[Closed] Justice done for once.

ernie_lynch - Member

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

1. It is a waste of bullet if you try to shoot them. They are more then dead.

2. It is very rude to have a dump uninvited then slamming the door without due respect. Luckily there was no turd smell.

3. Not spooked but rather surprised i.e. I would rather they let me see them ... 🙄

p/s: ... there is no time to think because you shoot at the biggest target available i.e. the body, and no pussy footing about shooting legs etc.

cynic-al - Member

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

Ya, perhaps they are seasoned sharp shooters? Or perhaps they managed to hold down the target?

al

Not Midsommer murders but living in da ghetto of MCR.Violent burglaries and rapes do occur. I could give you gruesome details of " breakins" that involved torture-it happens in the real world no need for stats-this guy was a convicted violent thug.Crims boil kettles to throw boiling water at you if they get disturbed and carry and use screwdrivers,knives etc etc.Guns are prized assets and many break ins are to steal guns.Crims don't mind using a bit of persuasion to get you to open the cabinet.FFS they torture some homeowners for the keys to their expensive cars.Yes you are not logical when high on adrenalin but the thought of your legally held weapon getting into the hands of a criminal (who maybe high on class A)would focus your thinking.
My neighbour and I had a gun pulled on us by a burglar we confronted who was robbing and terrorising two frail pensioners at gunpoint in their own home in the small hours.Bad shit happens and John Nettles isn't always around to help.

I didnt' way it doesn't happen nick, I asked for stats - it's extremely rare. Folk believe it's common becuase shit newspapers like to print the stories to get their readers frothing, and it gets out of proportion.

TBF you and I are at extreme ends of experience - I've never even been burgled and you've had a piece pointed at you.

Which cyncial should not be posting objective crap against the cottage owner who shot them.
It is subjective what the home owner did but only in court when decided upon action.

It is however acceptable if and only if you have accesa and feel that fear to then aim at burgulars.
Or even a a lump of oak long enough to wrap round the crims head imo, never tried but would be interesting to see.

Hopefully they will not loosen the rope on gun ownership as there's reportedly too many in circulation already to keep tabs on.

Judges need to step up which is exactly what happened in this particular case in the future still.

Hope him/her are ok from the shock as I'm sure it would of been a tough couple of days whilst being interviewed.

Bad shit happens and John Nettles isn't always around to help.

Sentence of the day!

who legally should not even know where it is stored or where the keys are kept.

I got it from here
http://www.marplerifleandpistolclub.org.uk/general/gunlaw.htm
Feel free to argue with them on the law which we both know is suitably vague- I have no idea which is the correct interpretation
.

Shotgun storage and safe keeping in the home.

The precise requirements for storage of shotguns are not actually specified in law. The legislation merely says that they "must be stored securely at all times so as to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, access to the guns by unauthorized persons". In practice, a steel cabinet constructed and certified to comply with BS 7558 and Rawlbolted to a solid wall is the norm. The vast majority of commercially available gun and rifle cabinets meet the necessary standards. If your premises have shared access, for example if you live in a block of flats, the requirements may be more stringent. [b]In all cases the requirement to prevent access to the shotgun by "unauthorised persons", means anyone who doesn't personally hold a SGC. This means that even members of your family must not have keys to the cabinet or even know where you keep them.[/b]

His wife passed him the loaded gun which would seem to be a violation under either interpretation as i assume she is unauthorised.

cynic al
It's extremely rare statistically speaking for the population as a whole but that counts for nothing when you are a victim as this couple were.What were they supposed to do once they became victims? Cross their fingers and hope the intruders had read the BCS and would toddle off with just the video.
The frightening thing about this case is the crims. thought there would be 70k in cash and a cannabis farm. If the couple hadn't did what they did, they could have faced a Kafkaesque night of torture and worse as the crims. demanded money which they didn't have.

