Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Otto on January 13, 2004, 08:01:28 PM
-
I'm just posting this to see if we can get the O'club past the GD forum.
"On Aug. 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England, killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/incremental_20000928.html
The Tony Martin case sparked an excrement storm that is still swirling. The accomplice of the killed burglar, who was also shot by Martin (and who had more than 30 criminal convictions), is trying to sue Martin for damages as a result of being shot. Go figure … I supposed American burglars injured 'on the job' would apply for and receive workman's compensation?
In October 2001 Martin's offense was begrudgingly downgraded to manslaughter and his sentence reduced to five years. But the controversy continues.
The surviving burglar is trying to sue Martin for damages as a result of being shot. He has asked for a reported £15,000 for loss of earnings, claiming he can no longer enjoy sex or bear to see shootings on television. The plaintiff is currently in jail (which raises an interesting question about his alleged sexual dysfunction).
Martin has struggled with the parole board for early release from prison. He is due for automatic release on 28 July, but could have been released as early as September last year. However, the parole board has continually refused him early release, saying – now pay attention to this – he has shown no remorse and would continue to pose a danger to any other burglars. "
-
I ran into this attitude in many a pub discussion while I was in England. I thought they were nuts for it, they thought I was nuts for believing that I (a private citizen, gasp) should have the right to use deadly force against a threatening intruder in my home.
At best, the discussions ended with us agreeing to disagree. At worst, they ended with the other person running out of arguments and being reduced to a stammering "well then you're a murderer."
"Fine by me, if that's what it takes to protect me and my family."
"... but... but... you're a murderer."
Maybe it was just the demographic - I was dealing with a lot of lefty college students at the University of London. The discussions with the hard-core socialists were a riot.
Good memories, though. I loved that little university watering hole on Malet Street.
-
Originally posted by Otto
However, the parole board has continually refused him early release, saying – now pay attention to this – he has shown no remorse and would continue to pose a danger to any other burglars. "
That man is a Hero.
-
the late, great empire...rule bratania, or something like that.
every day i thank god i live in USA
-
If someone would break into my house at night and not run away when threatened, I'd blame them if they would choose not to run.
Someone whos able to break in, surely will be capable of running away too..
I just don't understand it why they don't just nicely run away and even more when someone kills the burglar, the shooter is suddenly a murderer.. as if hes invited the burglars at his home and shot them without a warning.
If you're not invited...
1. ...you shouldn't break in the house
2. ...you shouldn't be looting in the house
3. ...but you still insist to do 1 and/or 2, you should run damn fast when told to get lost
4. ...and you get hurt when not done as advised on 3, thats your fault.
damn those criminals, the laws seems to protect them better than the victims.
-
Simple
Keep shootin till they cant sue you =)
-
I'm moving my home invasion business to the UK. Anyone from the UK know of any well-to-do people that have some neat stuff I could take ?
What's next in the UK, criminals asking the robbery victim to gift wrap the loot for them and see them to the door?
Maybe if you leave milk and cookies out for the crooks, they won't hurt you while they clean you out.
-
I supposed American burglars injured 'on the job' would apply for and receive workman's compensation?
I seem to recall a story in government class (covering lawsuits that appear frivolous but still managed to reward the plaintiffs) about a burglar who was injured by something lying on the floor of the house that he was burglarizing. IIRC, he did manage to sue the homeowners for punitive damages.
-
sue the burglar for any damages made by the burglar's suit.
-
Cripes, he oughta pick up a ST. James bible, claim he saw the light, get paroled and come to the USA.
He'd never buy another drink and somebody would probably buy him a house, car and a new shotgun.
;)
-
or a well placed bullet.
-
Practically hilarious that Americans have the gall to criticize any other legal system after the OJ Simpson Laughter Show.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Practically hilarious that Americans have the gall to criticize any other legal system after the OJ Simpson Laughter Show.
How does that quote go? The one about 10 guilty men going free over one innocent man being found guilty?
