Farmer who killed burglar - NFA
Discussion
Thought there must be an old discussion of this story, but can’t find it. Farmer who shot two teenage burglars in 2024, killing one and wounding the other, has been released from bail and told no further action will be forthcoming. Three men to face proceedings over the break in and a burglary the previous night.
Sounds like the right call.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yzy7qvrpzo
Sounds like the right call.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yzy7qvrpzo
Obviously the right outcome here. The farmer should absolutely not have had 2 years of worry over this.
I admire the USA Castle doctrine. If somebody enters your property with the intent to steal or do harm you have every right to defend yourself and your property in any way that seems fit. Sort of. IANAL.
I admire the USA Castle doctrine. If somebody enters your property with the intent to steal or do harm you have every right to defend yourself and your property in any way that seems fit. Sort of. IANAL.
BikeBikeBIke said:
Defiantly the right outcome, but equally we can't have people shooting every burglar they encounter so making him sweat for a couple of years was a good call IMHO.
None the less, my sympathy is 100% with the Farmer here.
Well, I should maybe have been more specific. I agree that somebody can’t just walk around at night with a shotgun looking for burglars to shoot on other people’s property. To my mind if somebody breaks into my property with intent to steal or harm then they gave up the rights at the threshold. None the less, my sympathy is 100% with the Farmer here.
I’m intrigued to see some more details of this. I think the law has changed since the old boy went to jail years ago for shooting a burglar in the back. Tony somebody? Firearms are meant to be secure so just the act of going to get them from the secure location shows some degree of intent to use them I suppose.
BikeBikeBIke said:
Defiantly the right outcome, but equally we can't have people shooting every burglar they encounter so making him sweat for a couple of years was a good call IMHO.
None the less, my sympathy is 100% with the Farmer here.
You should be free to beat an intruder to a pulp without fear of prosecution None the less, my sympathy is 100% with the Farmer here.
otolith said:
Thought there must be an old discussion of this story, but can t find it. Farmer who shot two teenage burglars in 2024, killing one and wounding the other, has been released from bail and told no further action will be forthcoming. Three men to face proceedings over the break in and a burglary the previous night.
Sounds like the right call.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yzy7qvrpzo
Bit light on detail isn't it.Sounds like the right call.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yzy7qvrpzo
Doesn't sound like a "Tony Martin" type scenario so presumably the suggestion is it was self-defence rather than pursuing or shooting after the threat was gone.
That sounds fair enough to me.
Lefty said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
Defiantly the right outcome, but equally we can't have people shooting every burglar they encounter so making him sweat for a couple of years was a good call IMHO.
None the less, my sympathy is 100% with the Farmer here.
Well, I should maybe have been more specific. I agree that somebody can t just walk around at night with a shotgun looking for burglars to shoot on other people s property. To my mind if somebody breaks into my property with intent to steal or harm then they gave up the rights at the threshold. None the less, my sympathy is 100% with the Farmer here.
I m intrigued to see some more details of this. I think the law has changed since the old boy went to jail years ago for shooting a burglar in the back. Tony somebody? Firearms are meant to be secure so just the act of going to get them from the secure location shows some degree of intent to use them I suppose.
AI summary of changes:
The Crime and Courts Act 2013 amended the law to give householders greater legal protection when defending themselves against intruders.Under the current legislation, the rules differ in two primary ways:
The "Grossly Disproportionate" Test: Previously, any force used had to be purely "reasonable". Now, if you are defending your home against an intruder, the force you use will not be considered reasonable only if it is deemed "grossly disproportionate".
Instinctive Reactions: The law recognises that people act on instinct in terrifying situations. If a homeowner acts honestly and instinctively with a level of force they believed was necessary at the time, they are protected, even if that force later turns out to be disproportionate (as long as it isn't grossly disproportionate).
Legal experts have noted that if Tony Martin's case were judged under today's rules—where he shot a fleeing burglar in the back with a shotgun—his actions would likely still be classified as grossly disproportionate, meaning the new law might not have saved him...continues
Bonefish Blues said:
Lefty said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
Defiantly the right outcome, but equally we can't have people shooting every burglar they encounter so making him sweat for a couple of years was a good call IMHO.
None the less, my sympathy is 100% with the Farmer here.
Well, I should maybe have been more specific. I agree that somebody can t just walk around at night with a shotgun looking for burglars to shoot on other people s property. To my mind if somebody breaks into my property with intent to steal or harm then they gave up the rights at the threshold. None the less, my sympathy is 100% with the Farmer here.
I m intrigued to see some more details of this. I think the law has changed since the old boy went to jail years ago for shooting a burglar in the back. Tony somebody? Firearms are meant to be secure so just the act of going to get them from the secure location shows some degree of intent to use them I suppose.
AI summary of changes:
The Crime and Courts Act 2013 amended the law to give householders greater legal protection when defending themselves against intruders.Under the current legislation, the rules differ in two primary ways:
The "Grossly Disproportionate" Test: Previously, any force used had to be purely "reasonable". Now, if you are defending your home against an intruder, the force you use will not be considered reasonable only if it is deemed "grossly disproportionate".
