jimpeel
Member
Maybe he didn't like my question.
"BBC elites confounded by their listeners" (self-defense related)
- Thread starter Kharn
- Start date
- Status
In my humble home-town, we've had another horrible one.
A LEO had his home broken into - he discovered the burglar in his loft. The burglar threw him to the ground, pummelled him, and ground his face into the loft insulation - glassfibre. Nasty His face is a wreck, and he's got partial sight from his right eye. The LEO then threw the man, and bopped him thrice about he head with a Mini Maglite (Yes, the 2xAAA cell one) and held him 'til assistance arrived.
Guess who has won his assault lawsuit.
That is correct. The burglar. it's front-page news (along with the cop's mangled face) of today's Reading Chronicle, my local paper.
Agricola, mate - your co-workers are now prey. I think your pose is truly untenable - we *HAVE* to be able to defend ourself, and the law, as it stands, is infantile and stupid. Really.
I'll transcribe the full story tomorrow.
A LEO had his home broken into - he discovered the burglar in his loft. The burglar threw him to the ground, pummelled him, and ground his face into the loft insulation - glassfibre. Nasty His face is a wreck, and he's got partial sight from his right eye. The LEO then threw the man, and bopped him thrice about he head with a Mini Maglite (Yes, the 2xAAA cell one) and held him 'til assistance arrived.
Guess who has won his assault lawsuit.
That is correct. The burglar. it's front-page news (along with the cop's mangled face) of today's Reading Chronicle, my local paper.
Agricola, mate - your co-workers are now prey. I think your pose is truly untenable - we *HAVE* to be able to defend ourself, and the law, as it stands, is infantile and stupid. Really.
I'll transcribe the full story tomorrow.
jimpeel
Member
Bog
Save the keystrokes.
http://www.getreading.co.uk/story.asp?intid=8627
POLICE FURY AT JUDGE'S RULING
Refuses to believe battered bobby over word of burglar
THE Police Federation has hit out at a judge who refused to take a police officer’s word over that of a burglar who beat him up.
PC Pete Scott suffered a breakdown after raider Paul Reilly attacked him in a loft Reilly had broken into, Reading Crown Court heard.
Reilly admitted the assault but claimed he was only acting in self-defence – a claim Judge Stanley Spence accepted, despite PC Scott and a fellow police officer saying it was an unprovoked attack.
Judge Spence’s decision on Wednesday means Reilly will be sentenced on the basis that he may have been attacked first, a decision described by Inspector Martin Elliott, chairman of the Police Federation, as “bizarreâ€.
The court was told Reilly hid in a loft in George Street after officers were alerted to an intruder on April 5 last year.
Giving evidence, PC Scott said Reilly, 27, ignored repeated orders to put his hands out and instead knocked him off his feet and pinned him down.
PC Scott said that Reilly, from Oakley Road, Caversham, then leapt on top of him, delivered at least six punches, before grinding his face into some roof lagging.
“I was trying to breathe but gagging on the insulation – I realised I was in deep trouble and of the opinion I was going to die,†said PC Scott. The court heard PC Scott lost a stone in weight following the attack and suffered post-traumatic stress disorder.
John Denniss, prosecuting, suggested Reilly wanted to “get the police officer out of action†in his desperation to escape.
Reilly’s attack was brought to a halt after former Judo champ PC Steve Purser put him into a headlock and struck him three times on the head with a mini torch.
But Reilly, a nightshift worker at the Tesco store in Napier Road, told the court on Wednesday he complied with PC Scott’s orders but was instead beaten by the officers.
He claimed this led to a struggle and he was only acting in self-defence. He denied pushing PC Scott’s head into the insulation.
Martin Jackson, defending, said Reilly only pushed, not punched, PC Scott and that he lost his balance and landed him on top of the officer. Reilly admitted assault occasioning actual bodily harm on the basis of self-defence but the prosecution did not accept this.
Because of the discrepancy between the two versions, a court hearing (known as a Newton Hearing) was held to decide if the basis of the plea was accurate.
