nesponge
Active Member
wrong... you are perfectly entitled to use a gun in self defence...
You just can't chase after them and shoot them in the back.
wrong... you are perfectly entitled to use a gun in self defence...
You just can't chase after them and shoot them in the back.
I think yu might have a prob there........
If yu keep a gun loaded then I think that's an offence. If you load a gun, then it might be considered a premeditated action and therefore leaves you open to a charge of murder, rather than manslaughter
others with better firearms knowledge will know more...
Pikey
Dummy Ejection Facilitator..
All self defence has to be reasonable and proportionate. So shooting someone for trying to steal a car isn't reasonable or proportional. Before you can shoot someone you have to have reasonable grounds to believe that your life or the lives of those around you is in mortal danger.
Or in short yu need to be able to convince a Jury that shooting the little scroats was a line of last defence. and that the little fooker deserved it..
Suspect not but whatever!
Pikey
Dummy Ejection Facilitator..
I own a landy and have never owned a shotgun or firearm I know loads of landy owners and only a few of them own a gun.
I try not to steal their vehicles where possible
I think yu might have a prob there........
If yu keep a gun loaded then I think that's an offence. If you load a gun, then it might be considered a premeditated action and therefore leaves you open to a charge of murder, rather than manslaughter
others with better firearms knowledge will know more...
Nah none of that is right although any self respecting shooter would never keep a gun loaded. It's just convincing a jury of your intentions. Stealing your car from your drive is not likely to cover you. Breaking in to your home for your keys and putting you and your family in fear certainly would! It's happened but with knives 3 or 4 times in recent months with the crook coming off worse, homeowner initially arrested but then released.
All highly hypothetical on my part I'd add. It would take a major threat for me to take that risk!
nesponge
Active Member
Or in short yu need to be able to convince a Jury that shooting the little scroats was a line of last defence. and that the little fooker deserved it..
This is true... but essentially you need to make it clear you were worried that you and your families lives were in danger and that it was necessary action.
As long as you are not chasing them down the street, the circumstances will lean in your favour.
West Slope Rover
Well-Known Member
I always travel with a hand gun and a rifle/shotgun combo in my Rover. Here in Colorado your vehicle is considered your home in the eyes of the law and can be defended as such.
Pikey
Dummy Ejection Facilitator..
NO you will have to PROVE that you had absolutely no alternative course of action left to you. The Jury will then have to decide whether your actions were reasonable, and whether the average member of public would have acted in the same way. Given the same set of circumstances. The British Legal system does NOT appreciate Vigilante action and comes down very heavily on anyone it suspects of taking the law into it's own hands.
I said a certain type of person and just went on to mention shooters. I meant more outdoorsy, handy, maybe tougher than your average Modeo driver. A mute point I guess given no one wants to risk the safety of there family. I think pride would make me stand up to a would be thief to a certain degree
West Slope Rover
Well-Known Member
Self defense is silly indeed.Just shows how stupid Yank laws are
nesponge
Active Member
copied and pasted from elsewhere
As of 2005, the law has been made clearer to show that self defence is perfectly legal.
The only time where a homeowner can be prosecuted for murder or manslaughter in relation to the death of an intruder is if they kill them outside (however, there was a case where a man killed his neghbour on the driveway to his house, claiming he thought he was an intruder, and was clared of any wrongdoing), where the prosecutor will argue that they should have locked the house to prevent the intruder from re entering; if they pummel the intruder to death with a baseball implement and continue doing it even when the intruder is on the ground unconscious and/or defenceless, at which point the prosecutor will argue they had removed the threat and were acting in a fenzied manner; or if they post-kill place a weapon near the intruder, which makes a harmless self defence action suddenly appear like it could be a pre meditated crime or something.
(Then the police will, obviously, check it wasn't the homeowner's wife's secret lover;and, you could be shocked to find this out, though blood splatter makes it VERY EASY to find out that an intruder was post mortem armed by the homeowner).
