The UK is safer with those strict gun laws...

[BeLikeTrey]

AG I'll withhold judgement until this story resolves itself. Jury is still out so to speak according to an article today. "Grievous bodily harm" I hope is "attempted murder's" equivalent over there.... These guys tried to stab him in the heart!
The link you sent didn't have much but that they would ALSO be charged.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/3833445.stm


------------

on the Tony Martin Thing...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/archive/politics/martin.shtml

"Well, if there's one issue during the last parliament which crystalised the entire debate about law and order it was the conviction, last year, of Tony Martin for murdering a teenager who attempted to burgle his remote farmhouse in Norfolk."

He was convicted!
It was found that he should serve Life originally. That this was found at all is ludicrous. nevermind that he had an appeal on his behalf that reduced it to manslaughter. It should have never been life. this is the ideaology I refer to when I fear for those who defend themselves and the social climate.
Here in the states, it is considered a violent crime to burgle a home occupied by someone. thus deserving a violent reaction to said intrusion. What is this guy guilty of.

These prosecutions are scary AG! This is what we are talking about.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3672701.stm

 

[agricola]

beliketrey,

again, you are basing your assumptions on very shaky ground. Martin tried to claim self defence (via the tabloids rather than the Court), and a jury of his peers, based on all the evidence, found that it was not the case - he had shot Barras as he was running away from him (in direct contradiction to Martin's story - which, though disproved, remains the "truth" of what happened that night according to almost all).

Now you may think thats a disgrace - as is your right - but those men and women of the jury had access to all the facts, minus the BS coverage, and so I trust their judgement, rather than yours. As it happens, I think they made the right decision, just as they did in the Hastings case, and the Lindsay case. Crying "self defence" doesnt make it so.

With regards to Gale's bill - I like common law, I like its sensibility; it sees the truth far more than any piece of legislation brought in in the past hundred years, which is why a succession of Governments have tried to harm it. Gales proposed PMB - which is fortunately dead - would have damaged it, which is why it was got rid of.

 

[Iain]

What Ag said.

The Martin case is not a good one to discuss, as I have said before it divides opinion to the point where rational conversation seems impossible. Transplant the case, in all its details, to your own home state and see what you come up with.

Have there ever been cases where a person later found guilty of murder (with all associated pre-meditation) has initially claimed self-defence? The implications of such a thing would mean that we do have to look closely at self-defence cases.

 

[BeLikeTrey]

again...

They were in an occupied house after hours. So they ran...so? That is besides the point. This is a violent crime due to the fact that you EXPECT resistance by inhabitants. they had been there before and burglarized him. Police were asked to help according to accounts...
"Despite the fact that Barras and Fearon were repeated offenders with 62 convictions between them, the jury at the trial concluded that "reasonable force" could not have been applied to fend off an assault, because the two were already trying to make their escape. Martin was in illegal possession of an unlicensed shotgun and the jury discounted the fact that Martin predicted to the police that a further burglary was likely. "

The most incredible? "The family of Fearon applied for, and received, an estimated £5000 of state legal aid to sue Martin for loss of earnings due to the injury he sustained." Loss of earnings doing what? This is amazing! state funding for this miscreant?!

I have searched extensively for all the facts... I concede they may have been leaving but they posed an immediate and future threat and had established a pattern of behavior. If I have mad "assumptions on shaky ground", I did this with research from the source you cited earlier as well as any other that looked like a non-biased account.

With poor enforcement and penalties on the criminals, there will be more Tony Martins abound. People will naturally try to defend themselves and what is theirs. So you may be able to remove the means to do so but man is an enginuitive creature. And Spear guns will be next to be banned. There are so many bans and the violence between men has not changed. Perhaps the tools are not the issue? Perhaps it is in man's nature?

