I understand that you can't wander the streets shooting people

15 posts / 0
Last post
Corris's picture
Corris
Offline
Joined: 25/07/2011
Posts: 8480
I understand that you can't wander the streets shooting people

I really do.

But I cannot seem to soften my stance that if someone bloomin' well breaks into your home, and is in your house illegally, that you should be able to shoot them.  I have no idea if that makes me some sort of social psychopath......... but they shouldn't be there, they are breaking the law, they have no business doing that!  They could have been carrying knives with intent to murder or rape - Am I totally out of step?

The stepfather of a woman held by police for three days over the shooting of two burglars said last night: 'I'd have blown their bloody heads off.'

John Towell said Tracey Ferrie and her husband Andy who was also arrested had faced a gang of four men at their isolated cottage in the early hours.

He said: 'Four of them came in. Andy and Tracey did what anyone would have done.' He said the law must now be changed to protect property owners who act to defend their land when it is burgled.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2198384/Leicestershire-burglar-shooting-Stepfather-woman-arrested-intruder-shooting-hits-out.html#ixzz25ZSVrEOa

Christiesgal's picture
Christiesgal
Offline
Joined: 29/07/2011
Posts: 10929

I can't disagree, I know you are supposed to be allowed to use 'reasonable force' to defend your property I guess what constitutes that is difficult to define and what is reasonable in one circumstance (a guy comes at you with a knife saying your money or your life and you shoot him, sounds reasonable to me!) will not be reasonable in another (an unarmed intruder gets shot whilst in the process of trying to fit your wide screen tv through the window).

So maybe I do disagree, a tiny teensy bit.  I don't know, I'm confused! 

JacquiL's picture
JacquiL
Offline
Joined: 26/11/2009
Posts: 25510

4 burglars to 2 householders, I'd have shot them too

OliversArmy's picture
OliversArmy
Offline
Joined: 26/11/2009
Posts: 12101

Whilst I'm not a fan of much that hails from America, their stance on intruders makes sense. If intruders take the chance of breaking in, they take the chance on being shot to kingdom come by the owner. Frankly there's nothing I wouldn't do to protect my home; my children are here, anyone breaking in needs a bloody good reason and some fast legs because I wouldn't think twice about attacking them.

Nobody is forced to burgle a home, nobody needs to do it. They make a conscious choice to violate the only real secure place any family has. I feel quite strongly that everyone ought to be more confident in defending what is theirs. The law absolutely needs to protect the innocent party in this situation. 

Barefootgirl's picture
Barefootgirl
Offline
Joined: 25/07/2011
Posts: 5962

Yeah but, no but....Some one phones the police, complains of intruders. Mr Plod gets there, finds two people waving guns around, two people with holes in them and a great deal and angry shouting. The people with the guns swear blind that the people with the holes were breaking in, so they shot them...but who's to say that it wasn't some sort of dog-fighting ring gone bad, or yokel swingers turning on each other, or drug dealers not paying their debts....?

Essentially, no-one knows ANYTHING, beyond the fact that two people have holes in them, and two other  people were found in possession of weapons which appear to have made said holes. The police are, therefore, PERFECTLY right to arrest the people with the guns until the truth of the matter can be established, and frankly would be derelict in their duty if they didn't do so. Despite what the Daily Mail tells you, 'arrest' does not mean prosecute, imprison, or hang from the nearest lamp-post. If you want to go around shooting people, you must be prepared to allow an investigation by the law. These people won't be charged and even if they were, a YTS solicitor would get them off without even breaking a sweat. But, as the people who fired the weapons, they MUST be investigated and the most straightforward way to do that is via arrest.

Corris's picture
Corris
Offline
Joined: 25/07/2011
Posts: 8480

And they aren't to be prosecuted I have heard on the news this morning - and thank goodness for that.

But it is still illegal to shoot burglars in our country - and I don't think it should be.

Christiesgal's picture
Christiesgal
Offline
Joined: 29/07/2011
Posts: 10929

I seriously am ROFL at 'yokel swingers'  BFG!!

Barefootgirl's picture
Barefootgirl
Offline
Joined: 25/07/2011
Posts: 5962

Corris wrote:
it is still illegal to shoot burglars in our country - and I don't think it should be.

Its illegal to shoot ANYBODY in our country, and that's the way it should be.

ChristmasAngel
Offline
Joined: 13/04/2010
Posts: 463

Barefootgirl wrote:
Corris wrote:
it is still illegal to shoot burglars in our country - and I don't think it should be.

Its illegal to shoot ANYBODY in our country, and that's the way it should be.

I do agree BFG because if we legalise the shooting of an armed intruder we are becoming more American, something I detest the thought of. Pehaps it would also encourage the purchasing of more firearms for those that way inclined & we become more "gun-ho" as a nation.

This is where I also get confused because I also agree with defending your home & your family.

I agree with what OA says because it should be the one place you feel safe & secure as a family & no-one should have the right to violate that. We have a gun here & if someone broke in here I wouldn't wait to see if they are armed or not or even what they want. Unless you have been invited into my home you risk serious damage to your limbs from a family trained in martial arts or you get shot or both.
Perhaps each case should be investigated according to the individual circumstances as it is currently.

Not sure if that makes sense to you but it does to me!!!

Barefootgirl's picture
Barefootgirl
Offline
Joined: 25/07/2011
Posts: 5962

The thing that really worries me is, where are these people keeping their guns that they are so easily to hand when someone breaks in? Years ago, back in the Stone Age, i worked for the police, in a Firearms Licencing office, and all guns had to be kept locked up in a secure cabinet. If you wake up and discover an intruder in your house, and your gun is 'easily to hand', locked and loaded, yes its easy for you to lay hands on, but its also desperately easy for an intruder to lay hands on. Nobody wants to wake up and find themselves at the wrong end of their own twelve-bore.

If you fire a shotgun out of the window of your house, towards retreating scrotes, you deserve every bit of hassle you get. Shotgun pellets spread over a wide area, and you cannot go around firing willynilly into public spaces.

Incidentally, if you bash an intruder on the head with a large hammer / walking stick / spanner / vase, Mr Plod will not bat an eyelid. If you actually kill the said scrote with your hammer / stick / vase, Mr Plod will want to ask you a few searching questions, but you are unlikely to face arrest**. I can neither confirm or deny the rumour that i keep an extremely large and heavy spanner under my bed. i have a very wonky bed, you see, and sometimes the nuts and bolts do need a bit of tightening up.

**I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice to be relied upon.

JacquiL's picture
JacquiL
Offline
Joined: 26/11/2009
Posts: 25510

Hubby keeps a baseball bat on his side of the bed, this is the safest place in our house as C did try and use it on me when it was kept with the badminton and tennis rackets

Pages