This is a story that even I am appalled by. That's saying a lot since most know me as someone who doesn't believe in war and the taking of other lives.
I view this as a HUGE break down in government policy over there in England. How is this guy guilty? He would not have killed ANYONE had the robbers not invaded his home. He was in bed asleep when they broke in and I think having a torch put to your face in the darkness is grounds for "imminent threat" to life and limb. He obviously couldn't see if the robbers had a knife or gun and were about to hurt or kill him, so what was he suppose to do? Was he suppose to be shot or stabbed first? Remember, these robbers broke into HIS home in the middle of the night.
Laws need to change and that is serious! Laws need to be written like, "Intruders Beware" and "Trespassers will be shot, survivors will be shot again". I am VERY MUCH against people breaking into homes in the middle of the night. I believe that in itself is grounds to lead someone to feel that their life is in danger.
I've seen horror stories of situations like this misfire on the innocent WAY TOO OFTEN. There was a story of an old woman who shot a criminal in his back (killing him) as he tried to steal her TV and jump out of a window. She was charged with 1st degree murder and was locked up forever. There was a story about a father who walked in on a man raping his teen aged daughter on her bed. The father hit the man over the head with a bat and was also charge for 1st degree murder. There was a case of a man who came into a home one night and shot a man's wife in the bed right next to him. The man jumped out of bed, grabbed his own gun and fired at the intruder, hitting him in the back. The intruder died and the man was charged with 2nd degree murder.
All of the above are true stories of real life people and I find it very appalling how any one of them were found guilty of anything! Maybe the old woman who shot a thief as he was going out the window might have gone a bit overboard since her life was in no danger, but still a 1st degree murder charge is a bit much on her as well. The only reason why she was charged with that was because she stood her ground in court and stated that she would shoot the man again if she had a chance. This led the jury to believe she was not fit in the mind and thus she ended up with the maximum sentence. However, I like to look at it this way. Would she be in prison right now had the thief NOT broke into her home? Probably not. Would the thief still be alive today had he not broke into her home? Most likely. This has led me to conclude that the thief brought his fate unto himself by breaking into the old woman's home. Therefore I don't believe she should have ever been found guilty of any crime at all, regardless that she shot him or would shoot him again if that situation ever happened again.
|