The reason the farmer in Norfolk got prosecuted for murder was because he shot the 17yo kid in the back when the intruder was fleeing the property. The brazilian guy who pummelled the intruder to death in 2008 was arrested for the fact he repeatedly struck the guy even after he'd disarmed the threat. The only reason the guy who was recently let off after killing an intruder was ever arrested and questionned in the first place was because he, again, had inflicted multiple wounds on the intruder in question; it, however, transpired that these were necessary, as his assailiant was on drugs and was not being affected by the lesser damaging wounds initially inflicted.
You can, and people have, killed an intruder in the United Kingdom.
With the exception of Texas, the laws are petty much the same in the United States. In California, they are actually harsher.
People here are misinformed about self defence laws and are very ignorant of it.
EDIT:
The farmer in Norfolk, Tony Martin, was also prosecuted because he used an illegally owned gun (his asperger syndrome meant he wasn't allowed to own anything more powerful than a rifle, and yet he used a military issued shotgun on the kid), and because after he shot the boy intruder, he drove around his farm in the car he didn't even possess a licence to drive, desperately searching for him so he could, in his own words, 'chlorinate the gene pool'.
I'm pretty sure that even most American juries would convict somebody as unstable and redneck as Tony Martin.
Usually, in most countries, once you have removed the threat (whether you've killed the intruder or incapacitated them is, actually, irrelevant) you can't use any more force than you already have.
So here's an example.
-A person awakes in the middle of the night in their home somewhere in the UK to find an intruder they hear downstairs; they grab something to hand, which can be anything ranging from a knife to a (legally held) gun. They go downstairs and, without even warning the intruder, kill them.
That is considered reasonable force and is legal under UK common law.
And here's an illegal example.
-A person discovers a burglary in progress; they grab a weapon and wound or kill the intruder. So far their actions have been legal; however, they now decide to teach the intruder a lesson. They kneel down next to the intruder, who is no longer a threat, and either carve their heart out, or repeatedly stab them.
That's illegal.
Source(s):
Reasonable Force is basically a Castle Doctrine; you would have to go extremely on the aggressive against an already incapacitated or fleeing intruder to be deemed criminally responsible for whatever you did.
In the UK, unlike Australia and Canada, there is no longer a 'duty to retreat'. If you are in a place you have a legal right in which to feel secure, such as your own property, or a property to which you have been legally invited, such as a friend's house to house sit or stay the night or whatever, you can do whatever it takes to defend in the instance of an intruder entering.
Contrary to the belief of ignorant Daily Mail propagandised hillbillies, the law here is very much on the side of the homeowner. As well it should.
Only people who become aggressors risk any chance of prosecution; and even then the prosecution is usually for manslaughter rather than murder in those cases.
As of 2005, the law has been made clearer to show that self defence is perfectly legal.
The only time where a homeowner can be prosecuted for murder or manslaughter in relation to the death of an intruder is if they kill them outside (however, there was a case where a man killed his neghbour on the driveway to his house, claiming he thought he was an intruder, and was clared of any wrongdoing), where the prosecutor will argue that they should have locked the house to prevent the intruder from re entering; if they pummel the intruder to death with a baseball implement and continue doing it even when the intruder is on the ground unconscious and/or defenceless, at which point the prosecutor will argue they had removed the threat and were acting in a fenzied manner; or if they post-kill place a weapon near the intruder, which makes a harmless self defence action suddenly appear like it could be a pre meditated crime or something.
(Then the police will, obviously, check it wasn't the homeowner's wife's secret lover;and, you could be shocked to find this out, though blood splatter makes it VERY EASY to find out that an intruder was post mortem armed by the homeowner).
The reason the farmer in Norfolk got prosecuted for murder was because he shot the 17yo kid in the back when the intruder was fleeing the property. The brazilian guy who pummelled the intruder to death in 2008 was arrested for the fact he repeatedly struck the guy even after he'd disarmed the threat. The only reason the guy who was recently let off after killing an intruder was ever arrested and questionned in the first place was because he, again, had inflicted multiple wounds on the intruder in question; it, however, transpired that these were necessary, as his assailiant was on drugs and was not being affected by the lesser damaging wounds initially inflicted.