My humble opinion is that banning guns will not change a thing there are spear guns, there are house hold chemicals capable of destruction on a large scale. Petrol itself in a glass beer bottle is enough. The implement isn't the problem. We just don't see eye to eye on that issue of laws banning implements of defense. Defense or offense; It is in the user. Also other laws that punish those who defend themselves... And definitions of defense. Catch ya tomorrow with a follow up. I promise to try and keep it civil

 

[Mk VII]

`Grevious bodily harm' [as defined by the Offences Against The Person Act, 1861] is `serious bodily harm', that is, more harmful than `actual bodily harm'. GBH has been taken to include broken bones, internal injuries and psychiatric damage. A `wound' is any injury that penetrates the skin; technically a pin-prick is sufficient. Of course, many charges will be of wounding and GBH, but either will suffice alone.
This offence differs from `wounding with intent' (s.18) largely because it does not require that the perpetrator intend the full consequences of the harm. The perpetrator must intend some harm, but need not intend GBH or wounding.

see
http://law.web-tomorrow.com/twiki/bin/view/Main/OffencesAgainstThePerson

 

[agricola]

beliketrey,

again, you miss the point. the point is our country is not your country.

Martin was found guilty, rightly, of murder. To say:

I have searched extensively for all the facts... I concede they may have been leaving but they posed an immediate and future threat and had established a pattern of behavior.

but you cannot be, because the reporting (as any UK poster will be able to tell you) was overwhelmingly pro-Martin. You "concede" they were leaving and yet state they pose an immediate threat - on the basis of what exactly?

The most incredible? "The family of Fearon applied for, and received, an estimated £5000 of state legal aid to sue Martin for loss of earnings due to the injury he sustained." Loss of earnings doing what? This is amazing! state funding for this miscreant?!

"Legal Aid" is akin to your "public defender" programme. While the granting of moneys to Fearon's legal team (note: NOT Fearon himself) was a waste (though not really, as the case was dropped before going to trial), it is to an extent justified because it shows the fairness of the system - the granting of legal aid should not be dependent on the claimants popularity, but rather the strength of the case.

 

[Antlurz]

I've read and re read this and tried to come to some sort of understanding that can agree with our British friends, but I come to only one conclusion time after time.

The conclusion is thus: If a person comes into my house uninvited and is carrying a gun, proceeds to rob me of my hard earned posessions and then happens to face away from me at the time I retaliate with my own gun, it matters not in the least which way he was facing. He was on MY property. He was ARMED. His intentions were deprive me of my posessions and the fact he was armed is a clear and present threat to my well being and even my life. It is not uncommon for an armed intruder to finish his business and while departing, fire at, and kill the person he has robbed. I can even give you an example of where the robber did exactly that, shooting the victim between the eyes AFTER he had done his dirty work, and in the process, loudly proclaiming for all to hear: "Merry Christmas".

Well screw that! Given any chance at all, I will deprive him of any further ability to harm me or mine.

....and sleep well afterwards, regardless of the fact the Queen may be incensed at my less than civilized manner in the situation.

You Brits are more than welcome to bow down in servitude if you so wish. It's your life to lead as you feel necessary. More power to you.....

Ron

 

[Sgt Stevo]

no guns on cops?

I was in london for a ouple of days on my way Kuwait a couple of years ago.

Most people think the boobys are not armed. Yet I saw alot of MP-5s in Heathrow and around the streets. My buds and I were ten thick. SO no problems for us. we went to Soho. Lots of freaks. and more thugs per capita than New york. But pale skinney wimpy looking thugs.

 

[sumpnz]

Antlurz, I think that a lot of our disagreement with our British cousins comes from a fundamental difference in how we define reasonable force, and particularly when lethal force is justifiable.

When I lived in New Zealand 10 years ago, my host-family (or it might have been someone else in their extended family) explained to me at the time that in order for lethal force, or for that matter any force against an intruder to be justified you (the homeowner) had to have first retreated to farthest reach of your property, or prove that the route of retreat was cut off and that there was no alternative route of retreat. In other words, if you discover a burglar in your family room you have to retreat to the back door, exit the house, and have your back to the fence before you can use force, especially deadly force against said intruder. I would assume the laws in the UK are similar though I do not presume to know for certain.

