The lad that's been stabbed and killed whilst robbing!

Indeed surfer – I have never actually seen a case of someone defending themselves being prosecuted.

No one on this thread has been able to come up with one either.

I think that Mr Martin had pretty much lost it by that point. He’d had a LOT of shit from these criminals over a long period.
When the police are unable to help you for such a long time something’s going to give. Yes, a pump action shotgun is overkill (excuse the pun) but a person cannot continue to live like that.

Glitch bump

I’m in the mood for killinz.

shall I get you the JLS tour dates?

As regards the robbing/burglary comments, I can’t see the local villains, saying to each other let’s go out burglaring, nope they go out robbin’ or thievin’ innit. Thats what I meant in my thread title!

The latest news is the the dead burglar was already on bail having been arrested for another burglary in the Midlands earlier this month.

Sounds like Peter Flanagan performed a public service.

you wanted killinz?

Surfer it sounds like you are talking about the job in high Wycombe which I earlier posted a link too, in which case they were found guilty of GBH, originally given a prison sentence but it was reduced on appeal to a community order. So again it was decided that chasing them down teh street wasn’t reasonable force. That is the issue here what is “reasonable”, hitting someone with a bat whilst they run away isn’t deemed “reasonable”.

Wrighyson, you’d be surprised they know they are out burgling and some of these burglars are quite intelligent, the thick ones go shoplifting! plus in 8 years I’ve never known a burglar, burglar with a balaclava unless they knew the occupants, ie it was over drugs or something like that.

shall I get you the JLS tour dates?

I will watch each concert and do the killinz with a JLS theme after each one.

I know someone who caught a burglar in his kitchen. He smacked him over the head with a set of those old-fashioned iron kitchen scales, breaking the burglar’s jaw. The burglar was unarmed. The police were not in the slightest bit interested in prosecuting him for the assault.

So short of lying in wait with a gun, and shooting someone in the back as they run away, I would suggest that “reasonable force” has a pretty wide scope.

you have boss morals Big Respects to you innit
i think everyone agrees with you but it becomes unreasonable if he then jumps on top of him and continues to hit him over and over again with said scales.

Surfer it sounds like you are talking about the job in high Wycombe which I earlier posted a link too, in which case they were found guilty of GBH, originally given a prison sentence but it was reduced on appeal to a community order. So again it was decided that chasing them down teh street wasn’t reasonable force. That is the issue here what is “reasonable”, hitting someone with a bat whilst they run away isn’t deemed “reasonable”.

Thats exactly my point. In spite of the fact that the law (and most reasonable people) came to the conclusion that they went too far they were still not imprisoned which reinforces my point that using quite a significant amount of force to defend your family and property will onlt ever get you into trouble if you exceed “accepted” boundaries by a significant amount. In the above case they almost killed the intruder and beat him continuously far after he ceased to be a threat. Even in that case there was no appetite to lock them up!
I just wanted to argue against the myth that if an intruder enters you home you are only allowed to punch him on the nose. In reality if he was found at the bottom of the stairs with 4 broken ribs and facial injuries then nobody from the Police to the CPS would be particularly interested.

Death by the scales of justice!! Teh irony!!

i think everyone agrees with you but it becomes unreasonable if he then jumps on top of him and continues to hit him over and over again with said scales.

I think that’s right. He attacked the burglar with an improvised weapon, that happened to be at hand, and injured him to the extent that he no longer posed a threat. If he’d bludgeoned the burglar to death, having already knocked him out, that would have been a different matter.

This seems like common sense to me, as I’m sure it would to any jury.

I’m sure we can all agree that the correct procedure for just this eventuality wasn’t followed in this case. Knives indeed? Pah

Munqe chick – I’m aware of what burglary and aggravated burglary entail. You can still have a robbery within a house though, whether or not a burglary is also taking place. R v Clark.

If 4 masked men broke into muy house I’d shit myself. I’d fear primarily for Mrs. S’s safety and would do anything to stop the event from continuing. I.e. I would do anything to get them to not be there anymore.

Mr. Flanagan succeeded in this. His family and himself are physically unharmed. The burglars left the scene – one of them is now deceased as a result of the reasonable force applied.

If Mr. Flanagan is tried for murder then we should all head down to a peaceful protest in London. An important and positive precedent could be set with this case.

EDIT: those Bombers are particularly beautiful binners. I thank you.

derek – you do not have enough detail to know if the level of force was reasonable or not. That is what a trial is for if there is enough evidence to charge him.

Now it might be reasonable, it might not. We simply do not know right now

Unless Flanaghan’s actions were as extreme as those of Tony Martin’s (and we don’t know yet), there is no way a jury would find him guilty.

Well it looks like there aren’t going to be any witnesses from the deceased side does it?? With “mates” like that who needs knife wielding enemies??

Thegreatape I can’t find R v clarke, everything on t’internet refers to Australian law, wanted to read it out of interest. Yup I agree there is a technical robbery but my point (which I didn’t explain) was CPS would NEVER charge with robbery and Joe public gets confused and talks about “being robbed” when normally they haven’t they’ve been burgled!

I nearly stepped on a bumblebee earlier. My appetite for killinz is somewhat diminished.

I agree that the two terms are frequently misused or misunderstood, so I see what you were trying to explain. Clark got 11yrs for aggravated burglary and robbery after assaulting an old lady in her house whilst pinching a small amount of money from her. I’ve no doubt you’re correct about the CPS – I haven’t had the pleasure of them for quite a few years thankfully!

