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

Linton

CLAPTON wrote: »

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.

Isnt it up to a jury to decide whether the force was reasonable? I dont believe the law provides much guidance. I would guess killing someone, or acting in a way that there is a danger of someone dying is stretching "reasonableness" somewhat.

CLAPTON

Linton wrote: »

Isnt it up to a jury to decide whether the force was reasonable? I dont believe the law provides much guidance. I would guess killing someone, or acting in a way that there is a danger of someone dying is stretching "reasonableness" somewhat.

are you saying that if you were in an isolated house and 4 thugs broke in by smashing the door down, then endangering their life isn't reasonable?


In any event numerous juries have indeed agreed that it is reasonable and in this case the CPS also agreed.

Linton

CLAPTON wrote: »

are you saying that if you were in an isolated house and 4 thugs broke in by smashing the door down, then endangering their life isn't reasonable?


In any event numerous juries have indeed agreed that it is reasonable and in this case the CPS also agreed.

Could be reasonable, but it might not be if you scared 3 them off with your gun and then executed the fourth after he tripped and wasnt able to get up. Or of course if the banging on the door wasnt actually 4 thugs but a group of people needing help. Depends on the circumstances - up to the DPP and if necessary a jury as it's impossible to frame a law that covers all eventualities.

Any absolute right to kill or maim in my view opens up too many very undesirable possibilities.

PaulF81

anything that removes burglarising scum from the gene pool has to be a good thing. shame he missed a major artery.

CLAPTON

Linton wrote: »

Could be reasonable, but it might not be if you scared 3 them off with your gun and then executed the fourth after he tripped and wasnt able to get up. Or of course if the banging on the door wasnt actually 4 thugs but a group of people needing help. Depends on the circumstances - up to the DPP and if necessary a jury as it's impossible to frame a law that covers all eventualities.

Any absolute right to kill or maim in my view opens up too many very undesirable possibilities.

We are clearly talking about different subjects.

I haven't suggested a 'right' to kill:

I've simply argued that shooting shouldn't lead the police to automatically arrest and hold the victim in prison for a few days irrespective of the circumstances.

And it isn't up to the DPP to decide to automatically arrest and detain; their remit is to decide whether or not to prosecute.

Loughton_Monkey

I am always told by Americans that they virtually have an automatic right to kill on their own property, if entered unlawfully.

I suspect this is not literally true. But derives from a combination of the right to bear arms [and almost everyone has a gun in their house] and long standing interpretation of the law perhaps a little bit stronger than has come through from our Judge. So such deaths are treated, by the police, as simply "admin". Fill in [or in fact fill out, because it's America] a form of how it happened. Take the body away. Inform relatives. File the form. Now go and deal with the shoplifter....

No DA would prosecute.

One of my friends there - who I visited this year - insist on keeping their iron gate (100 yards from house) padlocked. Quite a pain when driving in & out. They explained it's not to keep away burglars, but Jehovah's Witnesses. It is illegal for uninvited JH's to 'step around/over' such a locked gate. They were unclear whether or not they could shoot one if he did step over.

[And I am not joking there].

A._Badger

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

One of my friends there - who I visited this year - insist on keeping their iron gate (100 yards from house) padlocked. Quite a pain when driving in & out. They explained it's not to keep away burglars, but Jehovah's Witnesses. It is illegal for uninvited JH's to 'step around/over' such a locked gate. They were unclear whether or not they could shoot one if he did step over.

[And I am not joking there].

Perfectly reasonable. The JWs are a serious menace.

It is possible to laugh oneself to death you know.