[Closed] Protecting your property.

Whether it is right or not isn't something that anyone with only the media for information can judge. In spite of what the majority of the right wing press would have you believe this is the normal outcome for situations like this.

Indeed, it's very rare for charges to even be brought, let alone be found guilty by a jury of twelve peers. I'm glad they were arrested and questioned. Anybody who shoots somebody else unarmed [i]should[/i] be arrested and questioned and punished if undue force is used.

Is the bbc regarded as right wing press? That's where I read it! If someone is stood by your bed in the middle of the night in a balaclava I personally think you have the right to shoot him sock in the bollox regardless of the consequences to him.

I think what gonefishin was trying to say is that the right wing press would have us believe that gaols are full of well meaning homeowners who were simply defending their little castles from nasty men in balaclavas...who are also possibly gypsies, immigrants, or even worse, both.

I'm glad someone here can read!

Is the bbc regarded as right wing press? That's where I read it! If someone is stood by your bed in the middle of the night ......

I haven't read that in any of the BBC reports. It seems strange that the guy had a loaded firearm next to him in bed.

But anyway ..... the fact that someone has wronged you doesn't automatically give you the right to do whatever you want with them. Even the Geneva Convention prohibits the shooting of prisoners.

Like most people I know nothing concerning what precisely happened in that incident, so can't pass judgement and therefore have to rely on the police's judgement.

Judith Walker, Chief Crown Prosecutor for the East Midlands, said: "I am satisfied that this is a case where householders, faced with intruders in frightening circumstances, acted in reasonable self-defence.

"The law is clear that anyone who acts in good faith, using reasonable force, doing what they honestly feel is necessary to protect themselves, their families or their property, will not be prosecuted for such action.

How is a shotgun at close range "reasonable force"

Back in August, on a long drive, I was listening to Jeremy Vine(?). He was speaking with victims of violent home robberies (tied up naked, threatened with guns/machetes axes etc). These people (the victims) were all suffering years after their ordeals.

Love to know how 'reasonable force' is defined. If you are terrified (possibly fearing for your life) and have the opportunity to incapacitate/knock out a burglar you're not just going to give 'em a tickle are you.

So if you become a prisoner in your home tied to a chair say, do you really think the genera convention is crossing his mind as he threatens to stab you if you don't give up your pin number?

From the media reports that the burglars were expecting an empty house I'd say 'reasonable' would be shouting "f*** off or I'll shoot", i don't condone burglary, but I condone shooting people even less.

So if you become a prisoner in your home tied to a chair say, do you really think the genera convention is crossing his mind as he threatens to stab you if you don't give up your pin number?

You're being very silly wrightyson 🙂

The reference to the Geneva Convention was merely to illustrate that there are rules and norms that have to be abide by - even in a war situation.

You are not entitled to execute someone simply because they have unlawfully entered your property.

So if you become a prisoner in your home tied to a chair say, do you really think the genera convention is crossing his mind as he threatens to stab you if you don't give up your pin number?

[img] [/img]

If I/my family were in the process of being violently burgled I would read the Geneva convention, if by that time they hadn't violated my family, me or my property I would proceed to give the offenders a hug and sit round and hold hands whilst they came round to the error of their ways.

8)

The law seems to be reasonable, I think. These two don't deserve to be punished. Tony Martin probably did...

I think what gonefishin was trying to say is that the right wing press would have us believe that gaols are full of well meaning homeowners who were simply defending their little castles from nasty men in balaclavas...who are also possibly gypsies, immigrants, or even worse, both.

Don't forget immigrant gypsie peadophiles. I won't leave the house now as I read they're on every street corner.

Back in August, on a long drive, I was listening to Jeremy Vine(?).

molgrips - Member
The law seems to be reasonable, I think. These two don't deserve to be punished. Tony Martin probably did...

Why? Not trying to be provocative but what was/is different?

the fact that someone has wronged you doesn't automatically give you the right to do whatever you want with them

Thats a big leap.

You are not entitled to execute someone simply because they have unlawfully entered your property.

There you go again

Not trying to be provocative but what was/is different?

He shot someone in the back as they ran away.

Reasonable force is the minimum force required to make the threat go away. With multiple violent intruders, it could well be reasonable to fire a shotgun at them, with someone who's not violent or is trying to escape it isn't.

