[Closed] Justice done for once.

Justice is done every day in courts all over the country 🙂

Are we going to get a link to every court case?

Yes, because normally what happens is they take the criminals (and asylum seekers) and give them a free holiday, while the innocent victims get locked up. You couldn't make it up.

Justice has only been done once?

[i]Yes, because normally what happens is they take the criminals (and asylum seekers) and give them a free holiday, while the innocent victims get locked up.

You couldn't make it up.[/i]

but you just did 😉

I'm not sure on this one. He looks a bit of a cad - is that an elasticated bow tie ? 😐

If you burgle a house in the country where the householder owns a legally held shotgun, that is the chance you take

Justice has only been done once?

And will probably never be repeated 😐

just imagine if a TB riddled badger burgled the homes of one of these inbred shotgun wielding farmer types

it'd get messy

i bet they eat spine in a bap too

so I want to shoot the pigeons in my garden and get loads of warnings about armed response units and SO16 coming round to take me down if I even flick an elastic band at one, and these two get to run around shooting burglars in the face with uzzis without fear of even a slap on the wrist?
I'm outraged.

No, justice has not been done for the reputation of the short gun ... the owner should have used Benelli M4 Zombie automatic short gun instead ... farmers this day. 🙄 He could at least shoot the maggots' [s]intruders'[/s] hands off like Zombie shooting with blood all over the kitchen. That would be acceptable.

You forgot the maggots, Chewkw - what of them?

How can justice have been done when scum like this are still breathing ?Gorehound you liberal PC do gooder hanging is too good for them

I don't know the minutiae of what happened here, but I don't want to live in a country where you can lawfully shoot people because they've come into your house.

JY is right

they should be chemically castrated, flogged in trafalgar square and then hung, drawn and quartered, before being skullfracked by the justice secratary

noteeth - Member

You forgot the maggots, Chewkw - what of them?

D'oh! Thanks for reminding Dear Leader. Yes, the correct term is maggot and Benelli should pulp them.

cynic-al - Member

I don't know the minutiae of what happened here, but I don't want to live in a country where you can lawfully shoot people because they've come into your house.

Ya, take your chance with Benelli M4 and see if argument/law can return you back to form when you are already the fertilizer. 😆

Pulp and think later ... tax free living is good.

I don't want to live in a country where you can lawfully shoot people because they've come into your house.

[b]'Sh1t just got real'[/b] would be a great [i]Daily Fail[/i] headline, though.

I'd even buy a copy.

Makes a chnage o the usual susepects commiting abh/gbh/driving WO insurance etc etc getting off scott free when point blank lying to the magistrates.

Magistrates must be fairly stupid or juat so used to the spiel of which they spin for them to then just give them a slap on the wrist like a father would do to an 8yr old who kicked his footbal into the next door's garden.

They are not paid for a reason...

Judges are different and this one came through trumps ahead of the rest so happy for gunslinging couple.
😀

I don't know the minutiae of what happened here, but I don't want to live in a country where you can lawfully shoot people because they've come into your house.

I hear there's a vacant plot on the moon.
See ya!

I don't know the minutiae of what happened here, but I don't want to live in a country where you can lawfully shoot people because they've come into your house.

It's certainly a topic worthy of debate.

It might be fairer to say that on this occasion, shooting the two men who were reaching into the kitchen drawer where the knives were kept while burgling the house in the middle of the night, was found to be reasonable force and thereby lawful.

Each case judged on it's merits and all that?

Yes, but they tarnished the name of short gun! They should have blown off the hand(s) instead. Like hand blown off still sticking to the drawer or the hand blown off still holding the knife ... 🙄

but you just did

No he didn't, it, like, really happens.

they tarnished the name of short gun

I do so admire your sense of priority, chewkw. 😀

they tarnished the name of short gun

He used a 12 bore shotgun not a short.

I don't know the minutiae of what happened here, but I don't want to live in a country where you can lawfully shoot people because they've come into your house.

It's not a new thing, bye.

One has always had the right to defend oneself proactively (i.e. you don't have to wait to be attacked first), and in your own home, you may use whatever is to hand to do so. If that just happens to be your LEGALLY HELD firearm or shotgun, then so be it.

FWIW I think its a pefectly valid reason to use a gun. They wern't invited in and were quite happy to threaten the home's occupants with a knife. F*ck yeah, have some of this shit you slag. BOOOOM!

but I don't want to live in a country where you can lawfully shoot people because they've come into your house.

