Forum menu
"If you burgle a house in the country where the householder owns a legally held shotgun, that is the chance you take."
Judge Michael Pert, QC
This statement, combined with the absence of prosecution of the householders once the facts had been established; does this usher in a new era of increased power to honest people against pilfering scum?
Or does it give a green light to vigilantésque homeowners tooling themselves up within their fortress homes; trespassers will be shot, survivors shot again.
Has anything changed? It feels like it has, although I understand that legally at least, it hasn't. Or has it?
Who cares? I'm off to buy a shotgun.
Shotgun, Bastard and Dribble.
I'm not so sure about this new Trumpton remake.
Looks as though this story and the "brave" burglars story are chronologically arse about face.
I guess it could be used as case law in future similar incidents. It does kind of set the bar really
licence to shoot folk but it will be popular just like the death penalty would be
personally not impressed as people are putting possessions above a life- even if they are a robbing scrote
how low would you go?
1 chipped cup?
your £20 microwave?
your laptop?
Nothing has changed.
A person has the right to pro-actively defend themselves (i.e. strike first if an attack is suspected). You may use what is to hand as a weapon.
If you find someone in your house, you could be forgiven for thinking that they are there to murder you, rape your wife and/or children...who knows, are you going to risk it? No, so we have established you now have the right to attack the intruder (as many have done using various weapons including knives and swords). If your LEGALLY OWNED firearm/shotgun is to hand , you don't have to unload it, lock it away, and then find another less lethal weapon...you use it because it is what you have.
how low would you go?
1 chipped cup?
It's all about "reasonable force" isn't it. Shooting someone in the head gun for stealing a teacup is just reducto ad absurdum. Well, or American.
Junkyard - Member
licence to shoot folk but it will be popular just like the death penalty would bepersonally not impressed as people are putting possessions above a life- even if they are a robbing scrote
how low would you go?
I wouldn't go through a check-list that's for certain.
shouldn't you lose your gun licence if a loaded gun is ever "to hand" ?
I'm not sure that this verdict is saying you can kill to protect your property. The burglar was reaching into the knife drawer when the guy shot him. There's scope for a 'in fear for his/his wife's life' there, if the perceived threat is sufficent and imminent. I can't see the CPS letting someone away with shooting someone for stealing when there's no risk of harm to anyone.
Maybe house robbers should sign something legal upfront to the effect that they promise not to hurt anyone they may disturb during the robbery?
That way householders can sleep easy in the knowledge that they'll never be scared into defending themselves.
Classic pump action shotgun Vs Benelli M4 ... I will have the latter. 
I suspect someone will take the Tucker approach in future and get it wrong and end up like Tony Martin.
I also expect that the householder will lose his shotgun licence if he is shown to keep it unsecured overnight. They are supposed to be secured and unloaded when not in use from my understanding of firearms law.
If my second point is correct he's up shit-creek without a paddle when the scrotes get out and decide to come a calling again, or his mates in the interim.
I'm not sure that this verdict is saying you can kill to protect your property. The burglar was reaching into the knife drawer when the guy shot him.
Perhaps the burglar was reaching into the knife drawer to get a knife for self defence as someone was just about to shoot him. 🙂
scaredypants - Member
shouldn't you lose your gun licence if a loaded gun is ever "to hand" ?
I thought that, at least. Does anyone know if he has or not?
off to polish my LEGALLY HELD shotgun all night (officer)...
if the perceived threat is sufficent and imminent. I can't see the CPS letting someone away with shooting someone for stealing when there's no risk of harm to anyone.
I'm fairly sure that uninvited men in my house whilst I'm sleeping would pretty much cover those bases. Knife drawer or not, terrifying. I'd like to think in that situation I'd shout a warning and the intruders would run away. But I'd really want the (perceived) reassurance of a loaded twelve bore in my hands just in case they turn out to be cocky twunts...
It's hard to say for certain, but I'm 99% that I would shoot (maybe kneecaps ;-)) some intruder in my house in the dead of night, I don't care what his intentions are - mine are to protect Mrs and Baby Wilko. One things for sure though, by the time I'd dug out the keys to my shotgun cabinet, got out a 12 bore, grabbed a box of cartridges and loaded 2, they'd have nicked all my electrical equipment and sold it on.
What about a pump action 12 bore pair of bombers?
If I apply for a shotgun license, and when they ask what I want the gun for I say 'shooting burglars' how far will I get?
Well Sweepy, my understanding is that as long as you don't say "I intend to shoot burglers in the back as they run away" it's all fine.
