Mods, this comment section is going to get spicy. Especially from those who don’t read the story.
Seems very harsh but it says he was prohibited from owning firearms.
Does that mean he had a history?
Clickbait.
The man and his son chased the attackers off the property. The legal and proper course of action would have been to then secure themselves inside the property and call the cops.
Instead, the father went inside, grabbed his gun, headed toward them and started shooting. A gun he was prohibited from even possessing. This was not a random attack.
So dad gets trapped on roof. Thugs beat his kid. Dad jumps off roof chases them off. Goes inside arms himself. Thugs comeback for another go. Dad shoots thug.
Legally no defence as he was safe.
Personally I believe the kids now adays have a phrase for this and I believe it is “fuck around and find out”
Should he have done it ? No. Do I blame him ? Also no.
An area I agree with Texas. Come onto my property and you’re no longer alive. You made a choice to invade my castle and I can take whatever defence needed.
Only exception being a clear and obvious retreat and surrender from the attacker. Otherwise fuck around and find out man.
The UK government doesn’t respect the right to proper self defense.
Good on this man for not allowing himself to be conditioned. Perhaps the most insidious thing this country has done is neuter its people. It is genuinely heartbreaking to see people express their genuine belief that they *should* be helpless.
The issue here is the fact he didn’t have a licence.
That does not scream ‘good character’ and other guns at the property certainly alludes to the man being a criminal.
Now if he had remained in his property, with a lawfully held shotgun and they had attempted to enter the property he could have had a more robust excuse as in the heat of the moment feeling that his life was in danger.
7 comments
Mods, this comment section is going to get spicy. Especially from those who don’t read the story.
Seems very harsh but it says he was prohibited from owning firearms.
Does that mean he had a history?
Clickbait.
The man and his son chased the attackers off the property. The legal and proper course of action would have been to then secure themselves inside the property and call the cops.
Instead, the father went inside, grabbed his gun, headed toward them and started shooting. A gun he was prohibited from even possessing. This was not a random attack.
So dad gets trapped on roof. Thugs beat his kid. Dad jumps off roof chases them off. Goes inside arms himself. Thugs comeback for another go. Dad shoots thug.
Legally no defence as he was safe.
Personally I believe the kids now adays have a phrase for this and I believe it is “fuck around and find out”
Should he have done it ? No. Do I blame him ? Also no.
An area I agree with Texas. Come onto my property and you’re no longer alive. You made a choice to invade my castle and I can take whatever defence needed.
Only exception being a clear and obvious retreat and surrender from the attacker. Otherwise fuck around and find out man.
The UK government doesn’t respect the right to proper self defense.
Good on this man for not allowing himself to be conditioned. Perhaps the most insidious thing this country has done is neuter its people. It is genuinely heartbreaking to see people express their genuine belief that they *should* be helpless.
The issue here is the fact he didn’t have a licence.
That does not scream ‘good character’ and other guns at the property certainly alludes to the man being a criminal.
Now if he had remained in his property, with a lawfully held shotgun and they had attempted to enter the property he could have had a more robust excuse as in the heat of the moment feeling that his life was in danger.