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

Ok, I am reading about a guy who was sleeping in his home when two carreer criminals (both with more than 20 convictions) break into his farm house, he shoots them with a shotgun and Kills the younger one and wounds the older.

The farmer is tried for murder and is found guilty and sent to jail for 30 years, then because of public outcry it is reduced to manslaughter and 5 years...now he is still in jail, while the criminal that survived (is not in jail) has received public funding to sue the farmer in a civil case to seek money to address his "wounds".

My first reaction is *WTF?*, as are my two subsequent reactions. My fourth reaction is that this has got to be twisted and Im not being told something.

In the UK does a person sitting in his home have no right to defend himself and his family and property from invaders? Does a person have to let the invaders kill him or someone else before taking action? I just don't get it. Can any of one familiar with the UK and its laws and Justice system explain this all to me?

[Spelca]

Is this article online? Could you give the URL because I'd really like to read it? Thanks.

[Spelca]

Oh, wait, I found one on BBC. Is this it?

Murder trial jury visits farm

The jury in the trial of farmer Tony Martin has visited his dilapidated farmhouse where one burglar was shot dead and another seriously wounded.
The six men and six women jurors spent almost two hours at Mr Martin's farm, called Bleak House, in Emneth Hungate, near Emneth, Norfolk.

They were accompanied by trial judge Mr Justice Owen, prosecuting counsel Rosamund Horwood-Smart and defence counsel Anthony Scrivener.

Jurors saw the almost derelict farm where the court has been told Mr Martin, 55, killed Fred Barras, 16, of Newark, Nottinghamshire, and wounded Brendan Fearon when they broke into his home in August 1999.

They were shown Mr Martin's rundown cottage and a barn containing his car and four tractors.

They saw the rear of the house, including the window from which Barras and Fearon clambered after being shot.

Alleged site of shootings

An annex roof with ladders lashed to it - which the prosecution alleges Mr Martin used as a lookout - was pointed out.

They also saw inside the rubbish-strewn dilapidated Victorian house, and inspected the staircase and hallway where the shootings are said to have taken place.

The jurors took with them the torch which was carried by Fearon and which Mr Martin says was used to blind him when he came downstairs to investigate the noises that awoke him.

Mr Martin denies murdering Barras and attempting to murder Fearon.

He also denies wounding Fearon with intent to commit grievous bodily harm, and possessing a 12-bore Winchester pump-action shotgun with intent to endanger life.

He admits possessing a shotgun without a certificate.

Previous shooting incident

Earlier the jury at Norwich Crown Court was told that Mr Martin had had his shotgun licence taken away after a previous shooting incident in 1994.

He had shot at a vehicle containing people he thought had been stealing his apples and trying to harm his dogs.

The farmer initiated an appeal against the licence decision in February 1995 but did not pursue it.

The case continues.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/711870.stm

PS: Apparently this is a really old case...

[ 06-05-2003, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: Spelca ]

I didn't post the link because the story I read was spinning off about gun control...and the last thing I want this to turn into is a gun debate...Im just trying to see how you can tell people not to protect themselves when their homes are being invaded by uninvited people with obviously questionable but unknown intentions.

[Kaltia]

Try with a pickaxe. Non fatal (If used right) but a damn good lesson!

Ok Kaltia..and if you slip and kill the guy with a pickaxe, are you gaurenteed not to be tried for murder? or what if the guy breaking in is a huge man and it is you defending your home? What if he takes your pickaxe away from you? Do you see my point? getting within arms reach of an intruder is just plain silly.

[Spelca]

Well, if you ask me, he shouldn't go to jail for killing a burglar. Unless he, of course, did it on purpose or something... Though he should be accused of at least possesing a shotgun without a licence. As you saw in the article above, his licence was taken away because he shot at a car, because he was paranoid. So he shouldn't have a gun. But puting him in jail for defending himself is just weird...
It's like that case that I heard of once, where this burlgar broke into a house when the owners were on vacation, and then got locked into one of the rooms. And then he sued the owners for suffering, because he couldn't get out of the room until they got home... Weird world... [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Kaltia]

Originally posted by MagiK: Ok Kaltia..and if you slip and kill the guy with a pickaxe, are you gaurenteed not to be tried for murder? or what if the guy breaking in is a huge man and it is you defending your home? What if he takes your pickaxe away from you? Do you see my point? getting within arms reach of an intruder is just plain silly.

How about....you learn when somebody's being blatantly not serious? [img]smile.gif[/img]

[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.

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.

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.

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!!!

[ 06-05-2003, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Originally posted by Kaltia: How about....you learn when somebody's being blatantly not serious? [img]smile.gif[/img]

Okie doke Would you give me some lessons Kaltie sweetie?

I do seem to have a hard time figuring out when you British people are serious and when you are just trying to use irony [img]smile.gif[/img]

Spelca: Yeah the article I read didn't have that information in it. Nor did it contain the prior incident that Mr. Farmer dude had had with his shotgun. He should be prosecuted for breaking the laws he broke..but I think the would be thieves brought any harm onto themselves.