This statement, combined with the absence of prosecution of the householders once the facts had been established; does this usher in a new era of increased power to honest people against pilfering scum?
Or will it mean the pilfering scum will come tooled up and possibly shoot first?
If I apply for a shotgun license, and when they ask what I want the gun for I say 'shooting burglars' how far will I get?
I told the visiting police firearms officer that it was for my 'Zombie Apocalypse survival plan'(tm)
He thought I was joking...
shouldn't you lose your gun licence if a loaded gun is ever "to hand" ?
Why? The law says that firearms have to be kept 'secure'
Nowhere more secure than in the bedroom with me, is there?
My mate has always said if anyone broke into his house and entered intending to steal or cause harm to himself or his partner that he'd have absolutely no qualms about removing one of his shotguns or rifles from the cabinet and using it, as long as the person was advancing towards him that is - anything else and he wouldn't get away with it.
He does stay in a big victorian country house with a long access road and in a very isolated position, fully alarmed house with window bars on the lower basement section of the house so if anyone managed to get through all that i guess they are determined to break in and fully deserve what's coming, which would be 3 pointers and 2 daft spaniels creating merry hell. Knowing him i guess he wouldn't shoot to maim either, brought up in Ireland in the 1970's and early 80's before he moved out of the trouble to London in his early 20's to make his fortune so to speak, from what scant info i've been told regarding growing up in Ireland round about that time it was brutal and seemingly random inhuman violence with indiscriminate kneecappings for petty misdemeanours, vicious beatings from so called terrorist organisations along with similar from the police/army and bodies dumped at the side of the road as a warning were commonplace so hell mend anyone who tries to take what's his nowadays. He was taken aside a few times for daring to go out with a Catholic girl and beaten rather badly, and had to watch as the provo's kneecapped his mate for working with a Catholic building firm, the violence was too much so that's why the pair of them left Ireland to go to London and are still together today.
It's hard to imagine that was only 30 odd years ago, despite what they say it still goes on to a similar but not as explicit extent nowadays, kneecappings and beatings along with extortion are still commonplace but we never hear about it.
For what's it's worth a few years ago i/we caught someone in my house trying to get out my bedroom window, we heard a commotion in the bedroom after coming home late from the pub one night and i ran through to see this little scrote trying to climb out through my window... I'm not saying what happened to him but he fully deserved what he got and i'd have absolutely no second thoughts about doing similar today if i found someone in my home or attempting to break in.
I suspect someone will take the Tucker approach in future and get it wrong and end up like Tony Martin.
It's not MY approach. It's law! 🙄
It's how that scumbag Kenneth Noye got away with murdering the unarmed Policeman John Fordham in cold blood.
Nowhere like stw for whiney middle class bleeding heart cockbags. 😆
...and Tony Martin illegally sourced and held a weapon specifically for the purpose of shooting an intruder. A pre-meditated crime. Not in the least bit relevant.
Had Tony Martin of used something he already owned, he wouldn't have had a case to answer.
I lived on the same road as Tony Martin back when it happened. There was very much a strained relationship between different sections of the community afterwards, shall we say.
Mind you, we did have police cars passing the house every other hour all through the day and night for a few months - kinda handy on the crime prevention front, I guess.
Rachel
Nowhere like stw for whiney middle class bleeding heart cockbags.
or the testosterone fuelled knuckle dragging bell ends
falkirk-mark - Member
Nowhere like stw for [s]whiney middle class bleeding heart[/s] [u]low IQ reactionary right wing[/u] cockbags
FTFY, HTH 😀
EDIT I prefer Junkyard's version.
Last time I checked IQ was around 130, I do believe what goes round comes round and do not have much faith in our justice system.HTH
Do you really need IQ to shoot intruders?
I think you are thinking too much ... just pull the trigger and get it over and done with.
🙄
It's how that scumbag Kenneth Noye got away with murdering the unarmed Policeman John Fordham in cold blood.
That's not true - the jury did not find that Noye killed Fordham in cold blood.
Had Tony Martin of used something he already owned, he wouldn't have had a case to answer.
That's not true either. The reasonableness of the force has nothing to do with weather a weapon used is owned legally.
falkirk-mark - Member
Last time I checked IQ was around 130, I do believe what goes round comes round
Shooting burglars may well get you your karma, did you think of that? 😉
don't know that I would want to use a shotgun, a bit messy.
Maybe a decent .22 and aim for the thighs on first encounter...
Don't have a shotgun, but a very, very sharp Grunsfors axe, a Gurkha Kukri, and a Puma White Hunter, waved in a perps face might persuade them that the person holding the handle of a large pointy object has certain advantages.
A bokken (Wooden samurai sword) looks rather like a real Katana in the dark... I have 2 knives and a hatchet in my room 3"(folding), 3.8"(Sheath (Bushcraft)) id be fairly tempted to give any intruder i found a good shank in the leg before tieing him/her/it up in the bath and calling the cops. (I'd bandage the wound as well, I'm not a total ****)
cynic-al - MemberShooting burglars may well get you your karma, did you think of that?
It definately gives you XP. And if you shoot 50 in the head you get an Achievement.
Perhaps the burglar was reaching into the knife drawer to get a knife for self defence as someone was just about to shoot him.
Perhaps the burglar could have avoided the situation entirely by not being a burglar?
It definately gives you XP
I thought support for XP was soon to be abolished, hence W7?
*Facepalm*
Well it certainly seems to give forumites a green light to selectively [mis]quote the Judge in two different threads!Or does it give a green light to vigilantésque homeowners tooling themselves up within their fortress homes; trespassers will be shot, survivors shot again.
The sentence you quoted needs to be read in context. The Judge was not trying the people who fired the weapon, he was trying the burglars (who pleaded guilty) and making clear he was not going to show any leniency because they got hurt in the process.
shotguns are for cowards
we all know that a set of lowers from some bombers is all you need
sadly i only have some fox float lowers under my stairs,, would tehy be up to the job?
But presumably it was loaded with pepper or the like, otherwise they'd have been dead?
Love all these violent fantasies people have about what they'd to a burglar with their collections of weapons. Never realised middle-aged middle-class IT managers were such badasses.
Junkyard - Member
licence to shoot folk but it will be popular just like the death penalty would bepersonally not impressed as people are putting possessions above a life- even if they are a robbing scrote
how low would you go?
1 chipped cup?
your £20 microwave?
your laptop?Posted 13 hours ago # Report-Post
Quite right J-Y; In fact I love your post in general that I would love to hear more of your thinking; why don't you come around at about 11pm tonight? Just come in the back door,it is a bit stiff you may have to push it. 😈
On a serious note,as he says possessions are unimportant*,and not worth a human life. But it is the fact that somebody has put your family at (potential) risk,which is a different trigger all together. Was there not a case in England last year where a guy stabbed a violent burglar who had already tied up his family? IIRC it went to court as well?
* My new Enigma Esprit frame is exempt from this unmaterialistic attitude to posessions.
duckman - Member
But it is the fact that somebody has put your family at (potential) risk
"potential" indeed - the likelihood if violence is very small.
Bit it gives folk something to froth about...
Just come in the back door,it is a bit stiff you may have to push it.
That is a euphemism right 😉
I agree there is potential to harm your family [there is in the supermarket or out in town] but there is also potential for you to attack them and end up dead.
However some seem to think if you are at the top of the stairs and them at the bottom then you are justified in shooting them because they are in your house. I say you are not unless they start to come up the stairs. It is an important difference
Some would shoot BECAUSE you are in their house rather than because they are actually under any personal threat.
my grandmas house got robbed (while she was in it) when I was about 15, I had all these revenge fantasies about what I'd have done if I was there or if they came back while I was there. Aren't you lot a bit old for that sort of stuff now?
Apart from the morality of potentially killing someone if shooting home intruders becomes accepted then home intruders will start bring their own guns, them being criminals they'll no doubt be able to get bigger and better guns too
However some seem to think if you are at the top of the stairs and them at the bottom then you are justified in shooting them because they are in your house. I say you are not unless they start to come up the stairs. It is an important difference
Some would shoot BECAUSE you are in their house rather than because they are actually under any personal threat.
Agreed, but the cause to believe that you or your family were at risk of harm would be somewhat skewed by having several uninvited men in your house in the early hours of the morning, don't you think? If I were put in that situation I would certainly feel happier shouting a warning, that I'd called the police etc if I were clutching a loaded shotgun in my hand. At least it gives you an option should the scrotes decision making ability be not completely up to scratch...
but the cause to believe that you or your family were at risk of harm would be somewhat skewed by having several uninvited men in your house in the early hours of the morning, don't you think?
I dont think it does tbh Gung ho types are going downstairs to do harm whatever.
TBH if I have a shotgun in my hand and I am upstairs and they are downstairs WTF am i doing going downstairs towards the threat with a gun ? It is not to protect me is it as i am armed and upstairs so not under any threat ?
Ring the cops sit at the top of the stairs pointing shotgun down stairs and job done.
if you go down it is only for one reason and it is not for a polite chat and you cannot approach danger to protect yourself.
This thread and others we have on this shows folk are happy to kill folk who are in their house.
