Increased Racism on the Site

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
A very collected sheriff dispensing sensible precautionary safety advice in a calm manner to aid the preservation of life and property.



No apologies if it's already been posted.
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
Be nice if that sort of thing caught on across the entire country.
What ?
And have the more peaceable people getting on with their lives without danger, and small businesses and households possibly keeping their livelihoods and property ?

Outlandish idea !
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
What, here in UK?
I don't think it's quite necessary at the moment, but isn't it the case in the UK that you still have the right but no longer the means ?
 

4(T)

LE
I don't think it's quite necessary at the moment, but isn't it the case in the UK that you still have the right but no longer the means ?


You only have the right to use "reasonable force" in defence of yourself or your home.

Good luck figuring that out when confronted with a villain - the law assumes that a normal person can make rational judgements whilst in full emotional overload during an incident.

In the remote chance that a householder does own a firearm, use of that firearm would almost certainly be considered "unreasonable force" and thus result in prosecution of the householder. The idea seems to be that you have to match the perceived level of aggression or potential violence of the intruder to be "reasonable".


Otherwise rising crime in UK is dealt with either by ignoring it, pretending the perpetrators are themselves victims, or by decriminalising the crime. UK subjects are expected to put up with, say, 114,000 vehicles thefts and 422,000 burglaries per year , rather than allow them more vigorous means of protecting their property.
 
You only have the right to use "reasonable force" in defence of yourself or your home.
Not in Jockland if you have a means of escape.
 
You only have the right to use "reasonable force" in defence of yourself or your home.

Good luck figuring that out when confronted with a villain - the law assumes that a normal person can make rational judgements whilst in full emotional overload during an incident.

In the remote chance that a householder does own a firearm, use of that firearm would almost certainly be considered "unreasonable force" and thus result in prosecution of the householder. The idea seems to be that you have to match the perceived level of aggression or potential violence of the intruder to be "reasonable".


Otherwise rising crime in UK is dealt with either by ignoring it, pretending the perpetrators are themselves victims, or by decriminalising the crime. UK subjects are expected to put up with, say, 114,000 vehicles thefts and 422,000 burglaries per year , rather than allow them more vigorous means of protecting their property.
....this is the last one I remember:

BBC News - Welby farm shooting: Raiders from Leicester jailed

.... and I think it was very well handled by Police and Court. And the media, actually.


I took a keen interest as I used to be a firearms licensing officer in Leicestershire.


Generally, that force (then) was supportive of the proper ownership of firearms, but many Forces are overtly or covertly opposed to private ownership of firearms.

Like the old geezer who stabbed the coked up criminal pikey burglar failed by the system gentle soul, juries can be pretty damn good at sifting out the sillier prosecution implications.

Tony Martin got a stripey suntan because shooting someone in the back as he is running away is, on balance, not reasonable.


The real issue with using shotguns in self defense is how quickly you can get to it-they're meant to be locked away!
 
Like the old geezer who stabbed the coked up criminal pikey burglar failed by the system gentle soul, juries can be pretty damn good at sifting out the sillier prosecution implications.
The old geezer was never prosecuted, how was he failed?
 

endure

GCM
You only have the right to use "reasonable force" in defence of yourself or your home.

Good luck figuring that out when confronted with a villain - the law assumes that a normal person can make rational judgements whilst in full emotional overload during an incident.

In the remote chance that a householder does own a firearm, use of that firearm would almost certainly be considered "unreasonable force" and thus result in prosecution of the householder. The idea seems to be that you have to match the perceived level of aggression or potential violence of the intruder to be "reasonable".


Otherwise rising crime in UK is dealt with either by ignoring it, pretending the perpetrators are themselves victims, or by decriminalising the crime. UK subjects are expected to put up with, say, 114,000 vehicles thefts and 422,000 burglaries per year , rather than allow them more vigorous means of protecting their property.

" Does the law protect me? What is 'reasonable force'? Anyone can use reasonable force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime. You are not expected to make fine judgments over the level of force you use in the heat of the moment. So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and in self-defence. This is still the case if you use something to hand as a weapon.

As a general rule, the more extreme the circumstances and the fear felt, the more force you can lawfully use in self-defence. "

" What if the intruder dies?

If you have acted in reasonable self-defence, as described above, and the intruder dies you will still have acted lawfully. Indeed, there are several such cases where the householder has not been prosecuted.

However, if, for example:  having knocked someone unconscious, you then decided to further hurt or kill them to punish them; or  you knew of an intended intruder and set a trap to hurt or to kill them rather than involve the police, you would be "

 
I think Spec-Op was sarcastically referring to the gentleman from the travelling community as the 'failed by the system' one.
I see, but the pikey killer still wasn't prosecuted.
 
I'll let him explain but the way I read his post was that was an example of a jury being sensible.
I dont think a jury was involved.
 
The old geezer was never prosecuted, how was he failed?

I meant the poor, gentle, misunderstood young father who got stabbed.

Right in his great big heart.


Failed by the racist system, he was. Just because he was a sociopathic criminal, somehow that makes it OK to revile him.....
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
A normal attitude that's decried by the left, "The Man" must be forcing these okes to read from a script.

 

Latest Threads

Top