WTF your honour?!

[Bellow]

2) To legally possess a modern shotgun in the UK you are required to obtain a shotgun certificate. You are of course at liberty to do so if you wish Bellow. You might use your gun for hunting rabbits, pheasants, pigeons etc...on your own land or other land where you have gained permission from the landowner or you might use it for clay pigeon shooting.

So country dwellers can protect themselves, but not city dwellers?
(Can I make a case for rabbit hunting in a city?)

Now, if you heard people breaking into your house, and from other reports it was an aggravated burglary so at least one of the FOUR assailants was carrying a weapon. What would you do if you had the option of quickly laying your hands on a 12 gauge and a couple of cartridges? I know what I'd do.

Me too. I'd become an overnight celebrity for my ability to ascertain the number of people who had entered and that they were armed - from another room without even having seen them. What an incredible gift!

BTW, four people, two cartridges - sure you have this thought out as well as you'd like to think?

 

[Nik_Endeavour]

Two questions:

One: How did they so quickly access a loaded weapon from a locked cabinet?

Two: If shooting is legitimate in this instance why can't we all have firearms for this purpose? Are only those who feel the need to shoot an occasional rabbit allowed firearms as self defence/defence of property?

A1:

Not hard to load a double barrel you know, especially if the locked cabinet is close to a bedroom. I side with the couple on this one

A2:

See the US for reference to that point (on gun control) but isolated farms are probably at the verge of the emergency vehicles. Response time for police to respond to a burglary in progress in a middle of a heavy populated are is much shorter than the response time of a rural constabulary with less resources and a bigger area to cover.

 

[Spinal]

A2:

See the US for reference to that point (on gun control) but isolated farms are probably at the verge of the emergency vehicles. Response time for police to respond to a burglary in progress in a middle of a heavy populated are is much shorter than the response time of a rural constabulary with less resources and a bigger area to cover.

Tell that to the police who took a quarter of an hour to answer my 999 call, and then only turned up the morning after following a burglary where the tw*t ran out the kitchen door when I found him in my room.

Just for the record, I don't live on an isolated farm either... but 1.4 miles (according to google) from a Met station ...

I wonder if I can go rabbit hunting in my back yard...
M.

 

[camerafodder]

So country dwellers can protect themselves, but not city dwellers?
(Can I make a case for rabbit hunting in a city?)


Me too. I'd become an overnight celebrity for my ability to ascertain the number of people who had entered and that they were armed - from another room without even having seen them. What an incredible gift!

BTW, four people, two cartridges - sure you have this thought out as well as you'd like to think?

That's not what I said. You can still own a shotgun in town and go shooting in the country. You don't have to hunt, you can shoot clays, its an olympic sport you know, we won a gold recently.

You're also taking my point about the intruders out of context. Of course you wouldn't know how many there were, and as has already been mentioned it doesnt take long to shove a couple of fresh cartridges up the spout. If you heard someone breaking into your house wouldn't you grab the most powerful tool to hand that might help you protect yourself and your family? Do you seriously think anyone will be hanging around after the first two shots? The noise alone would be stunning. Why don't we speculate what might have happened to the couple had they not had a gun? Would they have had tea and cakes with their new friends Nobby, Fingers, Mac and Slasher?

 

[219]

Actually, no. It is correct to address most circuit Judges as "Your Honour" in the UK. "My Lord" (or Lady) is generally reserved for High Court / Court of Appeal Judges. High Court Masters are addressed as "Master", and lowly Magistrates or District Judges, Sir or Madam.

Hmmm , perhaps it is different in England , than here in Scotland ?

When I underwent witness training in connection with my job ( in case I was ever called to give evidence ; been cited many times and sat in the witness room , but never actually called ) , I was told that 'Your Honour' was an American thing , and that Judges were 'My Lord' ( or indeed 'My Lady' as appropriate ) , or in the case of Sheriffs or Mags 'Sir' or 'Madam' . This very situation came up in the mock trials we 'role-played' in , and one of my colleagues was lampooned by the advocates giving our training for calling the 'judge' 'Your Honour' !

