Why does Britain arrest woman defending her home against pillagers?

[Dis]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Actually, the best hit man weapon around is a competition grade single shot pellet pistol, loaded with a bronze .177 hunting dart. Extremely accurate (< 1 inch shot group at 50 ft) within 50 ft, relatively quiet, easy to silence, the dart is long enough and hard enough to guarantee one shot one kill penetration of the skull within 50 feet, no ballistics, no ID check to purchase one, no forensics for GSR, relatively cheap and widely available.

*Diss writing down these notes*

[Lancer]

I'll go with a printer myself...

[Snotty]

Like this



Not like this wheelie bin



not to be confused with



Which is your common or garden wheelie bin

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dissident
the U.S. is free from petty vandalism such as England suffers under because we always have the threat some psycho gun owner will kill you.

guns , psycho gun owners

Actually, in a few states, the law allows you to take out the trespassers/invading pillagers. You are not required to interview them first to determine their degree of peacefulness.

[Japher]

*Diss writing down these notes*

He is the expert.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Agathon
So... if I read Ned's recent comments on the board

....liberals are allowing criminals to run rampant and liberals stabbed our troops in the back in Vietnam and are doing so again.

That's only a Jew short of Hitler's election manifesto.

Sounds like you got the trend right?

But this is a woman defending her property against more than one man who had already vandalized her son's car under circumstances where she had called the police before and they had not responded. What in England could she have legally done to protect herself and her property from these vandals?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Gibsie


Miss the part of the article where it says she shot into the ground, as opposed to putting a slug into each of the yobs' brains, did you?

No, and nor did the court. Had she been hitting them in the head, she certainly wouldn't be out of prison now.

[Dr Strangelove]

Just out of curiosity what would have happened if she had "shot" them with a camera allowing the coppers an easy nab?

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
No, and nor did the court. Had she been hitting them in the head, she certainly wouldn't be out of prison now.

So what you're saying is, the court made the right decision second time round?

[Japher]

Just out of curiosity what would have happened if she had "shot" them with a camera allowing the coppers an easy nab?

that would be an invasion of privacy

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Yep. She's still very definitely guilty, but a reduced term was appropriate.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Japher


that would be an invasion of privacy

On her own property?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Just out of curiosity what would have happened if she had "shot" them with a camera allowing the coppers an easy nab?

The miscreants would have an Anti-social behaviour order slapped on them. She'd hose down her car. The world would continue turning.

[Alexander's Horse]

In the Nediverse she would have been within her rights to shoot them all and any bystanders hit would have been justifiable collateral damage

[Japher]

On her own property?

Well? They are able to trash her property and she can't do anything about it... seems along the same line of logic... IMO