Instinctive Reactions: The law recognises that people act on instinct in terrifying situations. If a homeowner acts honestly and instinctively with a level of force they believed was necessary at the time, they are protected, even if that force later turns out to be disproportionate (as long as it isn't grossly disproportionate).
Legal experts have noted that if Tony Martin's case were judged under today's rules where he shot a fleeing burglar in the back with a shotgun his actions would likely still be classified as grossly disproportionate, meaning the new law might not have saved him...continues
Shooting them in the back is fairly clear evidence they were a declining threat - just by the act of running away.
Bluevanman said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
Defiantly the right outcome, but equally we can't have people shooting every burglar they encounter so making him sweat for a couple of years was a good call IMHO.
None the less, my sympathy is 100% with the Farmer here.
You should be free to beat an intruder to a pulp without fear of prosecution None the less, my sympathy is 100% with the Farmer here.
Countdown said:
Lefty said:
I agree that somebody can t just walk around at night with a shotgun looking for burglars to shoot on other people s property. .
What if they were properly trained?Surviving burglar’s take:
https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/local-news/s...
Tony Martin is a tricky one. On the one hand there were cigarette butts piled up which showed he'd been lying in wait for them, and the lad was terrifed, escaping and no threat. That's essentually setting a trap with full intention to murder.
On the other hand he'd been burgled dozens of times, the Police didn't help him. He was, no doubt, drivem out of his mind by scrotes.
I'd have let him off, but the decision to prosecute and convict were not obviously unreasonable and he only served 3 years. So to a large degree he was let off.
On the other hand he'd been burgled dozens of times, the Police didn't help him. He was, no doubt, drivem out of his mind by scrotes.
I'd have let him off, but the decision to prosecute and convict were not obviously unreasonable and he only served 3 years. So to a large degree he was let off.
Anyone familiar with self defence laws in the UK will be utterly unsurprised by this. It's how the system works and it does work.
Homicides need to be investigated which takes time (from police resources we don't really have) even if it seems a clear cut case of self defence.
The conditions of the bail in this case were likely to be very light, if any as the person involved was not a risk.
Sadly this doesn't suit the narrative of the likes of the Daily Mail.
Another thing about the self defence defence is that it's very difficult to objectively judge the level of threat so it's based largely on the level of threat the person felt at the time, which is another thing that is quite difficult to prove objectively, or in this case, disprove as that will be the job of the CPS as the person has the presumption of innocence.
Hence most people don't even end up in court over it because its such a clear case that it's a waste of time. So like this case, no further action.
Homicides need to be investigated which takes time (from police resources we don't really have) even if it seems a clear cut case of self defence.
The conditions of the bail in this case were likely to be very light, if any as the person involved was not a risk.
Sadly this doesn't suit the narrative of the likes of the Daily Mail.
Bonefish Blues said:
Tony Martin, who waited with a gun before anyone came onto his property, and then shot him as he ran away.
AI summary of changes:
The Crime and Courts Act 2013 amended the law to give householders greater legal protection when defending themselves against intruders.Under the current legislation, the rules differ in two primary ways:
The "Grossly Disproportionate" Test: Previously, any force used had to be purely "reasonable". Now, if you are defending your home against an intruder, the force you use will not be considered reasonable only if it is deemed "grossly disproportionate".
Instinctive Reactions: The law recognises that people act on instinct in terrifying situations. If a homeowner acts honestly and instinctively with a level of force they believed was necessary at the time, they are protected, even if that force later turns out to be disproportionate (as long as it isn't grossly disproportionate).
Legal experts have noted that if Tony Martin's case were judged under today's rules where he shot a fleeing burglar in the back with a shotgun his actions would likely still be classified as grossly disproportionate, meaning the new law might not have saved him...continues
This, any self defence practice will teach you if someone is fleeing or attempting to flee, let them go. Chasing after them or trying to restrain them is what gets most people in trouble when it comes to self defence in the UK.AI summary of changes:
The Crime and Courts Act 2013 amended the law to give householders greater legal protection when defending themselves against intruders.Under the current legislation, the rules differ in two primary ways:
The "Grossly Disproportionate" Test: Previously, any force used had to be purely "reasonable". Now, if you are defending your home against an intruder, the force you use will not be considered reasonable only if it is deemed "grossly disproportionate".
Instinctive Reactions: The law recognises that people act on instinct in terrifying situations. If a homeowner acts honestly and instinctively with a level of force they believed was necessary at the time, they are protected, even if that force later turns out to be disproportionate (as long as it isn't grossly disproportionate).
Legal experts have noted that if Tony Martin's case were judged under today's rules where he shot a fleeing burglar in the back with a shotgun his actions would likely still be classified as grossly disproportionate, meaning the new law might not have saved him...continues
Another thing about the self defence defence is that it's very difficult to objectively judge the level of threat so it's based largely on the level of threat the person felt at the time, which is another thing that is quite difficult to prove objectively, or in this case, disprove as that will be the job of the CPS as the person has the presumption of innocence.
Hence most people don't even end up in court over it because its such a clear case that it's a waste of time. So like this case, no further action.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff