Home Office releases "self defence against intruders" guidance
- Thread starter agricola
- Start date
- Status
TDPerk
Member
You assert this. You have not proved it. If, for example, you have other information in the case of Mr. Osborn, provide it for examination. Likewise, in the case of MR. Godfrey.
In none of these threads do you have the last word Agricola, or make the last point. You are the one who ran off, if anyone did.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=113779&page=1&pp=25
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=107977&page=2&pp=25
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=57231&page=4&pp=25
In this one, you do have the last post to the thread, but is more of the same drivel where you simply assert you are right without supporting evidence in counterpoint to someone else's observation. Pigheadedness is not evidence.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=100280
Even the last post in that thread begs the question of how unreasonable Mr. Martin's actions can have been (not very) when the authorities showed no competence in preventing him from being burgled from evidently at the whim of the thieves.
In this thread:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthre...2&highlight=sun
You make the statement:
"The idea that the Police doing what they are required to do morally and by law somehow demonstrates the shocking decline of the UK simply illustrates how deeply ignorant so many of you are when it comes to this issue."
You apply a value judgement showing bias in favor of the prosecution of the shopkeeper before all facts were known. This is not made more excusable even if the later occurring incident related in this thread was vigilantism by the family of the abused shopkeep (by the anti self defense prosecutors, and the criminals).
Even this more full account supports the conslusion that the police and prosecutors are placing effort where it does not belong--if they are serious about supporting a right to self defense. This is because there is no practical right to self defense in the UK.
You must have thought no one would reread these threads and associated posts.
This statement statement ascribed to the shopkeeper:
"A shopkeeper who was stabbed by a shoplifter said today it was “ludicrous†that he may be prosecuted for lashing out at the thief."
Is perfectly true, it was and is ludicrous that he was ever in ANY danger of prosecution over those actions of his which left him injured.
As for this thread:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=72967&highlight=manchester
Art Eatman's final post, and (by and large) Unlucky's posts; these reflect the proper attitude towards self defense, one which takes that right seriously.
Which right is not taken seriously in Britain by the governemnt.
Yours, TDP
Horse Hockey and Codswallop combined.
Perhaps you'd care to explain to me how it is that you can legally own a pump-action shotgun and buckshot and still consider yourself legally unable to defend yourself against an assailant?
And no matter how many handguns you have, there's always someone luckier than you. But what has either point got to do with a legal right?
Wrong. Self-evidently, completely proven to be, indisputably wrong by all but the most blinkered and disingenous of people.
What is it with you? Do you actually want another person to do what Osborn did? Have you absolutely no concience whatsoever?
In mainland UK, impossible for anything that isn't an air pistol or black powder or a single-shot ISSF 50m smallbore pistol.
Of course, shotgun licences are relatively easy to get. And in Northern Ireland, personal protection weapon licences are well-known (12,000 issued at present, approximately, and these are concealed carry licences in effect).
The decision to issue or not issue a firearms licence is pretty much down to the local police force. There is a policy among them to not issue a licence exclusively for personal protection (except in NI). That policy is not legislative, and could be changed overnight by the superintendent (that's the title in Ireland, I'm not sure what it is in the UK) if he so chose. That's pretty much the situation.
I'm not a UK friend (I'm Irish - our legal systems are very, very similar), but I'll answer - the UK does have an affirmative right to self defence against any attack, violent or otherwise, and the laws of the land conform to support and protect that right.
Just 'cos you lot can't play rugby without all that body armour...
The idea that you could kill a person in unclear circumstances and have the state turn a blind eye is one that belongs in Kafka novels, not real life. There has to be an investigation - a citizen's been killed. That's the same as in the US, btw. The difference between the US and UK on this point is the time it takes because of inefficencies in the UK judicial system, nothing more.
He was not referring to a specific case, but I will - the papers reported untruths about what happened in Martin's case. Take that for a first example, because it influenced Osborn's case negatively because someone told him the same thing you're saying and he made a decision based on that incorrect story.
agricola
Member
TDPerk,
Thats it, that is the most imbecilic post I have ever read on THR. I guess congratulations were in order. Its as if you have just grabbed quotes, ignored the context and decided that they mean what you think they mean.
Firstly, the threads werent taken to shown you running off, as was evident to anyone with a brain; they were, as was explained on the thread to illustrate the view that self defence was itself illegal in the UK - not the lack of guns made self defence unlikely. This displays some form of obsession with yourself; get over it.
