before they decided to arrest and investigate the circumstances, whereas in reality you only know what you now know because the police arrested and investigated. you cannot just make a snap decision that reasonable force has been used - the police need to investigate the circumstances and discuss the evidence with the CPS.

the individuals involved could elect to sue the police for wrongful arrest if they wanted to, using the arguments that you are using, but i rather suspect they would be advised not to waste their money.

That's exactly why my original post suggested some rich person fund it to clarify the law.

Linton

Generali wrote: »

The shooter and his Missus have moved to Aus to escape any potential revenge attack apparently.

To be fair, I have a lot of sympathy with people protecting their property, it's the acceptable face of the US gun laws and if I move to a rural property in Aus where police coverage is patchy at best then I will arm myself.

Really? I have a memory that there was a case in the US a while ago when a British(?) couple broke down in the middle of nowhere at night and knocked on the door of an isolated house to get help.

The householder exercised his right to protect his property and blasted them through the front door.

No, shooting someone should always initially be regarded as a crime, protection of one's life may well be a rebuttal. With protection of property it's up to the DPP to decide that a prosecution is not in the public interest.

CLAPTON

Linton wrote: »

Really? I have a memory that there was a case in the US a while ago when a British(?) couple broke down in the middle of nowhere at night and knocked on the door of an isolated house to get help.

The householder exercised his right to protect his property and blasted them through the front door.

No, shooting someone should always initially be regarded as a crime, protection of one's life may well be a rebuttal. With protection of property it's up to the DPP to decide that a prosecution is not in the public interest.

There may well be a case for changing the law so that in any shooting then there is a presumption of guilt until shown to be innocent.

However that should be for Parliament to decide: at the moment the law says that reasonable force can be used and NOT that there is a presumption of quilt.
The police have decided to ignore the law (sadly as they often do) which is not satisfactory in a democracy.