*gets sudden urge to leave front door slightly open with a note saying " yes I'd love the watchtower"*

Incidentally,

With a legally owned shotgun, aren't you required to store ammo locked away separate from the gun? Doesn't seem to tally with the description that she just handed him the shotgun; was it lying around loaded?

I thought that too Cougar and according to the report his wife [ who legally should not even know where it is stored or where the keys are kept] handed it to him.
I think they realise they wont get a conviction rather than they think they law has not been broken [ ie the poplus is ok with you killing folk in your home and dont really care much beyond that]
IANAL

He used a 12 bore shotgun not a short

One usually pronounces it Purdy, Pape or Holland and Holland when one is a member of the landed gentry.

I don't want to live in a country where you can lawfully shoot people because they've come into your house.

It's not essential yet though.

You can just leave them to nick all your stuff if you want.

cynic-al - Member
I don't know the minutiae of what happened here, but I don't want to live in a country where you can lawfully shoot people because they've come into your house.

🙄

I don't think they were going in to the OWNERS' houses to spread love and happiness.

On the face of it, I'm not seeing the downside. Don't want to get shot? Stop breaking into people's homes.

It's open to abuse though I suppose; convenient way of (literally) getting away with murder if you stage a break-in effectively enough.

If you can prove you felt threatened I can see the justification for shooting at a burglar, but defence of property (as some here seem to be suggesting) is not a good enough reason to potentially kill someone IMO.

Lets not forget Tony Martin was done for shooting someone in the back as they were running away.

kimbers - Member

they should be chemically castrated, flogged in trafalgar square and then hung, drawn and quartered, before being skullfracked by the justice secratary

It's not for the tax-payer to be burdened with funding those punishments.

On the other hand disposal in vats of acid would be effective and a brilliant return for the tax-paying and law-abiding section of society.

I've been burgled twice - once when we were asleep upstairs, once when we were away on holiday. For the hard of thinking, it's not a pleasant experience. I don't have a shotgun, or a license, so I can't say whether I'd have used one in self defence or not, but to be honest, I think if you're prepared to break into someone's home, then you should be prepared for the consequences of your actions. No sympathy for the thieving scrotes.

Lets not forget Tony Martin was [s]done for shooting someone in the back as they were running away[/s] burgled that many times he was driven to shooting the scum.

It's not just criminals that have 'human rights'.

True he deserved better but unless i am mistaken shooting folk in the back is not a human right and hi reaction was OTT in my eyes and the courts

I don't think they were going in to the OWNERS' houses to spread love and happiness.

**** off or i will shoot should do the trick i assume

Lets not forget Tony Martin was done for shooting someone in the back as they were running away burgled that many times he was driven to shooting the scum.

It's not just criminals that have 'human rights'.

What dos this actually mean? You consider revenge/being angry/distressed legitimate reasons for trying to kill someone?

Junkyard - it's not just the break in that affects you, it's the way it leaves you feeling afterwards. In my case, it took about a year before I felt comfortable and safe in my own home. 'Harm' can take a lot of forms, not always physical. To be honest, I don't believe that I'd have the nerve to shoot at someone, but I can certainly understand why someone would.

Oh, and I've had my house burgled too - they took two ice axes(!) amongst other things - it was pretty upsetting but I never felt the urge to hurt anybody.

So can I mitch which is why they have to have the unloaded gun locked up so they are not tempted. we would probably all be tempted when our family are there.

I am not saying robbery is not serious nor that the effects are not serious it is [ only been robbed as student and had F all to steal and given the area it was expected] but it does not warrant murder in the calm reality of day
I also accept my view is the minority one on this.

FWIW i caught the person who broke into my car and even plod could not believe i had not given him a kicking whilst they were on the way. I was not even tempted as he was a foaming gibbering drunk so it seemed somewhat pointless.

It was the feeling of vulnerability that got me - knowing that they'd been in the house when my family were sleeping. Oh, and one of them had a dump in the kitchen. At the time, I wanted to hurt them A LOT. Sorry if that makes me less of a person, but there you go. (Edit) I'm not saying I'm right in this, just putting my own opinion / experiences forward.

It does not, if i caught someone in my house dumping on the floor i would be unhappy and would want to hurt them.

That is way out of order and now you can shoot the ****er but only a wounding then set the swans on em

The pair had a good innings though, 46 known offences. God knows how many they got away with.

I am not saying robbery is not serious nor that the effects are not serious it is [ only been robbed as student and had F all to steal and given the area it was expected] but it does not warrant murder in the calm reality of day
I also accept my view is the minority one on this.

