Family calls shooting of car thief ‘senseless’

[Renton]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/ap...artin.ukcrime3

This guy shot and killed burglar in his remote farmhouse in the middle of the night.

He got life in prison.

Go team Europe.

(ps if you really look the case, the guy was a nutter and was rightly IMHO given jail)

As usually Europe goes too far. Killing someone who's busted into your place who might have all sorts of machinations for hurting you or your family is an altogether separate thing from what this case was: deadly retribution for theft.

[Savy]

As usually Europe goes too far. Killing someone who's busted into your place who might have all sorts of machinations for hurting you or your family is an altogether separate thing from what this case was: deadly retribution for theft.

The majority of people who burgle houses don't want to cause the occupants any harm whatsoever. They are there for the money, the law has a large distinction between burglary and home invasions.

If I remember correctly the farmer shot the lad in the back too, making it impossible for him to be causing any immediate threat to the farmer. Also killing someone clearly isn't reasonable force the majority of the time.

[Renton]

The majority of people who burgle houses don't want to cause the occupants any harm whatsoever. They are there for the money, the law has a large distinction between burglary and home invasions.

"Majority" is not strong enough for me to decide not to mitigate my risk of death by shooting a person. If only 10% of home burglaries resulted in injury of the occupant then he'd still be justified because no just citizen deserves to roll a ten sided die for his life.

Also, a lot of this is in the eye of the beholder. In a society where we've decided its ok and lawful to own guns (and we have, sorry Europe), we have to be ok with the use of guns and make distinctions for the appropriate measures of self defense. Someone breaking into your home while you are in it poses a threat to your life, statistically speaking, even if the majority poses no threat. While this uncertainty exists, you are justified in defending yourself. As soon as the threat is gone i.e. he took your shit and is on his way, you have no right to mete out retribution as that is the job of the authorities.

[Lukie]

The majority of people who burgle houses don't want to cause the occupants any harm whatsoever. They are there for the money, the law has a large distinction between burglary and home invasions.

lol you must be joking. Why should the risk of that situation be on the person who is innocently in his/her home and not on the person breaking in? (Assuming you are male), pretend you are a female and 2 large men kick down the door to your flat... what's your play here?


Onto Renton's OP...

First there are widely varying laws regarding self defense and even property defense in different jurisdictions. Further there are widely varying interpretations of those laws, and people have different personal opinions on the ethics of those situations.

Personally I think that shooting someone who is driving away in a stolen car is ethically wrong, unless there is some spectacular mitigating circumstances. I'm not sure whether that was a legal shot in that jurisdiction (it wouldn't be in most) but regardless, that is certainly not in the spirit of any self-defense or castle doctrine law. Again, that's my opinion.

This is different than situations like armed robbery where there is both prospects of stolen property and threat of bodily harm. It's the latter point that makes it a self-defense situation. Just speaking in generalities here now

[Savy]

lol you must be joking. Why should the risk of that situation be on the person who is innocently in his/her home and not on the person breaking in? (Assuming you are male), pretend you are a female and 2 large men kick down the door to your flat... what's your play here?

She should be able to defend herself, they pose a threat to her. There is a difference.

The majority of confrontations just result in people needlessly getting hurt (mainly on the homeowners part) especially when guns are involved.

[spoonitnow]

She should be able to defend herself, they pose a threat to her. There is a difference.

The majority of confrontations just result in people needlessly getting hurt (mainly on the homeowners part) especially when guns are involved.

Feminized Europussy spotted.

[Savy]

Feminized Europussy spotted.

Have you never wondered why America is so shit?

[Lukie]

She should be able to defend herself, they pose a threat to her. There is a difference.

The majority of confrontations just result in people needlessly getting hurt (mainly on the homeowners part) especially when guns are involved.

Ok so how do you suggest that she defend herself in that situation? Police are 5-10 minutes away at best, and a baseball bat or pepper spray isn't good enough.

The part about being female was mostly for effect. Take a large, strong, adult male who is a skilled fighter. Such a person would destroy the large majority of the population in a fair, 1 on 1 fight. That person would also be a longshot in a fight against 2 men, and hopelessly lost versus 3 or more. Similarly, he would be hopelessly lost vs 1 man with a large knife, crowbar, or gun. That is reality. What you see in movies is fake.

[spoonitnow]

Have you never wondered why America is so shit?

Feminism and welfare.

[Jack Sawyer]

As usually Europe goes too far. Killing someone who's busted into your place who might have all sorts of machinations for hurting you or your family is an altogether separate thing from what this case was: deadly retribution for theft.

Like Notorious Pistorious