No, I meant things likethis. Drugged up psycho breaks into someone’s house, and is killed in, not just self defence, but the defence of a pregnant woman in the house. And he’s jailed for it.
Here’s another one - with a spin on it that the killing wasn’t legitimate, as you might expect from the Grauniad.
And the only thing Tony Martin did wrong was to shoot again as they were running away, there shouldn’t be a law against shooting people burgling your house.
ETA Even if these are the only three incidents (which I doubt), they are three too many, and I consider it significant. Certainly, there’s a genuine fear here that you will go to jail for defending yourself, and that itself is unacceptable.
Osbourne pleaded guity to manslaughter. What should the courts do in such circumstances?
Not legitimate self-defence! How could it be, the attackers had fled?
Again, NOT self defence (unless the act of being run away from presents some, as yet, unexplained danger).
It’s 0 for 3 right now – I’ll give you one more chance to post something with any sustance, okay?
Well, legally he was guilty of it. The problem is, the law is wrong in this case.
Are you seriously claiming that they weren’t a threat to his family?
Everything prior to the last shot was legitimate, but he wasn’t convicted based only on that last shot. Not that someone should ever be charged for protecting their home and business.
It’s at minimum 2 for 3, I can see an argument that the second one was an overreaction, but I don’t agree with it.
I guess it comes down to an interpretation of what is “reasonable” force. If someone is threatening you or your family, or is on your property uninvited, there’s not a great deal of force I’d consider unreasonable… Most people are capable of inflicting significant harm barehanded, and all people are when armed. Pretty much all threats should be considered threats of serious harm, and one should be allowed to respond in kind.
Perhaps you could argue that he received some bad legal advice, but the law can hardly be wrong – he pleaded guilty to manslaughter, what do you want the courts to do, say “oh no, we don’t think so”?
No they weren’t, not after they fled.
IIRC it was the (two) shots fired as the burglars were fleeing that cause the death of Barras. If those shots had not been fired he certainly wouldn’t have been charged with murder.
Martin had a number of things going against him, unlicenced firearm, previous firearm offences, his avowed murderous intent towards burglars (not couched in terms of what anyone would call self-defence) and a defence that was ripped apart by my forensics analysis.
So you think the Martin case is the strongest of the three? Wow! For me that is by far the weakest, his forethought in the killings is beyond doubt, at least in the other two cases one could say the accused “acted in the moment”. That’s why the plea of manslaugter was accepted in the first, why the second were charged with manslaughter and why the nutjob Martin was charged with murder.
The FACTS do not support your conclusion nor your score-line.
Not really, a fleeing burglar is not posing a threat, so deadly force against him cannot be construed as self-defence. Simple.
The cases you have cited do not support the assertion. Self-defence is an absolute defence in UK law. Please don’t say otherwise because that would be a falsehood.
You cannot change the law to allow self-defence, for the simple reason that it is already allowed.
When you say it is “limited” what do you mean? A defence only need show that one had reasonable cause to believe that such-and-such an action was reasonable and necessary to prevent harm to oneself.
This is why it failed for Martin: “I believed that the fleeing burglars constituted an immediate threat to my physical well-being so I shot them” fails on the face of it (unless people running away from you present a physical threat in some way).