Regarding the issues of quick access to the shotgun and his wife handing it to him. I've seen gun cabinets in all sorts of places - including bedrooms or bedroom cupboards. It's perfectly plausible to retrieve a correctly stored shotgun quickly. His wife handing it to him - suppose he hands her the keys and tells her to get it while he listens at the bedroom door. Since he's there 'supervising' (for want of a better word), this is no worse, from a legal point if view, than someone having a go with another's shotgun while the another is present to supervise. If the wife could access the shotgun when the husband wasn't home that is a different matter and would be an issue. Finally, there are no legal requirement for storage of shotgun cartridges. There's best practice, obviously, but nothing in legislation. Of course I am not saying this is how it happened on this occasion, merely suggesting why the actions of the householders prior to the shooting may not have been unlawful.

t's not just the break in that affects you, it's the way it leaves you feeling afterwards. In my case, it took about a year before I felt comfortable and safe in my own home.

+many.

After I was done over a second time, it was several years before I could walk into the house without having to check through the glass door first to see if everything looked ok. Even now, over ten years on, I'm still twitchy about being away from home for extended periods.

The first burglar was found dead of an overdose a while afterwards. Would it be wrong of me to hope that the proceeds from the stuff I've worked years for helped him on his way that little bit sooner?

Frig it, I'm packin' for bear!

[i]Would it be wrong of me to hope that the proceeds from the stuff I've worked years for helped him on his way that little bit sooner?[/i]
Not in the least IMO.

Mind you, they do help pay my bills. & holidays. & bikes. & other luxuries.
(when they get caught & locked up that is) 😉

Yes because someone is dead and someone loved them.
Drugs ruin lives and so does hatred

you are ok to not be tearful but to wish them dead - they hurt you more than you think dude

With a legally owned shotgun,
aren't you required to store ammo
locked away separate from the
gun?

health and safety gone mad

political correctness gone mad

DAILY MAIL BINGO

This is going mad gone mad

Thinking laterally:

You need a valid reason to own a shotgun in order to be granted a license.

The CPS said that the use of the shotgun was self defense.

Is self defense now going to be considered a valid reason for being granted a shotgun license?

As an aside, firearm ammunition can be kept in the same locked cabinet as the firearms. I thought it had to be seperate, or as you say one of those cabinets with a little locked cupboard inside it, but that's not actually a legal requirement. (I only found this out when I did a FAC renewal and told the bloke it had to be locked away seperately. He asked me to double check, and lo and behold, he was right! Still best practice to keep them seperately though).

The CPS said that the use of the shotgun was self defense.

Is self defense now going to be considered a valid reason for being granted a shotgun license?

We can only hope that this soon will be the case.
Wondering if it will be acceptable to use on nasty neighbours at the moment.

Justice is done?
I think some of the important parts in this story are being overlooked.
One of the perpertrators was only able to commit this crime as he had been released early from a 6 year sentence for wounding with intent.How early,a third or a half off on parole or maybe more,so three years inside? Be interesting to know.If he'd done the full time then maybe this thread wouldn't be here.I can just about stomach early release for property crimes but for wounding with intent? Doesn't bear thinking about what a violent criminal could have done to the burglary victim and his wife if they hadn't used a gun.And how long will he do now? Does he finish the remainder of his last sentence and then start this 4 year one? Will he automatically get a third off the four years?
I don't want to live in a country where convicted ,violent criminals can be out committing more crime and terrorising decent law abiding citizens when they should be behind bars.
Justice moves in mysterious ways

What dos this actually mean? You consider revenge/being angry/distressed legitimate reasons for trying to kill someone?

...that the law failed to protect him from multiple burglaries so he resorted to his primal instinct.

On another point, the burglars 'intended' to burgle Tony Martin but did Tony Martin 'intend' to kill the burglars...

Amen to that seriously!!

Self defence probably wasn't the original reason for having it.

TheGreatApe, as a man who has first hand experience of such things; do you think that his shotgun liscence has been revoked? I assume so but stranger things have happened at sea..

I don't know. I would have thought the actions of the householder and his wife would have been covered in considerable detail during their police interviews - was it a day and a half in custody? As they haven't been charged, I wonder if

a) they did nothing wrong, as far as having the shotgun available to shoot is concerned
b) they did do something they shouldn't have, but there was insufficient evidence to charge them
c) they were in the wrong but the CPS decided it wasn't in the public interest too pursue it

So if a), arguably no grounds for revocation if he's done nothing wrong.
If b), grounds for revocation, but in the absence of prosecution challengable by the holder if he chose to.
If c), I would have thought there was a high chance of it being revoked.

