Read about it here.

To summarize: thugs try to break into homeowners house armed with a crowbar. Homeowner confronts them at the front door. Thugs assault homeowner with a bottle. Homeowner's stepson fires two shots from an air rifle at thugs. Police come and arrest the stepson for assault and "possession of a knife." (Oh the horror!) Stepson pleads guilty.

The kicker: "It is not known if Mr Goldie (the thug) was charged with any offences after the incident"

We have to be vigilant that we don't end up in the same boat over here.

You're right about that. If we don't... well, this time, unlike when we had to break off from Great Britain, there's no viable place to go for people who believe in what the founding fathers intended. Great read: America: The Last Best Hope (Vol's I and II). It's history without the politically correct doctoring, so it probably won't be in a public school anytime soon, but, at least it's not "banned in Boston" yet

The Audacity of people actually wanting to defend themselves in their own homes!

In South Korea its the same way. A soldier was laid into by 12 S Koreans and put into the hospital. In his hospital bed he was charged with assault for defending himself. This happened in 2002 after all the riots there.

NO right to self defense there.

<[censored] state of affairs and all the fresh air in the world will not make any f**king difference. Trainspotting

M

I am so glad I'm a citizen, not a ******* subject. But this still shames me, as a member of Clans Cummings and McBeth.

I agree with all the above, but I still like their Queen a lot better than our King.

sue

I like her too. It's easy to like somebody with no power. There's one thing nice about having a President though. Whether you love them or hate them, you only have to put up with them for 8 years max. Some places combine the power of a President with the longevity of a Queen, and you end up with a swine like Castro. Ugh.....

Yes, but at least we can get rid of ours if he don't work out. Our problem is we can't seem to find anyone better to replace him with. Were we to have our own queen next time around, I dare say it will not be an improvement, but a big step backwards.

Trainspotting, there's a couple scenes in that movie that really crack me up. On a whole, it is a fairly harsh but accurate indictment of the Scottish condition, not to say that parts of our own society aren't just as dismal. Things are tough all over, man.

Can I ask those who find this story, lets say unjustifiable, to put themselves in the defendants shoes (the man charged in this story with the assault with a firearm, Mr Ali) and place the scenario in there own US state and taking into account their own States laws what would have been the outcome if Mr Goldie came knocking at your door in the same fashion. (please don't duck the question by saying this scenario would not happen because of the current Gun Laws in the US, you should remember that the 'thug' is drunk and on drugs. Oh and to be realistic as Airguns are easier to obtain in the UK rather than a proper gun, lets not assume that you are not using an air rifle but the firearms you currently have to hand.)

My guess would be that in most US jurisdictions, with a bad guy breaking into your home, armed with a deadly weapon, and exhibiting the intent to assault you (throwing the bottle for starters), if you are in fear of your life from this BG, you could centerpunch him with a real gun and the shooting would be ruled justifiable...

Let's see...

Breaks into your home, screaming and yelling and incoherent. Throws a club at you, then starts swinging longer club with the intent to commit, based your perspective as a residence of that structure and a "normal" person, bodily harm.

Bentirran, I'd like you to tell me what part of that you'd be OK with if it was your home. Would you simple ask him to stop trying to smash your skull in with the crowbar while you curl up in ball and cry at his feet? Seriously, what would you do?

Here in the great state of Lousy-anna/USA (we have the best politicians and police that money can buy), The intruder's body would be taken away and I would have a few questions to answer (at my home) and when the CSI team was finished, they and the other Police would leave to go about their business and I and my family would get some sleep in OUR beds.

Here, the following applies:
1) We have the right to shoot a carjacker.
2) I (male) have the right to shoot ANY intruder in my home.
3) My wife has the right to shoot an intruder through the front door if she feels that her life or the lives of children under her care, are threatened.
4) My wife has the right to shoot any intruder in the house.
5) We have the right to keep a loaded weapon in the car.
6) We have the right to keep loaded weapons in the house.
7) We have the right to carry a pistol in a holster, while hunting.

We consider pellet and BB guns to be deadly weapons, perhaps because southeners are known to be weapons familiar and knowledgable of how to use a weapon to it's most effectiveness, IMHO

Well, if the first weapon I had to challenge the intruder with was my loaded and cocked red ryder bb gun, I would probably shoot him and then start bashing his head in with the thing. I doubt the shot would do much but get his attention, but the bb gun would be lethal force thereafter, along with my size 12, assuming he isn't able to defend himself.

Fortunately, I don't worry about being inadequately armed in my own home against such invaders. Oh yeah, and the invader will be shown to have been lethally armed by the time the cops show up, whether he was at the time of entry or not.

Don't come into my house uninvited, unless it is on fire and you are trying to help save me.

Bentirran, there is no logical argument you can make that is going to justify to this crowd the outcome of this incident. This is one fundamental American concept that pretty much everyone here agrees on. Home invasion is just something we will never tolerate.

"...the invader will be shown to have been lethally armed by the time the cops show up, whether he was at the time of entry or not..."

Sounds nice, but get caught doing that (they are getting better and better at detecting that very thing) and you will suddenly go from the innocent guy defending himself to a bad buy trying to cover up his crime. It is a variation of the old saying, "once a lier always a lier"...

So true. It's the same as the old "if you have to shoot someone outside, drag them inside". Exceedingly bad advice in this day and age.

I have always understood from our Police types that when you shoot an intruder and he falls outside, to pick him up and throw him back inside and that yes, the Police will be able to tell what happened and what you did....

Personally, I believe that if the impact(s) throws him on the outside of the door, I will just leave him there. Yes, I believe the Police will be able to figure out that he was inside when I blew him backwards. I believe that will cause less paperwork and...stuttering on my part, trying to explain why I did something hokey.

The Police will just figure that I have saved them a bigger investigation at some unknown future date.

"Yes your honor, after he grabbed my daughter's softball bat next to the front door there and started swinging away, that was when I drew my pistol and stopped his ruthless cold blooded attack on my family."

Sounds good enough to me.

Of course, I could just shoot him upon entry and be done with it, but where's the challenge in that? I guess the question is do I wait until he presents a suitable threat to initiate my defense, or do I just figure once he's inside that his intent all along is to do us in and smoke him where he stands?

I know which one I will pick every single time. I haven't had to put that play in motion as yet, somebody out there is lucky they haven't hit my place.

I don't think this was part of the scenario I have put forward. This was not described in the BBC Scotland News report. From the rest of the replies to the specific scenario, I guess I can conclude the end result is the following if the same scenario was carried out in most US states,

Bay Guy - 'Center punched' - shot to death.

Good Guy - depending on which side of the door step or outside/inside property boundary the the 'Bad Guy' fell when he was 'center punched', either facing no criminal actions or first or second degree murder charges (dependent of which state of course this scenario is being carried out). Of course if 'Good Guy' is now facing a murder charge now gets described as 'bad guy'.

No great shakes though because in the grand scheme of things in the US we now have 2 bad guys - 1 dead, the other now facing the electric chair.

As described in the Scottish incident, I don't think at any point Mr Ali described himself as being in any mortal danger, the bottle was thrown at the father in law of the accused Mr Ali. (Mr Ali said he fired the air rifle to scare Mr Goldie - Mr Ali was not assaulted by the bottle throwing incident it would have been his father in law). As described in the BBC Scotland report it was not known whether any charges were filed against Mr Goldie (Bad Guy), there is of course nothing in the report also to suggest why Mr Goldie (Bad Guy) was attempting to enter Mr Ali's Father in Laws property also. This is an important consideration in trying to judge the actual motives of Mr Goldie. The BBC report does not mention the motives of Mr Goldie, who started the incident was. This would be speculation on everyones part as to whether Mr Goldie was indeed the 'bad guy' as insinuated by the news report.

Mr Ali was charged because he had used a firearm with the potential to kill the person he had aimed the weapon at. Mr Ali's explanation that he discharged the firearm as a means of self defense was not given. He was not in any mortal danger and had admitted this. Self defense argument was not given. Under Scottish law he had therefore committed a firearms offense in order to commit assault. In the reported BBC Scotland story the Judge had also taken into account that Mr Ali had been provoked. As Mr Ali had pleaded guilty to this offense under provocation I doubt whether Mr Ali will be jailed, but rather given community service. But we will have to wait and see.

Ironraven, to actually answer your point directly. If I was attacked in my own home with someone armed with a crowbar, I would attempt to fight of the attacker with the due force required to stop that attack, if it did mean killing the assailant in order to save my life or anyones else's life then so be it. To assume there is no right under Scottish law for a means of Self defense, then you are totally mistaken. To kill someone to stop other criminal acts such as burglary, theft, property damage under Scottish law would be considered murder. Human lives are not considered secondary to property ownership because it cheapens the value of human life itself.

Yup, sometimes we forget that the US struggled to create a republic that was different for good reasons. If you read the Bill Of Rights, (the first ten ammendments to the US Constitution), it is essentially outlining some of the real problems and struggles that colonial America had dealing with British despotism. Many of the ammendments outlined specific rights that people wanted spelled out, so that there would be no ambiguity. Madison originally didn't want them, because he felt they were already implied in the Constitution. Later, he actually drafted them, and wrote that he felt they made the document stronger in the end.

We're not perfect, but maybe we still are "the last best hope"

It sounds bizarre to charge someone with "possession of a knife" when he was inside his own home.

I suspect that Mr. Ali's mistake was to assume the police were there to help him, and he made a statement without asking for his lawyer (I forgot whether that would be a solicitor or a barrister in the UK). Telling the police that he had grabbed the knife for self-defense sounds like a statement made in all innocence by a man who believed he had done nothing wrong.

No disrespect intended to the law enforcement officers and prosecuting attorneys who I know frequent this forum; but there are simply far too many cases where the police have taken advantage of an ordinary citizen's naivete to coax him (or her) into making an incriminating or self-incriminating statement.

Yeah - Fidel is so much worse than that nice Senor Baptista who preceded him...

If you mean Batista then yes. Both are/were repugnant jackasses, but Batista never pretended to be anything but the scummy thug that he was. Castro on the other hand adds the stench of hypocrisy. I predict that after the old despot and his brother have been dead awhile the real human cost of their rule will come out, and they will share Stalin's fate: worshipped during their lifetimes--at home and abroad--and reviled after their deaths.

I'm sorry, did we read the same articles about the same incident?

BBC calls it a "cosh", the other papers describe it as a crowbar or club- that is the only point of contention. Either way, a metal club was there, there is no debate. A bottle, which is a very functional club unless you break it and they only easily break in movies, was thrown. Mr. Goldie, the "offended" had entered or was attempting to enter the apartment when he threw the bottle, he did raise the metal club (cosh, crowbar, who cares) and he was intoxicated. We've got an armed home invasion with assault and battery. I don't see diddly squat concerning a property crime.

Now, as for this kid's action, was he himself in immediate danger, not yet. Did he feel that his father was immediate danger, yes. Sorry, the day you can't defend the members of your household from an attacker, there is something royally screwed up in that jurisdiction. Defense should be a de facto thing in this case.

And I didn't assume anything. A .177" BB gun is only dangerous if you catch someone in the eye. You're better off using it as a club against a human. But you've assumed that this kid was in the wrong for defending himself and a family member. You've asked us to look at this from the perspective of an individual who is committing a violent act without provocation. Sorry, I don't see that as a valid point of view.

I can't imagine that no small number of Scotsmen aren't bothered by this either. As was pointed out elsewhere, you can't generate a logical or ethical argument, not here. I don't think you could make on anywhere with people who actually know what a BB gun is.

It's always been bad advice. Drag and scuff marks are pretty obvious.

I will agree that moving dead bodies around at a crime scene is not recommended. I am not all too concerned with where the body lands after I've administered my defense. I still hear about LEOs dropping items near corpses now and then, so I stick with what works.

In the end, I really don't care a whole lot how it looks one way or the other. If I have to smoke a bad guy, it will be for cause, whether the judge and/or jury will think so or not later won't influence my decision much at the time.

I gotta think more and more people who arm themselves these days in this country are of the same conclusion.

From the Oxford Online English Dictionary:

Cosh
Brit.
? noun: a thick heavy stick or bar used as a weapon.
? verb: to hit on the head with a cosh.
? ORIGIN: of unknown origin.

Definately doesn't sound like Mr. Goldie was just popping by for a cuppa.

Fortunately, here in MA, we recently had a case where, two police officers (one of whom's girfriend used to work for me), went into a home, under the ASSUMPTION that it was being broken into, without announcing themselves. Now, a little background on this.
The person's home in question is an affluent member of society. He was supposed to be away on vacation. His neighbor, late one night, noticed the lights on in the bedroom. Being vigilant, he called the cops. Well, the cops responding, apparently went into "hero" mode, and did everything they could possible do wrong. The guy's car was in the driveway. Clue one. Upon entry, they neither announced their presence, nor answered when someone (the homeowner), called out. The homeowner, assuming burglars, dailed 911, then grabbed a pistol. Still, the police failed to announce their presence. They proceeded up to the now locked bedroom, and kicked in the door. First guy through caught a bullet in the chest. Fortunately, he had a vest on. The homeowner realized they were police, dropped the weapon, and was arrested for attempted murder.
Well, they guy got off, for several reasons. First, the police did not follow protocol, nor did 911 inform either the homeowner, or the police responding, about the call from the homeowner while the cops were in the house. The police, by failing to announce themselves, created a danger for all involved, that could have been avoided. The homeowner was found innocent of any & all charges, due to the fact that he had assumed, as any rational person would, that someone kicking in his door was set to do him harm. So, as soon as he saw a silouhette, he shot at it. Upon realizing his mistake, he immediately surrendered his weapon. The court, thankfully, found him well within his rights to defend himself, due to the fact that he had unknown intruders in his home, called out & received no answer, locked his door & called 911, then, when someone kicked in his door, he feared for his life. The only thing those two officers did correctly were put on their vests (thankfully), and tell the truth (unbeleivably). I am unsure as to what the outcome was for the two officers. I know the one who was shot was fine, he walked away with bruised ribs only. As far as their duty status, I dont know.

According to the Evening Times account, Goldie dropped the cosh and then Ali fired a second shot, this time hitting his chest. It's hard to tell, but it sounds like Goldie surrendered and disarmed himself, and then Ali tried to kill him.

If it's true that Goldie was not charged with anything, it probably means he was never a real threat. So Ali's response was disproportionate.

Ali has admitted guilt. Maybe he was badly advised and would have been acquitted had he denied it, I don't know.

Generally with news reports, the more you know about the subject the more wrong they are. I'd be reluctant to make any judgements at this distance. It seems to me that the reports are written precisely to raise the kind of ire we are seeing in this thread. They like to provoke a reaction from their readers. So they minimise or miss out details in order to make reasonable decisions seem unreasonable.

Fortunately, here in Colorado, we have a "Make my Day" law. You are covered from prosecution if you exercise proportional self defense either in your home or on your property. That's right, your front yard is covered also! The way it should be.

If this scenario were to unfold in my house, I'm not sure who would have fired the final shot, me or my wife. Don't like it? Don't break into my house.

Either way, anyone that comes into my house intent on harming me or my family will be carried out. I know every shadow and creaky board in my house, and don't need a light.

They became text book cases of stupidity. I hope they have thier badges yanked.

"...I still hear about LEOs dropping items near corpses..."

Yeah, Hollywood is big on that, but it ain't the real world...

"...then Ali tried to kill him..."

Thinking that I was missing something, I reread the article about this silly incident, and no I was not missing a thing. The article clearly states "...Ali grabbed the airgun and fired twice at Mr Goldie..." The caption under the photo further states "Ali said he fired the air rifle to scare off Mr Goldie"

I doubt very seriously that Ali thought that he could kill anyone with an airgun, be it a BB, .177, or the deadly .22 caliber pellet. Put an eye out, sure. Hit a temple from the side, maybe, but in the chest, I don't think so...

There is more than one article. You may have overlooked my reference to the Evening Times, or else not realised that the original link was to the BBC. Here's a link to the Evening Times. It's best to read as many diverse accounts as you can for events like this.

This article states, "Ali then shot at Goldie to chase him off but the convicted housebreaker then punched the step-father. Goldie then dropped a metal cosh and at this the accused fired a second pellet, hitting his target on the chest, the court was told."

It sounds like the first shot was to chase him off, and missed, and for the second shot he changed his aim and hit. It sounds like an escalation. It's easy to believe he was trying to do as much damage as he could. He may or may not have been aware that the gun wouldn't kill; at any rate, he's not pleaded guilty to murder, but it sounds like a serious assault on an unarmed man.

In this incident it's possible that Goldie never entered onto the property at all. In the UK many houses have front doors which open directly onto the street, with no front yards or gardens. This incident may have been entirely in the street.

Here's one extreme interpretation of events. Drunk man is looking for his friend's house but gets the wrong place. He knocks on the door, loudly because he is drunk. Stepfather comes out and remonstrates with him. Voices are raised and eventually the drunk tosses a bottle. Step-father gets angry and attacks the drunk. Drunk fights back. Son comes out and fires a warning shot. Drunk drops what he has in his hands and surrenders. Son shoots him in the chest.

Police arrive and try to figure it out. The Evening Times says they "eventually" arrested Ali, which suggests it took them some time. Ali admits he was wrong and over-reacted. End of story.

I think that the air rifle used in this incident was luckily below the 12ft/lbs legal limit (UK Law) for the accused. Much more serious firearms charges may have been brought about if this legal limit had been exceeded. Possible attempted murder charges even. Some air rifles can easily be re-tuned/modified to energies above 30 ft/lbs (FAC). I wouldn't like to take my chances of surviving an accurately aimed chest/heart shot at this energy of 30 ft/lbs. Even at 12 ft/lbs a shot to the groin, neck, leg can cause major arteries to be severed resulting in death through loss of blood pressure. This also has not been unknown. As for BB guns, I think there may be some confusion here as most BB guns do not really go above 1 to 2 ft/lbs.

Well, the flavor of the confrontation in question now is changing from the original take. If such be the case, and the lad was really shooting at the belligerant drunkard off premises, and after the drunkard had given up, then that seems to be a bit over-zealous to me as well.

As for the cops in the movies, well let's say there are times when art still imitates life, and we can leave it at that I suppose.

Makes me glad I do not live in the UK...

Not quite. The BBC calls Goldie a "burgler". and the Evening Tmes calls him a "housebreaker". He was clearly attempting an armed B&E on an innocent family. He is the instigator of this whole incident, yet he is charged with nothing? While you can argue whether or not the second shot was necessary, it may well be that Ali was in the act of firing while Goldie was dropping the club. These things tend to happen pretty fast. And as far as I can tell, Ali didn't use the knife at all. Why then is he charged with possessing a fishing knife? Obviously because, in the paradise that has become Scotland, any attempt at self-defense using a weapon, no matter how reasonable, is illegal and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But armed home invasions are winked at.

Ali did well. He defended his home and family. After all, he may have saved them all from being tied up and bashed to death so in that respect he came out ahead. It's just too bad that he was forced to confess or face an even stiffer penalty.

Section 1289.25 - Physical or Deadly Force Against Intruder

A. The Legislature hereby recognizes that the citizens of the State of Oklahoma have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.

B. Any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including but not limited to deadly force, against another person who has made an unlawful entry into that dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant of the dwelling.

C. Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including but not limited to deadly force, pursuant to the provisions of subsection B of this section, shall have an affirmative defense in any criminal prosecution for an offense arising from the reasonable use of such force and shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the reasonable use of such force.

D. The provisions of this section and the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, Sections 1 through 25 of this act, shall not be construed to require any person using a pistol pursuant to the provisions of this section to be licensed in any manner.

And if the event had occurred outside one's home HB2615 would be applicable.

D. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

E. A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle of another person is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

F. A person who uses force as permitted pursuant to the provisions of subsections B and D of this section is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

Wow, I love it! Too bad more states don't have laws like that; home breakins, carjackings, etc, would probably decrease like crazy...

If you think that is crazy, read THIS.

Burglars are not supposed to be let off with a caution(kind of like a traffic ticket, where you plead guilty and get a fine, but it goes on your record) because their jails are crowded.

How can people live this way/let this happen?! I wonder how long it'll be before vigilante justice takes over.

Hmm, on the other hand... I've always wanted my own private island. The way it looks me and a few of us here could rule Britania. Hey Ironraven, do you want to be Dravot or Carnehan? Anyone else want in?

-Blast

perhaps we could interest them in some shrubberies? I'll be Arthur

"Oh, what sad times are these when passing ruffians can 'ni' at will to old ladies. There is a pestilence upon this land. Nothing is sacred. Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history."

Even Arthur, King of the Britons had a difficult time making the peasants understand that he was king.
'Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government'

Well, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!

Dibs on Tim the Enchanter!!!

-Blast

Well, Heinlein did have a revolt that started in Scotland in one of his novels- Starship Trooper? Puppet Masters?

*sticks hand in back pocket* Blast you Blast, you twisted my arm into having to go back and read all that wonderful old sci-fi again. :P

Yes, well, I want to be the keeper of the Vorpal Bunnies then.

Don't forget "Tunnel in the Sky"!! Throw some L. Niven and A.C. Clarke in too.

If you have the time read this series and let me know what you think.

-Blast

I want/will settle for either Wales or Cornwall. We will need a bagpiper though to get the blood flowing!!!

It's definitely better than most. The part at the end is extremely important and not to be under appreciated either...

F. A person who uses force as permitted pursuant to the provisions of subsections B and D of this section [color:#FF0000]is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.[/color]

Long story short; if you are justified legally in using deadly force you are IMMUNE to any civil action. This does away with the possibility of the relatives of the deceased suing for loss of income/earning potential, etc.

Us vs great big alien worms. I've got the GURPS setting book for it, but I'd never found the original books locally. I should put that on my list the next time I go through the used book stores over Matt26's way.

You should check out the Fuzzy books- Piper's stuff was pretty adult for the day, but now it's fairly tame. They put out a combined edition about ten years ago, you can find them used for under ten bucks and it should be adaptable into a bed time book when DD1 is a few years older. And the third in the trilogy is great from a survival perspective- EDC, hardcore survival situation, primative bushcraft, signalling, et al.