The man is believed to have grabbed a legally owned gun after they were disturbed by the break-in early yesterday.
He is understood to have fired at the intruders who then fled the isolated house at Melton Mowbray, Leics, before calling the police.
Minutes later, an ambulance was called to treat a man with gunshot injuries nearby. It is understood that call was made by one of the suspected burglars.
The arrested man's mother said: "This is not the first time they have been broken into.
"They have been robbed three or four times. One of them was quite nasty.
"They have not been injured but property has been stolen."
Local farmers said the area has been increasingly targeted by car thieves.
One said: "We had three Land Rovers stolen. We had fitted one with a tracker and it was recovered in Birmingham."
A second man was later treated for gunshot injuries after arriving at Leicester Royal Infirmary, 10 miles from the scene of the shooting. Neither of the men is said to be seriously injured.
Yesterday the businessman and his wife were arrested on suspicion of causing grievous bodily harm. Four men, understood to be the suspected burglars, were also arrested.
The case will reignite the debate over a householder’s right to defend his property, which began in the late 1990s after the farmer Tony Martin shot two burglars at his remote Norfolk home. In 1999, Martin fired at Brendan Fearon, 29, and Fred Barras, 16, after they broke into the house in Emneth Hungate.
Three shots were fired, Barras was hit in the back and despite escaping through a window died moments later. Martin was convicted of murder and jailed for life, which was reduced on appeal to manslaughter and five years’ jail.
In 2009, the millionaire businessman Munir Hussain fought back with a metal pole and a cricket bat against a knife-wielding burglar who tied up his family at their home in Buckinghamshire. Hussain was jailed for two and a half years, despite his attacker being spared prison.
Appeal judges reduced the sentence to a year’s jail, suspended.
The case prompted David Cameron to announce that home owners and shopkeepers would have the right to protect themselves against burglars and robbers.
Last year, Peter Flanagan, 59, who fatally stabbed a burglar armed with a machete at his home in Salford, Great Manchester, escaped prosecution after the Crown Prosecution Service ruled that he was acting in self defence.
Yesterday the Melton Mowbray cottage was sealed off by police. Welby Grange Farm is owned by John Hobill, 84, and his wife Evelyn, 76, and is the registered address for JT and RT Hobill, which lists itself as a farming business.
A woman who answered the phone said they were “not allowed” to talk about the incident. She said the cottage was privately rented and the incident was nothing to do with the family that owned the farm. She said the person living there was not a farmer.
A Leicestershire Police spokesman said: “A 35-year-old man and a 43-year-old woman were arrested in Melton on suspicion of GBH and four men, aged 27, 23, 31 and 33, were arrested at Leicester Royal Infirmary on suspicion of aggravated burglary.” All remain in custody.
And there we go, blaming the victim again... if the robbers would have stayed off the property, they wouldn't have gotten shot. Since the robbers instigated the event, they should bear the whole of the blame.
Were the robbers armed? If so, I can't see the problem TBH. So long as he has a good lawyer, he'll just get away with it due to a mixture of self-defense and possibly temporary insanity due to it happening so many times before.
Yeah, but the telegraph list 4 events like this happening since the first in 1990. How many like this have happened in America? Even factoring in its larger population, it's hard to say that this balances it out.
Yeah, but the telegraph list 4 events like this happening since the first in 1990. How many like this have happened in America? Even factoring in its larger population, it's hard to say that this balances it out.
I just think it's mind-blowing that the country that gave birth to John Locke has essentially made it illegal for people to defend against home invasions with lethal force.
Yeah, but the telegraph list 4 events like this happening since the first in 1990. How many like this have happened in America? Even factoring in its larger population, it's hard to say that this balances it out.
I just think it's mind-blowing that the country that gave birth to John Locke has essentially made it illegal for people to defend against home invasions with lethal force.
Lethal force is almost never needed though, and why kill when a shot to the leg will have the same short-term results e.g. putting you out of danger.
No one is blaming the victim. The landowner has NOT been prosecuted with anything, thus far.
This is incredibly important to bare in mind. I haven't read a single case of the "victim being prosecuted" where the victim actually was prosecuted, this included.
I just think it's mind-blowing that the country that gave birth to John Locke has essentially made it illegal for people to defend against home invasions with lethal force.
Well, we haven't. Unless your foresight tells you that the CPS will decide to prosecute.
Technically an arrest occurs after virtually all acts of violence with a gun. The real question is if they kept him or if charges were pressed. The arrest isn't really unusual or bad.
Testify wrote: No one is blaming the victim. The landowner has NOT been prosecuted with anything, thus far.
This is incredibly important to bare in mind. I haven't read a single case of the "victim being prosecuted" where the victim actually was prosecuted, this included.
Not that that will get a good right-winger down
They're trying to take our guns. Don't you understand? America is ruined because the police make sure when people get shot it wasn't for no reason.
I just think it's mind-blowing that the country that gave birth to John Locke has essentially made it illegal for people to defend against home invasions with lethal force.
Well, we haven't. Unless your foresight tells you that the CPS will decide to prosecute.
The Article wrote:
Yesterday the businessman and his wife were arrested on suspicion of causing grievous bodily harm. Four men, understood to be the suspected burglars, were also arrested.
The case will reignite the debate over a householder’s right to defend his property, which began in the late 1990s after the farmer Tony Martin shot two burglars at his remote Norfolk home. In 1999, Martin fired at Brendan Fearon, 29, and Fred Barras, 16, after they broke into the house in Emneth Hungate.
Three shots were fired, Barras was hit in the back and despite escaping through a window died moments later. Martin was convicted of murder and jailed for life, which was reduced on appeal to manslaughter and five years’ jail.
In 2009, the millionaire businessman Munir Hussain fought back with a metal pole and a cricket bat against a knife-wielding burglar who tied up his family at their home in Buckinghamshire. Hussain was jailed for two and a half years, despite his attacker being spared prison.
Appeal judges reduced the sentence to a year’s jail, suspended.
Yeah. Arrested. Arrested does not equal charged. As someone above said, being arrested is standard procedure if someone is killed with a gun (that's a pretty big deal here).
Oh and there's a difference between self-defence, and getting your mates round in order to beat the gak out of them. Personally I think they're both justified, but legally that's a very big distinction.
Testify wrote: Yeah. Arrested. Arrested does not equal charged. As someone above said, being arrested is standard procedure if someone is killed with a gun (that's a pretty big deal here).
Oh and there's a difference between self-defence, and getting your mates round in order to beat the gak out of them. Personally I think they're both justified, but legally that's a very big distinction.
"In 2009, the millionaire businessman Munir Hussain fought back with a metal pole and a cricket bat against a knife-wielding burglar who tied up his family at their home in Buckinghamshire."
That doesn't count as self defense? He was still convicted, even if the sentence was suspended.
Anyway, I'm only going off of the previous cases presented. If this case follows the trend, he will face prosecution. It's that, ya' know, inductive reasoning thing.
However, I will admit to being far too lazy to do any real research on this subject and judging this solely based on the superficial reporting that is The Telegraph.
Tony Martin and Munir Hussain were both charged and found guilty and Martin was given a life sentence originally.
Personally I think that's pretty messed up.
Shuma is right that most justified acts of self defense with a firearm end up with the shooter being arrested, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. It is a bad thing if they get charged and are given long sentences though.
The fact that Hussain was charged and found guilty even though his family was tied up in his house is pretty fraggin' appalling actually.
I just think it's mind-blowing that the country that gave birth to John Locke has essentially made it illegal for people to defend against home invasions with lethal force.
I think its mind-blowing that people who clearly don't know anything about Locke still drop his name.
I just think it's mind-blowing that the country that gave birth to John Locke has essentially made it illegal for people to defend against home invasions with lethal force.
I think its mind-blowing that people who clearly don't know anything about Locke still drop his name.
John Locke wrote:
This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than by the use of force, so to get him in his power as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose that he who would take away my liberty would not, when he had me in his power, take away everything else. And, therefore, it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me -- i.e., kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it.
dogma wrote: Induction requires that you note probability. You didn't.
And here I was thinking that I wrote: "If this case follows the trend, he will face prosecution" which implies probability.
Testify wrote: Yeah. Arrested. Arrested does not equal charged. As someone above said, being arrested is standard procedure if someone is killed with a gun (that's a pretty big deal here).
Oh and there's a difference between self-defence, and getting your mates round in order to beat the gak out of them. Personally I think they're both justified, but legally that's a very big distinction.
"In 2009, the millionaire businessman Munir Hussain fought back with a metal pole and a cricket bat against a knife-wielding burglar who tied up his family at their home in Buckinghamshire."
That doesn't count as self defense? He was still convicted, even if the sentence was suspended.
Anyway, I'm only going off of the previous cases presented. If this case follows the trend, he will face prosecution. It's that, ya' know, inductive reasoning thing.
However, I will admit to being far too lazy to do any real research on this subject and judging this solely based on the superficial reporting that is The Telegraph.
IIRC in the case of Hussain he took it too far (He continued to beat after they were on the ground IIRC but it has been 3 years) and therefore wasn't counted as self-defence
Testify wrote: Yeah. Arrested. Arrested does not equal charged. As someone above said, being arrested is standard procedure if someone is killed with a gun (that's a pretty big deal here).
Oh and there's a difference between self-defence, and getting your mates round in order to beat the gak out of them. Personally I think they're both justified, but legally that's a very big distinction.
"In 2009, the millionaire businessman Munir Hussain fought back with a metal pole and a cricket bat against a knife-wielding burglar who tied up his family at their home in Buckinghamshire."
That doesn't count as self defense? He was still convicted, even if the sentence was suspended.
Anyway, I'm only going off of the previous cases presented. If this case follows the trend, he will face prosecution. It's that, ya' know, inductive reasoning thing.
However, I will admit to being far too lazy to do any real research on this subject and judging this solely based on the superficial reporting that is The Telegraph.
Weird as it sounds I did actually look up that guy before I gave an opinion on his case.
*AFTER* the attack had been dispersed. "Witnesses said about four Asian men were seen battering [an attacker] with implements including a hockey stick and cricket bat. One witness pleaded with the attackers to stop, telling them that they were going to kill the man on the ground".
Just read what the fething judge said: "The prosecution rightly made it plain that there was no allegation against you, Munir Hussain, in respect of the force you used against Salem in defending your own home and family or of the force used by either of you in apprehending Salem. However, the attack which then occurred was totally unnecessary and amounted to a very violent revenge attack on a defenceless man. "
That's completely unambiguous. Defending your property is fine, chasing down the people who did it and beating them to death is not.
Now *morally* I don't have a problem with doing that, but i can understand the distinction in law. However it's worth noting that a shopkeeper who was robbed, then chased after guy who robbed him and beat him senseless with a bat, was *not* prosecuted. So even in "revenge" attacks, a convinction is not inevitable.
Testify wrote: Yeah. Arrested. Arrested does not equal charged. As someone above said, being arrested is standard procedure if someone is killed with a gun (that's a pretty big deal here).
Oh and there's a difference between self-defence, and getting your mates round in order to beat the gak out of them. Personally I think they're both justified, but legally that's a very big distinction.
"In 2009, the millionaire businessman Munir Hussain fought back with a metal pole and a cricket bat against a knife-wielding burglar who tied up his family at their home in Buckinghamshire."
That doesn't count as self defense? He was still convicted, even if the sentence was suspended.
Anyway, I'm only going off of the previous cases presented. If this case follows the trend, he will face prosecution. It's that, ya' know, inductive reasoning thing.
However, I will admit to being far too lazy to do any real research on this subject and judging this solely based on the superficial reporting that is The Telegraph.
IIRC in the case of Hussain he took it too far (He continued to beat after they were on the ground IIRC but it has been 3 years) and therefore wasn't counted as self-defence
If that's the case, I'll admit to being wrong. As I said, I don't really care to do anything approaching real research on it.
Yeah, but the telegraph list 4 events like this happening since the first in 1990. How many like this have happened in America? Even factoring in its larger population, it's hard to say that this balances it out.
I just think it's mind-blowing that the country that gave birth to John Locke has essentially made it illegal for people to defend against home invasions with lethal force.
Lethal force is almost never needed though, and why kill when a shot to the leg will have the same short-term results e.g. putting you out of danger.
Because a reasonable person would be remiss to assume that his attacker is no longer a threat simply because they have been shot in the leg. You can be shot in the leg and still fire a gun, and a reasonable person could assume that the attacker is armed as such.
p_gray99 wrote:
d-usa wrote: I would love to see all those "why shoot to kill" folks try to hit a leg from 20 feet away with one shot.
Fair enough, however it's always better to aim for the leg rather than to kill, accidentally killing someone isn't murder.
Neither is putting two center-mass when you are acting in the defense of yourself or another person. Murder requires a degree of premeditation, which would only be considered a factor if you followed-up by putting another two into the attacker's head whilst they were down, just to be sure. (although, even then a manslaughter charge would be more likely)
d-usa wrote: I would love to see all those "why shoot to kill" folks try to hit a leg from 20 feet away with one shot.
Fair enough, however it's always better to aim for the leg rather than to kill, accidentally killing someone isn't murder.
No firearms trainer ever trains anyone to shoot for limbs. If you're going to use a firearm on a person, you always (professional snipers aside) aim center of body mass, both to maximize the chance of hitting, and minimize the chance of the bullet missing and striking other people or things behind the target. If you have decided to use a gun, you are already employing lethal force. Trying to shoot an arm or a leg is something from old cowboy movies.
Testify wrote: Yeah. Arrested. Arrested does not equal charged. As someone above said, being arrested is standard procedure if someone is killed with a gun (that's a pretty big deal here).
Oh and there's a difference between self-defence, and getting your mates round in order to beat the gak out of them. Personally I think they're both justified, but legally that's a very big distinction.
"In 2009, the millionaire businessman Munir Hussain fought back with a metal pole and a cricket bat against a knife-wielding burglar who tied up his family at their home in Buckinghamshire."
That doesn't count as self defense? He was still convicted, even if the sentence was suspended.
Anyway, I'm only going off of the previous cases presented. If this case follows the trend, he will face prosecution. It's that, ya' know, inductive reasoning thing.
However, I will admit to being far too lazy to do any real research on this subject and judging this solely based on the superficial reporting that is The Telegraph.
Weird as it sounds I did actually look up that guy before I gave an opinion on his case.
*AFTER* the attack had been dispersed. "Witnesses said about four Asian men were seen battering [an attacker] with implements including a hockey stick and cricket bat. One witness pleaded with the attackers to stop, telling them that they were going to kill the man on the ground".
Just read what the fething judge said: "The prosecution rightly made it plain that there was no allegation against you, Munir Hussain, in respect of the force you used against Salem in defending your own home and family or of the force used by either of you in apprehending Salem. However, the attack which then occurred was totally unnecessary and amounted to a very violent revenge attack on a defenceless man. "
That's completely unambiguous. Defending your property is fine, chasing down the people who did it and beating them to death is not.
Now *morally* I don't have a problem with doing that, but i can understand the distinction in law. However it's worth noting that a shopkeeper who was robbed, then chased after guy who robbed him and beat him senseless with a bat, was *not* prosecuted. So even in "revenge" attacks, a convinction is not inevitable.
I can definitely see him getting a conviction in that case. If the attacker is subdued, you probably shouldn't go ahead and kill him if you don't want jail time.
d-usa wrote: I would love to see all those "why shoot to kill" folks try to hit a leg from 20 feet away with one shot.
Fair enough, however it's always better to aim for the leg rather than to kill, accidentally killing someone isn't murder.
No firearms trainer ever trains anyone to shoot for limbs. If you're going to use a firearm on a person, you always (professional snipers aside) aim center of body mass, both to maximize the chance of hitting, and minimize the chance of the bullet missing and striking other people or things behind the target. If you have decided to use a gun, you are already employing lethal force. Trying to shoot an arm or a leg is something from old cowboy movies.
Agreed. Unless you are an extremely well trained combat veteran with an incredibly level head, you probably won't have the wherewithal or certainty of your own ability to be that precise to even attempt to pull something like that off.
John Locke wrote:
This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than by the use of force, so to get him in his power as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose that he who would take away my liberty would not, when he had me in his power, take away everything else. And, therefore, it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me -- i.e., kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it.
To ape everyone who has ever read Locke: "If he hasn't hurt you, what makes him a thief?"
Regardless, if you want to push Locke I can make him endorse pacifism and socialism; most notably regarding what he supposes should not be reasonably supposed.
Agreed. Unless you are an extremely well trained combat veteran with an incredibly level head, you probably won't have the wherewithal or certainty of your own ability to be that precise to even attempt to pull something like that off.
And if you are an extremely well trained combat veteran with an incredibly level head, you won't be stupid enough to risk aiming at a home invader's limbs rather than his torso.
Vulcan wrote: And there we go, blaming the victim again... if the robbers would have stayed off the property, they wouldn't have gotten shot. Since the robbers instigated the event, they should bear the whole of the blame.
Under UK law you are only allowed to use lethal force in the defence of human life. I see nothing here that suggests that these robbers were posing an imminent threat to life and as such the arrest and possible prosecution are completely justifed.
John Locke wrote: This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than by the use of force, so to get him in his power as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose that he who would take away my liberty would not, when he had me in his power, take away everything else. And, therefore, it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me -- i.e., kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it.
To ape everyone who has ever read Locke: "If he hasn't hurt you, what makes him a thief?"
Regardless, if you want to push Locke I can make him endorse pacifism and socialism; most notably regarding what he supposes should not be reasonably supposed.
The use of force does not necessarily entail harm, but this probably isn't the place to get into an argument about what Locke wrote or meant, which realistically can be just about anything depending on where you're standing.
And here I was thinking that I wrote: "If this case follows the trend, he will face prosecution" which implies probability.
No, it doesn't. Conditionals are not based on probability. That is, however, a common mistake.
You're nitpicking. As you're so fond of saying, this is not an academic journal. The statement is essentially the same as writing "in previous cases all the gun owners were prosecuted, therefore it is probable that this gun owner will be prosecuted as well."
My brother has an interesting "robber trying to punish good people" story.
Quite a few years ago in Germany he was walking around town when he heard a woman scream something about her purse. He saw her running after a guy on a bike who was holding a purse, and the guy was driving towards him. My brother grabbed a hold of his arm as he was driving past and at the same time a postal worker decided to push his cart in front of his bike. Between the two actions he fell of his bike and hit the ground pretty bad, breaking his arm in the process. They were able to keep him on the ground while waiting on the cops and ambulance.
Robber guy tried to sue my brother for the broken arm and he had to go to court. After listening to the case the judge decided that:
1) It was impossible to determine if the postal cart or my brother caused the injury, and
2) Having pissed off people throw you off your bike and breaking your arm was an occupational hazard of robbing people, so no money for you.
Mention before. There's degrees of "Force Escalation" and the justification of "Lethal Force". I will give one verbal warning. Then its up to the intruder. Bear in mind. Its dark and I've no idea whats in his hand
Vulcan wrote: And there we go, blaming the victim again... if the robbers would have stayed off the property, they wouldn't have gotten shot. Since the robbers instigated the event, they should bear the whole of the blame.
Under UK law you are only allowed to use lethal force in the defence of human life. I see nothing here that suggests that these robbers were posing an imminent threat to life and as such the arrest and possible prosecution are completely justifed.
If someone enters my home, armed, in the middle of the night, as a reasonable person I can assume they have equally likely broken into my home as assassins as they have as robbers. Lethal force immediately becomes justifiable.
If they enter armed, and you know they're armed, maybe. Assassination is pretty rare, compared to robbery.
When and how are you going to confirm that they're armed, before opening fire?
That being said, I tend to think people should be entitled to err on the side of caution when it comes to construing unwanted entry into their homes at night as a threat to their safety. Of course, on a larger property like a farm, it becomes tougher to argue that there's a real chance of threat to you or your family if they don't try to enter the house.
Mannahnin wrote:If they enter armed, and you know they're armed, maybe. Assassination is pretty rare, compared to robbery.
When and how are you going to confirm that they're armed, before opening fire?
That being said, I tend to think people should be entitled to err on the side of caution when it comes to construing unwanted entry into their homes at night as a threat to their safety. Of course, on a larger property like a farm, it becomes tougher to argue that there's a real chance of threat to you or your family if they don't try to enter the house.
Would a reasonable person believe they might be armed? I would say so. Operating with the knowledge that an intruder may be armed, allows one to surmise the rest. Rarity is not really part of the equation.
Would a reasonable person believe they might be armed? I would say so.
Operating with the knowledge that an intruder may be armed, allows one to surmise the rest. Rarity is not really part of the equation.
In this country its not that likely for burglars to be armed. Anyway its up to the CPS to decide if it was a reasonable assumption or not.
Would a reasonable person believe they might be armed? I would say so.
Operating with the knowledge that an intruder may be armed, allows one to surmise the rest. Rarity is not really part of the equation.
In this country its not that likely for burglars to be armed. Anyway its up to the CPS to decide if it was a reasonable assumption or not.
You're nitpicking. As you're so fond of saying, this is not an academic journal. The statement is essentially the same as writing "in previous cases all the gun owners were prosecuted, therefore it is probable that this gun owner will be prosecuted as well."
If we're at the point where academic journals are the only place in which conceptual propriety is considered laudable, then we've got issues. What you originally said did not "...essentially mean the same thing..." It meant that you used the concepts of implication and probability incorrectly.
Thing that I find odd, is that the idea that I should do nothing to protect myself, my family or my property is so fethed up...
The only way you'd get me to do nothing while my place was burglarized was if I had live in cops ready and waiting to deal with the situation... and seeing as how that aint happening, I'll keep on with my current means and plans.
Yeah, but the telegraph list 4 events like this happening since the first in 1990. How many like this have happened in America? Even factoring in its larger population, it's hard to say that this balances it out.
I just think it's mind-blowing that the country that gave birth to John Locke has essentially made it illegal for people to defend against home invasions with lethal force.
Lethal force is almost never needed though, and why kill when a shot to the leg will have the same short-term results e.g. putting you out of danger.
Vulcan wrote: And there we go, blaming the victim again... if the robbers would have stayed off the property, they wouldn't have gotten shot. Since the robbers instigated the event, they should bear the whole of the blame.
Under UK law you are only allowed to use lethal force in the defence of human life. I see nothing here that suggests that these robbers were posing an imminent threat to life and as such the arrest and possible prosecution are completely justifed.
If someone enters my home, armed, in the middle of the night, as a reasonable person I can assume they have equally likely broken into my home as assassins as they have as robbers. Lethal force immediately becomes justifiable.
You just described whats called the castle doctrine. Excellent.
Jihadin wrote: Anything in hand can be a weapon. Most burglers have at least a knife on them. All it takes is for the burgler to move at you.
It worked for the 8 cops in mich? (don't care enough to look that one up again) who shot a guy 40 times because he had a knife and took a step towards them.
d-usa wrote: I would love to see all those "why shoot to kill" folks try to hit a leg from 20 feet away with one shot.
Fair enough, however it's always better to aim for the leg rather than to kill, accidentally killing someone isn't murder.
No firearms trainer ever trains anyone to shoot for limbs. If you're going to use a firearm on a person, you always (professional snipers aside) aim center of body mass, both to maximize the chance of hitting, and minimize the chance of the bullet missing and striking other people or things behind the target. If you have decided to use a gun, you are already employing lethal force. Trying to shoot an arm or a leg is something from old cowboy movies.
Exactly that and what Azazel said about a wounded person still able to do damage. Many people have been killed by those they assumed were out of a fight because of wounds.
Refering to the one in Time Sqaure New York? We already had a thread about NYPD Lynch
This is in your home. Lights out. If the intruder moves towards me then I'm not going to wait to see or feel whats in his hand. I would much perfer he go out the door or window he came in. I'm sure to the intruder the chambering of a round into my M4 going to sound like chambering a round into a shotgun. I know I can drop the intruder with one round.
edit
Also I don't hold back when jamming a barrel in someone chest like I have a bayonet on the end. I won't over do it. What I won't do is empty a mag or continue to beat the intruder within the inch of his life. There's a fine line between self defense and physical assualt.
Jihadin wrote: Refering to the one in Time Sqaure New York? We already had a thread about NYPD Lynch
This is in your home. Lights out. If the intruder moves towards me then I'm not going to wait to see or feel whats in his hand. I would much perfer he go out the door or window he came in. I'm sure to the intruder the chambering of a round into my M4 going to sound like chambering a round into a shotgun. I know I can drop the intruder with one round.
nah it was before new york, 8 cops gunned down a knife wielding suspect, I think I mentioned it in that thread. But they hit the guy 40 out of 46 times, much better shooting then the NYPD.
You're nitpicking. As you're so fond of saying, this is not an academic journal. The statement is essentially the same as writing "in previous cases all the gun owners were prosecuted, therefore it is probable that this gun owner will be prosecuted as well."
If we're at the point where academic journals are the only place in which conceptual propriety is considered laudable, then we've got issues. What you originally said did not "...essentially mean the same thing..." It meant that you used the concepts of implication and probability incorrectly.
In a technical sense, you are correct, it doesn't mean the same thing. But, in essence-- the intended meaning-- yes, it does. My point about the academic journal being that I'm not going to take the time to crystallize inane arguments into the form a of formal proof in a thread where my original intention was simply to poke fun at some of the UK dakkanauts.
But really, no-one cares and this argument has nothing to with the thread topic.
Moving on,
With regard to the OP, it's my personal opinion that the inhabitants of homes being burglarized, invaded, vandalized, and so on, have the right employ lethal force. One can't be 100% that the invaders don't intend bodily harm. That being said, if the invaders have been put into a state of non-combativeness (i.e. beaten into submission, critically wounded, or otherwise incapacitated) further use of force on the part of the home owner would fall into the assault category.
d-usa wrote: I would love to see all those "why shoot to kill" folks try to hit a leg from 20 feet away with one shot.
Fair enough, however it's always better to aim for the leg rather than to kill, accidentally killing someone isn't murder.
No it's not.
It's better to go for center of mass to reduce the risk of missing, as a bullet which misses its target doesn't suddenly stop-- it can and WILL hit something, or someone, else.
My point about the academic journal being that I'm not going to take the time to crystallize inane arguments into the form a of formal proof in a thread where my original intention was simply to poke fun at some of the UK dakkanauts.
And my point is that it shouldn't take any more time than engaging with people otherwise would.
That being said, if the invaders have been put into a state of non-combativeness (i.e. beaten into submission, critically wounded, or otherwise incapacitated) further use of force on the part of the home owner would fall into the assault category.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:Thing that I find odd, is that the idea that I should do nothing to protect myself, my family or my property is so fethed up...
I've always assumed it was just a holdover in the attitudes and cultural zeitgeist from the days when the lords owned everything, and the serfs were merely subsistence farmers renting land; thus leaving said serfs with no property or personal rights.
sirlynchmob wrote:
Jihadin wrote: Anything in hand can be a weapon. Most burglers have at least a knife on them. All it takes is for the burgler to move at you.
It worked for the 8 cops in mich? (don't care enough to look that one up again) who shot a guy 40 times because he had a knife and took a step towards them.
40 seems like overkill, but I would consider the cops justified in turning the guy's head into a canoe in that situation. It's not difficult to deliver a potentially lethal single strike with a knife, and if you know what you're doing then about 6 feet away is not an unreasonable striking distance. (though I'd rather see less-lethal options like a Taser used in that situation.)
46 shots is low, that means that each cop fired on average less then 8 rounds, so less then the size of their magazine, and with a 87% hit rate to boot. I would say that those cops exercised excellent fire control
It never fails to amaze me how people are willing to completely ignore the facts of a case in order to pretend they're being picked on for being manly men who want to shoot people coming into their homes.
When a shooting happens the shooter is arrested. It's the only sensible thing to do until a police investigation has established the act was in self defence. "Okay, you say its in self defence so you're free to go, but just promise you'll stay at home in case we have to arrest your for murder."
And in both cases mentioned - Martin and Hussain - the home invader was fleeing the scene when killed. Despite that Martin got five years, and Hussain got a one year suspended sentence.
And yet people still complain. Because they'd rather be outraged than be right.
If he shot them when they were running away then that isn't acceptable. But if they were in his house, and there were four of them, then it's very reasonable to assume his life was at risk.
I agree. If someone is in my house at night I don't know what their intentions are, I am not going to take a chance. They are the ones choosing to break in to my home.
The Norfolk farmer was prosecuted due to the burglar being shot while trying to escape.
The Hussein guy basically continued to have the feth beaten out of the guy. Which I think is reasonable since the b@$tard had tied up his family.
Howard A Treesong wrote: If he shot them when they were running away then that isn't acceptable. But if they were in his house, and there were four of them, then it's very reasonable to assume his life was at risk.
Sure. And now the police are going to look into that. And if they were running away he'll be in trouble. If they were confronting him he'll be fine.
Palindrome wrote: In this country its not that likely for burglars to be armed.
It's an odd thing to be proud of, but I am not above admitting that I am indeed proud of the fact that our criminal scum would eat your criminal scum for breakfast.
Palindrome wrote: In this country its not that likely for burglars to be armed.
It's an odd thing to be proud of, but I am not above admitting that I am indeed proud of the fact that our criminal scum would eat your criminal scum for breakfast.
Palindrome wrote: In this country its not that likely for burglars to be armed.
