Is the asylumn taking back over ?

[youngmafbog]

http://www.thesun.co....batter-a-burglar.html

Finally sense is prevailing and the true victims are being recognized. What a shame the lunatics (in the form of hand wringing liberals) took over in the first place.

[jake-the-peg]

Ah you've been conned by this PR stunt too have you?

On the radio today Grayling was pressed for an example

He said if you knocked a burglar unconcious and ten stabbed him that'd be illegal but if you lashed out in self defense that would be legal

Well excuse the heck out of me but isn't that the case right now?

After all that couple that shot the burgalr with a legally held shotgun were not charged

They're changing a couple of words and making a big song and a dance about it

[Octavius]

Ah thanks Jake, so bludgeoning someone to death if they step in your doorway is stil lillegal. Damn those tories for confusing us castle dwellers.

[Sqad]

\\\ but if you lashed out in self defense that would be legal\\\

\\\Well excuse the heck out of me but isn't that the case right now? \\\

Well JTP that is not my understanding (not being well up in the legal terminology) .......the above is only applicable if the burglar (intruder) is approaching you. If he is running away, then self defense is not a legal issue............and it is my understanding under the new ruling is that whichever way the intruder is facing or going, then self defense is a legal mechanism which it wasn't previously.

[tonyav]

Legal or illegal, it matters not to me, I would still kick the broccoli out of them.

[bazwillrun]

"They're changing a couple of words"

and thats all it takes in a lot of cases to make a big change as far as the law is concerned

[tonyav]

Broccoli !, I didn't write that !

[FredPuli43]

This is pure PR. It does not change the existing law, which we've had for centuries, one iota. Saying that the law is to be changed by this proposal is utter nonsense.
When I was a student, I watched a case where the owner of a scrap yard had used his shotgun to shoot an intruder in broad daylight, causing him non-fatal injuries. The judge, summing up, said "An Englishman's home is his castle. An Englishman's scrap yard is not his home, but he is entitled to act on the same principles". The man was triumphantly acquitted. Nothing has changed. That was in 1966.

[Sqad]

Fred..........but what about that fellow Martin....charged with murder and reduced to manslaughter for a similar offence?

That was way after 1966.

[Octavius]

From what I remember Tony Martin not only shot at them in the dark to "frighten them off", he also chased them and shot them in the back twice when they were trying to get out of the house.

I guess the first shot would have been reasonable, the subsequent 2 were not and the original jury decided he was a murderer.

[Sqad]

octavius

http://www.dailymail....es-parole-appeal.html

Maybe.......but that was a change in attitude since Fred's case of 1966.

[jake-the-peg]

Not only did Martin shoot them in the back he did so with a pump action shotgun which has been an illeagal type of firearm since Hungerford!

He vas very very lucky to have that reduced to manslaughter!

I have yet to hear what action is illegal now that will become legal by the change of these two words

[Octavius]

It seems from sqads post above that if the intruder doesn't know whether he is coming or going you can actually bludgeon them to death and use self defense as a legal mechanism, so I'm back on with my morning star then...

[Sqad]

Octavius.....LOL....well summed up.

JTH........ you couldn't do the above before this, but now you can legally;-)

[FredPuli43]

No change, sqad. Martin was a man whose conviction was reduced to manslaughter, apparently on the basis that 'diminished responsibility' applied to the facts of his case. You will note that he was not acquitted; he was a murderer,but one who was able to take advantage of that statutory defence which applies only in cases of murder. Had my case of 1966 been one of pursuing a burglar and shooting him dead, the defendant would have been convicted of murder, unless he too could have prayed 'diminished' in aid. The proposal does not change that.

[Sqad]

Fred......right.....confused but..............right.

[Baldric]

http://www.gunrunner.cc/firearms_laws.htm

It appears pump action s/guns are not illegal, but are restricted to 3 shells

[jake-the-peg]

Hmm wikipedia has it at two shells - anyway it was an illegal firearm.

The main point here is that certain people feel that they should have the right to personally punish or avenge themselves any intruder they catch.

The underlying facts off this are unchanged

Defend themselves and their property - Yes
Personally punish intruders - No

Bottom line - you don't have the right to "teach them a lesson" nor should you ever have that

[bazwillrun]

"you don't have the right to "teach them a lesson" nor should you ever have that "

let them come on my property and we'll see about that

[Baldric]

The ruling is, 1 in the chamber and 2 in the magazine maximum.