Summations Only

Yeah could be. Hey... maybe I only have to reload after every other invasion!

I didn't say it "couldn't". I'm just saying that he wouldn't be in harm's way in the first place if he wasn't responding to a crime that already happened. I don't have any counter-statistics but I find that highly unlikely. That would be almost one home invasion per 100 Canadians. I live in a city of 200,000 with a fairly high crime rate and I hardly ever remember hearing of a home invasion.I know a lot of people who have guns but they tend to think of them as tools for hunting or toys for target shooting. I really don't know of anybody who thinks of a gun as a weapon to protect themselves. We pay professionals to do that, just like we pay professionals to do surgery.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

But that's not really the "Castle Doctrine" as understood in the US --- it limits one to necessary force.

I don't think it's illegal for most ordinary Europeans to own firearms. There are lots of different countries in Europe, and they all have very different rules. It's true that two of the biggest, Germany and the UK, have very restrictive gun laws, but this isn't a general rule. FInland has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world, and it's very easy to get hold of guns here in the Czech Republic if you want them (very few people do own guns here, but that's by choice - they're legally entitled to).I'm not actually sure on the laws here regarding the right to defend your home, and can't seem to find relevant legislation online. In England you do have the right to defend your home, and the conditions are similar to those used in Canadian law. It is perfectly legal to use force to protect lives and property from criminal action, but the force should be proportional, and there's a legal principle that you have to stop once the threat is removed. If the criminal gives in, is incapacited, or runs away, any further force is illegal. There are often big news stories about people not having the right to defend their home, but the facts are usually more complicated. In the famous case of the farmer sent to prison for murder after shooting a burgler, the burgler had been shot in the back while fleeing - that's what made the use of force unlawful.

this is one of the shittier things about Virginia (it is a free to flee state). no castle doctrine here Still "I'd rather be Judged by 12 than carried by 6"I am not sure a handgun is always the best for home defense anyway. A shotgun is where home defense is. the sound of the pump action would be scarier than the sound of the slide of a semi-auto sliding the 1st round into the chamber. plus unless you use a hallow point cartridge (which you should for home defense), then you have to be aware what is behind the intruder and on the other side of the wall behind that (another great reason to use shot).

Uh, yeah, obviously that is an extreme case. I wouldn't shoot people just because they were on my property.I would use a great amount of restraint and would view it how I would a police situation. You use the tools of your trade based on the subjects actions, however, there are instances where all bets are off and any amount of force in justified. I disagree in principle. I believe it can be misused, no doubt, but I think it protects people in their home who otherwise would have been charged with a crime for simply defending themselves.We live in a very backwards world where occasionslly people turn the victims in to the victimizers, and vice versa.

---

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

I’m no lawyer and don’t know the exact legislation, but I believe in the UK you are allowed to use sufficient force in self-defence. That could include lethal force, if necessary. (Obviously, it’s down to the authorities and jury in the luxury of their own time to decide what constitutes sufficient force.) I understand you can only do this for personal defence, not for defence of any property. I.E. If you attack someone simply for the fact that they broke into your house or your car, when there was no immediate risk to anyone’s safety, then you can and almost certainly will be prosecuted for that.There was a famous case a decade or so ago in which a farmer, Tony Martin, opened fire with a shotgun and killed a member of a gang that had broken into his home at night. I think the person who was killed was aged 16 and the other gang members were all over 18. If I remember correctly, the farmer lived alone in quite an isolated farmhouse that had suffered several break ins. He had set up a kind of barricade at the top of his stairs in anticipation of another break in, and from which he fired upon the intruders. It was the fact that he was prepared in this way, almost ready and waiting for them, that seemed to lead to his being prosecuted. I think he went to prison for about 6 or 7 years.I’m sure that if he’d been more surprised by the break in and swung a lamp stand at the intruders, or if he had a family to protect, he’d have been looked at more favourably by the authorities and jury, even if he’d killed one of the intruders. In my opinion it’s wrong that you should be looked at less favourably if you are pre-prepared, as he was. I also think that if your home is broken into in the middle of the night, and you are outnumbered, you should be excused almost any kind of reaction, because physically and psychologically you are in a very vulnerable position. You can't exactly ask the intruders whether or not they intend to do you any harm before making a considered decision whether or not to use force against them. Yet that seemed to be what many expected him to do. I never really understood the prosecution in that case, although I stand to be corrected if I’ve got any of the facts wrong.

If someone breaks into a house is that not a sufficient indication that there is a risk to the safety of those in the house?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I'd say so. Knock him the fuck out. Though the reporting on these cases in my country makes one suspect you will get sued for such an act. I don't know if it's really as bad as the media portray it, but every case like that is one too many, I'd say.

In my opinion, yes.I was amazed in the case of Tony Martin how many people (both in the media and those I spoke to) thought he was wrong to do what he did.They seemed to lack the ability to comprehend the situation.Many thought he was at fault for shooting a 16-year-old - AS IF HE COULD HAVE KNOWN HOW OLD HE WAS! "Er...excuse me. I see that there's about half-a-dozen of you just broken into my house in the middle of the night. Just stop where you are for a minute and I'll come down and discuss with you how we're going to play this. OK. Before I make an appropriate decision on how to deal with this situation, I need you all to show me some ID. OK, so 5 of you are 18 or over and one of you is only 16. This is how we're going to play it. Those of you over 18 may be shot at. So you need to make a decision as to whether or not you wish to continue with this break in. I won't shoot at the minor though, so he can do whatever he likes. OK? Just give me 10 seconds to go back upstairs and we'll start over."

Based on everyone's great responses, it appears we have a general concensus on how the law in this regard should operate, with minor differences of opinion about gun ownership.It seems everyone believes that you should be able to protect yourself and your family with any force necessary so as to stop the attack indefinitely. Once the subject(s) are incapacitated or cease their violent behavior, any further force done to them should be considered excessive.The only other question would be to distinguish between levels of force for police and ordinary citizens. Supposing an intruder was unarmed and the homeowner was, if the intruder charged the homeowner, would they be able to justifiably shoot (stab or strike with a blunt object) the intruder?The police, because of their extra training and availability of non-lethal weapons, would ordinarily be compelled to re-engage with lesser force because it is not a deadly force situation. However, for the ordinary citizen, an intruder rushing at them cannot holster their weapon and fight off an intruder. The expectation of the intruder taking the weapon and murdering them is too great.In lieu of this, I feel that the homeowner, in the spirit of the Castle Doctrine, should be justified in firing upon the intruder, which, again, is only in direct reference with the subjects actions.The intruders actions dictate the homeowners reactions.

---

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

That, and because he shot them in the back as they were fleeing.

Well, shooting them in the back may be a little extreme, but a shot in the ass should always be seen as a legitimate reminder.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

There are some crazy rulings in favor of thieves against law-abiding homeowners. I heard a rumor (not sure if it's actually true) where a man successfully sued a homeowner for falling through his skylight.Uhhhh, WTF were doing on his roof in the first place, that you'd have the audacity to sue him?The judge should be disbarred from practicing law ever again, IMHO, for such a shitty ruling... Provided, of course, it's not an urban legend.

---

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

Fair point. I do recall that particular detail now!However, I believe they were still inside his home as this happened. And it was at night. I don't know how much the police, prosecution and the jury were able to ascertain as to how obvious it was that the intruders were fleeing, or how sure Martin could have been that they were fleeing and that he would have been reasonably safe. Or, indeed, how sure he could have been how many of them there were, exactly where they all were, and whether or not they were all fleeing.What I don't like is the way that the law doesn't seem to put those who cause the problem in a position of ultimate responsibility, but rather it puts those innocent ones who find themselves in a difficult situation that they have to deal with immediately who are held to account for the consequences.I think that anyone that plans to break in to someone's home at night must instincitively know that anyone inside the home will naturally fear for their safety and could take any kind of action to defend themselves. And their reactions are only likely to be exacerbated if they are heavily outnumbered.