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

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by HE117, Sep 27, 2012.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. 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.”
     
    • Like Like x 4
  2. ..we seem to have done a left & right here..

    Mods - can you merge?
     
  3. Does this means country dwellers who are armed to the teeth can expect a reduction on our insurance premiums ?
     
  4. 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.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  5. 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.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. I am actually curious if plod would try and remove the FAC or shotgun cert from someone if they shot a burglar.
     
  7. 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...
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. They might try but would be almost certain to lose on appeal.
     
  9. How would you deal with it then?
     
  10. 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
     
  11. 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?
     
  12. 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
     
    • Like Like x 1

  13. If the victim was acting lawfully and not charged with anything I doubt it.
     
  14. "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.