Soldato
Even the police can only shoot someone if they feel their lives, or someone elses is in imminent danger. Shoot someone running away and they'd be up for a murder charge just like me or you.
Myleene Klass + 2yo daughter confronted by intruders; warned by police
- Thread starter scorza
- Start date
Even the police can only shoot someone if they feel their lives, or someone elses is in imminent danger. Shoot someone running away and they'd be up for a murder charge just like me or you.
Man of Honour
The two young gentlemen in the case (Brendon Fearon & Fred Barras) had broken into Mr Martin's house but to the best of my knowledge they were running away when Fred Barras was shot in the back (they were empty handed but either way they presented no danger to Mr Martin at the time of his shooting at them). Mr Martin then fled the scene, went to his mother's house then to the pub where he spent the night drinking apparently - there is no record of him calling the police to report that there was a dying boy on his grounds or even just to report the robbery. There were certain mitigating factors, Mr Martin claimed that he'd been broken into multiple times and he lived alone etc but even with those taken into account it was not and could not be self defence.
The law is pretty clear on this point, you are allowed to use reasonable force in self defence but once you are not in danger (e.g. when someone is fleeing from you) then you cannot mete out your own form of justice.
I'd say in most civilised societies it would be well beyond what could constitute self defence, indeed in America even with the "Castle Doctrine" that exists in some states it's extremely unlikely that this would be an acceptable response - let's be clear here what is being asked for is the right to murder people for entering your property. If you think that's reasonable then we're always going to have a fundamental difference of opinion on this.
Soldato
The right to seek protection from prosecution to protect yourself and your property using reasonable force clearly is the way to go here-but I am not sure how that wwould work with unintended consequences.
Well, as I already mentioned, luckily most people on this forum aren't and never will be in positions of power...
Which is why I mentioned it. "Straw man" is now used whenever someone can't actually answer a question put to them (so unwarranted) as well as when used appropriately.
This is probably because all smart people go to university... Why you now need a degree to really have a chance of becoming a manager (even with years of experience) and why university courses teaching bog all/vocational subjects have exploded. University should really only be for teaching theoretical/in depth courses such as the sciences and maths (obviously with a few other "pure" courses mixed in).
Erm... Yes, just that. Police are only allowed to use lethal force when there is a threat to them or someone else. If a police officer shot an armed burglar in the back, whilst running away, they would almost certainly be dumped out of the police force and possibly face a manslaughter/murder case. I think this example is precisely why Tazers were brought in actually.
I'm pretty certain (from what I remember) they were disturbed and running away. TM then got his shotgun and shot the guy in the back.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
You've got the right to protect yourself using reasonable force if necessary and have had for a very long time. The right to protect property with anything like the same level of force as you can use to protect yourself isn't something I think we should entertain.
[TW]Fox;15703075 said:
Amazing how your sliding scale complety ignores "confront verbally"
At witch point any intruder will either attack or leg it.
If they attack then you defend yourself, if they run use reasonable force to restrain them if you think its safe otherwise let em leg it.
What actio nare you proposing
A youth in a hood climbs over your fence, smashes into your house
attack?
confront?
Hide quietly and hope to avoid all confrontation?
A youth in a hood climbs over your fence
attack?
confront?
Hide quietly and hope to avoid all confrontation?
Do you mean like yourself? If so, that's a pretty weird thing to say. I, on the other hand, have two law degrees, am an employed lawyer and am studying the BVC part time. Care to share your qualifications?
Last edited:
Well considering the woman appeared to have gone out with a knife the first time she confronted them... (when these posts are related to the actual topic).
Soldato
It said on sky news she tapped on the window with a knife scaring them off and the police said that was illegal. So I don't know what media to believe now. lol
Man of Honour
Ditto. I don't want to torture or maim the guy/runt, just be able to incapacitate him with no fear of retribution (legal). That said, even if I knew I were to go to jail, I'd still knowingly throw the crook down the stairs - the second they step into my home and invade my privacy and the sanctity of my area they've thrown their dice and as such have made their decision. It's aggressive a bit a "thug-like" I know, but there you go, I'm low level scum
I wave a knife around every time I take it off the rack. Normally give it a wave then a good sharpening then some more waving
She waved it at them from inside her kitchen looking through the window...
She didn't do some kind of banzai charge at them with it.
Wow, you're just a bastion of intelligence aren't you?
Soldato
I have A-Levels in Economics, Business studies and a B-Tec NDP in computing.
Ohh and a 250m swilling certificate.
I was merely using you ridiculous notion that incompetent officers were at fault when in fact it was incompetent reporting but that you and lots of other posters would value the reporting of the Mail over the law and the police enforcing it (not that they were in this case)
But with a law degree you must know that, shame they didnt teach you to not jump to conclusions after reading a Daily Mail article during all that time you spent at uni.
Still at least you're not in a profession were jumping to conclusions without all the facts matters ......
So Shimmyhill, where is this 'fact' that you state exists that the newspaper have misreported the story? You've previously pointed to other newspapers reporting the story slightly differently, but what fact do you have, as you have stated exists, that it is the Daily Mail, rather than the other papers, that have got it wrong?
Beyond being absolutely desperate to have something to write in their papers, what would be their motive in purposefully misreporting in any case? Wouldn't the Daily Fail be more likely to make the burglar an immigrant paedophile if it were to alter the story? The Daily Mail, it seems to me, has always been pro policing, pro locking people up for any conceivable reason and anti burglars.
Are you willing to retract your statement that I don't know the law or clarify if you were referring to yourself with that statement? As you have pointed out yourself, you have no relevant qualifications in it, which makes the latter interpretation more likely.
Beyond being absolutely desperate to have something to write in their papers, what would be their motive in purposefully misreporting in any case? Wouldn't the Daily Fail be more likely to make the burglar an immigrant paedophile if it were to alter the story? The Daily Mail, it seems to me, has always been pro policing, pro locking people up for any conceivable reason and anti burglars.
Are you willing to retract your statement that I don't know the law or clarify if you were referring to yourself with that statement? As you have pointed out yourself, you have no relevant qualifications in it, which makes the latter interpretation more likely.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
The Daily Mail is not a pro police publication.
Soldato
so did the police make any effort to catch those who broke in or were they too busy grilling mylene klass for being a bad host ?
It is certainly pro tough laws and the ability of police forces to apply them ruthlessly. It would seem to me that whenever they attack the police it is for inaction rather than action. I accept, however, that we both have equal and opposite bias on this issue due to our respective career choices.
Hahahahahahaha... hahah, ahaha. Sorry, gimme a second *catches breath*
From my experience of this rubbish newspaper, they seem as anti-police as they come. They will always bend a story (what newspapers don't?) to put something or someone in a bad light especially local authorities, government, police, ethnic minorities, etc, seemingly to stir up hatred towards them. For what purpose I don't know although the grand plan being to sell papers I suppose.
This is another article from DM that isn't reporting the facts fully. I'd assume (as another poster has mentioned) that a police officer mentioned this in passing to Myleene perhaps giving her polite words of advice that had she pursued that course of action she may have been hurt herself. But, hey I guess that wouldn't sell newspapers.
The British seem to love having something to complain about and the Daily Mail are just stoking the fire.