JY, Firstly I think you have misinterpreted the 'even know where you keep them' as applying to the guns - that is clearly nonsense as anyone's spouse or grown up children are likely to know where the gun cabinet is. Read it again - it applies to 'know where you keep [the keys]'.

Secondly, what makes you think that his wife did not hold a SGC? The press reports refer to it as the "couple's legally held shotgun". Perfectly possible that they both hold SGCs if they both have reason to use it without the other around.

The CPS clearly said they thought it had been reasonable self defence, not "we don't believe it is in the public interest" or "there is insufficient evidence" both of which would have been legitiamite get outs for them without saying it was OK. Unlike people on this forum they will have seen all the prosecution evidence, and had alternatives (e.g. firearm storage offences etc) at their disposal so I think you can presume that having weighed up the facts the response was not disproportionate. I'm surprised/concerned a legally held firearm was easier to get to, load and discharge in a house with a history of breakins than a 999 call, or a loud audible warning first - but I haven't been party to all the evidence.

JY, Firstly I think you have misinterpreted the 'even know where you keep them' as applying to the guns

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.

I'd like to see your evidence for being so haughty and condescending. Where do you get your info from? CBA finding a better source but this Wikipedia account tallies with what I remember from news reports at the time.

Shooting downwards in the dark, with his shotgun, loaded with birdshot, Martin evidentially shot three times towards the intruders (once when they were in the stairwell and twice more when they were trying to flee through the window of an adjacent ground floor room). Barras was hit - fatally - in the back and both sustained gunshot injuries to their lower limbs. Both escaped through the window but Barras died at the scene.[2]

On 23 August 1999, [b]Martin was charged with the murder of Barras, the attempted murder of Fearon, "wounding with intent to cause injury" to Fearon, and "possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life".[5][/b]. Martin did not hold a valid Shotgun Certificate (licence), let alone the more restrictive Firearms Certificate he would have needed to posess the high-capacity Winchester shotgun.

English law permits one person to kill another in self defence only if the person defending him or herself uses no more than "reasonable force"; it is the responsibility of the jury to determine whether or not an unreasonable amount of force was used.[7] The jury at the trial were told that they had the option of returning a verdict of manslaughter rather than murder, if they thought that Martin "did not intend to kill or cause serious bodily harm".[8] However, the jurors found Martin guilty of murder by a 10 to 2 majority.[9]

If there was 'no other reason' as you say then surely he would only have been charged with possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life.

Surely this is another case ultimately being 'drug related'

If drugs were removed from the criminal justice system , and put where they belong, the health and welfare dept, an awful lot of acquisitive 'crime' would cease, the 'market' for illegal substances would collapse, and less people would be crapping on other peoples floors.

This was broadly advocated by some top cops, but they seem to have been silenced....

"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."

Do you have any legal references for these statements. Under certain circumstances,as a member of the public, you are allowed to use reasonable force to protect yourself or others, it could well be the case that firing a warning shot which may be regarded as a use or threat of force will be sufficient to reduce or remove the threat. You are not necessarily committing an offense by firing a warning shot. Eg I come across a burglar who is holding a knife but has his back to me in my lounge, I decide I do not need to shoot him but as he represents a significant threat, by having a knife, I decide to display and use reasonable force by firing a warning shot from my legally held shotgun and then telling him to drop the knife. if he does not comply one could argue that there has been a threat escalation and the force I can use is also increased as a result of this.

The m.i.l is always banging on about shooting burglars,as someone who has spent a reasonable amount of time in the distant past, sneaking around people's properties at night I always ask her where she stands on the fordahm case - man kills intruder in his garden

cynic-al - Member
And why is it difficult to aim for knees? The IRA were pretty good at it

Been told by a couple of mates ( an ex marine and an ex para) how the IRA do this. They pin the victim to a wall press a.45 caliber hadngun to the back of the knee and fire. Not exactly easy to miss unless you're completely useless.

Or if they're feeling really nasty or you have p155ed them off enough they use a hammer drill.

