Householder arrested after suspected burglars shot

[Locutus]

via sda


Tony Blair's Britain

Where the foxes caper unmolested, the government packs your school lunch, and self-defense is no excuse for self-defense.




A householder and his wife have been arrested in Leicestershire after two suspected burglars were hit with shotgun pellets.

The wounded men and two others have also been arrested.

Police said they were alerted by the householder on Sunday , who said a group of men had broken into his home in Welby, Melton Mowbray, and he had fired a legally held shotgun.

One of the suspected raiders called an ambulance. Another went to hospital.

Their injuries are not regarded as life-threatening, police said.


more


BBC News - Householder arrested after suspected burglars shot

 

[PoliticalNick]

 

[MapleDog]

OK it seems over there it is illegal to defend your house,and family.

somehow the US looks much better now.

 

[taxslave]

Just like Canada. This is socialism run amok.

 

[TenPenny]

Are you saying that if you shoot someone, the police should not arrest you, just take your word for it that it was self defence?

 

[taxslave]

Are you saying that if you shoot someone, the police should not arrest you, just take your word for it that it was self defence?

They were breaking into his house. Who is the real criminal and who is the victim?

 

[petros]

Judge Judy and executioner....Everybody gets charged until the courts sort it out. Being arrested is one thing, convicted another.

 

[TenPenny]

They were breaking into his house. Who is the real criminal and who is the victim?

They were breaking into his house when the police arrived?

 

[EagleSmack]

They were breaking into his house when the police arrived?

Are you under the impression that the home owner shot the crooks after the police arrived?

 

[Niflmir]

Just like Canada. This is socialism run amok.

Are you saying that if the police were contracted by victims instead of by society, this would never happen? It seems to me it would just happen more often, as the courts would also be private, and the "victims" could just contract for "Wanted: dead." Non-socialist justice is better known as vigilantism.

It seems that this is how self-defense works in England. It is a defense against conviction, not a defense against going to court. This sort of conservative attitude ensures that the whole Trayvon Martin vs. George Zimmerman controversy would not happen as the evidence is to be outlined in public in court.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defence_in_English_law

 

[MapleDog]

Again some a$$holes invade your home,should you be arrested for defending your life/family,i say "f*** no"

As for the Trayvon Martin thing,its not a good example against self defense,since the shooter,was bigger than the "victim" [i guess he was motivated by racism] for all we know.

 

[L Gilbert]

Yep. It's illegal in Canada to shoot people. Whether you had reasonable grounds to have shot them or not is decided in the courts. It's got nothing to do with political theory and everything to do with law.

 

[TenPenny]

Are you under the impression that the home owner shot the crooks after the police arrived?

No, but for some reason people seem to think that the alleged crooks were breaking in when the police arrived.

I'm assuming that the police arrested the homeowners because, until it is investigated, they only have the word of the homeowners that the guys were breaking in.

But it makes for a less sensational news story that way: "police investigating, instead of taking the word of someone who shot two men"

 

[EagleSmack]

As for the Trayvon Martin thing,its not a good example against self defense,since the shooter,was bigger than the "victim" [i guess he was motivated by racism] for all we know.

Sure... if you're going by Travon's sixth grade picture and not reality.

 

[Niflmir]

Again some a$$holes invade your home,should you be arrested for defending your life/family,i say "f*** no"

As for the Trayvon Martin thing,its not a good example against self defense,since the shooter,was bigger than the "victim" [i guess he was motivated by racism] for all we know.

So I shoot some people near my house, the police arrive and I say they were trying to break in.

Who is supposed to be the judge/jury? The judge and jury, or the police?

 

[MapleDog]

So I shoot some people near my house, the police arrive and I say they were trying to break in.

Who is supposed to be the judge/jury? The judge and jury, or the police?

I did not say shoot them if they are near your house,but if they bust through the door,or come in through the window,and from the home invasion stories there was on the news these last few years,its either you or them.

PS if no one can defend there life or family,then Canada is not so great.

 

[Niflmir]

I did not say shoot them if they are near your house,but if they bust through the door,or come in through the window,and from the home invasion stories there was on the news these last few years,its either you or them.

PS if no one can defend there life or family,then Canada is not so great.

You misunderstand the hypothetical I posed. I said that some people were shot near my house, I did not say how it happened. I then say to the police that they were trying to break in.

Of course you should be able to defend your life, but the question is whether it is up to a judge and jury in front of the public to decide or if it is up to the police in private.

 

[L Gilbert]

I did not say shoot them if they are near your house,but if they bust through the door,or come in through the window,and from the home invasion stories there was on the news these last few years,its either you or them.

PS if no one can defend there life or family,then Canada is not so great.

There's no problem defending your life and property. But Like I said, shooting people is generally illegal. So you will be arrested and if the court thinks you had reasonable grounds to shoot them, you'll be fine.
I don't see the difficulty in understanding that.

 

[TenPenny]

Sure... if you're going by Travon's sixth grade picture and not reality.

Or if you're a dickwad who always wanted to be a cop, and gets off on walking around armed pretending to be a cop like on tv.

 

[Colpy]

Judge Judy and executioner....Everybody gets charged until the courts sort it out. Being arrested is one thing, convicted another.

Petros, we've been around this block before. It seems you do not understand the basics of individual rights.

No charges should be laid unless there is clear evidence a crime has been committed

Self-defense is NOT a crime, so.....unless there is some evidence that the homeowner had stepped way out of line, no charges should be laid.

Charges could always be laid after an investigation.....but not as an automatic thing.

There's no problem defending your life and property. But Like I said, shooting people is generally illegal. So you will be arrested and if the court thinks you had reasonable grounds to shoot them, you'll be fine.
I don't see the difficulty in understanding that.

No problem understanding that.

What I have a problem with is that it flies fully in the face of the traditions of English Common Law.

Your home is your castle. Those who violate that sanctity should do so at their own risk. THAT is English common law, going back hundreds of years.

BTW, in Canada, you are NOT allowed to use lethal force to defend property. If you are in danger of death or grievous bodily harm, lethal force is acceptable, including the use of firearms.