>That is the difference. There is no 'resident' living on the property. Is it considered 'private property?' Here, in most cases (not all), the land used for gardening or raising animals is the same land the person lives on so he is protecting his property and his home and can (in most cases) use reasonable measures to protect it.

The key, of course, is that it's the courts that decide on the definition, from case to case, of exactly what 'reasonable force' means. Often shooting someone may not be considered reasonable - especially if you've caught them and, while they are running away, you still decide to shoot.

>
>
>>No, my point was that who is there to STOP it. The allotments are a bit remote, on top of a hill, with no one there (except a hippy who's set himself up a little homestead there) in the evenings and much of the day. I come up and find a few carrots missing, or my shed broken into (not that I have yet, touch wood) - the police aren't going to break their cajones to investigate.
>>
>>IF i were there when it happened then I'd have all the common law rights of "reasonable force" to protect my prop.
>>
>>Personally I'd leave the perp on a stake as crow bait.
>>
>>>>As for the law and breaking in, I guess it's the same as a farmer or anyone anywhere: criminal damage, theft. But who can stop/enforce any such transgressions?
>>>
>>>I'll tell you who. A Texas Ranger, that's who! Or perhaps the Lone Ranger. This is utter non-sense that you ar ento allowed to protect your allotment, your tools, your crops. I'd like to see someone try that in Texas and see how long they'd live.
>>>
>>>I was in Arizona a few years ago and saw a gun-packing petite woman at a food store; I wasn't aware that Arizona gun laws were so liberal. I can tell you that there'd be few men or women who'd want to tangle with that little lady and her giant pistol.
>>>
>>>England and Britain, as well as Australia, need to get some common sense on this subject. It is starting to get stupid like that here in some places in the "colonies".