Kill at will? America on trail

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

WOODYTHEWISE

MB Enthusiast
SUPPORTER
Joined
Jul 21, 2011
Messages
4,406
Location
E AYRSHIRE
Car
E 500 Coupe.
Gun politics in the USA. Panorama BBC1 2030hrs.
Should be worth watching, and provide for a good evening of debate.
 
After being told not to go outside and that the Police were on their way, Joe Horn shot one burglar in the back (running away) and one in the left arm and back (also running away).

He was found not guilty of murder as the two were classed as "justifiable homicides".

I'm all for protecting your home and your family etc, but how someone breaking into your neighbours house put your life at risk is beyond me.
 
I still can't get my head around how he was found not guilty for shooting those two.

Last month I saw a proper dodgy young lad snooping around my neighbours cars and then peering over their fence. I banged on my window at him and he scarpered. About half an hour later he was back - this time he let himself into their back garden. I wasn't having that so went outside, shouted "OI" at him and asked him WTF he thought he was doing. He looked very sheepish, said he was waiting for his mate and agreed with me when I suggested that he would probably be better off waiting else where.

At no point did I think about assaulting him, attacking him or shooting him! I'd be typing this from my smuggled phone from my 6'x6' cell if I had of done any of the above too. He wasn't coming into my house and he wasn't threatening me in any way shape or form.

I'm glad we aren't and can't be armed. I'm glad our Police aren't routinely armed too.
 
I have not watched this yet, however, I had a friend who was a member of New Yorks finest. He said if someone breaks into your house and you kill him, no problem, someone breaks into your house and you just alter his bone structure slightly then you could have problems, ergo, make sure you kill him/her/them.
 
I have not watched this yet, however, I had a friend who was a member of New Yorks finest. He said if someone breaks into your house and you kill him, no problem, someone breaks into your house and you just alter his bone structure slightly then you could have problems, ergo, make sure you kill him/her/them.

It gave a small insight into the murky world of lobbying as well.

America is not a country, it's a business.
 
paulyV6 said:
...I'm glad we aren't and can't be armed. I'm glad our Police aren't routinely armed too.

neilrr said:
Different country, different history, different rules.

This pretty much sums it up....
 
The main difference between us the the Americans is not gun ownership rules, that's just a detail. Many people here have guns (for a variety of reasons from hunting to sports shooting etc).

The difference is in our perception of what is allowed and what is not.

In the UK, you may use whatever means available to you when it comes to self defence. But once a burglar is fleeing, that's it - he is no longer posing a danger and you can't shoot him, stab him, punch him, or even slap him as it will be considered assault.

You can carry out a citizens arrest by gently wrestling to the ground - rugby style - but that's about it.

Gun ownership is coincidental to the issue.
 
The main difference between us the the Americans is not gun ownership rules, that's just a detail. Many people here have guns (for a variety of reasons from hunting to sports shooting etc).

Gun ownership is coincidental to the issue.

I disagree on both points.

It's fundamental.

People in this country don't tend to buy firearms for self-protection. But that is one of the major motivations behind many purchases in the UK. One of the reasons they have that motivation is the perception that the bad guys they encounter will be armed. Again that is not the norm here.
 
The original reasons for allowing citizens to arm themselves are sound in that it meant people could oppose an oppressive Government [in the 18th Century.]
I am uncomfortable with UK Governments having the monopoly on lethal force particularly when they have a habit of turning this on individual groups or communities. By example I would look to what happened in Ireland over a 30 year period the 1984/5 miners strike and the various times troops have been used in the near and distant past against strikers and protesters. For this reason I would like to see our volunteer army replaced with something on the lines of the Swiss conscription model, but without the ability to take their guns home with them.
 
It was not clear if Tryvon lived in the gated community or not, if not, what was he doing there, perhaps a 'short cut'. Perhaps this is the reason the shooter questioned him. I am not saying what happened was right, but it would show the shooter had a reason to question Tryvon. The shooter said he was on his back being hit by Tryvon when he shot him, this is the danger of being armed with any kind weapon, you will tend to use it if threatened.
As for the other two who got shot, in my mind that was out and out murder, it was not even a knee jerk reaction, he spent a few moments speaking to the chap on the phone prior to going outside and shooting them.
I no longer have a firearms certificate, when I did (the weapon) was within reach in the bedroom. When I retire for the evening my house is secure, there is no way you could enter in error, if you did, I would not try to disarm or detain you, I would shoot you dead, right or wrong I care not.
 
It was not clear if Tryvon lived in the gated community or not, if not, what was he doing there, perhaps a 'short cut'. Perhaps this is the reason the shooter questioned him. I am not saying what happened was right, but it would show the shooter had a reason to question Tryvon.

He was staying at his fathers house which was in the gated community, that's why he was walking down the street minding his own business.
 
Thanks Lee, must have missed that, puts the whole thing in a different light.
 
paulyV6 said:
I still can't get my head around how he was found not guilty for shooting those two.

.

Because they were scum and he did us all a favour by shooting the intruders to his neighbours house.

He looked after his fellow citizen. The world would be a better place if there were more people like him.
 
Gun ownership is coincidental to the issue.

The programme stated that the number of legally registered guns in the US almost equates to the entire population of the country.

Even if we ignore those that are illegally held, the sheer prevalence of gun ownership means that it can never be seen as merely coincidental.
 
For this reason I would like to see our volunteer army replaced with something on the lines of the Swiss conscription model, but without the ability to take their guns home with them.

When you look at the challenges faced by our forces in Afghanistan and Iraq you realise that things are very difficult for a professional army. An army of teenage conscripts, many of whom would have no aptitude for the rigours of soldiering, would fare far worse.

We ended National Service once the need for manpower for our Empire had passed. And we are currently looking to cut costs by reducing the Army to an unprecedented size rather than spending billions conscripting people that we don't need.
 
The programme stated that the number of legally registered guns in the US almost equates to the entire population of the country.
Wasn't it something like nine guns for every ten Americans?

There has also been an 8% increase in homicides since the introduction of 'Stand your ground', a bill that was co-written by the NRA.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom