egafd.com

I noticed that last Fridays murder of a dad trying to protect his mini-digger from hoody scum, has been called a "Tragic accident" by the police. Can you fucking believe it? A kid running out in front of a car is an accident, falling off a ladder is an accident.

So I presume the scum are already pleading, "We didn't mean to kill 'im" and they'll be let off with 50 hours community service ( If that)

I think the law should be changed so that if you die in the event of protecting yourelf, your home or family or property, from scum, howsoever caused, the offender is always charged with murder, end of story. If you are injured, the scum are automatically charged with attempted murder.

Yup, you got it!

If you use force to try and stop someone from stealing your property and that person dies as a result of your force then you will be charged with murder, but if you die as a result of trying to protect your property then that person will only be charged with manslaughter at the most, so where is the justice in that.

they say justice is blind ,you just cant win.

Or if you beat the person up he can have you for assault.planeterotica wrote:

> If you use force to try and stop someone from stealing your
> property and that person dies as a result of your force then
> you will be charged with murder, but if you die as a result of
> trying to protect your property then that person will only be
> charged with manslaughter at the most, so where is the justice
> in that.
>
>
>
>

planeterotica wrote:
> If you use force to try and stop someone from stealing your
> property and that person dies as a result of your force then
> you will be charged with murder

Not necessarily; the legal test is REASONABLE force. You MAY be charged,
but the prosecution will have to demonstrate that you had no reason to
believe your life was in danger, or that the force used by you was
inappropriately 'robust' for the circumstances.
Broadly: shooting an armed intruder in the chest may be reasonable;
shooting him in the back is not. Shooting an unarmed intruder after
having warned him may be reasonable; shooting him out of hand is not.

In Florida it seems 'out of hand' has the upper hand:

Difficult to feel that much sympathy for the 'victim', but unless they
want chaos the Supreme Court should set aside the verdict.