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

Yes, in many cases the chosen path of the criminal is part of their nature.
A scorpion wanted to cross a river but had no means. He begged a frog to carry him over but the frog, the trusting type questioned the scorpion "you'll sting me". The scorpion convinced the frog he wouldn't and so the frog swam with scorpion on his back.
Half way across the scorpion stung the frog. As the frog was dying and the scorpion drowning the frog yelled "but you promised! Why did you do that"? To which with his last gasp the scorpion cried...."because it's my nature"...

People that defend and support criminals IMO dont get that. They live in their own world of delusion like some high level of compassion that causes them to discount their nature, often a nature that is incurable and one that law abiding hard working souls pay a price for.

 

That are just virgins mate. Ammoral not immoral.
They don't know any of these people. have never met a criminal, never been a victim of crime.

So they talk arse and like all arse talkers expect their opinions to be treated equally with the opinions of the wise,
That their "intellect" trumps experience. Which it does not.

 

You seem to be out of your depth. Maybe the incorrect thread heading confused you.

 

No he wouldn't. This has been recently changed to give stronger benefit of the doubt to the homeowner. First thing Cameron did when he took office is update this law.
He has the assumption of innocence not the presumption of guilt.

The Judge in this case said they are to presume in favour of the homeowner. By law.

If some one has been stabbed to death, they are going to investigate. He is going the local nick while they forensics the **** out of him and his house. That is their method.

 

Obviously, you're oblivious to the Tony Martin case. You need to read up kid.

 

He got jailed for having an illegal gun, as i remember it.

They tried to get him for manslaughter but he appealed and got let off? Is that what happened?
End result he had a magasine fed shotgun and no lisence for it. That earns you 5 years round here.

 

1. Nobody HAS to commit burglary (home invasion).

2. Agreed. Burglars shouldn’t exist.

3. If shooting a home invader in the head saves the homeowner or his family member from murder or rape, he is a hero. He also likely prevented future home invasions. HERO.

 

Yup, he was falling foul of the law before the burglars broke in. Plus the prosecution had convinced the jury that it wasn't in self defence.

 

We "Brits" are not scared of anything so have no need for any guns to keep us safe unlike you who thinks that around every corner someone is coming to murder and rape you.

 

https://www.americanrifleman.org/ar...thursday-send-a-gun-to-defend-a-british-home/

Not according to your grandfather.

 

No, self defence is, as the name suggests, a defence to an alleged crime.

 

Did fool yourself. Many if not most cowards are pacifists.

 

Good reference to Entick v Carrington but that case addressed an abuse of the law by the King's officers. The concept of self defence is a little different.

 

Don't be so naive - he'd be charged as an object lesson to others who might follow his example; I'm not saying he'd necessarily be convicted, but the idea would be to send a strong message, the implicit text of it being 'Don't even think about it!' I remember Cameron talking about 'changing the law' in favour of householders, but I don't know whether he got around to doing it.

 

Of course you're scared.

You're SO scared that you believe disarming yourself will stop someone else from killing you.

You're so scared to recognize the fact that evil exists in the world, that you ignore reality itself.

 

Yeah and he didn't need a gun either!

 

FAKE NEWS ALERT!

 

You haven't met my wife's relatives who bred like bunnies around Columbus.

 

Bye, bye.

 

1 - Burglarizing my property means you care not for my rights and will use force to remove them. That will get you shot. Don't want to be shot? Leave me alone.

2 - ideally they would just not **** with me and no harm would come to them thereby. They start ****ing with me and I'm not responsible for their health.

3- Not in every instance, no. It can be necessary at times, sadly. Its necessary less often when people don't break into my home.

Don't want to get shot? Don't play stupid games.

 

That woman deserves a medal.

She drove into those ***holes like a combat vet.

Fun facts: She nailed the guy that ran out the front door and he died on the lawn. One of the other ones ran THROUGH a closed glass patio door to get away and cut himself up badly in the process.

 

Rights mean nothing. They're not important.

 

Hahahahaha! Oh MAN!

 

Tell me why rights is more important than responsibility?

 

1) ARE. Rights (plural) ARE (plural) more important...
2) What responsibility does the criminal who has intentionally and with malice aforethought plotted to deprive me of my rights bear? I did not seek him out. He sought ME in MY place of shelter and safety. MY home. He came to take things he expressly knows are not his, to steal. Breaking the home while I'm there or likely to be there indicate an intention to use force on the homeowner if he deems it necessary.
3) At what point is it acceptable, in your mind, to resist a crime against my person with force?