-
How does that other quote go? That one about the rich superstar going free on a technicality in a criminal court, but having to pay millions in compensation to the families of the victims in a civil action?
-
He didn't go free on a technicality, he went free because the jury didn't convict him.
And the settlement is due to the difference in the burden of proof in American civil vs criminal courts. In criminal courts, the prosecution has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt - a tough standard. In civil court, the plaintiff simply needs a preponderance of evidence - more in his favor than against him. This is a significantly easier standard to meet.
It's the difference between being sure of something vs leaning more one way than the other.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
:rolleyes:
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
Thanks Storch,
Quite often the law is out of step with public sentiment, and from my very rudimentry understanding of US law, this may be the case where you live. It appears that in Florida, if a householder has shot a burglar, then the police don't enquire into the circumstances of the shooting even though the presumption of self defence might be rebutted by other facts.
It may well be that the police either sympathise with the householder, so don't press charges or don't bother pressing charges because they know that a jury will acquit regardless of any directions they may be given by the judge.
In the example you gave, the householder had a gun pointed at him, so he would have had clear grounds to successfully plead self defence (he would not even have to rely on the castle doctrine).
My interest in this topic is not whether people should have the right to have firearms (that one has been done to death in the past on previous threads) but whether it is legal to shoot any intruder in your home and successfully plead self defence.
Toad: You could argue that the chain of causation began when Mr Martin decided to buy the gun, but I understand what you say. I seriously think that not many people had any sympathy with the dead burglar. What they were worried about was whether Mr Martin had broken the law.
If the Burglar had been advancing on Mr Martin, and if Mr Martin had formed a reasonable conclusion that the Burglar meant to do him harm, then I think he would have had a much better case to argue self defence and may well have succeeded.
Ravs
Ravs
-
Was it illegal for Mr. Martin to buy the gun? Did he obtain it illegally? He's a farmer, right? I've visited England, stayed at farms.. most of them have shotguns even now. Why would legally buying or owning a gun be the start of the causation chain? Wouldn't the causation start with the first illegal act?
I'm sure he would have had a better case. My perception, however, is that he would likely have been convicted of something anyway, given the anti-gun sentiment in England. Is this incorrect?
I am not and would not be as worried about whether Mr Martin had broken the law; I'd be more cocerned about the burglar breaking the law.
I simply see the emphasis in the wrong area.
You break into someone's home at night you... and society.... should expect that it's quite possible something real bad may happen to you.
Want to avoid that? Easily done. Stay out of other folks' homes unless invited in. Doesn't seem that complex.
-
Originally posted by ravells
Thanks Otto.
would you:
shout a challenge to the burglar if he tried to break open your door, or;
No, I would give away my position
would you shoot through the door or;
Yes
would you wait until the burglar had broken open to door before deciding?
No.
Revs, I know this might sound 'macho' or cold blooded but all I have to prove is that he was in my house, at night, without my permission. That I feared for my life goes without saying
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?
Pennsylvania is a 'Shall Issue" state. By that I mean, if you are over 21, a US citizen, have no criminal record, no history of mental instability or court orders against you,( and a couple other things) they have to give you the permit. Now, I know that you wouldn't believe this, but excluding the two major urban areas of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, gun crimes are simply NOT an issue in the state. I grew up in western Pennsylvania where EVERY house had at least a shotgun and I never remember ONE gun related crime. Then I move to Philadelphia! Talk about cultural shock!!!!
Many states have gun safety course requirements but PA does not. I did take a day long course related to all the issues, legal and psychological, related to concealed carry but it wasn't required. Remember, in some states you will NEVER get a permit. New York, Maryland and New Jersey come to mind but in New Hampshire there are no laws at all about carrying a concealed weapon. It is by no way universal.
Ravs
-
I think Masschussetts has some pretty harsh gun laws that would do more harm to the victim of the burglary as well (Ironic, since Massachussetts sorta got the revolution going to get away from English rule, eh?)