Judge Spence ruled it was, saying: “I have paid close attention to what was said by all the witnesses and their demeanour when giving evidence. I cannot be sure the defendant was not acting in self defence when he pushed PC Scott.â€
Commenting on the decision, Inspector Elliott said he was shocked and angered. He said: “My officers stick their lives on the line day in day out to protect the public.
Once again this is a case of the judiciary not supporting the police service or the public and it is appalling that the judge said he could not make up his mind who he believed.
“Ninety-nine point nine per cent recurring of police officers are industrious hard-working people, who are paid to tell the truth and take their duty seriously.
“This is a bizarre judgement giving the benefit of the doubt to the perpetrator as opposed to the victims of crime. It is time the judiciary got behind the police force and the public.â€
Reilly also admitted a charge each of handling stolen goods on April 2 last year and burglary on April 5 last year, both in George Street. He faces sentencing on Thursday, January 29.
Save the keystrokes.
http://www.getreading.co.uk/story.asp?intid=8627
POLICE FURY AT JUDGE'S RULING
Refuses to believe battered bobby over word of burglar
THE Police Federation has hit out at a judge who refused to take a police officer’s word over that of a burglar who beat him up.
PC Pete Scott suffered a breakdown after raider Paul Reilly attacked him in a loft Reilly had broken into, Reading Crown Court heard.
Reilly admitted the assault but claimed he was only acting in self-defence – a claim Judge Stanley Spence accepted, despite PC Scott and a fellow police officer saying it was an unprovoked attack.
Judge Spence’s decision on Wednesday means Reilly will be sentenced on the basis that he may have been attacked first, a decision described by Inspector Martin Elliott, chairman of the Police Federation, as “bizarreâ€.
The court was told Reilly hid in a loft in George Street after officers were alerted to an intruder on April 5 last year.
Giving evidence, PC Scott said Reilly, 27, ignored repeated orders to put his hands out and instead knocked him off his feet and pinned him down.
PC Scott said that Reilly, from Oakley Road, Caversham, then leapt on top of him, delivered at least six punches, before grinding his face into some roof lagging.
“I was trying to breathe but gagging on the insulation – I realised I was in deep trouble and of the opinion I was going to die,†said PC Scott. The court heard PC Scott lost a stone in weight following the attack and suffered post-traumatic stress disorder.
John Denniss, prosecuting, suggested Reilly wanted to “get the police officer out of action†in his desperation to escape.
Reilly’s attack was brought to a halt after former Judo champ PC Steve Purser put him into a headlock and struck him three times on the head with a mini torch.
But Reilly, a nightshift worker at the Tesco store in Napier Road, told the court on Wednesday he complied with PC Scott’s orders but was instead beaten by the officers.
He claimed this led to a struggle and he was only acting in self-defence. He denied pushing PC Scott’s head into the insulation.
Martin Jackson, defending, said Reilly only pushed, not punched, PC Scott and that he lost his balance and landed him on top of the officer. Reilly admitted assault occasioning actual bodily harm on the basis of self-defence but the prosecution did not accept this.
Because of the discrepancy between the two versions, a court hearing (known as a Newton Hearing) was held to decide if the basis of the plea was accurate.
Judge Spence ruled it was, saying: “I have paid close attention to what was said by all the witnesses and their demeanour when giving evidence. I cannot be sure the defendant was not acting in self defence when he pushed PC Scott.â€
Commenting on the decision, Inspector Elliott said he was shocked and angered. He said: “My officers stick their lives on the line day in day out to protect the public.
Once again this is a case of the judiciary not supporting the police service or the public and it is appalling that the judge said he could not make up his mind who he believed.
“Ninety-nine point nine per cent recurring of police officers are industrious hard-working people, who are paid to tell the truth and take their duty seriously.
“This is a bizarre judgement giving the benefit of the doubt to the perpetrator as opposed to the victims of crime. It is time the judiciary got behind the police force and the public.â€
Reilly also admitted a charge each of handling stolen goods on April 2 last year and burglary on April 5 last year, both in George Street. He faces sentencing on Thursday, January 29.
