Burglar shot and homeowner arrested

[GHE]

£39K donated so far, I think that this indicates how most people feel.

10 hours ago, Rock_n_Roll_Outlaw said:

I think licence holders in this thread should be careful about what they say on a public forum, especially when it comes to expressing opinions condoning the actions taken by the farmer, even more so before all of the details are known. That is all I will say. 

I agree, but surely none of us are condoning illegal actions, we're just assuming that he did only what he was legally entitled to do, because no other choices were available to him.

Right now, its all just speculation. The truth may out one day but probably won't, there are often people in authority who try very hard to keep the public in ignorance.

[Yellow Bear]

8 minutes ago, GHE said:

Right now, its all just speculation. The truth may out one day but probably won't, there are often people in authority who try very hard to keep the public in ignorance.

Particularly when they have failed in their own job.

[hwr]

Farmer arrested for 'shooting dead burglar' is released on bail

 

https://gofund.me/36ddc87b

[TIGHTCHOKE]

22 minutes ago, hwr said:

Farmer arrested for 'shooting dead burglar' is released on bail

 

https://gofund.me/36ddc87b

So were the two survivors.   

[Bigbob]

Wonder if they will reoffend 

[amateur]

3 hours ago, Bigbob said:

Wonder if they will reoffend 

At least the dead one won't.

[ShootingEgg]

4 hours ago, amateur said:

At least the dead one won't.

If they are in fact an offender. Not sure all details are released yet are they

[Cranfield]

I seem to remember in the Tony Martin case much was made in the fact he shot the burglar in the back (ie not defensive).
Hopefully, this chap was a bit more careful.

[Genghis]

24 minutes ago, Cranfield said:

I seem to remember in the Tony Martin case much was made in the fact he shot the burglar in the back (ie not defensive).
Hopefully, this chap was a bit more careful.

From a legal perspective, I think the issues in the Tony Martin case were:

1) he shot the burglar in the back

2) he had had his SGC revoked a couple of years prior

3) he had a 5 shot semi-auto, but had never held a FAC

4) his gun wasn’t locked away

 

Before anyone comments, the above were factors cited by the prosecution in his trial. I’m not expressing an opinion on whether Tony Martin was guilty or not.

[GHE]

12 minutes ago, Genghis said:

From a legal perspective, I think the issues in the Tony Martin case were:

1) he shot the burglar in the back

2) he had had his SGC revoked a couple of years prior

3) he had a 5 shot semi-auto, but had never held a FAC

4) his gun wasn’t locked away

 

Before anyone comments, the above were factors cited by the prosecution in his trial. I’m not expressing an opinion on whether Tony Martin was guilty or not.

More or less. The gun was a S1 pump action, not a semi-auto, but that's just a minor detail.

He shot 2 burglars, the first one was moving towards him and that shot was lawful and was taken in self-defence. The burglar survived but the shot placement stopped him breeding . . .  The second burglar was shot in the back as he tried to get away, he wasn't a threat to Martin so the shot wasn't justified in law, which is why Martin was convicted of murder. His murder conviction was later overturned on appeal, but only because of public support for him, it's hard to find any legal justification for quashiing his murder conviction.  Sometimes, just a second or two can change a self-defence situation into murder, as in the famous R-V-Clegg case, Cpl Clegg lawfully shot at a car that had crashed through the road block that he was in charge of in N.I., but then committed murder by firing another shot, once the car no longer presented a threat.

The fact that Martin held the firearm illegally and that it wasn't locked away  is neither here nor there, serious offences in their own right but unimportant when it comes to actually shooting people. There was a case where a man opened fire in self-defence, using his wifes' shotgun, he didn't have a certificate and should not have had access to her keys, but it didn't matter in the circumstances. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/sep/03/leicestershire-homeowner-suspected-burglars-shot

[den5008]

On 04/05/2024 at 09:48, Rock_n_Roll_Outlaw said:

I think licence holders in this thread should be careful about what they say on a public forum, especially when it comes to expressing opinions condoning the actions taken by the farmer, even more so before all of the details are known. That is all I will say. 

Exactly 👍 

[old'un]

2 hours ago, den5008 said:

Exactly 👍 

2012 two burgles were shot when they broke into a remote cottage.

Judge Michael Pert QC has told two burglars, Joshua O'Gorman and Daniel Mansell that if they choose to raid a home where the householders legally own a gun they should accept the risk of being shot.

I wonder if the Judge was a ticket holder?

[London Best]

1 hour ago, old'un said:

2012 two burgles were shot when they broke into a remote cottage.

Judge Michael Pert QC has told two burglars, Joshua O'Gorman and Daniel Mansell that if they choose to raid a home where the householders legally own a gun they should accept the risk of being shot.

I wonder if the Judge was a ticket holder?

I reckon AOLQ should cover it!

[Rewulf]

2 hours ago, old'un said:

Judge Michael Pert QC has told two burglars, Joshua O'Gorman and Daniel Mansell that if they choose to raid a home where the householders legally own a gun they should accept the risk of being shot.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/26/burglars-accept-risk-shot-judge#:~:text=The judge said%3A "I make,lighter sentence because of it."

