can this be true

old boy

a friend called this evening she had the following story, a work collogue arrives home its dark, notices a van outside the house a quite rural area no other house nearby, some people run out, gaurds rang by the homeowner who follows the van, tells gaurds what direction they are going twice, eventually both vehicles pull up, where the intruders are living, homeowner tells gaurds where they are pulled up, after a wait the people who were being followed threathen the home owner, home owner discharges a shot gun damages property, a pellet ends up between the first two toes of one of the intruders, intruders ring gaurds, they arrive, homeowner is taken away in handcuffs, at present the gaurds are trying to convince the intruders to make a statement against the homeowner, neibhours of the homeowner are talking of vigilante set up it things come to a head, and they say crime does not pay this is true i kid ye not

Turner

Very hard to follow but discharging a firearm recklessly is a very serious offence.

frobisher

OP: Um, I've read that three times I'm still not certain what exactly happened. A spot of judicious editing might be needed here!

Overheal

the Grammar seems lost on me; but I think I understand the point of discussion is........Vigilantism?

Theres been a lot of flak in the News lately about how the Gards have been failing in their civic duty to protect neighbourhoods from crime: is that what you're talking about here?

johnnysmurfman

This is just jibberish and should be deleted.

Overheal

old boy wrote:

a friend called this evening she had the following story, a work collogue arrives home its dark, notices a van outside the house a quite rural area no other house nearby, some people run out, gaurds rang by the homeowner who follows the van, tells gaurds what direction they are going twice, eventually both vehicles pull up, where the intruders are living, homeowner tells gaurds where they are pulled up, after a wait the people who were being followed threathen the home owner, home owner discharges a shot gun damages property, a pellet ends up between the first two toes of one of the intruders, intruders ring gaurds, they arrive, homeowner is taken away in handcuffs, at present the gaurds are trying to convince the intruders to make a statement against the homeowner, neibhours of the homeowner are talking of vigilante set up it things come to a head, and they say crime does not pay this is true i kid ye not

Okay lets see if I can decipher this Algorithm :

A woman arrives home via car. Its a quite remote, rural area, so she is surprised to find that there is a van parked outside her place. Moments after spotting her drive up, the intruders into her home run out of her house, into the car, and drive off.
At this point, the woman calls An Garda Schionna (woa..spelling?) and as she does so she tails them in her own car. She's on the phone with the Gards the whole time, when the intruders pull into a driveway (their house, supposedly).
As she waits for the Authorities, the intruders approach her and start threatening her, where she then discharges [a firearm: could be a shotgun, could be a gun that fires shots, it could be an air rifle, or a mix of all three for all the grammar involved]
The discharge causes property damage, and a pellet (lets assume air-pellet firearm) gets lodged into the toes of one of the intruders.

Its at this point the intruders call the Gards. Since its their house, and the woman is now 'the intruder' she is arrested.

The situation at the moment: the Gards want the group of Intruders to make a statement against the woman, whilst the Neghbours of the Woman are in serious consideration of setting up a sytem of Vigilante protection in their area.

Now, that should bring the horrible fit of grammar to an end; if type like that again, you may be shot next

o1s1n

i take it the "pellet" here refers to shotgun ammunition. not an air rifle.

its the lack of full stops that makes it so damn hard to understand. I've read it twice and feel dizzy.

haz

o1s1n wrote:

i take it the "pellet" here refers to shotgun ammunition. not an air rifle.

I interpreted a) there was only one weapon firing shot, one pellet of which injured (possibly) a person, the remaining pellets damaging property; b) it was a woman's colleague, of unspecified gender.

Doesn't the law say something like "not having to retreat in defence of your own person or property, even so far as fatally injuring the intruder"? It doesn't say you can go chase down the highway with firearms in pursuit of the buggers - there are people paid to do that.

is_that_so

This is one of those logic puzzles. "Man walks into room and screams" type of thing. I assume that the woman was arrested for letting off a gun and that the house is her house. Grammar has a purpose as does punctuation.

joebhoy1916

He should have shot them dead then there would be no case as we all seen recently.

Yes Haz there are people that get paid to do that its just they just dont do it very well.

NUTLEY BOY

As far as I can follow the sequence of what happened the outcome seems to be about right. The original victim should be prosecuted.

You are only allowed to use reasonable and proportionate force to defend yourself, to defend someone else or your property.

Even then you need to be careful about how far you go. Although of a different character look at the criminal prosecution in England of Tony Martin for shooting the intruder (Fred B????) dead. Look also at the English Court of Appeal (Civil) case of Revills -v- Newbery (1996 ?) where the occupier shot a trespasser. The trespaser sued and won damages because, on the facts, the occupier had gone too far !!

Once you are the victim as depicted in OP's posting you are not conferred with automatic rights to do what you like by way of response.

The action of following the original offenders, discharging a firearm at them and wounding seems far too remote from the original action to justify it. It might be different if the confrontation took place within the immediate environs of the original victim's property and the firing of the weapon was reasonable in the circumstances.

At a guess, a suspended sentence might be a satisfactory outcome for the original offender !

Incidentally, the original victim has now left herself open to a civil action by the original intruders. Worse, she might have to pay for it herself as most household insurance policies exclude claims arising out of firearms.

Moral : If you want to shoot intruders make sure that they are on your property at the time and that you are in the USA !

Sparks

If I understand the OP right, this person pulls up outside their home and observes people fleeing from it, pursues them by car, then shoots at them when they stop.

1. The person who fired the shot was bloody stupid for pursuing them. What if they'd been armed? Now you're down a telly and your health. Leave it for the insurance.

2. Firing the shot would not necessarily be illegal. It depends on the circumstances of the threat that the OP said was made. However, the fact that the homeowner chased after the other party in the car and the fact that this person must have had the shotgun with them in the car means that it's pretty clear that there would have to be an investigation. Without knowing a lot more about what happened, there's know way to guess how that one would go.


Nutley, Martin's case is just not a good one to compare to anything - Martin went completely off the deep end, booby trapped his house, obtained a shotgun through fraudulent means after his own was confiscated for firing on a car because he thought the occupants were going to steal apples from his orchard, and then after he'd killed one burglar and wounded another, he lied through his teeth about how he'd done it.

Overheal

NUTLEY BOY wrote:

Moral : If you want to shoot intruders make sure that they are on your property at the time and that you are in the USA !

god bless my motherland