Last edited:
romulus
Member
Ag is a cop???!!!
dustind
Member
Yes he is. His views on gun control are at TFL. I have not looked at them but he mentioned they were over there.
romulus
Member
Yes, Ag was a fixture on TFL...He tried really hard to sound non-dogmatic on the question of armed civilians. I have to wonder what his reaction is to one of his brethren suffering the fate that befalls so many common subjects...
publius
Member
The officer shouldn't have had that roofing material readily at hand.
Sincerely,
Farmer.
Sincerely,
Farmer.
most police officers here:-
don't like guns
don't like the people who want to own guns
don't see why anybody should be permitted to own one.
would like to see a total ban on gun ownership " it can't possibly do any harm, and it might do some good".
don't like guns
don't like the people who want to own guns
don't see why anybody should be permitted to own one.
would like to see a total ban on gun ownership " it can't possibly do any harm, and it might do some good".
publius
Member
Nice. How do they feel about martial artists?
Moparmike
Member
That criminal should have been shot. Too bad even the police have been disarmed. Dead burglars tell no tales. 
I hope this is but one incident in a string of events that leads to a new policy on armed civilians and officers. Maybe if the officers are put in the place of a few victimized civilians, their attitudes might change.
Hopefully no one will be seriously hurt while they are stripped of their rights to defend themselves.
I hope this is but one incident in a string of events that leads to a new policy on armed civilians and officers. Maybe if the officers are put in the place of a few victimized civilians, their attitudes might change.
Hopefully no one will be seriously hurt while they are stripped of their rights to defend themselves.
I'm increasingly of the opinion that the only way to effectively make change is for things to get so horribly broken that even Mr and Mrs. Middleclass sit up and bray with the frickened ickle sheepies. This is, of course, bloody irritating and shows a marked lack of foresight in most people.
Ho hum.
Ho hum.
Hate to do this to you Ag but I'm not with you on this one. As far as I understand the law in the UK regarding self-defence what is required is a 'proportionate response' but in that moment how do I judge a proportionate response? It seems to me that the law is only useful to those who have been 'battered' by another who was acting in self-defence because it can be argued in court, much after the fact, that the use of the fire-iron was not 'proportionate'.
The complicated thing for me is that it is essentially one man (or woman's) word against another. But where it angers me is that the judge in the case referred to on this page says; 'I cannot be sure the defendant was not acting in self defence when he pushed PC Scott', it seems to me entirely unnecessary that he should have needed to act in self-defence had he not broken into another persons home.
A problem then arises when a hypothetical burglar is found dead. Being as that dead men tell no tales, and certainly no tall ones how do you establish that the homicide was justifiable? A law that allows 'instant despatch' of all intruders does pose problems for me as I am sure I have heard of cases where it has been used to invite a neighbour etc around with whom one has had a dispute and then kill him in an attempt to commit the 'perfect murder'. Proportionate response worries me as much.
On the subject of Stephen Pound MP and his reference to the electorate in unflattering terms, apparently it is a quote from a failed Californian senate wannabe, being reasonably pithy in that context. Unfortunately for Pound in this context it sounds like a whine, probably because he wishes to not become another Lembit Opik, charming, intelligent but ultimately ignored because he says we should be more worried about meteorites.
The complicated thing for me is that it is essentially one man (or woman's) word against another. But where it angers me is that the judge in the case referred to on this page says; 'I cannot be sure the defendant was not acting in self defence when he pushed PC Scott', it seems to me entirely unnecessary that he should have needed to act in self-defence had he not broken into another persons home.
A problem then arises when a hypothetical burglar is found dead. Being as that dead men tell no tales, and certainly no tall ones how do you establish that the homicide was justifiable? A law that allows 'instant despatch' of all intruders does pose problems for me as I am sure I have heard of cases where it has been used to invite a neighbour etc around with whom one has had a dispute and then kill him in an attempt to commit the 'perfect murder'. Proportionate response worries me as much.
