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.
Do we have the right to defend our homes?
page: 3share:
Right....Section 3 of The Criminal Law Act states that "an individual may use force considered reasonableto prevent harm to himself or another" or
words to that effect. This is the Section and act that the UK Police use when they deploy armed Officers.
Where the problem arises is when people use a knife on an unarmed intruder or a gun against a criminal and can not prove that they were in sufficent fear of their life to justify the level of force used.
Going back to the Tony Martin case. There are a few points to consider here:
1/ He used a weapon and ammunition which he was holding illeagally i.e. a pump action shotgun and ammunition. The shotgun was illegal because it held more than 2 rounds in the magazine and I do not believe that he held a current shotgun certificate.
2/ He could not prove that the intruders were armed or that they intended to commit crime against him that would put him in fear of his life. Indeed his farm house was so run down, that I believe that the 2 criminals involved thought that it was an unoccupied derilict dwelling.
3/ He made the mistake of shooting the criminals as they ran away, killing one and wounding the second. In the eyes of any court, once a person is running away from you how can they cause you harm?
So as you can see, in effect, under current UK law, he left himself wide open to prosecution.
BUT the biggest mistake was that he did not kill the pair of them!. If you are going to use leathful force NEVER leave anyone to testify against you!
Where the problem arises is when people use a knife on an unarmed intruder or a gun against a criminal and can not prove that they were in sufficent fear of their life to justify the level of force used.
Going back to the Tony Martin case. There are a few points to consider here:
1/ He used a weapon and ammunition which he was holding illeagally i.e. a pump action shotgun and ammunition. The shotgun was illegal because it held more than 2 rounds in the magazine and I do not believe that he held a current shotgun certificate.
2/ He could not prove that the intruders were armed or that they intended to commit crime against him that would put him in fear of his life. Indeed his farm house was so run down, that I believe that the 2 criminals involved thought that it was an unoccupied derilict dwelling.
3/ He made the mistake of shooting the criminals as they ran away, killing one and wounding the second. In the eyes of any court, once a person is running away from you how can they cause you harm?
So as you can see, in effect, under current UK law, he left himself wide open to prosecution.
BUT the biggest mistake was that he did not kill the pair of them!. If you are going to use leathful force NEVER leave anyone to testify against you!
Originally posted by instar
What kind of cowardly hero shoots someone in the back, then still has the balls to try and justify it! Glad I live In Australia, the home of common sense and reason!
Where only the criminals have guns - and they know it.
Australia's experiment with disarming law-abiding citizens has been a failure, and you know it.
Also heard that in the UK (where they tried the same thing as Australia) that they're holding neighborhood classes on how to treat gunshot wounds. Who's shootin' who?
Good on you Merkin, the actions of those two scummy thugs proves that the reasonable force argument is null and void. You have no idea what they are
capable of or what their intentions are, in the heat of the moment you defend yourself by any means neccessary, if they happen to die because of it
then tough really. They lost any rights the moment they broke in.
new topics