sgc holder cleared over shooting man on his property

[ips]

I don't get it "he fired one shot at the side of the vehicle" and another into the air. How was vehicle coming towards him if he shot the side of it ??

 

I am not sticking up for the perpetrators or saying the farmer was in the wrong I just don't quite understand how he got away with discharging a gun unless the other bloke was pointing one at him. The farmer who shot a young thief in his house a few years ago didn't.

[welsh1]

I don't get it "he fired one shot at the side of the vehicle" and another into the air. How was vehicle coming towards him if he shot the side of it ??

 

I am not sticking up for the perpetrators or saying the farmer was in the wrong I just don't quite understand how he got away with discharging a gun unless the other bloke was pointing one at him. The farmer who shot a young thief in his house a few years ago didn't.

If you are talking about Tony Martin, then he was convicted because he shot someone in the back who was running away and no longer posed an imminent danger to life.

[wandringstar]

its all very well having a text book theory as to how you are supposed to act in a situation, when terror, panic and fear plus adrenaline are thrown into the mix, how can you be expected to act or think clearly, I recently watched a crimewatch, and the intruder put the iron on, and used it on the householders bare back to get information on the valuables out of him.

 

The farmers explanation to the police should have been enough, he was the decent moral person who was being violated.

[Gordon R]

The farmer's problem is that, having suspected he was being robbed, armed himself and went to investigate. He did not phone the Police or barricade himself in his house, with his gun by his side. He got his gun and went outside to investigate. You can dress it up how you want, but he took the gun to use - either as a threat or to actually use it.

 

I feel truly sorry for this elderly man and what he has been through., but suspect his licence will not be returning. He might have held his licence for game or clay, but when it was issued, it was not for self defence.

[Duckandswing]

The farmer's problem is that, having suspected he was being robbed, armed himself and went to investigate. He did not phone the Police or barricade himself in his house, with his gun by his side. He got his gun and went outside to investigate. You can dress it up how you want, but he took the gun to use - either as a threat or to actually use it.

 

I feel truly sorry for this elderly man and what he has been through., but suspect his licence will not be returning. He might have held his licence for game or clay, but when it was issued, it was not for self defence.

This is spot on. If I heard something in the night I wouldn't be popping out with one of my shotguns. I'd be going with the dogs and a big stick.

 

Someone kicking my door in might be looking down a barrel though.

[old'un]

The farmer's problem is that, having suspected he was being robbed, armed himself and went to investigate. He did not phone the Police or barricade himself in his house, with his gun by his side. He got his gun and went outside to investigate. You can dress it up how you want, but he took the gun to use - either as a threat or to actually use it.

 

I feel truly sorry for this elderly man and what he has been through., but suspect his licence will not be returning. He might have held his licence for game or clay, but when it was issued, it was not for self defence.

[wandringstar]

i suppose at the end of the day, the jury could easily have said guilty, so weighing it all up, they did the job as we are advocating it should have been done in the first place.

[johnphilip]

I was always told "it is better to be judged by 12 than be carried by 6 "

[achosenman]

I see it this way, others probably see it different.

 

The law relating to self defence.

 

 

Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is justified in self-defence only if a person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. The Right To Protect One's Person And Property From Injury.

 

Therefore every situation is unique. E.g., I cannot reasonably defend myself against 2 or more unarmed attackers. If I am armed at the time of the attack, I most definitely will not allow them to remove from my possession or control, any firearm I have at that time. I will use whatever level of force I need, to achieve that.

 

I would argue that an 80yr old chap is likely to be frail in comparison to and at serious risk from pretty much any younger male or group. In the situation he described, I think it's a reasonable response to being attacked.

[Bigbob]

Total waste of tax payers money bring the farmer to court it might make the scum that steal off of farms think twice and then we would be more trusted

[Wymondley]

I'd buy the old boy a pint, good on him.

Pity he only got the scum in the foot.

[ips]

I don't think this type of talk is very good for certificate holders. Any such use of a licenced gun regardless of the situation is only fueling the anti brigade as are vigilante type posts.

Just saying.

[digger]

A man has been found innocent of any crime. That's a good thing. Whether he was right ( the jury thought he was justified ) or wrong ( pw jury seems to find against him ) is a matter of personal opinion. In law he did nothing wrong.

I'll hold fire ( no pun intended) til I'm his age, in his boots faced with the same situation.

[Dougy]

Who on Earth is saying that "if a car is revving it's engine and coming towards you" you can't shoot the side of it ?

So the poor old chap is encased in cement is he. Why so blooming negative.

[keg]

A man has been found innocent of any crime. That's a good thing. Whether he was right ( the jury thought he was justified ) or wrong ( pw jury seems to find against him ) is a matter of personal opinion. In law he did nothing wrong.

I'll hold fire ( no pun intended) til I'm his age, in his boots faced with the same situation.

 

Completely agree DIgger.

 

As a frail 83-year-old living in the middle of nowhere, I would suggest worrying about his licence when faced with two healthy guys in the dark trespassing was the least of his worries.