Secondly, your quote taken from one of the threads is both directly out of context and bears absolutely zero resemblance to what you think it means:
The Police in this country have both a moral and a legal duty to investigate allegations of crime, whoever makes them and in what circumstances they are made. If they dont do that, it affects any trials linked to that case because the defence can show that the Police didnt do their job properly.
The Police did what they are required to do in this case - arrested the shopowner, interviewed him under caution, then released him - the shopkeeper was not prosecuted. I did not express a wish that he should be prosecuted. The fact that this was evident from my argument and other peoples comments on that thread just makes this doubly ignorant when you try and say something else. It was the Sun that withheld information, which an infinitely more intelligent poster than yourself said:
Thirdly, and most banging-my-head-against-a-wall of all, I do not have to prove Osborn's conviction was false, you do . He plead GUILTY to the offence; if you think there was a failure YOU have to prove it. Posting an article from a newspaper that has just been demonstrated to have wilfully misrepresented over ten years the law on self defence in this country suggests you dont understand why that might have a lot less clout than you think it does.
Thats it, that is the most imbecilic post I have ever read on THR. I guess congratulations were in order. Its as if you have just grabbed quotes, ignored the context and decided that they mean what you think they mean.
Firstly, the threads werent taken to shown you running off, as was evident to anyone with a brain; they were, as was explained on the thread to illustrate the view that self defence was itself illegal in the UK - not the lack of guns made self defence unlikely. This displays some form of obsession with yourself; get over it.
Secondly, your quote taken from one of the threads is both directly out of context and bears absolutely zero resemblance to what you think it means:
The Police in this country have both a moral and a legal duty to investigate allegations of crime, whoever makes them and in what circumstances they are made. If they dont do that, it affects any trials linked to that case because the defence can show that the Police didnt do their job properly.
The Police did what they are required to do in this case - arrested the shopowner, interviewed him under caution, then released him - the shopkeeper was not prosecuted. I did not express a wish that he should be prosecuted. The fact that this was evident from my argument and other peoples comments on that thread just makes this doubly ignorant when you try and say something else. It was the Sun that withheld information, which an infinitely more intelligent poster than yourself said:
Thirdly, and most banging-my-head-against-a-wall of all, I do not have to prove Osborn's conviction was false, you do . He plead GUILTY to the offence; if you think there was a failure YOU have to prove it. Posting an article from a newspaper that has just been demonstrated to have wilfully misrepresented over ten years the law on self defence in this country suggests you dont understand why that might have a lot less clout than you think it does.
only1asterisk
member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 2,412
Why do you guys attempt to argue with agricola? It's useless. He's obviously happy with the state of things in his home country. He's never going to change his mind and will not be swayed by facts or logic. He's obviously bought into the nanny state with all his heart.
The only reason he post here is to try to convince people that England isn't a second-rate socialist hole.
David
The only reason he post here is to try to convince people that England isn't a second-rate socialist hole.
David
agricola
Member
wallow in your own ignorance then, only1asterisk.
only1asterisk
member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 2,412
agricola
Member
MkVII,
Exactly, but that leaves us with the only option was that his lawyers were either idiots or people who read and believed the Telegraph when they should have been reading Blackstones; either way they were incredibly incompetent if the facts are as represented.
Personally, there is probably a lot more behind this that lead them to give him that advice, because as the story is in the Telegraph he would not have been charged, never mind accepting a manslaughter.
Exactly, but that leaves us with the only option was that his lawyers were either idiots or people who read and believed the Telegraph when they should have been reading Blackstones; either way they were incredibly incompetent if the facts are as represented.
Personally, there is probably a lot more behind this that lead them to give him that advice, because as the story is in the Telegraph he would not have been charged, never mind accepting a manslaughter.
Pebcac
Member
Sparks wrote on page 2 of this thread:
I'm curious. Is this (sufficient uncertainty) the legal standard in the UK to bring a case to trial? I ask because in the US there must be reasonable suspicion (backed by evidence, etc.).
I'm not being sarcastic; I'm genuinely asking the question. I want to know if there is a different legal standard for prosecution, or if my perceived difference is only one of semantics given the different English usages that may be involved.
I'm curious. Is this (sufficient uncertainty) the legal standard in the UK to bring a case to trial? I ask because in the US there must be reasonable suspicion (backed by evidence, etc.).