You can, and people have, killed an intruder in the United Kingdom.
With the exception of Texas, the laws are petty much the same in the United States. In California, they are actually harsher.
People here are misinformed about self defence laws and are very ignorant of it.
EDIT:
The farmer in Norfolk, Tony Martin, was also prosecuted because he used an illegally owned gun (his asperger syndrome meant he wasn't allowed to own anything more powerful than a rifle, and yet he used a military issued shotgun on the kid), and because after he shot the boy intruder, he drove around his farm in the car he didn't even possess a licence to drive, desperately searching for him so he could, in his own words, 'chlorinate the gene pool'.
I'm pretty sure that even most American juries would convict somebody as unstable and redneck as Tony Martin.
Usually, in most countries, once you have removed the threat (whether you've killed the intruder or incapacitated them is, actually, irrelevant) you can't use any more force than you already have.
So here's an example.
-A person awakes in the middle of the night in their home somewhere in the UK to find an intruder they hear downstairs; they grab something to hand, which can be anything ranging from a knife to a (legally held) gun. They go downstairs and, without even warning the intruder, kill them.
That is considered reasonable force and is legal under UK common law.
And here's an illegal example.
-A person discovers a burglary in progress; they grab a weapon and wound or kill the intruder. So far their actions have been legal; however, they now decide to teach the intruder a lesson. They kneel down next to the intruder, who is no longer a threat, and either carve their heart out, or repeatedly stab them.
That's illegal.
Source(s):
Reasonable Force is basically a Castle Doctrine; you would have to go extremely on the aggressive against an already incapacitated or fleeing intruder to be deemed criminally responsible for whatever you did.
In the UK, unlike Australia and Canada, there is no longer a 'duty to retreat'. If you are in a place you have a legal right in which to feel secure, such as your own property, or a property to which you have been legally invited, such as a friend's house to house sit or stay the night or whatever, you can do whatever it takes to defend in the instance of an intruder entering.
Contrary to the belief of ignorant Daily Mail propagandised hillbillies, the law here is very much on the side of the homeowner. As well it should.
Only people who become aggressors risk any chance of prosecution; and even then the prosecution is usually for manslaughter rather than murder in those cases.
Last edited:
Pikey
Dummy Ejection Facilitator..
I'd like a link to that. as it smells very septic?? and at the end of the day is simply one posters opinion (as is mine) the real crunch comes when ya stood over the body and the police arrive..
I still find it difficult to believe that ny person would have a loaded gun close by in a bedroom, without thinking about using it before the event - hence "premeditated"
Pikey
Dummy Ejection Facilitator..
This from a UK Barrister is a much clearer synopis of the law in the UK. As it stands now, and has stood for a very long time.
Self Defence and The Law - Protecting Yourself
Self Defence and The Law - Protecting Yourself
nesponge
Active Member
If you look up the individual aspects of my post you will see they are correct.
Look up "duty to retreat" for example.
While it can help the home-owners defence in court, it is not legally binding in the Uk and you are not obliged to stand down under English Common Law
Duty to retreat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A defendant is entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself, others for whom he is responsible and his property. It must be reasonable
If you have a gun on your property and believe yourself to be sufficiently threatened you are entitled to use it.
I would advise against shooting a burglar if they do not attempt to enter your property, or show a willingness to retreat and/or are obviously not a threat
Look up "duty to retreat" for example.
While it can help the home-owners defence in court, it is not legally binding in the Uk and you are not obliged to stand down under English Common Law
Duty to retreat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A defendant is entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself, others for whom he is responsible and his property. It must be reasonable
If you have a gun on your property and believe yourself to be sufficiently threatened you are entitled to use it.
I would advise against shooting a burglar if they do not attempt to enter your property, or show a willingness to retreat and/or are obviously not a threat
Defender Doc
New Member
Repeat after me: "I felt that my life was under grave and immediate threat m'lud, and I responded with reasonable force in order to protect myself and my family."