It's hard to predict without the full story.

i wonder if theres a forum somewear that asks , what buck shot for low life tossers, bloke defending his home and protecting his mrs just so happends he has a gun and uses it, if you dont want to get hurt dont break into peoples homes.

what buck shot for low life tossers

If you used buckshot at close range you'd blow a hole the size of a fist in the front of your target and an exit wound you could put your head in.

FWIW a buckshot AKA 00buck cartridge contains 9 10mm balls the same as a small game (SG) or swan shot guage (SSG) shell does.

I dont think they were there to do him any harm

I really don't feel the owners should of had that dilemma thrust upon them, whether the owners reaction was 'right' or 'wrong' it appears that, on this occasion, it was 'right' in the eyes of the law at least.

For that reason justice really has been served.

Predictable responses, who'd have thought this story would attract the "string 'em up" types?

TuckerUK - Member
One has always had the right to defend oneself proactively (i.e. you don't have to wait to be attacked first), and in your own home, you may use whatever is to hand to do so. If that just happens to be your LEGALLY HELD firearm or shotgun, then so be it.

What's your authority for that? I'm pretty sure it's not law in Scotland at keast.

The homeowner could have done much before shooting the guys:

say "this shotgun is loaded and I will use it"
shoot at the ceiling (would have had the crims crapping it).

I don't believe a burglar's life is worth some possessions and/or even the upset/stress burglaries of this sort (which I understand are pretty rare) cause. And as for the proposition that the homeowner doesn't have to think about right or wrong when his house is being broken into, if you take that to it's logical conclusion, where does it end?

That's burgling talk right there cynical.
It,s pretty obvious where it ends, it ends with lower taxes due toess crims in prison but in the ground instead!

The more I think about it the more I think most on this thread need anger therapy.

cynic-al
What would you do if someone broke into your home at night?

1) you don't know its only a burglar after some possessions at the time do you?
2) you are running on adrenalin and not always thinking logically
3)if you have a gun in the house and they get it what next?
4)Some criminals are violent and sadistic and get their kicks from doing things regular folk can't even imagine
5) although two were shot four were arrested-I wouldn't be wasting bullets shooting up my own home I can tell you

Poor guys they both have ginger beards

The more I think about it the more I think most on this thread need anger therapy.

I thought forums were the therapy 🙂

Lets not forget Tony Martin was done for shooting someone in the back as they were running away

No he wasn't!

I've no idea where some on here get their info from.

Tony Martin was 'done' because he sourced an illegal firearm which he was not licenced to acquire specifically to shoot an intruder. No other reason. Had he of LEGALLY held the weapon there would have been no case to answer.

nick1962 - Member
cynic-al
What would you do if someone broke into your home at night?

1) you don't know its only a burglar after some possessions at the time do you?
2) you are running on adrenalin and not always thinking logically
3)if you have a gun in the house and they get it what next?
4)Some criminals are violent and sadistic and get their kicks from doing things regular folk can't even imagine
5) although two were shot four were arrested-I wouldn't be wasting bullets shooting up my own home I can tell you

1. What are the chances of anything else? You watch too much Midsomer murders 😉
2. So you should get your gun out when not really in control of yourself? Having the gun should make you calm.
3. Well you'll have it locked, and the ammo in another locked place? Also, the chances they'll want anything other than your stereo are miniscule. STEP AWAY FROM MIDSOMER MURDERS
4. See 1. and 3 above - show me the stats otherwise!
5. I'd shoot at my floor, I laid it badly, and need a new one 😉

cynic-al - Member

The more I think about it the more I think most on this thread need anger therapy.

Anger? That's not anger that's applying common sense.

Nahhh ... there should not be anger involved when shooting burglar(s) as you will miss the target. Keep calm and pull the trigger. Anger has no placed in shooting accuracy.

🙄

Keep calm and pull the trigger

Yeah but you get spooked by "ghosts" flushing your toilet and slamming the door.

It's generally accepted in law that for members of the public, if you had to 'shoot a warning shot', or 'aim for the knees' (always said by people that have never shot and don't realise the impossibility of that), then you weren't in that much danger to warrant branding a weapon let alone discharging it, and have therefore committed a serious offence.

The only time that shooting is warranted is when you are in fear of your life, and then the [u]only[/u] option is to shoot to completely neutralise your attacker. People that need to know are taught that this is only ever reliably achieved by shooting constantly until the attacker ceases to move or you run out of ammo.

Tucker, that's quite different to what you said earlier. It doesn't add up to me either.

Is the threshold of the shooter's belief of the thread objectively or subjectively reasonable?

And why is it difficult to aim for knees? The IRA were pretty good at it 😉