A slow descent into Hell...

[Dowding]

What a wonderful system you have! Well done. I'm glad it is perfect.

Shooting a fleeing man in the back sounds like murder to me, even if they are burglar scum. He wasn't under attack. But given that it may have been dark and Martin has mental issues, I'd understand if it was commuted to manslaughter.

[ravells]

I think this topic has been discussed before, but for what it's worth:

1. People in the UK do have the right to self defence, including using deadly force provided it is reasonable in the circumstances. Such circumstances would exist if a person apprehends that unlawful deadly force is about to be used against him or another person.

2. In the Martin case the jury convicted Martin because the prosecution counsel had persuaded them that the burglars were running away when Martin shot them - so they were not posing a threat. As far as I can remember, the burlars were unarmed. Thus, in the minds of the jury, the force that Martin used was unreasonable in the circumstances.

3. It is too simplistic to give people a carte blanche to shoot anybody who is trespassing on their property. In theory this might give someone a complete justification for shooting an innocent trespasser.

4. As I understand it (although I may be wrong), the law in the US fairly closely mirrors UK law on this.  Home owners in the US are generally not prosecuted for shooting burglars because of the high probability that the burglars may be armed and therefore this is a circumstance which makes it more reasonable to use deadly force in self defence in the US where guns are relatively more commonplace.

5. The reason why burglars have been able to successfully sue homeowners in the US (and in the UK) on occasion is because homeowners have a duty to ensure that that their property is safe to visitors and trespassers.  

Ravs

[lazs2]

No... In the U.S. every citizen is considered a threat to burglars... that is why we don't have as many "hot" burglaries as the uk.

If a burglar enters a home that is occupied in the U.S...  He is considered pretty much rabid and you don't have to show any cause other than "fear".    A burglar shot in the back is not murder.   If he is looking for a weapon or seeking cover.   Anywhere you can hit him is better than nothing.    

lazs

[Otto]

Originally posted by ravells

2. In the Martin case the jury convicted Martin because the prosecution counsel had persuaded them that the burglars were running away when Martin shot them -

 

  Himmm..  That does put a different light on it.  If in fact that's what happened.  I thought they came in the house while he was sleeping.  

  If he shot them outside then it's a 'no, no'.  But, even if he did the charge should not have been murder.

[Dowding]

They were in his house when he shot them, but the gunshot was in the back. Also, the charge was commuted to manslaughter if I remember rightly.

[ravells]

Lasz,

I have done a little research on US law as applied in California - I am not sure how much is state and how much federal on this subject; note that I don't profess to be an expert on the subject.

As I see it, the starting point is the law of self defence which says:

"In order to use deadly force to defend yourself, you must have an honest and reasonable belief that you are in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury from an unlawful attack, and that your acts are necessary to prevent the injury."

However, in the US (unlike the UK) there exists something called the 'castle doctrine'.

The castle doctrine establishes a rebuttable presumption that the conditions permitting deadly force in self-defense are met whenever:

"1.  An intruder unlawfully and forcibly enters your residence, or has unlawfuly and forcibly entered your residence.  

2. The intruder is someone who is not a member of the family or the household.  

3.  You know or have reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry has occurred."

A 'rebuttable presumption' is a legal term. Basically in this context it means that in the absence of any other evidence , if the householder can prove the 3 facts above, he will be presumed to have acted in self defence.

So it is quite conceivable that the facts in the Martin case could yeild the same result in the US courts.

This also explains why I have often heard many Americans say that if someone breaks into your house, make sure you kill rather than maim them and to drag them into the house if they have you have shot them outside. Obviously if the intruder is dead then it would be difficult for a person prosecuting the householder to rebut the presumption under the 'Castle Doctrine'.

Ravs

[Pongo]

Originally posted by Tarmac
How does that quote go?  The one about 10 guilty men going free over one innocent man being found guilty?

"Its better one rich man go free and 10 poor men get found guilty"
I think.

[Toad]

Originally posted by ravells
This also explains why I have often heard many Americans say that if someone breaks into your house, make sure you kill rather than maim them Ravs

I think that's perceived more as a liability issue. If you maim them here, you'll end up paying them millions of bucks and they'll live a life of luxury and you'll be impoverished after their lawyer and our legal system gets done with you.

And in the Martin case....... would that career criminal with a long record still be alive if he had done something really radical and ...maybe not burgled other people's houses?

[Otto]

Originally posted by Dowding
They were in his house when he shot them, but the gunshot was in the back. Also, the charge was commuted to manslaughter if I remember rightly.

Well then, it looks like we're back looking into the Cultural Divide.  If we was shot in the house while committing a felony I don't care if he was standing on his head.

Someone need to rewrite the Job Descriptions for UK burglars and include 'Death' as an occupational hazard.  

Sorry, but strong 'Negative Reinforcement is the only answer to everyone, gun owners and not, feeling safe in their homes.

[ravells]

Storch:

I am not sure if you are right as to whether Martin would have inevitably been acquitted in a US Court - I'm sure it would have been a lot more likely.  I found this website:

http://www.floridatoday.com/sections/emergency/force.htm

which sets out the rules of self defence quite simply.  It gives the following cautionary tale - perhaps the american version of Mr Martin:

Example: At a convenience store gas pump, a man got into an argument with other customers who were drinking heavily. Three of them approached the man and beat on him while he stood hunched in the open doorway of his car. Armed with a pocket knife, he resorted to stabbing his attackers, killing one of them.
This man was convicted of manslaughter because he pulled the knife before his attack began. This showed that he anticipated the attack and chose to pull a knife and stand his ground instead of getting in his car and leaving.
The court upheld his conviction ...

It appears that the general duty in the US (except where the castle doctrine applies) is that when confronted with actual or potential deadly force you must retreat if it is safe to do so. If you use deadly force when you have the option of retreating, you are not entitled to claim self defence.

Toad: If memory serves, the burglar who was shot in the Martin case dropped his claim for damages and is now back in prison after having been caught committing some other crime.  I don't think the issue is whether the career criminal deserved to live or die. I think the issue is what, if any, sanction should be taken against Mr Martin for shooting the burglar.

Ravs

[ravells]

Otto:

It seems to me (from what I have read from secondary sources, so I have no idea how correct they are), that even in the US it not self defence if you shoot an intruder in your house. There is a 'presumption' of self defence which is rebuttable.

So, if your burglar in the US was unarmed and was standing on his head and you shot him, that may well amount to murder.

It would be quite interesting to find out what the definitive law on this is.

As a footnote - it would also be quite interesting to find out how many gun owners in the US actually know the law in any reasonable detail.

Ravs.

[Otto]

Ravs,

   Remember, it's different in every state.  There is no national laws in this respect.  And, as you can imagine, there different.

  In my state you can use deadly force to protect your property outside of the house.  I would never do that because I don't want to live with the fact I killed someone stealing my lawn mower.  Now it the Police killed him I wouldn't care.

   As far as gun owners knowing the law.  Well they better.   We don't have five zillion lawyers for nothing

   

  I own a pistol and I have a permit to carry it.  I hardly ever do.  I live in a safe community with very little crime.  But, and this is important, I want the option without anyone else getting involved.


   Home defense:  I live alone and have the pistol by my bedside.   I lock the bedroom door.  If I ever suppect anyone is in the house I'm going to barrcade the door and call 911.  The house is their's till the police arrive.  The bedroom is mine.  If they try to force the door it will be the worst career decision they ever made.

[ravells]

Thanks Otto.

Although the situation is artificial (us sitting safely in front of warm computers and not being confronted by the situation with all the adrenalin pumping) would you

shout a challenge to the burglar if he tried to break open your door, or;

would you shoot through the door or;

would you wait until the burglar had broken open to door before deciding?

If it is the case that the 'castle doctrine' in Pennsylvania is one of a 'rebuttable presumption', then you may be obliged to shout some sort of warning and to assess whether the burglar poses an immediate threat of harm to you.

When you got your permit, did you have to first show some knowledge about the law on the subject of self defence and the usage of firearms generally, or did the authorities give you a booklet about it?

Ravs

[Toad]

Originally posted by ravells
I don't think the issue is whether the career criminal deserved to live or die. I think the issue is what, if any, sanction should be taken against Mr Martin for shooting the burglar.

Ravs

Well, I can, with 100% certainty, guarantee that if the dead burglar had obeyed existing law and not burgled Mr. Martin's house, then Mr. Martin would not even be discussed.

The causitive factor here is one man's decision to act illegally. That starts the "accident chain". It is there that the accountability and responsibility begin.

Mr. Martin may way have used disproportionate force; obviously, shooting the guy in the back hurt his case. Nonetheless, that is not the start of the "accident chain".

Let me ask this:

Had Mr. Martin shot the burglar in the chest and killed him as the burglar advanced upon Mr. Martin, would he still have been found guilty of manslaughter?

[Rude]

Originally posted by Dowding
Practically hilarious that Americans have the gall to criticize any other legal system after the OJ Simpson Laughter Show.

Hey Dowding....you ever hold yourself accountable for anything or do you just dodge and redirect?

While the OJ trail was a joke and an abuse of our legal system, that in no way lessens the abortion of justice which took place in your own country.

You and the truth seem to have issues with one another.