When I first heard about this case, a few days ago, I was glumly convinced that this man would be convicted of manslaughter and sent to prison.
I was wrong:
A company director accused of killing a burglar who had sneaked into his business to steal a lorry has been cleared of manslaughter.
Steven Parkin, 46, of Derby Road, Nottingham, was alleged to have battered Mark Brealey with a pickaxe handle and slashed him with a knife as he fled the site.
It remains to be seen whether or not the Crown intends to pursue any other charges against Mr.Parkin but there is no mention of this either way in the story. All I can say is that I certainly hope not.
Judge Richard Pollard directed the jury to return a verdict of not guilty after a pathologist told the court he could not rule out the possibility death was caused by an accident.
Given the Judge’s direction, I think it is a little premature to assess whether or not this marks any sort of change in the judiciary’s institutional anti-self-defence culture. Probably not. But at least this man is not languishing in prison for defending his property and that is good news.
Call me cynical (or just stupid), but I can’t help but suspect that the low level of publicity surrounding this case is down to the fact that a gun wasn’t involved. Maybe that also explains the verdict.
*shrug* Nowt so queer as folk…
I suspect this says precisely nothing about the judicial attitude to self defense. It does hint that the judiciary are still conducting fair trials. The BBC report you link to is partial in both senses: repeating the sensational allegations at length, without covering the evidence.
But it does say that the aquittal was directed because an accident could not be ruled out–i.e. whether it might hypothetically have been justifiable self-defence or not, the accused couldn’t be proved to have caused the death.
“Steven Parkin, 46, of Derby Road, Nottingham, was alleged to have battered Mark Brealey with a pickaxe handle and slashed him with a knife as he fled the site”
“he could not rule out the possibility death was caused by an accident..”
Either some essential details are missing, or – this is an exmple of how illogical laws demand illogical rulings to reach the just outcome.
I like the result of the trial which seems saner than locking a man up for defending his property. But I have to wonder a little at the depth of the judge’s logic.
Imagine this criminal battered with a pick axe handle and slashed with a knife. Enough to possibly kill him. Of course maybe it didn’t kill him. Maybe he tripped over and knocked his head while being chased from the scene of the crime. In the circumstances most would feel little sympathy for a criminal who had exposed himself to this danger for reasons of theft.
But the judge’s direction was that the fatal injuries might possibly have occured at a time other than while the person was being beaten with an axe handle or when being slashed with a knife. There appears to be little other evidence to suggest this happened, but I do not know all the facts.
So what? Who cares about a dead criminal. Well, personally, I am not too cut up about it, if you’ll excuse the pun. But the problem is that judgements in court set a precedent that can be drawn upon in future cases. “That’s good”, one might think, “it might prevent people being locked up for protecting themselves”. And that is all well and good.
But it is not what the judge said or directed. What the judge did was to bend a law to make sense of the facts. In that case it may have provided a satisfactory result. But image what might happen if the same precedent was applied the “other way around”. Apparently the law is universally applicable.
Say, for example, a criminal thug beat the owner of the property with a pick axe handle and then slashed him with a knife. One would not be surprised if after such an attack the owner died, and one would probably have little doubt as to who the guilty culprit was. Imagine the surprise if a costly lawyer defending the thug quoting the above legal precedent. The judge would be hounded to hell if he accepted the argument. Few would believe that dead owner could possibly have died by some other means, such as tripping up and banging his head while rushing into his house to avoid further attack.
The moral of the story being that, although it happens, it is dangerous to bend the laws to fit the situation. It is much better to change the law to correct such difficult interpretations. Personally speaking I quite liked the judges style in this case. But what I might like and what is logically correct are two different things.
It is too easy to imagine the same logic being applied to let off a genuine murderer who beat and slashed his or her victim. I concur with the barker on this one.
Let me get this straight. You guys believe that if you catch someone burgling your home, you should have the right to kill him with impunity?
