Weapons Free? - Judge warns burglars who break into armed houses

#2
I saw this on the front page of the Mail this morning whilst I was in the shop.

I liked this bit from the judge after one of the defendants lawyers asked for leniency in sentecing because his client had been shot.
The judge said: “If you burgle a house in the country where the householder owns a legally-held shotgun, that is the chance you take. You cannot come to court and ask for a lighter sentence because of it.”
 
#3
..we seem to have done a left & right here..

Mods - can you merge?
 
#4
Does this means country dwellers who are armed to the teeth can expect a reduction on our insurance premiums ?
 
#5
Does this means country dwellers who are armed to the teeth can expect a reduction on our insurance premiums ?
No, it means that if you dare do as the judge suggests you can expect to be held by our wonderous police for 3 days without charge.
 
#6
No, it means that if you dare do as the judge suggests you can expect to be held by our wonderous police for 3 days without charge.
Wonderous as we may or may not be, in such self defence shootings, and whether or not you agree, when someone has been shot, it has to be investigated properly and within the law.

If it turned out later there was something iffy about it and the investigating Force - sorry service - had turned up, made assumptions, not followed legal procedure and accepted the shooters story at face value, a conviction would be completely compromised.

Im all for burglars and housebreakers taking a double load of shot centre chest, but I will still arrest (detain in my jurisdiction) the shooter and do things the right way.

If it takes 3 days to investigate (forensics, ballistics, statements, interviews etc) then so be it. Inconvenient for the householder, but at least they can walk away at the end of it without a stain against there name or character and still with their Shotgun Certificate.
 
#7
I am actually curious if plod would try and remove the FAC or shotgun cert from someone if they shot a burglar.
 
#8
Wonderous as we may or may not be, in such self defence shootings, and whether or not you agree, when someone has been shot, it has to be investigated properly and within the law.

If it turned out later there was something iffy about it and the investigating Force - sorry service - had turned up, made assumptions, not followed legal procedure and accepted the shooters story at face value, a conviction would be completely compromised.

Im all for burglars and housebreakers taking a double load of shot centre chest, but I will still arrest (detain in my jurisdiction) the shooter and do things the right way.

If it takes 3 days to investigate (forensics, ballistics, statements, interviews etc) then so be it. Inconvenient for the householder, but at least they can walk away at the end of it without a stain against there name or character and still with their Shotgun Certificate.
So the psychological damage to the householder remains vastly greater than to the professional criminals...

I particularly like the bit where the unfortunate couple who have now fled the country revealed that they were traumatised by the cops casually mentioning that they were now looking at an "attempted murder" charge...
 
#10
So the psychological damage to the householder remains vastly greater than to the professional criminals...

I particularly like the bit where the unfortunate couple who have now fled the country revealed that they were traumatised by the cops casually mentioning that they were now looking at an "attempted murder" charge...
How would you deal with it then?
 
#11
I am actually curious if plod would try and remove the FAC or shotgun cert from someone if they shot a burglar.
If it transpired [good plod word there, please note] that the home-owner had his foot on the burlgar's chest when he gave him both barrels, then I'm sure that he would be arrested.

The investigation - post shooting incident - is what determines if the shooter fired in defence or offence.

Or so we are told.

IF there was malicious intent on the part of the shooter, then he or she would probably lose both gun certificate and liberty.

tac
 
#12
Well, it looks like my initial guess (prejudice?) was right, as was my further confirmation (prejudice?) when I saw the pictures.

What sort of 'ethnic' background do you suppose they were from?
 
#13
Wonderous as we may or may not be, in such self defence shootings, and whether or not you agree, when someone has been shot, it has to be investigated properly and within the law.

If it turned out later there was something iffy about it and the investigating Force - sorry service - had turned up, made assumptions, not followed legal procedure and accepted the shooters story at face value, a conviction would be completely compromised.




Im all for burglars and housebreakers taking a double load of shot centre chest, but I will still arrest (detain in my jurisdiction) the shooter and do things the right way.

If it takes 3 days to investigate (forensics, ballistics, statements, interviews etc) then so be it. Inconvenient for the householder, but at least they can walk away at the end of it without a stain against there name or character and still with their Shotgun Certificate.
so why aren't police arrested when they shoot someone

arrest is not an automatic part of an investigative procedure

arrest is not something empowered by a wish to avoid bad pr
 
#15
"So the psychological damage to the householder remains vastly greater than to the professional criminals..."
4(T), give your head a wobble. 3 days in nick compared to being shot in the chest? Tell you what, we will do an experiment - I shoot you, then spend 3 days in a police cell under investigation and we compare notes on my release? No?
Any gun owner must have gone through this scenario in his head a thousand times. It is only right that we, the public, are allowed to defend ourselves, but we have to be able to satisy the law that it was defence. As was said above, if my boot is on the burglar's chest when he gets the good news, it is probably not in defence. See Tony Martin for details.
 
#17
Well, it looks like my initial guess (prejudice?) was right, as was my further confirmation (prejudice?) when I saw the pictures.

What sort of 'ethnic' background do you suppose they were from?
Uh, they look to be examples of the scummy lower-end-of--the-genepool white Caucasians.

tac
 
#18
I thought all armed coppers were volunteers? The judge was essentially right in what he said, but somewhat naive if he didn't think it would be misinterpreted by the "string 'em high" vigilante idiots.

He said burglars can't expect a reduction in sentence because of actions they initiated in commission of their offence - it could equally have been someone expecting time off for getting electrocuted while stripping leccy cable from the railways. He did not declare open season on burglars - shoot one and expect plod to look closely at the circumstances, and put you in the dock if you were playing at Robocop.
 
#19
Wonderous as we may or may not be, in such self defence shootings, and whether or not you agree, when someone has been shot, it has to be investigated properly and within the law.

If it turned out later there was something iffy about it and the investigating Force - sorry service - had turned up, made assumptions, not followed legal procedure and accepted the shooters story at face value, a conviction would be completely compromised.

Im all for burglars and housebreakers taking a double load of shot centre chest, but I will still arrest (detain in my jurisdiction) the shooter and do things the right way.

If it takes 3 days to investigate (forensics, ballistics, statements, interviews etc) then so be it. Inconvenient for the householder, but at least they can walk away at the end of it without a stain against there name or character and still with their Shotgun Certificate.
I appreciate the thinking behind this, I would hate to be done months down the line due to the cops not doing a thorough job. But this being the case, what was the logic in putting Dale Cregan out on bail? A couple who have contacted the police, have a fixed abode, employment, and no criminal record, are held, while Dale Cregan who seems to have been known to the police, is released on bail, presumably while investigations continued. Which set of people would be more likely to abuse the bail, by intimidating witnesses, tampering with evidence, or would be more likely to know how, and who to contact, to get these things done?

I'm sure there were very good reasons for the GMP decision, but having let him out where is the consistency in bail procedures? Suspect in gangland death and mayhem, bail granted, suspect in wounding burglars in your own house, with no previous, no bail.
 
#20
He said burglars can't expect a reduction in sentence because of actions they initiated in commission of their offence - it could equally have been someone expecting time off for getting electrocuted while stripping leccy cable from the railways. He did not declare open season on burglars - shoot one and expect plod to look closely at the circumstances, and put you in the dock if you were playing at Robocop.
Exactly. What he said was this:

“If you burgle a house in the country where the householder owns a legally-held shotgun, that is the chance you take. You cannot come to court and ask for a lighter sentence because of it.”

Distortion and selective reporting by the Press for a cheap headlines. Who would have thought it possible?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top