Local nincompoop has the temerity to defend property as though he owned it, and is soundly thrashed.
A householder and his wife have been arrested in Leicestershire after two suspected burglars were hit with shotgun pellets.
The wounded men and two others have also been arrested.
They are no doubt awaiting word on their award from The Crown when it’s discovered they’re too disabled to stand in the dole queue.
Police said they were alerted by the householder on Sunday , who said a group of men had broken into his home in Welby, Melton Mowbray, and he had fired a legally held shotgun.
Well see, that’s the first problem, you’re legally only allowed to HOLD the damn thing, no one gave you permission to pull the trigger.
One of the suspected raiders called an ambulance. Another went to hospital.
Their injuries are not regarded as life-threatening, police said.
That’s the second problem. Next time make sure there’s only one side to the story, Mr. Mowbray.
Officers said a man aged 35 and his wife aged 43 had been arrested on suspicion of causing grievous bodily harm.
BEND OVER AND THINK OF HER MAJESTY, PEASANT.
Next on the VERBOTEN!!11! list: fish.
Pity about leicestershire, I rather liked their sauce.
Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
26 Comments!
Makes me wonder if the property owner’s dog bites an intruder, or if the owner soundly thrashes the burglar with his bare hands, or (gasp!) breaks the bastard’s goddam jaw with a closed fist, is that and equally offensive deprivation of the rights of the accused?
How ’bout a Louisville Slugger?
One of the basic tenets of English common law is self defense.
It’s a shame the Brits have thrown away their heritage.
I mean, geeze, it’s like the law would rather see you murdered in your bed than inflict “grievous bodily harm” on your attacker.
I read years ago that defense of one’s home was a workplace hazard for burglars. Yeah, now it’s some kind of labour issue!
What’re burglars gonna do … go on strike?
What’re burglars gonna do … go on strike?
Works for Dick Trumka’s gang.
Doug, the problem is that in the governments eyes, government trumps personal defense.
The victims should roll over, allow themselves to be raped, tortured and murdered, without any resistance, because it is *that important* that the state be allowed to administer “justice”.
The homeowner screwed up when he admitted committing the crime of self defense.
He should have killed them, taken their wallets, and just dumped the bodies.
If the police trace it back to him, just admit you had robbed them, but were forced to shoot them because they committed self-defense.
The homeowner would have gotten off with an ASBO.
So I guess they were wiggling a bit much to be buried in a timely manner on the farm.
Darn birdshot!
I just read through it again and noticed something.
They refer to the guy as a “householder.” Not “homeowner.”
Anyone know if there’s a difference, or is he a renter, or what?
I mean, if the guy owns the home but they just call them a “householder” I think that’s a pretty telling semantic difference.
^ apo,
Yeah, I read elsewhere that they are tenants in the farmhouse.
Shouldn’t make any difference.
In the US, ownership and tenancy are the same thing when defense of domicile is involved.
England: illegal to possess mace, or a taser.
Good luck.
Looks like the Brits have done to the Magna Carta what Barry wants to do to the Constitution.
Meanwhile, in Kentucky …
Doug,
What has happened in the U.K. is they nit-picked their common law of self defense to now mean you have to use only what THEY judge as the absolute minimum needed force to repel the attack.
Of course they judge this from their warm chairs in they safe office and not, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said, with the “uplifted knife upon them”.
Of course doing this while been attacked is preposterous. An impossible level of judgment to expect from anyone.
This has been slowly creeping over the U.K. for decades as they have added a bit now and then. Not so fast to alarm anyone but over time it became the strait jacket it is now.
Why?
To discourage you from defending yourself and thus be more dependent on the state for protection. Simple as that. That way everyone is more dependent on the system for their welfare, be it healthcare, subsistence, or protection.
Not unlike New York City.
Yeah I don’t think The State was doing an adequate amount of protectin’ that couple at the time.
TASERS for Cats. Good idea/bad idea? I need to know. Don’t axe me why.
Mounted on their heads or on their claws?