Also up today: Brendon Fearon has won the right to sue Tony Martin (Martin shot Fearon when he caught Fearon burgling his house…)
Generally, this is a bad thing, but there is a chance that we will after this know where we stand:
I don’t have much hope of a pro-householders-rights judgement, but at the very least positions will be clarified.
Becky,
“You guys believe that if you catch someone burgling your home, you should have the right to kill him with impunity?”
Well, if that poor and deprived creature which suffered from a troubled childhood, just surrenders and sits down quietly asking for mercy – you should call the police and hand him over. But if he resents your intruding upon his profitable endeavour and threatens you – you defend yourself the best you can and afterwards express regret for the fate of the wretched soul.
If you are in England you must take special precautions to create serious doubts about the causes of the burglar’s misshap.
Becky
My view -and I believe it is fairly widely shared here- is that you should have the right to use whatever means you feel are necessary to defend your self, your family and property against intruders and furthermore, that any burglar entering your property with intent should know that he leaves most of his “rights” at the door.
Becky,
The answer to your question, at least as far as I am concerned, is ‘no’.
However, I do feel that a homeowner under threat should get the benefit of more doubt than is currently granted to them in both theory and practice.
Let me get this straight. You guys believe that if you catch someone burgling your home, you should have the right to kill him with impunity?
No, not if he wears a t-shirt with big block capital letters identifying him as ‘BURGLAR (gov’t certified non-violent under stress levels of 0.8 and below)‘. Without such credentials, I have no idea what a stranger is doing in my home without my permission…or what he’s likely to do to get out of it.
S. Weasel wrote:
No, not if he wears a t-shirt with big block capital letters identifying him as ‘BURGLAR (gov’t certified non-violent under stress levels of 0.8 and below)’.
Don’t you mean certified by EU directive? 🙂
Becky – first, perhaps you could be kind enough to clear up a question for those of on this board who would like to know: Why is it that whenever a mahatama such as yourself, wishes to emphasise that what is being proposed is so far outside their own beatitude that they have to make certain they’ve understood it correctly, they always begin, “Now let me get this straight …”?
Now, in answer to your trembling question, well, yes, actually, if someone so much as sets foot over my threshhold implicitly or explicitly intending me harm, I believe it is my god given right to blow them away. I can understand that this may seem a little harsh to someone as advanced as yourself, but guns cure crime and dead men tell no tales.
Becky,
No I don’t believe that anyone should have the right to kill anyone. I am even against capital punishment, not that some don’t deserve it – but it is a complete shame on everyone when an innocent person is killed by mistake.
In the case quoted, my sincere wish was that the event had never taken place. I wish that the need to steal would dissapear overnight along with the need to physically defend property against such theft. Debating ownership in a civilised manner is better thing…
But I was not debating the right to kill people only the circumstances which occured in this case. Once the recently deceased thief had entered into the scene he can hardly seek legal protection for his actions when none of them were lawful. One might theorise that the owner accused of manslaughter knew of the intended robbery and had lain in wait, with “malice aforethought” in the hope of killing the robber. In these circumstances one might be right to question the outcome of the judges deliberations. Ernestly plotting someones death before good reason has been given is always a risky strategy and not one that I can always agree with.
But in the case quoted the thief did have the option of not tresspassing with the intent to rob. And once that step is taken then how is any person to know what else the thief intends to do or what measures they will take to enforce their plan. One might be sensible at that point to put the normal rules of engagement to one side and instead act as one sees fit.
Which is no more than the dead burgular did in the first place. What is sauce for the goose…..
Well Belle, I don’t believe that all or even most burglars burgle with the thought that if they’re caught at it, they’ll murder the owner. When I once disturbed a burglar at my home, the person ran away. I certainly believe that one has the right to self-defence if one is being attacked or threatened. But a teenager trying to make off with my television set, as was the case with me, didn’t seem to warrant the boy being “blown away”. I agree with David that homeowners deserve some benefit of the doubt, but no, I don’t think I had any god-given right to murder the boy in order to protect my television set.
Well Belle, I don’t believe that all or even most burglars burgle with the thought that if they’re caught at it, they’ll murder the owner.
Not all, or even most. How comforting. Stand down, ladies and gentlemen, only “some” burglars break-and-enter with a willingness to murder.
Becky,
Defenders of the status quo always pose the same question: do you think somebody deserves to die for trying to steal a TV set?
The answer is no but it is an entirely misleading rhetorical question. The real point to address is that a homeowner being confronted with a burglar has no way of knowing what that invaders likely intentions or reactions are going to be. By the time they find out, it may be too late. Therefore it only fair and just in circumstances of home invasion to presume in favour of the householder.
In your case, thankfully, the invader fled. You were lucky.
Mad Dog – your assumption is that once someone has infringed the law, they forego their right to be protected by the law. But why should this be so? In fact, it isn’t legally so. It’s illegal to kill someone except in self-defence, regardless of what crime the person has committed. The punishment of that person’s crime is a separate matter.
Having said that, I accept that household robbery can lead to ambiguous situations where it’s not always clear if the householder is being threatened or not, hence the need for a certain benefit of the doubt. Within limits, though. Surely the shooting of an unarmed man, or a fleeing man (for example) wouldn’t fall into this category.
David: the traditional rhetorical device among anti-self-defense campaigners here has always been the VCR. This well-worn hypothetical had its roots in the eighties, when self-defense was under scrutiny, VCRs were expensive and junkies were making a comeback. Since then, cheap Chinese imports have wreaked havoc with the rhetorical device market, driving some burglarphiles to question the validity of killing intruders for the sake of “granny’s underpants”, “your spare keys” or “that big chest freezer in the basement, the one with all the expensive cuts of beef in it.”
Becky,
Yes. If someone breaks into my house I fully intend to shoot them, and will shoot them in the back if that is the first view presented to me. If you question my reasoning behind that thinking, I suggest you read Massad Ayoob’s book, In the Gravest Extreme. My philosophy is that I–and my family–are a whole lot safer depending on my strength and initiative than depending on the mercy of some criminal scumbag.
Becky,
Yes. If someone breaks into my house I fully intend to shoot them, and will shoot them in the back if that is the first view presented to me. If you question my reasoning behind that thinking, I suggest you read Massad Ayoob’s book, In the Gravest Extreme. My philosophy is that I–and my family–are a whole lot safer depending on my strength and initiative than depending on the mercy of some criminal scumbag.
Becky,
Yes. If someone breaks into my house I fully intend to shoot them, and will shoot them in the back if that is the first view presented to me. If you question my reasoning behind that thinking, I suggest you read Massad Ayoob’s book, In the Gravest Extreme. My philosophy is that I–and my family–are a whole lot safer depending on my strength and initiative than depending on the mercy of some criminal scumbag.
Sorry about the three posts. I’m using someone else’s computer.
David – I believe we agree on the principle – that killing someone to defend your own life is acceptable, whereas killing someone to defend your material possessions is not. But you see any house robbery as grounds for self-defence. But how often do such robberies end in the murder of the householder? Very few, in the UK at least. I don’t think the mere presence of a burglar is adequate grounds for a self-defence argument. Certainly not for shooting dead an unarmed man, for example. You are essentially advocating shooting burglars on sight, which would be a kind of de facto death penalty for burglary.
But how often do such robberies end in the murder of the householder? Very few, in the UK at least.
“Very few” is still ample to presume dangerousness. The burglar, after all, has already committed an act of thoroughly unjustified force by breaking into the home. The homeowner can’t reasonably be expected to know how much the burglar is willing to escalate the violence, or whether he brought weapons beyond whatever he used to break in.
