Pensioners forum LetsChat

It's time this crap stopped. Another elderly farmer facing a gang of burglars picks up a gun and defends himself then ends up with a possible murder charge.

'BOTCHED BURGLARY' Suspected burglar, 19, 'shot dead during break-in at remote farmhouse' – as farmer arrested on suspicion of murder

A FARMER has been arrested on suspicion of murder after a suspected burglar was shot dead at his remote farmhouse.

Marcus Smith, 19, was discovered dead at the scene in Whaley Bridge, Derbyshire, yesterday morning.

Police had been called to reports of a break-in when they found the footballer.

A second teen was also found with gunshot wounds nearby and remains in hospital with serious injuries.

He has been arrested on suspicion of aggravated burglary, along with a fourth man, aged in his 20s, who was held a few hours later after a van he was travelling in was stopped by police on the A6.

The farmer, aged in his 50s, is being quizzed on suspicion of murder and attempted murder and remains in custody.

The dad-of-four has been described as a private-school educated churchgoer.

Marcus, who leaves behind two brothers, used to play for Macclesfield Town FC.

A family member said his devastated mum Kerry, a nurse, was "grieving for her son".

Paying tribute on social media, a friend said: "I love you more than life. RIP."

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/27687183/suspected-burglar-shot-dead-break-in-farmer-arrest/

To my mind one less scumbag in the world and another who may have second thoughts in future. They must have been fairly close for a shotgun to bring them down and I doubt he'd have hit two with a rifle.

Best not to try and rob a farmer they tend to have a gun handy .

If these people want to break in and steal what is not theirs they should take whatever is coming to them..
I think everyone has a right to protect themselves and their property..
Shoot first..   
The thieves could be carrying knives/ guns..

I wouldn't put my life at risk by politely asking 'Are you armed'? 

Agreed. Was he expected to let them take what they wanted and perhaps put his family at risk?

I bet you anything you like the papers will be full of people saying how wonderful Marcus Smith was.. 
That he didn't deserve to die..
He was loved by all and always ready to help others..

How the farmer was a bully.. and had a quick temper..

Here we go again !  poor young footballer, he wasn't a footballer he was a thief, or a would be thief. 

Yes scumbags for sure. I just hope for the sake of the farmer that they weren't scumbags who were running away. I'd hop it quick if somebody was waving a shotgun at me. At close range they can make a pretty big hole.

I don't understand why he is being charged with murder as opposed to manslaughter .
He surely didn't plan to murder anyone ? 

Quote from: muddy on May 02, 2024, 09:50:45 PMI don't understand why he is being charged with murder as opposed to manslaughter .
He surely didn't plan to murder anyone ?

Yes.  Quite.
But the break in was intentional though,  wasn't it.   

No one just happens to break into someone's property by accident!

To be fair to the police letting rip with a shotgun at somebody if unjustified is murder if you kill them.  The legal question in the UK is whether appropriate force was used. If he was in fear of his life which may well have been the case then he was justified in shooting them. If they had turned and were running away he wasn't.

I own shotguns. I don't think I'd ever actually discharge one at somebody if I wasn't absolutely sure it was them or me. It would bugger up the carpet and walls for starters....

I've studied the part of the law which covers self-defence in considerable detail.

It's another sloppily written piece of legislation that isn't fit for purpose.

Basically it allows a person, normally a householder in their own home for this thread, to use whatever force, including lethal force, they consider to be necessary at the time.

It also states that the person does not have to wait to be physically attacked before defending themselves, they're allowed to use force to prevent what they deem to be an impending attack.

That should be the end of it but then we have the police & the courts deciding & ruling on whether what we thought was reasonable.

here we go again - I STILL think Tony Martin suffered a miscarriage of justice - and this guy had to defend himself against four scumbags

Quote from: klondike on May 02, 2024, 11:19:50 PMTo be fair to the police letting rip with a shotgun at somebody if unjustified is murder if you kill them.  The legal question in the UK is whether appropriate force was used. If he was in fear of his life which may well have been the case then he was justified in shooting them. If they had turned and were running away he wasn't.

I own shotguns. I don't think I'd ever actually discharge one at somebody if I wasn't absolutely sure it was them or me. It would bugger up the carpet and walls for starters....

That's just it though.  How could anyone be absolutely sure?

If several men broke into our home and started threatening us,  we are hardly likely to ask whether they mean it or not - especially if they have a weapon of some sort.

I am inclined to agree with Michael  (above),  this man was entitled to defend himself.

Quote from: Michael Rolls on May 03, 2024, 09:44:34 AMhere we go again - I STILL think Tony Martin suffered a miscarriage of justice - and this guy had to defend himself against four scumbags

It was a definite miscarriage of justice & some of the evidence against him, in my opinion, perverted the course of justice.

The prosecution, aided by so-called experts, alleged that Tony Martin deliberately fired as the two burglars were trying to leave his house.

However, the true facts, borne out by numerous local people & close friends, show that his house had only one room with lighting which was his bedroom & the only room he used.

As he came down the stairs in total darkness he would hear the burglars but most certainly could not have seen where they were or what they were doing & wouldn't have known whether he'd hit anyone or not.

my feelings exactly

Quote from: klondike on May 02, 2024, 11:19:50 PMI own shotguns. I don't think I'd ever actually discharge one at somebody if I wasn't absolutely sure it was them or me.

If you were faced with people breaking into your house .. Hearing them ..
I think your mind would automatically fear the worse..
Every day there are knifings.. killings.. Just  knowing that would make you very nervous..
I don't think I could wait to actually see the colour of their eyes.. and look to see if they were armed.. No way..
The world has become a  'It's Either You or Me' place..
  The thugs have brought this about.. Let them bloody deal with the consequences .. And if they get killed .. so be it..
I don't give a damn about the guy..

I have five guns out here. One long and four pistols, which I bought with the rest of the house contents at auction. In full cognisance of gun laws, I would not hesitate to shoot an intruder and keep the best 2 pistols and ammunition clips in the bedroom with the others being distributed around the property. Over here 'the right to bear arms' is detailed and enshrined within the second amendment. Of course the lefty wets try relentlessly to have it removed. Fortunately to date it's been realised that for many who live in the wilder regions it's necessary for survival - places like New York and Los Angeles!

Quote from: Mups on May 03, 2024, 09:48:03 AMThat's just it though.  How could anyone be absolutely sure?

If several men broke into our home and started threatening us,  we are hardly likely to ask whether they mean it or not - especially if they have a weapon of some sort

The law still needs clarification for sure. It isn't clear in the story just where those shot were at the time. As I said originally - I hope for the sake of the farmer that they were not running away. It just says "discovered at the scene" and "found nearby".


May 03, 2024, 11:31:18 AM
The US law is a lot different from here and shotguns are a popular choice for home defence there. Here they have to be kept in locked cabinets, ammunition separate and the minimum barrel length of 24 inches makes them an unwieldy weapon at close quarters.

In the US home defence cartridges (not a concept here) are smaller reducing recoil which along with short barrels and more than the maximum 3 shots available on a standard shotgun certificate makes them very practical. Especially as you can keep one under the bed.

I find the 357 short barrel (4") Colt Python magnum a most satisfactory appliance. Delivery like a brick though a plate glass window, low recoil for the muzzle velocity. However my choice and the one I practice with is a Makarov 9.27, suppressed (silenced) PMM with a 12 round clip. Very reliable, big shell and minimal recoil. A practical anti-personnel automatic. However if the ungodly are wearing Kevlar vests, the Python is a 'rib-crusher'. I keep these two together, to avail all comers :wink:

:grin: :grin: :grin:

Pretty much out of the question here of course. 

Quote from: klondike on May 03, 2024, 11:24:51 AMThe US law is a lot different from here and shotguns are a popular choice for home defence there. Here they have to be kept in locked cabinets, ammunition separate and the minimum barrel length of 24 inches makes them an unwieldy weapon at close quarters.

This is the bonus of a crossbow which doesn't have to be kept locked in a cabinet & can be kept preloaded with the bolts.

And which is why I'm still seriously considering buying one before they become banned from sale.

At the moment, as I've already posted about, I do have an LEP/LED combi flashlight.

I keep it set on low power flood mode but I only have to press the button for two seconds & both the LED floodlight & the LEP laser spotlight will change to full power.

The only way of avoiding permanent blindness is to turn your back.

The way the law is I reckon it's pretty much damned if you do and maybe crippled if you don't. If anybody decides to defend themselves with a weapon it needs to be close to hand which to a degree rules out a gun if the law is complied with. If you have a crossbow under your bed then avoiding a charge may be a problem. As would hitting an assailant with a one shot weapon when maybe only half awake.

Luckily these situations don't crop up for the majority.

Quote from: klondike on May 03, 2024, 06:51:08 PMThe way the law is I reckon it's pretty much damned if you do and maybe crippled if you don't. If anybody decides to defend themselves with a weapon it needs to be close to hand which to a degree rules out a gun if the law is complied with. If you have a crossbow under your bed then avoiding a charge may be a problem. As would hitting an assailant with a one shot weapon when maybe only half awake.

Luckily these situations don't crop up for the majority.

In my case I would be wide awake, dressed & waiting for the intruder by the time they managed to break in as I'm a very light sleeper & I have seven external CCTV cameras plus four audio alert perimeter detectors.

As for the crossbow it would be a six shot repeater with a laser dot sight so it doesn't need to be held up & aimed.

The bolt goes wherever the red dot goes which means it's as fully accurate when held at waist level as it is at shoulder level.

The crossbow isn't loaded until the tensioning handle is pulled & a bolt drops down from the magazine.

There's nothing in the CPS rules that state a crossbow shouldn't be kept in a bedroom & not be used.

That sort of reminds me of a nutty German on YouTube. He's always amusing - he calls his stuff the slingshot channel and that includes things like repeating crossbows. I'll see if Ican find one.


Here's the first I found but he has done plentyh of them....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drQnaLXkifo

Quote from: klondike on May 03, 2024, 07:44:15 PMThat sort of reminds me of a nutty German on YouTube. He's always amusing - he calls his stuff the slingshot channel and that includes things like repeating crossbows. I'll see if I can find one.

Here's the first I found but he has done plenty of them....

Lol, yes, that's the guy.  :upvote: :grin:

But this is what I was thinking, with a repeater of cause.  :grin:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWfaD83ZDUA  :grin:

I think a crossbow is a terrible weapon be it used on man or beast .

Quote from: muddy on May 03, 2024, 08:30:25 PMI think a crossbow is a terrible weapon be it used on man or beast .

Well since we in the UK can't have a hand gun & a legal rifle or shotgun has to be locked in cabinet it only leaves a crossbow as a viable safe distance weapon.

I wouldn't dream of using such a weapon on any animal but I'd have no problem whatsoever with using it on a human intruder.

In the USA & the majority of other countries, including some EU countries, being prepared for home defence is discussed openly as something that needs to be done.

It's only in the UK where it seems to be a taboo subject that attracts criticism & where society seems to prefer the householder to be killed rather than the intruder.

Quote from: muddy on May 03, 2024, 08:30:25 PMI think a crossbow is a terrible weapon be it used on man or beast .

Believe me at close range it would be a lot less terrible than a shotgun.

Quote from: muddy on May 03, 2024, 08:30:25 PMI think a crossbow is a terrible weapon be it used on man or beast .

Totally agree Muddy, hopefully the Government will toughen the rules.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-exploring-toughening-crossbow-rules

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.

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.

Quote from: GrannyMac on May 04, 2024, 07:45:42 AMThere'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..

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—
"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.

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.. ?

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

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...

Quote from: Diasi on May 04, 2024, 09:15:29 AMOne 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.

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 .

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.

Quote from: Cassandra on May 04, 2024, 02:56:32 PMSection 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.

Quote from: Scrumpy on May 04, 2024, 11:06:55 AMI 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.  :grin:

Quote from: Diasi on May 04, 2024, 07:17:46 PMThanks 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.

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..."

Quote from: klondike on May 04, 2024, 09:36:03 PMMeanwhile 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..."

Lol.  :upvote: :grin:

May 05, 2024, 08:15:13 AM
What concerns me is the view that there's a very low risk of being attacked in your own home so don't think about it, as it doesn't equate to no risk.

I bet every single person who's been attacked & or killed in their own home probably thought it would never happen to them.

Until it did.

My personal view of home defence is the same as it is of seatbelts, better to wear it & not need it than not wear it & need it.

Quote from: klondike on May 04, 2024, 09:36:03 PMMeanwhile 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..."

It makes you think, doesn't it.

Of course, America has always been a 'shoot first and think later' country, and I can understand why so many people arm themselves in their homes, and even outside in some cases.

Britain today, of course, actively encourages crime for several reasons: shortage of police and often lack of any urgency in attending some crimes; police not routinely armed, unlike even the rest of Europe; lack of any deterrent due to no apparent intention to imprison many criminals, resulting in an encouragement for them to commit crimes freely.
There do seem to be more murders reported on the news these days, especially in Londonistan, though probably mainly by white criminals.

The lack of safety for law-abiding citizens due to the above factors must encourage some to wish to arm themselves if they can.

Depending upon where you live, I think it is likely that more people will make an effort to arm themselves today, even though it is illegal to do so.

They are just now discussing regular arming of the police, on GB News at the moment.  The guest speaker assures us that he thinks that shouldn't happen, so I fully expect things to develop further!

Quote from: JBR on May 05, 2024, 10:31:17 AMThere do seem to be more murders reported on the news these days, especially in Londonistan, though probably mainly by white criminals.

A hell of a lot of the murders these days are black on black. Plus of course there are those who will kill random strangers in search of paradise and the fabled virgins. Most often blades are used but the drugs traders don't seem to be very well versed in gun law and pretty much ignore it. It's only the law abiding that obey laws and that is doubly so for gun and knife law.

From what I read it's mainly blacks killing blacks, quite often teenagers are the victims.  The rape increase appears to be mainly black on white. 

Quote from: Alex on May 05, 2024, 12:19:13 PMFrom what I read it's mainly blacks killing blacks, quite often teenagers are the victims.  The rape increase appears to be mainly black on white. 

Around here - in fact Rochdale in particular - it isn't black on white, it is entirely 'Asian' on white.

I'd like to add that I used the word 'Asian' in this instance in order to point out that I strongly disagree with the use of that word, which some 'polite' people use to avoid the word 'Pakistani' or even 'Muslim'.

I find its use offensive when I think about the Indian people, many of whom I know, who are completely above the level of those of Pakistani origin who are the ones who uniquely seem to be the real dusky people in the woodpile when it comes to raping young girls.

In fact, I'd use the (four letter) 'P' word routinely if I thought I could get away with it!  🤣

Quote from: Diasi on May 04, 2024, 07:17:46 PMThanks 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.

There are many cases of precedence referring to the application of 'Reasonable Force' for example and to answer your question on validity to self defence and pre-emption:

It is not absolutely necessary that the defendant be attacked first. As Lord Griffith said in Beckford v R [1988] AC 130: "A man about to be attacked does not have to wait for his assailant to strike the first blow or fire the first shot; circumstances may justify a pre-emptive strike."

However there has to be a time to 'cease hostilities'. For example belabouring the body of an already unconscious person, thereby inflicting 'unnecessary  force', resulting in further injury than was required.

In the case of Court of Appeal in N. Ireland in Fegan [1972] NI 80, the appeal court established that the possession of a firearm for the purpose of protecting the possessor may be possession for a lawful object, even though the possession was unlawful, being without a licence. (Applicable of course to Tony Martin!)

On these circumstantial occurrences Lord Lane CJ wisely said in another trial:

'There is no question of a person in danger of attack "writing his own immunity" for violent future acts of his. He is not confined for his remedy to calling in the police or boarding up his premises. He may still arm himself for his own protection, if the exigency arises, although in so doing he may commit other offences. That he may be guilty of other offences will avoid the risk of anarchy contemplated by the Reference.'

In other words don't manufacture your own  justifications for murder.

I once defended a retired professional heavy weight boxer. During an attack on him and his wife by two armed muggers in an unlit underpass, he'd already been stabbed by the principal assailant. He hit this man once and this blow resulted in him striking  the wall a foot behind him fracturing is skull and dying from the resultant injuries. Regina argued he'd used excessive force and that he was dead before his head hit the wall. I established that forensic evidence suggested differently and pointed out to the jury that the defendant had not selected a confined unlit pedestrian underpass rather than a padded arena for this assault. Furthermore having already lost a deal of blood, adrenalinic boost had set in and nature had to ensure that the attacker was negated: and he could not be held responsible for the surrounding geometry of the ungodly's choice of attack siting. We won and the case was collapsed by the Crown with a handsome reward of costs. The Beak said privately to Counsels afterwards that the DPP should never have prosecuted. How right.