Definitely right to arrest and question them to find out the circumstances.

From the media reports that the burglars were expecting an empty house I'd say 'reasonable' would be shouting "f*** off or I'll shoot", i don't condone burglary, but I condone shooting people even less

I am also interested as how they had timt to get to the safely secured shotgun in the timeframe of the burglary ,load it and fire it whilst under immenent threat that meant they had to shoot someone.

wrightyson - Member

Is the bbc regarded as right wing press? That's where I read it! If someone is stood by your bed in the middle of the night in a balaclava I personally think you have the right to shoot him sock in the bollox regardless of the consequences to him.

Measured, and proportionate?

🙄

I am also interested as how they had timt to get to the safely secured shotgun in the timeframe of the burglary ,load it and fire it whilst under immenent threat that meant they had to shoot someone.

I may be wrong but I understand the shotgun was by the bed. I think its easy in the cold light of day to rationalise these things however only they know how much they feared for there life, it has been known for intruders to kill people even when their main intent was to simply to steal property.

He shot someone in the back as they ran away.

Without looking it up I understand there was a history of burglary to his property and they were repeat offenders and he lived in a very remote area. I also recall he lay in wait which actually strengthens your argument however there are a lot of factors which have to be considered.

Without looking it up

Indeed.

there are a lot of factors which have to be considered

Indeed.

Btw, you do remember he was found guilty of murder by a jury of his peers, but later had it reduced to manslaughter by virtue of diminished responsibility. He killed a 16 year old boy by shooting him in the back. But he was, apparently, suffering from some kind of paranoid personality disorder.

As I said, there are a lot of factors to consider. Also they cant easily be compared.

I seem to recall that shotguns don't need to be in the same kind of secured cabinet as a Section 1 firearm. In theory, a sturdy, lockable wooden cabinet can be used, therefore easier to access.

Homeowner didn't kill anyone - he only wounded 50% of the intruders, which is a pretty poor showing in my opinion, especially with a Shotgun. Put in the same situation, I'd shoot the bastards, and try not to miss the other 50%.

And as for Tony Martin - He used a held pump-action (possibly sawn-off) shotgun with a magazine capacity >3 shells; so illegal on so many levels (2).

If you break into someones house, you lose your human rights. You have no idea what the intruders intent is, I would not be issuing any warnings.

If you break into someones house, you lose your human rights

I'm afraid you don't.

If you break into someones house, you lose your human rights

What about if you break other laws? Like speeding. Or tax avoidance. Or is it only "working-class" criminals who lose their human rights?

This happened about a mile away from my house!

A little inside info (from copper mate): the owners woke up at gone midnight to find masked men in their home. The guy did tell the scrotes to get out of his house. They declined. He shot at them after this warning.

Fair enough to me

If you break into someones house, you lose your human rights. You have no idea what the intruders intent is, I would not be issuing any warnings.

I seem to recall that shotguns don't need to be in the same kind of secured cabinet as a Section 1 firearm. In theory, a sturdy, lockable wooden cabinet can be used, therefore easier to access

But thats by the by if the shotgun was by the bed. It may be illegal but it explains why they had access to it so quickly.

Or is it only "working-class" criminals who lose their human rights?

*does not apply to Raffles.

Fine if shot in the front, probably deserved a stern talking to if the crim was shot in the back, either way I won't lose any sleep over it.

Someone breaks into someone else's house and gets shot? Oh well.

I'm afraid you don't.

I was in the US recently talking to a gun nut. "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" was the order of the day.....

You do in mine. It's not being burgled that worries me, it's only stuff after all but there's always a chance that their intent is more sinister. It's not a chance I'm willing to risk.

You should put a sign on the door warning would be burglars.
Save a lot of grief that way.

You do in mine.

Nope, again, I'm afraid I don't.

yes you would not understand as you dont have kids 😉

Whilst I can still say it

{ for clarity you are right on this thread]

Nope, again, I'm afraid I don't.

no i don't

The point is, they would count for absolutely nothing at the time and looking at the link; very little after. Which is the way it should be.

Which is the way it should be.

No it shouldnt

they would count for absolutely nothing at the time

They would, and they do.

Which is the way it should be.

It shouldn't and isn't, nor is it even remotely likely that it will ever be.

Mind you, the aroma of testosterone floating over from manly North Bristol has got all the girls around Knowle West quite frisky.

