doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Digweed Attacked

You guys are in a bad situation with self defense, it would seem. There have been cases here when homeowners and business owners were jailed and imprisoned for defending themselves. I understand that I must be able to convince a jury, or maybe a DA, that I truly believed my life and safety, or that of someone with me, was in jeopardy before using deadly force, but some states have taken steps to remedy the injustices done in cases like those I mentioned, by passing the "stand your ground", and "castle doctrine", laws.

There is a cliche that is heard occasionally in discussions such as this, that "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. It is likely that many who say this haven't considered what a living hell 7 years in prison would truly be like, if you are found "guilty", under a travesty of justice, of misusing deadly force. But, I have, and decided long ago that there Is at least one thing in this world of mine that is worth going to prison for. I have determined that I would rather spend years in prison, attempting to defend myself from gang rapes and beatings, than the rest of my life in horrible guilt because my wife, child, or any innocent person for that matter, was brutalized or murdered while I stood by and wrung my hands.

I know that "this ain't the Wild West" and "you ain't Bill Hickock", but I take the Apostle Paul's admonition in 1 Timothy 5:8 to heart ......... "But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse that an unbeliever" NKJV. A very large part of "providing" is safety, IMO.

SRH

not to seem hard- but when someone breaks into an occupied home, and especially if that intruder is armed- i fail to see a rash decision - intended harm to the occupants is the natural conclusion

and I have met an unarmed burglar breaking into my home- who immediately turned and ran so was allowed to go- i was armed because i did not know he would not be, its not always shoot first ask questions later

also consider- I grew up in a rural area - the law enforcement on duty at night could very well be on the other side of the county and at least a half hour or even more way.

Well put Demonwolf. In the famous Tony Martin case he shot the offender as he was running away and therefore could not claim he was in fear of his life or serious harm. No court in Britain, as far as I know, has ever managed to convict someone for using proportionate force to protect themselves, others or their property. It's when the force used is disproportionate that things go wrong. It is always the offender who dictates what amount of force is proportionate. The more he resists lawful apprehension the more force that can be used in response. Same rules for everyone that dictated how I did my job.

Section 3 of The Criminal Law Act 1967. 'A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstance in the prevention of crime, or in the effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large'. That bit of legislation applies to each and every British citizen or person lawfully allowed to be in Britain at the time.

If George Digweed had been in fear of serious harm, which he had every reason to believe at the time, and had responded or been able to respond with deadly force then it would be at least one less criminal to bother people and the best of luck to him if he had managed to do so and he would have had overwhelming support form the public as well as the courts. Lagopus.....

thanks lagopus - nice to see the facts Vs "common knowledge"

It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so. Mark Twain

I appreciate lagopus' input also, but regardless of what the letter of the law says, the culture has instilled a mindset in of some of the other commenters. All situations would be different, but the forethought is to just plan to give up the watch, money, trophy, etc., submitting complete control to the criminal.

Also, the letter of a '60's era personal defense law is likely interpreted much different today. Gil brought it up earlier, but current knife laws, as laid out on the British government's website, have extremely narrow reasons that need to be shown just to be in possession. I'm sure firearm possession and use is much narrower.

It might also be intuitive that Digweed would have been cleared should he have discharged a gun during that incident, but clearly, Monday morning quarterbacking shows that no one in the Digweed residence died, so it may not be so clear that deadly force could've been used in defense. Just an opinion is all.

But we must be very careful about how the events are interpreted.
If you keep a gun loaded ready for use even though it be in an approved gun cabinet. The law could argue that you premeditated the use of the gun for your defence no matter what the circumstances may be, BIG can of worms lots of lawyer argument. So to keep on the correct side of the law as soon as the low life started to smash the door or windows to gain entry you run to your gun cabinet assemble the gun and confront them. But then even if you were in fear of your life and you shot someone, and their only weapon was a screwdriver more legal problems for you, no need to use deadly force. It is a very big step to shoot a person or persons breaking into your home here in the UK. HEADS the prosecution WINS, TAILS you LOOSE. So you had better have your story very straight indeed when the Legal Shit hits the fan.

true- when I took advanced training from Chuck Taylor, he rightfully said that when you shoot, you have to survive three battles

the initial gun battle
the criminal case battle
and the civil suit battle

Here's sentencing this week of a Canadian shooting to kill an intruder in defence of property, accidentally killing his son.

"A Nova Scotia man convicted in the 2011 accidental shooting death of his 20-year-old son has been sentenced to four years in prison.

In sentencing Michael Paul Dockrill on Friday, Nova Scotia Supreme Court Justice Joshua Arnold said the man "fired blindly. That figure could have been anybody."

(Drug dealing at the house.)

"This is precisely why gun crimes in Canada are treated so seriously," he said, reading from his sentencing decision.

In April, a jury found Dockrill guilty of criminal negligence causing death and careless use of a firearm for shooting his son Jason in June 2011.

Dockrill and his son were trying to fend off a home invasion at their house in Lakeside when Michael Dockrill opened fire. He said he thought he was shooting at an intruder.

Arnold said Friday that when Dockrill shot at someone he was "wantonly reckless as to whether they died." Dockerill didn't know he had shot his son until he went outside.

Arnold described a parent killing his own child as "probably the very worst of tragedies."

Not sure what point you are trying to make King, other than to show Dockrill is a fooking idiot. Guy belongs in jail. I don't feel sorry for him either.

Reporting what happened, not making a point, lonesome, other than better to have your head in the right place when you pull a trigger, which seems consensus of the thread.