Can we get Mr Cunningham' address publicised? He obviously doesn't believe in the sanctity of a mans home and presumably will not defend his own property. He should have some good stuff that would be appreciated by those who aren't prepared to work for the finer things in life,but should be defended to the max by those that do.

Prognosis?... The second civil war.

I think Mr Cunnilingus has dyslexia. I'm sure he means the public require prosecuting.

"Gratuitous and excessive" would have been if he'd stabbed the thieving scrote fifty times, like I might have done under the same circs.

All told, I think the boy showed remarkable poise and restraint, and should get an attaboy instead of a prison sentence.

Mr. FM, as a furriner I would feel it not my place to participate in the Glorious Day's festivities, but I would be happy to perform what some may call "menial" services (oiling the rope, holding your coat etc) while the executions take place.

I also know how to reload, very quickly, a Bren gun's magazine, if that would be of any assistance...

Remember, the innocent and law abiding are easier and safer to prosecute than the actual criminals.

Of course they are going to do the defender.

bastards.

Knife, sword, bayonet or ten rounds of buckshot if the scrotes tried it on here.

I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by six

One of our local gunshops was having Glock days a year or so ago. Glock rep there and all things Glock marked down. One of these things was the entrenching tool/shovel that Glock makes. One charming lady was there with her husband and asked, "What is the shovel for??" Before anyone else could answer, I casually said, "To bury the bodies of any burglar you shoot." The Glock rep just about sprayed a mouthful of coffee...

The dudes actions seem pretty bloody reasonable to me.

No his actions were not 'reasonable', they were highly commendable!

'Splain something please. What is their definition of 'reasonable force' versus 'excessive and gratuitous force?'

Also an explanation of the use of the word 'gratuitous' in that phrase, in context, is required.

Uhhh...what is the 'policy on householders and use of force?' Is that the grounds on which the Crown will prosecute? Is there a difference in the law or policy? Just seeking for understanding.

The prosecutor has it all wrong. The standard of reasonableness in the use of force in defense of self, property, and cohabitants is completely different for a civilian from what it is for a law enforcement professional. That is common sense, and it adds deterrent value as well. Would-be felons should understand that they run the risk of being flayed alive by a sadistic maniac if they trespass in his lodgings, and that the maniac WILL WALK!

There are several US states with "Castle" laws, but not enough. In Texas, I believe, one may use deadly force to defend property.

I agree with this premise.

Property is obtained through the labours of one's limited lifespan. Stealing property is equivalent to stealing a piece of one's life. Furthermore, one who has been robbed shall never rest easily again in their domicile. A home should be a place of respite and safety. Anyone who violates the sanctity of someone's home is a criminal of the highest order.

Furthermore, homes are expected to be occupied, even if the criminal truly believes the house to be temporarily vacant. Therefore any intended offense to the property of a home is an intended offense to ANY AND ALL OCCUPANTS.

A perpetrator at night has the advantage of surprise and drowsy inhabitants unsure of what's going on. This advantage must be counterbalanced by the risk of extreme reprisal.

All crimes against a person are barbaric, but crimes in the home are lifelong tragedies to entire families and neighborhoods. They should be dealt with as harshly as possible and any measure of self-defense by homeowners tolerated.

Such self-defense is often termed "summary execution" by milquetoast advocates for criminals. The home defender, they say, is "judge, jury, and executioner." That is hardly the case. Unlike a courtroom where the accused is restrained or guarded, the judge ruling with authority, and the jury safe, a person defending their home has no assurance of safety or control. The situation unfolding is uncertain. The intent of the criminal is unknown. Even the most innocent of intentions could become murder when discovery and confrontation ensues.

The bottom line is that a homeowner MUST do whatever is necessary to protect himself, his home, and his family. He need not give the benefit of ANY doubts to the intruder. It takes only a fraction of a second to launch a bullet which will end your life. You need not give them that second. Even a disabled and disarmed perpetrator could turn the tables on you if you become inattentive, slip, trip, or stumble while waiting for the police to arrive.

I won't give them that chance. The only thing police will find in my home is a dead intruder, my empty handgun, and a pool of blood on the carpet.

POWinCA, I hope you have a nice quality woollen cut pile carpet with a decent stain repellant coating, soak the blood up with damp towels, then spread baking soda and vaccuum several times. Follow up by damping the carpet with COLD water and rubbing in an enzyme based clothes washing powder and leaving a damp towel over the spot to keep it damp overnight. By morning when you can use a decent non-steam carpet cleaner like a Kirby carpet shampoo system, the blood stains should be gone. Never had a burglar bleeding on our carpet, but plenty of other things, both furred and feathered, have done so.

Nylon carpets are all very well, but I much prefer a good woollen natural one, support the farmers, not the petrochem corps.

POWinCA (I was once a resident of the Left Coast and did NOT vote for the governator), here's hoping you get a deputy (not a cop) who will congratulate you for saving the state the expense of a trial.