Licence To Murder

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ardross
  • Start date Start date
A

Ardross

Guest
The sooner this idiot retires the better . Hard cases make bad law. The appalling murders of Mr Monckton and Mr Symons do not make murdering burglars right .

At this rate people who murder workers from the water board can say I thought he was a burglar so i shot him

boss backs attacking burglars

The current law allows 'reasonable' force to be used
People should be entitled to use any force necessary to defend themselves against burglars, England's most senior police officer has said.
Met commissioner Sir John Stevens said homeowners should be presumed to have acted legally, even if a burglar dies, unless there is contrary evidence.

Laws which often seemed to favour criminals should be clarified, he said.

People should be prosecuted only when there was evidence of gratuitous violence, he told the Daily Telegraph.

People should be allowed to use what force is necessary ... without any risk of prosecution

Sir John Stevens


Shot burglar case debate
Would you take on a burglar?
Under the current law, homeowners are entitled to use "reasonable force" to defend themselves and their homes.

It is up to judges and juries to decide what level of force is "reasonable" in any given situation.

Sir John said the public was confused about what that meant and the law needed to be clarified.


The law was currently sending the wrong message by encouraging burglars to break into houses in the belief that no householder could harm them, he said.

'Public unclear'

He told the paper: "My own view is that people should be allowed to use what force is necessary and they should be allowed to do so without any risk of prosecution.

"There is a definite feeling around when I go out on the beat with officers and talk to members of the public that we need clarity in the law.


Sir John leaves the post in January after five years at the top
"The test at the moment is that you use reasonable force in the circumstances. You do not use excessiveness."

He said that was too imprecise for people to consider in extreme circumstances, when they needed to be absolutely clear about what their legal rights were.

Sir John was speaking five days after City financier John Monckton was stabbed to death by an intruder during an attempted robbery at his home in Chelsea, west London.

In October, school teacher Robert Symons was killed in his home in nearby Chiswick.

Tony Martin

"Now is the time, specifically with these two cases we have had recently - in Chiswick and Chelsea - for the law to be clarified," he said.

"It's all very well for the lawyers to say the law is clear, but I'm afraid people on the street don't feel that, and on occasions neither do the police.

"You don't want to have gratuitous or excessive violence ... but you have to be given the power to use what is necessary."

He said the case of Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer jailed for shooting dead a burglar in 1999, had distorted the self-defence issue.

"[He] did shoot the burglar as he was running away. He did use a gun that was illegal.

"The Martin case skewed everything and it was the wrong case to concentrate on."

Sir John retires from Scotland Yard in January after five years leading the Met.
 
I think I'm agreeing with you here James.

I could never understand how Tony Martin became a hero in some people's eyes.

Frighten the shit out of them, yes.

Shoot to kill.............

Colin
 
Tony Martin was very lucky in my book to have his conviction reduced from murder to manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility - and I say that having read in full the judgment of the Court of Appeal .
 
:o An Englishman’s and a Welshman’s!!! Home is his castle he should have the right to defend it and the said contents at all times if someone breaks in, he uses what ever force it takes to stop him and the burglary....

The burglar has recently seen, will stop at nothing and use everything to try and carry out his goal regardless to who owns the property……..

Its called getting back to basics.... as far as I am concerned... and one should have this basic right to defend it at all costs, the guy should not be there its your propertyyou have worked all your life for it....


I heard of a guy living in the valleys who was awoken at 4 am to find a burglar in his house he attacked this burglar with a pool que and got done for GBH and sent to prison for 18 months honest is the law an ass or what?…..

Is nothing sacred anymore or have these burglars a divine right to do as they want? Regardless of the person’s property……..
Yes clarification is paramount……….
 
Originally posted by Merlin the Magician@Dec 4 2004, 01:58 PM
:o An Englishman’s and a Welshman’s!!! Home is his castle he should have the right to defend it and the said contents at all times if someone breaks in, he uses what ever force it takes to stop him and the burglary....

