Mirrored from Slashdot:
I’m about as pro-gun as you can get, but when I hear stories about how Britain is locking up people for defending their families I get very suspicious. Do you have any links to one of these incidents? I imagine there is more to the story than is being told. — edwardsdl
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/beds/bucks/herts/8469850.stm –timothy
From the article you linked to:
Lord Judge said: “This trial had nothing to do with the right of the householder to defend themselves or their families or their homes.
“The burglary was over and the burglars had gone. No one was in any further danger from them.”
This wouldn’t be legal in the U.S. either. –rlaager
Until the next day, say. –timothy
I knew someone would reply with this. Yes, we can all cheer personally that the bad guy is off the street and they’re not going to tie anyone else up. But from a legal point of view, once the immediate threat has ended, you can’t use force in self defense.
My point was that this is not an example of “Britain locking up people for defending their families”, especially with the implied contrast to the United States. Legally, they locked this guy (and his brother) up for chasing, beating, and permanently injuring a guy in the street. Had the same beating happened while they were still in immediate danger, the legal situation would’ve been entirely different. –rlaager