Here in Arizona, and in many other states, there is no duty to retreat. Thanks to the "castle doctrine" if I find a burglar in my family room, even if he's only half way through the window, I can use deadly force against him whether or not he is armed (note that armed can mean any weapon, including pointy sticks, baseball or cricket bats, knives, broken bottles, guns, etc). Even if he does nothing to overtly threaten me directly I can still use deadly force. And the courts will find me to be full justified in doing so. This is because when a criminal breaks into a home, the rightful resident is presumed to be threatened with physical harm and may therefore use whatever means they determine necessary to prevent that threatened harm from being realized.

Our esteemed British members believe that Tony Martin was not justified in his use of deadly force against the burglars. Here in the states, maybe he would have been found justified, maybe not. I haven't bothered to find out all the small details of the incident so I cannot pass judgment in that regard.

However, the fact that things got to the point that Mr Martin felt he needed to take such action should be troubling to every Brit, at least IMHO. The fact that he had been the victim of burglary several times, with the police seemingly doing very little about it and the courts essentially not punishing the perps when the police are bothered enough to catch them is a very troubling aspect of this case (both the Martin case and the events from the original post). Combine that with the fact that the news media, at least from our perspective on this side of the pond, makes it seem that it is very legally risky to use any force to defend your self, never mind your property, and it seems little wonder that crime rates are going up so much. Now I know that some of our British members have disputed the rapid rise of crime in their country but I haven't seen a whole of convincing evidence to back them up. In fact I have seem much more evidence that our perception of their crime rates is accurate.

When people feel like they will be treated as the perp if they dare defend themselves, especially with any weapon, contact crime will go up. If the criminals know they have nothing to fear from their victim, and little to fear from the courts, what is there to stop them?

Edited to fix bad speling nad tyops.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

It's encouraging to see that the average Brit (if Critical and Ag are any measure), appears to be no better at spelling the English language than we typical Colonials.

 

[Stand_Watie]

"Legal Aid" is akin to your "public defender" programme.

?

 

[romulus]

"Legal Aid" is akin to your "public defender" programme.

??

Public defenders have nothing to do with civil suits. If you want to sue someone here it's on your own dime

 

[agricola]

antlurz,

If a person comes into my house uninvited and is carrying a gun, proceeds to rob me of my hard earned posessions and then happens to face away from me at the time I retaliate with my own gun, it matters not in the least which way he was facing. He was on MY property. He was ARMED.

and if Barras and Fearon had been armed, then the verdict would have been different - but they werent, which is why he was convicted. As I said to beliketrey, if we are going to have a debate lets at least use facts, rather than imagined half-true scenarios.

sumpnz,

Combine that with the fact that the news media, at least from our perspective on this side of the pond, makes it seem that it is very legally risky to use any force to defend your self, never mind your property, and it seems little wonder that crime rates are going up so much.

thats the thing though - your news stories on "self defence is illegal in the UK" are so full of half truths, and missing massive swathes of the presented evidence (usually the entire prosecution case) that its no wonder most of you hold that erroneous view.

sump,

think that a lot of our disagreement with our British cousins comes from a fundamental difference in how we define reasonable force, and particularly when lethal force is justifiable.

cant speak for St Johns or critical, but certainly I understand the difference here between reasonable force and justifiable force. If you face a deadly threat (ie: that you perceive to be deadly) then you can use deadly force. If you face a less serious threat (ie: man stamping on your geraniums), then you cannot use deadly force.

I would assume the laws in the UK are similar though I do not presume to know for certain.

there arent - there is no "duty to retreat" although a retreat would a self defence defence.

hawkeye,

where are my spelling errors? i cannot seem to find any.

