Farm shooting, at last some sense
- Thread starter Richie
- Start date
Man of Honour
Too many variables to be sure, if someone chooses to shoot a person and just aims to injure them then they'd have to take the risk that the person will expire even if the wound itself would not normally be life threatening. A version of the thin/eggshell skull rule which effectively states you take your victim as you find them and any pre-existing medical conditions which cause the harm to be magnified are tough luck for you as the person doing the wounding. Whether that would render the homeowner open to being charged might be different but the basic point being that while you might be able to reduce the risk of death from shooting someone you can't entirely eliminate it - don't draw a gun on someone unless you're willing to shoot them and potentially kill them.
Here it seems perfectly reasonable - they were arrested while the situation was investigated and then released without charge. For all the people who state that the law isn't working this seems like an example of it working entirely as it should - it would be far worse if such situations weren't investigated and it just relied on the first policemen on scene to say "looks fair enough guv, on you go" or not.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Its semantics if you shoot someone in the hand/arm/leg there is a much lower chance of them dying than if you aim for the head or heart, though people shot in both also survive.
If someone chooses to shoot someone in the arm hoping to wound rather than kill, they HAVE shot to wound, the outcome is irrelevant, only the intent. If someone actively chooses to shoot someone in the arm rather than between the eyes, its because they hope not to kill. I don't care if people do that though, in a split second decision where you fear for your life or the lives of those you care for, I don't care which decision they make, in that amount of time and with adrenaline pumping you rarely make the same decision as you would calm in another situation.
That is why I have sympathy for the guy who shot the guys running away in the back, while it WAS the wrong decision at the time, he's been robbed, he's almost certainly more scared than the average person as he was being basically victimised with repeat burglaries and I can't imagine the thought of "what if they hurt me the next time " wouldn't cross my mind. He'll have been in an emotional state with adrenaline pumping. He didn't track them down and murder them days later, people DO think differently with adrenaline pumping and when scared, just because the danger was leaving doesn't mean the body would instantly change its situation to not being scared.
If someone chooses to shoot someone in the arm hoping to wound rather than kill, they HAVE shot to wound, the outcome is irrelevant, only the intent. If someone actively chooses to shoot someone in the arm rather than between the eyes, its because they hope not to kill. I don't care if people do that though, in a split second decision where you fear for your life or the lives of those you care for, I don't care which decision they make, in that amount of time and with adrenaline pumping you rarely make the same decision as you would calm in another situation.
That is why I have sympathy for the guy who shot the guys running away in the back, while it WAS the wrong decision at the time, he's been robbed, he's almost certainly more scared than the average person as he was being basically victimised with repeat burglaries and I can't imagine the thought of "what if they hurt me the next time " wouldn't cross my mind. He'll have been in an emotional state with adrenaline pumping. He didn't track them down and murder them days later, people DO think differently with adrenaline pumping and when scared, just because the danger was leaving doesn't mean the body would instantly change its situation to not being scared.
The chance of someone dying from bird shot is very low unless they are 10 feet away and it is still clumped in the wadding. If they are wearing a thick leather jacket the pellets might not even penetrate it at a moderate distance. They would still be capable of running over and stabbing you to death after getting both barrels and having hundreds of pellets stuck a cm deep in their skin.
Hardly likely to though, they have been shot so their first thought is to GTFO
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Dec 2007
- Posts
- 2,103
the owner is always arrested in cases like these so they have legal protection during the investigation and more importantly because until the investigation is complete the police have no idea (except for their word) that they shot/stabbed/beat a burglar and not the two people they invited round for tea.
Soldato
Did you miss this bit of my post
Obviously I do not think you should be able to shoot someone for doing 35 in a 30, my point was that home owners shouldn't fear attacking some that breaks into their home for fear of being arrested or sued for any injuries caused. This case is a prime example of how it should be, though I think the rules should be slightly less strict in these situations for what is counted as self defence, due to the situation and panic that there can be. Also if it is pitch black how do you know a) if they have a weapon and if so what it is and b) exactly where you are shooting them?