Whilst of course finding any violence sad, I feel re-assured to legally have a variety of firearms at my disposal in today's world. For example I always keep the two derringers I own in the cars (as do many people out here, whether they admit it or not). Having defended many killers of all criterion in my lifetime and been severely shot myself once, I know which environ I'd now rather live in. Of course I'm an extreme profile  historically, but reading and talking to old friends residing in the heart of London still I'm relieved I no longer live in a City I once treasured.

Once again, thanks Cassandra for such a well-informed expansion of my post.

I love your graphic description of the assault & repercussions thereof in the underpass.

It almost sounds as though you were taking the piss out of the prosecution team.

Lol  :grin:

Quote from: Diasi on May 05, 2024, 06:07:54 PMOnce again, thanks Cassandra for such a well-informed expansion of my post.

I love your graphic description of the assault & repercussions thereof in the underpass.

It almost sounds as though you were taking the piss out of the prosecution team.

Lol  :grin:

Actually Phil a colleague from my chambers took the brief as Prosecutor, knowing he had a zero chance before the ribbons were off the briefs. The twenty something oikh from Starmer's lot (DPP) had no idea at all about the law and had an 'ord' in bee-keeping I think! We all dined out on it for years as a 'post prandial' recollection.

The 'accused' weighed in at just under 19 stone of solid muscle standing barefoot at 6'5". I once saw an opponent hook him full on the left jaw and he just ignored it and kept coming. My mother was very fond of him and the Jury loved this big gentle man from the go! We of course looked quite comical together, little & large. He kept referring to me as 'my mate over there' to the great amusement of his 12 fans on the benches of decision. Very 'Arthur Mullard', a genial giant and a fine pugilist and staunch West Ham follower. His list of character witnesses ranged amongst the famous from the world of sport and journalism. In fact my pal, his prosecutor accused me of "winning six times over, just to rub it in". Lovely tiny wife, they worshipped each other. He retired the ring to general gardening maintenance, living in a beautiful self restored railway carriage in East Sussex, where they kept goats. Someone I was very fond of, a good friend at my side in bad times, many years after his moment of infamy.

I love these stories Cass, keep 'em coming please  :grin:

Quote from: Alex on May 06, 2024, 05:45:11 PMI love these stories Cass, keep 'em coming please  :grin:

:upvote:  So do I.

Cassandra makes them so graphic it's as though I know these people.

They are excellent .

Such an interesting life..Would gladly sit with Cassandra at my dinner table..

hear, hear

Waiting for the start of a series!  Books then TV?

Thank you everyone. To my father's eternal chagrin I wound up in criminal law, much due to my now famous 'uncle' John Mortimer. Many others took to 'Contract' or 'Corporate' Law. Mostly the rather seedy looking clients who were in the 'waiting room' were always assumed to be mine. So whilst many were CEO's, or at the very least Private Company Secretary Directors, waiting to see another partner in our chambers! mine were usually Petermen, Con Artists or those out on Bail etc. Although I took over my father's 'book' from the world of showbiz and 'JM' also kindly recommended me to similar clients from his own career, upon retirement. That said he always arrived in court to advise me (from behind) with little notes (which today I'm so glad to have kept). However my side of the business never went through 'thin' times, as demand was always exceeding supply, with family inheritances of the black arts ensuring continuity and expansion down the decades.

Now as my innings draws to it's close I'm so happy that I chose my particular avenue of law to meander down. There are so many wonderful stories to recollect. The 'ungodly' were most interesting to contemplate and the 'after dinner tale' content far more comical to relate. The top echelon of Criminals, in my experience also possess unique qualities that separates them from the norm. They not only make the very utmost of their skills, but they learn to listen and recognise opportunity! They are surprisingly, or were loyal to their 'mates'.

Also the Judges in the criminal division were so wonderful too, although some of them were very 'trying' at times (excuse the intended pun).