 

[BeLikeTrey]

Oh well agree to disagree

AG: "Half truths".... I went to the BBC site (the link you sent me to prove your point) and pulled all of those other articles. If it is half truths then I would assume you didn't mean to send me that link to prove your point?

"Missing the point"... I think we both are I and others have made the IGNORED POINT of that you intend violence and have a reasonable expectation of it when you invade an occupied home. You deserve the violent reaction you get in that case.

"Not Armed"... Not with a firearm. The account I found in every source that I could find had him half blinded by a torch and something raised at him afterward.

I will argue with you guys no more. I understand to some extent what you mean. I don't agree with the continued freedom of criminals that have such an extensive Rap sheet. It gives the impression of permissiveness to criminals. It also encourages distrust in the system and that filters to the entire legal system. Once a person realizes the system is flawed (or percieves it that way) he/she then seeks to protect himself, which the police have no duty to do. In a perfect world Police could prevent crime. This is is an impossibility, the police have a duty to solve comitted crimes. This isn't always done well. So one must do what one must to prevent being a statistic/victim. Since you cannot prevent, should one be subject to the inability of the system to prevent or should one do what one can to protect himself? Once the system admits it is flawed in that regard, the system will become more permissive of people filling in the gaps on self preservation. Even Your own articles show the cops did nothing and/or were powerless to do anything when approached by Martin.

I don't think we will see eye to eye on this ever, so I concede, there is more of a gap between us than the ocean.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

hawkeye,

where are my spelling errors? i cannot seem to find any.

Ag, don't take offense. You are an excellent speller, as it Critical. That, combined with the fact that you are both Brits, caused me to sit up and take notice when I saw such mistakes as "your" in place of "you're" and "to" in place of "too." I'm sure that I am falling prey to a false assumption, i.e., that since English originated in England, this would be the place where the best English spellers on average would reside. That may, in fact, actually be true, in which case my assumption would not be false. Even those few and very slight errors, however, seem to have vanished, so I cannot, unfortunately, show you. Good job.

Note to self: When being critical (no pun intended), even in good humour (my salute to England), ALWAYS "cut and paste" the example, and include it in the critique.

 

[Paco]

Wow! This has been one of the most intersting threads in a while!

-My take is somewhere between Arizona and the United Kingdom. I think it's brutal, barbaric, and very, very bad kharma to gun down a person who is leaving through my window with my radio, or to kill him 'cause he's stomping on my flowers, even if it's my right.

-These are people, gentlemen. Call me soft, but I have a high santicty of life that goes beyond my own life, or the lives of those I know. You directly threaten my life and you're done... Otherwise, I'll probably let you have some mace or a bat to the knees.

-I've been jumped before by five dudes in my campus and thankfully I took care of them without the need to pull the knife I had on me. I could've said they were threatening my life and stabbed a few, but why, if I could handle it in less lethal means. I hospitalized two with a foot in the face to each, with jaws and nose broken respectively and took out the other with an elbow (the fella promptly passed out) and the other two were done!

-Point being: going the Highroad in not supposed to be easy; just cause you have the right to blow someone away shouldn't mean you should do so. Sounds like the Brits are making an attempt at a higher sanctity of life than we have here.

Stereo+ dead thief= sad paco. I can always buy another...

 

[agricola]

Nathan Kirk was found not guilty today btw

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/3835537.stm

 

[sumpnz]

-My take is somewhere between Arizona and the United Kingdom. I think it's brutal, barbaric, and very, very bad kharma to gun down a person who is leaving through my window with my radio, or to kill him 'cause he's stomping on my flowers, even if it's my right.

Paco, I think you're taking this a little far. Even AZ doesn't allow you to blow away someone just because they're "stomping on my flowers". I'm not positive, but shooting at someone who is retreating out of your home is also no longer a fair target. If they're still physically inside the house then sure. But if they are already out the window, you'd best hold your fire. Besides, I never said I would kill someone who I found in my house. I would at least give them the chance to surrender or flee after receiving a warning in the form of hearing the slide on my pistol being racked.

