Jump to content

Guns and self defence


deejay
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

As long as the concepts of 'reasonable force' and 'proportionate response' are used to determine ones actions, these types of debate will go on and on. Ultimately, what is deemed reasonable/proportionate in each case, will be determined by the court. These concepts are, by their very nature, quite vague and are often open to interpretation and discretion by the courts. It is therefore difficult to achieve consistency when dealing with such matters. Personally, if a guy gets shot whilst trying to forcibly steal a firearm from it's lawful owner, I would have little sympathy for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone seriously think they'd have time to unzip, load and fire the gun in self defence in such a scenario ? :| In the extremely unlikely Hollywood version when an initial scuffle results in you knocking one temporarily dazed and then roll down some convenient hill locked in a tug o war with his friend :rolleyes: where you happen to fish out the ammo, bolt and magazine in some Chuck Norris sleight of hand and blast the chap off his feet just as he's reaching for his knife..........................................what the law says would be the last thing on your mind.

 

If you lose your license then at least you know deep down you prolly saved your own life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As your mate reported this to the police,presumably this is being investigated as " attempted aggravated

robbery",at the very least.

He's just shown me the letter he received from Criminal justice system .

He's clearly pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of aggrevated bahavoir with intent to cause fear of/provoke unlawful violence

Edited by deejay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if threatened,you hand your gun over ...only to possibly be shot with it .

I'm with Stuartboy on this. I agree it's a tough scenario , but have to say I'd happily take my chances with the courts , rather than thugs with a gun. They had previous convictions of robbery. Not that this makes any difference.

So if your mate knows they had previous,then he must know them or of them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mixed views on this, which is what i expected . However he wasn't aware of what laws there were, with regards to this , I mean who would be , it's not a regular occurrence, he said he just froze, all he could do was pick his phone up and cal 999 ... they come at him again , wanting the gun, and threatening him , however soon backed off once they heard police on the other end of the phone.

No one knows what there brains would tell them to do unless it actually happened to them .. we're all different and react differently.

 

 

YET!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It reminds me of a story someone told me once.

 

Judge: Mr Smith we accept your plea of self defence. Having been over powered and fearing for your life you grabbed the nearest thing - a brick - to subdue your attacker. We agree that this is reasonable force. What we are questioning Mr Smith, is how did your attacker come to be suffering from his other injuries including bruises a similar shape to your boots?

 

Mr Smith: He must have fallen badly when I clobbered him.

Edited by Benthejockey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where the dogs called Walter and Mitty?

 

I agree. "facts" seem to be drip fed into the tale.

 

To save the OP posing the question "Meaning??" - it isn't hard to work out.

 

Later he was told by certain member of the force that he was within his rights to use the gun in self defence. Seemingly one had a knuckle duster which he told me assumed was a knife at first.

 

two blokes with knuckle dusters

 

They had previous convictions of robbery.

 

Forgot to mention, they had also tried to have there pitbulls set about and kill his dog.

 

he said he just froze, all he could do was pick his phone up and cal 999 ... they come at him again , wanting the gun, and threatening him ,

 

He's just shown me the letter he received from Criminal justice system .

He's clearly pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of aggrevated bahavoir with intent to cause fear of/provoke unlawful violence

 

 

Just getting a bit confused. One had a knuckleduster, which turned out to be two men with knuckledusters.

 

How did he know they had previous convictions for robbery?

 

He managed to fight off two men with knuckledusters and pit bulls, which they tried to set upon him and his previously unmentioned dog, whilst freezing and managing to call the Police. It was good of his would-be robbers / assailants to wait until he phoned the Police and engaged them in conversation.

 

Also good of them to hang around until their arrest.

 

He seems to have been fed a steady stream of information from the Police - advising him he could have used the gun, letting him know about previous robbery convictions and sending him a letter saying that only one of the would-be robbers was being prosecuted.

 

Why only one?

 

I love these tales - full script on first post - not in a million years. :hmm::whistling::lol::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its rather worrying when we get posts about UK licence holders asking if it's ok to use their guns in self defence.However if licenced UK gun owner's thought they had been given the right to use a firearm in defence and not suffer the consequences.Getting more like America every ruddy day.

Edited by Davyo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any time we have a topic along these lines it is about machismo and balls, I suspect a LOT of people here would have an issue pulling the trigger on a person regardless.

 

Just the same David Cameron enlarged the self defence option on firearms, and despite the fact it still isn't easy, you are nowhere near as guilty these days if you use them.

 

Move on, there is no answering this topic!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I agree. "facts" seem to be drip fed into the tale.

 

To save the OP posing the question "Meaning??" - it isn't hard to work out.

 

 

Just getting a bit confused. One had a knuckleduster, which turned out to be two men with knuckledusters.

 

How did he know they had previous convictions for robbery?

 

He managed to fight off two men with knuckledusters and pit bulls, which they tried to set upon him and his previously unmentioned dog, whilst freezing and managing to call the Police. It was good of his would-be robbers / assailants to wait until he phoned the Police and engaged them in conversation.

 

Also good of them to hang around until their arrest.

 

He seems to have been fed a steady stream of information from the Police - advising him he could have used the gun, letting him know about previous robbery convictions and sending him a letter saying that only one of the would-be robbers was being prosecuted.

 

Why only one?

 

I love these tales - full script on first post - not in a million years. :hmm::whistling::lol::lol:

Mmmmm.....all seems a bit disjointed really.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...