Is reasonable force reasonable?

[saxon51]

Fair enough, saxon, but people will draw their own conclusions from your refusal to debate your views.......

 

This is why I am not repeating my opinions on this thread -

 

Indeed, and Tony Martin was jailed for shooting a burglar in the back as he tried to climb out of a window to escape...

 

On another thread saxon has said that if you chase a thief you should be allowed to administer a bit of a beating as punishment. And that most people think this way, so I thought I'd see what everyone else thought.

 

Clearly I categorically stated my opinion on another thread.

 

Why start another thread and ask me to repeat the same opinion? Once not enough?

 

This thread was started so "everyone else" (as clearly stated above) could voice their opinions. Plus, if you reread the original thread you will find that most people posting on there do not disagree with the actions of the shopkeeper in question, and/or do not think he should have been punished for his actions.

[Halibut]

Running away from a man who had challenged them with a gun !!!! No gun & what would they have done to Martin ?

 

That's not the point - Martin could have fired over their heads or at the floor. He didn't - he shot a young man in the back, causing his death.

There's no reason to believe they represented a physical threat to him anyway.

Do you believe shooting a man in the back is reasonable force?

[Fareast]

The Tony Martin case still arouses interest and debate....and rightly so !

 

As far as I remember, Martin shot the youth [ one of two burglars ] when the victim was climbing through the window with his back to the farmer. I think a number of points have to be remembered.

 

The room was in semi- or even three-quarter darkness. Most people are very bad shots with guns despite what we are led to believe in films. I would have thought that Martin could have really been aiming at his legs but just aimed badly.

 

Martin did not know how many people there were in the gang. He obviously believed a gun would be the only weapon, perhaps, that would scare a potentially large group off.

 

There had been robberies or thefts at and near his farm beforehand over quite a long period. The farm was very isolated [ by U.K. standards ]. He felt the police had never been, nor would be much help, partly due to the farm's isolation.

 

All in all, Mr. Martin had obviously worked himself up into a burning rage about the repeated robberies. I suggested in a previous post that householders under attack could perhaps plead " temporary insanity " if they used excessive violence ; the French used to have the " crime passionel " [ sp.?] to account for people acting under stress.[ in the case of, say, a man discovering his wife in bed with the plumber and who then pops them both off in a rage ].

 

I was quite surprised that Martin was found guilty and put in the slammer for 5 years [?]. Obviously the court took everything into account at the time. Still, even if he was guilty, given the circumstances, I would have thought some supervision order would have been more suitable.

 

It all goes to show, anyway, it can be a bit dangerous, breaking into farm-houses, late at night.

[redrobbo]

Reasonable force is, as stated by other posters, determined by case law.

 

However, we also have to take into account that an Englishman's home is his castle, and as such I have a right to defend not only myself but my property.

 

I have thought about what would I do if, whilst asleep in bed at night, I was woken by sounds of an intruder downstairs?

 

I don't have a mobile phone or a landline upstairs - so I would need to go downstairs to ring the police for assistance. I doubt if I would remain upstairs until I thought the coast was clear and it was safe to go downstairs and ring the police, as I don't want some burglar(s) to make off with my possessions.

 

I doubt very much if I would call or shout in an attempt to scare away my intruder(s). Who is to say that they may not wait for me to descend the stairs and then attack me?

 

I therefore think that I would quietly descend the stairs suitably armed with whatever heavy objects I can lay my hands on - in order to defend myself if the need arises. The element of surprise thus lays with me, and I would attempt to scare them away, and hopefully get a good view of the intruder(s) in order to give a description to the police - in the hope that they could be identified and caught.

 

If in the process I was attacked, I would defend myself with my heavy objects. I can certainly state that if I was confronted with an attacker (nb. no longer are the merely an intruder!), I wouldn't hesitate in wanging my heavy objects about in an attempt to defend myself - until such time as either my attacker stopped and fled, or was disabled/detained by me. I would then ring the police for assistance.

 

I cannot imagine how frightening it must be for a victim of a burglary to wake up in the night and realise that an intruder is in their house. I would not care what physical damage I might inflict in defending myself in my castle from an attacker. I would, after all, be using reasonable force against an unknown assailant. I cannot imagine a court of law disagreeing with that proposition.

[Fareast]

I think RedRobbo's description of how he would react on being burgled was exactly how 99 % of us would react.....and rightly so. There's a world of difference between discussing legal aspects in the calm and safety of an office and being woken up by X number of intruders in the middle of the night, especially if the householder has children or anyone vulnerable in the house too.

 

The crucial point is, I think, that the householder does not know the strength, number, or frame of mind of the intruder. If the householder wacks the first shadowy figure fairly gently on the head [ ! ], not wanting to risk killing him, and the intruder is only temporarily stunned and on top of that his friend are searching another room, then things could turn very ugly indeed for the householder. He's having to judge all this in seconds and there's not much margin for finesse or error !

 

I think in the circumstances, therefore, the householder can be forgiven for initially using more force than, in hindsight, was deemed ' reasonable '.

 

Again, going back to the Martin case, what made his situation even more complicated than it already was, was the fact that I think he had kept a gun

" handy " because he had been burgled before in such an isolated place. Therefore the jury must have believed, perhaps, that there was enough premeditation to make the killing unlawful-----" I will kill anyone who breaks

in " , rather than, " I will use this only as a last, desperate resort ".

 

The point is a fine one and importantly centres around Martin's frame of mind. I still think he was dealt with harshly in the circumstances but none of us here on S.F. sat through the whole case or were on the jury [ were we ? !]

 

There might well have been aspects of Martin's behaviour or attitude in court that threw a different light on his character. Never-the-less, few things, as has been said, are more frightening than night-time intruders in one's home ; burglars IN---rational thinking OUT !

[Halibut]

Martin's shotgun license was revoked following an earlier incident when he shot at a car whose driver had been stealing apples from his orchard.

The gun he used to shoot Barras and Fearon wasn't legally held and Martin says it was given to him by an anonymous benefactor.

[scoop]

I don't think the Martin case is a very good example when discussing this topic and clearly shooting someone in the back when they're already running away is not defence its punishment.

 

Most of us dont have guns, and are talking about what would we do with the day to day items we have around us if we needed to defend ourselves.

[Halibut]

Running away from a man who had challenged them with a gun !!!! No gun & what would they have done to Martin ?

 

He didn't 'challenge' them. He opened fire without issuing any warning.

[Evil One]

If someone has come onto your property with the intention to steal, you should by law, be able to shoot them to buggery. This would bring the crime rate down by around 90% eventually.

 

Stop pussy-footing around the scumbags, they need teaching.

[pk014b7161]

why worry over the rights of thieving b******* who would not only take your hard earned belongings but if need be your life or your family,s life