The burglar has recently seen, will stop at nothing and use everything to try and carry out his goal regardless to who owns the property……..

Its called getting back to basics.... as far as I am concerned... and one should have this basic right to defend it at all costs, the guy should not be there its your propertyyou have worked all your life for it....


I heard of a guy living in the valleys who was awoken at 4 am to find a burglar in his house he attacked this burglar with a pool que and got done for GBH and sent to prison for 18 months honest is the law an ass or what?…..

Is nothing sacred anymore or have these burglars a divine right to do as they want? Regardless of the person’s property……..
Yes clarification is paramount……….
You do have the right to defend your property, you don't have the right to murder someone.

It all depends on what reasonable force is classed as, and i agree it should be clarified.

For example, burglar points a gun at you, you shoot him and kill him, that is likely to be ok.
Burglar starts running away, you shoot him, that is likely to be murder/manslaughter at least
 
Hi Guys

Coming from a small ex mining village I have to agree with Merlin on this one. I was brought up to respect other people and their property.
I too, expect other people to do the same, whilst not setting out to kill anyone, I would defend my property to whatever extent / force I needed.
I keep a nice little 9 iron handy ( havn't got room for a driver ) and if ever faced by someone breaking into my property I would not hesitate to use it. How do you know what sort of person is lurking downstairs. I would not go downstairs to confront him and pass the time of morning with him, he should NOT be there and I would make sure that I got the first one in.
Now as I have said, I am not intentionally trying to kill him, but if he got in the way of my practice swing with my trusty iron that would be his problem and maybe mine if the law decides, but one thing for sure he would not come back again.
This is obvioulsy going to be a topic of varying opinions but I feel strongly about protecting something that I have worked a log long time for.

Best regards
Trevor
 
It looks like there could be an Irish Tony Martin in the near future -and I don't mean the handicap king.There was a documentary on Irish tv last year which showed old people after being beaten senseless and robbed of their savings-anyone who saw it would have felt anger and sadness in equal measures.
I cant understand why the tree huggers are so keen to side with those who have brought misery to so many.
 
I can't bring myself to agree with those who are extending the argument into, at its simplest, "You've broken into my house so I can kill you".
 
Surely the intruder is more likely to be armed and alert than the householder, so if you allow the householder carte blanche to injure the intruder then won't that actually put the householder at greater risk in the first place?
 
Brian I am not saying kill him! end of story, (but this commissioner of the MET (Stevens) is saying you have the right to attack him if found breaking into your house) but if that did happen, one can't apportion blame in its entirety and each case is judged on its merits, lets put it into another scenario.

The burglar breaks in to your abode stabs your wife and or mother or kids do you then say "ho hang on mate the safe is over there help yourself!" I personally think you SHOULD have the right to hit him with whatever you can.....in your own defence…. It is after all YOUR PROPERTY and your FAMILY he has just attacked…..

Or do we say, help yourself mate take whatever it is you want …………………

Trevor is saying the same as I am stating you should have the right to retaliate should an intruder enter your premises/abode full stop.

They say about this guy MARTIN should not have shot those two gypsies?? but out of persecution frustration of being continually targeted and robbed (not an isolated one off burglary) the guy retaliates… but would we have done something very similar? One would never know until such times we were put under the same duress and conditions

Being continually put under duress and threat? it’s a difficult situation to equate, as you or I have never been in that similar situation and we are not all the same, different people (as your very well aware) react differently to different situations……………….

So I am saying you should have the right to defend your family/property in such situations as and when a burglar breaks in to steal from you…………………

I am sure that if someone tried to take your wallet or mobile telephone in the street you would fight him off and I think if he enters your property and attacks you and or your family that is deemed as sacrosanct, and you should have the rights to defend it at all costs………..
 
Merlin the whole point of the 'rule of law' is that you place any situation into the hands of the legal system and allow that legal system to deal with it.

Now you can argue that the legal system has been polluted by too much concern for the criminal and as a result the law abiding feel that they should have the right to administer justice themselves.