Well Mr Weasel – brawls have been known to happen in bars. When they happen, occasionally someone is killed. Far, far more often than householders being murdered during a house robbery. In that case, if someone is being aggressive towards me in a bar should I then have the right to shoot him dead, on the grounds that he might kill me?
For self-defence to be legal, there has to be a real threat to one’s life, not a hypothetical one.
Becky
You haven’t replied so far to my post, which is your right of course and though I don’t normally do this, I am genuinely curious to know where you find fault with my position so I am going to repeat it. Please feel free to show me where I am wrong.
It is my belief that you should have the right to use whatever means you think are necessary to defend your self, your family and your property against intruders and furthermore that a burglar entering your property with intent should know that he leaves most of his “rights” at the door.
“I believe we agree on the principle – that killing someone to defend your own life is acceptable, whereas killing someone to defend your material possessions is not.”
I’m not so sure about that. First, it assumes that you know that the perp is only after your goods, and it places the burden of making that determination on the wornged party, as others have observed. Where everyone has perfect ESP-based knowledge of the intentions and capabilities of the criminals kicking down their door, the distinction can be upheld and enforced.
In the absence of perfect knowledge, I think homeowners in particular are justified in perforating anyone who breaks into their property, without first being required to conduct an interview as to the perp’s intentions.
And for God’s sake, don’t leave any survivors.
brawls have been known to happen in bars.
The difference is that the burglar, by his very presence, has already committed an act both violent and illegal. Surely you recognize a difference between public and private places?
In that case, if someone is being aggressive towards me in a bar should I then have the right to shoot him dead, on the grounds that he might kill me?
Depends. Define “aggressive”. If aggressive means raising a crowbar in both hands and swinging it at your head in a whistling arc…why, yes. I think a firearm would be a proportional response.
For self-defence to be legal, there has to be a real threat to one’s life, not a hypothetical one.
All threats are hypothetical until they’re critical. As for self defense, it’s not only intrinsically legal, it’s one of the few rights that are indeed rights. God-given, inalienable and not subject to the whims of the state.
Becky,
Your analogy to a bar brawl isn’t correct. In the bar, all participants are equal in every respect, and none has commited a crime before the brawl.
In the burglary case – one party has already commited a violent crime (the break in), and the other is defending his rights. There is no symetry between the two parties as in the bar, so other rules apply.
As a practical matter, I wish every potential burglar would fear for his life. Society should not go out of it’s way to reduce the hazards of his occupation.
Dave, this is my respose to your post:
If have you a reasonable belief that you or your family are under threat of death or serious bodily harm, yes I do believe you have the right to respond in a way which might cause the death of, or serious bodily harm to the thief. With regards to purely protecting your property, I think the right to respond is much diminished. Let’s say a thief is making off with some of your property. He’s running away and his hands are full with the family silver, your laptop, the contents of your safe, whatever. Do you have the right to chase after him and knock him to the ground in order to recover your goods? Absolutely. Do you have the right to shoot him in the back to recover your property? No. I would want anyone who did that prosecuted for manslaughter at least.
Does the thief “leave his rights at the door”? I answered that earlier. No, your legal right to kill someone in self-defence is to do with whether that person is threatening you, not to do with whether he has stolen your property, or committed any other offence. I do not accept the argument that because someone has stolen goods from you, he is automatically a threat to your person. I do accept that catching someone red-handed makes for an ambiguous situation where some benefit of the doubt can be given to the householder. But if the burglar is clearly not a physical threat, i.e. he is running away or he is clearly unarmed when you are armed, then you shouldn’t be able to fall back on a self-defence argument.
Becky
It is notoriously difficult to define what is reasonable in these potentially but not inevitably -life threatening situations .The law as it stands in the UK requires the householder to make a judgment as to what is “reasonable” force in defending his family and property.Using anything above what a judge, some months later in the calm of a courtroom, decides is reasonable leaves you open to prosecution.This is just plain wrong.A normal law abiding citizen interrupted unexpectedly in the security of his house is not in any position to judge what is reasonable force.All he or she knows is that a criminal is on the loose in his/her house .There is no chance to conduct an interview to decide whether he is dangerous or not .That law abiding citizen should be able to act to defend himself and his own in the certain knowledge that he is protected by the law of the land.
This is where you get the problem.Essentially you have to decide which is most objectionable.That a few burglars get killed or injured in the course of their “trade” or that householders are unable to adequately defend themselves against intruders who may be only intent on burglary but may just as likely be violent rapists.They don’t usually carry CV’s
At the moment vizTony Martin,Brendan Fearon et al the balance in the UK is all with the criminal.
I believe it needs to change to favour the law abiding.
Becky – Think of it as a self-inflicted injustry. The burglar decided to commit suicide by entering my premises.
When one encounters a burglar, who has, after all, used violence by breaking windows or locks to get in, in one’s home, one has absolutely no means of knowing what that person’s intent is. All one knows is, there is an intruder, in all probability considerably stronger than oneself and with a longer arm reach, who doesn’t accept the law in one’s home. There is no time for thought. The intruder accepted that risk when he chose to break in.
It’s such an uphill battle that even Mark Steyn appears to have put it in abeyance, but in the US, the states with the lowest crime rates are states that encourage householders to keep guns. Texas has an enviably low crime rates – Britain should be so lucky -, as does New Hampshire. Would-be burglars weigh up the risks. If the chances are 98% that there will be someone on the other side of the door pointing a gun at it, they seem to get demotivated and not bother. Consider too that the law supports the homeowner.
Becky,
It’s a well-accepted statistic that there are far more “hot” robberies (robberies where the occupants are home at the time of the crime) in gun-deprived Europe than there are in the well-armed U.S. Since most burglars are young males, I suspect, and have heard much anecdotal evidence to support the argument, that a lot of those “hot” robberies include rape when the opportunity presents itself.
Massad Ayoob (whose police/firearms training background you should look up if you are not familiar with his writings) states that any burglar who isn’t making as rapid an exit as possible, once he realizes someone is home, has more than just burglary on his mind. In dealing with such an individual, should a homeowner make what the police call “the challenge” to such a burglar (“Freeze,” etc.), the odds are that the criminal will, rather than drop his weapon, turn and shoot the homeowner with it. Since the response time for an adrenalin-pumped criminal is generally quicker than that of someone recently awakened, the most likely occurrence is that the homeowner will be shot and possibly killed. This leaves the burglar/potential rapist free to continue on with whatever depredations he might choose to inflict upon the innocent residents of the home.
That doesn’t seem acceptable to me in the slightest. Since the death of a criminal is, in my opinion, no loss whatsoever to society, I have no sympathy for anyone who, in committing a felony crime, suffers injuries up to and including death. I would applaud the citizen who disposed of the human waste as being public-spirited enough to make certain that the particular predator in question will never again have the opportunity to prey on other innocent people. If you think this is a horribly violent and hardened way to think about criminals and criminality, I invite you to speak to a stranger rape victim sometime. It might very well be a seriously enlightening experience.
If you want to suggest that one should call the police and have them handle such problems, I will quote you George Will’s comment on police protection: “Call for a policeman, an ambulance, and a pizza at the same time and see who gets there first.” In the U.S., my money is on the pizza. In the U.K., the police certainly didn’t seem to be much use to Tony Martin.
I’ve had American policemen tell me that any citizen who believes that they exist to protect him/her is dreaming. They are overworked, undermanned, and often demoralized due to the revolving-door criminal justice system and the liberal judiciary. Most American policemen at the street level are strong supporters of the Second Amendment because they KNOW they can’t protect the citizenry from the predators. In the final analysis, this is one situation where libertarian principles come to the absolute fore. If you don’t look out for your interests, no one else will.
In response to Becky’s liberal theories, let me recount a real-life incident.
