Thunderbird Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 Poor bloke would have had had his life on hold for 10 months whilst this came to Court. You can't imagine that level of stress. Exactly, and the thieves get a seventy-five quid fine? Glory be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoggysreels Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 Don't **** with the Welsh Lol .... !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 And the moral is ?? Or don't **** with a bigger guy that has a fence post, just don't be there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
four-wheel-drive Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 Yeah maybe, but then if everyone had a shotgun, could they not just bring their's with them...or are burglars not homeowners? So when exactly would you decide to shoot and which bit are you going to target for your non-mortal shotgun attack? Best avoid the legs just in case you peg the femoral artery, maybe you could ask him to stick his arms out and shoot him in the hands (two shots obviously), while he's rushing forward to attack you, in the dark, with a shotgun. Don't forget it was the burglars who turned up armed with a fence post, it just turned out that they were nowhere good enough for the guy they decided to rob! So what you are saying is if you are not young strong and fit if you get burglars come in to your home you should just lock yourself in your bedroom and if you can phone the police who may or may not decide to turn up at some time in the next few days that shore works for me not. Also if you did not now before the mid 60s you could have a shotgun without all of the bother that we have now and I do not recall loads of people being shot with them when I was young. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overandunder2012 Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 Exactly, and the thieves get a seventy-five quid fine? Glory be. and 2 broken legs and a broken arm im sure everyone heart bleeds for him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oli Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 I couldn't be bothered reading the entire dm article but the picture of the old chav with his legs in plaster is hilarious. The force looks reasonable to me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerCat Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 Good effort, bet he's having a drink tonight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 Sorted. Pest control at its best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jef Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 Great news, should never have come to court in the first place! JF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike737 Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 By coming to court it probably ensures that the thieves cannot claim criminal injuries compensation though... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 I would not like to go through the 10 months he had to endure. Quite simply the law needs clarifying to set out what is acceptable and what is not, in defending your home and family. Something that takes into account that all you own and love is under threat. I understand the American fixation with this. Reasonable force ? My view is that with malice intended on anothers property, you become fair game. Its just establishing why they were there. We should all thank this chap - this is a precedent and protects everyone who is prepared to defend their stuff and homes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88b Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 I would not like to go through the 10 months he had to endure. Quite simply the law needs clarifying. We should all thank this chap - this is a precedent and protects everyone who is prepared to defend their stuff and homes. Well said , this will help the next person who finds them self in the same position as Andrew Woodhouse was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henry d Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 The point that I was trying to make about having a shotgun was that anyone with a brain on seeing the home owner had a shotgun would run like hell and only if the burglars try to attack you would you be forced to shoot and ideally even then in a part of the body that would not result in killing them we are not all young fit people who could defend ourselves in the way that this guy or is it ok for us to be bludgeoned to death or put in hospital. Close range with a shotgun? What are you going to aim at? Their feet? Hands? This would effectively be an amputation and anywhere else would likely cause death. What if they wrestled the gun off you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
four-wheel-drive Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 (edited) Close range with a shotgun? What are you going to aim at? Their feet? Hands? This would effectively be an amputation and anywhere else would likely cause death. What if they wrestled the gun off you? As I see it they should not be there in the first place and anyone who dose not run away if they have a shotgun pointed at them is quite mad. As for the What if they wrestled the gun off you you could say the same about anything that you use to defend yourself that was the classic reason that was given to people about having a knife to defend themselves best to just let them kick you to death that way the bad guy dose not get harmed. Edited January 24, 2014 by four-wheel-drive Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul taylor Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 Home owners are armed so the burglar comes armed so the police are armed. Yeah we become like America. No thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rimfire4969 Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 If you go to someone's property with the intention of stealing you must accept that the owners can defend themselves. I wonder in the long run will more thieving scumm go to a job tooled up to defend themselves from the property owner? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 Compare this verdict to the thug who got a suspended sentence for kicking a lad in the face - whilst the lad was bent down, tying his shoelace. For every proper verdict, there appears to be another which defies belief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penelope Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 Gordon, I would suggest the ratio is greater in favour of the unbelievable. Compare this verdict to the thug who got a suspended sentence for kicking a lad in the face - whilst the lad was bent down, tying his shoelace. For every proper verdict, there appears to be another which defies belief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 Home owners are armed so the burglar comes armed so the police are armed. Does this mean you are suggesting home owners should not arm themselves against intruders for fear it encourages intruders to go 'tooled up'? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 Penelope - you have a fair point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garry52 Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 It shouldn't of gone to court in the first place if they were on his property stealing u get what's coming. But £75 fine why not 6 months inside? well one got 6 weeks but in casts not 6 mths in jail Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 Just because the jury found the individual was found not guilty this time. Doesn't mean another jury would not find someone guilty in a similar case. I think he was guilty of using excessive force , The jury probably did as well, to but decided they were not going to penalise him for defending himself even if he did use excessive force. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul taylor Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 Not at all, god forbid anyone who comes in my home while my family is in, they will suffer the consequence but everyone having a firearm to defend their home is a bad idea in my opinion. Does this mean you are suggesting home owners should not arm themselves against intruders for fear it encourages intruders to go 'tooled up'? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Mongrel- Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 So what you are saying is if you are not young strong and fit if you get burglars come in to your home you should just lock yourself in your bedroom and if you can phone the police who may or may not decide to turn up at some time in the next few days that shore works for me not. Also if you did not now before the mid 60s you could have a shotgun without all of the bother that we have now and I do not recall loads of people being shot with them when I was young. I'm not saying anything. You were the one who suggested every householder should have a shotgun. I just pointed out that would just mean everyone could have a shotgun, kinda negating the threat. You were also the one who said that breaking two legs with a fence post was excessive, but that it was OK to shoot them in the legs with your shotgun. I just pointed out the contradiction and suggested it might not be as easy as you might hope to shoot someone without potentially upping the ante and killing them. It's not the 60's anymore, you can't leave your door unlocked, or let your kids play out late in the dark anymore, time to drag yourself forward 50 years. I'm all for self defence mate, but don't get me wrong, put me in a position where I feel it necessary to physically defend myself or my family, swift and effective will be the keywords. Minimum damage to my opponent will not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 Not at all, god forbid anyone who comes in my home while my family is in, they will suffer the consequence but everyone having a firearm to defend their home is a bad idea in my opinion. Fair enough, but I never mentioned 'firearms'. There are many many ways in which law abiding people can arm themselves other than with firearms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.