I'm not being sarcastic; I'm genuinely asking the question. I want to know if there is a different legal standard for prosecution, or if my perceived difference is only one of semantics given the different English usages that may be involved.
The basic problem is that the ultra tolerant leftists have hijacked the British jurisprudence system while the people weren't looking. Those same people are getting tired of being victims and are standing up on their hind legs demanding change. In the words of one MP "The people have spoken-the bastards".
agricola
Member
Pebcac,
Actually the CPS use a number of determining factors as to whether to bring a case. The most important for this are:
Is there a reasonable standard of the prosecution succeeding? - basically can we be sure that the person we think did it do it, and is that thing against the law? If its likely that the "self defence" was just that, then the prosecution is dropped then and there (often without charges being brought)
Is it in the public interest to proceed? - either is it worth the cost? or is any justice served by proceeding with this matter?
The quote you identified actually means that the CPS were not sure of the likelyhood of a conviction anyway, so they dropped it.
Actually the CPS use a number of determining factors as to whether to bring a case. The most important for this are:
Is there a reasonable standard of the prosecution succeeding? - basically can we be sure that the person we think did it do it, and is that thing against the law? If its likely that the "self defence" was just that, then the prosecution is dropped then and there (often without charges being brought)
Is it in the public interest to proceed? - either is it worth the cost? or is any justice served by proceeding with this matter?
The quote you identified actually means that the CPS were not sure of the likelyhood of a conviction anyway, so they dropped it.
Pebcac
Member
Agricola,
Thanks for the clarification. Sorry it took me so long to reply; we had some sick kiddies at my house this weekend thanks to some stomach bug, and now my wife has it....
Thanks for the clarification. Sorry it took me so long to reply; we had some sick kiddies at my house this weekend thanks to some stomach bug, and now my wife has it....
I'd say exactly the opposite.
Martin didn't call the police.
He shot two people (which may or may not have been justifed - I'm not going to argue about that), then went back to bed.
One bled to death, the other reached another house, called for help, and the police were called.
So: the police turn up to investigate a shooting, find a dead man, and the first explanation they get is that given by the "victim".
When they went to Martin's place, he only then said "Oh, they broke in, and I shot at them from here, and didn't think I could or did hit them". Which turned out to be a lie, because he had shot them from a different position, where he could easily and deliberately hit them, while they were running away.
Now, while some might argue he was still justified in doing so, it can hardly be a good idea to let the (surviving) burglar be the first person to inform the police, and then lie about the circumstances when they investigate.
Especially as if he had called the police first, explained that he had feared for his life, given a good reason why just because the burglar had turned his back he was still a threat, and thought shooting was the only way to protect himself, then he concievably could have been aquited with no charge. (Apart from possessing a firearm after having being banned from doing so as a result of aggressive and negligent use of it - which also didn't count in his favour).
Warren
Member
Still though I would have given him a pass because of who he shot and what they were up to when he shot them.
That sends a stronger signal to criminal types than locking Martin up did.
That sends a stronger signal to criminal types than locking Martin up did.
carebear
Member
Which amounts to summary execution for burglary, if I recall the details of the particular crime being committed.
Regardless of prior experience, if the particular circumstances of this crime didn't require deadly force, shooting the guys, however appealing in a vengence/deterrence sense, was a pretty shaky moral choice.
Martin apparently had "anger management" issues and, given his actions after firing, probably was nutty enough to deserve the book that got thrown at him.
Regardless of prior experience, if the particular circumstances of this crime didn't require deadly force, shooting the guys, however appealing in a vengence/deterrence sense, was a pretty shaky moral choice.
Martin apparently had "anger management" issues and, given his actions after firing, probably was nutty enough to deserve the book that got thrown at him.
spacemanspiff
Senior Member
look. all carebear wants is a fair fight when he dons his irish boots and waltzes over to you english for a rumble. can't you give him that much?
besides, everyone knows that the only thing dangerous about the civilized english is their 'drive-by-arguments'.
besides, everyone knows that the only thing dangerous about the civilized english is their 'drive-by-arguments'.
Sparks wrote:
Uh, the object is to win/survive. It is generally helpful (to that end) to be in an advantageous position WRT the intruder and to act before the BG knows you are about.
If somebody(s) have broken into someone else's house, the victim of the B&E has the presumption that the BGs mean him/her harm. This goes double if the time is at an hour one would reasonably expect the residence/business to be occupied.
