Pensioner, 78, arrested for murder after 'stabbing burglar to death in his home'

You trying to make some sort of point, or what?

 

Nope, you still need to have a reasonable threat of bodily harm.

 

That would be impossible to prove and to enforce, because it would be a question of subjectivity.

 

I believe he is pointing out the absurdity of that law. Why is it illegal to have a shotgun with a barrel length under 18" when you can have a handgun shooting shotgun shells with barrels just a couple inches long?

 

In most cases yes, but there are times when the homeowner got into big trouble, say if the criminal is shot in the back or if the homeowner is stupid; I remember one case where the homeowner and his son beat a burglar with baseball bats and taped it. It clearly showed he was helpless as they beat him. Also, some states require the homeowner to retreat if possible before using deadly force.

 

If someone breaks into someone else's home with intent, then the offender deserves everything he gets. The simple fact is that he chose to be there, whereas if he hadn't chosen to, then he wouldn't have suffered the consequences, insofar as whatever form those consequences were, moderate or harsh. We're all responsible for our own actions?

 

I agree, but the justice system certainly managed to convict Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer who was convicted of manslaughter after shooting a burglar he discovered in his home in 1999. Martin was initially convicted of murder, but this was later reduced to manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility.

If someone breaks into a house and gets killed by the homeowner, the homeowner should ALWAYS get the benefit of the doubt, that they took the action that they did because they believed it was the only action they could take to neutralise the threat.

 

modernpaladin - if English isn't your first language, I apologize for that intemperate post.

 

And that was only because of widespread public outrage.

 

I'd put my money on the intruder, but what point are you trying to make by saying that the intruder would most likely win?

 

How do you figure?

 

Well in this case because the intruder is half the age of the house-owner, so I reckon that the latter would have the physical strength advantage?

Sorry, I mean the former.

 

The public was outraged that a piece of human garbage was killed in the act of burglary? Surely you can't be serious. Is the British public outraged this time too?

 

Absolutely. So?

 

Yeah, being caught lying just write some blah blah ending with the next lie.

 

I completely agree with you, but as you see with that 78 year old guy, the government might not agree with you. I try to stay informed about this subject and read stories about people who were arrested after using deadly force in self defense.

 

You and I seem to keep getting our wires crossed. The outrage of the British public was over the evident official victimization of Tony Martin, not in favour of his tormenters. You see, they found it more expedient to 'deal with' the victim rather than his antagonists? This is typical of the lunacy we have to live with in the UK, as I said earlier.

 

Did @Ostap Bender not provide you with some evidence?

 

Yeah, I totally got it wrong - I thought you were saying that he was initially charged with murder because of public outage!

 

which wasn't the case with martin as he shot the 16 year old in the back when he was running away.

There apparently were changes in the law after Martin. The police say they have to go through the process of checking things

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...iled-over-fatal-stabbing-of-suspected-burglar

From what they say there it sounds like the burglar was threatening him with the screwdriver, no doubt expecting to subdue him, and he instead picked up a knife and fatally stabbed him.

This particular burglar seems to have had a thing about going after the elderly

same link. They are still looking for his accomplice.

 

Its not to protect criminals thought is it? It is out of fear of capturing members of the public. And it IS allowed inside the home isn't it?

 

Well something as blatant as shooting someone in the back when they're running away probably doesn't warrant benefit of the doubt. Anyway, I would find it difficult to have any sympathy for any piece of human garbage that invades someones home. They deserve whatever happens to them whether whatever happens is legal or not. You don't break into houses - VERY simple rule!

 

You are supporting the killing of 16 year olds running away. Your choice. What other things are you going to suggest the general public kill people for against the law?

How do we know you are any less garbage that the teens you want killed?

 

Texas law allows using deadly force after dark to stop a thief who is leaving with your property if there is no other way to prevent them from taking your stuff.

 

The scum had been plaguing and intimidating the poor bloke for months, but as per usual the useless effing plod didn't want to know, so he obviously cracked under the psychological strain, fear for his life, and the isolation of being failed by those whom he was paying to protect him - and who of us (alexa?) could say that we wouldn't as well? Think about it because you haven't thought about it very much so far.