For the Brits here - Page 2

Just G · 06-23-2006, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

I realize I don't live over there, and this was a very polarizing issue at the time, but I have read the case, and the burglars did not ever claim they were shot running away. The two burglars, previously convicted for violent crimes, and driven there by another violent criminal with a previous conviction for breaking into this very same house, broke in through a window, and he fired without warning. Then they both ran, went out the window they'd come in. Only one was shot in the back. Both were shot in the legs. A non-unanimous jury verdict found him guilty of murder, and he was sentenced to life in prison. That was overturned and reduced, but the fact remains that his parole was denied because he posed an "unacceptable risk" to future burglers, which I think was much more pertinent to the article's argument than whether he was convicted..

This case is interesting enough that I'm going to post another Sandbox thread about it so I don't hijack this one.

Sorry for the Hijack but I didnt see your post about this in the sandbox so i will post this here.
These are the court notes from the Tony Martin case. You will find all the info and more in there.
To round up your bit about them being shot while running away...this is from the court papers for those who dont want to read them.
"The appellant claimed that he was asleep on the first floor and was disturbed by the noise. At some point he armed himself with a 12-bore Winchester pump action shotgun which was capable of holding up to 5 cartridges, and loaded the gun.
He asserted that he went down the stairs towards where he had seen a light. At some point, without giving any warning, he discharged the gun not less than 3 times; Barras was shot in the back and in his legs and Fearon was also shot in both legs.
Although both managed to get out of another window, Barras collapsed and died a short distance from the house; Fearon managed to make his way to neighbouring premises and was subsequently arrested and taken to hospital.
Barras's body was found the following day by a neighbour who went to round up the appellant's dogs."

Now this is only 1 side to the story...and we all know there are 3 sides to every story....
My side...Your side and...the TRUTH

Switchcraft · 06-23-2006, 09:16 AM

Yes. Reading through that document, which is what I relied on for my earlier post, the Prosecution's accusation was that the farmer had hidden himself and "had lain in wait for them and shot at them at short range."

The testimony of the surving guy, Mr. Fearon (a man with more than 30 criminal convictions, many of them violent), was that the shots had come without warning, not that they were running away.

I agree with Dudeman that people can disagree as whether or not you're allowed to use deadly force just because two criminals have come into your house through a window, and whther or not one desrves a life sentence for murder based on that use of force.

What I find appalling was the parole boards decision (here is the judicial review of it) where they were so concerned that he posed a risk to "anyone seeking to do him or his property any harm."

See? They didn't want to let him out, as people wishing to harm him might be harmed. The same parole board also decried his belief that "an Englishman's home is his castle."

But this is the same system that decided recently that putting up wanted posters for ex-prisoners on the run from police might be an invasion of the criminals' privacy.

I've work with Brits at all levels of the military, and I don't for one minute believe any of these issues has anything to do with the people or a country as a whole. But I do believe something has gone wrong when an old woman is told that if she puts up barbed wire, she must pay for any burglars who get injured, or when a trespasser on your property falls, you owen him a half a million pounds.

**Rock** · 06-23-2006, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DudeMan

i seriously hope that is some kind of joke, if not dont reply,i dont really wantto discuss THAT issue...

Who knows dudeman who knows!

**SuperDudeBT** · 06-23-2006, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DudeMan

please post where you read this, because this was a BIG media covered event, and one that split many people. but from what i had gathered, the man fired the lethal shot whilst the boys were escaping.

in any case, breaking into someones house does not warrant being shot, i know the USA and Britain will differ on that, but to use such excessive force without the threat of imediate danger. and yes the article is really bad... to me it is so remanicent of michael moore style of thinking. exadurations mixed with artistic license = over dramatised bull****..

My opinion on the issue:

You say that breaking into someone's house does not warrant being shot, well this is how I break it down,

Breaking into my house=Putting me and my family in danger
Putting me and my family in danger=I can, and if I get the opportunity, will kill them

This was what, the eighth time that they had done this?

And, this may not have anything to do with this case, if they were running away, it wouldn't, but, again, I want to say something about you're comment, "breaking into someones house does not warrant being shot." How in **** is someone supposed to know if the person breaking into their house has a gun/ weapon, is planning to murder or rape them, etc.? Are you saying that if I have a burglar in my home, I should either ignore them, or try to reason with them?? I really hope that you agree to some extent that your comment isn't right.. otherwise, I dunno, that's just really bad.

