Would You Pull the Trigger?

[hodekin]

Here is an Hypothetical question just for British members. I restrict it to British members because this question concerns the attitudes and laws for ‘Gun Violence’ in the UK, but any other members from outside the UK please feel free to add your comments.

Situation:

Law and Order has broken down in your neighbourhood, gangs of ‘aliens’ are roaming freely looting and stealing what they will. Police presence is limited and mostly ineffectual.

Your street and your house is now targeted by a mob. They are smashing the windows and breaking down the door. They may just want to rob you of your possessions, maybe something else as well, you have your family in the house and they are petrified.

You have a shotgun, it is used only for the occasional clay pigeon shoot, but it is legal and you have it. The mob are nearly through the front door and you are holding the shotgun, your family are cowering in a back room.

Question: Baring in mind everything that is likely to happen to you under the law when all this mess is over and done with….would you pull the trigger?

Note: Please no knee jerk reaction answers of “I’d blow their F*****G heads off” Remember you will need to look after your family when all this is over, can you do that from prison? Will you still have a family?

All answers are valid as reach person will have differing responsibilities or support.


hodekin

[Huginn ok Muninn]

Sorry I'm not English, but I know what the laws are there. Because my family and I are in mortal danger, there is no choice, and the craven government has failed to protect us. There is no law enforcement in this case for the benefit of the honest citizen, only against them. Well, screw the government.

Because the penalty is the same for one as for all, I would leave no one alive to tell the tale.

[hodekin]

Because the penalty is the same for one as for all, I would leave no one alive to tell the tale.

Thanks for your input Huginn. For clarity, let me just state that this scenario is an inner city one and done in the full blaze of publicity. Therefore, we must assume that your actions (or lack of them) will be known and witnessed.

The crux of this question is what you would do, knowing that the full weight of the law will decend upon you at some latter stage.


hodekin

[VergesEngst]

I live in Texas, so I'm pretty sure I could pull off a self-defense argument in court.


However, even if I knew that I could not -- even if I knew that I would be jailed -- I would still do my best to shoot every one of them in the kneecaps and shoulders, even if they started to run away.

This is a pure cost/benefit calculation for my family: The negative impact on my family of me being in jail is extreme; but it is not as great as the negative impact on my family if we are all beaten, bloodied, raped and/or killed.

[Jäger]

The negative impact on my family of me being in jail is extreme; but it is not as great as the negative impact on my family if we are all beaten, bloodied, raped and/or killed.

The more interesting question would be how long you are willing to wait until it becomes clear that the mob even has an interest in you and your family, and not just wants your TV, or maybe wants to spray paint your walls.
This is, after all, the reasoning behind a possible trial, since self defense, even with possible fatal outcomes, is certainly not prohibited by the law if it was about securing your life and the ones of your family. Or am I wrong?

[Stimme]

If they're flooding my house in masses and my family is in danger, then I would probably shoot, yes. Gunfire should always be the last choice but it would be pointless to fight big groups with bare hands, either.

But don't you have some self-defense laws up there? If those gangs break into every house they find you even would do society a favour by stopping them.

[VergesEngst]

The more interesting question would be how long you are willing to wait until it becomes clear that the mob even has an interest in you and your family [...]

I am not a lawyer, so I am not certain whether this would fly in court. But, my "lay-person" (i.e. not legally trained) argument would run like this:

If they use aggression and violence to enter my house, then they have already proven themselves to be aggressive. So if they are "smashing the windows and breaking down the door" (as stated), they already differentiate themselves from those who try to enter the house by stealth or by trickery. It is reasonable to assume that if they are (needlessly) violent against my things they have the character of those who would be violent against me.

Moreover, if their reaction to seeing me point a gun in their direction is to continue to advance, then they are as good as stating their desire for physical confrontation. If they merely wanted to graffiti, the natural reaction to seeing me with a gun would be to leave, and go somewhere else to graffiti. If they advance on my gun, the natural assumption is that they have some intent on my person.


As I said, I'm not a lawyer. But in my mind, that is sufficient (aggressive violent behavior, and personal intent against me) for me to reasonably fear for my life, and therefore act on that fear in self-defense.


