Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5908617/Man-held-after-confronting-gang-at-home.html

He was arrested for defending himself and his family?
He should be hailed as a bloody hero not sent to court for attempted murder.

Exactly my thoughts.

UK law is so unbelievably stupid sometimes. You should be able to deal with trespassers however you see fit. It's the same situation as that farmer that shot some criminals who broke into his home. Not sure how it ended, but he ended up going to court.

Whatever human rights a person has should be void as soon as they violate another person's home.

How lame to be stabbed 5 times... by a letter opener. it isn't even a cool weapon.

I'd have been in there with a cricket bat or the meat cleaver in our kitchen.

Either way the saps would have been a hell of alot worse off than 'letter opener' stab wounds.

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:How lame to be stabbed 5 times... by a letter opener. it isn't even a cool weapon.

I'd have been in there with a cricket bat or the meat cleaver in our kitchen.

Either way the saps would have been a hell of alot worse off than 'letter opener' stab wounds.

We would have answered the question "can a .44 magnum in fact blow his head clean off?"

Sounds like Britain pulled a South Africa.We aren't allowed to hurt attackers but they are allowed to clobber us?

What the feth has happened to <inset country here> legal system?

You are playing with me right? Is this some sort of joke?

I think a serious government bashing is in order for this one.

Frazzled wrote:

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:How lame to be stabbed 5 times... by a letter opener. it isn't even a cool weapon.

I'd have been in there with a cricket bat or the meat cleaver in our kitchen.

Either way the saps would have been a hell of alot worse off than 'letter opener' stab wounds.

We would have answered the question "can a .44 magnum in fact blow his head clean off?"

A bat and cleaver? Really? No milking equipment, because I think they would learn the definition of death my milking .

Oh what a funny way to die.

As to the .44 magnum it is all in the wrist. Just make sure you don't break your wrist when you fire .

My personal view is that if you enter a home with consent then your forgo your rights and homeowners can defend themselves and their family with appropriate measures.

I say appropriate measures because I don't think its right to let someone legally kill another just because they are breaking into your home, but homeowners have the right to protect their property and more importantly .. their family. If that means grabbing a cricket bat and whacking them once or twice, so be it.

I say the guy should be given a warning and thats it. Its his home and he should have had the right to defend it


Automatically Appended Next Post:
and by home I also include gardens as they are part of the property

Legally you should lose all of your rights when you forcibly enter someones dwelling. The main problem would be thieves really, but there are a lot more situations than that.

Recently there was a man going around a neighborhood in Berkeley, CA breaking into peoples houses and RAPING women. If someone tried to do that to any woman I knew they would be lucky to survive meeting me.

No if's and's or but's you stay out of other peoples houses when they tell you to PERIOD. If you deem fit in your country, a normal front and backyard may or may not be included in this, but INSIDE your house you should be able to deal with the situation as you see fit. I do not think that you should be able to gun down people for stepping on into your front yard, although the backyard is usually quite a different story, but even in that case what if a neighbor kid is trying to get a ball out of the yard. It does get complicated outside of the dwelling for a lot of reasons.

Or you can rely on the cops... . (simply laughable option most of the time)

Get.Off.My.Lawn.

I don't agree with the guys choice of weapon, but honestly, if some gang was threatening to kill your wife/husband, your going to do whatever is in your power to protect them.
The Police range from increddibly excellent to completely useless at times. Though I'm well aware that its usually only the small percentage that give coppers a bad name as all the ones I've met are very good people


Man: "Hello, there's some youth threatening to kill my wife, can you come over?"
Police: "Have they actually killed or tried to stab your wife?"
Man: "No, but they are threatening to"
Police: "Ah, I'm afraid until she has been stabbed there is nothing we can do"
several minutes later
Man: "Hello, me again, yep she's on the floor in a pool of blood"
Police: "Thats not really our department, you ideally need an ambulance, not the police for that kind of emergency, good-day sir"

The funniest part about all of this is you can actually be classified as a lethal weapon . I know that sounds a bit funny, but it is 100% true at least in the U.S. so if you defend yourself in a brutal way your record can be smeared for life. On the other hand a lot of serious Martial artists are legally classified (and verified) as lethal weapons.

Just an odd fact that eludes to police inactivity.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Get.Off.My.Lawn.

I don't know whats funnier, the comment or the illusion that your Brian Blessed avatar pic is saying it

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Get.Off.My.Lawn.

Let me help you with that

The bloke in Norfolk (?) who shot the intruder got convicted of murder.

The crucial point was that he shot the youth in the back. If he has shot him in the front it would have looked more like self-defence.

hellsguardian316 wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Get.Off.My.Lawn.

I don't know whats funnier, the comment or the illusion that your Brian Blessed avatar pic is saying it

Seriously, noone would break and enter at Fortress Blessed.
Imagine his beared mightiness charging full pelt towards you screaming SLAAAAAAAAYYYYY!!!1!!!, Causes Terror Ld -50, can fly and summon 3D20 hawkmen per turn.