Another example is the riots that happened, people were saying police should not use rubber bullets because it is against their human rights and may cause injury to the rioters, why should someone who is breaking and entering / thieving / arson etc. be protected by the law?
yeah but he also shot at a child taking apples from his orchard.
Man of Honour
Why shouldn't the homeowner be arrested? I can see why you'd hope they wouldn't be charged if it was self-defence but for them to be arrested gives legal protections as said and it allows the situation to be investigated properly.
The law regarding self defence is fairly flexible as it is, you can use any level of force up to and including deadly force in self defence but it has to be a reasonable response to the threat. If you effectively neutralise the threat with your first response then sticking the boot in another twenty-three times is unlikely to constitute a proportionate reaction - as always it's based on the individual circumstances of the case but it's not that our laws are insufficiently flexible unless what you mean is that you should have absolute carte blanche to do anything to a housebreaker.
Because human rights should be universal - if they're not then you might as well do away with them entirely. Human rights aren't just meant to be there for people you agree with or like.
Whether the police should or should not have used rubber bullets is another issue but I wouldn't necessarily argue that it was against the rioters human rights - that sounds like a misapplication of the reasoning behind human rights. However the precise argument will depend on the situation and I've not seen the person/people claiming that so I'd reserve judgement here.
Man of Honour
Who argued that? The main reason most argued against the use of rubber bullets in those riots was because they'd be useless. Baton Rounds are only effective against slow-moving densely-packed mobs, as they can (and will) fly off at odd angles. In a fluid, fast-moving riot they will almost always miss - and the officer firing them will probably come under attack. Every comment I saw about the use of such ammo was either people asking for them to be used, or pointing out why they weren't. I never saw anyone saying that they breached human rights. I'm sure a few people said this, but not a significant number.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2002
- Posts
- 2,951
I'm sure if anyone genuinely felt that their life or the life of their family as at risk then what the law says would take a back seat and providing you could give good reason for your actions I would like to think a court would be understanding.
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
I've just read this article in the Metro newspaper five mins ago and I had the same response as you. The robbers deserved what they got and I'm glad the home-owners weren't punished.
Soldato
A great result, and some common sense at last.The problem might be consistancy though, as in the case of the judge a few weeks ago praising a thieving scumbag's courage for robbing several houses! 
The couple have emigrated to Oz now apparently anyway.They planned to do it next year, but have already left for fear of reprisals (allegedly)
I do wonder though, if they had stayed, would firearms be round confiscating the gun and licenses regardless of the outcome of the case?
The couple have emigrated to Oz now apparently anyway.They planned to do it next year, but have already left for fear of reprisals (allegedly)
I do wonder though, if they had stayed, would firearms be round confiscating the gun and licenses regardless of the outcome of the case?
Soldato
Depends on what weapon is used really.
Man of Honour
That's exactly what happens. In almost every case charges are dropped, and in the rare cases which go to court, the person is acquitted. But neither of those are news, so you don't hear anywhere near as much about them as you do about the events, and the arrest. To get found guilty of something you need to WAY beyond self-defence, to a case where even a person in fear of their life would tell you to stop. One man lurked in his shed with a shotgun one night, after break-ins. Hearing the handle being tested, he fired through the door and killed the man the other side. Acquitted. Tony Martin's problems stem almost entirely from the fact that he never dialled 999 after shooting, but just went next door for a cup of tea. If he had called the police immediately, he would probably (at most) have been done for possession of an illegal weapon. The other successful prosecutions almost all involve clear retaliation well after the burglar has either got away, or been subdued. Simple revenge.
Doubtful. It was a legally held shotgun and a legal use of the gun. There is no reason to remove them from their possession.
Associate
Even if he killed them with the shotgun in his house, and it was only 1 guy, self defense would have probably stood. The cases where self defense doesn't stand is when the defender shoots the person several times when they're on the ground, or shoots them after they've clearly began to flee the scene.
The term is resonable force, shooting someone because you resonably fear for your safety is fine, shooting them for revenge, less so.
I too value my safety and that of my family over the lives of home invaders because I am a loving family man.