It's an odd thing to be proud of, but I am not above admitting that I am indeed proud of the fact that our criminal scum would eat your criminal scum for breakfast.
As far as I'm concerned, you can have them - bon appetit!
An Englishman's home used to be his castle until the PC brigade got their way. I've said this before, but the Yanks have got this spot on: people breaking into your house should expect to meet Mr Colt or Mr Smith Weston.
I'm not some trigger happy, war wacky, right winger, but the thieves didn't drop in to give the guy some Christmas cards.
I'm not against all types of theft. If a person is starving or needs to save a life, then theft is justifiable. I'm sure somebody will challenge my logic on this.
It's a different matter if somebody is breaking into a house to feed a drug habit or looking for easy cash. Put yourself in the homeowner's position. It's 3am, it's dark, you're scared, and if you're wearing white underwear, chances are it won't be white for long.
There are very few things I would take from American society, but defending your home with a gun against crooks and hoodlums is one of them.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: An Englishman's home used to be his castle until the PC brigade got their way. I've said this before, but the Yanks have got this spot on: people breaking into your house should expect to meet Mr Colt or Mr Smith Weston.
I'm not some trigger happy, war wacky, right winger, but the thieves didn't drop in to give the guy some Christmas cards.
I'm not against all types of theft. If a person is starving or needs to save a life, then theft is justifiable. I'm sure somebody will challenge my logic on this.
It's a different matter if somebody is breaking into a house to feed a drug habit or looking for easy cash. Put yourself in the homeowner's position. It's 3am, it's dark, you're scared, and if you're wearing white underwear, chances are it won't be white for long.
There are very few things I would take from American society, but defending your home with a gun against crooks and hoodlums is one of them.
But a seeing a shadow in your house doesn't let you know if they are a crack addict or starving and Mr Colt doesn't discriminate.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: An Englishman's home used to be his castle until the PC brigade got their way. I've said this before, but the Yanks have got this spot on: people breaking into your house should expect to meet Mr Colt or Mr Smith Weston.
The law in this case is common law and the 1967 criminal law act (accoring to wikipedia anyway). I very much doubt that the 'PC brigade' had anything to do with either.
I make the assumption, and state law agrees with me, that if you're in my home, uninvited, you're there to do harm to my family and I. The law in question renders me immune to legal and civil prosecution should I choose to remove the threat you present by emptying my shotgun in your direction.
I don't want to shoot anyone. I don't want to kill anyone. I certainly don't want to clean your blood off my walls and hardwood floors. But at the same time, I don't care WHY you're in my home, waking me up at 3 in the morning. I will not hesitate to defend my family, and my self, from anyone who decides we look like a good target.
My suggestion to the beginning criminal mastermind / hungry person that steals from people to feed his poor family: Heed the signs and stickers I have posted about my property. Move along and find an easier target. Move to a state where they don't mind being victims and haven't enacted castle doctrine. You'll be safer in your chosen profession / hobby.
Palindrome wrote: In this country its not that likely for burglars to be armed.
It's an odd thing to be proud of, but I am not above admitting that I am indeed proud of the fact that our criminal scum would eat your criminal scum for breakfast.
Guns are for pussies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: An Englishman's home used to be his castle until the PC brigade got their way. I've said this before, but the Yanks have got this spot on: people breaking into your house should expect to meet Mr Colt or Mr Smith Weston.
Political correctness means not victimising sections of society in public forums - television, the print etc. What does that have to do with self-defence laws?
Palindrome wrote: In this country its not that likely for burglars to be armed.
It's an odd thing to be proud of, but I am not above admitting that I am indeed proud of the fact that our criminal scum would eat your criminal scum for breakfast.
As far as I'm concerned the thieves safety is up to him. If he/she wasn't stealing in the first place then they wouldn't have a problem. My family safety comes first then or animals and stuff. Somewhere way down that line I might worry about the intruder afterwards. I don't know what their intentions are or what their armed with. Why should I give them the power to break the law and do as they please with my family or our things. I give one warning. After that I put 2 in your chest. I'll take my chances with a jury. At least I know my family's safe.
I make the assumption, and state law agrees with me, that if you're in my home, uninvited, you're there to do harm to my family and I. The law in question renders me immune to legal and civil prosecution should I choose to remove the threat you present by emptying my shotgun in your direction.
I don't want to shoot anyone. I don't want to kill anyone. I certainly don't want to clean your blood off my walls and hardwood floors. But at the same time, I don't care WHY you're in my home, waking me up at 3 in the morning. I will not hesitate to defend my family, and my self, from anyone who decides we look like a good target.
My suggestion to the beginning criminal mastermind / hungry person that steals from people to feed his poor family: Heed the signs and stickers I have posted about my property. Move along and find an easier target. Move to a state where they don't mind being victims and haven't enacted castle doctrine. You'll be safer in your chosen profession / hobby.
So far no crimes has been commited towards me. Well the perception of a battle harden vet on the block does play into it. Everyone knows a lot of vets have cool personel weapons to......
There are very few things I would take from American society, but defending your home with a gun against crooks and hoodlums is one of them.
Yes because the right to bear arms has proven to be such a good determent to crime.
It's not about crime deterrence. Name me one successful method to stop crime. I'll give you a hint: there isn't one. If we can't stop crime, we can at least do everything in our power to protect ourselves from it. I've said it before on this forum, gun ownership is about nothing more than putting the responsibility of personal safety in the person's own hands.
In S.Carolina the castle doctrine extends the entire property not just the house, so it doesn't matter if someone is running away while they are still on your property
Palindrome wrote: In this country its not that likely for burglars to be armed.
It's an odd thing to be proud of, but I am not above admitting that I am indeed proud of the fact that our criminal scum would eat your criminal scum for breakfast.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: An Englishman's home used to be his castle until the PC brigade got their way. I've said this before, but the Yanks have got this spot on: people breaking into your house should expect to meet Mr Colt or Mr Smith Weston.
I'll just repeat what I already posted;
"It never fails to amaze me how people are willing to completely ignore the facts of a case in order to pretend they're being picked on for being manly men who want to shoot people coming into their homes.
When a shooting happens the shooter is arrested. It's the only sensible thing to do until a police investigation has established the act was in self defence. "Okay, you say its in self defence so you're free to go, but just promise you'll stay at home in case we have to arrest your for murder."
And in both cases mentioned - Martin and Hussain - the home invader was fleeing the scene when killed. Despite that Martin got five years, and Hussain got a one year suspended sentence.
And yet people still complain. Because they'd rather be outraged than be right."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: So far no crimes has been commited towards me. Well the perception of a battle harden vet on the block does play into it. Everyone knows a lot of vets have cool personel weapons to......
And I am wearing my anti-elephant hat. People laugh but no elephants have fallen on my head so clearly it works.
Lordhat wrote: It's not about crime deterrence. Name me one successful method to stop crime. I'll give you a hint: there isn't one.
Punishment, both for the individual involved and others who might otherwise consider that crime.
Direct physical prevention.
Reform.
Community involvement.
Aggressive policing (cops on every corner).
I mean, seriously? Are you actually saying people can't be deterred from committing crime?
Wish this stuff would never happen in the first place though :( It's a dark day for justice when an innocent is even arrested for removing a piece of scum from the earth, they made their own stupid idiotic choices with their miserable lives and now they can do no more harm to anyone.
The survival instinct is strong for nearly everyone. If people break into your home with guns in hand, and you have a gun yourself, it's only natural to defend yourself.
