Kill A Burglar In Your Home...And Get LIFE In Prison

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

Kill A Burglar In Your Home...And Get LIFE In Prison

Where We're Headed

By Robert A. Waters

6-23-00

You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.

Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.

With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it.

In the darkness, you make out two shadows. One holds a weapon--it looks like a crowbar.

When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.

As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble. In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered.

Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.

When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter. "What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask. "Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choir boys. Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times. But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters.

As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media.

The surviving burglar has become a folk hero. Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted.

When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man.

It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.

The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened.

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England, killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.

How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once-great British Empire?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns. Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland, Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released. Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."

All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply.

Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens. How did the authorities know who had handguns?

The guns had been registered and licensed. Kinda like cars.

Sound familiar? _____

Robert Waters is the author of: "The Best Defense: True Stories of Intended Victims Who Defended Themselves with a Firearm"



-- xyz (a@b.c), June 27, 2000

Answers

Too bad Mr. Martin lives in the UK. Depending on what state you live in here in the USA, you may be able to blast away at unauthorized nocturnal entrants to your heart's content. My state permits that; I have even been told by a state police officer that the law enforcement agencies here in Georgia tend not to arrest residents who have shot intruders, even when the intruders haven't gotten _in_ yet. I'll have a leisurely look in some Georgia law books and get back to you all on this.

-- Sal Monella (too.much @lawschool.net), June 27, 2000.

Force (government) yields only to superior force. (That could be numbers and/or armaments.) I told you all last year, if we make it through Y2K, which we have, you will see increasing world-wide efforts to make us all "niggers (regardless of race) on the government plantation(s).

The U.S. government was founded in revolution by an armed citizenry. They want to make damn sure that their corrupt asses are not, in turn, thrown out by an armed citizenry.

Note to those of you you who are pussy-wuss liberal/establishment idiots: It's not about "hunting and trap shooting" -- it's about a group of citizens having arms that can do serious damage to establishment goons (police/army).

-- A (A@AisA.com), June 28, 2000.


This case really happened.

Er, yeah, but not exactly as it was described here.

First of all, Martin shot one intruder in the back as he was trying to escape (probably from the farmer with the gun--we can only speculate). The jury presumably thought that didn't really count as self-defence. Which is fair, although Martin has been sentenced pretty harshly, in my own opinion.

The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

Er, really? The surviving burglar who's also the neighbourhood's most notorious retarded lunatic? My, the quality of British folk heroes is really going downhill lately.

I didn't think it would be long before the pro-gun sorts in the States picked up on this story. Thanks for not disappointing me.

-- Richard Dymond (richard@dymond.org), June 28, 2000.


My dad, who REALLY DOES know everything, told me to wait until the intruder is coming towards your person (self-defense and imminent danger) and shoot to kill. One of his buddies spent $50,000 defending himself in a lawsuit brought on by the perpertrator (and his gracious attorney)because the intruder was shot and injured (in some way). I think the resident "won" the case. This was in Florida...

I remember the case mentioned above. I read of two cases at that time and one of them indicated the intruder was attacking his (grown) son, and he had just passed his daughter laying on the kitchen floor surrounded by blood. (She was ok, but he didn't know it). He shot the intruder, injured him. I can't remember the exact outcome, but there was definately some repurcussions for the homeowner. Makes me sick. Those two cases give criminals rights to be IN your house without real recourse and they know it! They'll take your stuff now, or get it in court!! Hence, shoot to kill.. oh no, wait a minute, then you're a murderer. "Maybe we should give up our guns and we wouldn't even have to worry about it", she said sarcastically!!

-- keep the faith... (booann777@hotmail.com), June 28, 2000.


The solution is: Hope your neighbors think they just heard a car backfire, and don't call the pigs (cops). Chop the sucker up and feed him to your dogs (or hogs, as in John Ross' "Unintended Consequences").

-- A (A@AisA.com), June 28, 2000.


Mr. Dymond,

Exactly how did it happen?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), June 28, 2000.

Keep the Faith --

"My dad, who REALLY DOES know everything, told me to wait until the intruder is coming towards your person (self-defense and imminent danger) and shoot to kill."

That really depends on the jurisdiction. In some jurisdictions, you won't be able to have a firearm. And in other jurisdictions, you can legally pop the intruder off while he's climbing in the window. You need to check your local and county statutes, as well as the laws of your state, to be sure. I can tell you how to do that, if you like.

"One of his buddies spent $50,000 defending himself in a lawsuit brought on by the perpertrator (and his gracious attorney)because the intruder was shot and injured (in some way). I think the resident "won" the case. This was in Florida..."

Ah, no wonder. Florida, for some reason, is a little picky about firearms, assault and battery cases. Another judge, in a less restrictive jurisdiction, would likely rule quite differently. "I remember the case mentioned above. I read of two cases at that time and one of them indicated the intruder was attacking his (grown) son, and he had just passed his daughter laying on the kitchen floor surrounded by blood. (She was ok, but he didn't know it). He shot the intruder, injured him. I can't remember the exact outcome, but there was definately some repurcussions for the homeowner. Makes me sick."

It troubles me, too. But that's the law for you. I don't write it, I just practice it. One day, perhaps I'll be good enough to not need to practice it any more. :)

"Those two cases give criminals rights to be IN your house without real recourse and they know it!"

I think not. The legal issue, as I read it, is not whether or not someone has the right to enter your home (for the purpose of robbing you or whatever else), but is rather what rights you, the resident, have to repel such unauthorized entrants.

I believe you will find, if you read the decisions in those cases, that the issues raised related to whether or not the residents were justified in using the degree of force they did to stop the burglar/entrant/perpetrator/suspect.

"They'll take your stuff now, or get it in court!!"

I think not. But I am willing to discuss the matter with you.

"Hence, shoot to kill.. oh no, wait a minute, then you're a murderer. "Maybe we should give up our guns and we wouldn't even have to worry about it", she said sarcastically!!"

Obviously, you feel strongly about this matter. But not everyone who shoots someone else is a murderer, and that's a legally supported assertion I have made. Others can give up their guns if they wish. I will keep mine, within the bounds of the law.

-- keep the faith... (booann777@hotmail.com), June 28, 2000.

-- Sal Monella (too.much@lawschool.org), June 28, 2000.


J

I've had a brief look round the online archives of some British newspapers, and here are some links I found:

Police guard for farmer in court on death charge (other links available from that page)

Life for farmer who shot burglar (gives some details of the shooting)

The Tony Martin Murder Case (The Guardian's archives)

Hope these give you a better idea of what happened.

-- Richard Dymond (richard@dymond.org), June 29, 2000.


Sal... you are way ahead of me... and I appreciate your effort in responding... and yes, I would be interested in finding out specifically about the laws here. My husband is a redneck from hell and we live in a small redneck county. It's a small community and my husband (trfh) has lived here most of his life. I imagine that lawmen in this county know who they are dealing with most of the time, and this may be the case in many rural communities. It's the lawman first, then the law!?! We like it!

booann: "Those two cases give criminals rights to be IN your house without real recourse and they know it!"

sal: I think not. The legal issue, as I read it, is not whether or not someone has the right to enter your home (for the purpose of robbing you or whatever else), but is rather what rights you, the resident, have to repel such unauthorized entrants.

booann: Sal, you are absolutely right. Criminals don't have the right to be there in any event. I guess I was trying to say that criminals know the law and outcomes of cases like this. It may make them more likely to enter a house illegally because of laws and court cases that protect offenders over victims.

sal: "I believe you will find, if you read the decisions in those cases, that the issues raised related to whether or not the residents were justified in using the degree of force they did to stop the burglar/entrant/perpetrator/suspect."

booann: I haven't read it and details are not my thing. I trust that you are right in your assessment of the situation. Obviously, each case would be judged by the laws in the local area and the merits of the case and I thank you for your most knowledgeable assessment.

booann: "They'll take your stuff now, or get it in court!!"

sal: "I think not. But I am willing to discuss the matter with you."

booann: Thank you kindly again for your willingness to provide the legal (vs. my emotional) views. I do like to dramatize to make a point. Of course you know it would "irritate" me to be sued by someone who has committed a crime against me for something I did to defend myself. I know I'm excitable and may well go overboard due to lack of experience, or whatever.

These shootings in defense would not take place if the criminal wasn't intruding somehow. To me, if a person criminally invades another and gets hurt while trying to do so... tough cookies... but that's opinion, not law.

Gotta run... my sincere thanks for your enlightened insight...

-- keep the faith... (booann777@hotmail.com), June 29, 2000.


Mr. Dymond,

I read the articles from the links that you provided. Obviously, without the trial transcripts we don't know everything that was said, but from what I can gather, the following are agreed upon facts:

1)The burglars were in the home.
2) One was shot in the legs.
3)The one who died was shot in the back.
4)A shotgun was used to repel the intruders.

It would appear to me that with multiple intruders and the way that a shotgun pattern opens up when fired, convicting the farmer of murder should have been near impossible. If indeed, a light was shone in the farmer's eyes, it is very possible that he fired at the light, and hit the one burglar in the legs, and the other burglar in the back. The third burglar could have been the one holding the light, and the burglar who was hit in the back could have been standing behind the burglar with the light.

