wrote in message
...
On Saturday, November 8, 2014 2:58:11 PM UTC, Bill wrote:
In message ,
writes
On Saturday, November 8, 2014 11:57:07 AM UTC, Bill wrote:
In message ,
writes
On Friday, November 7, 2014 11:05:16 PM UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"Uncle Peter" wrote in message
news On Thu, 06 Nov 2014 01:34:09 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:
"Uncle Peter" wrote in message
news On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 22:08:50 -0000, wrote:
Uncle Peter wrote:

You can stab a burglar in America.

You can if you are in danger in that soggy little island too.

And you should be allowed to here too.

You are if you are in danger.

If you do you'll be prosecuted and msot likely found guilty. Ask
Tony Martin.

I seem to recall, from the news reports, that in TM's case the guy who
was shot was running away, therefore TM was no longer in danger.
There
is a subtle difference here, which makes a big difference, in the
actions that you are allowed to take.

or so someone claimed. That's the problem, anyone can claim anything
and probably will. When prosecutors dont know the facts they can be
very keen on make-it-up.

As you say, anyone can claim anything, but it is hard to imagine someone
attacking you by coming at you backwards. Certainly Fred Barras was
reported as having been shot in his back.

But all said and done, that is what the jury is there to decide.

Stuff happens so fast. You pull a weapon & use it, they turn at the same
time.

But you still have a problem with why the birdshot that didn't
end up in the burglar is in the wall below the window that he
was leaving thru with a nice outline of his legs etc.

Or they're standing at 90 degrees to you and you get them in the back.

You still have a problem with where the birdshot
that didn't end up in the burglar ends up.

The prosecutor doesnt know what's fact

They do actually, even if you have tried belting the
burglar with a ****ing great waddy and you end up
with quite a bit of blood splatter in the process of
killing him with that.

and believes their own vivid imagination, paints
a story based on all sorts of wrong assumptions,
embellishes it with all sorts of cobblers,

You've been watching too much TV. The real world isnt like that.

the jury thinks it sounds plausible and you do 20 years.

Have fun listing anyone that has ended up doing 20 years.

If that's the defintion of 'can defend yourself'
youre using, good luck with that.

Some have done that, including one of ours that deliberately
shot the burglar in the back when he was running away and
had the jury find him not guilty of anything.

I'm much more in favour of the American version.

I am too, but you have a problem with the fact that
hardly anyone on that soggy little island is allowed
to have a gun in their home anymore, let alone use
it on a burglar even if they are in real danger.

There you genuinely do have the right
to defend youself with deadly force.

It isnt that black and white in the US either.