Farm tenant arrested after burglars

[Tony-DarkGrave]

A farm tenant and his wife who were arrested after two burglars were shot at their isolated home had been the victims of a number of robberies.

Link Telegraph

so a man who has been burgled 2 to 3 times grabs his gun and shoots at the offenders and then he gets arrested because he was defending himself and his wife. it took 40 yrs of picking away at gun rights through the divide and conquer method in the UK, but they have succeeded in dis-arming their society....once that happens, stories like this become commonplace. This is exactly what the liberals have been trying to do in th US for years.

[VJF]

This is why I'm glad I live in the U.S. Most states have either a "make my day" law (if someone breaks into your house and you feel your life is threatened, you have the right to defend yourself without prosecution) or give special circumstances when it comes to self-defense cases.

Altho, some states do have a rule where even if someone is breaking in, you can't harm them no matter what, unless you give them a warning. Even then, they can still arrest you if you harm the burglar and he decides he wants to press charges, which is really messed up.

[Dean]

At 9/3/12 11:46 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: once that happens, stories like this become commonplace.

Wait, what? I've probably heard of less than five stories similar to this over the years here in the UK and they've all involved farmers. Farmers don't possess the guns to protect their homes from intruders, they're more like a farming tool or something.

While I think it's retarded that someone can be convicted for protecting their home I also think opening fire on unarmed intruders is unnecessary and unjustified. Unless the guy who was being robed was in a life threatening situation, he shouldn't have shot anyone. I'm sure firing off a warning shot would have scared off any intruders. There was no need to actually fire at them.

[sharingankakashi13]

I laughed, I wonder if there just as bad as redneck cunts in the US?

[Entice]

At 9/3/12 11:46 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: This is exactly what the liberals have been trying to do in th US for years.

I agree about the situation in the UK, but liberals have not been trying to do this in the US for years. Unless you use some sort of slippery slope fallacy.
There haven't been any strong gun control efforts in recent years and the NRA is insanely powerful with the Republican party and the US in general.

[Lost-Chances]

At 9/3/12 11:46 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: This is exactly what the liberals have been trying to do in th US for years.

DIRTY FUCKING LIBERALS. I swear, if I want to be THE LAW, then I deserve to be THE LAW, especially when I want to use lethal force to solve a problem.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 9/3/12 11:54 AM, Dean wrote:

At 9/3/12 11:46 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: once that happens, stories like this become commonplace.

Wait, what? I've probably heard of less than five stories similar to this over the years here in the UK and they've all involved farmers. Farmers don't possess the guns to protect their homes from intruders, they're more like a farming tool or something.

its more than that there were quite a few in urban areas to. and a firearm as a farming tool? I bet it makes a great shovel to break the ground maybe use it as a hammer to beat in fence posts.

While I think it's retarded that someone can be convicted for protecting their home I also think opening fire on unarmed intruders is unnecessary and unjustified.

typical UK mentality. under UK law a defendant may seek to avoid criminal or civil liability by claiming that they acted in self-defence. This requires the jury to determine whether the defendant believed that force was necessary to defend themselves, their property or to prevent a crime, and that the force used was reasonable

he was totally justified this was the second or third time he was being robbed and it was while he was present is more than
justible means but in the UK you don't have a second amendment or a Castle doctrine so its a very scary situation.

Unless the guy who was being robed was in a life threatening situation, he shouldn't have shot anyone. I'm sure firing off a warning shot would have scared off any intruders. There was no need to actually fire at them.

what let the burglars just ransack you while you stand aside and watch then after they go call the police? thats a lot help they almost take as long as US cops and probably just as ineffective if they didn't catch the assholes when they did it the first two times. and the number one rule of using a firearm if used for self defense if your going to shoot aim for what your hitting.

the robber was lucky he just got a through and through if it was me he wouldn't leave out the door he came.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 9/3/12 05:48 PM, hiddeninthecrowd wrote: that's why you kill the burglar so they can't press charges

and claim it was self-defense life isn't worth living where you are not allowed to defend yourself against those who would surely victimize, harm or possibly kill you.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 9/3/12 06:00 PM, Otto wrote:

At 9/3/12 05:46 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: what let the burglars just ransack you while you stand aside and watch then after they go call the police?

Exactly that. What society should believe things are more important than lives?

right they are so effective, the cops can do anything and protect everyone at all times. your just fooling yourself, I wouldn't let some asshole rob me of the posessions I worked so hard for and sit on the sidelines and let them and possibly let the cops end up with a dead end when you could have the asshole yourself all nice and wrapped up for them when they arrive?

British farmers are all rich wankers anyway take my word for it. I saw that guy's house in the article, don't kid yourself.

not the point, just because they are rich doesn't mean thats ok.

[Wagggs]

At 9/3/12 06:00 PM, Otto wrote: Exactly that. What society should believe things are more important than lives?

While I'm not in total disagreeance, lives are obviously more important that things, I think property owners should have a right to defend their property, and their lives. There's no telling what somebody breaking into your home will do. Once you warn them to leave, they could attack you, and, here in the states where guns are commonplace, the time between a verbal warning and getting shot is not very large. I don't condone killing people, but I think deadly force with a firearm is a justifiable action in many situations.

But, I can only go so far as an American arguing about British law. I'm sure the fact that this happened "over there" and not here makes things, at least a little bit, different.

British farmers are all rich wankers anyway take my word for it. I saw that guy's house in the article, don't kid yourself.

That does not make robbing somebody justifiable.

[Xenomit]

Wait, I didn't fully understand what you said at the end? Did you say liberals were trying to take away our guns?! :O