Burglars beware!
Discussion
MrBrightSi said:
As stated, once the boundries are re-drawn, they need to be re-drawn again. Im sorry but these situations need to be looked into, there cannot be a cookie cutter outcome for any of these. Suddenly stating all intruders are open to violence of the home owner make me think that sooner or later someone is bound to invite someone they don't appreciate round for a friendly beating, then only to hide behind "HE BROKE IN!".
It's happened many times already, which is why burglaries where the intruder has been seriously injured are investigated properly. daz3210 said:
Dave Hedgehog said:
Breadvan72 said:
You would probably be OK to shoot, if in fear, as the most recent case shows. Tony Martin shot the scrotes as they ran away. That is why he was potted.
i consider that a reasonable action thou It can't be self defence, the opportunity for self defence being an argument has passed immediately they opt to leave.
BigMacDaddy said:
daz3210 said:
Dave Hedgehog said:
Breadvan72 said:
You would probably be OK to shoot, if in fear, as the most recent case shows. Tony Martin shot the scrotes as they ran away. That is why he was potted.
i consider that a reasonable action thou It can't be self defence, the opportunity for self defence being an argument has passed immediately they opt to leave.
daz3210 said:
BigMacDaddy said:
daz3210 said:
Dave Hedgehog said:
Breadvan72 said:
You would probably be OK to shoot, if in fear, as the most recent case shows. Tony Martin shot the scrotes as they ran away. That is why he was potted.
i consider that a reasonable action thou It can't be self defence, the opportunity for self defence being an argument has passed immediately they opt to leave.
The new "law" is stupid headline grabbing nonsense designed to get idiots who dont know (or dont listen to those who do know) the current law is fine.
The only case people ever come up with as an example of not being able to defend your home is Tony Martin.....not sure what law would allow you to shoot people running away with an illegally held shot gun.
People who keep on about how the law is a grey area, or ambiguous are talking tripe.
T
The only case people ever come up with as an example of not being able to defend your home is Tony Martin.....not sure what law would allow you to shoot people running away with an illegally held shot gun.
People who keep on about how the law is a grey area, or ambiguous are talking tripe.
T
Tiggsy said:
The new "law" is stupid headline grabbing nonsense designed to get idiots who dont know (or dont listen to those who do know) the current law is fine.
The only case people ever come up with as an example of not being able to defend your home is Tony Martin.....not sure what law would allow you to shoot people running away with an illegally held shot gun.
People who keep on about how the law is a grey area, or ambiguous are talking tripe.
T
So we can shoot them if they're facing us? The only case people ever come up with as an example of not being able to defend your home is Tony Martin.....not sure what law would allow you to shoot people running away with an illegally held shot gun.
People who keep on about how the law is a grey area, or ambiguous are talking tripe.
T
Isn't there a slight worry that more burglars will go with more intentions on defending themselves as well?
Or that burglars will just stick to empty houses when people are at work / holiday (which by percentage is STILL the main way houses get burgled)....
I have an axe in my home within reach if i needed it, but i do wonder if i even would be able too..i'll tell my mates i would...but i reckon i'd s
t myself unless i was drunk...
If i were a burglar and i thought more people were thinking "hmm i can defend my property and kick burglars buts", i'd take a weapon myself....and a proper one. That is the possible worry now.
Or that burglars will just stick to empty houses when people are at work / holiday (which by percentage is STILL the main way houses get burgled)....
I have an axe in my home within reach if i needed it, but i do wonder if i even would be able too..i'll tell my mates i would...but i reckon i'd s
t myself unless i was drunk...If i were a burglar and i thought more people were thinking "hmm i can defend my property and kick burglars buts", i'd take a weapon myself....and a proper one. That is the possible worry now.
MadMark911 said:
The prisons are obviously too full of perps - so they want us to kill a few - fair play!
If they can relax the laws on the possession of offensive weapons as well - then burglars may well think twice before breaking into a potential armoury ....
There is nothing more effective at short range than a shotgun, and the vast majority of adults could get one of those entirely legally right now. And once you have a licence, you can have just about as many shotguns as you like, and there is literally no limit on the number of cartridges you can have.If they can relax the laws on the possession of offensive weapons as well - then burglars may well think twice before breaking into a potential armoury ....
longblackcoat said:
MadMark911 said:
The prisons are obviously too full of perps - so they want us to kill a few - fair play!
If they can relax the laws on the possession of offensive weapons as well - then burglars may well think twice before breaking into a potential armoury ....
There is nothing more effective at short range than a shotgun, and the vast majority of adults could get one of those entirely legally right now. And once you have a licence, you can have just about as many shotguns as you like, and there is literally no limit on the number of cartridges you can have.If they can relax the laws on the possession of offensive weapons as well - then burglars may well think twice before breaking into a potential armoury ....
CURRENT LAW - get a shotgun with a licence, if burgled and in danger, shoot them. You WILL NOT be in trouble (as proved)
As such, only people who need a new law are muppets and The Sun headline writers who thought up "batter a burglar".
daz3210 said:
How does the Human Rights Act sit with this? Always we hear of the offenders Human Rights, but seem to forget the rights of the person wronged.
How difficult would it be to make a law that said immediately you commit an offence your Human Rights are diminished, or removed totally? I guess what I am thinking is put the emphasis on the rights of the wronged person.
That's how the law is at the moment. You have a right not to have violence used against you.How difficult would it be to make a law that said immediately you commit an offence your Human Rights are diminished, or removed totally? I guess what I am thinking is put the emphasis on the rights of the wronged person.
WHen you break into someone's house, or attack someone else, that right is diminished.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff