"The People Have Spoken…the Bastards"

A show on BBC 4 Radio recently ran a contest asking listeners to suggest a piece of legislation that would improve life in Britain, promising that the winning proposal would be introduced by Labour Party M.P. Stephen Pound. Both Pound and the show's producers regretted the offer once it became clear that the most popular suggestion was a law allowing homeowners "to use any means to defend their home from intruders."

Pound denounced the proposal as a "ludicrous, brutal, unworkable blood-stained piece of legislation," saying, "The people have spoken…the bastards." He told The Independent: "We are going to have to re-evaluate the listenership of Radio 4. I would have expected this result if there had been a poll in The Sun. Do we really want a law that says you can slaughter anyone who climbs in your window?"

The vote apparently was part of the popular reaction against the conviction and imprisonment of Norfolk farmer Tony Martin for shooting a burglar. Martin, who was initially sentenced to life for murder but ultimately served three years of a five-year sentence for manslaughter, has endorsed the bill. His prosecution became a cause celebre for supporters of the right to self-defense--who clearly do not include enlightened thinkers such as Pound.

[Thanks to Dan Terrill for the tip.]

Comments

[richard]

Hunh? Yet, another example of politicians not keeping their promises.

[Brad S]

"Do we really want a law that says you can slaughter anyone who climbs in your window?"

Apparently, Brits have more esteem for intruders than I do...

[Reality]

The buried premise you tacitly accept by taking part in the poll is that life is improved through legislation.

Ooops.

[Don]

Actually, the people taking part in the poll seem to have been asking for deregulation. Regulation is what they already have.

[GoonFood]

Horror of horrors! What kind of animal doesn't offer home intruders milk and cooki... erm tea and crumpets? The shock of it all!

Perhaps that person is simply a stranded motorist... in need of a helping hand... or at least a phone... but instead of knocking, broke your window... and carries a prybar... Maybe lets ask him if he needs some help. Whoops, too late, now you're dead. But at least you didn't attack another human.

[Upper Class English Guy]

To boost the British economy, I would tax all foreigners living aborad.

[Ruthless]

Life, liberty, property should have been property, liberty, life.
Who put that pursuit of happiness crap in there?
Little Tommy Jefferson who couldn't get a grip on Mr. Happy. Plus the only anti-depressant available to him (Sally Hemmings aside) was Dr. Rush's purgative pills. (Carter's Little Liver Pills hadn't hit the market yet.)
Not that I'm anti-happy. I'm just saying property, liberty, life provide the requisite ambiance for mighty fine--serious--happiness.

[Tim Lambert]

Martin was convicted because a jury of his peers decided that his actions were not self-defence, possibly because he shot a fleeing burglar in the back and left him to die. Note also that it was a phone-in poll, so the results are meaningless. More here/.

[Ran]

BTW, Martin had been robbed before. Many times. By career criminals. Shot him in the back, eh? Probably saved his neighbor's life then.

[richard]

Tim..."shot in the back" Did Martin admit to that or is that what the thieving bastard said...until you get a direct quote from Martin, I won't believe it.

Even if he was shot in the back, it could have been dark and Martin might not have thought that the thief was fleeing, but attacking, and made a split-second decision...

Who cares if the poll was phone in or done by the brainiacs at Gallup? All polls have their flaws...get over it, the people spoke.

[Tim Lambert]

Richard, "shot in the back" comes from the forensic evidence. The dead burglar didn't say anything, being dead and all and Martin said something else, but the holes in the body were on the back and not the front.

All polls have faults, but phone-in polls are utterly worthless and the result of one cannot be accurately described as "the people spoke".

[Dan]

Another relevant detail is that there were two burglars, not one; the other was a 33-year-old named Brendan Fearon, who was also shot, served a tiny jail sentence, and immediately returned to a life of crime. Pity Martin's aim wasn't better.

By the way -- for those of you playing the home game -- Brendan Fearon is not a gypsy.

Which pretty much puts the lie to that insane "Martin was carrying out a Final Solution on gypsies" page that Tim Lambert linked to.

[Kevin Carson]

"The people have spoken... the bastards."

That's a pretty common liberal reaction to rule by the actual people, I think.

Here in NW Arkansas, we've got liberal columnist John Brummett denouncing direct democracy by ballot initiative (especially tax issues), and quoting Alexander Hamilton on the beauties of indirect democracy.

Supporters of a recent ban on smoking in public places in Fayetteville fought like the dickens to keep the issue from being placed on the ballot.

And how about the Democratic party line on the recall vote in California?

[Don]

"In the dark, it is very difficult to tell if someone is facing toward you or away from you. It is entirely possible to be legally and morally justified in shooting someone in the back in self-defense."

I know of a case where a civilian defending himself shot an attacker three times: the front (through the heart), the side (again through the heart), and the back. He was focused on the front sight, and never realized the man he was shooting was spinning. He though all four shots (he missed once) were aimed at the guy's front.

Another interesting point about this case. The bad guy had a Browning HP pistol. He fired one round, dumped his magazine, and still had a live round in the chamber. Of course, the HP has a magazine safety, so the weapon was in "safe" condition once the bad guy dumped the magazine.

[Tim Lambert]

I believe that all the people speculating here know less about the facts of the case than the jury, who decided that it wasn't self-defence.

[Jean Bart]

The fact is that the poll is meaningless.

[mojo]

"A thief is killed in the night. Whose hand is on the bow?"
-- Shoshone teaching conundrum

answer: the thief's.

"Hell, if he wanted a chance, he shoulda gone somewheres else!"
-- "The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean"

[joe]

"In the dark, it is very difficult to tell if someone is facing toward you or away from you. It is entirely possible to be legally and morally justified in shooting someone in the back in self-defense."

I can buy that. A young man was shot by a cop in Boston last year. He spun around, and one of the bullets enterred through the back. Cop got off scott free, because the man had pulled a gun.

But the 12 people who know the FACTS of the case better than any of us here agreed UNANIMOUSLY that this was not a case of self defense, that the gunman was not in danger, but had in fact committed murder.

I also agree that the homeowner should get the benefit of the doubt; pretty much anyone would. Which makes the UNANIMOUS conviction of the gunman by the jury that much more convincing to me.

[Zimmer]

The poll may be meaningless, but scientifically done polls in Britain have been showing for years that the people prefer harsher penalties for criminals than their elected officials do.

[Sebastian]

I don't know the details of the Martin case, but in most US states, if you shoot someone fleeing from your house you're going to jail. They have to be presenting a threat of grave bodily injury or death to your person or to another person in order for deadly force to be used. It's the same standard that's used on the street, only absent a duty to retreat. There is no duty to retreat from one's home. Many states, however, do allow deadly force to be used to prevent the commission of a felony, so there's more slack for the homeowner.

Anyone know what the law in the UK actually says about use of deadly force? It seems to be that some of the things I read from over there border on absurd, but I'm not quick to accept too many things at face value. A homeowner should always be given the benefit of doubt when it comes to repelling a home invader, but there's often a fine line between self-defense and murder, and people who have deadly force at the ready need to be aware of where that line is.

[tchiers]

Joe/Tim,

You forget that in modern-day UK, there is effectively no right to self-defense. [from a Textbook of Criminal Law] Self-defence is "now stated in such mitigated terms as to cast doubt on whether it still forms part of the law."

There's a pretty good chance self-defense was never brought up at trial, because it's not an affirmative defense there. Thus Martin may have been sent to jail for a long time because the only question the jury was asked was "is he responsible for the death of the burglar?" Which, clearly, he was.

But I wasn't there. And neither were you.

[Sebastian]

It would be interesting to know what's meant by 'proportionate force'. If someone breaks into my home with a knife, am I to whip out a kitchen knife and get into a knife fight with the intruder? Or maybe a scenario more along the lines of this:

"Oh sorry chap. You have a blunt object, and I seem to have a sword. Hang on then, let me fetch up a blunt object and then we'll have a go at it."

If that's the standard, it truely is absurd. Deadly force is deadly force. If the object the intruder is threatening you with can kill or severely injure you, and you're holding a gun, you should be legally justified in pulling the trigger. There's no social good in forcing people to put themselves in harms way to save the life of someone who reneged on more than a few social contracts by being in a person's home univited and threatening them.

The poll may be meaningless, but I can't say I'd blame anyone who'd want to change such a law in favor of the victim. Using deadly force to protect property is not something I agree with, but people have a right to defend themselves and their families from threats to their persons. No just society I think can deny that to people.

[AJMB]

Seems to me Martin's mistake was in not rolling the punk over, pre-death, and giving him a volley from the front, too. Certainly would have been easier to explain away

[Rebecca]

So the jury found him guilty of murder when self-defense is not a valid defense and one may not own a gun period in England. Sounds to me like cases in the States where a mandatory minimum is required and the judge says, "This is the law, you gotta do it this way." The jury may not think the punishment is right, or that the person is guilty of said crime, but if the laws and their application are set up in a certain way, it would seem they have no choice but to vote a certain way.

Also, in England, one is guilty until proven innocent, unless that has changed within the last ten years.

And, Martin posted earlier in the thread, saying the burlger was running toward his garage, not fleeing the scene. That would constitute protection of property, to shoot someone running to one's garage. Even if it is technically illegal in England.

[jlt]

I certainly enjoyed banter and op's on the subject of "self defense of self,family and property" in the "British Empire".Insanity rules The British Empire.Just read a little history and it's obvious a result of in breeding gone a muck. I would not be suprised to learn that the burglar was Mr.Martin's ex-wife's second step-son once removed.
Bottom line is,I chose to live in a place where I'm not "governed" by mentally challenged clones.Break in my home and you "will soon be dead"!Blatant Premeditation at work.
jlt

[joe]

Let's accept Rebecca's theory - when the intruder saw a man with a gun aiming to shoot him, his response was to see if there was any good stuff to steal in the garage. Perhaps a nice extension cord, or maybe some paint. OK - there are some mighty stupid people in England, so let's assume that's so.

Since when is taking another person's life an appropriate response to a potential loss of property? Human beings, even really lousy ones, are more important than mere things.

"There are more important things than a little bit of money. Don't you know that?"

[jlt]

joe,
Serious observation of the history of homo sapiens indicates a few pieces of gold is always more important than anything else,especially,homo sapiens.
jlt

[Rebecca]

Since firearms have been banned in England, violent crime with guns has *increased*, not decreased. Martin had been robbed many times before. The burgler he shot in the back was *fleeing the scene of the crime* - in other words, he had been in the man's home and was running from it. Shooting a gun in that circumstance is part of defense. It is possible that Martin did not know the burgler had been hit and was lying on the ground; who goes running out after shooting a fleeing criminal and says, "Did I hit you? Oh, I'm sorry." If he saw the man lying on the ground and did nothing, then that's inhuman. But hitting the burgler? That's self-defense. I don't see how the burgler's rights are greater than the rights of the burgled.

As for a just society Sebastian, you are assuming that "unenlightened" average Americans are capable of understanding the complexities of a just society. We American rubes are too *stupid* to recognize what our own best interests are, or what justice is, for that matter. That's why we need to put liberals in office so they can redistribute our wealth and revoke parts of the Bill of Rights that they find troublesome.

[AJMB]

Rebecca, I would disagree with you that shooting at a fleeing suspect is 'defense'. I would categorize it as offense. Martin, at that point, had gone beyond trying to defend his property, to trying to actively apprehend the suspect. In Canada, self defence is legal when proportionate force is applied. So far, this still means you are allowed to use such force as is necessary to stop the attack. Once the attack has stopped, said force is no longer required, therefore no longer legal. It's a minefield at best, and I can only surmise that, since the Canadian legal system is based on the British, that this aspect is what tripped up Mr. Martin. Still, I shed no tears for his supposed victim.

[rst]

taking another person's life an appropriate response to a potential loss of property?

Because as was the case only recently here in Boston, the loss of one's property often goes hand in hand with the loss of one's life, and you don't know until it's too late. My life is always more important than the life of a person who has criminally trespassed into my home, for whatever reason. I have a doorbell, use it. To criminally trespass into another man's home is to ask for what you get.

That having been said, the populist-mob mentality approach of lifting all restrictions on what one might do to a home invader seems a touch excessive. The Ancient Roman approach was a decent compromise - you can kill the fucker if it's nighttime.

[joe]

jlt, that is the first time I've seen "but everyone else in doing it" appear on this board.

[joe]

"That having been said, the populist-mob mentality approach of lifting all restrictions on what one might do to a home invader seems a touch excessive. The Ancient Roman approach was a decent compromise - you can kill the fucker if it's nighttime."

The fact that you couldn't kill an intruder with impunity during daylight tells me that the homeowner, even back then, was expected to make an assessment of the level of threat he was facing. At night, when you couldn't see what was going on, the threat to life and limb was assumed, but the distinction indicates that, even back then, a distinction was made between a threat to property and a threat to life.

[arjay]

Rebecca

"Also, in England, one is guilty until proven innocent, unless that has changed within the last ten years."

You are incorrect. The presumption of innocence is a founding principle of the English justice system. That's where we got it.

However, your first paragraph is essentially correct, as tchiers pointed out in his post before yours.

Tim Lambert

"I believe that all the people speculating here know less about the facts of the case than the jury, who decided that it wasn't self-defence."

I do think it is reasonable to speculate that it would be difficult for a prosecutor in an American state to get a conviction in a case with similar circumstances. I suspect that in England where self defense is for all practical purposes prohibited it was not hard to get a jury to convict.

Also, in case anyone's interested, I believe that Martin was also convicted on a weapons violation since although the shotgun he used was legal to own (and quite a common fixture in English farmhouses) it was not registered. Compare this to the case in NYC last year where someone shot a burglar with a handgun, was cleared on that (self defense), but charged with possession of an unregistered handgun (Sullivan Law, I believe).

[joe]

"I suspect that in England where self defense is for all practical purposes prohibited it was not hard to get a jury to convict."

If the British populace is as supportive of a broad right to self defense as the post, and poll, suggest, then it would be difficult to get a jury to convict a man for a self-defense killing. The fact that they did convict indicates to me that 1) the facts are so horrible that even people inclinded to support self defense wanted the guy thrown in jail, or 2) there really isn't much support in the British public at large for the gunning down of housebreakers.

[Douglas Fletcher]

Thanks for the laugh, I needed one. My feet hurt.

Clearly the lesson here is that if you happen to shoot an intruder in the back, you might as well throw in a couple to his frontside once the bastard's down. That'll confuse things, at least, and confusion is gold when you're trying to beat the rap in a jury trial.

[AJMB]

DF: You're welcome for the yucks. The only problem is that you'll laugh til you cry. My previous post is verbatim from a conversation I had with a cop and a legal friend. Basically, if you start to strangle me, I can use whatever force is required to get you to stop. Once you do, I have to stop as well, or risk arrest. Of course, once you catch your breath you're free to start the whole cycle again. Crazy, ain't it.

[Sebastian]

Joe,

I suspect the latter is probably the case more than the former. Under similar cirumstances in most US states, I think a prosecutor would be hard pressed to get a jury to indict let alone convict.

jlt,

Your first post made little sense.

[Don]

The law in California (the Richardson Act):

198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to
have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great
bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that
force is used against another person, not a member of the family or
household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and
forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or
had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

199. The homicide appearing to be justifiable or excusable, the
person indicted must, upon his trial, be fully acquitted and
discharged.

[Don]

"I believe that all the people speculating here know less about the facts of the case than the jury, who decided that it wasn't self-defence."

Perhaps. But then again, it is also likely the jury didn't know beans about the use of lethal force, or was instructed to reach a guilty verdict if conditions XYZ were met, regardless of what they really thought.

[Glen]

Of course the poll is meaningless, but that's not the point. The point is that the contest was set up by the MP himself (with the radio station's producers), and he pledged to introduce the legislation in Parliament -- but then got all pissy when he disagree with the results. (Did he in fact renege on his agreement to introduce the legislation?) A similar thing happened here, when the American Family Council ran an online poll about gay marriage, and the results showed a substantial majority favoring it (or the equivalent). Obviously, the poll was meaningless, but that's not the issue. The issue is that the AFC set up the poll and promised to deliver the results to Congress; any guesses as to whether they'll actually do so?

[Dan]

Shooting someone who's running away from you is not self defense. Duh. What are you defending yourself from?

His next attempt at robbing you.

[Will Spencer]

http://www.tonymartinsupportgroup.org/

Excerpt:

Political prisoner Tony Martin has been released at last after more than three years inside for the crime of self defence. The Criminal Justice system managed to delay his release again, on the grounds of the risk he posed to members of Britain's burgling community as they went about their daily labours. Showing great moral courage, Mr Martin again refused to show the required degree of repentance which could have earned him a release last year. But our Probation 'Service' would rather Mr Martin had not defended himself, but become a victim like this. Or this. Or this. Or this. You get the picture.

One of the three criminals who targeted Tony Martin has been granted legal aid to sue him for 'loss of earnings'. The poor man has since been scraping a living dealing heroin to keep body and soul together - altogether a most worthy recipient of taxpayers money. And in a last vindictive gesture by the authorities, he was released the Friday before Tony Martin. A professional criminal who has never had a job in his life - and the Probation Service is happy he'll go straight - two thirds off his sentence. A law-abiding citizen who only ever wanted to live in peace on his farm only gets half the remission.

[Bones]

So Martin only got 5 years for committing murder? That sounds like a serious miscarriage of justice to me. The guy should have done at least 10.

They should make an object lesson of him. Make it clear to the people that owning a home doesn't give you the right to off people.

[Tim Lambert]

tchiers: I think you need to provide some support for your claim that "in modern-day UK, there is effectively no right to self-defense. I've scanned in some pages from a text that contradicts your claim.

Bones: Martin got life for committing murder. The appeal court decided that he was crazy and reduced it to manslaughter because of diminished responsibility.

[Don]

The "miscarriage of justice" that I see is that Martin only got one of the bastards . . .

[Don]

A few years ago in the UK, an American woman was tried for defending herself against criminals with a pocket knife . . . an on duty police officier was tried for murder for killing two (of three) criminals (one who had previously killed a cop) who opened fire on him with illegal handguns & a shotgun . . . and a gunstore owner went to prison because he used a .38 revolver to defend his store from robbers. In the UK, any right to defense is a theoretical right, not one that exists in practice. And that's exactly the way Tim Lambert wants it, although he might loose some sleep over the fact that there is still some theoretical right to defend oneself in England.

[Martin]

I did shoot him in the back. But he wasn't fleeing the scene of the crime, merely fleeing the house. He was headed for my garage.

[Jeff Brownell]

In England you are not allowed to use any weapon to defend yourself our your property. It had nothing to do that the man was shot in the back. On that reason alone Tony Martin (do not resist) was convicted. Some day, when enough people are killed by home invaders will they then give them the right to defend themselves.

[joe]

Shooting someone who's running away from you is not self defense. Duh. What are you defending yourself from?

Seems to me that, like the Bernard Goetz case, the sympathy for the shooter stems not from the specifics of the case, which are appalling, but from lots of semi-related problems, like overkill gun laws and rising violent crime, that come together to form a movement in search of a poster boy. Unfortunately, they seem to have zeroed in on some bastard blasting away at a 16 year old's spine.

He had the option of firing over the kid's head; he decided to kill him instead, because he was pissed off and wanted to punish someone, and a jury of his peers convicted.

[Rob]

What do you think would happen to the burglary rate if Pound?s legislation is passed? Assuming you agree that it would drastically plummet, the next question is: why would anyone (other then the burglar lobby) fight against such a law? Are these people totally disinterested in reducing burglaries? Or are they so blinded by gun hatred they believe no possible good can had from one? I?m genuinely curious as to the agenda of people who would put me away for wacking a thief who?s broken into my home.

[dhex]

i dunno...being shot to death for breaking into someone's house seems fair.

[R. C. Dean]

In the dark, it is very difficult to tell if someone is facing toward you or away from you. It is entirely possible to be legally and morally justified in shooting someone in the back in self-defense.

Offhand, I can think of several scenarios where this would be true, including one where you had a reasonable belief, due to poor lighting and the stress of being assaulted in your home, that someone was facing you when they were not, when someone turns their back to pick up a weapon, when someone has their back to you because they are heading down the hall to your kid's room, etc.

Don't be so quick to assume, in short, that a shooting was not justified just because the bad guy caught one in the back.

[Vigilance Matters]

The problem, from the politicians perspective, is that too many 16 year old boys are being killed by homeowners.

In reality, the problem is that too many 16 year olds are climbing through windows of other peoples houses.

Another case of denial, and of treating the symptoms, not the disease.

[Jean Bart]

R.C. Dean,

Of course, eschew the converse quick assumption as well.

[Tim Lambert]

Don writes; "that's exactly the way Tim Lambert wants it". I've consistently argued that Martin did not act in self-defence. I've never said anything that could be remotely construed as arguing that people should not have a right to self-defence. Don argues dishonestly.

[Sebastian]

RC is correct that shooting someone in the back does not necessarily negate the assertion of self-defense. It makes it much more difficult, but not impossible. There are many situations where this can happen. The burden would be proving he was retreating to a better position rather than fleeing the fight. If he were an armed intruder, this would be easier to defend against.

I don't think you can really morally defend shooting someone who is genuinely attempting to flee your property. If the intruder sees you and decides to hang around, have a go, but the minute he attempts to flee he ceases to be a threat to you. The penalty for breaking and entering or burglary is not death. If someone steals something from you, that's something for the police and courts to deal with.

That said, as a juror or judge I'd be very reluctant to convict a homeowner for using deadly force on an intruder. Breaking into someone's home, especially while the owner is there, is a serious crime and presents an implicit danger to the occupants of said dwelling. The homeowner should not be left guessing at the person's intent. Short of shooting the guy in the back as he's making his way for the door, the homeowner should be given the benefit of doubt.

[Citizen]

The fact is that the poll is meaningless.

The point is that had the results been different we'd expect BBC 4 to run with it. Instead, somehow, those that played by the crappy rules get blamed. Let's not forget, the guy that created the poll is the ass here.

[mak_nas]

Unfortunately, they seem to have zeroed in on some bastard blasting away at a 16 year old's spine.

do i detect kneejerk sympathy for a lawbreaking idiot simply because the politics surrounding the response of the victim are distasteful to you? ha!

the risk the thief took was clear enough to him, i'm sure: "i risk everything i have and will ever have for whatever i can lift out of this place in less than a minute, come what may."

in the end, i can have utterly no sympathy for anyone who takes that gamble, win or lose. death was part of the bet, and he lost. caveat emptor.

i've a baseball bat by my bedside, and a few weeks ago took a terrible risk not to use it. on finding a thief opening my bedroom window (just over the heads of my wife and i as we slept), i picked up my bat -- and turned on the light. a potentially mortal error, scaring a thief that is likely as not irrational and carrying a handgun. he ran, however, thank god.

but if i had it to do over, i'd never risk my and my wife's lives like that again. i'd sooner call his bet and make him pay, law be damned. if there's something illegal about that, i'd rather be in court than dead -- the problem would clearly lay in the law and not my actions, in my eyes. the law, after all, has precious little to do with freedom in our police state anymore, where anything and everything is to be dealt with by Mother Government and her henchmen alone and nothing at all can be trusted to the hands of decent men and women when the law is broken.

[tchiers]

Lawful or not, it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. Many a CCW instructor will tell you that.

I was once in the jury pool for a murder trial in TX. The judge spent quite a while explaining what was necessary for a self-defense defense. Immediacy of the threat was one of the components. While AJMB is techically correct that the Stranglee must stop attacking the stranglor when the stranglor stops to catch his breath, I knew I could see situations where it was justifiable for the strnglee to finish the job.

Dunno what happened in that murder case, though. (they just took the first 12 people)

[Russ]

Never mind the fact that if the guy hadn't been shot he had a good chance of getting away scot-free. Then there's no chance of the courts dealing with the stealing.

It takes a pretty gullible person to think that the police usually "get their man".

[Don]

"Martin was convicted because a jury of his peers decided that his actions were not self-defence, possibly because he shot a fleeing burglar in the back and left him to die."

Back or front doesn't make much difference. Someone can turn around in a fraction of a second. A shot aimed at someone's front can hit their side or back. For someone well trained in pistol or rifle shooting (or combat shotgun shooting), the idea is to focus on the front sight. The target is a blur--if he spins around you probably won't realize it. Aside from that, there is such things as tactical retreats. Even if the criminal was running away, that doesn't mean the defensive shooter wasn't going to come under attack a few seconds later.

In the US, generally speaking, you can assume that the intruder is armed & dangerous, at least until he proves otherwise. You don't have a right to kill an intruder if he proves otherwise, but you don't have to show that he is armed or has deadly intent before you pull the trigger. Once it becomes clear the intruder is not deadly, you can no longer employ deadly force.

An example in Escondido, CA (San Diego county) some years back: couple wakes up to a hispanic man in their bedroom. Husband shoots & kills the intruder (who neither retreated or advanced upon the couple IIRC). Subsequently, the intruder is found to be unarmed. The shooting is ruled justified homicide.

[Kevin Carson]

I've read in a number of places that breaking and entering is common in England even when the owners are home. That kind of thing is rare in the U.S., where there's a much greater chance of being shot.

There was a good story at the Darwin Awards website a couple of years ago. A couple of burglars broke into a house without worrying about the occupant being home, for reasons already stated. Only it turned out the owner of the house was a professional soccer player with some kind of league record for assault and battery charges. I forget his full name, but his nickname in the sports press was "Duncan Disorderly." Those house-breakers were considerably worse for wear by the time they were arrested.

[Dan]

Martin was convicted because a jury of his peers decided that his actions were not self-defence, possibly because he shot a fleeing burglar in the back and left him to die.

Let me edit out the non-relevant portions of the sentence for you, so you can understand how it reads to someone who believes in property rights:

"Martin shot a burglar."

Sounds good to me. Sure, the burglar was 16. So? I knew stealing was immoral by the time I was four. So the burglar was fleeing -- he represented a clear and present danger to innocent people, and thus needed to be stopped from escaping. And sure, Martin left him to die. What's wrong with that? I'm unaware of any moral obligation to save the lives of thieves.

[Don]

Tim Lambert wrote: "I've never said anything that could be remotely construed as arguing that people should not have a right to self-defence."

Tim Lambet has been a consistent supporter of gun control. He wants to remove people's means of self defense. He may believe in some theoretical, limited concept of self defense, but for all practical purposes he opposes the right to defend oneself.

[Don]

" A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of a crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders, suspected offenders, or of persons unlawfully at large."

The problem is that the UK effectively reduces "force as is reasonable in the circumstances" to minimal levels.
The American woman arrested for using a pocket knife to defend herself from street thugs in the UK is an example. She faced multiple thugs, and absent a weapon she wouldn't have a chance. She used a weapon and went to jail. Of course, this sort of thing happens in the US as well, in places like NY and DC. But in the UK it is mandated nation wide.

[Don]

Kevin Carson wrote: "A couple of burglars broke into a house without worrying about the occupant being home, for reasons already stated. Only it turned out the owner of the house was a professional soccer player with some kind of league record for assault and battery charges . . . "

Which pretty much shows that Tim et al are correct: you have a right to defend yourself in the UK. Given, of course, that you are a large male who is physically capable of overpowering the criminals, and given that the criminals happen to be unarmed.

[wade]

a few relevent facts. UK law does permit self defence... Section 3 of the 1967 Criminal law act says:
" A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of a crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders, suspected offenders, or of persons unlawfully at large."
Arguably, shooting a burglar is reasonable force in the heat of the moment.
However, Tony Martin was going round his village telling people he would do this beforehand. The police went round to see him, Martin boasted he would kill the next guy who tried to burgle him, so they took his shotguns off him. Martin then went and bought a pump action shotgun illegally, and used this to kill the burgler. The jury may have felt that this went beyond being "such force as is reasonable".

[US Chit]

Here's the thing...if you've ever been the victim of a crime in your own home...let's say rape, you would quickly come to realize that
1. All people have a reasonable expectation of security and privacy in their own homes.
2. If that security is breached, you have a right to protect your life, the lives of your loved ones, and your property. That's right... property.
3. If the government has no right to deprive someone of life, liberty or property without due process of law, no citizen has that right either. It is unconscionable to suggest that the real bad guy here is the one who was defending his home.

Maybe he had his day in court. And apparently he had benefit of a jury of his peers and an appeal. Great. However, that doesn't mean he'd get the same treatment in the US. I, for one, have been a victim of crime in my own home.

And I will not be a victim again! The next bastard that tries to rape me will find cold steel a sharp deterent, or so help me, I will protect my life and individual rights within the sanctity of my own home.

Its really easy to sit in the ivory tower and talk about how things should be -- when you've never been in a similar situation yourself.

Some are you are suggesting that next time, I should let the guy rape me until another notion strikes him, offer him tea before he goes, and thank him for stopping by.

Wake up! Real life is messy.

[joe]

"'Shooting someone who's running away from you is not self defense. Duh. What are you defending yourself from?'"

"His next attempt at robbing you."

Self defense requires an imminent threat, not a speculative one. "Hey, that guy looks like he might rob someone. Someday."

[Bluesword]

Bones-

They should make an object lesson of him. Make it clear to the people that owning a home doesn't give you the right to off people.

Where do you live? Can I come over and take all your stuff? Don't even hit me, or I'll have you arrested for attempted murder . . .

[joe]

Don, HOW did she use the knife? is the relevant question. Did she swing away until they let go of her, and then run to safety? Did she chase them down, tackle one, and cut his throat? You do see a difference, right?

What the farmer did - pump several shots into the intruder's back as he fled, then wait until his life was over before telling anyone - is much closer to the latter than the former.

[Rebecca]

"So Martin only got 5 years for committing murder? That sounds like a serious miscarriage of justice to me. The guy should have done at least 10.

"They should make an object lesson of him. Make it clear to the people that owning a home doesn't give you the right to off people."

Bones, you make it sound like he walked into a supermarket and said, "I own a home!" and shot some people. The man had been burglarized several times. He stated clearly that the next time someone burglarized him, he would shoot them. Some punks decided to burglarize him anyway. Perhaps they didn't know of his stated threat, but there's also something for keeping his word. Something about not making promises you don't intend to keep. Not only that, he likely overstated things as people tend to do when angry and frustrated. (Unless you've never gotten angry or frustrated....?)

Breaking into one's house and taking one's stuff takes away the sense of security that ALL of us expect in our own home. Martin had worked honestly for his things: would you just allow someone to damage your house, take away things you worked for, and then leave without any hindrance? Perhaps slap them with a glove and say, "You naughty naughty boy - don't do that again or I shall get annoyed"? As far as I'm concerned, burglars forfeit their rights to "fair treatment" once they invade my home.

Crime pays - that's why people do it. The object of defending one's home and oneself - with a gun if necessary - is to make the undertaking too risky for the criminal. And since I'm not a burly soccer player, I'll take all the material help I can get!

[Don]

Joe,

I don't think she cut anyone with the kife--IIRC, it was just used as a deterrant. Nevertheless, she got in trouble with the Brit authorities anyway--either for having the knife in the first place, or force using it as a weapon.

In the case of Martin, he was a repeat victim of a group of thugs. Given that the state appears to have been incapable of defending his home, it is reasonable that he take means to do so himself. And I think that it is understandable that he was frustrated that the thugs could get off easy by just running away--something they are not going to permit their victims to do. Maybe you are right, maybe Martin crossed a line he shouldn't have. His "victim" and the "victims" mentor had crossed lines they shouldn't have repeatedly. And the authorities, in restricting self defense and disarming citizens had crossed a line that civilized governments don't cross.

[Rebecca]

I agree with you Don, only civilized governments have been removing weapons from their citizens' (or subjects') possession for centuries. They did so in the 1770s, for example. Recall that every group in history has considered itself "the modern age", the "height of civilization."

[John Munro]

One small addition to the above discussion. The UK now has one of the highest crime levels in Europe and a number of utterly hopeless police forces. The police, in Martin's area are particularly incompetent.