I can see your point to some extent that since (or if) the men were running away, how that was murder. Although, I may have done the same as this man.. only I would've dragged the men into the house before the police arrived. But, are you saying that if there were people who had broken into your house, that you have no idea whether they have guns, or whether they plan to rape or kill your wife, daughter, son, you, and you had a gun, that you would not try to defend yourself and your family??

**CingularDuality** · 06-24-2006, 03:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperDudeBT

Although, I may have done the same as this man.. only I would've dragged the men into the house before the police arrived.

If you're serious, that would be a very unwise decision. Justifiable or not, a homicide detective is probably going to show up on the scene of a fatal shooting. She'll readily notice that the death took place outside the house and that you dragged the body inside the house, which would, of course, create a line of investigation that you're not going to enjoy.

Use sound, reasonable judgement in your application of deadly force and live with the consequences. Anything else will just get you in a heap of trouble...

**SuperDudeBT** · 06-24-2006, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

If you're serious, that would be a very unwise decision. Justifiable or not, a homicide detective is probably going to show up on the scene of a fatal shooting. She'll readily notice that the death took place outside the house and that you dragged the body inside the house, which would, of course, create a line of investigation that you're not going to enjoy.

Use sound, reasonable judgement in your application of deadly force and live with the consequences. Anything else will just get you in a heap of trouble...

Ya, I agree. It was sort of a joke, and sort of not. But, I'm sure it would very easy to tell. The main point is that if someone enters my house without permission, I feel that I have the right to protect myself and family at whatever cost.

I also agree with living with the consequences. I would ALWAYS take life in prison or death penalty over my family being killed. No question about it. I would also take life in prison or death penalty 20+ years from now over being killed today.

**DudeMan** · 06-24-2006, 10:19 PM

listen superdude, what you choose to do is your perogative, just the same as the norfolk farmer, however, the problem is, in this country, wide ranging ownership of firearms, is not accepted under English Laws, and therefore their use in self defence purposes are very rarely accepted. in this country, we do not subscribe to the you break in you die attitude. it may be one day the case, but personally i favor the law.

if someone puts myselfor my family in imediate danger, i will react, however, if someone trys to steal my carbreaks into my house ect ect and then runs away when they hear me, i am not going to kill them just because they broke in.... for very good reason IMO the law does not permit that. that fact is this guy had fled thescene, he was then chased and shot in the back. thats not justice, thats revenge.

i said before that this isssue would differfrom the states, i dont know if shooting someone in the back whilst they arerunning away posong no threat to yourself or your family would be permitted under US law, i verymuch doubt it would...but i dont know. but i understand your laws and attitude regarding guns is completly different. the media creates a hype because of the rep[eated burglary, wellfine, buy a video camera and catchthe thieves dont buy a shot gun and cap them....

the Irony is, if he had shot them in the building, or while they were facing him... he probably would have been out by now.... its because they were runing away that he copped it..IMO anyway

**DudeMan** · 06-24-2006, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

If you're serious, that would be a very unwise decision. Justifiable or not, a homicide detective is probably going to show up on the scene of a fatal shooting. She'll readily notice that the death took place outside the house and that you dragged the body inside the house, which would, of course, create a line of investigation that you're not going to enjoy.

Use sound, reasonable judgement in your application of deadly force and live with the consequences. Anything else will just get you in a heap of trouble...

out of interest is it likely this guy would have got away scott free for killing an unarmed teenager by shooting him as he ran away in the USA or because your state laws are different, in yourparticular state.???

Switchcraft · 06-24-2006, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DudeMan

the Irony is, if he had shot them in the building, or while they were facing him... he probably would have been out by now.... its because they were runing away that he copped it..IMO anyway

He did shoot them inside the building. They were not running away at the time. They ran away after he shot, and both crawled out the same window they had broken into. Also, to my knowledge he's already out. You can find all that information in the official court summaries linked in the earlier posts.

Your point about the difference in laws is well-taken. And yes, there are some places in the United States where shooting someone who is running away with your property is legal.

Pickle · 06-24-2006, 10:46 PM

Not really and it depends on the state. There are laws on the books that allow the killing of a fleeing felon if they pose an immediate danger to the public. i.e. a man who just killed someone/people and is running away with weapon in hand. But even that is debateable based on case laws.

Would I shoot someone who had broke into my house and was running away? No. But I would shoot someone in my house who was in the commission of a crime. Sounds to me though that this guy didn't have a good defense atty.

