Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: bustr on January 25, 2005, 12:26:59 PM
-
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/londonnews/articles/16101924?source=Evening%20Standard
-
no such thing as "unreasonable force" when it comes to burglars.
lazs
-
Amen, Lazs.
-
Laz,
I search the British press daily, Wales & England has no end to these problems. I feel fortunate living in Oakland california compaired to them. At least if the perp is in my house, I can use force as I see fit.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
no such thing as "unreasonable force" when it comes to burglars.
lazs
i'm british and i agree.
if they break into your home... you should be able to make the bastages pay.
-
Originally posted by bustr
Laz,
I search the British press daily, Wales & England has no end to these problems. I feel fortunate living in Oakland california compaired to them. At least if the perp is in my house, I can use force as I see fit.
and thats just BS, you make out its a daily occurance that it is in the news people cant protect their homes.
-
Err, the courts say that the people can't protect their own homes Furball...
Is "Lighting the burglar on fire" considered unreasonable force?
-
Yeah you should be allowed to use force, but not murder just for the hell of it. I guess I would be one of the 29% who believe even a burglar has some rights. Well, at least the right to live unless you are threatened yourself.
If the version of the Tony Martin story I heard is true, then he deserved to be jailed for killing that guy. Shooting someone in the back from a distance where you are under no immediate threat is plain murder imo, regardless of the circumstances.
Oh and btw, housebreakins are nowhere near as bad as you are making out bustr. I regularly forget to lock my front door both when I leave for work (12 hours) and when I go to bed. And I certainly dont stay in a priveleged area. In fact I live slap bang in the centre of a large town (Hamilton) which is on the outskirts of Glasgow, the largest city in Scotland.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Err, the courts say that the people can't protect their own homes Furball...
you missed my point i think.
-
The majority of the increase is in wales and southern england in population centers. Same kind of pattern with most industrialised nations urban vs non-urban. I read very little about Scotland or Ireland reporting these kinds of increases in incidents. Most of the large urban population centers in the United States will show higher incidents of crime urban vs non. England and Wales has shown a increase in the 1 per 100,000 of population catigory in the last 7-8 years. This has been the root of the movement in southern england to change the laws on how a home owner can deal with a intruder. It's supported by older home owners and retirees. After all they make better targets anywhere.
-
In Colorado we have the "Make My Day Law" (yes, from the movie) it says any force is reasonable as long as you are in immediate danger.....or something. If they have their back turned as in they are trying to get away from your 12 gauge or Colt 45, then its unreasonable. However, due to ummmm 4 burlaries (Dad lives in a bad place) I don't think there is unreasoanable force towards burglars. Just my opinion
-
Originally posted by Glas
If the version of the Tony Martin story I heard is true, then he deserved to be jailed for killing that guy. Shooting someone in the back from a distance where you are under no immediate threat is plain murder imo, regardless of the circumstances.
Most definitely. At that point its just revenge.
-
It's very easy to search the internet and find all of the accounts and interviews of the Tony Martin case, I'll assume intilectual honesty with this group.
At the point that Tony Martin chose his course of action, his properties that he had just renovated had been vandilised numerous times by the same YOBS. The local police had made little or no effort to help him with his problem in the face of repeated requests. The YOBS were well known by the local community.
So Glas, Hawker, do either of you have a considerable investment of capitol, time and expectation of livelyhood in any properties?
Knowing you have fully researched this story, tell us how each of yourselves would have protected his property and expectation of a livelyhood from said property?
-
so..what happens when the burglar is turning around to go for a wepaon you cant see?...
his back is too you...Im not waiting to see what hes got...
Blam blam blam...or in soem cases..as I may have tiem to go for the shotty..it may just e a BLUMP!!!...Double O Buckshot in ur back.....FU..thiefn potato
but most likly it would be the 9mil or 357 as its on my hanguns safe on my night stand..3 buttosn and ..spring loaded slid pops out those sweet rugers...
fear ..
