TargetTalk

A few years ago in the UK, a Norfolk farmer shot and wounded a burglar he found in his house with a shot gun. The farmer was sent to prison.

Mainly because the evidence (as in, the shot lodged in the walls, the physical construction of the house and forensic evidence in the house) showed that instead of awaking to find he was being burgled and firing off a shot or two into the darkness downstairs to scare off the burglers, as he told the police, he had booby-trapped the house, obtained a shotgun under somewhat dubious circumstances (his having been taken off him for shooting at a car on the road if I remember correctly), removed all the lights from downstairs and lain in wait for who-knows-how-long (I cannot remember if he actually left windows open and so forth); then when the two involved entered the house, he snuck downstairs and up behind them, unloaded the shotgun into them at close range and as they attempted to flee the building, reloaded and fired again as they were running across the garden.

Thing is, under UK and Irish law, you are allowed do pretty much anything you think you have to to defend yourself in extremis. In other words, someone comes into your home to harm you, shooting them with something or stabbing or bludgeoning them, if it's done in the heat of the moment when you fear for your life - that's completely above board in the law. You're not required to take some sort of vow of never harming anyone.

What you are not allowed to do is to boobytrap your house (injuring a fireman if he's in your house putting out the fire you started by smoking in bed while waiting for the burglars is never going to be well received), or to pursue a fleeing attacker to "teach them a lesson". Lesson-teaching is strictly reserved for the judiciary over here.

The basic premise under the law (and this is very roughly stated and comes from reading case law and legislation - I'm an engineer not a barrister, so weigh it as you will) is that if you're required to defend yourself by someone else's actions then that someone else bears all the legal liability for what happens next - but there's a line drawn between self-defence and "preemptive-self-defence" that boils down to asking very specifically who threw the first punch.

For instance, in another case in UK law, a burglar surprised the owner of the house and after a brief struggle, the owner rendered the burglar unconscious and tied him up. To this point, all above board and legal. The owner then decided to douse the burglar in petrol and set him alight to teach him a lesson. The owner subsequently was successfully prosecuted because the burglar had been subdued and so the owner was not under any conceivable threat when he set him on fire.

So basicly, Tony Martin's not a clear-cut case for good reason, and UK and Irish law is not deficient in permitting self-defence, it's just that the lines are different from in the US (and elsewhere) - and often the actual situation tends to be misrepresented (Martin's case was a fairly well-known example over here because PR seems to have played a large part in his legal defence).

Sparks, a much fuller and better explained description of the Tony Martin case than my attempt earlier in this thread.

Just because he used a gun doesn't mean he deserves the support of other gun owners - and now we've gone WAY off topic.

I've been told, but don't know if it is true or not, that under Western Australian 'home invasion' legislation it is acceptable to use a handgun in strict self-defence; ie although self-defence is not a valid reason for owning a firearm, once you've got one it might be so used.

I haven't been able to sight either legislation or case law to back this up though. (Personally I think I'd have more legal chance with a cricket bat.)

David Levene wrote:and now we've gone WAY off topic.

I know, it's why I promised myself I wouldn't get started on this thread. And I'd been doing so well too :(

Sparks wrote:I promised myself I wouldn't get started on this thread. And I'd been doing so well too :(

Cheer up. Your description of the Tony Martin incident was very illuminating. Under that set of facts, he would have been convicted in the US also -- everything up to the point where he shot at fleeing burglars was questionable -- it shows intent, but they were still home invaders whom the police were either unwilling or unable to deal with -- but you can't pursue and shoot someone who is merely trying to get away.

Regards,

Al B.

Al:

Thanks so much for the more thoughtful, comprehensive reply to Spark's comment re the NAS "study." More of us really should have the details and supporting info at our fingertips on issues like these!

Sparks:

Speaking as one "in the industry" (academia) in the US, I have to tell you that just having an alphabet soup after your name . . . or even a vita reflecting the work you did to make tenure . . . doesn't make you a practicing scientist. These fund-disbursing committees are made up of bureacrats; well educated bureaucrats, but politically driven, shallow, vain, opportunistic bureaucrats nonetheless. Yeah, I'm generalizing- but hte business of how research gets funded in the US has much less to do with the "quest for truth" than the "quest for popularity with those holding the purse strings." The NAS panel to "study" the gun control-crime issue was not some brain trust of thoughtful, rational, objective scientists with a grasp of the issues . . .

