Another Tony Martin?

[Michael Rolls]

good!
I really believe that the limp-wristed lefties who always come out of the woodwork in cases like this would rather see the householder killed or maimed than that any harm should come to the poor housebreaker, who probably had a disturbed childhood and now has mental health problems.

[Scrumpy]

There's a Go fund me site the farmer's son has set up, donations are already over £20k.  The public are really behind him.

Phew!! For a moment there I thought you were going to say there is a Go Fund me set up for Marcus Smith.. 
it wont surprise me to see one..  I am sure the press will find a sob story to print about him..

[Diasi]

One of the intruders has been charged with aggravated burglary.

A person is guilty of aggravated burglary if he commits any burglary and at the time has with him any firearm or imitation firearm, any weapon of offence, or any explosive; and for this purpose—

"firearm" includes an airgun or air pistol, and "imitation firearm" means anything which has the appearance of being a firearm, whether capable of being discharged or not; and

"weapon of offence" means any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to or incapacitating a person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use.

Which, basically, means they went prepared & intending to inflict physical violence on the occupants of the farm.

[Scrumpy]

I wouldn't hesitate to fire a crossbow at anyone who i thought could be threat to my family..  And I bet most parents would feel the same..
I certainly hope that I wouldn't just lay there and hope that they go away..
I would fire ... no time to ask questions.. 'Are you friend or foe' ?.. 'Are you going to hurt me or my family' ?
The questions can come later.. 
It is they who are up to no good.. not me..
I feel strongly about this topic..

ps.  Does the crossbow come in red.. ?

[muddy]

If you had children would you leave a crossbow , a potentially lethal weapon lying about handy enough to use in an unexpected intrusion ? 

[Scrumpy]

Of course i would not.. I would hope they would learn how dangerous it was.. 
 
I suppose I could get a catapult or a spud gun.. Wouldn't want to hurt those who break in.. It would upset their Mummy...

[Cassandra]

One of the intruders has been charged with aggravated burglary.

A person is guilty of aggravated burglary if he commits any burglary and at the time has with him any firearm or imitation firearm, any weapon of offence, or any explosive; and for this purpose—

"firearm" includes an airgun or air pistol, and "imitation firearm" means anything which has the appearance of being a firearm, whether capable of being discharged or not; and

"weapon of offence" means any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to or incapacitating a person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use.

Which, basically, means they went prepared & intending to inflict physical violence on the occupants of the farm.

Section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 states that:

"any person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in preventing a crime or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large."

Reasonable force can be adopted to "prevent a crime".

Also subsection 5, of Section 76 refers to intoxication (another case).

Of course all English Law is subsidiary to the Human Rights Act 1998, article 2 of which states that:

"Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No-one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law."

"Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of the Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

a. In defence of any person from unlawful violence;

b. In order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;

c. In action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection."

To sum up, in the case referred to if you arrive 'tooled up' to support an act of burglary, you would expect in some cases to be repelled by assisted physical restraint and judges would so instruct jurors to contain this fact within their judgement. Arguably a Farmer's shotgun is a physical repellant. However within all judgements is the facet of 'reasonable force'. In this instance is a farmer owning a shotgun for say wildlife protection and pest control, justified to express this instrument as an item of reasonable force in defence of his person and property when confronted with 'armed' intruders? Herein is the argument for breaching the HRA 1998, however I defended on many occasions where farmers were discharged for the utility of a shotgun in an act of self defence. The law needs clarity and in todays 'washy-wokey' clamour for criminal liberty, the plaudits for clearing up legitimate armed response will never be changed.

The ungodly can fully expect that in 'knocking off a farm' they may encounter an armed response as most farmers own shotguns. I have successfully argued that within this act they compel the farmer to  resort to shooting in response. Sometimes many intruders target their properties and even if only one is armed the farmer is justified in assuming all invaders are similarly equipped.

[muddy]

I am sure you are familiar with the Tony Martin case .
He was convicted of murder
A nervous older man living alone and targeted in the night by two burglars from the travelling community .
The only thing that got him out of a life sentence was public outrage .

[Cassandra]

Yes I'm actually very familiar with the Tony Martin case. He was convicted of murder by a Jury majority of 10/2. The jury at the trial were told that they had the option of returning a verdict of manslaughter rather than murder, if they thought that Martin "did not intend to kill or cause serious bodily harm". In 1988, following the Hungerford massacre, the licensing treatment of semiautomatic and pump-action shotguns with a magazine capacity of more than two to equate to that of a firearm, required a valid firearms certificate.

In August '99, Tony Martin shot to death Fred Barras (16) one of two intruders  with an illegally held pump-action Winchester Model 1300 12-gauge shotgun which he claimed to have found. In 1994, Tony Martin's shotgun certificate had been revoked, after he'd found a man stealing apples in his orchard and shot a hole in the back of his vehicle. So both guilty of illegal procurement and possession of a firearm.

At trial, he was sentenced to life  with a recommended minimum term to serve of nine years, soon afterwards reduced to eight years by the Lord Chief Justice.

In October 2001, three senior Appeal Court judges headed by Lord Woolf, heard submissions by the defence that Martin had fired in his own defence and these were rejected . On this occasion, the defence also submitted evidence that Martin was diagnosed with paranoid personality disorder exacerbated by depression and that his paranoia was specifically directed at anyone intruding into his home; he was also diagnosed with Asperger syndrome. This submission was accepted by the Court of Appeal, on the grounds of diminished responsibility; Martin's murder conviction was replaced by manslaughter carrying a five-year sentence, and the ten-year sentence for wounding the second intruder Fearon was reduced to three years.