Society is Safer ..When Criminals Dont know whos Armed
-
GreenCloud,
Do you live over at the Great White breeding ground near Stinson Beach and Bodega Bay? I live down town Oakland. Remember when Oaktown achived Murder Capitol USA status a few years back?
-
If I lived in London and caught one of the prettythangholes in my house, I'd sit his prettythang down and force him to eat Chutney...that would make him think twice before he did it again.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
If I lived in London and caught one of the prettythangholes in my house, I'd sit his prettythang down and force him to eat Chutney...that would make him think twice before he did it again.
When I lived in Luton as a small boy I remember many of my neighbors enjoyed Chutney. I thought Chutney was one of the benifits of the British Colonial system. So the logic is you are going to either feed him into submission or make him like you so much for feeding him he won't come back??????????
-
In Colorado we have the "Make My Day Law" (yes, from the movie) it says any force is reasonable as long as you are in immediate danger.....or something.
It's actually the same in the UK.
The amount of force that can be considered reasonable was defined by the law lords in 1971:
"If there has been an attack so that self defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If the jury thought that that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary, that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken..."
I've yet to see a case where someone in the UK in recent times was convicted of a crime for using force to defend himself from attack, as opposed to using force to punish someone.
Err, the courts say that the people can't protect their own homes Furball...
Do they? Where?
What the law actually says is:
A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purposes of:
* self-defence; or
* defence of another; or
* defence of property; or
* prevention of crime; or
* lawful arrest.
From the crown prosecution service, guide to prosecutors.
-
Nashwan,
How would you have acted in Tony Martin's case? He did follow the law and procedures as required. But his properties were being repeatedly vandalised by known criminals while the local police did little or nothing to assist him. He had just spent a considerable amount to improve the properties to use as rentals. He was looking to improve his state in life through his self investment and subsiquent rental cash flow. He did not have the capitol to continuously repair his properties against the possiblity that the criminals would eventually rellent and go away. His properties were far enough from the local population centers that their location made them outside of the local police departments ability/willingness to monitor them.
So do you just toss him to the wind and tell him tiss off? Are you saying based on the law or is it your personal conviction that Mr. Martin should just let it happen because those criminals have more of a right to destroy his property than he has to enjoy the benifits of his property ownership? How do you have this both ways?:confused:
-
if a burglar breaks in then you need to use as much force as you can until he is not on your property. As was pointed out... I don't know if he is running away to get cover so that he can get a better shot at you or not.
Morally... what you do needs to be what you think is best. You are the one being invaded and put under all the undue stress... The law in the U.S. reads for the most part that so long as you feel your life is being threatened by their presence then you can use deadly force... several instances of home invaders being shot in the back have been considered justified by the courts here especially if the invader had previously shown agression.
If death is the only way to discourage a career of breaking and entering then it is a valid way.
and... burglars do not have rights while in someone elses home.
oh... and of course there are more urban burglaries and crime... city people are scum or they wouldn't live there.
lazs
-
Yeah the police, or rather local CITY police do next to nothing or burlary, they give you a case number and your basically done. Now the COUNTY police will do more but still not very much. I believe you are just protecting yourself or your property there is not a problem in pumping some lowlife full of lead, it was his choice to burglarize someone he can pay the price for the owner catching him.
-
nah..i dotn live in stinston..sweet area though....we been shark fishn latley out there..
holy sheite ..we hooked up to soem HUGE monsters out there..
i grew up in Suisun..
And its been more then a few years since Oaktown got Murder USA..
probaly thank Raider Fan for that 1..lolol
-
So you read the press and decided the UK is full of burglary. I watched Fox News once and decided America is full of idiots. I'm not sure which judgement is more accurate, but to date I've never been burglarized.
BTW, reasonable force is a very flexible term of reference. The lack of consistency in its application is the problem. You could stab a burglar in the back without him even realising you are present and be aquitted. At the end of the day, if you can prove you believed that your life was in danger, you have the law on your side.