There is a big difference breaking into somebody's home with the intention to rob/rape/kill at 3am and knocking on somebody's door at 3am because your cars broken down and you need help to get your pregnant wife to hospital. I wouldn't expect to be gunned down for that!!
But for homeowners being invaded by crooks, the hard working shop owner facing an armed robber, or an eight stone woman being attacked by a 15 stone man who wants to rape her, then in my eyes, Mr Colt is justified.
I'm not some right wing gun nut. I can sympathise with people stealing food because they're starving, or a teenager falling in with bad company. But if I'm a shopkeeper with a gun pointed at my face, then I'll fire back if I get the chance.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Nearly forgot to mention. The homeowner in this case has been released on bail by the police.
Most people on here though say it will never happen though. The odds are against you. That you never be "that guy". Those that don't believe "crap happens"
The sort of situation I'm talking about is life or death. If somebody stole an apple from my garden, I wouldn't shoot them if I caught them in the act. If somebody stole my car, or a bar of chocolate, I wouldn't be too bothered either. I'd be mad, but not that mad.
But if somebody was shooting at me with the purpose to wound, or kill, and you had the means to fire back, who wouldn't?
Like I've said, there are many things I don't like about America, but this is one I agree with.
Palindrome wrote: In this country its not that likely for burglars to be armed.
It's an odd thing to be proud of, but I am not above admitting that I am indeed proud of the fact that our criminal scum would eat your criminal scum for breakfast.
However because traditional organised crime relies more on muscle than firepower the East London gangster is a tough nut to crack.
Many achieve a legendary rep that cant really be rivaled merely by committing more drive bys.
You would be surprised just how often in reality the man without the gun wins. Guns are a crutch, sure a small kid can shoot a special forces veteran, but in many situations its the man not the weapon which matters most. Many who think defense equals guns miss out on that.
I remember the UN EU led mandate on Kosovo that allowed peace keepers in but only if they were unarmed. Needless to say the policy was idiotic political garbage and the mandate was only passed because of it was assured of failure. allowing for the intensity of conflict in the former Yugoslavia with all the incensed tigger happy heavily armed bigots there were active at the time. However many of the UN peacekeepers particularly from the UK and French armed forces made a real go of it, and even had success because the quality of the man without the gun relying only on his uniform and mandate proved more than the fanatic with.
I wont repeat the stories I heard, I will leave you to find some for yourselves, they should not be too difficult to find.
Palindrome wrote: In this country its not that likely for burglars to be armed.
It's an odd thing to be proud of, but I am not above admitting that I am indeed proud of the fact that our criminal scum would eat your criminal scum for breakfast.
However because traditional organised crime relies more on muscle than firepower the East London gangster is a tough nut to crack. Many achieve a legendary rep that cant really be rivaled merely by committing more drive bys.
You would be surprised just how often in reality the man without the gun wins. Guns are a crutch, sure a small kid can shoot a special forces veteran, but in many situations its the man not the weapon which matters most. Many who think defense equals guns miss out on that.
I remember the UN EU led mandate on Kosovo that allowed peace keepers in but only if they were unarmed. Needless to say the policy was idiotic political garbage and the mandate was only passed because of it was assured of failure. allowing for the intensity of conflict in the former Yugoslavia with all the incensed tigger happy heavily armed bigots there were active at the time. However many of the UN peacekeepers particularly from the UK and French armed forces made a real go of it, and even had success because the quality of the man without the gun relying only on his uniform and mandate proved more than the fanatic with.
I wont repeat the stories I heard, I will leave you to find some for yourselves, they should not be too difficult to find.
Ancient Budha say, never bring a knife to a gunfight. Your tough guys are road kill to any self repsecting gang member in the US (including our Girl Scouts). American Gangsters Hurr!
Seriously. I had the "real men fistfight" mentality until I went to LA. That went out the window in about 8 seconds there.
Na guns are generally for wimps though, all you need to do is lightly squeeze a little trigger thing and you are the most dangerous person in the area.
unmercifulconker wrote: Na guns are generally for wimps though, all you need to do is lightly squeeze a little trigger thing and you are the most dangerous person in the area.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The survival instinct is strong for nearly everyone. If people break into your home with guns in hand, and you have a gun yourself, it's only natural to defend yourself.
There is a big difference breaking into somebody's home with the intention to rob/rape/kill at 3am and knocking on somebody's door at 3am because your cars broken down and you need help to get your pregnant wife to hospital. I wouldn't expect to be gunned down for that!!
I did hear that a couple of Scots went to Vegas, got so hammered they couldn't remember where their hotel was and stumbled into a neighbour hood where there had been several robberies recently. Trying to get directions they knocked on a front door at roughly 3 am, apparently this gave enough grounds for the homeowner to fire through the door killing one of them. IMO that's should be murder as they posed not threat nor were they attempting to steal anything
In Chester, it is apparently still in law somewhere that you can shoot a Welshman with a longbow after midnight, as long as he is inside the city walls. Although if you were crazy enough to actually do this you would probably still get arrested/charged with something
It's also a requirement that every able bodied man has to practice archery for at least an hour every Sunday - This is still law
Tibbsy wrote: In Chester, it is apparently still in law somewhere that you can shoot a Welshman with a longbow after midnight, as long as he is inside the city walls. Although if you were crazy enough to actually do this you would probably still get arrested/charged with something
It's also a requirement that every able bodied man has to practice archery for at least an hour every Sunday - This is still law
As is you can kill a Scotsman within sight of York provided you use a longbow and he is wearing a kilt
I cannot say if these are true or not, but "Those wishing to modify the weather must first notify people in the local newspaper or get a permit" is just plain manners, yo! Obviously, out-of-state folk had been practicing weather control in our great state without telling folks what they were up to and something needed to be done. They were probably from Oklahoma.
A Cautionary Tale for US Before It Enters Bosnia
By David Rohde
NOVA KASABA, BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA --
STANDING BY: A Dutch soldier guards Muslim women from Srebrenica after the town fell to Bosnian Serb forces last July. Dutch peacekeeping troops in Bosnia are accused of abandoning their posts as Muslim civilians gathered around them for protection in both Srebrenica and Potocari. The debacle led to a massacre of Muslim men.
(NICK SHARP/REUTERS)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caught between warring factions, the Dutch soldier and his fellow UN peacekeepers were eager to abandon Observation Post Kilo, a hilltop compound in Srebrenica, a town the UN declared as a "safe area."
The lightly armed Dutch force had endured three days of Serb shelling. The day before, angry Muslims defending the enclave had killed a Dutch peacekeeper when he abandoned a UN post to the Serbs.
As a Bosnian Serb officer warily walked up to his post in the late afternoon, Private Schellens and the other peacekeepers felt a sense of relief.
"Ready to go?" the Bosnian Serb officer asked.
"Yeah, we're ready," shouted the Dutch soldiers.
Two days later, Srebrenica fell, and 400 Dutch soldiers stood by as about 800 mostly elderly Muslim civilians were rounded up and later killed, according to witnesses.
The passivity of the Dutch peacekeepers and their UN commanders in this massacre shows that, after five years of trying new ways of peacekeeping in the post-cold-war era, the international community is still far from getting it right.
With American troops poised to enforce peace in Bosnia, the US insists its mission will be different.
But the Srebrenica debacle shows it's not easy for trained killers to act as dispassionate mediators in Bosnia. But UN officials warn that soldiers, trained to think in terms of black and white, victor and vanquished, often become frustrated in Bosnia and sympathize with the stronger, more professionally organized Bosnian Serb army, according to civilian UN officials.