Sounds like the Brits are making an attempt at a higher santity [sic] of life than we have here.

I would submit that to be true to the extent of making the life of the criminal at least as, if not more sanctified than the life of the victim.

Stereo+ dead thief= sad paco. I can always buy another...

Sure, you can always buy another stereo, or whatever other item they are trying to steal, but can you buy back your daughter's dignity and sanity after she's been raped? Can you buy another life for your wife after they've beaten her head with a baseball bat? Will your life insurance policy buy you another life after the "thief" shoots/stabs/bludgeons you? Point is, you never know the intentions of an intruder into your house, or a robber on the streets. Even if they tell you "Do what I say and nobody gets hurt, all I want is your money/stereo/whatever" are you supposed to believe them? How many robbery victims gave the crook what they wanted and still got hurt or killed because the criminal "felt like it" or decided witnesses were a bad thing to leave behind? The people on three airplanes on 9/11 believed the criminals who hijacked their planes and didn't resist. We all know what happened because of that. The people on the fourth plane did resist and, although they still lost their lives, they saved untold hundreds, possibly thousands more.

 

[sumpnz]

Nathan Kirk was found not guilty today btw

From your source article

Hawkins, Lovegrove and Watkins were also charged in connection with the fight and tried at Reading Crown Court earlier this year.

Watkins, 37, of Thatcham, was discharged on all counts.

Hawkins was discharged on two counts but convicted of affray and given a community punishment and rehabilitation order.

Lovegrove, 28, of Thatcham, was jailed for 18 months for affray.

So after trying kill him, one gets off scot free, one only serves community punishment and visits to a shrink, and the last one gets all of 1.5 years in jail. Damn, that's a rough penal system you've got there.

 

[BeLikeTrey]

 

[agricola]

sumpnz,

regrettably, if Nathan Kirk withdrew his evidence (which is why the charges of GBH would have been dismissed), thats the limit of what can be done.

 

[sumpnz]

Oh, and Ag, in that article it said

The jury at Reading Crown Court decided that the gun had been fired by Mr Kirk accidentally during the fight.

That means they acquitted him becuase harpoon gun going off was "accidental" rather than reasonable force used in self defense. I wonder what would have happened Mr Kirk if he had admitted that the intentionally fired the spear gun in self defense?

You know, in most states here Mr Kirk would have been taken to the hospital for treatment, and after being released that would have been the end of it. The most the police would have done to him would be to shake his hand and say "good job."

The goblins would have been charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault and battery, and possibly a few other crimes. They would have most likely been convicted and sentences to at least 10 years in jail, possibly as much as life with no parole for 25 years at least and maybe longer.

 

[sumpnz]

regrettably, if Nathan Kirk withdrew his evidence (which is why the charges of GBH would have been dismissed), thats the limit of what can be done.

I haven't read anything about that. Do you have an article explaining that. I'm curious as to why he would withdraw evidence, what that evidence could even be, and even how he could do that.

 

[agricola]

sumpnz,

the only common way for a charge to be dismissed totally is for the victim to decline to appear to susbstantiate his statement.

Since the facts of the case were not really in doubt, this would have meant that he would refuse to substantiate his injury (this can be got round in some cases, especially issues of domestic violence), thus resulting in (legally) noone to be GBH'ed, thus no case.

As to why it was done, I rather suspect Kirk's defence team not wanting him cross examined before "their" trial.

Also, I suspect "accidentally fired" is journalese gibberish, since they also found he acted in self defence.

 

[Oleg Volk]

Stereo+ dead thief= sad paco. I can always buy another...

There's more thieves were this one came from. A stereo might not be worth much, but you'd be defending your space, not just the stereo. And the worth of a perp is negative, so even a paper clip is worth more. It may not be practical to shoot perps at times, but morality is a different matter.