To me this is wrong. The legal system should be considered fair by all members of the community and this probably isn't the case right now. The answer is to reform the legal system so that everybody feels fully subjected to it and everybody is fully protected by it.
 
Yes TERRY I am in favour of that not objecting to that at all....

Let’s get back on an equal footing as you are well aware the victim does not have many rights at all, the aggressor/criminal has a lot going for him in this current day and age...

But it’s NOW bringing it home to the head of Police!! The Home office, Politicians, and like minded people, through the killing attempted robbery of these so termed upper echelon people recently, (and one can only feel sorry for them and their grief in this awful situation and must have been devastating for the families concerned)…

But this has been happening to ordinary folk, for quite a few years now and has been taken with a pinch of salt! So to speak.

So yes its a sorry state of affairs that someone has to become a martyr, to get this law put back on an even keel!!! highlighted or changed or the rights given back….. To fall in line with the people that are on the end of being attacked or burgled ............
 
It's not that much of a sorry state of affairs. Even a flawed legal system is better then a 'you and whose army?' type of approach. But I agree that things need to improve a bit.
 
Nothing could be further from the truth

1- It is not about the rights of the criminal but the rights of the accused who could equally be you or I .

2 The accused has fewer rights now than in the late nineteenth century - short of reversing the burden of proof . We no longer have jury vetting, an unqualified right to remain silent , the rights to see all the information in the case ( disclosure is limited ) , a double jeopardy rule , the right not to be convicted on your previous convictions as distinct from the evidence , we have far wider use of hearsay evidence than ever before .

The balance has now shifted far too far in favour of the State and I have no doubt that in a few years we will have significantly increased miscarriages of justice .

It is complete bollocks- as Rumpole says to convict the innocent is to spit in the face of justice .
 
Hi Guys

Agree with what is being said, BUT please tell me how to approach the situation, pass him my tele and video out of the window. Not bloody likely, if he wants one, let him work as hard as I did for it, if not I'll fight him for it there and then and may the best man win OR the one armed to the back teeth.

Regards
Trevor
 
The question is trevor whether the force was reasonable . If you use reasonable force to stop him nicking your stuff that is not an offence
 
Hi Mate

With you on that one. It would be reasonable force !!!

MAY THE FORCE BE WITH YOU>>>

Regards
Trevor
 
The burglar breaks in to your abode stabs your wife and or mother or kids do you then say "ho hang on mate the safe is over there help yourself!" I personally think you SHOULD have the right to hit him with whatever you can.....in your own defence…. It is after all YOUR PROPERTY and your FAMILY he has just attacked…..

If someone breaks in and threatens or does stab someone then it is very likley if you stabbed him it would be reasonable.

I think people are getting confused. The law doesn't say you cannot do anything if you find a burglar in your house, it says you can only use reasonable force. Reasonable will depend on the situation. For example, if you find two 10 year old kids nicking your video, taking a baseball bat and beating them to death is not likely to be reasonable. However if you did the same against a 20 year old druggie who had a knife and maybe cut you first before you got him, you would likely be found to be acting reasonably, as you could argue you were afraid of your life.
 
Exactly - though if you hit him again and again after he was knocked out you could be introuble
 
Hi Ardross

You only know of the one that knocked him out, he did the rest falling over and over and over.

regards
Trevor

Ps well done on the mince pie today !!
 
That's like the joke about how many policement does it take to break an egg

None - it fell down the stairs of its own accord guv
 
Originally posted by Ardross@Dec 4 2004, 08:14 AM


At this rate people who murder workers from the water board can say I thought he was a burglar so i shot him

Close ARDROSS its just been disclosed they were dressed as postmen in the Chelsea attack.......................
 
There has been a recent parallel case in the West of Ireland, when an old farmer shot dead a traveller who was on his property.

I heard of a burglary when hearing intruders downstairs the householder ran to the top of the stairs and yelled, 'right- if you don't leave now I'm coming down'!

The reply back was, 'hang on where you are, we'll come up to you'.

Now if that was me and I had a gun.............
 
Back
Top