Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: jonatron

It still applies.

But the right of self defence in British law only justifies the use of deadly force in cases where a person has reason to belief they or someone else is in danger of death or serious injury. You don’t automatically have the right if your property is threatened (but you do if you are also in danger and a lot of the time you will be).

Everyone seems to have heard of the Tony Martin case where he was convicted for killing a burglar - but he was convicted because the burglar was running away at the time, and was no longer a threat - and Martin admitted he was no longer a threat.

You don’t hear anywhere near as often about the numerous cases where a person was found to have acted legally in killing an intruder (such as the Tony Evans case), because most of these are only in the newspaper for a couple of days before it’s clear there will be no legal action - they don’t drag on for weeks in the courts gathering publicity.


17 posted on 09/18/2011 4:50:29 PM PDT by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]


To: naturalman1975
This might be a good time for folks here to review if they have the *Castle Doctrine* adopted in their state.
31 posted on 09/18/2011 5:02:06 PM PDT by Daffynition (“There are no compacts between lions and men, and wolves and lambs have no concord.” ~ Homer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

To: naturalman1975
Everyone seems to have heard of the Tony Martin case where he was convicted for killing a burglar - but he was convicted because the burglar was running away at the time, and was no longer a threat

In this day and age, "running away" doesn't automatically mean that there is no longer a threat. Gone are the days where you can say about someone running away with their tail tucked between their legs "I taught him a lesson", and then you go on about your business.

Many times, and in the more violent places, most of the time, the criminal "runs away" to come back again with more "fellas", more deadly weapons, or what have you.

47 posted on 09/18/2011 5:59:49 PM PDT by PallMal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

To: naturalman1975
Everyone seems to have heard of the Tony Martin case where he was convicted for killing a burglar - but he was convicted because the burglar was running away at the time, and was no longer a threat - and Martin admitted he was no longer a threat.


Perhaps in retrospect he judged that the burglar hadn't been a threat, but it seems to me absurd and callous to punish people for failing to exercise defensive violence in a restrained, proportionate way when their home is invaded. Few people under such circumstances of terror and surprise would be able to live up to such an ideal, and I don't think we have any right to demand that of them, anyway. People like Martin have had a situation forcibly, violently imposed upon them by criminals, and have responded as most of us, if we are honest with ourselves, can imagine ourselves responding if we were suddenly to be thrown into such a situation.

It's dismaying that so many self identified liberals, so eager to show compassion and understanding towards most criminals, turn into sadistic draconians when confronted by some poor terrified sod who shot a burglar in the back when they burst into his home in the dead of night.
49 posted on 09/18/2011 6:15:50 PM PDT by skintight buffoonery
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson