Ah, the Sun. The last bastion of truth, freedom, and objectivity in the British press. 
Richard Littlejohn the peoples dickhead.
This is a guy who shocked Michael Winner with his reactionary bile. Now that takes some doing.
Well, I can’t comment on the particulars about the case involving Mr. Martins. I will say that if somebody unknown to me forcibly breaks into my home while I and my family are inside I will use the most one-sided means available at my disposal to render them incapable of posing a threat. If that means using a firearm then I will shoot and I will shoot to kill, center mass. Shooting to ‘wound’ is a dicey proposition and is best left to Hollywood. Now, if I shoot and they run out of my house I’m certainly not going to follow him out into the yard and keep plugging away. I also take precautions to make sure that it doesn’t happen in the first place by paying for an alarm and security system. I will NOT wait for them to take the first shot, I probably won’t even give them any warning before shooting and I will assume that they are armed at least as well as I am. Call me crazy but I refuse to bet my life on an intruder’s particular brand of criminal intent and just assume that they’ll just take my property and leave.
And this, I think, is where Mr Martin crossed a line.
IIRC, the dead perp was found half in/out the window, not in the yard. Did I miss something?
The important point is not whether the intruder was in the house or the yard when he died, but whether Mr Martin “kept plugging away” while the intruder was trying to flee. Which he did.
And, to spell it out in words of one syllable, this point is important because it helps the jury decide whether Mr Martin was using the force reasonably necessary to remove an intruder, which he was entitled to do, or whether he was seeking to injure or kill someone as a punishment for breaking into his house, which he was not entitled to do.
Thanks to UDS for clarifying my earlier post.
This college page has a nice collection of cases relating to the English law of self defence (look for “lawful force” about a quarter of the way down).
These confirm that there is no absolute ban on killing people who are threatening you or your property (e.g. the case of the robber in a post office armed with a shotgun who was stabbed by the postman. He died, but the postman was not charged with anything). However, the force must be reasonable (taking account of the heat of the moment: Palmer v R) in the circumstances as the defendant genuinely believed them to be.
I don’t think it’s at all relevant whether the “dead perp” (Grok! if only the Norfolk justice system was run by the Judges!) was inside or outside. I don’t think there’s any doubt that Barras and Fearon had broken into Martin’s house. The fact is that the level of force that the jury considered reasonable on the part of a man seeing burglars off his property in those particular circumstances did not extend to shooting them repeatedly.
Embra
See, the difference over here is that you can almost always assume that the intruder won’t be armed.
I did have some sympathy for Tony Martin, and the way those kids were harassing him before the night of this burglary. However, he did get a gun with the intent of causing harm, (having no legan gun ownership simplifies such cases somewhat; if someone owns a gun, it’s a good indication of criminal intent), and shot a young boy more than once, while fleeing. IIRC, he didn’t even call the police first - and if he had the time to load and shoot the gun, he had the time to press three digits on the phone. Therefore I think the final verdict was justified - manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.
Flex, I’m confused about the title of this thread: these cases do raise questions about the justice system, but what do they have to do with gun control? Btw, the FT is not a liberal newspaper by any stretch of the imagination (neither is it solely an online publication).
Additional about the post-office robber (just to prove I wasn’t making it up):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,335673,00.html
BTW, for those of a sensitive disposition, the author of that article, Jeremy Hardy, would probably be considered a bit of a Trot, even in Europe! And he still thinks it’s probably defensible for people to kill in self defence sometimes! NB his article also raises the case of Satpal Ram, who has in fact just been released.
Embra
From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/martin/article/0,2763,214334,00.html
And from: http://www.edp24.co.uk/Content/Features/TonyMartin/asp/KeyEvents.asp
And to finish, a little background to Martin and the local community: http://www.guardian.co.uk/martin/article/0,2763,214336,00.html
QueenAl, not only did martin fail to call the police first - he failed to do so after. He legged it.
Almost always? This sounds like Russian Roulette to me and I don’t play that game, especially with my entire family’s lives on the line.
Many replies in this thread speak of “proportional response”. I think you must consider that when dealing with an unknown situation and reasonable probability of your life on the line, deadly force is certainly a proportional response. It’s real easy, and wrong, to find after the fact that the criminal was unarmed and therefore deadly force was uncalled for. lokij has it right in my mind.
Gun control was referred to extensively in the linked article.
Also, I probably mis-stated when I claimed FT was “rather” liberal. I should have said “somewhat”. “Rather” generally connotes a greater degree than I intended. And I did intend to be comparing to US standards rather than UK standards of political positioning.
I think this has to be one of the most ridiculous things I have heard in awhile. What fantasy world are you living in where the police have the ability to provide round the clock protection to every single citizens home?
Here is the reality for you. Sometimes, criminals break into people’s homes. There are not, nor should there be enough police to make sure that this never ever happens. People have the right to defend their homes and their families against such an intrusion.
A person should not have to risk their own personal safety or the safety of their family just to satisfy your overly-liberal sense of right an wrong. If a criminal doesn’t want to get shot in the face, they shouldn’t break into peoples houses. Simple enough.
I put ‘almost’ because otherwise someone would have come up with a cite of one case involving an armed intruder. I’d say that in 99% of cases, the intruder would not be armed. (I’d look for a cite, but I doubt I’d find anything that specific).
So you can’t see if the criminal is armed or not? Aren’t you even going to look at him before you shoot him? It’s not reasonable to assume that your life is on the line because someone is burgling your house. Also, I expect that there is a correlation between the amount of physical action a householder takes against an intruder, and the number of householders harmed by intruders, but since that would leave to a pit-worthy flame war, I’ll leave it.
Fair enough - although I’m still surprised that even in comparison to US publications, the FT would be liberal. You should have a look at the Guardian sometime, that’s liberal (also one of the best-written newspapers, IMHO).
FWIW, if I lived in the US my stance might be somewhat different. If I did have good reason to think that an intruder would be armed, then I might arm myself, all principles aside. Here we are lucky enough to know that most intruders won’t be armed, so I’m not about to get an illegal weapon either.
I think this is one of the most depressing things I have heard in awhile. What unpleasant world are you living in where the householders have the ability and the desire to shoot every intruder in the face?
Ah yes, us overly-liberals. Stick 'em in Cuba without a trial, that’s the way. :rolleyes:
Does reckless driving count as a risk to your family’s safety? Would you shoot another driver?
We call it ‘road rage’, presumably you would call it ‘self-defence’.
Actually, it’s quite pleasant. And made more so by the fact that one has the responsibility and the right to defend ones castle against intruders. There are significantly more instances where the threat of a gun has chased more burglars away than where a firearm was discharged at an intruder. (And of course the number one way to chase away a burglar is a loud barking dog…)
Look, the bottom line is, you do it your way, we’ll do it ours. The general consensus from the dopers who participate in gun threads is to not compare apples to oranges, as in this case, UK v. US statistics.
The sad fact is that US citizens have absolutely no ‘right’ to police protection of any kind. The courts made that decision to limit police department liability when they FAIL to prevent crime and protect citizens. It’s also part of the balance any free nation must strike to avoide a totalitarian police state. Somebody else asked if I would take the time to verify whether or not the person is comparably armed, the answer is probably not. It would probably be dark, the person could have concealed weapons and or friends with them and I could possibly take an instant too long or give up the element of surprise. The last thing you want is a ‘mexican standoff’, preferrably you WANT the person unarmed… even odds are for suckers. Remember, this person broke into YOUR house and violated your property rights, your right to feel secure in your home and could possibly intend to deprive you of your life. They may be on drugs or wanted by the police and so not make the rational decision to surrender. Nope, I’ll shoot first and take my chances with the justice system, I can at least say I still feel safer in their hands than the whims of a criminal.
One court. New York, circa 1968, if I recall correctly. And it said NOTHING about the existence or nonexistence of a “right” to police protection. I have no idea how the forces of pro-gun irrationality have stretched a simple decision that the cops are not liable in tort for failing to prevent an individual crime into some scary-sounding assertion that there is no “right” to police protection, apart from simple-mindedness or dishonesty.
As QueenAl says, there may come a time in the UK when it does become “reasonable” to respond to intruders with deadly force as a first resort. With the rise in the use of guns in the commission of crimes this might not be too far off. There is actually a programme on BBC2 tonight that deals with the matter if anyone in the UK is interested.
However, the OP posed the following:
The answer to his question (quite rightly avoiding any attempt to compare the US and UK directly) is that this is clearly not the case. I suggest that it is as unwise for USAn posters to get uptight about British laws regarding the defence of the home as it is for them to get cross about our being “oppressed” by our lack of legal gun ownership. Although there is a debate in this country about rising crime, calls for everyone to be armed are simply not part of it.
Embra