Here as I've often referred the appeal asked the Court to consider the mitigation of  'mens rea', i.e that his state of mind was impaired by clinically diagnosed 'Aspergers Syndrome'.

The concept of mens rea, which is Latin for "guilty mind," allows the criminal justice system to distinguish someone who set out with the intention of committing a crime from someone who did not mean to commit a crime. Mens rea refers to what the accused individual was thinking, and what his intent was at the time the crime was committed. Intent may be anything from a general intention to do something illegal, to a premeditated objective to commit a particular crime.

To sum up, the laws clinical considerations had to be viewed both at trial and then upon appeal, where circumstances were changed by newly submitted evidence on the convicted man's mental state.

I think given the circumstances the Trial decision was wrong, manslaughter was clearly the case. So a wrongly directed decision, was further compounded by overtly rigorous sentencing. It was corrected upon appeal and then 'mens rea' became plausible upon concurrent submission. I don't think Martin was guilty of murder, because I'm sure that day when he got up he had nt decided to kill anyone. Let alone two persons Barras and Fearon he'd never met.

I believe the appeal judges knew the first decision was unsafe and gladly accepted the 'Mens Rea' submittal to get the system off the hook, by virtually releasing the convicted man that day. A classic 'Chambers' convenience 'fix'.

Here he might in a 'Blue' state he have been gonged for manslaughter, but probably given a non custodial sentence in light of mitigative accompaniment, without the need to invoke the condition of his mental health.

[Diasi]

Section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 states that:

"any person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in preventing a crime or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large."

Reasonable force can be adopted to "prevent a crime".

Also subsection 5, of Section 76 refers to intoxication (another case).

Of course all English Law is subsidiary to the Human Rights Act 1998, article 2 of which states that:

"Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No-one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law."

"Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of the Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

a. In defence of any person from unlawful violence;

b. In order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;

c. In action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection."

To sum up, in the case referred to if you arrive 'tooled up' to support an act of burglary, you would expect in some cases to be repelled by assisted physical restraint and judges would so instruct jurors to contain this fact within their judgement. Arguably a Farmer's shotgun is a physical repellant. However within all judgements is the facet of 'reasonable force'. In this instance is a farmer owning a shotgun for say wildlife protection and pest control, justified to express this instrument as an item of reasonable force in defence of his person and property when confronted with 'armed' intruders? Herein is the argument for breaching the HRA 1998, however I defended on many occasions where farmers were discharged for the utility of a shotgun in an act of self defence. The law needs clarity and in todays 'washy-wokey' clamour for criminal liberty, the plaudits for clearing up legitimate armed response will never be changed.

The ungodly can fully expect that in 'knocking off a farm' they may encounter an armed response as most farmers own shotguns. I have successfully argued that within this act they compel the farmer to  resort to shooting in response. Sometimes many intruders target their properties and even if only one is armed the farmer is justified in assuming all invaders are similarly equipped.

Thanks Cassandra for expanding on this.

Correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that you can use force, including lethal force, if an intruder leads you to believe that they are armed even if they turn out not to be, under the CPS rules of not having to wait to be actually attacked.

It must be quite refreshing to now live in a country where you don't have to stand placidly while an intruder attacks you or risk a life sentence if you protect yourself.

[Diasi]

I wouldn't hesitate to fire a crossbow at anyone who i thought could be threat to my family..  And I bet most parents would feel the same..
I certainly hope that I wouldn't just lay there and hope that they go away..
I would fire ... no time to ask questions.. 'Are you friend or foe' ?.. 'Are you going to hurt me or my family' ?
The questions can come later..
It is they who are up to no good.. not me..
I feel strongly about this topic..

ps.  Does the crossbow come in red.. ?

The bolt comes in red after it's been fired. 

[JBR]

Thanks Cassandra for expanding on this.

Correct if I'm wrong but my understanding is that you can use force, including lethal force, if an intruder leads you to believe that they are armed even if they turn out not to be, under the CPS rules of not having to wait to be actually attacked.

It must be quite refreshing to now live in a country where you don't have to stand placidly while an intruder attacks you or risk a life sentence if you protect yourself.

Hear hear.
Having heard about instances of people being prosecuted for simply defending themselves, it is reassuring to learn that British Justice can, at least sometimes, come down on the right side.

[klondike]

Meanwhile over the pond...

In New York, a man hears a burglar breaking into his home. He calls the police. 45 minutes later the police arrive to find the man and his wife dead, and nobody else in the house and all of their belongings gone.

In Tennessee, a man hears a burglar breaking into his house. He calls the police. While on the line, the police dispatcher hears 13 "bangs" from a gun. The man on the phone says, "don't hurry - I got 'em." When the police arrive the find a dead burglar with 13 bullet holes - all center-mass, with about a 2″ group. The police officer says: "Nice grouping!"

In Texas, a man hears a burglar breaking into his house. He calls the police. While on the line the police dispatcher hears 7 very loud 'bangs', followed by the sound of a magazine hitting the floor, and the click of another magazine going into the handle and the slide slamming shut. Then he hears another 7 loud bangs, followed by the same sounds as before. The man says, "no need to hurry, I got him!" When the police arrive, they find a dead burglar with 14 holes in his head, in 2 small groupings. The police officer says: "nice groupings, but next time take a breath between reloads and you can get them all in the same group..."