The rules changed here after the Martin case when a farmer used his shotgun and killed a burglar. Reasonable force is allowed. What is reasonable is at the discretion of the Crown Prosecution Service.
You can bet your bottom dollar that even though the intruder needed a arrow up the butt I don't see any judge that would deem shooting a fleeing offender as 'reasonable force'.
Me, I think it's quite reasonable.
Happiness is not a destination. It is a way of life.
Moi aussi (see what I did there!!)......no way to know what a person with that sort of mindset might do next.....go get reinforcements?? They've already demonstrated their ability to do irrational things.
"Don't mess with me bro, else I'll pop an arrow in yo' ass, mofo!!"
I think that is brilliant. Anyone who has the tw&tness to go into someone's property should get what's coming to them end of regardless of what the old bill say.
Rossgo wrote:I think that is brilliant. Anyone who has the tw&tness to go into someone's property should get what's coming to them end of regardless of what the old bill say.
Agree, but within reason...and that can be the tricky part. Over here there's something called "Just Cause"...which doesn't mean "just 'cause I feel like it!!"...if anything, you're more accountable than anyone else. But along with that comes the fact that they don't just dish out those kind of qualies willy-nilly. But it applies to application of force, weapons possession, etc.
I have absolutely no idea about bows & arrows those...although I should, when you think about it!!