Now it might be reasonable, it might not. We simply do not know right now

I can speculate widely with the best of them and I strongly suspect (if we believe what is in the public domain) that he will be perceived as acting resonably.
Given that there were 4 intruders and at least one was armed then he had reason to believe his life was in danger.
Its unlikely that (given the victim was carried out of the property by his accomplices) that he was alone with the victim for long or that he inflicted a prolonged attack on him as his accomplices would have likely either intervened or have fled without him (which they didnt)
In my head I think the wounds were inflicted in the melee and 4 against 1/2 I would be surprised if he was prosecuted.

I nearly stepped on a bumblebee earlier. My appetite for killinz is somewhat diminished.

Sicko, I bet you got a real buzz out of it too.

Thegreatape..wow the CPS did a double whammy there with that! Wonder how they did both offences, normally they chicken out and just run with one! Interesting, I’ll have a look when I’m back at work and can get access to PNLD, alawys interested in cases like that.

oh that was a barbed and stinging attack there cougar

derek – you do not have enough detail to know if the level of force was reasonable or not. That is what a trial is for if there is enough evidence to charge him.

Now it might be reasonable, it might not. We simply do not know right now

Not sure I agree with this. What could be considered ‘too much’ force against 4 guys in balaclava’s armed with (at least) 1 knife?

They have it within their means to inflict a bloody, painful and horrific death on you and possibly your family. If this doesn’t constitute a reaosn to use any force at all within your disposal, what on earth does?

Please don’t tar me with the ‘internet warrior/fantasist’ brush as just because I am suggesting that you should be allowed to use
this kind of force within the law under certain extrene circumstances does not mean I think I am capable of it myself, but that doesn’t change my point.

I’m not suggesting that if you use force and they run off you have carte blanche to chase them and inflict violence, but whilst they are in your house if they’re carrying a weapon like a knife it’s an awful lot to ask someone to remain calm, rational and employ logical thinking to resolve the situation under such extreme stress.

Edit- apologies if your post was made before some of the more detailed info appeared in the news etc.

Duggan – one aspect would be what was the stabbed boy doing at the time? Was he still a threat when the fatal blow was struck? Was he the one with the knife?

If he is coming at you with a knife and you stab him then probably reasonable – if he has been scared off and is trying to get out of the door then its not reasonable to chase him and stab him.

Similarly was it multiple blows? ie the first one could be reasonable – the second onwards he is no longer a threat so not reasonable.

Its considerations such as this that a jury will decide if its reasonable ( assuming enough evidence / chance of conviction for a prosecution)

I think, once a person feels for their own or families safety, in their own home, which should be the safest environment imaginable, then nothing is off limits, one should be allowed to do whatever is deemed required to ensure their own and families safety.

if you don’t like it, don’t burglez!

i reckon if that became law, burgleriezes would plummet pretty quick! A short spell as a paid for guest of HRH isnt really a deterent for these people.

IIRC, Tony martin was being terrorised by these kids for months, they had it coming to them.

then nothing is off limits, one should be allowed to do whatever is deemed required to ensure their own and families safety.

Yup – that is what the law is now. What you cannot do is continue to inflict violence once the threat is gone. Tony Martin shot an unarmed boy in the back as he ran away. He was no threat to Martin at that point

Edit- @TJ^^^

Yeah I agree that if they are running away and for example you strike them (with whatever) as they are exiting your window than is more complex..I think I see your original point now.

Still, I guess by that point you still might be working under the assumption (severley frighetend) that they are going to a van and/or their mates to return with their own weapon.

Also, for people not used to these kind of situations it seems a lot to ask for them to instinctively know how much force is neccesary or reasonable. I could expect a Policeman or a Soldier to be a good judge of this.

For someone who has never been in a fight before in their lives, it is surely impossible to get this right first time when you are terrified and presumably not thinking straight if at all. If you under-judge it, you will most likely get pasted, over-judge it and you risk being on a charge yourself (regardless of how many times this does or doesn’t actually happen).

It’s an impossible issue to get any ‘correct’ answer on, but I see your point. I think I would always sway towards the householder though, after all it is the intruder who is responsible for the situation exisitng at all. It seems unfair to pain-stakingly unpick and analyse every action of an armed robbery victim in court given the the extreme cicumstances and lightening quick decisions that have to be made, though I concede it is neccesary.

From the few cases I have seen come to court you have to go seriously OTT to get into significant trouble. See Martin and the high Wycombe case.

An acquaintance of mine was being harassed by a gang who tried to break into his house. No weapons tho. He hit one with an axe that he just happened to have to hand ( he is a tree surgeon) Put the lad in hospital with a fairly serious injury. Was prosecuted and got a small fine and no jail time. GBH but mitigated or something. Now imagine if he had hit someone with the axe not in self defence – he would have been in serious trouble

If he is coming at you with a knife and you stab him then probably reasonable

probably?? it would be reasonable as may a few stabbing in panic but stabbing someone on the floor may not be reasonable. I assume the number and placing of the blows counts.

nothing is off limits, one should be allowed to do whatever is deemed required to ensure their own and families safety.

you can but once the threat is over you cannot carry on.
i agree that many people will get caught in the emotion of the times and do far worse. the only cases I know with serious prosecutions involve chasing them down the street or injuries to the back where obviously there is no threat.

thieving nasty scum got what he deserved. no sympathy at all 😐

Also no sympathy :?He put himself in this position.
You reap what you sow.

so you value your things above life, your moral compass is as broken as the thiefs.

not above life. but definitely above scum like this 😯

You teach logic and ethics dont you? I can tell by the way you construct a strong and powerful logical argument where you both deny the point and then reaffirm the point I made. Only an expert could do it in so few words.