Very interesting thread this is turning out to be.
For me the mitigating circumstance is also the running away. That negates any use of force, shooting someone in the back is highly unreasonable in my opinion. This is where I agree with
4thtimelucky. For me It isn't the fact that he shot burglars, its how he shot them. Which is where our emphasis differs, I think.
If (and I hope this never happens) my flat was burgled and I had access to a pistol (which thanks to the foresight of my govt. I haven't /end sarcasm), it would be the first thing I went for, If upon confronting the burgler he/she turned violent or threatened my family, no hesitation I would pull the trigger. I was also taught from a young age how to shoot and how to be a responsible gun owner, so it would probably be fatal. The difference (IMO) between myself and Tony is he wasn't physically threatened at the time of his pulling the trigger. Thats why he got the time.
As I have stated in a previous post I agree everyone has the right to defend themselves using reasonable force, and I'll make the call at the time i need to use force as to what's reasonable. It will be up to the legal system to say if I was right or wrong.
Quote:
Originally posted by 4thTimeLucky
Examples:
- A man sets a series of near fatal traps (unreasonable force) on their property, intending to inflict debilitating injuries upon trespassers. A person (they could be a burglar or a child fetching their ball) goes on to the property, is injured and is no longer able to walk or work again.
- A black man breaks into a house and is trapped by the owner. The owner then calls the police, who have a grudge against this person also. Both the owners and the police start to beat up the handcuffed offender. (I make him black and involve the police to make analogies with other cases you will be familiar with, where you would probably have no qualms awarding compensation).
|
Case 1 has two parts easily defined -
a) The person with criminal intent got what he/she deserved and deserves NO compensation. - Outside the Law
b) The person involved in an accident only deserves compensation if there is NO warning given to the type of dangers involved in his/her actions. ie. The dangers should be highlighted clearly at all entrances. this is using your word of
Trespass Unlawful interference with another's person, property or rights. (by the way I am not taking into account young children, they would not be expected to pay heed to the warning, and I mean young not 16 yr old kids who know what trespassing is). Setting traps on known ramblers paths or common access land would of course be punishable to the fullest extent of the law.
2. Compensation is warranted but in that situation will be rarely granted. Again I think it was unreasonable force, the threat was over.