Since the OP used the term 'Judge' , I took it to be a 'proper' Judge .

 

[o2drive]

I'm sorry you feel that "do gooders" is an all in-compassing term. BUT as other members have said, if you don't prevent burglars from re offending then burglars will carry on and on.

Placing them in prison seems only help them improve their "skills" and will not prevent them re-offending.

 

[Bellow]

That's not what I said. You can still own a shotgun in town and go shooting in the country. You don't have to hunt, you can shoot clays, its an olympic sport you know, we won a gold recently.

You're also taking my point about the intruders out of context. Of course you wouldn't know how many there were, and as has already been mentioned it doesnt take long to shove a couple of fresh cartridges up the spout. If you heard someone breaking into your house wouldn't you grab the most powerful tool to hand that might help you protect yourself and your family? Do you seriously think anyone will be hanging around after the first two shots? The noise alone would be stunning. Why don't we speculate what might have happened to the couple had they not had a gun? Would they have had tea and cakes with their new friends Nobby, Fingers, Mac and Slasher?

Fundementally though, you are advocating firearms for self defence hidden under the auspices of sport or hunting. Not very honest. If weapons for self defence are felt to be required then the correct course of action is to lobby for a change in the law to permit it. The current provision is a dangerous perversion.

 

[camerafodder]

Fundementally though, you are advocating firearms for self defence hidden under the auspices of sport or hunting.

Actually I'm not, nowhere in my reply have I suggested this. It's no secret that I am pro firearms but I'm advocating the use of the best tools to hand without fear of prosecution from the state. It is nigh on impossible to judge in the heat of the moment exactly what the 'actual' risks are and anyone caught in this nasty situation should not have to consider whether accidentally or deliberately injuring or killing an intruder that has entered their home would in some way be a legal issue for them. I'm advocating the sanctioning of the use of lethal force within one's own home whether it be with a gun, cricket bat or frying pan in order to protect oneself and one's own. That way you don't have to worry about the legal implications should the problem arise.

 

[et0609]

Prison should not be just about punishment, it should be about rehabilitation too. Unfortunately, neither of these seem to happen. I have been burgled myself and when you hear someone in your home that shouldnt be there, your first instinct is to protect your family. Its very frightening and you're not thinking rationally.
When it happened to me, I did not think "these guys will leave us alone once he's bagged our DVD player and TV", you are on the defensive and you feel no choice but to confront them. You cannot wait for the Police and you do whatever you feel you need to, to defend yourself, your family and possessions.
If I had had a shotgun at the time, I would certainly have used it to threaten, but pulling the trigger? I dont know. But - when someone comes into your home to steal, attack or hurt someone, they deserve everything they get and if thats a bullet in the head, so be it. I have no sympathy whatsoever for a burglar who is shot or killed by someone defending their property or family.
The comments that judge made were offensive to the victims. Im all for helping someone get off drugs and change their life around, but there has to be a deterrent and if the law does not provide that and a loaded gun in the bedroom does, then any burglar should think about that before breaking into someones house. In my case, the burglar got 2 years, halved for pleading guilty, minus remand, meant he was back out a few months later. And, surprise surprise, back out burgling again. Perhaps the only way he will have stopped by now is if someone has shot him.

 

[MOCAŠ]

Interesting to note that those denouncing the judge's comments are by and large also those that claim they would shoot an intruder without hesitation. Does it not indeed take great courage to knowingly place oneself in such a life-threatening position, whatever one's motivation for doing so might be?

 

[MOCAŠ]

Actually, no. It is correct to address most circuit Judges as "Your Honour" in the UK. "My Lord" (or Lady) is generally reserved for High Court / Court of Appeal Judges. High Court Masters are addressed as "Master", and lowly Magistrates or District Judges, Sir or Madam.

Hmmm , perhaps it is different in England , than here in Scotland ?