They would, and they do.

It shouldn't and isn't, nor is it even remotely likely that it will ever be.

Did you read the link? A chap shot someone and isn't in custody.

Mind you, the aroma of testosterone floating over from manly North Bristol has got all the girls around Knowle West quite frisky.

South of the river? Not even with a rented stunt cock.

I seem to recall several cases in the states where the intended victim was invited into the home and shot then the murderer claimed self/home defense. I am always very suspicious of these cases, and expect the claims to be vigorously investigated. An automatic assumption of "brave and heroic defender" is a very dangerous position to take.

In this case the person doing the shooting reported themselves to the police. The police took them into the nick and then investigated. They were then not charged. The robbers were nicked and charged.

All sounds very sensible to me.

Did you read the link? A chap shot someone and isn't in custody.

I did, yes. You're arguing that in your tough world of guns and shit that human rights count for nothing if someone intrudes into your magical kingdom of you and your property, over there in trendy North Bristol. I'm simply telling you that you're incorrect. How difficult is that to understand? It might be best to let the testosterone levels decrease before answering. They're clearly clouding your judgement.

Not even with a rented stunt cock.

Given the increasingly aggressive nature of your posts, I would have thought your own would reach.

I haven't mentioned guns. I'm not posturing, I haven't been aggressive or macho, I'm stating fact.
You don't seem to understand that I do not care about someones human rights if they are in my home threatening the safety of my family.
It seems that the ever popular Mr Cameron agrees;

"That's why this Government is actually changing the law to toughen the rules on self-defence against burglars, saying that householders do have the right to defend themselves."

saying that householders do have the right to defend themselves.

But this is "motherhood and apple pie" and is already enshined in law and doesnt reinforce what you where saying.

It seems that the ever popular Mr Cameron agrees;

"That's why this Government is actually changing the law to toughen the rules on self-defence against burglars, saying that householders do have the right to defend themselves."

But you're already allowed to defend yourself!

Wrecker - Cameron is talking about nothing, entirely hot air that will never result in anything. He knows this perfectly well - his cabinet is filled with lawyers. Ken Clarke is an evil old Cornish pasty shoe-wearing sod but he's not stupid. These are diversionary tactics to distract people from the economic crisis in the UK.

Householders (like everyone else) already have a right to defend themselves with reasonable force. The "reasonable force" provision is nothing to do with human rights or the Human Rights Act or Europe or Metric Martyrs or any other Daily Mail bobbins. It's the product of several hundred years of common law: it's survived this long because it's a good idea.

The prosecution was required to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. They did so. Martin was found guilty by a 10 to 2 verdict, with a jury drawn from his community.

Surprised no one's posted this yet:

[img] [/img]

you are not talking about defending yourself you are talking about attacking someone whether you are under threat or not.

Or this: [url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/sep/06/judge-burglary-courage-official-investigation ]http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/sep/06/judge-burglary-courage-official-investigation[/url]

you are not talking about defending yourself you are talking about attacking someone whether you are under threat or not.

In my opinion, if someone has forcefully broken into my house with absolute disregard for the law; I'm under threat.

In my opinion, if someone has forcefully broken into my house with absolute disregard for the law; I'm under threat.

Depends; are they faster than me? 😉
Not sure what the dog would make of it though.

or 65 , drunk and they have fallen asleep?
or
They are downstairs and you are upstairs

Fair enough wrecker, but you better be prepared for what happens after

Friend of mine got bust into, and she just shouted "ive called the police" and they legged it. No need for macho bollox

Should I hear a disturbance downstairs in the dead of night, the intruders would be met on the stairs by me holding either my dad's old Kukri or my very sharp Gransfors hatchet. Stern words would be expressed along the lines of I'm higher up with a sharp implement and and further steps forward would be met with some fairly extreme violence, likely resulting in bloodshed. Theirs. 😈

Here's an interesting [url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/20/appeal-court-frees-man-burglar-attack ]case[/url]. I guess it illustrates the difference between defending yourself and wreaking revenge.

Not sure of my opinion. I'm generally of a peaceful and liberal persuasion but if I'm brutally honest I'd probably do the same as this guy if put in the same situation.

likely resulting in bloodshed. Theirs.

Wow...that's awesome.

