Just insanity:
http://gunsinselfdefense.com/2012/09/02 ... -break-in/
Why not to live in the U.K.
Moderators: gds, bakerjw, renegade
Re: Why not to live in the U.K.
The Westminster legal system applies in Australia too. You can use reasonable force to defend yourself, however excessive force is likely to attract charges.
If the farmer shot them in the back as they were fleeing his property he would have been charged, and likely convicted. The two clowns would also have been convicted for tresspass and any other crimes they committed. But, if he confronted them and he felt his life was in danger ("maybe they had a screwdriver, it was dark Officer") then he has the right to use similar force (KABOOM! "Oooh, Nasty!") to defend himself. Given they were in his house the onus is on the prosecution to prove he used excessive force, not the home-owner to prove he went too far. If he shot them in the local park then the onus would be on him to prove they were threatening his life.
A recent case where I live saw two goons break into an old Italian couple's house. The elderly guy retreated to the bedroom where his invalid wife was in bed and locked the door. The fools banged on the door demanding money. He said he had a shotty but they kicked in the door. KABOOOM! "Muma Mea!" The police charged the two goons later in hospital and the old guy was interviewed but released without charge. On the 'balance of probabilities' (50:50) the cops must charge the shooter and let the courts sort it out. But in this case it was obvious. That did not stop the Police Commissioner getting on the telly with his uniform and cap on to sternly lecture the public on how we should not take risks and let the police sort it out...What was lost on the Commissioner is that if this poor old guy had used the phone instead of his shotgun the two goons would have tested out the mattress springs with his wife, then taken his unloaded shotgun and tested the butt on his head. The Police would have arrived 20 minutes later with the bad guys long gone...another one for the forensic team...but at least they followed Police advice.
If the farmer shot them in the back as they were fleeing his property he would have been charged, and likely convicted. The two clowns would also have been convicted for tresspass and any other crimes they committed. But, if he confronted them and he felt his life was in danger ("maybe they had a screwdriver, it was dark Officer") then he has the right to use similar force (KABOOM! "Oooh, Nasty!") to defend himself. Given they were in his house the onus is on the prosecution to prove he used excessive force, not the home-owner to prove he went too far. If he shot them in the local park then the onus would be on him to prove they were threatening his life.
A recent case where I live saw two goons break into an old Italian couple's house. The elderly guy retreated to the bedroom where his invalid wife was in bed and locked the door. The fools banged on the door demanding money. He said he had a shotty but they kicked in the door. KABOOOM! "Muma Mea!" The police charged the two goons later in hospital and the old guy was interviewed but released without charge. On the 'balance of probabilities' (50:50) the cops must charge the shooter and let the courts sort it out. But in this case it was obvious. That did not stop the Police Commissioner getting on the telly with his uniform and cap on to sternly lecture the public on how we should not take risks and let the police sort it out...What was lost on the Commissioner is that if this poor old guy had used the phone instead of his shotgun the two goons would have tested out the mattress springs with his wife, then taken his unloaded shotgun and tested the butt on his head. The Police would have arrived 20 minutes later with the bad guys long gone...another one for the forensic team...but at least they followed Police advice.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests