papercut
Member
From the BBC at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4075411.stm
(Since the BBC doesn't take down stories--at least, not yet--I'll only quote excerpts instead of the whole thing.)
"Law on intruders to be reviewed"
"Downing Street has agreed to clarify the law on intruders but has insisted householders can already use force to protect themselves in their homes."
Obviously, the Right Honorable Tony Blair ("Downing Street") hasn't been reading the news in England lately.
"Tory MP Patrick Mercer wants to pass a bill which would mean householders would only be prosecuted if they used "grossly disproportionate" force."
I'd love to hear an explanation of exactly how this would relate to Tony Martin. Does a homeowner--er, householder--have to wait until after a criminal has actually used force? Or is the implied threat of force enough? If a criminal threatens someone with a knife, is it acceptable to use a gun in self-defense, or is that "disproportionate" to the threat? (And if MP Patrick Mercer thinks it's too strong of a response by the victim, then I suggest he attend a knife-fighting class and see just how dead he would be if he were threatened with a knife and couldn't use a gun to fight back.)
Interestingly enough, the article says some police chiefs support the idea.
All of this makes me wonder what other details would be in the bill. As the saying goes, the devil is in the details.
(Since the BBC doesn't take down stories--at least, not yet--I'll only quote excerpts instead of the whole thing.)
"Law on intruders to be reviewed"
"Downing Street has agreed to clarify the law on intruders but has insisted householders can already use force to protect themselves in their homes."
Obviously, the Right Honorable Tony Blair ("Downing Street") hasn't been reading the news in England lately.
"Tory MP Patrick Mercer wants to pass a bill which would mean householders would only be prosecuted if they used "grossly disproportionate" force."
I'd love to hear an explanation of exactly how this would relate to Tony Martin. Does a homeowner--er, householder--have to wait until after a criminal has actually used force? Or is the implied threat of force enough? If a criminal threatens someone with a knife, is it acceptable to use a gun in self-defense, or is that "disproportionate" to the threat? (And if MP Patrick Mercer thinks it's too strong of a response by the victim, then I suggest he attend a knife-fighting class and see just how dead he would be if he were threatened with a knife and couldn't use a gun to fight back.)
Interestingly enough, the article says some police chiefs support the idea.
All of this makes me wonder what other details would be in the bill. As the saying goes, the devil is in the details.