**SuperDudeBT** · 06-25-2006, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DudeMan

listen superdude, what you choose to do is your perogative, just the same as the norfolk farmer, however, the problem is, in this country, wide ranging ownership of firearms, is not accepted under English Laws, and therefore their use in self defence purposes are very rarely accepted. in this country, we do not subscribe to the you break in you die attitude. it may be one day the case, but personally i favor the law.

if someone puts myselfor my family in imediate danger, i will react, however, if someone trys to steal my carbreaks into my house ect ect and then runs away when they hear me, i am not going to kill them just because they broke in.... for very good reason IMO the law does not permit that. that fact is this guy had fled thescene, he was then chased and shot in the back. thats not justice, thats revenge.

i said before that this isssue would differfrom the states, i dont know if shooting someone in the back whilst they arerunning away posong no threat to yourself or your family would be permitted under US law, i verymuch doubt it would...but i dont know. but i understand your laws and attitude regarding guns is completly different. the media creates a hype because of the rep[eated burglary, wellfine, buy a video camera and catchthe thieves dont buy a shot gun and cap them....

the Irony is, if he had shot them in the building, or while they were facing him... he probably would have been out by now.... its because they were runing away that he copped it..IMO anyway

I definately see your point, that shooting someone in the back while running away is kind of murder. But, I just want to point out that it's not easy at all to tell someone's intentions, even if they were running away.

Case in point: My mother yells, "Someone's running up the driveway." Our driveway is pretty long, and this was near midnight or maybe later. There had been robberies in the neighborhood recently (very rare around here) in which the people were dropped off at the street and they ran up the driveway. They stole the man's laptop from downstairs, and came back and did it again a week later.

I turn off all the lights downstairs, tv, and christmas tree, anticipating a possible intrusion. I did this in about 7 seconds while holding my dog. My mom goes screaming out the back door, I tell her to get inside. My dad goes outside, thinking they've stolen some of his equipment (he's a contractor).

I run upstairs, close my dog in my room, and go looking for a gun. I wasn't able to find one, because the one that would normally have been under the bed was in my dad's truck, and I wasn't sure where another one was, or if there was another one upstairs. So, I come back down, hoping everything is ok. For all I knew, they could have both been shot.

Now, I'm very level headed in tough circumstances. I certainly would have not shot without meaning to, or anything like that, I just wanted the option of doing so. They had ran back down the driveway, and driven away. My dad takes after them, thinking they've stolen possibly a generator, or anything else. He ends up getting stuck in a ditch, and we have to go get him out.

It turns out these were some stupid teenagers who had made our light-up reindeer look like they were humping, or having sex. If I had known that, of course I wouldn't have gotten a gun. But, there was no possible way for me to have known that.

So, if someone breaks into my house, I don't know what their intentions are. If they are leaving my house after hearing me, I still don't know what their intentions are. Are they running to their car to get their own gun?? Are they going to go call for backup, and have the advantage?? Or are they going to run away, and never come back because they are too scared?? I don't know, I have no idea because I can't read minds. But, the last one seems the least likely to me. For that reason, I say that the man had full right to shoot them dead, and that the robbers deserved to be killed.

**CingularDuality** · 06-25-2006, 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DudeMan

out of interest is it likely this guy would have got away scott free for killing an unarmed teenager by shooting him as he ran away in the USA or because your state laws are different, in yourparticular state.???

Oh, you're not going to like one of the reasons why I love Texas:

Quote:

§ 9.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
38.01.
(3) "Deadly force" means force that is intended or
known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended
use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury.

§ 9.02. JUSTIFICATION AS A DEFENSE. It is a defense to
prosecution that the conduct in question is justified under this
chapter.

§ 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of
force is justified when the use of force is justified by this
chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or
serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as
long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension
that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the
use of deadly force.

§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in
lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible,
movable property by another is justified in using force against the
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit
after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Yes, as shocking as it sounds, Texas law allows you to shoot someone in the back if they're running away with your property.

It's no wonder that Texas is such a friendly and polite state...

**CingularDuality** · 06-25-2006, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DudeMan

i dont know if shooting someone in the back whilst they arerunning away posong no threat to yourself or your family would be permitted under US law, i verymuch doubt it would..

Would you please quit saying that this is what Mr. Martin did? He shot two people that were inside his home, stealing his property and invading his last place of refuge. Where would you have him retreat to, in order to avoid violence?

**SuperDudeBT** · 06-25-2006, 03:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Oh, you're not going to like one of the reasons why I love Texas:

Yes, as shocking as it sounds, Texas law allows you to shoot someone in the back if they're running away with your property.

It's no wonder that Texas is such a friendly and polite state...

Yay for Texas laws!!!! Sounds very good to me. Do you know if Georgia's are similar? I'm sure they probably are.

Georgia just passed a law basically saying that (this is pretty much the media paraphrase/ summary) if you feel threatened by someone, you have the right to kill them. I don't know the exacts of it, but that's basically what the news said that it says. I think that that is a little too iffy, tho. Someone could feel threatened when the other person means absolutely no harm. I think the way the media says it, it makes someone think that it's ok to shoot now, and ask questions later. I think that that is too far, but at least I know that if someone really does mean me harm, I'll be able to protect myself, and not have to worry about the consequences.

**SuperDudeBT** · 06-25-2006, 03:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Would you please quit saying that this is what Mr. Martin did? He shot two people that were inside his home, stealing his property and invading his last place of refuge. Where would you have him retreat to, in order to avoid violence?

Wow, why do you and DudeMan have two such different views on what happened? Which link is the one about the story?

06-23-2006, 09:16 AM	#17 (permalink)
Switchcraft Join Date: May 2003 Location: New York, NY Age: 31 Posts: 1,096	Re: For the Brits here Yes. Reading through that document, which is what I relied on for my earlier post, the Prosecution's accusation was that the farmer had hidden himself and "had lain in wait for them and shot at them at short range." The testimony of the surving guy, Mr. Fearon (a man with more than 30 criminal convictions, many of them violent), was that the shots had come without warning, not that they were running away. I agree with Dudeman that people can disagree as whether or not you're allowed to use deadly force just because two criminals have come into your house through a window, and whther or not one desrves a life sentence for murder based on that use of force. What I find appalling was the parole boards decision (here is the judicial review of it) where they were so concerned that he posed a risk to "anyone seeking to do him or his property any harm." See? They didn't want to let him out, as people wishing to harm him might be harmed. The same parole board also decried his belief that "an Englishman's home is his castle." But this is the same system that decided recently that putting up wanted posters for ex-prisoners on the run from police might be an invasion of the criminals' privacy. I've work with Brits at all levels of the military, and I don't for one minute believe any of these issues has anything to do with the people or a country as a whole. But I do believe something has gone wrong when an old woman is told that if she puts up barbed wire, she must pay for any burglars who get injured, or when a trespasser on your property falls, you owen him a half a million pounds.

06-24-2006, 10:19 PM	#22 (permalink)
DudeMan Join Date: May 2003 Location: london England Age: 22 Posts: 3,258	Re: For the Brits here listen superdude, what you choose to do is your perogative, just the same as the norfolk farmer, however, the problem is, in this country, wide ranging ownership of firearms, is not accepted under English Laws, and therefore their use in self defence purposes are very rarely accepted. in this country, we do not subscribe to the you break in you die attitude. it may be one day the case, but personally i favor the law. if someone puts myselfor my family in imediate danger, i will react, however, if someone trys to steal my carbreaks into my house ect ect and then runs away when they hear me, i am not going to kill them just because they broke in.... for very good reason IMO the law does not permit that. that fact is this guy had fled thescene, he was then chased and shot in the back. thats not justice, thats revenge. i said before that this isssue would differfrom the states, i dont know if shooting someone in the back whilst they arerunning away posong no threat to yourself or your family would be permitted under US law, i verymuch doubt it would...but i dont know. but i understand your laws and attitude regarding guns is completly different. the media creates a hype because of the rep[eated burglary, wellfine, buy a video camera and catchthe thieves dont buy a shot gun and cap them.... the Irony is, if he had shot them in the building, or while they were facing him... he probably would have been out by now.... its because they were runing away that he copped it..IMO anyway __________________ The Queen "Those who perpetrate these brutal acts against innocent people should know that they will not change our way of life," *Atrocities such as these simply reinforce our sense of community* TheFeniX "Guns don't kill people: effeminate men in green tunics do"

06-24-2006, 10:46 PM	#25 (permalink)
Pickle Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Land of Fruit and Nuts! Age: 35 Posts: 1,281	Re: For the Brits here Not really and it depends on the state. There are laws on the books that allow the killing of a fleeing felon if they pose an immediate danger to the public. i.e. a man who just killed someone/people and is running away with weapon in hand. But even that is debateable based on case laws. Would I shoot someone who had broke into my house and was running away? No. But I would shoot someone in my house who was in the commission of a crime. Sounds to me though that this guy didn't have a good defense atty. __________________ "Umm Deputy these aren't my pants" - Common alarm cry of the North American Crackhead [tg-c1][ma-c1][defense]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links