While I like the english people and all, their laws seem to be made in make beleive.
Hey Dowding, we'll trade you OJ for the monarchy ;)
My folks place are burglarized a a long time ago while i was still living there. Had I caught them in the act, they'd be dead. Period. No wild west or vigilanate stuff...I'm defending the home, they came to me..and I'm just expediting their eggress. The investigating cop asked if I wouldve wounded/held them til the PD arrived or capped em. Right, and listen to their make beleive lawsuits and all their stress from me capturing them in my home...right. Pop Pop.
-
Thanks Toad.
(I was being facetious about the chain of causation being started by Mr Marting obtaining the gun). Nevertheless, the question before the court was not whether the kid who got shot was a burglar and deserved it. The question was whether Mr Martin had acted in self defence.
I think your perception that he would have been convicted anyway had the burglar been approaching him is partly correct (although we shall never know and the precise circumstances would count for much).
It is certainly the (curious) case that although the law in the UK and the US (apart from the 'castle doctrine') appear to me to be largely identical, what the Americans would define as 'reasonable' compared to the Brits in terms of whether the force used was reasonable, vary enormously.
My impression about the Martin case (I havn't read the transcripts) is that the prosecutor managed to convince the jury that Martin was not actually defending his home and property when he shot the burglars, but was exacting revenge (they had robbed Martin before). I believe the prosecutor did a good job in painting Martin as some sort of vigalante and if this were the case, I could understand why the jury chose to convict.
I entirely agree with you, Toad, that society tends to forget the victim and looks towards the welfare of the accused. However it is not the primary function of the courts to protect the victim, but to ensure that the accused gets a fair trial. Don't forget that the surviving burglar in the Martin case was put away for burglary.
The question as to whether a burglar deserves a summary death sentence for entering someone's home is, I think, quite a complex one because there are so many scenarios which might occur. For example, I'm sure you would agree that it would be wrong for you to shoot dead an impoverished ten year old who popped into your hall through an open door to steal a pair of rollerblades.
The difficulty with law making is that there will always be a spectrum of situations which will arise which may not always fit neatly into the laws we make.
Otto,
Your actions do not sound 'macho' or 'cold blooded' at all, but quite sensible. What is interesting is that 'it goes without saying that you would be in fear of your life'. Is that because most burglars in the US are likely to be armed themselves? Maybe that would explain the difference between the UK and the US in applying the law of self defence in this area.
-
I am british, and i think that if someone breaks into your home you should have every right to shoot the b*****d or castrate them slowly with a rusty saw if necessary.
This law where you cant protect your own home is ridiculous.
Originally posted by lazs2
No... In the U.S. every citizen is considered a threat to burglars...
lazs
I agree totally with this. If you know the person inside that house has a gun, you would really think twice about breaking in.
-
Originally posted by ravells
Thanks Toad.
Otto,
Is that because most burglars in the US are likely to be armed themselves? Maybe that would explain the difference between the UK and the US in applying the law of self defence in this area. QUOTE]
If we are going to be honest I would have to say "yes". But if he had a Cricket bat would you be less frightened if you only had a pillow?
I've posted way too much in this thread so I'd like to wrap up my part by quoting not an American but an Englishman (and great one at that)
"It is seldom that a Gentlemen ever needs a pistol. But, when he does, he needs it desperately...."
Winston Churchill
-
Lol,
Is that what the guy in your avatar is doing, Furball?
Ravs
-
yes, his house is being broken into by the entire Leeds Utd football team, damn criminals they are.
-
Was it illegal for Mr. Martin to buy the gun? Did he obtain it illegally? He's a farmer, right? I've visited England, stayed at farms.. most of them have shotguns even now.
I don't know any farmers without a shotgun. However, Martin had his shotgun certificate revoked in 1994.
Martin had caught a man stealing apples from his trees. As the man drove away, Martin fired at, and hit, his car.
