Injured Burglar

[Rye]

recently in the news a burglar that was wounded when he was shot whilst robbing some guy is now suing the farmer for several thousand pounds.

Do you think this is wrong?

Should the farmer be seen as the victim, as he was being robbed, then got thrown into prison for 5 years or whatever for injuring the burglar and killing his co-burglarand now is being sued for several thousand pounds?

would you sdhoot a burglar?

If you would, would you hide the body?

any other thoughts?

[Next of Kin]

recently in the news a burglar that was wounded when he was shot whilst robbing some guy is now suing the farmer for several thousand pounds.

Do you think this is wrong?

Should the farmer be seen as the victim, as he was being robbed, then got thrown into prison for 5 years or whatever for injuring the burglar and killing his co-burglarand now is being sued for several thousand pounds?

would you sdhoot a burglar?

If you would, would you hide the body?

any other thoughts?

I don't own a gun but I'd want to defend myself somehow against a potentially armed intruder! Hehe, the idea of hiding the body reminds me of a scene out of Goodfellas where they whack Billy Batts and bury his body out in the boons only to have to dig it up later on because of a highway going through the area!

[Glocksman]

If you're referring to the Tony Martin case, that poor schmuck was railroaded into jail.

Both Fred Barras (the 16 year old who was killed) and Brendan Fearon had rap sheets 2 meters long. Mr. Martin had grounds to reasonably fear for his life and thus justification (since he was in his home) to use deadly force in most US states. Unfortunately for him, he was in the UK at the time, where apparently self-defense is frowned upon.

Mr. Fearon should count himself fortunate that Tony Martin really wasn't a killer by nature, or he would be dead. Instead, he's alive and suing the victim who refused to roll over.

God Save the Queen.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You're correct about the status of justice in the UK, Glocksman, but the simple fact is that Tony Martin shot a man in the back, and that is in no way self-defence. He got the prison sentence he deserved; this, however, is completely ridiculous.

[Glocksman]

And to answer the question would I shoot a burglar?

Yes.

By his very presence, the burglar poses a threat to my life. The law presupposes this and has a different standard for use of deadly force to defend your home than on the street.


The Indiana Code on self defense.

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).

The burglar gets one verbal warning to leave. After that, he gets shot.

[Glocksman]

but the simple fact is that Tony Martin shot a man in the back, and that is in no way self-defence. He got the prison sentence he deserved

My understanding is that he fired 3 shots. One in the direction of the flashlight being held by one of the intruders and 2 more into the darkness after the flashlight was dropped or turned off. Tony Martin had no way of knowing they were leaving as it was dark.

From here.

In my state, the prosecutor wouldn't have even went to a grand jury with this.

[El Moose Monstero]

IIRC, the reason this is being allowed is because to deny the burglar the right to do so would be in violation of his basic civil right. This is similar to most other self defence, you use only enough force to scare off a potential intruder or assailant, if you use more than that, then you can be prosecuted for it - for example, I do a spot of Taekwando, and we've been told that in a case of being assaulted by more than one person - we have to use less and less force on each assailant as we deal with them, otherwise, we can be done for GBH, even though it is self defence.

My opinion on the farmer case is that the warning shot to the burglars should have been enough, and the farmer got what he deserved, and I also believe the burglar has the right to attempt to sue, that is his right, but I also believe that the case will come to nothing.

[Glocksman]

IIRC, the reason this is being allowed is because to deny the burglar the right to do so would be in violation of his basic civil right.

Oh, he should be allowed to sue as that is his right.

However, the Judge should throw it out for lack of merit. The idea of a criminal who was injured by his victim suing said victim for damages is ludicrous on its face.

This is similar to most other self defence, you use only enough force to scare off a potential intruder or assailant, if you use more than that, then you can be prosecuted for it

The prevailing standard in the States is that you use enough force as 'reasonably necessary' to defend yourself. Reasonably is defined as what a hypothetical reasonable person, in the same circumstances and knowing the facts as you knew them at the time, would do.

In other words, unless the disparity of force is so great as to be overwhelming (such as an elderly woman being attacked by a young man), you can't use a gun against a bare handed attacker.

Now you can use a gun against a group of attackers who have intent to inflict GBH, as sheer numbers constitutes an escalation of force in its own right and mob mentality can lead to 'a little fun' becoming a lethal assault.


Would a 'reasonable person' use a gun to defend themselves against a gang of toughs who are attacking them, even if the gang is unarmed?

I think so.


Many states have differing (and looser) standards for defense of your home. Indiana's law that I quoted earlier is but one example. These 'Make My Day' laws parallel Blackstone's dictum: "If any person attempts to break open a house in the night-time, and shall be killed in such attempt, the slayer shall be acquitted and discharged".

[The Third Man]

Isn't Tony Martin supposed to have set traps throughout his house, spent his nights fully dressed with his shotgun by his side, removed all the light bulbs except one, just waiting for a burglar to arrive? Also wasn't he an NF member, and didn't he get thrown out of the local neighbourhood watch meeting for ranting and raving about what he was and wasn't going to do to burglars and gypsies?

Seems to me he's as much if not more of a scrote as the gypsies who got shot. I've heard some say (not that I agree) that it was a good result all round - the psycho locked up and the thieving toe-rag dead.

To answer the question:

A situation in which I'd be in a position to shoot a burglar is unlikely to arise; but one in which I'd confront one in a position to do him/her serious or potentially lethal harm is quite possible, and has happened more than once. Would I go after a burglar with intent to do damage to him/her? Yes, probably, based on my reactions in previous situations. But no way with intent to kill; no-one deserves to die for burglary. And I accept that even a beating is wrong, and I'd expect to be prosecuted/serve time if I was ever found out.