Here in Texas, if someone breaks into a house or other property at night, the owner or his proxy is justified by law to use whatever force they deem necessary. In other words, there is no need to shout a warning, wave a flag, or blast a horn. The homeowner can drop the hammer and then call the authorities.
This is supported by Texas law and by what is right & moral. If the home/businessowner decides NOT to dust the BG, it is out of the kindness of their own heart or a desire to avoid cleaning up a bloody mess.
Oh, somebody who does break into my house, thereby putting my family in danger deserves to take a dirt nap.
Vigilante execution, my fourth point of contact.
Uh, the object is to win/survive. It is generally helpful (to that end) to be in an advantageous position WRT the intruder and to act before the BG knows you are about.
If somebody(s) have broken into someone else's house, the victim of the B&E has the presumption that the BGs mean him/her harm. This goes double if the time is at an hour one would reasonably expect the residence/business to be occupied.
Here in Texas, if someone breaks into a house or other property at night, the owner or his proxy is justified by law to use whatever force they deem necessary. In other words, there is no need to shout a warning, wave a flag, or blast a horn. The homeowner can drop the hammer and then call the authorities.
This is supported by Texas law and by what is right & moral. If the home/businessowner decides NOT to dust the BG, it is out of the kindness of their own heart or a desire to avoid cleaning up a bloody mess.
Oh, somebody who does break into my house, thereby putting my family in danger deserves to take a dirt nap.
Vigilante execution, my fourth point of contact.
Not in the UK or Ireland. Here the object is to survive. "Winning" doesn't enter into it, it's not a game. And if survival is the objective, you don't have much call for sneaking downstairs with a pump-action, then unloading into the burgulars at close range without warning. You're under no obligation to retreat, don't make that mistake; but basicly, Martin didn't have to shoot them to survive. And that's the test and even with the large margin for error given in the courts (so large that in 15 years, only 11 cases have seen a conviction for killing someone who was committing a burglary), Martin's case failed the test. (The fact that he lied, showing that he knew he'd done something wrong, adds to this).
agricola
Member
Yawn.
Guys, as has been said repeatedly, and as has been demonstrated by both this document and caselaw, to base your arguments on R v Martin is to build your very heavy house on very waterlogged sand. In an area that suffers frequent earthquakes.
It takes an awful lot to be found guilty of murdering a burglar (indeed, Martin is the only case I know of - the rest are all manslaughter verdicts) by a jury of ones peers. Remember, Martin not only lied about what happened, he lied in Court knowing that the forensic evidence Police had recovered proved beyond a doubt that his story could not possibly have happened in the way he said it did; he fled the scene for a day so that it was very easy for prosecutors to suggest he knew what he had done was wrong; he made it abundantly clear to as many of his neighbours as possible that he would shoot anyone he caught trespassing, irrespective of the circumstances (neighbours who subsequently testified to that effect against him) and he had a very long history of gun-related idiocy - shooting at apple scrumpers, blowing a neighbours windows out with his shotgun (which is why his licence was revoked).
In short, he was blatantly guilty of the murder, and only escaped a life sentence on the very probably political (given his subsequent behaviour and the furore around the decision) grounds that he was mentally ill, aided and abetted by elements of the media who hyped his case way beyond its merits, with the results as shown here.
Guys, as has been said repeatedly, and as has been demonstrated by both this document and caselaw, to base your arguments on R v Martin is to build your very heavy house on very waterlogged sand. In an area that suffers frequent earthquakes.
It takes an awful lot to be found guilty of murdering a burglar (indeed, Martin is the only case I know of - the rest are all manslaughter verdicts) by a jury of ones peers. Remember, Martin not only lied about what happened, he lied in Court knowing that the forensic evidence Police had recovered proved beyond a doubt that his story could not possibly have happened in the way he said it did; he fled the scene for a day so that it was very easy for prosecutors to suggest he knew what he had done was wrong; he made it abundantly clear to as many of his neighbours as possible that he would shoot anyone he caught trespassing, irrespective of the circumstances (neighbours who subsequently testified to that effect against him) and he had a very long history of gun-related idiocy - shooting at apple scrumpers, blowing a neighbours windows out with his shotgun (which is why his licence was revoked).
In short, he was blatantly guilty of the murder, and only escaped a life sentence on the very probably political (given his subsequent behaviour and the furore around the decision) grounds that he was mentally ill, aided and abetted by elements of the media who hyped his case way beyond its merits, with the results as shown here.
- Status