On the subject of Stephen Pound MP and his reference to the electorate in unflattering terms, apparently it is a quote from a failed Californian senate wannabe, being reasonably pithy in that context. Unfortunately for Pound in this context it sounds like a whine, probably because he wishes to not become another Lembit Opik, charming, intelligent but ultimately ignored because he says we should be more worried about meteorites.
spartacus2002
Member
I think one of our Supreme Court Justices, when discussing use of force in self defense, put it best: "detached reflection cannot be expected in the face of an upraised knife."
cracked butt
Member
The good subjects of Britain will have to learn the 3 S's:
-Shoot
-Shovel
-Shut up
-Shoot
-Shovel
-Shut up
publius
Member
St. J,
Stop making sense over there, will you?
And dead men do tell tales. To coroners. Crime scenes tell plenty as well. We haven't had a rash of "perfect murders" here in Florida, though we do have a Castle Doctrine, which says we have no duty to retreat within our homes. I doubt there's a house on my entire street (which is about 20 miles long) that doesn't have at least one gun.
Stop making sense over there, will you?
And dead men do tell tales. To coroners. Crime scenes tell plenty as well. We haven't had a rash of "perfect murders" here in Florida, though we do have a Castle Doctrine, which says we have no duty to retreat within our homes. I doubt there's a house on my entire street (which is about 20 miles long) that doesn't have at least one gun.
I have a fundamental memeclash here.
I'm very, very good at what I do - I'm a video graphics specialist, with a strong forté in 3D animation and it's associated fields (Compositing, editing, texturing, lighting, uncle Tom Cobley and all) - but I got into it before there was a "real" profession of doing 3D graphics. I have no degree. The UK is very forgiving of this, and the US, by all accounts, seems to have a hellalotta unemployed 3D kids.
And yet... the PRUK is a Victim State.
I honestly don't know what to do!
I'm very, very good at what I do - I'm a video graphics specialist, with a strong forté in 3D animation and it's associated fields (Compositing, editing, texturing, lighting, uncle Tom Cobley and all) - but I got into it before there was a "real" profession of doing 3D graphics. I have no degree. The UK is very forgiving of this, and the US, by all accounts, seems to have a hellalotta unemployed 3D kids.
And yet... the PRUK is a Victim State.
I honestly don't know what to do!
romulus
Member
Bog, with an impressive CV, a strong portfolio, and good references, you could make it here in that field. Trust me on that...
agricola
Member
apologies, forgot about this:
i) the ludicrous decision about the Pc is relevant, but for the wrong reasons cited. Firstly, a system which can allow the individual to be defended from the power of the state (as expressed by the Pc), even in this nonsensical fashion, is one in which self-defence is clearly in existance.
ii) St. Johns - the right of self defence is not "proportional", but "reasonable" - eg its interpretation depends on what the court-invented "man on the Clapham omnibus" would do in the same situation. The problem arises where defendants lie about what happened and there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary - like Tony Martin.
If you react out of fear and surprise at an intruder and honestly fear you are under a serious threat then your right of self defence protects you. If you lie in ambush and shoot someone in the back as they are escaping it wont.
i) the ludicrous decision about the Pc is relevant, but for the wrong reasons cited. Firstly, a system which can allow the individual to be defended from the power of the state (as expressed by the Pc), even in this nonsensical fashion, is one in which self-defence is clearly in existance.
ii) St. Johns - the right of self defence is not "proportional", but "reasonable" - eg its interpretation depends on what the court-invented "man on the Clapham omnibus" would do in the same situation. The problem arises where defendants lie about what happened and there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary - like Tony Martin.
If you react out of fear and surprise at an intruder and honestly fear you are under a serious threat then your right of self defence protects you. If you lie in ambush and shoot someone in the back as they are escaping it wont.
Dain Bramage
Member
Agricola, your spin ability puts my wash machine to shame.
