Colours

We do not have the right to use lethal force to defend our homes.
I believe we can use "reasonable force" a very broad term but unofficially it means use of a blunt instrument - if you use a a blade you may be in trouble yourself. So i guess i should take care to hit any intruder with the flat of a shovel rather than the edge.
It was something i was going to touch on in the very interesting discussion with Buickguy. The sentence handed down to Tony Martin the farmer who shot professional burglars on his property is still seen by many here as far too harsh.

Fridgitator

That right varies here from state to state. I was born in Minnesota. When I lived there, if you woke up in the middle of the night to find someone standing over you, you'd better hope he had a gun if you shot him. Or at least a big knife. If you shot him and he turned out to be unarmed, you were looking at a manslaughter charge. Here in Texas, where I've been living for about twenty years, the old range laws still influence things. As long as it's dark, I could shoot someone in my driveway if he was messing with my property. No problem. During daylight, he'd have to be at least trying to enter the house. Or maybe in the shed. And that's in the city. Messing with livestock at high noon in farm or ranch country can get a person in a serious hurt. Ignorance isn't an excuse. That's the way it's been since this was a territory.

JunkyardDog

Gun laws vary from state to state, but criminals are not legally allowed to own guns in any state. But since they are criminals, I doubt that law matters much to them. When buying a gun, we have to fill out a long form with our life history on it, then the gun dealer supposedly does a background check. I'm not sure exactly what is checked. When I went to the gun store to by my pistol, I already knew what I wanted from online research, and had already called and made sure they had it in stock. From the time I went into the store, it took approximately 15 minutes until I walked out, with both the gun and ammunition.


As for laws on gun use, they vary widely. Again, every state is different. Here in AZ, if you shoot someone, you will need to prove it was self defense, with one exception. And that is if someone actually breaks into your house while you are there. As long as you shoot them WHILE they are in your house, you don't have to prove anything. Even if they are unarmed burglars. As long as it is obvious they broke into your house while you were there (99% of the time this would happen at night), you have the legal right to shoot them.


It's always been that way here, as far as I know, but that law was strengthened by passage of the "home invasion" law several years ago. "Home invasion" refers specifically to when someone breaks into your home while you are there, and is a far more serious crime than breaking and entering, burglary, etc. According to AZ law, you have the right to be safe while in your home, and the right to use any means necessary to defend yourself while you are in your home.


This refers to a very specific set of circumstances. It does NOT mean that if you and someone else already in your home with your permission get into a fight, you have the right to shoot them. Jerry.


EDIT: AZ also used to be a territory, and while our laws are a little more restrictive than Texas, they still date back to the old west. If someone breaks into your home while you are there, they do not have to be armed. The reason for this is because it is impossible to know if they are armed until it would be too late. Also, suppose you are an old lady, and the person who breaks in is a young healthy male. Obviously he would not need to be armed to kill you.

Buickguy

I am familiar with the Tony Martin case. Of course, the information I have comes from the US perspective. The general sentiment over here was the sentence was an abomination.
To give you a little background on me, I am a firearms instructor professionally. I provide the type of training that Junkyard Dog spoke of taking for his concealed carry license as well as other types of firearms training. I have trained military, law enforcement, and citizens in a variety of firearm uses. In my state, the entry of a home is not sufficient cause to use lethal force, nor is the protection of property. Lethal force may only be used when your life, or the life of another human being is in imminent danger and lethal force is necessary to prevent such harm to yourself or the person you are attempting to defend.
Back to Tony Martin. From what I have read, the intruders were threatening his life. It was told that the UK media made the intruders sound like young lads on a lark with no intention of harming anything or anyone and at worst they had a "Robin Hood" ideal and did not deserve to die for just having a bit of fun while helping out the unfortunate. The article also made is sound like the UK media portrayed Tony Martin as a loner vigilante with a blood lust and a morbid curiosity about the effects of lead projectiles on human anatomy. The writer of the article was aghast that any sentence was imposed. In most of the United States, Tony Martin's case would have been ruled a justifiable self defense homicide.
I do not know if the UK media actually did such. I have seen UK media reports on a Texas based women's gun group and it did portray them as some sort of fringe psychotic group, worse yet because it was women.
I am familiar with the women's group in question and although they do enjoy target sports, they are far from a fringe element. The most radical stance they have is a firm belief that they have a right to live as they see fit and a right to defend that life from murderers and rapists. In this country, that is far from a radical stance. In Texas, in particular, that is a most mild stance. Once again, this does tend to illustrate the cultural difference that have evolved between the US and UK.
Please do remember that in this country there is no mandate to own firearms. You may own them if you wish but if you don't care to own them that is your right as well.

Junkyard Dog is correct that federal law prohibits anyone with a criminal record from owning any firearms. It is also a federal felony to knowingly provide firearms or ammunition to prohibited persons.
The background check he spoke of in known as the National Instant background Check System (NICS is the acronym used). The NICS system has access to federal records. Any federal or state crime is recorded in those archive. A dealer must run a NICS check on anyone purchasing a firearm, regardless of where that sale takes place.
The dealer must require the buyer to complete and sign BATF form 4473.
The dealer then enters the buyers name and information into the NICS system. THe NICS system returns an answer of either approved, denied, or delayed. A delayed response means the dealer must wait three business days. If at the end of that time, NICS returns no further information the dealer may proceed with the transfer.

Well then, this is beginning to take on a flavor of work.

Philosophically, it is interesting. I am somewhat surprised but rather gratified to know that there are some in the UK who do feel Tony Martin
was unjustly punished even if it is by degrees.

__________________

1987 CMX250C Rebel

No mater how hard you twist your right hand on the steering wheel,
your car just won't accelerate!

regularman

How I handle tailgaters on my twinstar. Gradually speed up and zip through a sharp curve real fast and watch the SUV go off into a field. I do the same in my MG. Those big heavy SUVs cannot take a curve good at all. I do the same on the twinstar with heavy bikes that get on my butt, most of those guys can't handle their bike through a curve fast either.

flitecontrol

I wonder if Tony Martin's prosecution and sentence had much to do with the age of the one burgler that died. He was 16. The others were considerably older, and the British newspaper referred to them as "professional burglars". So it seems they had been busy boys stealing other folks stuff.

__________________
I'm keepin' all the left over parts. I'm gonna use 'em to build another bike!

2001 Rebel 250, 1989 Vulcan 750

Colours

I would say that that was a badly informed and very skewed article.

Sorry for the lateness of reply but the World Cup, land issues , BIKE FAILING MOT had caught me up a little.

I only read broadsheets in the UK Press. The Guardian (a left wing paper), The Telegraph (a right wing paper) and The Independant (not quite independant).

I would not wipe my derriere with the likes of The Times (Rupert Murdoch mouthpiece) or any of the tabloid press regardless of their fickle political affiliations, much less "read" them. Nevertheless opinions in those kind of papers are reported in those papers I read. Although Tony Martin was indeed demonised by some sections of the "redtops" at no point did I notice the intruders ever being referred to as "Robin Hood" type characters.. they were simply thieves.

and now i think its time for this discussion to be moved to "off topic" as it feels like i've hijacked a thread

p.s. bike eventually passed the MOT... feel like writing about "crap bike shops and poor customer service"