Expand upon the current whack-a-burglar bill

Julian Morrison · 12-12-2004, 04:24 PM

Patrick Mercer's private member's bill will probably pass and lower the bar for home defense to "not grossly disproportionate" force.

UKIP should commit to expanding this same rule from defence of home to all situations involving self-defense and defense of property (private and commercial) from damage or theft.

NB: Also, the "offensive weapons" law needs to be repealed since it criminalizes ordinary people who carry the means to properly defend themselves.

Anthony Butcher · 12-12-2004, 06:31 PM

So you want "defensive weapons"?

C_steam · 12-12-2004, 06:44 PM

I, for one, would love to defend property against invasion by Gypsies (sorry 'Itinerants'). An ex-soviet T-52 would suit me down to the ground.

Can you imagines the mess you could cause to a chromed-up caravan with one of those!

Julian Morrison · 13-12-2004, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony Butcher

So you want "defensive weapons"?

Pretty much... I want the presumption to be that a weapon which has substantial defensive use, is defensive (ie: the exact converse of the status quo). Also, carrying openly (as versus concealed) should weight in favour of considering the weapon defensive. So you'd have difficulty explaining a flick knife or a knuckle duster. However, a dirk strapped to your belt in plain sight or a stout walking cane in your hand would be "legal as church on Sunday".

C_steam · 13-12-2004, 12:14 PM

Can hardly conceal my T52..................Therefore it's defensive.

Julian Morrison · 13-12-2004, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C_steam

Can hardly conceal my T52..................Therefore it's defensive.

Not sure a tank's main gun would squeak past the "substantial defensive use" thing, unless the the country was about to be invaded.

C_steam · 13-12-2004, 06:18 PM

Damn............There goes that plan.

Intbel · 13-12-2004, 11:37 PM

M'lud: And when you found the burglar what did you do?

Defendant: I defended my property and my family and my self appropriately y'honour.

M'lud: And how did you accomplish this?

Defendent: "With the minumum force required to facillitate a satisfactory outcome y'honour."

M'lud: Minimum force? The man is dead!

Defendent: "That is correct y'honour.

M'lud: "Kindly explain to the court how, by using minimum force, you killed the man."

Defendent: "The gun had a hair trigger, y'honour - barely any pressure was needed, let alone force."

M'lud: "That's alright then. Case dismissed."

Julian Morrison · 14-12-2004, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Intbel

M'lud: And when you found the burglar what did you do?

Defendant: I defended my property and my family and my self appropriately y'honour.

M'lud: And how did you accomplish this?

Defendent: With the minumum force required to facillitate a satisfactory outcome y'honour.

M'lud: Minimum force? The man is dead!

Defendent: That was the satisfactory outcome, y'honour.

M'lud: Fair enough. Case dismissed. Should never have seen the inside of a courtroom; I'll award you costs. And it's "m'lud", this is a British court.

Defendent: Sorry, m'lud.

Intbel · 14-12-2004, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian Morrison

And it's "m'lud", this is a British court.

Defendent: Bleh. (m'lud)

12-12-2004, 04:24 PM	#1 (permalink)
Julian Morrison Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Banbury, England Posts: 198	Expand upon the current whack-a-burglar bill Patrick Mercer's private member's bill will probably pass and lower the bar for home defense to "not grossly disproportionate" force. UKIP should commit to expanding this same rule from defence of home to all situations involving self-defense and defense of property (private and commercial) from damage or theft. NB: Also, the "offensive weapons" law needs to be repealed since it criminalizes ordinary people who carry the means to properly defend themselves.

13-12-2004, 11:37 PM	#8 (permalink)
Intbel Uber Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: In a field near you - look for the yellow and purple tent ... Posts: 4,665	Test case - a precedent is set. M'lud: And when you found the burglar what did you do? Defendant: I defended my property and my family and my self appropriately y'honour. M'lud: And how did you accomplish this? Defendent: "With the minumum force required to facillitate a satisfactory outcome y'honour." M'lud: Minimum force? The man is dead! Defendent: "That is correct y'honour. M'lud: "Kindly explain to the court how, by using minimum force, you killed the man." Defendent: "The gun had a hair trigger, y'honour - barely any pressure was needed, let alone force." M'lud: "That's alright then. Case dismissed."

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

12-12-2004, 06:31 PM	#2 (permalink)
Anthony Butcher Administrator Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Long Ashton, Bristol Posts: 10,152 Party: None	So you want "defensive weapons"?

12-12-2004, 06:44 PM	#3 (permalink)
C_steam Super Moderator Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Paddling up 5hit creek..... Posts: 7,711	I, for one, would love to defend property against invasion by Gypsies (sorry 'Itinerants'). An ex-soviet T-52 would suit me down to the ground. Can you imagines the mess you could cause to a chromed-up caravan with one of those!

13-12-2004, 12:14 PM	#5 (permalink)
C_steam Super Moderator Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Paddling up 5hit creek..... Posts: 7,711	Can hardly conceal my T52..................Therefore it's defensive.

13-12-2004, 06:18 PM	#7 (permalink)
C_steam Super Moderator Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Paddling up 5hit creek..... Posts: 7,711	Damn............There goes that plan.