Kilkrazy wrote:The bloke in Norfolk (?) who shot the intruder got convicted of murder.

The crucial point was that he shot the youth in the back. If he has shot him in the front it would have looked more like self-defence.

It depends on jurisidiction. Its usually a question of specific facts of the case. A person that gets hit will often start spinning, get hit by riccochet or a bullet will enter and spin all the place.

Wow, there’s allot of knee jerking going on here!

Before the oh so predicable cries about the country going to dogs, lets bear in mind that currently this guy has yet to be charged with anything.

Someone has been stabbed, repeatedly. The police have duty to investigate the circumstances surrounding the stabbing and determine if it was an appropriate response. During this investigation the man is being held, quite right too. If he was simply defending his home, as so many here are convinced, he will be released. If it was a disproportionate act of vengeance/anger then he will be charged. It far too early to call this guy a ‘hero’, until all the facts are in.

In the case of Tony Martin (the guy from Norfolk) he shot the burglar in the back as he was fleeing the scene. That was not an act of self defence, it was an act of vengeance/murder.

Skarwael wrote:Exactly my thoughts.

UK law is so unbelievably stupid sometimes. You should be able to deal with trespassers however you see fit. It's the same situation as that farmer that shot some criminals who broke into his home. Not sure how it ended, but he ended up going to court.

Tony Martin? Who shot a burglar in the back as he fled, then left him there to bleed out while he fled the scene? Who then claimed self defence but was convicted by a jury of his peers of murder? Who then had his charge downgraded to manslaughter by the courts?

I mean you have a guy who shot people while they were running away claiming self defence. Who was convicted of murder by a jury made up of regular citizens, only to see the charge downgraded by a judge on appeal. The right wing fringe that tried to make a big deal out of the case only managed to do so by the most willful ignorance of the facts of the case.

Whatever human rights a person has should be void as soon as they violate another person's home.

No. Funny thing about decency is that it doesn't go away when you want to be play childish powertrips.

Funny thing about self defence is that it actually covers you when you are trying defend your family. If someone is in your home, you're unaware of the circumstance and use deadly force you won't be convicted. The law doesn't need to be extended to any of the Dirty Harry power trips you see in this thread.


Meanwhile, can we bare in mind so far all we've seen is a report in the Telegraph giving one side of the story. And we don't even know what police intention is yet. You're all sounding off about a man who may or may not have proper proceedings brought against him for actions we don't know that much about in circumstances we know nothing about. It's crazy.

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The bloke in Norfolk (?) who shot the intruder got convicted of murder.

The crucial point was that he shot the youth in the back. If he has shot him in the front it would have looked more like self-defence.

It depends on jurisidiction. Its usually a question of specific facts of the case. A person that gets hit will often start spinning, get hit by riccochet or a bullet will enter and spin all the place.

The jurisdiction here was England, and it was a shotgun. BBC reports, with my summaries.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/718129.stm
August 1999 three teenage burglars broke into an isolated farmhouse. The farmer shot them with a shotgun.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/719292.stm
The self defence issue.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/717511.stm
The farmer was found guilty of murder, having shot one of the burglars to death with an illegal pump action shotgun.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1627540.stm
The verdict was reduced to manslaughter when new evidence was brought forward that showed the farmer suffered a mild paranoid personality disorder.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2949463.stm
A surviving burglar attempted to sue for damages but was unsuccessful.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/3090853.stm
Having done his time, the farmer was released in July 2003.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1628710.stm
Legal issue surrounding self defence were not fully clarified by the case.

LuciusAR wrote:Someone has been stabbed, repeatedly. The police have duty to investigate the circumstances surrounding the stabbing and determine if it was an appropriate response. During this investigation the man is being held, quite right too. If he was simply defending his home, as so many here are convinced, he will be released. If it was a disproportionate act of vengeance/anger then he will be charged. It far too early to call this guy a ‘hero’, until all the facts are in.

I have to disagree, it depends on what they class as excessive force, if you are attacked in your own home by a man/woman holding a bat and you shoot them, then that is classed as excessive force and you will be charged. Its only a rare instance that it would be overlooked. Also, as far as I'm aware, it has not been described if or if not, the gang were armed with anything themselves, which makes the whole self defence thing pointless which is wrong. There would have been 4 or 5 members against him, if the letter opener was his only weapon he could get hold of then what else could he have done to defend himself. 5 against 1 ... you do the math!

IMO the police were quite right to arrest the man.

Anyone who in suspected of stabbing someone should be arrested. Then the case should go to trial and a jury should make a decision based on the evidence.

