Whaley Bridge (UK) - attempted burglary / shooting

Just because he's out burgling doesn't mean he deserved death. Maybe he was being forced into it himself by some horrid pimp-like gangster, you really never know.

The lack of police action is no doubt incentivising crime at the moment though. My friend got knocked off his bike, hit and run, with several witnesses verifying the number plate and the appearance of the driver... and apparently the police still didn't do anything?!
 
Last edited:
Nitefly said:
Just because he's out burgling doesn't mean he deserved death. Maybe he was being forced into it himself by some horrid pimp-like gangster, you really never know.

The lack of police action is no doubt incentivising crime at the moment though. My friend got knocked off his bike, hit and run, with several witnesses verifying the number plate and the appearance of the driver... and apparently the police still didn't do anything?!
Click to expand...
Tough one, outnumbered atleast 2:1 if not 4:1 potentially and in a remote location. It'll boil down to if he felt personally threatened of harm, which seems pretty reasonable.
 
Minstadave said:
Tough one, outnumbered atleast 2:1 if not 4:1 potentially and in a remote location. It'll boil down to if he felt personally threatened of harm, which seems pretty reasonable.
Click to expand...

In respect of ‘was the shooter acting reasonably in firing the weapon as he did?’ - yes, it depends as you say.

This is a different point to the one I was making, which was more along the lines of ‘he did not necessary deserve death’.

I said this in light of the sentiments in the thread re: the deceased getting what he deserved. Even if the shooter gets off free and acted reasonably, it still doesn’t mean the deceased deserved death. It could be a wholly tragic set-up.
 
Deserved what he got if he was breaking into homes and robbing, ruining others lives without a second thought.

Niteflys response is exactly why the nation is so limp wristed on crime.

Net positive for society that he's no longer alive.
 
Stu999 said:
What law does apply to this. Genuine question, I don’t know, not trying to catch you out.
Click to expand...
Basically you can use any "reasonable" level of force to protect yourself and family.
Reasonable meaning what could be considered reasonable in the moment, which basically means as long as you don't lay in wait, set traps, use illegal weapons, or beat someone when they're no longer a threat (IE already down and unconsciouse, shoot them in the back, chase them down the street, tie them up and torture them) you're pretty much fine. The Police will investigate if there is serious injury or death, and may arrest you to ensure your rights are covered (you are entitled to a free solicitor etc and it restrains what they can do), but basically if your house is broken into you have to go massively over the top for any charges to be brought, and even further over the top for a jury (remember they are 12 people like you) to even consider finding you guilty.

As I say, as long as you don't set out to kill someone, but happen to grab a knife in the kitchen, golf clubs, the hammer you've been using for decorating, the cricket bat next to the sporting cloths, a harpoon from the cupboard next to you where your scuba gear is stored you're basically ok (these are btw all real instances).

IIRC it's not so much a specific "law" as written down by the government, but rather largely case law over the last few hundred years where courts have defined what is likely reasonable etc.
 
Werewolf said:
IIRC it's not so much a specific "law" as written down by the government, but rather largely case law over the last few hundred years where courts have defined what is likely reasonable etc.
Click to expand...
Ah right, understood. Would be nice to have a black letter law on this but not really a top priority.
 
Stu999 said:
Ah right, understood. Would be nice to have a black letter law on this but not really a top priority.
Click to expand...
IIRC the government did something a few years back as a bit of a performative legislations where they said they'd put it in law that people had a right to defend themselves etc. But the right has been enshrined in common and case law literally for centuries, with the odd example case going to the court if it's a new "extreme" variation*.

From what I remember pretty much everyone who'd ever paid attention to the laws/rules on self defence and the Police/CPS guidelines went "that's what we've already got you opportunistic bunch of muppets" along with mutterings along the likes of "and to think you claim you have a law degree" at several of the government members who were desperately trying to make out this was something entirely new.


*The CPS put cases forward where either there is a good chance of success, or where there is a public interest element, so they might put a case forward to ensure the full facts are on the public record even if the chance of the prosecution being successful are much lower than normal.
 
Last edited:
Lord-Jaffa said:
What's so hard to understand?
Click to expand...

You claiming that it’s a “Net positive for society that he's no longer alive.” whilst simultaneously acknowledging that you don’t know actually what happened (hence “if”).

It’s either very callous, for being glad that someone is dead without knowing the circumstances, or really stupid. Either way it’s a royal herp-derp.
 
Nitefly said:
You claiming that it’s a “Net positive for society that he's no longer alive.” whilst simultaneously acknowledging that you don’t know actually what happened (hence “if”).

It’s either very callous, for being glad that someone is dead without knowing the circumstances, or really stupid. Either way it’s a royal herp-derp.
Click to expand...
So you don't understand the meaning of the word If.
 
Lord-Jaffa said:
So you don't understand the meaning of the word If.
Click to expand...

If you said “if he was breaking into homes and robbing, ruining others lives without a second thought, then it’s a net positive for society that he's no longer alive.” then that would have been different.

But that wasn’t what you wrote. There was no “if” in the final sentence of your post.

I can only respond to the words that you write. If you actually didn’t mean this absolutely:

Lord-Jaffa said:
Net positive for society that he's no longer alive.
Click to expand...

… then going forwards you ought to take more care to be precise over your choice of words / how you structure your posts, so that people can more readily understand what you intend to mean.
 
Last edited:
Nitefly said:
If you said “if he was breaking into homes and robbing, ruining others lives without a second thought, then it’s a net positive for society that he's no longer alive.” then that would have been different.

But that wasn’t what you wrote. There was no “if” in the final sentence of your post.

I can only respond to the words that you write. If you actually didn’t mean this absolutely:



… then going forwards you ought to take more care to be precise over your choice of words / how you structure your posts, so that people can more readily understand what you intend to mean.
Click to expand...
Grow up man its a computer forum
 
dlockers said:
Grow up man its a computer forum
Click to expand...

Wut?! You can grow up / learn to read / learn to think if you regard that I’m the person being unreasonable in that exchange!

There’s no reason to drag it on though so with that I’m out / onwards for the thread.
 
Just a shame he didn't get the others too.
Zero sympathy for the dead here. They put themselves in to the situation. A lot of sympathy for the victims of the burglary, no doubt a large amount of nonsense for them to go through for the rest of the year.

Police seem pretty useless in the UK these days.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom