Couple held after burglars shot

[BigGully]

Unfortunately if you shoot someone (even if it is in self defence) you are breaking the rules of having a gun licence, that is because you are using a LETHAL weapon, and you KNOW that firing it will almost certainly result in a fatality. therefore you have ( even if only for a split second ) decided to act to fire said weapon knowing full well what the consequences are.

In this Country, such a train of thought means you will be committing Manslaughter. And that's not legal, under ANY circustance (even in self defence).

If it's NOT ok to shoot someone, and a burglar IS somone, then justice demands that it's NOT ok to shoot burglars, they are human, whether you say so or not.

If you value your own property as being more valuable than a human life then there is something warped about your moral code. It begs the question that if someone in a restaurant accidentally picked up your coat, and you thought they were stealing it, you'd think it would be ok to shoot them? If someone took a bottle of milk off your front doorstep, it's ok to shoot them?

Where do you draw the line to decide when shooting someone ISN'T ok? I mean losing a bottle of milk or a coat is inconvenient yeah, but does the perpatrator deserve to die for it? You'd be justified in stealing a coat or bottle of milk back in return, but if the response is overwhelmingly disproportionate to the crime, then that's not justifiable.

Go down the route of saying it's ok to shoot burglars, and it becomes very easy to use a 'burglary' defence to justify shooting someone whom you might have decide to take a personal dislike to and wanted out of the way. Lets say a few kids bullied me at school, I decide to form a grudge against them and decide to get them in later life. I then become all matey with them as adults, invite them round my house, and then shoot every one of them. When the police come round I tell them I was being burgaled. is that ok?

Have you not any desire to protect your property or those that might live within it ?

Ok with 'I dont fancy shooting anyone' but jeeeeez show a bit more determination when discussing those that wish to harm and steal from us.

What do you do when the Jehovas knock on the door, cower in the corner and tell them 'take whatever you want' ??

I hope you don't get a warm glowing feeling thinking you are somehow morally or intellectually superior with this capitulation.

 

[Leekbrookgull]

the law is on there side - we dont know all the facts. They have been held by the police to try to accertain the facts. I dont agree with any burglar robbing a house. But the law needs to see what happened. Is it right that you chase a burglar out of your house and shoot him/her in the back as they run away. If they have done what you say there will be no charges under reasonable force. My understanding was Tony Martin laid in wait an shot one of them in the back in the garden... i could be wrong. Just my opinion.

Tony Martin did shoot one in the back while they were fleeing,is that a problem ?

 

[beorhthelm]

What do you do when the Jehovas knock on the door, cower in the corner and tell them 'take whatever you want' ??

would you shoot them for trespassing?

 

[Leekbrookgull]

I dont think J/witnesses 'do' burglary ?

 

[Cheshire Cat]

I have been burgled (and had my car stolen in a seperate incident), and although I hope the scroats were caught and locked away for a long time (unlikely since I never found out if they were ever caught), I didn't want to blow their heads off with a large piece of artillery.

Unless you are being directly threatened, there is no reason to loose off a shotgun at anyone (and probably not much even then)

 

[marshy68]

Tony Martin did shoot one in the back while they were fleeing,is that a problem ?

yep and thats why he went to prison i guess.

 

[BadFish]

I'd prefer it if shooting burglars was legal and occurred on a frequent basis, then we could leave the burglar to make the choice whether somebody else's property was more valuable than his life, for what it's worth I find your readiness to take the side of the criminal WHO HAS MADE A CONSCIOUS CHOICE TO STEAL PROPERTY NOT BELONGING TO HIM/HER, says quite a lot about your moral code.

Even through your incandescent rage, surely you can see the difference between "taking the side of a criminal" and not wanting to take someones life for burglary?

 

[BadFish]

Am I REALLY reading this right?

Someobdy is saying that it is ok to burgle people if they have more money than you and you want some of the stuff they have??!!

Surely that has to be someone fishing.

No you are reading it entirely wrong. Have another go!

 

[Lady Whistledown]

For crying out loud, how many pages of indignant huffs is it going to take before it dawns on people that the law IS on your side here?

Section 3, Criminal Law Act 1978: a person may use such force AS IS REASONABLE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES in the prevention of crime, or in the effecting of assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders, suspected offenders, or persons unlawfully at large.

The key is what is reasonable, given what you're facing at the time. A man walking off down your drive with your flat screen: you might find it hard to justify stabbing him with a kitchen knife. A masked guy turns up in your bedroom at 3am, threatening you with a machete and holding a knife to your wife's throat, you can argue pretty easily that you felt your lives were at risk and therefore counter that use of force with equivalent force of your own.

The Common Law also allows you to take reasonable steps to protect life & limb, as does the European Convention on Human Rights, so fear not, terrified residents of Sussex.

Stop banging on about Tony Martin: he was a rare exception to the rule that generally favours the victim. The Martin case was an exceptional one, and the background wasn't nearly as clear cut as a simple man v burglar scenario.

I can't believe people are still arguing the toss here when it really isn't an issue

 

[Cheshire Cat]

I can't believe people are still arguing the toss here when it really isn't an issue

Don't be silly - this is NSC !!!

 

[Seagull over Canaryland]

For crying out loud, how many pages of indignant huffs is it going to take before it dawns on people that the law IS on your side here?

Section 3, Criminal Law Act 1978: a person may use such force AS IS REASONABLE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES in the prevention of crime, or in the effecting of assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders, suspected offenders, or persons unlawfully at large.

The key is what is reasonable, given what you're facing at the time. A man walking off down your drive with your flat screen: you might find it hard to justify stabbing him with a kitchen knife. A masked guy turns up in your bedroom at 3am, threatening you with a machete and holding a knife to your wife's throat, you can argue pretty easily that you felt your lives were at risk and therefore counter that use of force with equivalent force of your own.

The Common Law also allows you to take reasonable steps to protect life & limb, as does the European Convention on Human Rights, so fear not, terrified residents of Sussex.

Stop banging on about Tony Martin: he was a rare exception to the rule that generally favours the victim. The Martin case was an exceptional one, and the background wasn't nearly as clear cut as a simple man v burglar scenario.

I can't believe people are still arguing the toss here when it really isn't an issue

I suspect that much of this debate is down to ignorance of the legal position, inspite of the 'reasonable' principle largely being common sense. But then not many punters will have the benefit of your background, so its a shame you chose to chastise posters ('facepalm' etc) rather than encourage their understanding. Maybe that helps to explain why the positive arguments are not as widely understood as they might be. Unfortunately these misconceptions are readily indulged by the media too, so you have an opportunity to correct misunderstandings, even on a footie forum.

Nevertheless there are also punters out there with real world experiences of being let down by perceived failings in the Police and or legal system so feel strongly about a lack of justice and / or that scumbags get away too readily. For them it is a very real 'issue' and naive to pretend otherwise.

Even so I would like to think that most right minded punters would readily use no more than proportionate force to defend their family and property but suspect there will always be some who overstep the mark in the heat of the moment. The worry will be about those who feel so vulnerable, provoked and irrational that they resort to using premeditated lethal force.

 

[Seagull on the wing]

Good to see they have been released and not charged....lesson here...if you don't want the chance of being shot/attacked...do not try to enter another persons home with the intent of stealing their belongings.....4 of them ....got their just desserts

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

So to clarify, a masked man (or men) breaks into your home at say 2.45am, it's dark, he is threatening you with say a baseball bat, you are scared witless. Hang on, you have a gun because you have a licence for it for whatever reason, you have a decision to make, shall I shoot this bugger or risk me and my family being clobbered with aforementioned bat.
What do you do, shoot and ask questions later, or ask him about his unfortunate background and cop a big one? We need some perspective here. Sometimes there is no time to make decisions. This is when you need the law to be on YOUR side.

Dont you have to store guns in a locked cabinet? So, no time to make a decision but enough time to go pick up the keys, go to the cabinet, unlock the cabinet and return with the gun?

 

[toostonedtocare]

I feel sympathy for the burglars. They just want what rich people like this family have. Not the guns probably though.

I agree. I wish there were more people like you. What is your address? I would like to visit you to shake your hand!

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

It's hard to say IMO, who's to say them people committing the robbery werent to have a knife in their pocket ready to use.

True. And the police tend to use this excuse when one of their operations goes horribly wrong.

 

[rocker959]

F**k the burglars.

 

[Kumquat]

I agree. I wish there were more people like you. What is your address? I would like to visit you to shake your hand!

Do I need to arm myself first?

 

[Kumquat]

F**k the burglars.

As well as or instead of shooting them?

 

[34064 Fighter Command]

It's a sad fact, as witnessed by the case of this family being attacked in France, that if a DETERMINED burglar believes that you are going to resist during the robbery, that they will use force to incapacitate you, or any unfortunate passer by, to the extent that they WILL kill you in order to make sure that there are no witnesses who can lead to their capture.

If I were in the scenario where I were faced with the option of losing an item of property, or losing an eye, or even my life, I certainly wouldn't be stupid enough to attempt to put up a fight - realistically even if I were able to beat the burglar off theres a huge chance I would sustain life-changing, and potentially life threatening injuries (i.e. I could be left in a wheelchair or completely mentally incapacitated).

In that scenario, the choice is betwenn losing an object of some monetary value, or potentially ending up with a life that would not be worth living due to the nature of the injury sustained, or worse.

The object with monetary value can be replaced. It's why we take out home insurance. Your eyesight, your ability to walk, or your life, cannot.

In the split second instant of a crime being committed, you'd be incredibly foolhardy to try to 'guess' to what extent the burglar is determined enough. You're not armed to the extent that the Police are, nor do you have the level of 'backup' that they do. Inevitably, trying to 'make a stand' simply isn't worth the risk, even though you may feel enraged by your own impotence.

Oh, and that doesn't mean I'm a coward or on the burglars side - it just means that I have judged the risk of taking on a burglar during the course of a crime as being NOT ONLY dangerous, but also of having a HIGHER level of potential damage than the damage I incur by losing an item of property. I make the judgement that it's the Police's job to recover the property, not mine, and that I am more use to the law, and the cause of justice, in the capacity of a prosecution witness in a burglars trial, than I am if I'm the victim of a burglar being buried due to sustaining fatal injury.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

THEY'VE. BEEN. RELEASED. WITHOUT. CHARGE.

Surely this debate is now over.