To Kill a Burglar....

[Sportsman]

I agree with everything said about the Fearnon scumbag and am also disgusted that he would be paid by "our"BBC

however

Mr Martin had a problem claiming spur of the moment self defence, or that he was suddenly in fear of his life, which might have constituted a defence. He had been telling anyone who would listen, for weeks, that he was going to shoot and kill anyone who he found on his property. He was armed and prepared to use his weapon, and had in fact been waiting for the opportunity to do so. At the last count breaking and entry was not a capital offence, and his actions in acting as Judge, Jury and Executioner surely cannot be supported.

We have had similar discussions on here many times and to be honest I'm not expecting too many to agree with my viewpoint, but lets not get too personal, I'm feeling very delicate

[five bellies]

I don't think Martin did anything wrong. Bizarrely today, all he would have to do is say he felt threatend and intimidated and he'd probably of walked away with probation, maybe a couple of months for 'excessive' force - but no more.

 

I think a NI soldier (Clegg) a few years ago was jailed (or they tried to) for shooting a joyrider that didn't stop at a checkpoint - I mean, why have a checkpoint, why have ARMED guards, and then jail the poor b'stad for doing his job (if the car had a bomb in it, then his head would have been on the chopping block).

 

The reason is because courts in the UK have a massively irrational attitude when it comes to anything with firearms. A firearm almost implies guilt even if there was just grounds for using it (I am assuming the gun is also legally owned!)

 

I like this question (to highlight different peoples views).

 

You wake up and hear a burglar. You go downstairs, jump him and get him to the floor. Do you a) run out the house, B politely ask him to remain on the floor or c) make sure he isn't getting up for the next half hour or so (i.e put the boot in)? The chances are most would say option a, but realistically most of us would probably do c.

 

It stinks, the BBC should be ashamed to say they paid him. It's taxpayers money after all (I wonder if he even has a telly licence!).

 

 

As I remember the Case the fire arm was Unlicenced and Martin laid in wait for the burglers, I may be wrong on this. The courts courts hammerd so hard because of the above. I allso recal that the weapon was an auto shot gun caperble of holding more than the allowed three rounds (shotgun cert only not F.A.C.).

That in its self was a crime, Although I hasten to add Ive Little sympathy for the Victems!!!!!!.

Another problem I belive was Martin was Just a tad incentric and proberbly didnt in the eyes of the Jury didnt come acrross too well. the jury would have recieved guidence from the Judge and that would have given them no chioce as to find him Guilty.

 

The problem with this Goverment that the only Catch and release Policy they will ever support is in favour of the Burglers and Rapists.

Edited March 17, 2006 by five bellies

[Peter M]

I agree with everything said about the Fearnon scumbag and am also disgusted that he would be paid by "our"BBC

however

Mr Martin had a problem claiming spur of the moment self defence, or that he was suddenly in fear of his life, which might have constituted a defence. He had been telling anyone who would listen, for weeks, that he was going to shoot and kill anyone who he found on his property. He was armed and prepared to use his weapon, and had in fact been waiting for the opportunity to do so. At the last count breaking and entry was not a capital offence, and his actions in acting as Judge, Jury and Executioner surely cannot be supported.

We have had similar discussions on here many times and to be honest I'm not expecting too many to agree with my viewpoint, but lets not get too personal, I'm feeling very delicate

Well said sportsman i agree with everything you have said. As pointed out last night on the programme this is a very atypical case and not a good one to use as an example when discussing the rights of householders to protect themselves.

[Pugs]

Personally I would shoot any bastard (or would of done had I not sold my shotguns) in the knee caps had they been in my house un-invited. I got burglered and it ain't nice, just as well we were out at the time because it would have been the last thing the t**ts ever did

Edited March 17, 2006 by Pugs

[Elton]

It's one of those subjects where it's so much easier to discuss when it's somebody else's problem.

 

My old law teacher told us off a case where a friend of his was burgled and the friend, a massive rugby player, knocked the guy out cold.

 

The police officers knew the culprit and moved him to the bottom of the stairs.

 

When asked why, they told the guy that he had 'fallen down the stairs when startled'

 

My kind of copper

 

You break into somebody's house, you face the consequence. Anyone broke into my house, I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by six.

[Elton]

I did a few courses held by a guy called Geoff Thompson, who those involved in martial arts may know. He is good at knowing the law, with regards to self defence.

 

It's amazing how many objects you can have innocently lying around, as opposed to them being weapons.

 

Somebody interested in martial arts might have a couple of swords hanging above their bed, for example. A lot less likely to get you in trouble than one hidden under the bed...

[Lid]

Somebody interested in martial arts might have a couple of swords hanging above their bed, for example. A lot less likely to get you in trouble than one hidden under the bed...

I don't think that works Elton. I am interested in guns, but it doesn't follow that I should grab a gun I have on display, load it and shoot a burglar. In fact I would never dream of using my guns for anything other than the sports they are intended for. If some-one breaks into my house, baseball is my chosen hobby, or maybe cricket, depending which room I'm in.

 

However I still have to think carefully. If I was to be done for assault, I would then lose my shotgun certificate. This is a sorry state to be in. A couple of years a go I was breaking up an assault in our street and one of the youths came back and had another crack at one of the victims. I had to actually prevent myself from wading in, in order to protect my hobbies!

Edited March 18, 2006 by Lid

[Sportsman]

I wouldn't really have a problem with someone "falling down the stairs" or in using whatever skills you had to defend yourself, but that is a world away from ambushing someone with a loaded gun.

Having said that, on the way back from Spain last week we were robbed in a motorway services, my daughter lost her handbag etc from the car. Not too serious, but a lot of my fantasies afterward involved baseball bats, shotguns and young Spanish men. (I'm not sure that came out the way it was intended!)

[chesters1]

damn we live in a bungalow ,i dont "do" baseball ,all i have left to defend me is my little 6D maglight

 

use a baseball bat its an offensive weapon (unless you can prove a baseball link) use an everyday torch and your fine

p.s as a torch its crap

Edited March 18, 2006 by chesters1

[Jim Roper]

A can of Mr Muscle oven cleaner in a strategic place might come in handy!