Not more than a year ago, while my brother, his wife and their young family were asleep in their beds, a burglar entered their house, ransacked it and stole one of their cars.
The police who came to investigate specifically told him that it was ‘lucky for him’ that he had not gone downstairs to confront the little toerag who had broken into his house, as the vast majority of burglars (remember, this is the policeman’s expert opinion) are both armed (with knives or sharpened screwdrivers) and almost always drugged up to the gills, with plenty of adrenalin to boot.
If someone breaks into your home, you have a perfect right to assume that they are in that condition and that they mean you extreme harm. That gives you a perfect right to shoot first.
Will someone please explain to me what it is that liberals find so appealing about smack or crack-addicted burglars?
Will someone please explain to me what it is that liberals find so appealing about smack or crack-addicted burglars?
Oh, well, liberals live in the Bizarro Universe. Where snakes and spiders are precious, fascinating creatures to be protected at all costs. Where you have to teach school children about sex as young as possible, so they won’t have any (but you better not teach them about guns, or they’ll shoot up the place!). Where soulful, smack-addicted burglars with good cheekbones are worth more than pudgy shipping clerks who mind their own business and pay their taxes.
It’s a simple formula. Is it counterintuitive? Would your parents disapprove?
G Cooper and S. Weasel,
All agreed except that these people are not ‘liberals’. They are socialists and, in some cases, neo-communists.
I find it worrying that an awful lot of the commentators who describe themselves here and elasewhere as “libertarian” are unhealthily keen on violence, provided it is used by them or those of whom they approve.
Not sure whether it is more or less worrying here that so many are willfully misinterpreting Becky’s argument, effectively conducting both sides of the discussion themselves, rather than engaging with her views.
We really do know too little about this case to draw any useful lesson from it, either way.
David Carr – Well said!
Guy Herbert – No, no! Violence is the by-product, not the issue. Libertarians are keen on defending our lives and keeping our rightful property. Unfortunately, this sometimes means having to explain something to an aggressor in a way that deprives him of his own life.
Becky’s views have become all too familiar over the past 30 years or so and speaking for myself and only myself, I find them wilfully manipulative, impractical and smug. Would you personally really rather trust a politically correct, unmotivated police force to defend you and your property? Or would you rather trust yourself?
You say we really do know “too little about this case” … Mr Herbert, we are not discussing “this case”. We are discussing the right of freeborn Britons to defend themselves and their property. Britain, in case you hadn’t noticed, is morphing into a police state.
Those above who have remarked on the problems faced by a UK householder confronted with a burglar are dead right, but I’d add more. There are perhaps three issues here: presumptions of guilt/innocence, the concept of “reasonable force” and the right to self defence.
If you injure or even kill an intruder in your home, there is no presumption in your favour whatsoever: you end up in court on exactly the same basis as a hardened criminal with a long record of robbery and/or violent crime. There is a long and complex history of the right to defend yourself and your property in this country, and you can indeed be exonerated by a court – after an arduous and morale-sapping process which might well damage you financially and otherwise. It’s a gamble, and I’m tempted to say a matter of luck. Linked to this is the “reasonable force” thing – again, grossly unfair: it requires of us that, awoken perhaps in the middle of the night, we are supposed (never having taken any training in martial arts, maybe never having hit anyone since our schooldays) to make cool, complex judgements about exactly whether, when, where and how to fight an intruder using whatever blunt or sharp instrument we might have picked up. If we get it wrong, or if the media/courts don’t like us, we can end up dead, injured, minus our property, and/or imprisoned with our livelihood & reputation ruined. This goes in spades if we’ve used a gun…