Look, can everyone stop with all the posturing? I'm getting a bit turned on myself now and it's only coming up to half two.

Fair enough wrecker, but you better be prepared for what happens after

No problems.

Friend of mine got bust into, and she just shouted "ive called the police" and they legged it. No need for macho bollox

To turn it the other way round, is it okay for someone to invite you into their house, shoot you, and then get off scot free just by saying you broke in?

Errr no, I don't think so.

Which is why there are criteria for self-defence and why you don't surrender all your rights when you're in someone else's house.

I'm not aware

Apparently, not. It seems others are perceiving it though. Why do you think that is?

This made me laugh a while back: http://nosleeptilbrooklands.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/englishmans-home-is-his-drug-farm.html

The quintessential 'retired, gentle-natured, pillar of the community' grandad shoots dastardly burglars. But the "burtle burtle, can't even defend your property, burtle burtle" from the aforementioned right wing press stopped pretty quickly once a few more details came out..... 😆

Good friends had their house broken into 5 hours after they went on holiday. I went round after the police had finished to fit a new door lock and to have a general tidy up before they got back - talking to someone else there the police had found a very large knife on one of the beds that had been taken from the kitchen.
Another family I know were recently burgled while they were in bed - they were tied up and threatened with a knife. The husband shoots and I bet he now keeps a gun next to the bed (regardless of the law).
I have 4 shotguns and I'm pretty sure if I was woken by intruders and I had the chance to get a gun from the cabinet I most certainly would.

I'm not aware of any "macho bollox",

Gneuine LOL moment in the office there

I hope it was irony

as emsz says shout you have called the police in a loud voice they will leave, defend yourself and your loved ones if you must but dont go and search them out for a fight

re that link dazH. I can see that under the circumstances I could loose the plot but i canot see how my brother and i would do this

The pair returned to the house in High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire and chased and caught one of the gang, Walid Salem, a criminal with more than 50 previous convictions. The court heard Salem was then subjected to a "dreadful, violent attack" during which he was hit so hard with a cricket bat that it broke into three pieces, leaving him with brain damage.

Why do you think that is?

ASSumption.

I think a bit of self-awareness is called for - you seem to be lacking it in spades.

Really wrecker?

I've noticed this of guys, lots of you are full of this sort of alpha male nonsense. It's what leads to people being shot at and punched in nightclubs or whatever

It's that " are you looking at my bird" mentality, or the threat of having "possessions" ( and i dont just mean actual stuff) taken away. I think it's not being able to bear having something that's "yours" being taken from you.

Oh diddums; someone disagree with you sweetheart? Here's a big kiss.
Typical STW bullying.

Really wrecker?

I've noticed this of guys, lots of you are full of this sort of alpha male nonsense. It's what leads to people being shot at and punched in nightclubs or whatever

It's that " are you looking at my bird" mentality, or the threat of having "possessions" ( and i dont just mean actual stuff) taken away. I think it's not being able to bear having something that's "yours" being taken from you.

Have you read my posts? I've said that I'm not bothered abour possessions. I'm not getting macho, shouty, aggressive etc. You are a mile wide emsz.

sharkbait - Member

I have 4 shotguns and I'm pretty sure if I was woken by intruders and I had the chance to get a gun from the cabinet I most certainly would.

And that's totally reasonable, and totally legal. It's what you do next that varies. (you may want to, for instance, consider not shooting anyone in the back as they try to escape)

Oh diddums; someone disagree with you sweetheart? Here's a big kiss.

Jesus wept...

Chapeau wrecker [ holds head in disbelief] that will show her/us that you are the victim of bullying and not an easily threatened macho alpha male.

All this talk of macho bollox come from your insecurities, not mine.
You seem to think it's all posturing purely because it's not what you'd do in the situation. Well clearly my judgement is different to yours and whilst you might be happy about this, i can assure you that I am too.
I don't consider myself an alpha anything and haven't said anything for effect. Your failure to comprehend that I was just speaking openly and honestly has manifest itself by just trying to belittle anothers opinion and making underhand comments.

Why do the "enlightended" on here feel the need to "correct" others in such a manner? STW really is full of soppy fragile numpties.

And that's totally reasonable, and totally legal. It's what you do next that varies.

STW really is full of soppy fragile numpties.

Indeed, thankfully, awesomez like yourself balance it out nicely.