On the other hand, the farmer may very well have been lying in wait, and let them have it, even as they retreated.

In the United States of America, we are still presumed innocent, until guilt is proven beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT. I believe that, unless other facts that are pertinent to this case are known, there is ample reasonable doubt that the farmer's actions constitute murder.

Of course, that is the perspective of an American. Maybe in the U.K., innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply. Or more likely, innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply if you are a firearm owner.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), June 29, 2000.


J

The principle of innocent until proven guilty also applies in the UK. I suppose the pertinent question the jury had to ask themselves was: Why did Martin shoot at two burglars who were already trying to get away?

From what I've read and heard about the case, it seems that Martin was already something of a nervous wreck (because of previous burglaries he'd suffered), or mightily pissed off (because the local police had done so little to help him), and that's why he fired the gun. In my opinion, murder was the wrong charge altogether, but the fact remains that he did kill one man and injure another, in a way that would be difficult to describe as "self-defence". No matter how you may sympathise with how Martin was feeling at the time, you can't really claim that "lack of composure" is a good enough excuse for having caused the death of another man, can you?

I would hope that the matter of his having an unlicensed gun didn't affect the result of the trial in any way. I wonder why he never registered his gun, though?

I notice that Martin has won the first round of his appeal against the charge of murder. It'll be interesting to see what happens next.

-- Richard Dymond (richard@dymond.org), June 30, 2000.


Mr. Dymond,

You wrote, "I suppose the pertinent question the jury had to ask themselves was: Why did Martin shoot at two burglars who were already trying to get away"?

From the articles that I reviewed, I am not sure that the two burglars were trying to get away when shot. Martin said the torch (I presume this to mean light) was shone in his eyes, and since he was blinded by this light, he fired down the stairs at the light. IF this is what happened, then it is highly plausible that the burglar who was shot in the back was turned that way when Martin fired. This would explain how he was hit in the back, even though he was not retreating. I would find the story more difficult to believe if there had been only one burglar. The fact that there were multiple burglars certainly allows for the possibility that one was shining the light up the stairs into Martin's eyes while another had his back turned to the stairs. This possibility, in turn, should have created reasonable doubt as to Martin's guilt of murder.

You also wrote, "you can't really claim that "lack of composure" is a good enough excuse for having caused the death of another man, can you"?

I believe that if I awoke to intruders in my home, the adrenaline rush would be intense. Maybe even intense enough to cause a "lack of composure". If however, under these circumstances, one of these intruders shone a flashlight into my eyes, I feel that I would be fully justified in firing a shotgun at said intruder. Said intruder may have had a gun, and with the flashlight beam in my eyes, I had no way of knowing if he were about to shoot me. In this scenario, my "lack of composure" is not to blame at all for the intruder's death. The intruder's lack of respect for the law is to blame for his death. To summarize, if a burglar breaks into a man's home, and then blinds the man by shining a flashlight into his eyes, the burglar has only himself to blame if the man shoots him dead. That being said, if the burglars were indeed trying to retreat when Martin shot them, then Martin had exceeded the use of force needed for self defense. I would agree with you that even if this was the case, murder was way too harsh. Manslaughter might have been more reasonable.

As far as the unregistered gun, I believe that I read that it was registered but that the registration had lapsed.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), June 30, 2000.

J:

Maybe a lawyer can help out here. You seem to be talking about the legal construct called "the ordinary reasonable and prudent man." This construct is (as I understand it) often used to determine the "reasonableness" of a critical split-second decision. The driver coming toward you on a 2-lane road wanders over into your lane. Think fast! Multiple intruders awaken you in the middle of the night and shine a light into your eyes. Think fast!

I've been told that this legal construct has by now lost any useful meaning. Since the jury has as long as they want to dream up everything the man *might* have done, and can always come up with something that hindsight shows would have worked out better, the man was never "reasonable and prudent".

So you had three choices: stay in your lane, take his lane, or drive off the road to the right. ANY ONE of these decisions stands an equal likelihood of leading to a head-on collision, but TWO of those decisions would have avoided it. In practice, therefore, the "ordinary reasonable and prudent man" would have made one of the other two decisions, the "right" decisions depending on what ended up happening.

This "reasonable" man, once juries are done with it, can see into the future. He is never half-awake. He has complete information. He can read minds and knows what the other guy will do. He is never drunk, frightened, or angry. He is never taken by surprise. Whatever. The trend toward the "extraordinary brilliant and omniscient man" hasn't helped much.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 30, 2000.


Blast them with a burst of pepper spray and then shock the crap out of them with your stun baton. Grab your kids and run to the neighbors to call the police.

-- cin (cin@cin.cin), July 01, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