This thread and others we have on this shows folk are happy to kill folk who are in their house.
To be fair for most people the circumstances outlined in this particular case provides the only opportunity they are ever likely to have to legally kill someone.
But of course trust the bleeding-heart lefty spoilsports on here to want to rob people of that one unique opportunity 😐
Could somebody use a graph to show me what % of people are killed by family members as opposed to intruders?
My understanding of things is thus:
The law states that you are free to use 'reasonable force' to defend yourself, family and others, from violent attack. This includes lethal force, if deemed necessary. Of course, the amount of force deemed 'necessary' is proportional to the attack/threat: if someone is coming at you with a knife, killing them may be justified. If they've simply pushed you in a heated argument, and you batter them senseless, that could be deemed excessive use of force.
You are also obliged by law to attempt to remove yourself from the scene/situation of violence, as much as is possible. For example, if somone across the road is calling oyu names and making threatening gestures, you are obliged to not make any move towards them, as this willthen be seen as a provocative act. If however you are cornered with nowhere to run, you are then allowed to use reasonable force. Like in your own home, with intruders present. In the case in question, the couple may well have felt that they had no chance to escape, with potentially violent intruders right there.
The use of reasonable force includes the use of a 'waepon of opportunity'; ie if you are cornered suddenly and feel your safety/life is in danger, you may use an object you have close at hand to defend yourself. So in this particular case, a couple who feared for their lives used a weapon of opportunity, and force proportional to the threat they perceived they faced. The court decided they had comitted no crime according to law. Hence they weren't charged with any offence.
I hope this somewhat brief and sketchy view of things helps to enlighten some people. Because the lack of understanding of law by some is rather worrying. Even more so, is the apparent desire by some to want to inflict violent retribution on others. I think the fact that some people would willingly want to injure and kill others, whatever the reason, is a good enough reason for certain weapons to remain illegal/heavily controlled in this country. The recent case involving the shooting of an unarmed boy in the USA, when the killer falsely claimed he was 'defending' himself, is yet another.
To me, the idea of taking a life over the theft of some material posessions is wrong, inhumane and grossly unjustifiable.
The second page of this thread refers to people on STW being happy to kill someone in their house, after a quick look at page one I have seen people say they would happily shoot someone but no-one say they would happily kill someone, (The last 4 people shot have only been wounded before the how do you know they would not be killed bandwagon starts)
no offence but what is your point? Do you think you would not be charged with attempted murder if you just shot someone in the street?
Are you suggesting that shooting someone is unlikely to kill them?
I imagine everyone who shoots a gun realises that there is a high chance the person will be killed and is [ in the loosest sense] trying to kill them or do serious harm and that is why they are firing the gun at them
Where is "Soldier of fortune" Hora on this thread?
duckman - MemberCould somebody use a graph to show me what % of people are killed by family members as opposed to intruders
about 70% of murders were committed by family members last year
and i suspect most of the others were also known to the victim
http://www.channel4.com/news/uk-murder-rate-falls-to-its-lowest-for-almost-30-years
and i agree with donk.....
D0NK - MemberApart from the morality of potentially killing someone if shooting home intruders becomes accepted then home intruders will start bring their own guns, them being criminals they'll no doubt be able to get bigger and better guns too
I've got no problem with this whatsoever. In fact I have no issue with ANYTHING that happens to a burglar.
If you choose to break the laws of the country, you cannot then expect the same judicial system to offer you any protection.
As has been said, cause & effect. If the burglar hadn't made the conscious decision to break the law and enter somewhere illegally, they wouldn't be in a situation to be shot by the homeowner. Simple.
but no-one say they would happily kill someone
trouble is that, unless the guy has been threatening you for a while, or has done this before to you, you are unlikely to be able to formulate the conviction required that the scum deserves to die in the short time you are exposed to them when confronted during the burglary.
So probably best to err. on the side of deciding that they don't deserve to die and just shoot them in the thighs if needed.
Out of context again, no-one has mentioned out in the street and the people who legally hold shotguns know how to use them hence the 4 (High profile) people who have been shot have only been injured. My point being no-one on here has expressed a wish to KILL someone.
It is not about possessions either - it is about the transgression into a 'personal' and 'safe' place - some victims liken this to a violation in a similar vein to rape.
one ex-crim on a radio show said that the burglary he committed was the thing he most regretted doing to someone else.
It is not about possessions either - it is about the transgression into a 'personal' and 'safe' place - some victims liken this to a violation in a similar vein to rape.