I would not give a taser to a cat, unless I was *very* confident in their judgement.
Their judgement is pretty predictably sound, and it rarely changes once they reach adulthood: you, as the slave species, will provide a clean litterbox, food on demand, new furniture and draperies to destroy when they wear out the old ones, thorough scratchies (but ONLY when requested, if you please), and never ever dare to question the generosity of small dead critters left on the doorstep.
Failure to adhere to any of the completely reasonable and eminently fair cat rules will get your monkey ass tazed.
WW11 vet who took care of his intruder– I aimed at his chest — he was a big guy with a big chest who was found later in a car—-dead. It doo make a difference.
English citizens did it to themselves! It started with a reasonable Gun Law of 1903! That law said that you could not sell guns to minors and felons. And you had to have a license to buy and possess a pistol.
In 1935, that law was amended to add shotguns. Amended again in 1953 and 1967. This amendment came after 2 masacres, one in Scotland and one in England; one killed 17 and the other about 7….
The citizens went bugfuck and demanded parliment “…Do Something…”.
By that time British Parliment had figured out that people without guns tended 100% to swing to the *Left* and become more dependant on government to keep them safe!!!!!!!
The police fostered the *myth* that “home defense was VIGILANTISM!!!!!!!”
They meant that it was encroaching on their bloody jobs!!!!!!
Right now there is a homeowner who shot and killed a repeat burgler and wounded his thief buddy in a third robbery attempt on his home. He and his wife were sued by the wounded thief and he is still serving a LIFE SENTENCE!!!!!!
Without the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution, we would be exactly like the fucking Brits………………………..
Amen to that, Colonel.
Just outta curiosity, is this the story you were talking about? Because if not, fuck the court system for even entertaining this asshole’s case:
Why my comment –It do make a difference. Deaf ears and silent mouths . We’re almost there.
Apo,
No. The case I referred to happened in England in the 1960s. Poor sod who defended his wife and home is still serving his life sentence!
I love British police TV shows, especially “Foyle`s War”, but they are all *Fiction* about *Fiction*…………meh
apo, ColJ
Yep, that’s why castle-doctrine laws are so important (esp: legal self-defense -> immunity from civil suit and law presumes illegal entry is a threat to the residents).
In the US, it has little to do with the 2nd Amendment. I has to do with the concept of self defense. A gun is just one means of self defense.
In Britain, I think they’re still trying to justify their gun confiscation originally designed to prevent revolution.
(What? Well, yeah, there’s the nice-country fantasist thing, the aristocratic fear of armed peasants, and the unwillingness to recognize that responsible gun possession is not more horrible than slit throats.)
Those who don’t have a good handle on the legal issues should take a local concealed-carry course, even if you don’t plan to carry. The course will cover the legal concepts involved in self defense (the use of deadly force). If nothing else, download those laws from your State dept of justice. Sobering.
THE main rule I tattooed to my small brane, Doug?
DON`T. PULL. YOUR. CCWEAPON. UNLESS. YOU. INTEND. TO. USE. IT!
Doug, COL Jerry, &c: This is why it is Formerly Great Britain.
Another example of the difference between them and us:
Tacoma homeowner shoots would-be burglar in the face
“Tacoma police said a homeowner shot a would-be burglar in the face with a shotgun Tuesday evening when he tried to break into a home through a window.
. . . .
The homeowner has not been arrested.”
Some time back, two miserable dregs tried to break into the home of a widow whose husband was recently buried (they probably got the address from the obits). She was alone with only her baby and a shotgun. They got through the front door. I think one of them survived.
There really was a case, many years back, in New Zealand, there a burglar was injured by a homeowner (who wasn’t supposed to be there), and put in a claim for worker’s compensation. It was, after all, his job.
If you can’t defend yourself, because the law prevents you from doing so, you do not have a right to live.
Effectively, legally, Britons only live as long as it pleases the state and any wandering thugs that they continue to do so.
Without that right, NOTHING matters, they might as well be North Koreans, except that they are temporarily more comfortable.