BTW, London is not part of England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland or indeed Planet Earth.
-
Not quite Nashwan.
What the law says, and what the courts rule are two completely different things. While they usually go hand in hand, it's a safe bet that they won't.
-
And how much of English law have you studied, lasersailor?
Ironically, what you opine, and what the reality is proven to be are two completely different things. While they usually go hand in hand, it's a safe bet that they won't.
-
Not quite Nashwan.
What the law says, and what the courts rule are two completely different things. While they usually go hand in hand, it's a safe bet that they won't.
They actually do.
I've yet to see a clear case of self defence where the victim was prosecuted for defending himself.
I've seen plenty where he wasn't.
A few examples:
Thomas O'Connor, old man who stabbed dead a young drunk trying to break down his front door. Not prosecuted.
http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/news/s/84/84719_intruder_was_lawfully_killed.html
Antonio Caeiro, stabbed a burglar in the neck and chest, not prosecuted.
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:5qNnHNnonYQJ:[url]www.norwicheveningnews.com/content/news/Story.asp%3FBrand%3DENONLINE%26Category%3DNEWS%26ItemId%3DNOED25%2BSep%2B2004%2B12%253A37%253A26%253A970+Antonio+Caeiro+young+offenders&hl=en&client=firefox-a[/url]
John Lambert, stabbed dead a burglar who was threatening his wife. Not prosecuted.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2550627.stm
Nick Baungartner, fought a burglar in his house, the burglar died of neck injuries. Baungartner was later awarded £300,000 compensation for the injuries he suffered.
http://www.news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/27/ncrime327.xml
John Campbell, stabbed dead a burglar who attacked him with a baseball bat, not prosecuted.
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?q=Brian+Firmager+john+campbell&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&selm=tI4ZxVAodAcyEw0q%40sufo.demon.co.uk&rnum=1
Dean Davis, stabbed dead a burglar, not prosecuted.
Richard Watkins, stabbed an armed robber 4 times in the chest, killing him. Not prosecuted.
http://www.thisisworcestershire.co.uk/worcestershire/archive/2001/07/14/wen_news_latest14ZM.html
João Henrique, arrived home to hear a burglar upstairs, got a bottle and waited at the bottom of the stairs, hit the burglar over the head. Not prosecuted, and was awarded £500 by the judge at the burglar's trial.
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2878093
If you think the law is working th opposite way, please, find the cases to back it up.
-
so what is different in those cases and the one of Martin shooting the burglars? Is it the gun? None of the cases you show involve guns? is it somehow better to stab someone to death or beat them to death rather than shoot them to death?
here or england.... it is allways best to admit that you were in fear for your life when a stranger broke into your house and you killed him.
It just makes sense to use the most effective tool.
lazs
-
Originally posted by hawker238
Most definitely. At that point its just revenge.
nope.
at that point, it is justice being served. period.
-
I believe the location of your house has a lot to do with burglaries. Or at least tresspassing your property to get to the houses across the street. My side of the street doesn't get much burglar attention. There's a park bordering the other side of the street back fence properties. And the houses on that side of the street have been burgled because of an easy getaway through the park.
I'm lucky. I don't have to carry a gun because my neighbor has one, and it seemed for awhile his property was the one the kids were crossing to get from the park to the the neighborhood street.
He set them straight one day when he was on his back porch having a whisky, and saw three youngun's jumping over his fence to cross his property. They gave him backtalk when he told 'em to not cross his property and not come through there again . He got out his .45 and said, I know who your dads are and I'm going to them next time I see you around here. Don't come back.
And they didn't!!!!!:D
Les
-
so what is different in those cases and the one of Martin shooting the burglars?
The difference is, Martin fired at men who were running away.
He used an illegally held shotgun (he had his shotgun licence revoked for shooting at a man and boy stealing apples from one of his trees)
He had told people prior to the even that he would kill the next person to break in.
He had laid various traps around the house.
He had told police investigating a previous burglary that he would like to get all the local gypsies, put them in one of his fields, and machine gun them.
Martin didn't even report the incident to police, it was only when one of the wounded burlars turned up at a house seeking medical attention that the police were called.
Martin had gone out, hidden the shotgun, and checked into a hotel, all without calling the police.
Above all, though, Martin lied throughout. His version of what happened did not fit in with the forensic evidence.
He claimed to have only fired from halfway down the stairs, he said he was too frightened to go further. However, 2 of the 3 shots he fired hit walls as well the burglars, and the places they hit were not visible from any point of the stairs.
The fact that Martin shot 2 men in the back, didn't report it to the police, and in fact fled the scene, lied about the events, had previously announced his intention to kill, and had set traps around his house and garden, convinced the jury that he wasn't acting in self defence.
A lot of the "facts" people believe about the Martin case are not facts at all. Two weeks after he shot the burglars, Martin hired Max Clifford, a "publicist" who specialises in sleaze and media manipulation (he also represented OJ Simpson).
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
If I lived in London and caught one of the prettythangholes in my house, I'd sit his prettythang down and force him to eat Chutney...that would make him think twice before he did it again.
LOL! If you really mean business, you should use Lime Pickle (http://www.sharwoods.com/range/product_details.aspx?rangeId=2&productId=39&productTypeId=7). That way, he'd suffer twice - the second time some hours after the first!
-
Well, bad as that was, about five years ago a man shot a burglar three times using a 270 deer rifle, after the burglar had left the house and was trying to escape in a car. The burglar was 200 yards down the road when he was shot!!!
I don't think that was right, but the jury acquitted him of murder, which is what it was.
There is never an excuse for what the man did, yet he was exonerated. It's almost like no one has sense nowadays. That was the wrong thing to do, and there's no excuse for it. Yet the jury hailed him as a hero and he got away with it. Oh well.
In that neighborhood anyway, they didn't have to worry about burglars any more.
Les
-
The point about English 'reasonable force' law is that you can take pre-emptive action. If it is unclear what the intruder is doing at the time, the householder has the right to assume the worst.
The lad Tony Martin gunned down was running away. His intentions were ruled to be unambiguous.
-
nashwan... here it is illegal to not report a violent crime.... it is illegal to set boobytraps that could cause injury... it is illegal to round up gypsies in your field and machine gun em (it is ok to say it tho). It is illegal to give a false police report.. It is not by any means illegal to shoot a burglar in the back if you claim you were in fear of your life.
So what did martin get convicted of?
lazs
-
Murder.
The point about the other things is that they show it was his intent to kill, before the event, and the events afterwards cast doubt on his claim of self defence.
What also casts doubt on his claim of self defence is that he fled the scene, hid the weapon, and lied in his statements to the police, claiming to have been, and fired from, places where he couldn't have fired from.
So you not only have his intent to kill before the event, you have attempts to conceal the facts after the event.
Doesn't really sound like self defence.
It didn't to the police, which is why they charged him with murder.
It didn't to the jury, which is why they convicted him of murder.
It didn't to the court of appeal, which is why they refused to release him, and instead reduced his conviction to manslaughter on the grounds he suffers from extreme paranoia.
English law requires only 2 things to show self defence:
1, an honest belief (which need not be reasonable, just honest) that force is required
2, a subject test that a reasonable person, who believed what the person honestly believed, would regard the force used as reasonable, with the proviso that:
"If there has been an attack so that self defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If the jury thought that that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary, that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken."
That's it. You have to honestly believe force is required, and you have to use reasonable force, bearing in mind that in the heat of the moment reasonable has a whole different meaning to what seems reasonable after the event.
That's why there have only been 11 prosecutions of people for violence against intruders in residential or business premises in England and Wales in the last 15 years.
As to the difference in the Martin case being the use of a gun, no.
