Martin2005

Seems strange to use a situation where intentions are entirely clear to criticise my point about what unclear intentions

jonc

And what is so clear about the intentions of a gang of masked intruders breaking into your home?

Martin2005

I don't know how to answer that without calling you an idiot

jonc

Call me idiot all you like or anything else for that matter, so please have a go.

Martin2005

I'm struggling to think of any unclear intentions, unless they are militant Jehovah's Witnesses

jonc

Why, because I said they were masked intruders?

Martin2005

Yes that and the 'smashing their way in' would be the big clues

where are you going with this?

hodgy0_2

the accompanying ominous sounding music would surely be a clue too

jonc

So are willing to give them the benefit of doubt if you encountered a gang of unmasked intruders who forced entry, without smashing a window for instance, into your home in the middle of the night, as their intentions would be less clear, that you'd treat them differently because their intentions might be entirely innocent?

joz8968

iTrader: (13)

The thing with the Tony Martin case was that he had reported these intruders to the police - as they had been on his property at least once before, etc. But the police claimed they couldn't do anything! And being a rural area, it was easy for the burglars to keep coming back (no witnesses, etc).

TM claimed he felt he had no choice but become a vigilante... Probably doesn't excuse him for killing, but if the police wrote his situation off in the manner they did, I do have a hell of a lot of sympathy for the chap and his, the then, plight...

Martin2005

I have no idea what you are going on about

I haven't mentioned gangs, or benefit of the doubt, you did

I just challenged PSL statement that shooting all intruders was a justifiable way forward

We are either at cross purposes or I'm just having a brain-fade (the latter is more likely)

jonc

I think you know what I was getting at, but just you don't like to admit it. I would stick my neck out and say that even you, given those circumstances, in that spilt second of judgement, you would "shoot" and ask questions later!

Martin2005

I think you have misinterpreted the whole point I was making


I agree that people should be able to defend themselves and their property, and given the circumstances you outlined I would probably do the same thing

My point was PSL saying he would shoot ANYONE ANYTIME if he perceived them to be a threat, which of course would lead to lots innocent people getting shot, and lots of over zealous homeowners getting banged up.

Mind you the whole point is moot because I would NEVER EVER have a gun in my house

jonc

PSL's comment was made in reference to Tony Martin's case and doesn't say he would shoot anyone at anytime. In any case, the reality is the first and immediate perception of most people would be that any intruders who break in in the middle of the night are violating their property and will assume their intentions being anything but innocent and therefore a threat. First instinct would be to protect/defend, especially if you have a family in the home as in the case in the OP.

Point is how can anyone encountering an intruder breaking into their home perceive that as not a violation and come to a rationalisation that their intentions are wholly innocent.

nik52wrx

Don't think I'd have the bottle to kill someone so I'd blast them in the knee caps.
It would be a lesson they'd never forget.

Nik

Suresh

Harsh but fair

GlesgaKiss

I don't think it's so much about having the bottle. If you are confronted by 1 or more guys with knives or guns themselves, you'll be acting more out of fear than anything else. Shooting them stops them hurting you, end of. I don't know if any amount of property would justify shooting someone on the spot if you knew you were in no danger yourself.

andy97

iTrader: (1)

By arresting the couple, it sends out the false message that they have done something wrong. instead the police should of issued the statement that they have arrested the burglars and are continuing their discussion with the homeowners

Leslie

I think the point is, how much do you feel you could trust robbers not to hurt or even to kill you these days. That could even be if you were not actually trying to prevent them from their criminal actions with regard to your properety?

Such people these days have very much less respect for human life. Anything to avoid getting caught I reckon.

I think you should have a right to defend your property and in particular your self right from the outset.

It would mean the criminal may well be taking a bigger personal risk by going around robbing people,and that would be no bad thing I think.

Les

Midlife......

iTrader: (2)

Been let off...........

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-19496531

Shaun

An0n0m0us

I'm gobsmacked, the CPS applying common sense? i never thought i'd see that happen.

boomer

+1

A very simple change in "procedure" that would avoid embarrassment, stigma, permanent (although against EU rules) DNA retention, deprivation of liberty etc. for the injured party!

mb

_Meridian_

iTrader: (1)

As I've already pointed out, it happens pretty much every time. It's just the story "home defenders let off" is nowhere near as sexy as "home defenders arrested by police!!!!!!", so doesn't get the same coverage - by the time charges are dropped the story is well off the front pages so either isn't mentioned, is on the bottom of page six. The only unusual thing this time is the relative speed of dropping charges. Again: people need to stop confusing what actually happens in such cases and what the Daily Wail reports.

hodgy0_2

The thread should have been closed after your excellent first post Meridian

It said it all - the rest of the thread is just ill informed rubbish

markjmd

iTrader: (11)

Which begs the question, why does it in most cases take the best part of a month, or longer, for charges to be dropped?

Martin2005

Are you suggesting that every house should have a gun in it??

I think that puts those in the house at far more risk of being hurt (by that gun) than by someone breaking in and hurting you.

Out of interest how many cases are there of houses getting broken into and the criminal using violence?? I thought they were mostly opportunists breaking in to nick stuff not to get sadistically involved in harming the home owners?

I guess there would be less of chance of someone breaking in if they knew you had a gun, but I'm not sure that benefit outweighs the risk of having a gun in the house poses.

Also you make it sound like criminals of old are somehow different to criminals of today - do you have any evidence to support this?

Martin2005

They can't - which is my whole point, and the best reason not to have homeowner toting guns

_Meridian_

iTrader: (1)

Call me old-fashioned, but where one person kills another I'd like to see the events investigated pretty fully. If the police were to just turn up and take the householder's word for it, then it would pretty easy to get away with actual murder - just claim your victim was burgling you.

An0n0m0us

I've got first hand experience of the CPS and going to court and how they 'dealt' with the criminal who stole my brand new R1 motorcycle. He was banged to rights so myself and the police thought but he got away pretty much scott free due to the CPS. After that debacle I have very little faith in them to do anything right so it amazes me when I see them do something like this.

hodgy0_2

but an easy way to get rid of sh1tty neighbours – just invite them round one night and ask them to enter via the open window in the lounge (hoods optional)