Steve

peepsight wrote: Its worth noting that although gun crime in the UK has been on a steady increase since the hand gun ban and the Labour party have been in power, knife crime is far more prevelant and worrying problem on the streets of Britain.

This considering the UK has very Draconian knife laws as well, go figure.

I know call the police, they'll save you or at least hang around outside while someone kills you.

If it is so safe maybe the Royal Family and the top politicians should give up their protective details. I guess its more of a "let them eat cake" attitude.

Richard:

Excellent point ("let them save you") that seems to be frequently overlooked.

In many countries, the police have neither the duty nor the reposnsibility to protect the life of any one individual. Their role is to maintin teh cuvil peace and then track down and collect evidence on the bad guys for prosecution after the fact.

That having been said, most individual policemen will intervene to protect life when such intervention does not contradict policy or standing orders. However, they assume great legal risk when they act to protect an individual (They shoot at the bad guy and the bullet goes astray? They engage in a high-speed motor vehicle chase and run over a bystander? etc.). Remember, they are NEVER held liable for actions they don't take and perhaps should have/could have, adn they are ALWAYS held responsible and second-guessed for actions they take.

In addition

Response times are problematic. Our recent "spate" (seemingly) of school shooting in the colonies presents the conundrum: if the state won't allow citizens to protect tehmselves, and it cannot take on this role themselves (generally, the shooter runs out of ammunition before law enforcement arrives. Certainly before they are done setting up the barricades and getting the hostage negotiators etc. etc. in place), we are left with the fundamental issue:

How many are you willing to let die defenseless waiting for the police to show up?

Heck, we have shootings in federal courthouses and prisons. "Gun Free Zones" my arse!

Steve

Steve Swartz wrote:Richard:


Remember, they are NEVER held liable for actions they don't take and perhaps should have/could have, adn they are ALWAYS held responsible and second-guessed for actions they take.


Steve

I agree with most of what you said but he above is not totally true.

We have had a Native stand-off in a town called Caledonia, the natives beat a cameraman and an elderly couple well a group of OPP officer stood around and watched and did nothing. Criminally they have not been charged but there are civil suits against the government and police force (don't know if any are against individual officers). I beleive these types of civil actions have been brought against police forces in the US too. Oh yea they also stole a US border patrol car too well the police and US border agents watched.

Personally I'd rather defend myself and take my chances with a jury of my peers rather than be killed by some dirt bag.

Hmm Richard I think your example rather supports my point a bit more than it refutes it- while anyone can sue anyone for anything, and juries can frequently be stupid- the point is hte officers were not being held responsible outside the civil suit.

In the US we also have something called the "Feres Doctrine" which holds that a public official can not be held responsible for their official acts as long as they are operating within their official roles and follow officieal policy.

If Canada has something similar to the Feres doctrine (I think it's called "crown immunity" under British law), then the officers lawyewrs will invoke it and the judge will have no choice but to dismiss the civil suit.

For obvious reasons (with which I don't automatically disagree), "Ommission" is held to a different standard than "Commission."

While you may think the officers were morally "wrong" in standing by while allowing a crime to be committed, from a "legal" standpoint the citizen must understand they had no DUTY to intervene.

So

Lose your guns=(insert lots of foofoorah)=lose *all* your rights; including the right to be free from the evil intentions of the strong (exercised either individually by criminals; or collectively by your fellow citizens in the form of the state).

Steve Swartz

I agree with your premise just disagree with the easy with which it can be used as a defense. Its not quite that simple in Canada anyways, basically to use the that defense you have to prove you were acting within the law and the policies set out by your department or ministry. Officer that give orders outside the law or policy can be and have been held liable for their actions or in actions.

As for the officers and their organization, I do beleive the settled out of court, so it looks like they didn't want to take there chances with a judge or jury. For information sake, arrest were later made of the perps, who comitted the assault and battery and the US Border patrol car was found as well (it might have been burned out).

My comment about taking my chance with a jury have more to do with me as an individual in protecting myself.