Four Dutch soldiers, in interviews this month in the Netherlands, say they hated some of the Muslim men they were supposed to be protecting. Those feelings are only scratch the surface of smoldering anti-Muslim sentiment among UN troops throughout Bosnia that American troops could soon feel.
The downward spiral of Srebrenica's peacekeepers began long before Private Schellens gave up his post. It has roots in the UN's ill-defined notion of peacekeeping in Bosnia.
In the spring of 1993, after Serb troops nearly took refugee-packed Srebrenica, the UN Security Council declared Srebrenica and five other Muslim cities demilitarized "safe areas" to be protected by UN troops. The former mining town, made up of chalets nestled in a valley, had swelled from a prewar population of 5,000 to 42,000.
But when UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali requested 34,000 UN troops to man the safe areas, no nations were willing to contribute the troops to carry out the ambitious plan.
West European leaders faltered, wary of domestic opinion opposed to having their soldiers sucked into a violent, protracted Balkans war. And the US refused to send any troops.
Mr. Boutros-Ghali submitted a new request - sarcastically known at UN headquarters in Zagreb as "safe-havens lite." The Security Council eventually authorized 7,300 troops. In the end, only 3,500 troops were deployed.
Serb ruse
Two years later, UN officials were confident that a Serb offensive launched against Srebrenica on July 3 was designed only to gain control of a road that ran through the safe area and led to a Bosnian Serb-controlled bauxite mine.
On July 6, that assumption began to unravel. Two Bosnian Serb shells slammed into the sandbag wall of one Dutch post, Foxtrot. Dutch commander Lt. Col. Ton Karremans requested that NATO carry out a "close air support" strike on nearby Bosnian Serb targets.
But Col. Charles Brantz, UN commander for northeastern Bosnia, did not forward the request to his headquarters in Zagreb, Croatia, because he had not received a proper target list.
Over the next two days, fighting intensified. At 1:43 p.m. on July 8, three Bosnian Serb tank rounds slammed into the wall of Foxtrot, causing severe damage. And an old dynamic in Bosnia peacekeeping came into play again.
Muslim soldiers, who often positioned themselves near Dutch observation posts, fired on the Serbs, drawing retaliatory fire that would come dangerously close to the peacekeepers, Dutch soldiers said.
Dutch commanders also had themselves to blame for the deteriorating situation at Foxtrot, according to Sgt. Johan Bos, a Dutch antitank unit commander.. The post was equipped with one of the unit's five working, American-made, TOW antitank missile launchers, but was unable to use it.
The battalion's TOW launchers, equipped with night-vision targeting sites, were placed in different locations to monitor troops' movements along the enclave's perimeter. Because they take so long to reload, at least two of the TOWs should be deployed close to each other, according to Sergeant Bos.
Fifteen minutes after the rounds hit Foxtrot, a Bosnian Serb tank drove over the Muslim trench and stopped about 100 yards in front of the post. Bosnian Serb soldiers ordered the Dutch to leave.
As the Dutch fled, Muslim soldiers furious at the UN for not firing at the Serbs, killed a Dutch peacekeeper, Raviv van Renssen. (In later interviews, Muslim commanders said that the Serbs had killed Renssen.)
The next day, Dutch observation posts, including Schellan's, began falling like dominoes. Two Dutch armored personnel carriers and their crews were captured by the Serbs. The Dutch were despondent and put up no resistance.
One reason for the Dutch surrender was that Bosnian Serbs had blocked resupply convoys for weeks. The peacekeepers ate their last fresh food on May 5 and were living off rations. For weeks, soldiers had been forced to make day-long walks, or used horses and mules, to carry supplies.
In the end, being a Bosnian Serb hostage was paradise compared with being a peacekeeper. "The Serbs treated me very well. We could take a shower if we wanted," Schellens recalls. "We could play soccer and basketball. Three meals a day. Cigarettes and beer. It was OK."
Dutch force weakened
The Dutch battalion was also well below strength militarily. In April, it shrank from roughly 650 soldiers to 400 soldiers when the Bosnian Serbs refused to allow 190 peacekeepers who went on vacation back into the enclave.
When the Dutch first tried to enter Srebrenica, the Serbs forced them to change their armored personnel carriers from being equipped with 22-mm cannons to lighter 50-caliber machine guns.
At the end of May, commander Karremans sent out a letter informing his UN superiors that he had not been resupplied since Feb. 18, his troops had 16 percent of the ammunition they needed, and he was unable to carry out his mission.
His UN superiors, confronted with similar shortages in the other five surrounded enclaves and unwilling to confront the Serbs over the issue, bet that the Serbs would never call their bluff.
Karremans was sure NATO airstrikes, as a last resort, could halt the Serbs' advance in Srebrenica. But with so many observation posts falling, he was unsure where the main Serb attack was coming from. The enclave's UN military observers (UNMOs) - different from the Dutch peacekeepers - had abandoned their offices on July 8 and retreated to the nearby Dutch base in Potocari.
Commander in the dark
Two Bosnian translators were left in the UNMO office in the town. Their superiors continued to file reports without informing UN commanders that they had abandoned their post. As the Bosnian Serb attack intensified on July 8, Karremans was essentially blind to what was happening around Srebrenica.
On July 9, a list of possible Bosnian Serb targets for NATO airstrikes finally arrived in UN headquarters in Zagreb, but Bosnian Serb tanks were already five miles into the enclave and only one mile south of Srebrenica. But UN commanders in Zagreb still believed the Serbs were not interested in taking the entire enclave.
UN Commander Bernard Janvier ordered the Dutch to create a "blocking position" to prevent the Serbs from entering the town. He demanded that the Serbs halt their advance, free all Dutch hostages, and withdraw their forces to the enclave's perimeter. If the Dutch position was attacked, General Janvier warned, NATO close air support would be used.
Blocking position set up
Karremans thought the blocking position was foolish, but ordered six Dutch APCs with more than 30 soldiers to set up a visible, but difficult to defend, blocking position on the main road a half mile south of Srebrenica.
As the blocking position was established on July 10, the mood was relaxed, according to Cpl. Hans Berkers, the driver of one of the APCs. But in the early afternoon, Bosnian Serb shells hit, sending Corporal Berkers and others scrambling.
At 6 p.m., Serb infantrymen were seen advancing toward the position. The Dutch fired 50-caliber machine guns at the Serbs, halting the advance.
Despite the pleas of his advisers, Janvier turned down three requests for close air support sent by Karremans over the course of the day. Janvier said that the blocking position - that he himself had ordered - was too close to the Serbs to risk an airstrike, according to Col. Harm De Jonge, a senior UN adviser in Zagreb.
As night fell, the Dutch received reports that the Serbs were advancing to the east of the blocking position. Muslim troops were supposed to guard the peacekeepers' flank. But the Dutch, not trusting the Muslims, withdrew.
Tensions between the Dutch and Muslim soldiers had been simmering for months. In later interviews, the Dutch blame the Muslims for putting up no resistance to the Serbs, and Muslim commanders blame the Dutch for barring them from using two Muslim tanks in UN storage.
Waiting for NATO airstrikes
After the Dutch blocking position was abandoned, word arrived that a massive NATO airstrike, involving 40 airplanes hitting 20 Bosnian Serb targets, would be carried out the following morning.
At midnight the Dutch deputy commander, Maj. Robert Franken, met with Muslim leaders in Srebrenica to tell them of the coming airstrikes. But when the sun rose on July 11, thick fog covered Srebrenica, preventing airstrikes.
When the weather began to clear, Berkers was ordered to drive his APC up a hill overlooking Serb positions. Karremans's sixth request for a NATO strike had been approved. Four Dutch F-16s were on their way to Srebrenica.
Inside Berkers's APC, an air controller focused a bomb-guiding device equipped with a laser on a Serb tank below. Overhead, the female pilot of a Dutch F-16 released two bombs. Berkers saw the tank jump five feet in the air.
Within minutes, Bosnian Serb commander Gen. Ratko Mladic threatened to kill all 30 of the Dutch hostages he held if another airstrike was carried out.
Dutch Defense Minister Joris Voorhoeve called UN Special Envoy Yasushi Akashi and asked that the airstrikes be halted to save the Dutch peacekeepers' lives. Mr. Akashi had already canceled the strikes to protect the UN hostages.
Immediately after the airstrikes were called off, the Dutch compound in Srebrenica, surrounded by 10,000 terrified civilians seeking help, was abandoned. As Serb shells rained down on the town, panicked Dutch truck and APC drivers, including Berkers, admitted running over Bosnian civilians as they drove through throngs of civilians fleeing to the main UN base in Potocari. Video shot by Dutch soldiers shows UN trucks arriving in Potocari with civilians clinging to every inch of the vehicles.
At 4 p.m. the Serbs entered the abandoned Dutch compound in Srebrenica.
The Mladic 'pig' show
That evening, Dutch commanding officer Karremans and other UN officers were summoned by Serb commander Mladic to a nearby hotel to negotiate the fate of the 25,000 to 30,000 Muslim civilians huddled in and around the UN base in Potocari.
When they arrived at the hotel, they saw a Serb soldier cut a pig's throat. As the pig died, Mladic told the Dutch commander: "You have to be able to stand this before we can talk."
Over the next two days, Dutch soldiers witnessed the execution of one Muslim man and found nine dead Muslims near their base in Potocari, but did little as more than 800 elderly Muslim civilians were separated from their families and taken away.
Surem Huljic, a Muslim man who says he was one of the men taken away in Potocari, believes all of the men were killed in a mass execution in the nearby village of Karakaj.
The nine bodies were videotaped and photographed by the Dutch. But the videotape was later destroyed by Dutch soldiers under orders from an officer because it also had video of one of the unit's forward air controllers. Dutch officials say the film from the still camera was accidentally destroyed in a military film-processing lab.
Peacekeeper Berkers saw 2,000 Muslim prisoners under Serb guard on a soccer field in the nearby village of Nova Kasaba on July 13. The following day, Schellens, Sgt. Warner Ceelen, and 15 other Dutch soldiers saw dozens of dead bodies on the road, a dump truck full of bodies, and an excavator digging an apparent mass grave near the soccer field. US spy photos show an apparent mass grave at the same location, and a decomposed human leg and documents from Srebrenica were discovered there by the Monitor in August.
But after the Dutch withdrew on July 21, Dutch commanders said they had no evidence of war crimes being committed, and Karremans said the Serb "militarily correct operation" was carried out in "the right way."
What the Dutch really knew
In a series of damaging revelations in August and September, Dutch journalists discovered that a list of 239 Muslim men who were inside the Dutch compound in Potocari was drawn up by a Muslim translator to protect the men when they were ordered to leave by Karremans. All 239 are now missing and presumed dead.
The list was faxed to UN headquarters in Zagreb, and deputy Dutch commander Franken carried a copy out of Potocari in his underwear, according to Dutch officials. But UN officials say they never received a copy of the list, and the Dutch government now says the list was temporarily lost.
Dutch press reports also later revealed that deputy Commander Franken signed an agreement with the Bosnian Serbs on July 17 stating that the Muslim evacuation was conducted properly and no war crimes were committed.
Following protests from the Dutch parliament, the Dutch Defense Ministry launched a wide-ranging investigation of its troops' conduct in Srebrenica. It promised to announce its findings by the end of October.
Lessons learned?
UN officials warn that if the Dutch, who underwent three months of specialized peacekeeper training before going to Bosnia, crack under the pressure of experimental 1990s peacekeeping, American troops also could.
Suddenly thrust into the brutality of the conflict, few Dutch peacekeepers probably imagined that the Bosnian Serbs would execute the hundreds of civilian Muslim men who were rounded up outside the UN base. But it's unclear how many of them would have cared.
"I think there's no way you can prepare somebody to go to war. It's a strange world there," says Schellens who now teaches mentally handicapped children for a living. "The Muslims stole from the posts and they shot one of us. Hating is a big word, but they were no friends of mine.
Might want to brush up what happen before the US enter Bosnia and Kosovo.
Frazzled wrote: Wait isn't it legal to still wack Scots out at night in Northern England as a service to the King?
Nope. Besides there isn't a king and the Queen is half Scottish.
Not old as in the last few decades. Old as in the last several centuries. According to this site it was. However, that site looks like something a soccer mom would forward in an email, so I don't trust it.
York
Excluding Sundays, it is perfectly legal to shoot a Scotsman with a bow and arrow.
Sorry I don't see how that relates to shooting Scots in kilts at night. Atfter all, the could be storming Kent's walls. One can't be too caref LOOK OUT HAGGIS INCOMING!!!
Not old as in the last few decades. Old as in the last several centuries. According to this site it was. However, that site looks like something a soccer mom would forward in an email, so I don't trust it.
The story(ies) appears to originate from an article written in the Guardian in 2007. There are also several conflicting versions.
There may well be a kernel of truth in it but good luck using it as a legal defence.
Lordhat wrote: It's not about crime deterrence. Name me one successful method to stop crime. I'll give you a hint: there isn't one.
Punishment, both for the individual involved and others who might otherwise consider that crime. Direct physical prevention. Reform. Community involvement. Aggressive policing (cops on every corner).
I mean, seriously? Are you actually saying people can't be deterred from committing crime?
If deterrence was effective then surely we'd have heard of that mystical place where there is no violent crime. Hyperbole aside, I'm not saying that people can't be deterred from committing crime, just that all crime cannot be eradicated through deterrence; If there's a possibility that a stranger might come into my house and commit a crime, or try to commit one against me on the street, then I'll keep my gun, thank you very much.
Should be able to ban knives. Its not cover under the 2nd Amendment. Only time I ever use my combat knife (M1 bayonet) was for opening up MRE's sideways. Oh and cleaning my finger nails.
Jihadin wrote: Should be able to ban knives. Its not cover under the 2nd Amendment. Only time I ever use my combat knife (M1 bayonet) was for opening up MRE's sideways. Oh and cleaning my finger nails.
It's not about crime deterrence. Name me one successful method to stop crime. I'll give you a hint: there isn't one. If we can't stop crime, we can at least do everything in our power to protect ourselves from it.
Deterrence and absolute prevention are not the same thing. You plainly know this as you also talk about protection.
Frazzled wrote: Don't knock cheetoes. TBone the Magnificent would bite your face off for a cheetoe.
Have you taught TBone the way of the Flamin' Hot covered in nacho cheese?
Have not. However he likes nachos dipped in queso, or carrots dipped in queso, or any of those items. He'll even eat an altoid but witha major grimace. Evidently its easier to eat road kill than an altoid. he particularly likes sweet grapes. Since his insulin attacks started we'll give him an assortment like a grape between his multiple meals. He really likes grapes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: To much effort to beat the intruder down. I rather apply a 9lbs squeeze.
You can play with a 1911 and make that a three ounce squeeze, if you're lazy. Just saying.