When I underwent witness training in connection with my job ( in case I was ever called to give evidence ; been cited many times and sat in the witness room , but never actually called ) , I was told that 'Your Honour' was an American thing , and that Judges were 'My Lord' ( or indeed 'My Lady' as appropriate ) , or in the case of Sheriffs or Mags 'Sir' or 'Madam' . This very situation came up in the mock trials we 'role-played' in , and one of my colleagues was lampooned by the advocates giving our training for calling the 'judge' 'Your Honour' !

Since the OP used the term 'Judge' , I took it to be a 'proper' Judge .

For the record, the correct forms of address (in court, at least) are:

• High Court Judges: My Lord/Lady; His Lordship/Her Ladyship
• Circuit Judges: Your Honour; His/Her Honour
• Magistrates, JPs: Your Worship, His/Her Worship
• Sheriff-Principal/Sheriff (in Scotland): as per a High Court Judge

You may well get away with addressing any of the above as Sir/Madam a on the second or subsequent instances, but to do so initially would probably earn you a rebuke (depending on how irrascible the said individual was at the time).

Different conventions apply for formal/social occasions, and when writing.

 

[Igurisu]

Interesting to note that those denouncing the judge's comments are by and large also those that claim they would shoot an intruder without hesitation. Does it not indeed take great courage to knowingly place oneself in such a life-threatening position, whatever one's motivation for doing so might be?

That's making the assumption that the burglars were aware that the owner of the house had a shotgun available to use.

I think if the burglars had any idea they would be on the receiving end of a 12 bore they would have gone for a softer target. Whatever motivation they had, lets not confuse ignorance with courage.

 

[Nik_Endeavour]

Interesting to note that those denouncing the judge's comments are by and large also those that claim they would shoot an intruder without hesitation. Does it not indeed take great courage to knowingly place oneself in such a life-threatening position, whatever one's motivation for doing so might be?

Well in technicality you might call it courage but you do not get VC for that or get to have tea with the Queen.

You might well be playing Devil's advocate there but that's abhorrent.

Using the same logic so do drug dealers that poison children have to deal with police, rivals and chancers. Really noble drug dealers, we should build statues in every city to comemmorate such courage.

Maybe even for rapists as you know is dangerous trying to rape, you might get pepper sprayed.

 

[brucemillar]

For those who think shooting burglars is a poor sport consider this. If the burglars decide that a bit of rape is on the menu and you had a gun what would you do. I know what I did after we were burgled and the burglar on seeing my wife made it 100% clear he was not leaving with the telly.

Suffice to say he accepted my invitation to leave. He did take a bay window with him as left. Poor courageous sole that was cut himself and left a nice trail of blood all the way back to his hovel.

Seemed a bit upset to see me outside his hole when he got back from court. I just thought it polite tor him realise that the tables had turned.

If you go out burgling prepare to get shot.

The survivors should be made to wear blue hats so that everybody knows these are the people who come into your home, rifle through your possessions and take what they feel like.

Sent from my iPhone using MBClub UK

 

[219]

Maybe even for rapists as you know is dangerous trying to rape, you might get pepper sprayed.

The penalty for that crime is simple : amputation of a certain part of the anatomy . No prospect of reoffending .

 

[219]

Poor courageous sole that was cut himself and left a nice trail of blood all the way back to his hovel.

Reminds me of a story in the local rag a couple of years back ; this should have won the award for 'Britain's dumbest criminals' .

A burglary took place in the local village during the depths of winter .

Police attended the scene ........ then followed the burglars' footprints in the snow all the way back to their house only a couple of streets away , where they were apprehended with all the stolen items

 

[MOCAŠ]

That's making the assumption that the burglars were aware that the owner of the house had a shotgun available to use.

I think if the burglars had any idea they would be on the receiving end of a 12 bore they would have gone for a softer target. Whatever motivation they had, lets not confuse ignorance with courage.

