Farm tenant arrested after burglars shot was 'plagued by break-ins'

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.

**Lordhat**

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9516776/Farm-tenant-arrested-after-burglars-shot-was-plagued-by-break-ins.html

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.

**Vulcan**

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.

**p_gray99**

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.

**deathholydeath**

And people say America is fethed up.

**p_gray99**

deathholydeath wrote:
And people say America is fethed up.

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.

**deathholydeath**

p_gray99 wrote:
deathholydeath wrote:
And people say America is fethed up.
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.

**p_gray99**

deathholydeath wrote:
p_gray99 wrote:
deathholydeath wrote:
And people say America is fethed up.
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.

**Testify**

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

**d-usa**

I would love to see all those "why shoot to kill" folks try to hit a leg from 20 feet away with one shot.

**Testify**

deathholydeath wrote:

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.

**p_gray99**

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.

**ShumaGorath**

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.

**d-usa**

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.

A bullet in the body stops the bullet. A missed shot to the leg will continue to travel until it hits somebody else.

**ShumaGorath**

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.

**deathholydeath**

Testify wrote:
deathholydeath wrote:

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.

My future sense is tingling.

**Testify**

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.

**deathholydeath**

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.

**Hordini**

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.

**dogma**

deathholydeath wrote:

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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

deathholydeath wrote:
It's that, ya' know, inductive reasoning thing.

Induction requires that you note probability. You didn't.

**deathholydeath**

dogma wrote:
deathholydeath wrote:

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.

**Hlaine Larkin mk2**

deathholydeath wrote:
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

**Mr Nobody**

When it comes to being threatened, society expects you to be a victim and not the victor.

**Testify**

deathholydeath wrote:
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.

**deathholydeath**

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:
deathholydeath wrote:
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.

**azazel the cat**

p_gray99 wrote:
deathholydeath wrote:
p_gray99 wrote:
deathholydeath wrote:
And people say America is fethed up.
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)

**Mannahnin**

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.

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.

**deathholydeath**

Testify wrote:
deathholydeath wrote:
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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:
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.

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.

**dogma**

deathholydeath wrote:

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.

deathholydeath wrote:

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.

**Hordini**

deathholydeath wrote:

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.

**Palindrome**

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.