For all you know, once this gets to court the jury will acquit.

hellsguardian316 wrote:

LuciusAR wrote:Someone has been stabbed, repeatedly. The police have duty to investigate the circumstances surrounding the stabbing and determine if it was an appropriate response. During this investigation the man is being held, quite right too. If he was simply defending his home, as so many here are convinced, he will be released. If it was a disproportionate act of vengeance/anger then he will be charged. It far too early to call this guy a ‘hero’, until all the facts are in.

I have to disagree, it depends on what they class as excessive force, if you are attacked in your own home by a man/woman holding a bat and you shoot them, then that is classed as excessive force and you will be charged.

YOU ARE WRONG.
Just wanted to clear that up. Its a question of fact. Do they represent a realistic immediate threat to life and limb? If yes then does your jurisdiction require you to flee if possible? If no or you had and can no longer escape then blast away.

Conceeded, there is always an exception to the rule. If you were being blugeoned to death by a bat then that would make an exception, or were at risk of it.
I meant it as a generic statement of "you can't use something bigger and better than them" But you are quite correct.

hellsguardian316 wrote:Conceeded, there is always an exception to the rule. If you were being blugeoned to death by a bat then that would make an exception, or were at risk of it.
I meant it as a generic statement of "you can't use something bigger and better than them" But you are quite correct.

Sure you can. I don't know where you're getting this.

I don't know the specific of English law, but the concept is simple.

Can the BG kill your or another person (this is expanded depending on jurisidction but I'm being conservative)? Can this happen now? Is there a retreat rule (unless already met). You can apply the force needed to stop the attacker, and thats the point of your action. Its not to kill or wound or warn. Its to stop the attack.

If I'm being attacked and have access to a remote controlled rocket propelled chainsaw I can use it as long as that fact pattern is met. I don't have to use a longsword if he's using a long sword-this ain't a duel in the bloody middle Ages.

Imagine his beared mightiness charging full pelt towards you screaming SLAAAAAAAAYYYYY!!!1!!!,

Yep that would do it for me.

Wow that sucks.
That would never happen here.
the worst thing we do is send the swat team in at children.

Frazzled wrote:Sure you can. I don't know where you're getting this.

It's a really common idea here in Oz and in the UK. It goes that you can only use as big or dangerous a weapon as the attacker. So if he's got a club you can hit him with a club, but not with a knife. If he has a knife you can use a knife yourself, but not a gun and onwards and upwards.

Of course, it isn't true. What matters is the severity of the force relative to the threat. If a guy threatens to punch you and you shoot him, that ain't cool. Not because of the weapon, but dangerous force being repelled with deadly force. But even that's pretty loose, once you add in the instant you have to decide and the number of unknowns, the courts tend to be very lenient.

garret wrote:Wow that sucks.
That would never happen here.
the worst thing we do is send the swat team in at children.

Gentlemen, that right there is why Al Gore was not elected President.

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Sure you can. I don't know where you're getting this.

It's a really common idea here in Oz and in the UK. It goes that you can only use as big or dangerous a weapon as the attacker. So if he's got a club you can hit him with a club, but not with a knife. If he has a knife you can use a knife yourself, but not a gun and onwards and upwards.

Of course, it isn't true. What matters is the severity of the force relative to the threat. If a guy threatens to punch you and you shoot him, that ain't cool. Not because of the weapon, but dangerous force being repelled with deadly force. But even that's pretty loose, once you add in the instant you have to decide and the number of unknowns, the courts tend to be very lenient.

It is usually pretty obvious when something was necessary or not, and the courts show that with great regularity most of the world throughout, depending on their laws of course.

This guy for instance with relavance to the OT, should legally get his face smashed in when entering into a house to rape and/or assault women. This makes me so angry...

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Sure you can. I don't know where you're getting this.

It's a really common idea here in Oz and in the UK. It goes that you can only use as big or dangerous a weapon as the attacker. So if he's got a club you can hit him with a club, but not with a knife. If he has a knife you can use a knife yourself, but not a gun and onwards and upwards.

Of course, it isn't true. What matters is the severity of the force relative to the threat. If a guy threatens to punch you and you shoot him, that ain't cool. Not because of the weapon, but dangerous force being repelled with deadly force. But even that's pretty loose, once you add in the instant you have to decide and the number of unknowns, the courts tend to be very lenient.

Now my reference is US law and old common law forbears so my information MAY BE INCORRECT (not shouting want to make sure people are aware of thier local regs).

In the US that was a common misconception as applied to lethal self defense (as disparate from self defense in general). You're requirements were not on proportionality but on the test of whether yoyu were preventing potential lethal occurrences against yourself or others. Proportionality was a factor in regular self defense though and this may have been a split between US and non-US.

Its a stupid idea frankly. If he pulls a knife I want to stop him from killing me, not going Romeo vs. Tibult. Conan witha knife is far more dangerous than I am with a chain saw. A bright line defense is superior.