'Expect to be shot if you burgle gun owners' - Judge says

chucknorris

dunstonh wrote: »

The stress and trauma they had to go through because in the dead of night a couple of professional criminals decided to wear masks and break into their home is heavy.

You reminded me of one of the times I was burgled, I was a (mature) student in Leeds and my house had been burgled for the second time in as many weeks in Newcastle (guess they knew I wasn't living there midweek). On the first night back after the burglary I heard a noise in my garden, it was about 2 am. So I got out of bed and slipped out the back door with a golf club (a heavy putter). I could clearly hear movement behind the garden shed and I can tell you at that moment my heart was in my mouth because I didn't know if there was only one of them or more. Anyway I leapt out with the club ready to clobber him/them only to see a hedgehog scurrying away. I can't believe to this day that a hedgehog could have been so noisy walking around my garden that I actually heard it from my bed.

ILW

chucknorris wrote: »

You reminded me of one of the times I was burgled, I was a (mature) student in Leeds and my house had been burgled for the second time in as many weeks in Newcastle (guess they knew I wasn't living there midweek). On the first night back after the burglary I heard a noise in my garden, it was about 2 am. So I got out of bed and slipped out the back door with a golf club (a heavy putter). I could clearly hear movement behind the garden shed and I can tell you at that moment my heart was in my mouth because I didn't know if there was only one of them or more. Anyway I leapt out with the club ready to clobber him/them only to see a hedgehog scurrying away. I can't believe to this day that a hedgehog could have been so noisy walking around my garden that I actually heard it from my bed.

The hedgehog could have been armed.

Generali

ILW wrote: »

The hedgehog could have been armed.

I'm pretty sure they only have legs.

chucknorris

ILW wrote: »

The hedgehog could have been armed.

It was but its spikes would have been no match for my putter. Of course I would not have hurt it though, I was delighted to have hedgehogs in my garden.

ILW

Generali wrote: »

I'm pretty sure they only have legs.

You're wrong there, Mrs Tiggywinkle def had arms.

Loughton_Monkey

chucknorris wrote: »

It was but its spikes would have been no match for my putter. Of course I would not have hurt it though, I was delighted to have hedgehogs in my garden.

You should put peanuts out. Hedgehogs love them.

chucknorris

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

You should put peanuts out. Hedgehogs love them.

I've moved now, but there is an ever bigger problem, my labrador loves eating almost anything (incl peanuts).

N1AK

CLAPTON wrote: »

It's time some-one funded a test case against the police to see whether or not is is lawful to falsely imprison some-one who was clearly using reasonable force to protect themselves and their wife.

Then get your wallet out and wave goodbye to some money. The police know someone was shot. They find out whether it was reasonable by investigating the crime. Given the seriousness of shooting someone I think 3 days was an acceptable, though probably excessive, period of detention.

The stress of the situation is much more likely the risk of being charged with attempted murder which would be true whether they were in a cell or not.

CLAPTON

N1AK wrote: »

Then get your wallet out and wave goodbye to some money. The police know someone was shot. They find out whether it was reasonable by investigating the crime. Given the seriousness of shooting someone I think 3 days was an acceptable, though probably excessive, period of detention.

The stress of the situation is much more likely the risk of being charged with attempted murder which would be true whether they were in a cell or not.

There is no law in the UK that says that one must arrest and imprison some-one simply because there has been a shooting.

The very fact that the innocent victim is almost always arrested and falsely imprisoned after such incidents shows that there is a blanket 'rule' to arrest without consideration of the likelihood of a crime having been commited. That is no consideration of the particular circumstances was taken into account; simply..gun... shooting... arrest.

In fact the arrests are purely for the police convenience.

In this particular case there was overwhelming evidence that the victims were completley innocent of any crime.

chewmylegoff

CLAPTON wrote: »

There is no law in the UK that says that one must arrest and imprison some-one simply because there has been a shooting.

The very fact that the innocent victim is almost always arrested and falsely imprisoned after such incidents shows that there is a blanket 'rule' to arrest without consideration of the likelihood of a crime having been commited. That is no consideration of the particular circumstances was taken into account; simply..gun... shooting... arrest.

In fact the arrests are purely for the police convenience.

In this particular case there was overwhelming evidence that the victims were completley innocent of any crime.

the "innocent victim" in some of these cases turns out to be a criminal, under the definition of the law. it is the job of the police to arrest people who appear to have committed an offence and to investigate whether or not they have committed an offence. it is not up to the police to decide what the law is, or to interpret the law in a court.

given the tony martin case it is hardly surprising that the police arrested these individuals and held them at a police station whilst establishing the facts of the case. if they had, in fact, chased the men from the property and shot them in the back fatally wounding them, then in the eyes of the law (which the police are not responsible for) they would likely have committed murder.

the police don't know what the circumstances are when they turn up, only that someone has been shot and the person who did the shooting claims that the person who was shot was burgling the house and acting in self defence.

if the police just said "that's fine, carry on then" and it turns out after some investigation that the facts are completely different, then what? go back round to arrest the person who it seems committed murder in cold blood, and find that they got on the first plane to brazil? what then? outrage at police incompetence no doubt...

i feel sorry for the victims of this crime, and the fact that their ordeal continued (and continues) and it is clear in retrospect that they were simply defending themselves, but due process is required.