But if you are in danger can be subjective. I might be attacking you, you fend me off, then I'm walking away from you. How do you know I'm not about to grab a rock and chuck it at you? To be safe, you should disable me completely.
House rewiring
Oct 21, 2014
220 Replies
There have been attempts to clarify the law since Martin though. There was a case not long ago where a man injured a pair of burglars with a legally held shotgun. He was not prosecuted.
Not often you come out with something the whole group can agree on ;-)
But being safe is generally considered a sign of weakness.
:-)
IMO if someone burgles your house, you should be able to do what the hell you like with the bastard. He's a criminal and should have no protection from you in law.
Belgrano?
You're going to attack me with a warship?!?
Killing them will stop them burgling someone else.
Well I was thinking of when you knew you had the upper hand. For example you have a large rock held above the guy's head.
I've never heard them called cops before, don't you call them pigs?
If you're better built than him, or know Karate, chances are you win.
That might make you let go.
Why do people treat kids as another species? They're human like us, and should be subject to the same stuff as us.
Why do you want to protect criminals?
You said "particularly", as though killing an adult isn't so bad.
State your reasoning for agreeing.
Yeah right, people who go to jail never reoffend.
They don't reoffend against the public while in jail. They just need to be kept in jail if they are going to reoffend.
How do you know if they will reoffend?
Eyes too close together?
If you know Karate you're likely to end up in court for "assault with a deadly weapon".
Andy
Agreed.
Why, do they steal the locks?
They should pay for themselves by working.
Or not, for self defence with a deadly weapon.
Join the Discussion
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Didn't find your answer?
Ask the community — no account required