Criminals will obviously tend to seek to minimize the risks associated with their activities - that's just human nature (thrill-seekers apart) - but each time they commit a crime, they are still taking a risk. They may not know whether the householder is at home, and if so, whether he has a gun, but even with an empty house there is still the risk of being detected by a neighbour. There is a degree of courage (or 'nerve', as the judge put it) involved in overcoming the fear of the unknown in order to chase a goal.

I think what people are having difficulty with is that courage is almost exclusively associated with those that put themselves at risk while acting for the good of others, or at least those whose actions do not adversely impact others. However, what the judge recognised is that it is possible to use one's courage for bad, as well as for good. Few would claim that the defendant's actions were "noble", but it is possible to observe a degree of courage in their execution.

It's pointless trying to compare burglars with soldiers. You might as well compare them with Olympic athletes because both are quick on their feet. On the other hand, it's possible to acknowledge that a burglar is a quick runner, without declaring him to be a "hero". Let's not confuse the quality with the motivation. It's not unusual to hear a fraudster described as a "genius" or "mastermind" - an acknowledgement they could have been a very useful member of society if only they had used their skills for good rather than bad.

It's a popular moral question to ask people whether they would commit a given crime if there was absolutely no chance of being caught. Invariably the number of people that would is greater than the number that wouldn't simply on principle. When viewed objectively, within that difference lie those that are merely lacking courage.

 

[balge]

Interesting to note that those denouncing the judge's comments are by and large also those that claim they would shoot an intruder without hesitation. Does it not indeed take great courage to knowingly place oneself in such a life-threatening position, whatever one's motivation for doing so might be?

NO - because they don't know whether you're armed - but they know the chances are very much against it. Obviously the risk is higher when burgling mansions than inner city houses...

My mate got burgled last night - true btw - they jimmied out a window glazing unit (with his chisels). Fortunately he came home early and they legged it out the window without getting hold of anything but the chisel, lucky sod decided not to go for a quick sundowner on the way home or they would have had time to empty the place. Nice.

I was pleasantly surprised at the response from the Police, nothing like the last time I had to call in a burglary...

I despair at the mentality of anyone who can call burglars 'courageous'. Get a grip.

 

[brucemillar]

Criminals will obviously tend to seek to minimize the risks associated with their activities - that's just human nature (thrill-seekers apart) - but each time they commit a crime, they are still taking a risk. They may not know whether the householder is at home, and if so, whether he has a gun, but even with an empty house there is still the risk of being detected by a neighbour. There is a degree of courage (or 'nerve', as the judge put it) involved in overcoming the fear of the unknown in order to chase a goal.

I think what people are having difficulty with is that courage is almost exclusively associated with those that put themselves at risk while acting for the good of others, or at least those whose actions do not adversely impact others. However, what the judge recognised is that it is possible to use one's courage for bad, as well as for good. Few would claim that the defendant's actions were "noble", but it is possible to observe a degree of courage in their execution.

It's pointless trying to compare burglars with soldiers. You might as well compare them with Olympic athletes because both are quick on their feet. On the other hand, it's possible to acknowledge that a burglar is a quick runner, without declaring him to be a "hero". Let's not confuse the quality with the motivation. It's not unusual to hear a fraudster described as a "genius" or "mastermind" - an acknowledgement they could have been a very useful member of society if only they had used their skills for good rather than bad.

It's a popular moral question to ask people whether they would commit a given crime if there was absolutely no chance of being caught. Invariably the number of people that would is greater than the number that wouldn't simply on principle. When viewed objectively, within that difference lie those that are merely lacking courage.

Courage and burglar should never be used in the same sentence. It is not courage. It is " I don't give a sh!t about you our family or your possessions". If you attempt to catch me I may attempt to batter you or your family. "

No courage. No morals. No self respect. Just filthy criminals going about their filthy daily routine.

Call them what they are but do not call them courageous.

Sent from my iPhone using MBClub UK

 

[markjay]

There seem to be an assumption there burglars are calculated people who carry-out risk assessment before entering the premises...

Some are, but others are addicts on a craze looking for cash for their next fix. These will not be deterred by logic, and in some cases not even by bullets.