"Kerryn Offord" wrote in message
...


Jim Yanik wrote:

SNIP
Now,that UK man who shot the burglars in the back was justified,as the
police were of NO use,and he had suffered repeated burglaries.The police
failed in providing him security,so it fell upon himself to do so.
Criminals should have no right to safety while commiting their crimes.
SNIP

This is simply attempted murder. The target was no threat and was
departing, but the householder shot him anyway (that makes it vindictive).

If the householder had just shot the guy in the chest when he first
confronted him....

It seems to come down to a difference in attitudes.

This reminds me of an incident in Northern Ireland:

A squaddie was manning a vehicle checkpoint as a car approached at speed -
with obvious hostile intent. The passenger in the car opened fire on the
checkpoint, and so - understandably - the soldier returned fire. The car
passed and nobody had scored a hit, unfortunately though, as the car
accelerated away the soldier killed one of the occupants (ISTR the driver).
Since the lethal shot was fired with the car having passed - that soldier
was successfully charged with manslaughter and went to prison.

Tricky to decide whether that soldier was right to fire, and I would argue
that he was. NI SOPs decided he wasn't (and I think there was a political
move to show him little leniency), but this is a good example of the mindset
within the UK that a number of you US guys cannot fathom. Reasonable force
has its limits and the particular point of the scenario/situation when force
is applied successfully goes a long way to determine the legality of your
actions.


Americans hold everybody else's life cheap (cheaper than the cheapest
bit of property).

Uk/NZ and others consider both lives of value, but allow reasonable
force in defence of self or others (defence of property is different).