[old'un]

4 hours ago, London Best said:

I reckon AOLQ should cover it!

You will have your FAO round your house shortly to remove your guns.

 

[GHE]

17 minutes ago, old'un said:

You will have your FAO round your house shortly to remove your guns.

 

A couple of (obvious) points:

1. Police officers and police staff (such as firearms enquiry officers) are people, and mostly they are reasonable people. They aren't going to go out of their way to cause problems for people who post on this forum, and who express reasonable views, although they may perhaps find some of the more extreme political and racist views a bit concerning . . .

2. Forums are social media, and the police are not allowed to invade people's privacy by reading forums in order to obtain evidence of misconduct, although of course this may not apply to government security services. If police officers want to read a forum to find out what people are saying then they have to obtain special permission to do so, they have to access the forum from a private room with another officer present and they struggle to get that permission.  I know of a case that involves a violent alcoholic gentleman who frequently makes threats against other people and is currently on bail for threats to kill. Even in this case, they can't get permission to read his facebook page and when one of his victims handed them a file of screenshots proving that he was making threats on social media they were grateful, because that evidence may help them to get permission to look at his social media themselves.

 

So, let's not be paranoid about a problem that simply doesn't exist.

[JohnfromUK]

10 minutes ago, GHE said:

A couple of (obvious) points:

1. Police officers and police staff (such as firearms enquiry officers) are people, and mostly they are reasonable people. They aren't going to go out of their way to cause problems for people who post on this forum, and who express reasonable views, although they may perhaps find some of the more extreme political and racist views a bit concerning . . .

2. Forums are social media, and the police are not allowed to invade people's privacy by reading forums in order to obtain evidence of misconduct, although of course this may not apply to government security services. If police officers want to read a forum to find out what people are saying then they have to obtain special permission to do so, they have to access the forum from a private room with another officer present and they struggle to get that permission.  I know of a case that involves a violent alcoholic gentleman who frequently makes threats against other people and is currently on bail for threats to kill. Even in this case, they can't get permission to read his facebook page and when one of his victims handed them a file of screenshots proving that he was making threats on social media they were grateful, because that evidence may help them to get permission to look at his social media themselves.

 

So, let's not be paranoid about a problem that simply doesn't exist.

I'm not disagreeing.  i think you are probably quite right as of now.

But there are moves to widen the scope of who are consulted (i.e. partners, family) as part of the firearms process (there is a trial currently under way and has been mentioned on these forums in another thread) - and I have heard mention of "social media".  It might be that in order to grant a license in future they may be able to ask for your permission to view your social media - and if you decline - that might be considered detrimental to your application.

That was suggested by someone - I think it may have been a local Labour MP - when someone (possibly the Plymouth case?) who did commit an offence involving a firearm was found to have been making threatening/violent/abusive posts on social media.  It was a while ago - but it was mentioned by someone who got press coverage.

[Zoli 12 guage]

36 minutes ago, old'un said:

You will have your FAO round your house shortly to remove your guns.

 

 

11 minutes ago, GHE said:

A couple of (obvious) points:

1. Police officers and police staff (such as firearms enquiry officers) are people, and mostly they are reasonable people. They aren't going to go out of their way to cause problems for people who post on this forum, and who express reasonable views, although they may perhaps find some of the more extreme political and racist views a bit concerning . . .

2. Forums are social media, and the police are not allowed to invade people's privacy by reading forums in order to obtain evidence of misconduct, although of course this may not apply to government security services. If police officers want to read a forum to find out what people are saying then they have to obtain special permission to do so, they have to access the forum from a private room with another officer present and they struggle to get that permission.  I know of a case that involves a violent alcoholic gentleman who frequently makes threats against other people and is currently on bail for threats to kill. Even in this case, they can't get permission to read his facebook page and when one of his victims handed them a file of screenshots proving that he was making threats on social media they were grateful, because that evidence may help them to get permission to look at his social media themselves.

 

So, let's not be paranoid about a problem that simply doesn't exist.

37 minutes ago, old'un said:

 

and to add another more obvious point,it wouldn't be the FEO that came round to "remove your guns",it would be the boys with the G36's and Glocks'👍

 

lockquote widget

[old'un]

19 minutes ago, Zoli 12 guage said:

 

and to add another more obvious point,it wouldn't be the FEO that came round to "remove your guns",it would be the boys with the G36's and Glocks'👍

 

lockquote widget

It was meant as a tongue in cheek reply to the post by London Best, but I am sure he could handle a few coppers with G36's and Glocks'

[old'un]

I see they have started a go fund me for Marcus Smith...https://www.gofundme.com/f/n9ndh-marcus-smith

[Keith 66]

Out of interest the go fund me page for the farmer has had 305 people pay into it raising over 53k.

The go fund me for the burglar has had 32 people pay into it.

I cant say its a surprise.

[Genghis]

8 minutes ago, Keith 66 said:

Out of interest the go fund me page for the farmer has had 305 people pay into it raising over 53k.

The go fund me for the burglar has had 32 people pay into it.

I cant say its a surprise.

I think those are just the anonymous donations. The burglar has had 531 donations and the farmer 2.7k.