[El Moose Monstero]

In other words, unless the disparity of force is so great as to be overwhelming (such as an elderly woman being attacked by a young man), you can't use a gun against a bare handed attacker.

Using your old lady vs unarmed attacker analogy, I would still call the use of a gun leading to the injury of the criminal a serious error in judgement, if non-lethal methods of subduing an enemy are available (eg - pepper spray), and would probably call it criminal if the attacker was killed instead of repelled by non-fatal weapons or deterrants.

But, this all stems from different societies, from a UK perspective, if being attacked by a group of people, then carrying a gun or offensive weapon is out of the question, and running away is the prefferred option - if you choose to stand and fight, I think you automatically take responsibility for any injuries caused by that decision - again, a civil rights thing - in the same way that criminals do not deserve to be beaten or mistreated during arrests or later investigation.

To further extend the Taekwando analogy, if you are attacked by a group of people, and you choose to fight, then even at my level (only green belt), we have already been shown things that if wrongly applied can result in brain damage, serious back injury and even death.

If you choose to fight a large mob with a gun, to my mind, I would say that if you end up killing them, then that is a criminal act, as even a gun can be used to disable an opponent, and the sight of a gun in your hand would automatically deter your opponents.

Again, this is all from my point of view though.

[Glocksman]

Isn't Tony Martin supposed to have set traps throughout his house, spent his nights fully dressed with his shotgun by his side, removed all the light bulbs except one, just waiting for a burglar to arrive? Also wasn't he an NF member, and didn't he get thrown out of the local neighbourhood watch meeting for ranting and raving about what he was and wasn't going to do to burglars and gypsies?

From this BBC Article, I'd say he was justified in taking some measures.

Martin had been burgled so many times that he had set up an elaborate network of look-out ladders and traps, even removing a stair to hinder intruders.

Three months before the shooting, crooks had broken into the house and taken £6,000 worth of furniture.

Martin distrusted the police and was said to have begun fearing for his life. He slept with his clothes and boots on and reportedly kept his gun primed and ready by his bedside.

When his trial began in April 2000 Martin argued that he had genuinely been acting in self-defence.

But it emerged the pair had been shot as they tried to flee through a window.

The Beeb article fails to mention that they were shot in the dark. Tony Martin had no way of knowing that they were trying to flee. The Eastern Daily Press storyboard here paints events a little differently.

[Glocksman]

But, this all stems from different societies, from a UK perspective, if being attacked by a group of people, then carrying a gun or offensive weapon is out of the question, and running away is the prefferred option - if you choose to stand and fight, I think you automatically take responsibility for any injuries caused by that decision - again, a civil rights thing - in the same way that criminals do not deserve to be beaten or mistreated during arrests or later investigation.

We indeed have both differing perspectives and differing legal systems.
There was a case locally a while back somewhat similar to the Martin case.

A local plumber's van kept getting burglarized and tools stolen, so he decided to start sleeping inside it with a 12 gauge. Sure enough, some 18 year old with more bravado than brains broke into it with the plumber inside. According to the plumber, the guy charged him with a screwdriver after he was told to put his hands in the air.

Wrong move.

One 12 gauge blast to the midsection later, there was a dead thief laying in the van. The local prosecutor sent the case to a Grand Jury, and the GJ refused to indict. Apparently the prosecutor didn't want to charge the guy, because here in the States the saying is that a prosecutor can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich if he wants to.

The plumber is a free man going on about his business.

But we're just bloody minded Yanks, eh?

[aerius]

I do a spot of Taekwando, and we've been told that in a case of being assaulted by more than one person - we have to use less and less force on each assailant as we deal with them, otherwise, we can be done for GBH, even though it is self defence.

In which case you'd very likely end up dead or beaten senseless. Thanks to legalities you're suppose to do as you said or else you risk being prosecuted for excessive force among other things, but the reality is the criminals don't play by those rules. If you choose to do what the law requires you to, do realize that you're placing yourself at a severe disadvantage. To survive a multiple attacker situation, your goal is to keep moving and hit each person with as much brutality and force as possible until you can run away or they're all down & out. Even then you're still at a disadvantage and getting out of it is still a crapshoot.

If you choose to fight a large mob with a gun, to my mind, I would say that if you end up killing them, then that is a criminal act, as even a gun can be used to disable an opponent, and the sight of a gun in your hand would automatically deter your opponents.

If you choose to fight them when you can escape, the yes, it is criminal. But if you're cornered or have a small child and can't run away, then then tough luck for the criminals, and you should be getting off scot free in such a situation. Hoping a gun will scare away criminal? Good luck, and wishful thinking, it might happen, but don't bet your life on it. Shoot to disable? This ain't the movies where the hero can kneecap bad guys at will. Aim for center of mass, put a couple rounds in him, hope it's enough, and move on to the next bad guy, and pray that they don't close the range enough to take you out hand to hand.

[David]

I'd shoot the motherfucker and drag him inside my house ( if isn't already inside,) then point out that he was making an attempt on my life.

[El Moose Monstero]

In which case you'd very likely end up dead or beaten senseless. Thanks to legalities you're suppose to do as you said or else you risk being prosecuted for excessive force among other things, but the reality is the criminals don't play by those rules. If you choose to do what the law requires you to, do realize that you're placing yourself at a severe disadvantage. To survive a multiple attacker situation, your goal is to keep moving and hit each person with as much brutality and force as possible until you can run away or they're all down & out. Even then you're still at a disadvantage and getting out of it is still a crapshoot.

Oh, you can still adapt, and you can still use as much force as is necessary to defend yourself, but when tackling a large group of assailants, once you've demonstrated that you can disable an attacker, ie by breaking an arm or two or knocking them unconscious, you have to be sure to give the others the chance to run away, if they keep coming, then you can use the force required to stop them.