So how long would I wait? I wait until they break violently into my home, at which point I let them see me pointing a gun at them. If they do not IMMEDIATELY stop and retreat.... then I fire. That's long enough.


P.S. I'd still aim for the shoulders and the kneecaps, though.

[Huginn ok Muninn]

Thanks for your input Huginn. For clarity, let me just state that this scenario is an inner city one and done in the full blaze of publicity. Therefore, we must assume that your actions (or lack of them) will be known and witnessed.

The crux of this question is what you would do, knowing that the full weight of the law will decend upon you at some latter stage.


hodekin

I understood this, but you have to make a decision based upon the threat present, not the uppity pricks who will chide you for protecting your family later. I know my life would be ruined by them no matter what I do, even if I shoot in the air to scare the thugs. Such is England today. So should I allow my family to be raped and possibly killed? No. I will take out as many of these thugs as I possibly can and the court gets my full reasoning as to why.

You cannot sacrifice the safety of your family because you are scared of a bunch of ivory tower liberals. There is psychology to this. Act like a lowly worm and you will continue to be treated as one.

I am not a lawyer, so I am not certain whether this would fly in court. But, my "lay-person" (i.e. not legally trained) argument would run like this:

If they use aggression and violence to enter my house, then they have already proven themselves to be aggressive. So if they are "smashing the windows and breaking down the door" (as stated), they already differentiate themselves from those who try to enter the house by stealth or by trickery. It is reasonable to assume that if they are (needlessly) violent against my things they have the character of those who would be violent against me.

Moreover, if their reaction to seeing me point a gun in their direction is to continue to advance, then they are as good as stating their desire for physical confrontation. If they merely wanted to graffiti, the natural reaction to seeing me with a gun would be to leave, and go somewhere else to graffiti. If they advance on my gun, the natural assumption is that they have some intent on my person.


As I said, I'm not a lawyer. But in my mind, that is sufficient (aggressive violent behavior, and personal intent against me) for me to reasonably fear for my life, and therefore act on that fear in self-defense.


So how long would I wait? I wait until they break violently into my home, at which point I let them see me pointing a gun at them. If they do not IMMEDIATELY stop and retreat.... then I fire. That's long enough.


P.S. I'd still aim for the shoulders and the kneecaps, though.

Are you speaking from the standpoint of an Englishman or from one living in Texas?

In Texas, you are within your rights to kill anyone breaking into your home. If they did that to me here, they would be dead. I would see to it. And I wouldn't have to fear for the consequences. In Britain, the law screws you over just for protecting yourself, so you might as well go all the way.

Here's a real incident as it happened in Texas. This citizen never faced charges:

http://www.livevideo.com/video/Polic...ho-were-b.aspx

Those burglars he shot were illegal aliens.. hispanic negroes.

[Sigurd]

If someone threatens you and has you cornered in your own home, especially in an armed manner and especially in a mob, it is always self-defence, and you have a good legal standing to argue that point - provided that it did not exceed the minimum force necessary to fend off the danger to your limb.

If you manage to convince the court that using your shotgun was the only and best option available to prevent danger to life and limb of yourself and people you have a duty of care and protection over, then you might actually walk away from the trial on a full defence of self-defence.

Except that a shotgun probably isn't exactly the most convincing weapon to use against an entire mob, the long reloading time suggests that you had a chance to fend them off differently. It might be easier to argue this with a machine gun, actually, ironically.

I'd pull the trigger nonetheless - even if I went inside and faced a hard time supporting my family, we would live to tell the tale and can still see how to deal with any hardship arising therefrom - if we don't fend them off, then we're dead anyway. Violence IMO is always an ultima ratio, but in that case it pretty much IS the only option available, so I'd probably go for it.

At least so they're too scared and run off, luckily this happens all to easy with immigrants who are more often than not real scaredypants, so actually firing into the air several times might be enough. That's why they come in a mob and not just a pair in the first place.

[SpearBrave]

I would without a doubt pull the trigger and would not give it a second thought. A shotgun can be a fierce weapon and can take out more than one person with one shot at the right range. Plus if this shotgun is used for skeet it would have two barrels.

As a man it is your duty and your purpose to protect your family. If you shy from those reasons you deserve anything that might happen. As far as the law goes I would rather be tried by twelve than carried by six.