Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Would you shoot a burglar?


The law in now on the side of the victim of a burglary .

If you caught one or more robbing your possessions, would you challenge and shoot them?

A burglar is giving justification by being in your home and in the process of removing your possessions that you have bought with the money you earned during your life time.


Having been taught during my army service to shoot the enemy on sight, not knowing that person or having any other good reason to shoot him you would do it.


My reaction? I have no about it.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/25412-would-you-shoot-a-burglar/
Share on other sites

I don't have a gun.

But I would use sufficient force to ensure that my family and possessions remain safe, without wasting time about the consequences for the intruder.

I think this is the main difference in the law now, it's not about 'reasonable' which was a victim-centric posture, it's now about whatever you feel at the time is necessary to remove the danger (I think).

I would shoot a burglar, non-fatally, tie him to the kitchen table and then engage upon a long night of dialogue during which it slowly becomes apparent that all is not as it seems. Traditional roles of invader and invaded, colonial and colonised, would be re-assessed, and there would be a surprising ending.


You will be able to hear the results in a 30 minute play on Radio 4 Extra at 09:45 and 17:40 on a Tuesday in November. In a decision in no way affected by available budget, both parts will be played by the same actor.

When I lived in Boston my girlfriend from Vermont (the parents owned a mountain, with large property on it) related the story that her Father had told her to walk an intruder at gunpoint (if apprehended successfully) to a doorway, get him to turn around at distance, then shoot him in the face.

The idea being that he'd likely die and they'd be less liable to law suits, especially since they could argue he was coming towads them at the time the trigger was fired.

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> We're not farmers, we don't have shotguns in our

> homes. And pistols are illegal.

>

> Surely a more realistic question would be whether

> you'd be willing to whack someone over the head

> with a blunt object (cricket bat, hammer, table

> leg, etc).


Table leg ? Where would you find one of those?

You're being a bit nit-picky Mick; I'm sure that a chair leg, armoire door (handle proud), or the retaining bracket of a (stolen) Corby trouser press would serve.


I would favour the front leg of a velvet chaise longue (turned beech with a stained finish) for maximum thuddage combined with a compactness that allows for optimum swing.

El Pibe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I find a nice cup of tea can solve any situation.


A nice cup of tea and the Guardian magazine. You can read it to him, he most likely can't read. And if he did, he wouldn't choose the Guardian.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I edited my post because I couldn't be sure we were talking about politicians and I couldn't be bothered to read it all back. But it was off the back of a thread discussing labour councillors, so it went without saying really and I should have left it.  What I said was 'There's something very aggressive about language like that - it's not big and it's not clever. Some of the angry energy that comes from the far left is pretty self-defeating.' (In relation to a labour councillor rather immaturely, in my view, wearing a jumper that read 'fuck the Tories').  But I don't recall saying that "violent rhetoric" is exclusively the domain of the left wing. So I do think you're taking a bit of a bit of leap here. 
    • You literally just edited your earlier reply to remove the point you made about it being “politicians”.  Then you call me pathetic.    I’m  not trying to say you approve any of the ugly right wing nonsense.  But I AM Saying your earlier post suggesting  violent rhetoric being “left wing” was one-sided and incorrect 
    • I never said that. Saying I don’t like some of the rhetoric coming from the left doesn’t mean I approve of Farage et al saying that Afghans being brought here to protect their lives and thank them for their service means there is an incalculable threat to women.    Anything to score a cheap point. It’s pretty pathetic. 
    • To be fair we are as hosed as the majority of other countries post-Covid. The problem is Labour promised way too much and leant in on the we need change and we will deliver it and it was clear to anyone with a modicum of sense that no change was going to happen quickly and actually taking the reigns may have been a massive poison- chalice. As Labour are finding to their cost - there are no easy answers.  A wealth tax seems straightforward but look how Labour have U-turned on elements of non-dom - why? Because the super rich started leaving the country in their droves and whilst we all may want them to pay more tax they already pay a big chunk already and the government saw there was a problem.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...