High Court: Homeowners can use 'disproportionate force' against burglars

They wish to do you harm, be it from stealing your possessions or actual bodily harm. Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground doctrine for me thanks, I have the right to defend myself, my family and my property, that's exactly what I'll do every single time someone enters my home with bad intentions.

Not entirely sure why this is being debated. "Absolutely Mr Burglar, please take my possessions for yourself"
 
Avenged7Fold said:
so tell me, realistically how many of these robberies in England have a violent result to them?

All your example shows is that there are some psychos that are burglars. Shooting every one to make an example does not justify anything.
Click to expand...

That's fine, no-one would force you to go out and buy a gun, or even use it if you did buy one. I prefer to take the view that it's better to have something and not need it than need something and not have it. In the unlikely event of a terrifying home invasion all I want is a fighting chance and to know that the law will protect me, the person who didn't go out that evening to commit a crime.
 
Avenged7Fold said:
Also, if you gave that guy a gun and asked him to reply the night again, do you think he would have shot the guys?

Lol no.
Click to expand...

Who can say? I will point out however that a college lecturer vs 4x career criminals has zero chance. An armed college lecturer vs 4x career criminals at least has some sort of chance to win.
 
acemastr said:
They wish to do you harm, be it from stealing your possessions or actual bodily harm. Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground doctrine for me thanks, I have the right to defend myself, my family and my property, that's exactly what I'll do every single time someone enters my home with bad intentions.

Not entirely sure why this is being debated. "Absolutely Mr Burglar, please take my possessions for yourself"
Click to expand...

Glad for you, you're in the right country. It's also the same country that refuses to discuss gun violence at a political level because of the power of the NRA, and has a horrific record of gun violence.

Each to their own, I'm glad it's different over here.

scorza said:
Who can say? I will point out however that a college lecturer vs 4x career criminals has zero chance. An armed college lecturer vs 4x career criminals at least has some sort of chance to win.
Click to expand...

He has just as much chance as one of those 4 people taking the armament off him and killing him with it.
 
scorza said:
That's fine, no-one would force you to go out and buy a gun, or even use it if you did buy one. I prefer to take the view that it's better to have something and not need it than need something and not have it. In the unlikely event of a terrifying home invasion all I want is a fighting chance and to know that the law will protect me, the person who didn't go out that evening to commit a crime.
Click to expand...

I understand that but i would rather you not have it and need it than have it and end up shooting someone by accident or encourage gun nut culture over here. What gives me the right to prevent you from getting a gun? nothing, that is up to the law and i am currently satisfied with the law at the moment on guns.

Like i have said, i wouldn't let everyone have a gun for the same reason i wouldn't let my nieces and nephews alone in the house for 8 hours all the time. It is not that i dont think that they will be safe most of the time but rather they are stupid enough that they will hurt them selves one of the times and that can be all it takes to make giving them that freedom not worth it.
 
Better ban cars, and knives, and scissors too in case someone hurts themselves or others with them.

My gun doesn't hurt anyone, I hope it stays that way too.
 
platypus said:
Glad for you, you're in the right country. It's also the same country that refuses to discuss gun violence at a political level because of the power of the NRA, and has a horrific record of gun violence.

Each to their own, I'm glad it's different over here.
Click to expand...

Don't you live in France? The country with the 5th highest levels of gun ownership in the world where military style semi-automatic assault weapons are also legal.

platypus said:
He has just as much chance as one of those 4 people taking the armament off him and killing him with it.
Click to expand...

If they'd wanted him dead, he would be dead - the criminals had that much power over him.
 
acemastr said:
Better ban cars, and knives, and scissors too in case someone hurts themselves or others with them.

My gun doesn't hurt anyone, I hope it stays that way too.
Click to expand...

in that case we should just let everyone have everything?

Why not let all the sketchy countries have nukes because y'know, in case the crazies like Trump get into power and start throwing even more weight around than is needed.

Your argument is invalid.

Also You might find there could be a call on banning petrol automotive eventually and i would have absolutely no problem with that if we implemented that sooner rather than later, although not for the same reasons because... well, see above paragraph.
 
Banning of petrol cars is due to harm to the environment, not them potentially being 2 ton weapons.

I see the point from both sides, until I moved here I didn't feel a need for guns, now I enjoy going to the shooting range and if the situation arose at home then yes, I'd use it if I felt my life was in danger, and rightly so.
 
scorza said:
I'm sure that was a great consolation to him as his face was being smashed in.
Click to expand...

Forget the thread topic?

We are talking about disproportionate force against burglars not accidental gang attacks. The risk of gang attacks in your own home does not justify any action because the risk is next to nothing unless you are in a gang.

Funnily enough, when he found out, he felt consoled enough to move on:

Paul said: “I wanted an apology that was meaningful, that could allow me to move on, and the more he said, the more he convinced me and gained my trust.

“That’s one of the four attackers I can forgive. I believe his apology was genuine.

“He didn’t try and minimise what he had done. He said he was very sorry, was aware he had fallen from grace, and was aware of his weaknesses.

“He said he would do his utmost not to do it again, and I felt he was genuinely remorseful and reflective.

“He spoke about his past on our prompting, but I realised that was not relevant because as I said to him, many people have a difficult life but do not do what he did.

“I’m more interested in moving on.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
acemastr said:
Would this same criminal be like this if he hadn't been caught?
Click to expand...

Obviously not if you shot him first. Unrelated considering this is a GANG crime. If you did shoot them first, then you would have a gang come after you and possibly your family as they were trying to do that to someone else and got the wrong house.
 
You do keep finding loopholes in the logic I'm trying to get over lol

To each their own, I'd rather use excessive/deadly force when needed than live in fear of the police action taken against me. Not that any would be here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom