Holidaying Scot shot in the leg

[TheDarkling]

Why should you? It wouldn't be the first time something like that has happened over there.

I would be willing to bet that it is fair less likely you happen than the alternative and after seeing a panel of experts (including a senior police officer) defend the use of a golf club in a citizen’s arrest I think he would get off.

Of course I welcome the slew of similar incidents you can obviously provide.

[Keevan_Colton]

As a cop in Virginia, what do you think would have happened to Tony Martin if he'd shot those two gypsies in his house outside of Richmond instead of in rural England?

From all of the reports I've read, in a lot of states Martin wouldn't have been charged with shit since they both broke in the home.

Contrast that to what happened to Martin in the UK.
Not only was he imprisoned, the surviving burglar got legal aid to sue him.

Excuse me but wasnt he shooting him in the back...as he ran away...?

[TheDarkling]

As a cop in Virginia, what do you think would have happened to Tony Martin if he'd shot those two gypsies in his house outside of Richmond instead of in rural England?

From all of the reports I've read, in a lot of states Martin wouldn't have been charged with shit since they both broke in the home.

What would have happened in the US isn't really an issue.

Contrast that to what happened to Martin in the UK.
Not only was he imprisoned, the surviving burglar got legal aid to sue him.

Comparing shooting somebody in the back as they ran away with trying to take the gun off somebody threatening you is novel but not entirely relevant I fear.

[Chmee]

Ugh, please, not the Martin case ... the finder of fact determined that wasn't self defense. You get manslaughter for that in a lot of U.S. jurisdictions, too.

[TheDarkling]

To put things in perspective, in the last 15 years 11 home or business owners have been prosecuted.

One of these included a business owner who waited for a burglar, tied him up, beat him and then set him alight.

I don't think that is reasonable force but I’m sure some will disagree.

As is typical this nonsense about burglars having all the rights is brought to you by that beacon of unbiased fact the Daily Mail.

[Keevan_Colton]

Also as another titbit of information...firearms officers in scotland have only had to pull the trigger twice in the last 6 years.

[Glocksman]

Ugh, please, not the Martin case ... the finder of fact determined that wasn't self defense. You get manslaughter for that in a lot of U.S. jurisdictions, too.

I disagree with the court's ruling simply because it was dark and Martin couldn't see that the burglar was fleeing. The homeowner deserves that benefit of the doubt in a home defense shooting.

[Keevan_Colton]

Ugh, please, not the Martin case ... the finder of fact determined that wasn't self defense. You get manslaughter for that in a lot of U.S. jurisdictions, too.

I disagree with the court's ruling simply because it was dark and Martin couldn't see that the burglar was fleeing. The homeowner deserves that benefit of the doubt in a home defense shooting.

If you can see well enough to hit you can see well enough to tell they're going in the other bloody direction. Benifit of the doubt my arse.

[TheDarkling]

I disagree with the court's ruling simply because it was dark and Martin couldn't see that the burglar was fleeing. The homeowner deserves that benefit of the doubt in a home defense shooting.

The bloke’s weapon was illegal, he was noted as saying that he wanted to kill gypsies and had committed previous firearm offences including firing his gun at children collecting apples.

Also after the shooting he did not report it straight away and left the kids he had shot in his field to die whilst he went to stay at a friends.

Eventually he got his sentence reduced by convincing the court he had mental problem which given the fact that he supports the BNP may not be far off.

I think there is a lot of evidence pointing away from this being a self defence shooting and 10 out of 12 of his peers agreed.

[Glocksman]

Ugh, please, not the Martin case ... the finder of fact determined that wasn't self defense. You get manslaughter for that in a lot of U.S. jurisdictions, too.

I disagree with the court's ruling simply because it was dark and Martin couldn't see that the burglar was fleeing. The homeowner deserves that benefit of the doubt in a home defense shooting.

If you can see well enough to hit you can see well enough to tell they're going in the other bloody direction. Benifit of the doubt my arse.

He fired one shot at a flashlight beam and two more shots into 'total darkness' by the description I read.

Also consider that these shot were fired with a shotgun.
I wonder what the spread pattern of the shells he used was becase as distance increases, so does the spread of the shot charge. You don't have to be precise when using a open choked shotgun at a moderate distance.

If it had been at close range, Barras would have had a bloody rathole of a wound from the 12 gauge and wouldn't have lived long enough to crawl out the window like he did.

[Perinquus]

Ugh, please, not the Martin case ... the finder of fact determined that wasn't self defense. You get manslaughter for that in a lot of U.S. jurisdictions, too.

I disagree with the court's ruling simply because it was dark and Martin couldn't see that the burglar was fleeing. The homeowner deserves that benefit of the doubt in a home defense shooting.

If you can see well enough to hit you can see well enough to tell they're going in the other bloody direction. Benifit of the doubt my arse.

You've never done much shooting in low light conditions have you? It's easy to fire at a shape in the dark, which you may see only as a silhouette against an only slightly lighter background. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

It's all too easy to second guess a decision someone else had to make in a fraction of a second, under conditions of poor light, stress, high adrenalin levels, fear, and a host of other factors. In a case like that, I think Martin is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, especially as he had been victimized before.

It's quite possible he wouldn't ever have been charged over here. Then again, he could also have been. Nutty things have happened over here (though our government does not frown on self defense like the British government now does). Put an overeager, or politically motivated detective in charge of the investigation, or Commonwealth Attorney in charge of the case, and he still might have been charged, though it's much less likely over here. Thank God.

[Chmee]

Ugh, please, not the Martin case ... the finder of fact determined that wasn't self defense. You get manslaughter for that in a lot of U.S. jurisdictions, too.

I disagree with the court's ruling simply because it was dark and Martin couldn't see that the burglar was fleeing. The homeowner deserves that benefit of the doubt in a home defense shooting.

Ok, but now you're disagreeing with a finding of fact, not the system (UK vs. US) .... you get the same kind of ruling all the time in the US, depending on jurisdiction.

Here in Washington (and in most of the Western U.S.), if the guy is in your house, huzzah, doesn't matter what you see, you get to presume anybody who forced entry into your home intends to use deadly force against you, and you can act accordingly.

East coast, you probably have to have a reasonable belief that they intend to use deadly force, i.e., you see they have a gun and they're starting to point it at you.

I prefer the West, obviously ..... you break into my house, you better be bulletproof and wearing dogproof pants.

[TheDarkling]

frown on self defense like the British government now does

I assume you have something to back up the statement that the British government frowns on self defence, because 11 cases in 15 years isn't indicating what you say.

[Glocksman]

I disagree with the court's ruling simply because it was dark and Martin couldn't see that the burglar was fleeing. The homeowner deserves that benefit of the doubt in a home defense shooting.

The bloke’s weapon was illegal, he was noted as saying that he wanted to kill gypsies and had committed previous firearm offences including firing his gun at children collecting apples.

Also after the shooting he did not report it straight away and left the kids he had shot in his field to die whilst he went to stay at a friends.

Eventually he got his sentence reduced by convincing the court he had mental problem which given the fact that he supports the BNP may not be far off.

I think there is a lot of evidence pointing away from this being a self defence shooting and 10 out of 12 of his peers agreed.

The weapon was illegal as you noted and he should have been charged with that.

As far as hating Gypsies goes, that's immaterial as Martin had no idea just whom he was shooting at that night.

He may have been a nutter, but the facts are that two burglars went looking for trouble and found it. If they hadn't broke into an occupied home, they'd be alive today. If Martin hadn't had that shotgun, he just might have been another English crime statistic after being beaten to death by those two career criminals.

I know this is going to end with a 'we agree to disagree' so I'll just say that I fully support laws like Colorado's 'Make My Day' home defense law.

[Glocksman]

I think there is a lot of evidence pointing away from this being a self defence shooting and 10 out of 12 of his peers agreed.

Whatever the hell happened to the requirement for unanimous jury verdicts?

[Keevan_Colton]

If Martin hadn't had that shotgun, he just might have been another English crime statistic after being beaten to death by those two career criminals.

Get a fucking grip and a clue you bloody loonie.
Where the fuck are you getting this nonsense?

[Glocksman]

If Martin hadn't had that shotgun, he just might have been another English crime statistic after being beaten to death by those two career criminals.

Get a fucking grip and a clue you bloody loonie.
Where the fuck are you getting this nonsense?

Let's see here:

Fred Jnr was 16 when he died. When he broke into Martin’s farmhouse he had already appeared in court 18 times and had 29 criminal convictions to his name, including theft, fraud and assaulting the police. He had served two months in a young offenders’ institution. He was on bail at the time of the burglary and there is evidence he had been working as a fence.

Darren Bark 33, who drove the car, had 52 previous convictions stretched back 20 years, including a large number for theft, burglary and assault. He has been in and out of prison more often than Norman Stanley Fletcher. Brendan Fearon 30, a family friend occasionally described as an “uncle”, is a vicious career criminal, with 33 convictions ranging from burglary to wounding.

Sounds like a couple of career criminals to me.

[Keevan_Colton]

Sounds like a couple of career criminals to me.

I was more thinking the beaten to death part.

[TheDarkling]

Whatever the hell happened to the requirement for unanimous jury verdicts?

10 out of 12 is good enough in a number of places including Britain, some parts of the US and Australia.

[Glocksman]

So 2 criminals who both have records for assault wouldn't have beaten up an unarmed old man who caught them in the act?

Sure, they may have just fled the premises, but given that little Freddy had assaulted a cop and the other guy's extensive record, I don't think either of them would have had any scruples about beating the shit out of an unarmed old man. A beating that could easily turn fatal

[aerius]

Gun Control lowers crime, wait a minute, no it doesn't

English Police Chief urges adoption of US Style Burglary Laws

Disabled man faces legal action for defending himself

[Keevan_Colton]

So 2 criminals who both have records for assault wouldn't have beaten up an unarmed old man who caught them in the act?

Sure, they may have just fled the premises, but given that little Freddy had assaulted a cop and the other guy's extensive record, I don't think either of them would have had any scruples about beating the shit out of an unarmed old man. A beating that could easily turn fatal

Assault on a police officer here can mean swearing at them...swearing at someone is actually classed under assault. Somehow I doubt that a foul mouthed tirade is likely to actually kill anyone. Could you leave your delusions of what terrible things might have happened if he hadnt shot an unarmed person, running away, in the back....out of the thread? It just reminds me how sickening the american attitude to such things really is.

[MKSheppard]

From one of Stuart's Essays on Nuclear War:

In this situation the US has a terrific advantage over the rest of the world. Its called the Second Amendment. The B-country population is largely armed, sometimes quite heavily. They do exactly what Founding Fathers envisaged - provide a body of armed people whom the local authority can assemble to maintain order. (The Supreme Court may argue that interpretation of the Second Amendment but by now they are doing so with the people who wrote it). In a more general sense, post-holocaust fiction usually has gangs of outlaws preying on the defenseless citizenry. Interestingly that doesn't seem to happen. In disasters people tend to work together rather than against eachother (for example in US urban disasters Hells Angels biker gangs have made sterling contributions to relief efforts using their bikes and riding skills to get emergency supplies through to places others can't). While lawlessness and disorder do occur, the ease of forming a civilian militia (using the term properly here meaning something very much like the Sheriff?s Posse beloved of Westerns) brings that situation under control. Other countries are unlikely to be so fortunate.

[Perinquus]

frown on self defense like the British government now does

I assume you have something to back up the statement that the British government frowns on self defence, because 11 cases in 15 years isn't indicating what you say.

It isn't huh?

How about this story:

Carl Lindsay, 25, answered a knock at his door in Salford, Greater Manchester, to find four men armed with a gun.

When the gang tried to rob him he grabbed a samurai sword and stabbed one of them, 37-year-old Stephen Swindells, four times.

Mr Swindells, of Salford, was later found collapsed in an alley and died in hospital.

Lindsay, of Walkden, was found guilty of manslaughter following a three-week trial at Manchester Crown Court.

He was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment.

Man Who Killed Armed Intruder Jailed Eight Years

Spending eight yars in jail for defending yourself from armed assault is outrageous.

How about the fact that the British government doesn't consider self defense as a reason to allow it's subjects to own firearms? Even nonlethal, defensive items like kubotans are outlawed, and can get you two years in the clink if you are found with one in your pocket. Why? Criminals don't use them to assault people. They favor weapons like bats and knives and (shocking in Britain, where gun control has made the people safe) firearms.

The 1953 Prevention of Crime Act rendered possession of any article "made, adapted, or intended" for an "offensive purpose" "without lawful authority or excuse" a crime. During the debate preceding this bill's passage into law, the attorney-general stated that the public should be discouraged "from going about with offensive weapons in their pockets...it is the duty of society to protect them."

And of course, there are cases like Mr. Martin's. Even though he might have been charged in the United States under similar circumstances, it is far, far less likely that he would have been - because the government over here is not so hostile to the idea that a person has a right to defend himself, with lethal force if necessary.

[Glocksman]

So 2 criminals who both have records for assault wouldn't have beaten up an unarmed old man who caught them in the act?

Sure, they may have just fled the premises, but given that little Freddy had assaulted a cop and the other guy's extensive record, I don't think either of them would have had any scruples about beating the shit out of an unarmed old man. A beating that could easily turn fatal

Assault on a police officer here can mean swearing at them...swearing at someone is actually classed under assault. Somehow I doubt that a foul mouthed tirade is likely to actually kill anyone. Could you leave your delusions of what terrible things might have happened if he hadnt shot an unarmed person, running away, in the back....out of the thread? It just reminds me how sickening the american attitude to such things really is.

But is that what Barras did, or are you just assuming that's what he did?
And what about his buddy Fearon's record?

As far as delusions go, the Monckton and Symonds cases mentioned in aerius's post would seem to indicate that fearing for your life from an intruder in your home is somewhat justified.

Especially if you're a 55 year old man in bad health going against a 16 year old and 30 something year old who both have criminal records a yard long.