"i) the ludicrous decision about the Pc is relevant, but for the wrong reasons cited. Firstly, a system which can allow the individual to be defended from the power of the state (as expressed by the Pc), even in this nonsensical fashion, is one in which self-defence is clearly in existance."
Puh-leez! The only self-defence right that exists in this looking-glass world of yours is when the individual is mugging the state! Does anybody besides a criminal have any rights? Even the Rev. Dodgson's tall tales to little girls seem reasonable in comparison.
So, who needs RKBA when you can creep into a policeman's home and pummel him?
"i) the ludicrous decision about the Pc is relevant, but for the wrong reasons cited. Firstly, a system which can allow the individual to be defended from the power of the state (as expressed by the Pc), even in this nonsensical fashion, is one in which self-defence is clearly in existance."
Puh-leez! The only self-defence right that exists in this looking-glass world of yours is when the individual is mugging the state! Does anybody besides a criminal have any rights? Even the Rev. Dodgson's tall tales to little girls seem reasonable in comparison.
So, who needs RKBA when you can creep into a policeman's home and pummel him?
agricola
Member
er.....
it wasnt the policemans house, they were responding to a call.
it wasnt the policemans house, they were responding to a call.
Dain Bramage
Member
Geez...I forgot that they arm your cops with sticks of warm cookie dough over there. Something about him whacking the burglar with his AAA battery mini-flashlight made my brain skip a beat and think he was off-duty in his own home.
<Clint voice on> Seeing that this is the Mini-Maglite, the largest, most powerful flashlight in the world, and could tear your head clean off with one blow...uhhh..actually it's not...but you could get a welt if I swing it really hard...or it could poke you in the eye...<Clint voice off>
So maybe resisting arrest is one of those rights they can enshrine in the new Euro-constitution.
<Clint voice on> Seeing that this is the Mini-Maglite, the largest, most powerful flashlight in the world, and could tear your head clean off with one blow...uhhh..actually it's not...but you could get a welt if I swing it really hard...or it could poke you in the eye...<Clint voice off>
So maybe resisting arrest is one of those rights they can enshrine in the new Euro-constitution.
jimpeel
Member
agricola
Welcome back.
I would still like an answer to my interrogatory which I reiterate here for your edification.
I assume that if you stated in court, after shooting this unarmed suspect, that he had stated he was going to take it from you and "shove it up your a--", that the prosecutor would ask "Did he ever threaten to shoot you with it?"; to which you would be obligated to say "No."
I also assume that they would accuse you of escalating the confrontation by producing the shotgun prior to having knowledge that the person breaking in was unarmed.
Welcome back.
I would still like an answer to my interrogatory which I reiterate here for your edification.
The question is: Can you shoot a man who is threatening to take your firearm from you and also only threatening to beat you with it?
I assume that if you stated in court, after shooting this unarmed suspect, that he had stated he was going to take it from you and "shove it up your a--", that the prosecutor would ask "Did he ever threaten to shoot you with it?"; to which you would be obligated to say "No."
I also assume that they would accuse you of escalating the confrontation by producing the shotgun prior to having knowledge that the person breaking in was unarmed.
agricola
Member
jimpeel,
In short yes, you could shoot him and be covered by self-defence, but it would depend on the circumstances in each case- most reasonable people would assume that someone taking a gun from you who had broken into your home would reasonably be expected to shoot you with it. A warning to retreat wouldnt be necessary, but it would help to prove further your case.
I will say it again, but there is no "proportional" form of self defence in the UK- what is required is that the action be "reasonable". These terms do overlap, and I can see where the confusion arises from, but they are not the same.
In short yes, you could shoot him and be covered by self-defence, but it would depend on the circumstances in each case- most reasonable people would assume that someone taking a gun from you who had broken into your home would reasonably be expected to shoot you with it. A warning to retreat wouldnt be necessary, but it would help to prove further your case.
I will say it again, but there is no "proportional" form of self defence in the UK- what is required is that the action be "reasonable". These terms do overlap, and I can see where the confusion arises from, but they are not the same.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked