It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by intrepid
Btw, I'm not American, Canadian.
Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by blupblup
The point is that I understand the workings in the UK. The Mother country is part of it. As are you.
Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by bigyin
My point is that the focus in the article was a "known" person. And how did the coppers know that she did this? Would peeping Toms call the police and dime themselves out? Just doesn't make sense. Btw, I'm not American, Canadian.
Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by Lillydale
Cool. That makes sense. Possible. However, why did this "warning" get into the news at this time? When there's important legislation being proposed at this time that is related? How many "warnings" are given out in a day? Why did this one make the news?
Originally posted by smyleegrl
reply to post by Lillydale
You are very correct. I know that in the states (where I live) deadly force is only deemed 'appropriate' if you are actually physically attacked. I think there might be some gray areas, with regards to how the prosecuting attorney in your area chooses to pursue the case, but just because they are on your property doesn't give you carte blanche to light 'em up.
But still, if someone comes on my property and is threatening my son or my family with bodily harm, then I'm going to defend him with force. Deadly force, if need be.
Thanks for the response!
Originally posted by Lillydale
[
Sorry I missed this. It does all seem to really end up working out in court as it is so ill defined. We just had a case of a many shooting a kid in his driveway. Apparently the kids were breaking into cars and the man went outside with his gun and shot the kid. The surrounding communities had mixed feelings about it as details of the circumstances were muddled in the media. He did get off but it was tight and it cost him money.
Originally posted by Asktheanimals
Originally posted by Lillydale
[
Sorry I missed this. It does all seem to really end up working out in court as it is so ill defined. We just had a case of a many shooting a kid in his driveway. Apparently the kids were breaking into cars and the man went outside with his gun and shot the kid. The surrounding communities had mixed feelings about it as details of the circumstances were muddled in the media. He did get off but it was tight and it cost him money.
You wouldnt be talking about the guy in Richmond , virginia would you ?
Originally posted by Lillydale
Originally posted by smyleegrl
So are you saying that in your country you are not allowed to defend your property?
I don't understand that at all. I'm not a violent person, but if someone comes onto my property with the intent to harm....I'm breaking out the guns. And I won't be shooting to wound, either.
Seems like the laws actually hinder the citizens more than they do the criminals!
If you live in the U.S. you better be real careful who you shoot and why. I live in the states and if someone walks in here and takes my television in front of me and walks out. I can have him arrested for robbery. If I kill him as he is attempting to take my tv and not obviously trying to kill me, there is a real good chance of me doing time for manslaughter. The U.S. is not much better in some states.
Originally posted by grey580
You live in the wrong state there. Move to Florida or Texas.
And besides. How are you supposed to know the guy stealing your tv doesn't have a knife/gun or will rape/kill you when he realizes someone is home.
just now in the news a lady was killed because she went to go get blankets from storage. all because they wanted her purse.
if i was on the jury in a case where someone defended their property. I would return not guilty or nullify.
www.telegraph.co.uk...