Pages: 1

 

2011-06-29 09:11:50
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6239|Vortex Ring State
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13957587

seems logical.

I love his example though

"If an old lady finds she's got an 18 year old burgling her house and she picks up a kitchen knife and sticks it in him she has not committed a criminal offence and we will make that clear."

Last edited by Trotskygrad (2011-06-29 09:12:30)

2011-06-29 09:13:11
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5499|foggy bottom
people who dont live in california got it in their head that california doesnt allow you to shoot guns.  cali has some better firearms las than some states in the south.
Tu Stultus Es
2011-06-29 09:21:33
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6239|Vortex Ring State

eleven bravo wrote:

people who dont live in california got it in their head that california doesnt allow you to shoot guns.  cali has some better firearms las than some states in the south.
I thought it was the state in which a burglar successfully sued someone for shooting them in a burglary?

this sin't about gun laws, this is about self-defense.
2011-06-29 12:32:08
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6889

Even if the law already stated this, I don't think it's a bad thing at all that they clarify this. People in the UK are all under the impression that you can't defend your house if there's a burglar in it, and that they'll sue you if they trip over your carpet. I blame the Daily Mail et al.
2011-06-29 20:35:40
cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|6936|NJ
I think you can shot them in the face 30 times but you get them once in the back that's when the shit goes down.
2011-06-30 01:22:56
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6346|eXtreme to the maX

Trotskygrad wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13957587

seems logical.

I love his example though

"If an old lady finds she's got an 18 year old burgling her house and she picks up a kitchen knife and sticks it in him she has not committed a criminal offence and we will make that clear."
Nothing is changing, all he is doing is clarifying the law as it currently stands.

Whats important I guess is explaining this to the Police, who invariably come down on the wrong side with the argument "we can't have people taking the law into their own hands". The fact is the law is in the hands of the people and always has been, the Police just don't like it.

Where he's wrong is in saying no-one can ever shoot a burglar - its up to the jury to decide the definition of 'reasonable force' in the circumstances at the time.
Fuck Israel
2011-06-30 04:54:17
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6889

Dilbert_X wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13957587

seems logical.

I love his example though

"If an old lady finds she's got an 18 year old burgling her house and she picks up a kitchen knife and sticks it in him she has not committed a criminal offence and we will make that clear."
Nothing is changing, all he is doing is clarifying the law as it currently stands.

Whats important I guess is explaining this to the Police, who invariably come down on the wrong side with the argument "we can't have people taking the law into their own hands". The fact is the law is in the hands of the people and always has been, the Police just don't like it.

Where he's wrong is in saying no-one can ever shoot a burglar - its up to the jury to decide the definition of 'reasonable force' in the circumstances at the time.
He didn't say that, he said:

Mr Clarke said legal protection would not extend to anyone shooting a burglar in the back when they were fleeing
2011-06-30 05:04:36
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6346|eXtreme to the maX
I saw it reported differently, oh well.

Still, if the jury decides shooting someone in the back is justified its out of Clarke's hands.
Fuck Israel

 

Pages: 1

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard