Blunkett's idea to cut gun crime in the UK among other stuff

Necro99 · Post by **Necro99** » 2003-01-11 12:16am

The guy who owns the military depots will get out just in time to see the Big Crunch

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-01-11 12:26am

Controlling guns has utterly failed to curb crime in the UK. The logical solution is to try the opposite. For a mere 26.5 billion the UK could issue an M16A2 with magazines and ammunition to every man, women and child.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-01-11 10:43am

From what I know he deserved all he got. He lay in wait and then shot the little fucker in the back as he ran away, that could never be classified as reasonable force. I have no sympathy for the burglar but that was not needed, not at all.

God forbid that a burglar's life be in danger from invading an occupied home.

If a burglar breaks into my home while I am there, I'm not going to ask him just what does he think he's doing. For all I know, he's there to kill or injure me. Best not to take chances. I'm going to shoot him and then call the police.

The principle behind such reasoning is even in my state's law on self defense.

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in using deadly force only if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling or curtilage.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling or curtilage, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person is not justified in using deadly force unless that force is justified under subsection (a).
(d) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight. For purposes of this subsection, an aircraft is considered to be in flight while the aircraft is:
(1) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the doors of the aircraft are closed for takeoff; and
(B) until the aircraft takes off;
(2) in the airspace above Indiana; or
(3) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the aircraft lands; and
(B) before the doors of the aircraft are opened after landing.
(e) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), a person is not justified in using force if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission
of a crime;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (d), a person is not justified in using force if the person:
(1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime;
(2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) continues to combat another person after the other person withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other person's intent to stop hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.8; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.1; P.L.59-2002, SEC.1.

The devil is in the phrases 'reasonably believes' and 'reasonable force'. What these mean is would a hypothetical 'reasonable person' in the same situation knowing the facts as you knew them at the time use the same amount of force and also have reason to believe that their life was in danger.

For example, if a 7 year old kid threatened to kill me with a ball bat, I'd have a hard time convincing the police and prosecutor that he posed enough of a threat to my life to justify shooting him.

OTOH, if a 19 year old did the same thing, I'd have much more reason to believe my life is in danger and he would pose sufficient threat to justify my use of a firearm.

Also notice that the standard changes to a more liberal one in regards to your home. This is because the law presupposes that anyone who breaks into an occupied home intends upon doing the occupants serious harm or injury and the lawmakers of this state do not intend for a homeowner to worry about being prosecuted for defending himself in his own home.

However, you still have to be 'reasonable' in that you have to have a reasonable ground for believing that deadly force is needed to terminate the burglary. Shooting a 5 year old who came in lost wouldn't be 'reasonable'. Shooting a 25 year old coming up the steps is.

Hell, a few years ago a local plumber started sleeping in his truck because it kept getting broken into. Sure enough, some 17 year old broke in and promptly got a 12 gauge blast to the chest for his trouble. The plumber claimed self-defense because the kid came at him with a screwdriver in his hand.

The local prosecutor referred it to the Grand Jury, which refused to bring charges.

The UK standard of 'proportionate force' within your home is dangerous to the homeowner simply because he or she doesn't know what level of force would be applied against them in a confrontation until it is too late.

For the purposes of being safe within your home, the US standard is much better.
For the purpose of the safety of the criminal, the UK standard is better.
And to be blunt, I don't give a rat's ass about the safety of the criminal.

Crazy_Vasey · Post by **Crazy_Vasey** » 2003-01-11 10:52am

If a burglar breaks into my home while I am there, I'm not going to ask him just what does he think he's doing. For all I know, he's there to kill or injure me. Best not to take chances. I'm going to shoot him and then call the police.

Yes because someone who is RUNNING AWAY is just obviously there to attack you isn't he? Come on.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-01-11 10:59am

Yes because someone who is RUNNING AWAY is just obviously there to attack you isn't he? Come on

But you don't know that they will run away and have no way of knowing that unless you confront the intruder.

As I said, a different standard applies once they're in your home.
What would not be legitimate self defense on the street is considered to be so in your dwelling.

And if you're referring to the Martin case, let's just say that any version of events that comes from the testimony of Barras's accomplice is a version that I have trouble believing.

After all, an adult criminal with a record longer than my arm would have no reason to lie, would he?

Crazy_Vasey · Post by **Crazy_Vasey** » 2003-01-11 11:13am

Glocksman wrote:
Yes because someone who is RUNNING AWAY is just obviously there to attack you isn't he? Come on
But you don't know that they will run away and have no way of knowing that unless you confront the intruder.

As I said, a different standard applies once they're in your home.
What would not be legitimate self defense on the street is considered to be so in your dwelling.

And if you're referring to the Martin case, let's just say that any version of events that comes from the testimony of Barras's accomplice is a version that I have trouble believing.

After all, an adult criminal with a record longer than my arm would have no reason to lie, would he?

Forensic evidence pretty much put Martin away IIRC. They found the kid dead in a field near his farm and the shotgun pellets were in the kids back, that's enough to put anyone away and rightfully so.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-01-11 11:49am

They found the kid dead in a field near his farm and the shotgun pellets were in the kids back, that's enough to put anyone away and rightfully so.

So if I shoot a burglar in the back and he manages to stagger outside, I'm guilty of manslaughter or murder?

Not in the States.

Just for funnies, let's look at the burglars' records

From the BBC website:

Fred Barras:

Barras, 16, a gypsy who was born in Wakefield, West Yorkshire, had 29 convictions, including assault, six for fraud and seven for theft.

His first court appearance came when he was only 13 years old.

He was found guilty of two assaults, obtaining property by deception and forgery offences.

By the age of 15 he was sentenced to two months in a young offenders' institution after being convicted of assaulting police, theft and being drunk and disorderly.

In April last year he was ordered to spend 24 hours at an attendance centre after being convicted of burglary and theft.
When he was shot by Martin he was on bail having been accused of another theft.

The bail notice was found on his body.

Barras had even been arrested a week before his death and charged with stealing garden furniture.

I also recall reading that he was carrying a knife.
Some 'child'. If I found this 'kid' in my house, I'd gun him down on sight.

Brendan Fearon:

Fearon, who was born in Newark, had 33 convictions including assaults, burglary and 18 offences of theft.

His first court appearance came at the age of 14 when he was convicted of burglary and theft and given a supervision order.

By the age of 22 he had been given a three-month prison sentence after a string of dishonesty offences.

He was sent to prison again at the age of 24, and again at the age of 27 after being convicted of wounding.

Darren Bark:

Bark had 52 convictions at the time of the shootings, including 20 for theft and five for assault.

The real failure of the UK justice system is that all three of these criminals were walking the streets instead of serving life sentences for being habitual criminals.

Our disagreement can be summed up in this quote:

Clearly if you are in your bedroom and you hear somebody coming in and you hit them - that's probably going to be reasonable.

"But if you were to creep downstairs and go up behind somebody and they do not know you are there and you cave their skull in - that's not reasonable."

That may be the state of UK law, but that's not how it works here in the States.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-01-11 11:54am

According to this article, they were shot inside the house.

Ballistic expert, Dr Graham Renshaw, told the court that cartridge discharge particles found on the staircase at Martin's house in Ementh, near Norfolk, backed up his claim that he was coming down the stairs when he shot Barras.

Dr Renshaw said the space through which Martin would have had to have shot at the bottom of the steps was a 10-inch gap.

If Martin had been on the fifth step however, the gap would only be seven-and-a-half inches wide, the court was told.

Presiding judge Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice, suggested that the shot would have had to be "extraordinarily accurate".

Dr Renshaw said: "Accurate or fortuitous."

Fearon, who was shot in the groin by Martin, said all three shots were fired in the breakfast room and not from the stairs.

But Martin has always maintained that he heard a noise while in bed, came down the stairs and opened fire in self defence.

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/1602562.stm

Let's see, we have physical evidence (the gunpowder on the steps) that back up Martin's claim versus the word of a convicted criminal with a record longer than I am tall.

Who to believe?

Crazy_Vasey · Post by **Crazy_Vasey** » 2003-01-11 06:49pm

So if I shoot a burglar in the back and he manages to stagger outside, I'm guilty of manslaughter or murder?

Well yes. If his back is turned to you he's not a threat and you're not acting in self defence. You don't just shoot someone without a VERY good reason, the justice system is in place to punish criminal, if you don't like the way it works you can campaign for reform. I know in the current political climate here in the Uk a loud enough voice would be backed by the media and would likely be successful. In the US I don't think being too soft is regarded as a problem with your justice system although i'm not familiar enough with it to be certain.

The fact that they were criminal scum is quite irrelevant. It was not his place to punish them. You don't get away with crime forever, eventually they would have gotten their just desserts or as close to it as you get in our wussified legal system. The systems are in place for a reason, if they're not working you reform them you don't shatter them into a million pieces at a whim.

As for Tony Martin the person. Well a quote from the guardian seems appropriate here.

Many people in the Fen villages near Emneth in Norfolk believed the "weird" farmer to be harmless. But others, who had heard him espouse his hatred for burglars and what he would do with them if he caught them, had taken to giving Martin a wide berth.

Apart from thieves, Martin's pet hate was Gypsies. Norwich crown court heard that the farmer had talked of putting Gypsies in the middle of a field, surrounding it with barbed wire and machine gunning them. Fred Barras, the boy he killed, was both of these things: a Gypsy and a thief.

The guardian may suffer from bleeding heart idiot syndrome but I trust them enough not to lie through their teeth on something like this, they would get pulled up on it rather quickly. He's obviously not quite the innocent he's been made out to be. From that he sounds like exactly the sort of person who would take justice into his own hands in exactly the manner he was found guilty of doing. I don't see a big difference between shooting while stood on the stairs and shooting from in the room. Obviously the jury didn't either.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-01-12 03:52am

Well yes. If his back is turned to you he's not a threat and you're not acting in self defence.

Outside of one's home, I quite agree with you. Such an action cannot be construed as self defense or defense of others.

Inside one's home, I disagree.

You don't know if the person is harmless and will run from you or is a demented maniac zonked out on PCP.
Even if he merely has quicker reflexes than you, trying to play hero and capture him for the police can get you or members of your family killed.

Don't take the chance. Shoot him down.

Actually, the best thing to do is gather your family in one room, arm yourself with a shotgun, and call the police. Don't go hunting the guy down.

Of course this is only valid if you live in a fairly large or 2 story home.
In most smaller homes, you can see the living room and dining room from the hallway to the bedrooms.
In this case, arm yourself, and if the burglar even eyes the hallway to the bedrooms, shoot him.

The law presupposes automatically (in most US states) that the intent of a burglar who breaks into an occupied home is to kill or injure the occupants. This is why the Indiana Code I quoted earlier has a differing legal standard for use of deadly force in self defense inside of your dwelling than it does for self defense elsewhere or for defense of property.

Note that this only applies while inside your home. If you drive up and see a burglar fleeing, you can't legally shoot him as he no longer poses a threat.
There's a guy in Alabama who fired a .270-caliber deer rifle into the burglar's car when the burglar tried to drive away. He's being charged with negligent manslaughter.

If the guy had shot the burglar inside the home, he'd be fine because Alabama law explicitly permits you to shoot a burglar while he's committing the burglary.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-01-12 04:16am

From that he sounds like exactly the sort of person who would take justice into his own hands in exactly the manner he was found guilty of doing. I don't see a big difference between shooting while stood on the stairs and shooting from in the room. Obviously the jury didn't either.

We're looking at this from over 2 centuries of diverging legal and moral viewpoints.

You see it as vigilante justice.
I see it as defense of one's home.

Martin didn't make Barras & Co. break into his home. They were armed with at least one knife. I'm perfectly willing to bet that if Martin didn't have a gun, those two would have either beaten the crap out of him or killed him outright. Their records show that they were no strangers to violence.

Or would it have been better that Martin be beaten, crippled, or killed in his own home than dare to use a shotgun on 2 intruders?

Here's a column from a Canadian paper that goes on about the differences between the US and UK/Canadian outlook on such things better than I can.

Between 1973 and 1992, burglary rates in the U.S. fell by half. In Britain, not even the Home Office's disreputable reporting methods (if a burglar steals from 15 different apartments in one building, it counts as a single crime) can conceal the remorseless rise: Britons are now more than twice as likely as Americans to be mugged; two-thirds will have their property broken into at some time in their lives. Even more revealing is the divergent character between Canadian, British and U.S. property crime: In America, just over 10% of all burglaries are "hot burglaries" -- committed while the owners are present; in Canada and Britain, it's 50%.

And I just read something that I find hard to believe.

He was convicted of murder on a 10-2 vote?
Whatever happened to unanimous jury verdicts in the UK?