Apropos guns, US folk might be interested to know that it is perfectly permissible in law to have a gun for self defence in the UK. The law allows us to apply for a Firearm Certificate for self defence – yup, amazing. But (aha!) we won’t get one. Such a “good reason” as it is described has to be approved by the Home Secretary, and the police won’t even accept your application no matter how hard you insist it’s your right to do so. Unless you live in N.Ireland, where large numbers (thought to be in the thousands) of people are licenced to carry a personal protection weapon. In mainland UK, the Home Office made an administrative decision in the late 1940s or early ’50s (forget which) not to consider applications from citizens wishing to have a gun for self defence – never debated by Parliament, no change in the law, the officials just decided…
On the subject of guns, I had just returned to Britain after a long absence when the government made the rash, not to say hysterical, decision to ban pistols. What astonished me was how meekly the British accepted it, and how many thousands went voluntarily to give up their means of self defence to the police. I have been equally surprised at how many respond to “amnesties”. Why were they so supine? Why did they obey? What was the government going to do, send tanks up Acacia Avenue? There ought to have been a popular revolt, as there would most assuredly have been in Texas if any politician had been suicidal enough to suggest Texans might like to give up their guns and leave their self-defence to the state. Newly arrived back in Britain, it struck me at as grotesque that the nation’s right to self-defence was being bent to the will of that weird Snowdrop woman who didn’t even have any personal involvement in the school massacre. That was my first indication that Britain had, in my absence, turned into a country of “feelings”.
L.Belle, you’re being too hard on us. Your post echoes many misinformed comments I’ve seen from Americans, relating to the 1997 Act which almost completely banned the lawful possession of handguns here. You refer to the “thousands (who) went voluntarily to give up their means of self defence to the police”, as if this was some supine act of spinelessness. You have to remember that (a) these were not guns that (at least in law) were held for self defence: if the police were able to argue with even the least shred of credibility that someone was applying for a Firearm Certificate so he could defend himself with a gun, they’d come down on him like a ton of bricks – see my post above. And (b) these were guns that were all REGISTERED, i.e. lawfully held on Firearms Certificates granted by the police. Any failure to hand in one’s registered weapon would have brought an armed response team (like SWAT) to your door pronto. All firearms held by the law-abiding have been registered since 1920: there was nothing meek or spineless about complying with the 1997 Act – there was no choice. People resisted in what little ways they could: some exported their weapons to be looked after by friends or gun-clubs in foreign countries; one guy I know didn’t hand in his Taurus auto, but exploited a tiny gap in the law to destroy it himself with an angle grinder and hacksaw, then handed the police a bag of steel shavings & rubbish. They gave him a hard time… A friend, when our semi-auto rifles were banned in 1988, put a very subtle bend in the barrel of his AR15 so that if it was “borrowed” by the police instead of being destroyed, it would blow up… I just sold my Colt Commander in advance, to avoid the humiliation of queueing up at the police station to hand it in.
ps it’s five years in prison for illegal possession of a handgun – not that it bothers the criminals.
I find Guy Herbert’s remarks astonishing. Reading back, it seems to me that Becky’s points (such as they are) have been tackled head-on.
Her original post said : “Let me get this straight. You guys believe that if you catch someone burgling your home, you should have the right to kill him with impunity?”
I would suggest this has been more than adequately addressed.
You might dislike the way so many of us here feel that, on the whole, the answer is “yes” but please don’t accuse of us debating among ourselves, simply because we disagree with you and have developed the issue further – as inevitably happens in lengthy threads.
David: I tend not to cling to words when popular usage morphs them beyond recognition. I have not, for example, been ‘madly gay’ in…years and years.
I might be a bit late getting my comments in, having just read the above.
If I’m ever in a situation like Steve Parkin was I’ll be glad to have either G. Cooper, T. Hartin, David Fordwych, S. Weasel or Dan McWiggins with me.
If I ever catch anyone on my property I won’t need them believe me.
Three Cheers for Tony Martin
(stick to your guns boy)
Becky……..*^$! #**
Pete
nice one stevie boy …….I always thought you looked like john wayne in your hat !!!!
jim clark & mally moxon