See for example the case of Kenneth Faulkner, who shot an intruder (John Rae) with a shotgun. Rae was sentenced to 7 year for several burglaries, Faulkner was not charged, and was praised by the judge at Rae's trial.
The problem in the UK is the perception of the law, not the law itself.
That's down to the media, who have sensed another "campaign" they can mount, and are misrepresenting cases to do it.
Take the case of Carl Lindsay as an example. He was recently sentenced to 8 years for manslaughter. This is how his story was presented:
Man Who Killed Armed Intruder Jailed Eight Years
By Will Batchelor, PA News
A man who stabbed to death an armed intruder at his home was jailed for eight years today.
Carl Lindsay, 25, answered a knock at his door in Salford, Greater Manchester, to find four men armed with a gun.
When the gang tried to rob him he grabbed a samurai sword and stabbed one of them, 37-year-old Stephen Swindells, four times.
Mr Swindells, of Salford, was later found collapsed in an alley and died in hospital.
Lindsay, of Walkden, was found guilty of manslaughter following a three-week trial at Manchester Crown Court.
He was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment.
After the case, Detective Chief Inspector Sam Haworth said: “Four men, including the victim, had set out purposefully to rob Carl Lindsay and this intent ultimately led to Stephen Swindells’ death.
“I believe the sentences passed today reflect the severity of the circumstances.”
Three other men were charged with robbery and firearms offences in connection with the incident, which took place in February last year.
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2687311
A 25-year-old man is beginning an eight year sentence after he was found guilty of the manslaughter of a 38-year-old man who had tried to rob him.
Carl Lindsay from Walkden, Greater Manchester, stabbed Stephen Swindells after he and three accomplices arrived at Lindsay's home armed with a gun.
Mr Swindells died later after he was found discovered collapsed in an alley.
His three accomplices were found guilty of robbery and firearms offences and sentenced to fourteen years.
Manchester Crown Court heard how Mr Swindells, from Rockley Gardens, Salford, went to Lindsay's flat at 2145 GMT on 27 February 2003 with the intention of robbing him.
Robbery and firearms offences
When Lindsay opened the door, to be confronted by him and three accomplices who were armed with a gun, he fetched a Samurai sword and stabbed Mr Swindells four times.
Mr Swindells died later in Hope Hospital after he was found in an alleyway between Strawberry Road and Broad Street in Pendleton.
David Ryan, of Salford, Darren Ashton of no fixed abode and Michael Page, also of no fixed abode, were all convicted of robbery and firearms offences.
They were sentenced to 14 years.
Det Chief Insp Sam Haworth said: "Four men including the victims had set out purposefully to rob Carl Lindsay and this intent ultimately led to Stephen Swindell's death.
"I believe the sentences passed today reflect the severity of the circumstances."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3561555.stm
It was gleefully picked up by pro gun sites across the US.
What's missing from the story is the fact that Lindsay was a drug dealer. The men entered posing as drug buyers, Lindsay chased them outside repeatedly stabbing one of them in the back with a sword he kept to protect his "business".
-
Clearly the natural solution is for all theives to walk around backwards. Then homeowners can't touch them.
J_A_B
-
in the U.S. if a group of people are commiting a crime and during the commision of that crime someone is killed... all the perps are tried for murder.
The story above is confusing.. are you saying that the guy being robed got an 8 year sentance for defending himself?
lazs
-
in the U.S. if a group of people are commiting a crime and during the commision of that crime someone is killed... all the perps are tried for murder.
Involuntary manslaughter actually, at least in Ohio.
The key difference is whether the killing was planned beforehand or an unexpected consequence of committing some other crime.
J_A_B
-
yep... manslauter... charged in the killing tho.
Soooo... it appears that all the stuff about not being able to defend yourself in england is overblown... that is fine but.. the fact remains that you are not allowed to use effective tools to do so. A criket paddle may be fine for a 24 year old 6'6" male who works out 5 days a week but it is pretty inefective for a small woman or infirm elderly couple. It is also not much of a deterent "don't come in here or I will stike you with this paddle" Or... "I have called the police... you may have only and hour or so to get out of here."
lazs
-
Soooo... it appears that all the stuff about not being able to defend yourself in england is overblown...
If you listen carefully, you can hear the penny dropping...
I'm shocked and appalled that US pro-gun special interest groups would try to spin Britain as a lawless place where people are arrested for protecting themselves.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
I'm shocked and appalled that US pro-gun special interest groups would try to spin Britain as a lawless place where people are arrested for protecting themselves.
That's the tip of the NRA iceberg, Dowding. Their classic spin technique is to seize on titbits from another country's history relating to firearms (selectively, of course) and present it in such a way as to be interpreted from the wrong (ie. American) perspective. This is done to add weight to the cause at home. Their US readership is scared into thinking that if they don't get off their backsides and join the NRA, a similar plight awaits them, ie. gun control laws.
What they don't tell you is that Britain is a democracy, and our laws (including firearms laws) have been passed by a democratically elected government. In the case of the 1920 Firearms Act, said government was re-elected in the election following the 1920 Act.
They also like their readership to be misled into believing that Britain is/was some sort of totalitarian state, and had no choice in the passing of the 1920 Act. They tell their American readership that the Act "sailed through parliament". This is to make their American readers think that we, the British electorate of that time, were powerless to prevent it, thus adding weight to the justification of the somewhat laughable theory that Americans must be allowed to arm themselves at home so that they'll be able to rise up against their government's military, should the need arise.
It's all bollocks, of course. As you yourself have observed, British gun ownership has always been "sod all", and the reason that the 1920 Act "sailed through parliament" was not because the electorate was powerless to prevent it, but because for the vast majority of law abiding people it was simply a non-issue.
-
"Tip of the NRA iceberg"?? That does sound ominus. I read the American Rifleman every month and don't see the things in it that beetle does.
So beet... how many issues of the NRA magazines have you read lately? Or... are you just making stuff up again?
The crime figures for england published in the NRA seem accurate according to "the home office" website. In fact... taking into consideration the vast amount of facts stated by the magazine every month it seems weird that they get so little wrong.
No matter how you look at it tho... to ban the tools needed by most people to defend themselves... your country is throwing you to the wolves. I also think that your laws probly are a lot more open to interpretation on the break in thing and that I would stand a better chance with our legal system after killing an intruder than I would with yours.
The perception by your people on this BB and in your country is that you need an extremely good reason to kill an intruder or you will face legal charges. The exact opposssite is the perception here.
Since courts and juries are made up of people... I would rather take my chances in a more enlightened country like the U.S. I would also like a better choice of weapons than which color of cricket paddle.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
"Tip of the NRA iceberg"?? That does sound ominus. I read the American Rifleman every month and don't see the things in it that beetle does.
So beet... how many issues of the NRA magazines have you read lately? Or... are you just making stuff up again?
No, not making stuff up - I leave that to you, and for Nashwan to expose it all. ;)
I wasn't quoting from NRA magazines, but from material quoted on various NRA supporting websites. No matter how you look at it tho... to ban the tools needed by most people to defend themselves... your country is throwing you to the wolves.
Hardly. We never had "gun rights" such as your 2nd amendment. All we had was a time when guns were legal because there had never been a reason for gun control laws - ie in the time before guns were invented. But then, as long ago as 1911, our govt. came to realise the folly of allowing guns into the hands of criminals. Six policemen were shot and killed in the five years 1908-1912, but in modern times only two have been shot and killed in the years from 1984 to the present day. That's despite most of them being unarmed, and compares with about 50 police shooting fatalities each year in the US, where the officers were armed to the teeth.
-
Ok..so what lies has the NRA spread about your country? And what lies has nashwan expossed... seems that a lot of his data is conflicting like the badly quoted kleck example.
lazs