-
The kindly Dr. Shipman (http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/07/19/shipman.victims/) will tend to his wounds.
"Tell me where it hurts."
(http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2002/WORLD/europe/07/19/shipman.victims/story.shipman.ap.jpg)
-
shipman is dead. hung himself in his cell with a pillowcase.
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-12972157,00.html
-
I'd heard it was bedsheets. Too bad. He would've made an interesting psych study.
"Here, I have something to help with the pain."
(http://static.sky.com/images/pictures/1189434.jpg)
-
or,
'break into lazs house and see what happens' study
-
ravells... he would not be convicted in CA... we have no rule that disallows shooting a person who broke into your house in the back. they broke in.... they were not related to the homeowner and for sure he knew thay had broken in but...
It is usually dark when burglars break in so yu don't know if they are armed or not... even in the daytime a screwdriver or prybar or hammer is considered a weapon. Most burglars do not carry firearms. If you live in a two story house then the burglar being on the stairs cuts off your retreat.
in practical sense... If I couldn't determine if they were armed because of darkness or whatever.... I would just shoot. If I could see I would tell them to freeze... any movement and I would shoot. This is if I knew they broke in of course. I don't shoot rude people who knock and then barge right in yelling HELLO? But I have made one or two think that I allmost did. To summarize... any doubt and I shoot... we will sort it all out latter.
In cases of burglary the cops often coach the homeowner on what to say... "but you were afraid that he was going for a weapon right?"
lazs
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
I don't know any farmers without a shotgun. However, Martin had his shotgun certificate revoked in 1994.
Martin had caught a man stealing apples from his trees. As the man drove away, Martin fired at, and hit, his car.
Intent to kill? Range? Shot size? Just "marking the car"?
I've been told here by local police that a load of 8's to the rear fender would be a good way to definitively "mark the car" of the offenders that were "farming" my front yard with deep tire tracks after a rain. It was a high school thing going on between my boy and some others.
As I'd rather sleep than sit up all night, I opted for letting the grass grow longer and putting out an upside down flat harrow at night where they usually passed between two trees. Very satisfactory results. :)
It was and in some places still is common for farmers to load shotshells with rock salt. These are used to dissuade folks from robbing the watermelon or pumpkin patch. A load of rock salt to the buttocks, penetration or not, is painful but not really life threatening.
Martin sounds like a pretty typical farmer to me. So far.
-
I can confirm that rocksalt hurts.
lazs
-
People who are convicted of crimes pertaining to self defense usually screw it up in the interview procsess. One thing I remember is COPS ARNT YOUR FRIEND. They want information from you and it is there job to get it. I'm not saying cops are bad people but most people hang themselves when they think a cop is being "cool" with them when in actuality there statment shoots them in the foot while in court. I'm not sure if that applies to this case or what british laws are but if you're being interview "LAWYER UP" it cant hurt.
The bad part about this is as was mentioned earlier cops like seeing bad guys off the streets so they will coach you in what to say. But, there's no way to tell if this guy is helping you lie to burn you. Just my 2 cents
-
Darn, I'm back. Gunslinger is SO right. One thing I remember in my carry cource was that if your involved in a shooting (self-defense) give the police your firearm and 'shut up' till you get a lawyer.
Remember, even though you may have saved your life it's most likely that the family of the 'bad guy' is going to try and 'cash in' with a civil suit and anything you tell the police is evidence.
This dosen't apply so much to the 'Home Defense' scenarios we discussed above. There pretty 'cut and dry'
-
What really happened was... "I was afraid and tried to push the gun away... we struggled and... I don't know what happened next... somehow the gun went off."
anyone who is not in fear of his life when being attacked is stupid.
lazs
-
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.
Looks like I hit a nerve! Do you ever do anything else but take personal snipes without actually addressing the issue? Accountable for what - a legal system I had nothing to do with? Bizarre.
You and the truth seem to have issues with one another.
You just seem to have issues.