Man who shot burglar in self-defence jailed

Pride of Lions

Pride of Lions

I am now official
I find this a bit ridiculous to be honest. The man is 72, didn't have a licence for the gun, but hey, he's 72 and what was find by the body it was obvious they were there for one thing;


https://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk-news/2017/12/11/man-who-shot-burglar-in-self-defence-jailed/


 
So in a country that does not allow unregistered fire-arms you think it's ridiculous that he's been prosecuted for having an unregistered fire-arm Pride? If that's the case we might as well become the 51st state and be done with it.


 
This does open the wider debate about intention and as such, use of excessive force. If the gun is held illegally, as is the case here, then intention has to be questioned. It could be argued that he had avery intention of shooting anyone who might break into his property, otherwiese why woulld he need the gun? This then raises the question of premeditation and intentional use of excessive force.

I think a very good case could be argued that he should go to prison for manslaughter, the UK is not a gun owning democracy and as such the keeping of such weapons for self defence is not sanctioned, it could therefore be argued that there is no reason to possess the gun without intent to use.

As it is the prosecutors have decided not to procede along these lines but I suspect that things might be different if he were a younger man, deemed otherwise better able to defend himself.


 
He got off lightly in my opinion. 10 months for an unlicensed shotgun?

There was no appetite to prosecute him for manslaughter either. He didn't warn the burglers off with his gun or call the Police until he'd killed one of them. He was out for blood.
 
Agreed BB, as I wrote, there is a very good argument that there was always intent to use the weapon in these circumstances or he'd not have it, so not exactly premeditated but certainly intentional.
 
He is 72. He bought it around 30 years ago. It was purely for self defence. He and his sister had to fight off the intruders. Police allegedly found a wooden mallet, cable ties, a bottle of bleach, a funnel and bolt crimpers in a bag. They also found a plastic bottle full of an accelerant and a tennis ball full of flammable liquid and stuffed with a rag, so the intruders were well prepared, so they should of been prepared to meet the consequences.

I understand it is illegal to hold an unlicensed gun, but under the circumstances, surely a suspended sentence and/or a fine would be sufficient. What are they supposed to do? Ask the intruders to wait while they go and buy a gun to protect themselves or something?



:21:

 
Pride of Lions - 13/12/2017 15:10

What are they supposed to do?
Click to expand...

c'mon now - he could have asked in quite a loud voice if they'd mind putting away the machetes and go and play elsewhere, perhaps having rung the police and seeing if one would likely turn up within the next week or so.

shame he only got one of them really.
slap on the wrist for the unlicensed gun as it was only used for vermin control seems about right.
 
His punishment has nothing to do with the shooting, he was prosecuted and plead guilty to illegally owning a fire arm. So because he used it against a bad guy he is to be let off easy? Bloody ridiculous, he knowingly and intentionally broke a law, treating the situation such that he might have been in the USA, taking advantage of the laws that most on here criticise and deem contributory to the ridiculous levels of gun violence they have over there. You can't have it both ways, unregistered guns are either legal or illegal and if they are illegal it's only right and proper that someone intentionally breaks that law is prosecuted and sentenced accordingly.
 
I'm still shocked that he got off scott free for murder.

The other burgler who escaped but was injured got 10 years.

Why couldn't this guy have got himself a licenced gun? I believe it's not that difficult if you live in the countryside.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.