« Hayek To The Rescue | Main | Halcyon Days For Scottish Wind Power »

The Castle Doctrine

'Expect to be shot if you burgle gun owners', judge warns criminals - Telegraph

A judge has defended the rights of people to protect their homes, telling two burglars shot during a break-in: “That is the chance you take.”

Of course I would never dream of loading up the Benelli 12g Auto to deliver the good news to any scrote who broke down my door.


Oh no, I've never given a 2nd thought to what I would do in event of burglars in my house, absolutely not.

If the Tony Martin case has taught us anything, it's that if they can prove you have, it's a case of "Premeditation" and it's a spell in the pokey for you sunshine...

Or as somebody we know says "shoot,shovel,shut up,works for me.

If the gun is legally held, if you can avoid shooting the intruder/s in the back and none of them actually die, the Martin case won't be relevant (plus, that was 13 years ago and a lot has changed since then).

I don't think putting a couple of shells in the 12 counts as premeditation any more than opening the knife drawer or picking up a cricket bat would. If a householder has weapons, he's entitled to arm himself to repel univited intruders on his property with criminal intent.

Phil, that would be the case if "The 12" as you call it wasn't locked away in a safe, and ammo locked away in another place...

It would of course be damned unlucky for any burglars who happened to be burgling your house, if you just happen to be sat there "Locked and loaded" whilst having a purge on the rabbits eating your veggie plot..

As for "Illegal guns", who's to say who brought it into your home? Especially if it has dead mans dabbs all over it, and it got dropped/went off in ensuing struggle...

Can't agree. Wholly reasonable for a householder, legally possessed of a shotgun, to remove it from safe storage and load it when woken by sounds of breaking glass downstairs in the small hours. As I said, no difference from opening the knife drawer etc. A man is either entitled to arm himself, or he isn't - it's not just a case of picking up only what comes to hand.

I didn't mention illegally held guns, but that's a whole different ballgame. Having the dead burglar's dabs on a gun wouldn't count for much if the householder failed an antimony test (proving he'd fired the gun), the deceased passed one (proving he hadn't, despite his smudged prints being on it) and his friends and family swore blind they'd never known him carry. The householder might succeed with self defence for the killing, but sure as eggs is eggs he'd go away for possession.

I'd rather be judged by 12 etc etc.

Post a comment