I know somebody who shot and killed an intruder as he was climbing through a window, was on remand for ages but walked free when the case finally went to court. He shot him right in the chest.

OIAL - can you translate your post into English?

Gorehound - I know, I was kidding.

nick1962 - Member

cynic al
It's extremely rare statistically speaking for the population as a whole but that counts for nothing when you are a victim as this couple were.What were they supposed to do once they became victims? Cross their fingers and hope the intruders had read the BCS and would toddle off with just the video.
The frightening thing about this case is the crims. thought there would be 70k in cash and a cannabis farm. If the couple hadn't did what they did, they could have faced a Kafkaesque night of torture and worse as the crims. demanded money which they didn't have.

"could" indeed - as you say extremely rare for a burglary to become violent. So it's vastly more likely that the crims would have buggered off. No one knows and the stats are all we have

Still not enough IMO to allow intruders to be shot.

Still not enough IMO to allow intruders to be shot.

Seems that the combined fine minds of the British criminal justice system disagree with you on that one though.

Yes but to fair the title of this thread is "Justice done for once" which doesn't sound like the often get it right.

Yes but to fair the title of this thread is "Justice done for once" which doesn't sound like the often get it right.

100!

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

Well he never seemed to have been sorry he killed them. And leaving them to die wasn't exactly the right thing to do either. Had he shot them then immediately called an ambulance, I'd feel better about his "self-defence"

Just to help curb some of the random made up stuff on here.
It was the wifes license and shotgun. She handed it to her husband. I guess you could say he was using it under her supervision.

cynic-al .. Raining disapproval on a clear cut case of legal self defence doesn't sit well with the winking smiley you put on your casual reference to punishment shootings by the IRA.

If they considered your crime big enough they did it from the back so that your kneecap would be lost and your chances of recovery much reduced.

Ho Ho.

STV 7:30 Thursday
More harmless local burglars
And cynical I haven't seen your response to what you would do in the unlikely statistical event of finding burglars ransacking your home in the small hours.
And the chances of a burglar being shot in the course are statistically pretty unlikely .

Personally I favour the use of one of these:

[img] [/img]

No problems with the s.o.b's taking you to court afterwards, either.
Sometimes extreme measures are called for! 😈

Let the do-gooders invite burglars in and give them cake, let the rest of us deal with them as we see fit! 🙂

lol countZero i want one , i would crap myself to be in any situation like this , i only hope i would be able to do the correct thing.

v8ninety I was speaking about the general hypothetical case folk here appear to be discussing "OK to shoot any intruder".

nick, I'f probably shit myself. I don't have any weapons in the house bar my kitchen knife and a hockey stick, if I found something big and heavy enough I might make some noise and try to scare them off/whallop them if they didn't.

eat_the_pudding - Member
cynic-al .. Raining disapproval on a clear cut case of legal self defence doesn't sit well with the winking smiley you put on your casual reference to punishment shootings by the IRA.

As above - it's the general case and the internet hard man fantasist guff I am trying to make people consider. The kneecapping reference was a joke about someone saying it's impossible to shoot at the knees. Coming from NI I feel I can joke about it in these circumstances.

99% of people on here probably don't have access to a gun it's a bit of a pointless debate.But as the Fire Brigade recommend you have a planned escape route from your home in the unlikely event of a fire I suggest you have a similar plan in place in the unlikely event of a burglary or robbery when you are at home. A decent chain on your door that can't get kicked in is a start and some hammers,a cricket bat or hockey stick,tools and legally held knives stashed strategically (out of children's reach too)around the house for protection just in case.My wife objected to the chainsaw I kept under the bed because of the smell of petrol.BTW baseball bats and the like can be a bit unwieldy indoors as swinging room is limited 😉

I'm just not going to go there. I can see why you would be paranoid about this given your experiences/where you live (?) thankfully I'm not.

Can't reply now al watching Crimewatch 🙂