Spot on. They're only burglers once they've left the house. They're intruders until that point and you cannot know their intentions.
the people who legally hold shotguns know how to use them hence the 4 (High profile) people who have been shot have only been injured
shotgun i snot really a precision instrument though, is it - a mass off stuff comes flying out the barrels and spreads out, making a mess. Depends on proximity as to the effects.
Maybe keeping baton rounds loaded might be a better idea - the burglar isn't going to know and it would reduce the likelihood of a fatality.
Thats the point I am trying to make TG is that if you have a shotgun and if your house is broken into then you would have enough savvy to shoot someone in the legs where you would more than likely not kill them.Sorry if that upsets the people that want to be horrified at people killing for a £20 toaster.
so because someone broke the law you reserve the right to break a few yourself just to teach them a lesson?If you choose to break the laws of the country, you cannot then expect the same judicial system to offer you any protection
(pretty sure shooting people is a crime, in home intruder cases you're (maybe) getting off on a technicality)
If the burglar hadn't made the conscious decision to break the law and enter somewhere illegally, they wouldn't be in a situation to be shot by the homeowner. Simple.
Two wrongs dont make a right- it like saying he started the fight so I killed them. It is a OTT reaction to a transgression.
Out of context again, no-one has mentioned out in the street
I did the point is you seem to be arguing that shooting someone is not an attempt to murder/kill so presumably in the case of me shooting someone [in the street] I would not be charged with attempted murder. I can see why you side stepped the question though but what would I be charged with if I shot someone?
and the people who legally hold shotguns know how to use them hence the 4 (High profile) people who have been shot have only been injured.
Do they often practice how to shoot and only main intruders then? Just as likely they are crap shots 😀
you are right they are so highly skilled they intend to shoot to maim only and this would work fine in a court for anyone who shot anyone who did not die 😕My point being no-one on here has expressed a wish to KILL someone.
shoot someone in the legs with a shotgun at the likely small distances involved and you would make a hell of a mess - even a blank round at that distance will make a mess.
Maybe a small round like a .22 might be less messy and more repairable?
Not having shot anyone in the thighs this is just conjecture, obviously.
Even a badly aimed baton round at small distances is likely to be fatal, so all in all it is probably not a great idea, but what can you do to ensure that you can withstand any transgression and keep your family safe, whilst avoiding killing someone?
Plus there is always the chance that the transgressor is drugged/alcoholed up, which would mean that any disabling blow would need to be more severe.
as junkyard said stay upstairs out of the way, phone the police and shout to warn the intruders that you have done so. Don't approach them looking for "justice"but what can you do to ensure that you can withstand any transgression and keep your family safe, whilst avoiding killing someone?
andyrm - MemberI've got no problem with this whatsoever. In fact I have no issue with ANYTHING that happens to a burglar.
If you choose to break the laws of the country, you cannot then expect the same judicial system to offer you any protection.
As has been said, cause & effect. If the burglar hadn't made the conscious decision to break the law and enter somewhere illegally, they wouldn't be in a situation to be shot by the homeowner. Simple.
Ever heard of proportionality?
Don't approach them looking for "justice"
and if that doesn't work?
Get your shotgun out and accelerate Darwinism.
If they attack you shoot them /defend yourself. Do not put yourself in a situation of danger[ by going downstairs] in order to then justify defending yourself in case[before]they attack you.
Zulu-Eleven - Membershouldn't you lose your gun licence if a loaded gun is ever "to hand" ?
Why? The law says that firearms have to be kept 'secure'
Nowhere more secure than in the bedroom with me, is there?
For my brother in law to leave his cabinet unlocked or keep a shotgun 'ready' in the bedroom, he would have to get licences for my sister and their 2 year old, and register/reference his forearms to them too.
That said, I also knew someone whose shotgun cabinet was inside his fitted wardrobe...
If I drop the burglar into a James Bond-style tank full of sharks hidden under the foot of the stairs by pulling a lever; is that the same as shooting him?
For my brother in law to leave his cabinet unlocked or keep a shotgun 'ready' in the bedroom, he would have to get licences for my sister and their 2 year old
Not true. He "shouldn't" have a loaded shotgun in the bedroom (unlss it's in a locked cabinet in the bedroom but they're not the keepers of the gun so do not need a licence.
and register/reference his forearms to them too.
What about his elbows?
New legal doctrine according to STW: [i]Volenti non fit injuria[/i] now translates as "who's your daddy now?"
If you choose to break the laws of the country, you cannot then expect the same judicial system to offer you any protection
Yes you can. Even in police custody you can expect the judicial system to offer you protection.
It's a funny ol' thing this thing called "justice", ain't it ?