Farm shooting, at last some sense

Richie

Richie

Richie

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
10,751
Location
7th Level of Hell...
I had a search but could not find a thread talking about it.

Back on 2nd Sept, 4 men attempted to burgle a farm in Welby. The homeowners heard them and went downstairs to investigate taking their legally held shotgun. The guy shot 2 of them causing injuries before they made off.

The homeowners were arrested for GBH but were released without charge as the CPS felt it was self defence.

Anyway, the 2 that were in hospital were jailed today for 4 years but it's the judges comments that I like:

Judge Michael Pert QC told the pair: "I make it plain that, in my judgment, being shot is not mitigation.

"If you burgle a house in the country where the householder owns a legally held shotgun, that is the chance you take.

"You cannot come to court and ask for a lighter sentence because of it."
Click to expand...

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-19727222

A glint of common sense at last :D
 
It would have been even better if the home owners hadn't faced charges to start with, if there had only been the two men burgling the house and both were injured - would the outcome have been the same?

I'm in favour of defending property, don't get me wrong but it seems like they only had the GBH case dropped as they were outnumbered - would self defense have stood if the numbers were even?
 
Shame the burglars were injured. Waste of NHS resources really - would have been far better going in the pockets of an undertaker.
 
Ah but if it were manslaughter/murder in self defence then I doubt very much they would have taken the same view.

A la Tony Martin, different admittedly as he didn't hold a license for the weapon. However, I expect the outcome would have been similar.
 
randal24 said:
Ah but if it were manslaughter/murder in self defence then I doubt very much they would have taken the same view.

A la Tony Martin, different admittedly as he didn't hold a license for the weapon. However, I expect the outcome would have been similar.
Click to expand...

The reason he got done for it was because he shot them in the back while they were running away (regardless of which I still think he should have gotten a medal instead of prison time)
 
Halfmad said:
It would have been even better if the home owners hadn't faced charges to start with, if there had only been the two men burgling the house and both were injured - would the outcome have been the same?

I'm in favour of defending property, don't get me wrong but it seems like they only had the GBH case dropped as they were outnumbered - would self defense have stood if the numbers were even?
Click to expand...

He shot them when they were reaching in a drawer which, although the burglars didn't know, the householder knew contained knives....

I know what you mean regarding charges but they only faced charges up until the full facts were known and the CPS decided that it was self defence. It's obvious in hindsight but the cops were correct in arresting them and questioning them to present all facts to the CPS.

Just because they may have said "we shot them in self defence" to the cops, doesn't mean they are telling the truth.

That's another issue - people assume that, when someone is arrested, they must have done SOMETHING wrong :rolleyes: :(
 
Haggisman said:
The reason he got done for it was because he shot them in the back while they were running away (regardless of which I still think he should have gotten a medal instead of prison time)
Click to expand...

I agree with all points here. :D

The offenders in today's case were shot within the house and not running away. The householder was aware that the drawer they were opening contained knives so it is reasonable to assume that they could be armed almost immediately.
 
Nice to hear this. Don't see any issue with shooting someone to wound if they're in your house so log as you've given them warning and they're not running away.

kd
 
No one can shoot to wound, hit a majour vessel and that's it.


randal24 said:
Ah but if it were manslaughter/murder in self defence then I doubt very much they would have taken the same view.

A la Tony Martin, different admittedly as he didn't hold a license for the weapon. However, I expect the outcome would have been similar.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

Which cases haven't been common sense in self defense situations.


And completely agree with judge, being injured is no reason for being lenient, why would it.
 
Last edited:
Richie said:
I had a search but could not find a thread talking about it.

Back on 2nd Sept, 4 men attempted to burgle a farm in Welby. The homeowners heard them and went downstairs to investigate taking their legally held shotgun. The guy shot 2 of them causing injuries before they made off.

The homeowners were arrested for GBH but were released without charge as the CPS felt it was self defence.

Anyway, the 2 that were in hospital were jailed today for 4 years but it's the judges comments that I like:

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-19727222

A glint of common sense at last :D
Click to expand...

Brilliant. I wouldn't think twice about shooting people that are attempting to rob my home, nor would I expect not to be shot if I was robbing someone else's.
 
Haha shoot them them in the foot, then see if they can run away.

I agree with the judges comments. Personally I am of the view that once someone has stepped outside of the law (B+E in this case) they loose the right to use the law in their defence, whether this be human rights, for compensation etc. Obviously I don't think home owners should be able to shoot to kill or use excessive force and if they do they should face some punishment but normal defence like this I have no problem with.
 
i like this out come. after seeing loads of storys of the real victims getting punished because of the real criminals getting their comeuppance .

i had some ****** come into my house at 5 in the morning monday whilst i was getting ready for work and if my dogs did not get to him first he would have had a copper hammer to the head
 
Greboth said:
Personally I am of the view that once someone has stepped outside of the law (B+E in this case) they loose the right to use the law in their defence
Click to expand...

It's a popular view and I see why but that system is flawed and would essentially create a situation where you could legally kill someone; because what you are basically saying is the moment someone is breaking the law, anyone else can kill them without question.

Think about that for a second, would it be right for someone to shoot someone dead for driving 35mph in a 30? What if you wanted to kill someone on purpose, all you'd have to do is convince them to commit crime and then you shoot them when they do.

You can't have a such a simplistic system, there needs to be some checks and balances.

The problem is the media, not the current legal system. As soon as something like this happens they are up in arms about the arrest but everyone at that time including the media knew it was unlikely they would actually be charged and it was nothing more than a police formality.

If people waited to unleash their anger until the homeowner is actually charged (let alone convicted) then it might not be so bad (but then the Daily Mail wouldn't shift as many papers I suppose).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom