UK Gun laws and Justice? (not a gun debate)

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: From the tone of the story, it sounds there may be more to it than we know. Perhaps the guy's a bit trigger-happy. What's with all this "lookout" stuff anyway. Was he lying in wait? Anyway, it's clear we haven't seen all the facts. I agree a lot of that stuff wasn't in the article I read. However it still seems to me that he was defending his home in the case of the two guys. A note on the law. Not everyplace has the "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality. In the US for example, you may only use *deadly* force to counter *deadly* force. You shoot a guy coming at you with his fists, and you have no "self-defense" defense -- it's murder. Unless you're a 90lb. woman vs. a 220+lb. man, in which case, maybe you fairly felt the force levelled at you by his fists was in fact "deadly." Also, in many states, even when faced with deadly force, you must still retreat first if possible, otherwise once again you are barred from the defense of self-defense. That said, most states in the US have a big exception to this rule for when you are "in the home." That's why you can ignore these rules and shoot an intruder. But, that needn't be the law everywhere. We would have to see England's particular legal setup to know what obligations the farmer was under. I can very easily imagine a setup where he had a duty to retreat first. You know, the idea that you are supposed to "flee your home" rather than defend your personal refuge with deadly force just totally goes against my core beliefs.....And the idea that the law is protecting the criminals more than it protects the victims also stinks in my opinion. a person who is purposely breaking the law and entering a place he is not welcome seems to get all the benefits of the doubt here. Finally, the "in the home" exception in the US is based on a safety issue. AFAIK, It is never the case in the US that deadly force can be used *solely* to protect property. No matter who the person is, the law considers them worth more than your chattel property. You shoot the guy running across your yard with your laptop in-hand, you are a murderer, plain and simple. If you shoot or hit him in any way that injures him but does not kill him...he gets to sue you and rob you of your possessions and life as you knew it... if you do nothing...he robs you of your possesions and life as you knew it..... if you kill him by any means, he can't sue you, so the state tries you for murder and again......you loose your possessions and life as you knew it...... pretty piss poor environment for the victims it seems to me. Again, all rules have local exceptions. In Texas and Louisiana (as of 4 years ago), you can use deadly force to combat "Mischeif in the Dark of Night." While this rule will technically allow you to shoot someone keying your car in your driveway after dark (gotta love those Texans ), it's real PURPOSE is, again, a SAFETY, not a PROPERTY concern that is the base for this rule. SO WE NEED MORE FACTS!!! why is there such a push and demand to provide protection for people who do mischief, harm, or mayhem? For people who commit wrong on others there seems to be such empathy and squat for those who are victimized

[ 06-05-2003, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Timber Loftis]

MagiK:

a. If we go too far down this tempting path, this just might become a gun debate.

b. It's not about protecting a criminal or a victim. It is about the notion that *life* is *life* and is more valuable than any piece of chattel. It is why spring guns are illegal everywhere in the US. If no one is in the home, then a booby trap is ONLY to protect property, and that is *not* a good reason to kill.

Now, considering I have 12 years of my life's labor on my laptop, I'd still shoot the guy (well, maybe not now that I have a good backup system ).

c. I didn't say this *was* the rule in England, I just proposed a hypothetical that *could* explain it. So, I'm not saying you did assume, I'm just reminding us all that we shouldn't assume.

d. If you are offended, get this: in many states, this rule that I set out will prevent a 7-11 owner from shooting an armed robber -- IF he has the option of retreating. The store is NOT his home, so the "no need to retreat" rule is not in effect. Note, this only applies in a state where the "retreat first" rule applies, via statute or common law. Some states require the retreat, some don't. Again, it's all driven by statute, and if there is any one piece of the law that changes a lot from place-to-place, it's criminal statutes.

e. I'm not here to offend your sensibilities on this issue, or support them. I'm just trying to talk about what the law *is.*

[pritchke]

Originally posted by MagiK: Again, all rules have local exceptions. In Texas and Louisiana (as of 4 years ago), you can use deadly force to combat "Mischeif in the Dark of Night."

There is a problem with this rule "Mischief in the Dark of Night". Killers will start shooting people they don't like and claim he was trespassing, causing mischief and getting off free. So people who are only walking their dog will get the death sentence by some crazed gun owner who feels they have every right to protect property at the cost of someones life. Life is more important than property even in regards to scum sucking lowlifes to think otherwise is having your priorities mixed up. Young boys raiding crab apples could be shot on site for just being boys.

[ 06-05-2003, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[Mouse]

If you want more information on the Tony Martin case, here is something to get your teeth into.

[Timber Loftis]

Thanks, Mouse. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] Certainly a complex situation. Gypsies.

[Spelca]

After reading a bit of the article on that Guardian page Mouse gave, I can see that this man does seem a bit paranoid... Anyway, here is a bit from one the articles, just so that you'll see why he was accused of murder.

"There were two crucial issues at stake: where Martin was standing when he opened fire on the burglars with a Winchester pump action shotgun - which incidentally he claimed he had found - and his mental state at the time.

Martin's story is that he was in his bedroom when he was woken by the sound of the raiders breaking in. He said he fired from the rickety stairs into his breakfast room after a torch was shone into his eyes.

The prosecution accused Martin of lying. It said he was waiting for the burglars in the dark on the ground floor of his home and had effectively "executed" Barras.

Forensic tests concluded that at least two of the shots must have been fired by Martin while he was downstairs. But Martin's position when he fired the first shot - the one which killed Barras - is vital.

Martin's defence took the "tactical" decision of going along with the theory that all the shots had been fired while downstairs, as its alternative was to have to explain why Martin had fired once from the stairs then pursued the raiders downstairs. Such a scenario did not fit with the idea of a terrified man trying to defend himself.

As to his mental state, the prosecution depicted Martin as an angry man. It pointed out that he had violent views about burglars and especially about travellers - Barras was from a travellers' community. He had once talked of "putting gypsies in one of his fields surrounded by barbed wire and machine gunning them".

His defence maintained he was terrified. During the appeal it has been argued by his new legal team - he sacked the old one - that the trial defence could have argued more strongly that the murder charge could have been reduced to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.

It is thought, however, that Martin, an intensely private man from an old farming family, did not wish his defence to focus on his mental state and history."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/martin/art...583540,00.html
----------

It seems weird that if he really was scared like he said, why did he run downstairs and shoot twice more? That doesn't seem like self-defence anymore. This seems like him hunting down the burglars...

[ 06-05-2003, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: Spelca ]

[Timber Loftis]

Did you read the bit about Barras begging "please don't shoot" ??

If there are burglers in your home -- unarmed -- and you catch them and have a shotgun levelled on them, should you
a. Call the cops and wait for them, while keeping them at gunpoint, or
b. Mete out justice yourself?

What if they break and run? Are you then allowed to shoot them?? Texas used to have a "fleeing felon" rule that just might let you do it.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: e. I'm not here to offend your sensibilities on this issue, or support them. I'm just trying to talk about what the law *is.*

Silly T.L. [img]smile.gif[/img] Im not offended by you or anything you said. I am offended that a man cannot be safe in his very own home, that he is expected to give up his lifes work and accumulations to anyone who wants them rather than risk the poor criminals person...*sigh* I think things are all bassakwards

Im really happy that Mouse and Spelca came up with this info...much of this was not included in my original article and now it makes much more sense that he faced the charges he did...however...you only have the word of a career criminal (again both these guys even the 16 year old have more than 20 convictions) that they pleaded for him not to shoot.

Pritchke...those "crazed gun owners"....*sigh* wish you wouldn't use inflamatory labels like that in a non-gun debate because you are really tempting to push this thread off topic.

[Davros]

So you would wish the rule of property to take pre-eminence over the rule of life. No - I didn't use a question mark - I used a statement because you seem very clear on this. The fleeing notion is out because it is against (quote) your core beliefs - have gun - time for consequences.

Seems to me that that view presents many of the "taking the law into ones own hands" paradigms that are the proverbial honey that attracts the proverbial flies of the anti gun lobby.