Edited March 10, 2017 by keg

[wandringstar]

And just because he used the gun in self defence, certainly wasn't the reason he owned the gun, what was he supposed to do, choose that or a rolling pin, or just shout at them in an angry manner.

[Gordon R]

In considering the charge, the jury agreed that he was justified in discharging the shotgun, in the situation he found himself in.

 

In relation to his fitness to hold a licence, the consideration will be how he got himself into a situation where he felt the need to confront burglars with his shotgun and whether there was a less hazardous option.

 

I have no time for the burglars and feel for the farmer, but I believe he was wrong to go out, armed with a gun.

 

Time will tell, if he gets his licence / gun back and I will not complain if he does get them back. If that is the case, I would hope he reflects carefully before getting into the same situation, as I don't believe he would be acquitted twice.

[Gonk]

The farmer has behaved lawfully as the courts have affirmed. He has the right to defend himself and his property in law which is all he's done. In my view this means there is no legal reason to question his right to his sgc? I would argue he showed great restraint under pressure when he could have easily discharged both shots through the windows of the vehicle rather than one in the air and one through the door!

[wandringstar]

What would anyone do? impossible to answer, all i know is self preservation, and of ones family, doesn't hold up to theorising, and having to demonstrate such incredible standards of legality, under such intolerable fear, in the face of the most blatant illegality, is totally unreasonable. In these situations the onus is not on the gun owner, in my view.

[Cranfield]

The farmer has behaved lawfully as the courts have affirmed. He has the right to defend himself and his property in law which is all he's done. In my view this means there is no legal reason to question his right to his sgc? I would argue he showed great restraint under pressure when he could have easily discharged both shots through the windows of the vehicle rather than one in the air and one through the door!

 

That just about sums it up in my opinion.

I can't see the police being able to take his SGC away after he has been found not guilty of any crime.

[Benthejockey]

Worse people, who have gone on to do worse things have had their guns back.

[BrowningB525]

Here's the BBC take on the case before it was over.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk...humber-39229170

 

I detect some bias.

[AULD YIN]

Good on the old guy, wonder what the outcome would have been if as suggested by some he stayed indoors and barricaded the door,,,,like he has no windows if they wanted to get in ,15 hours for the police to respond ,,,what could the two ******** have got up to in that time,all's well that ends well

[mel b3]

Hats off to the old gent , id like to shake his hand and congratulate him.

 

The two scrotes in the car were out thieving ,and everyone knows full well that they were out thieving , they got exactly what they deserved.

[yorkierm]

I very rarely post on forums, but this is an area of great interest to me...

 

This is spot on. If I heard something in the night I wouldn't be popping out with one of my shotguns. I'd be going with the dogs and a big stick.

Someone kicking my door in might be looking down a barrel though.

 

Sorry Duckandswing but had you done this, going out with your dog then you could still have possibly been in the dock facing charges...

 

There are several things you need to take into consideration...

 

1) the UK legal definition of an offensive weapon...The definition of an offensive weapon is any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him, or by some other person.

 

Had you attended with your dog and stick, and you had allowed your dog to bite said scum bag, your dog, in law, then becomes an offensive weapon. However you acted defensively...Also by that no firearm is an offensive weapon until used in an offensive manner. No more than a kitchen knife, your big stick, dog, axe, chainsaw, car, etc etc...Also you could now be faced with the added frustration of fighting a court not to have your dog destroyed after letting it bite someone, even though that someone was committing an act likely to endanger life...

 

2) the law on self defense states that you can use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances, in your honestly held belief at the time.

 

You do not have to shout a warning, or demonstrate any ability. If you firmly believe you are in mortal danger, you can, within the law, strike first, in the defence of yourself, or another person.

 

To arm yourself with anything that could be used as a weapon, gun, dog, stick, knife, is liable to get you into trouble...but as the law on self defence states you can use reasonable force...but had he attended without anything, he may well be dead himself. He chose to take a firearm. Not an offense in itself. Just as if you had taken your dog you would not be committing an offense until the dog attacks... unless there is an imminent threat in which case you have the legal defence of...self defence.

 

In discharging his shotgun he has not acted recklessly, he has used a tool to defend himself whilst being under attack from, what he believed, to be a life threatening situation.

 

Our UK laws are a greyish area over this. Everyones perception of fear is different, every situation is unique.

 

The Farmer in question acted well within the law as it is written. While I agree he should have been arrested in the first instance to establish the full extent of the situation (as this is what we supposedly have police for)...his actions of self defence against a known criminal with no actual defence for being in the location he was...who lied 3 times about how he received his injury (hmmmmmm????)

 

 

He should have been released without charge from the police station, given a police commendation for his actions, and had his guns returned, as he is not a danger to society, nor did he break any law.

 

Had he used a stick, thrown a brick which he had carried out from his house, or picked up a pitchfork and launched that, he would most likely not been charged at all...

 

Another example of the police acting heavy handed, trying to instill a fear of all firearms into lower polce ranks and the general public. An utter disgrace.