Man notified of burglary via app goes home murders burglar [Liverpool]

[paulchapo]

Sure and that’s why @gordondaviesmoustache talked about juries being a lot more sympathetic to people defending their own homes and family. It’s a natural reaction.

Tony Martin did shoot a man running away and as such, he committed a murder. That was subsequently quashed, I think, on appeal due to his previous ordeals and his mental state.

It will be interesting to see if there are any mitigating circumstances in this case. It sounds like career criminals crossing paths with neither side caring much about the law.

The ultimate winner of this situation seems to be society if one criminal has died and another gets life for murdering him.

We shall see.

We all hope we're not put into that situation I guess. It's a fine line though isn't it. I've been in fights not of my making and punched, kicked and stamped on the knob who started it. Not out of malicious intent to hurt him further but on the basis that if the fucker was still moving he could do the same to me. I wouldn't stop until it was broken up or he was unconscious or pleading for mercy. The law says use minimum force to defend yourself so technically I could have been charged but I'd take that over being in a coma or dead through no fault of my own.

There has to be more to this as many are saying. It's not your run of the mill house break in.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Well none of us were there but he was alone ( I think) in a isolated farmhouse in the dark with Intruders, not for the first time as you say. These things tend to happen very quickly when the adrenaline is pumping and the fight or flight is in full flow. In an orderly safe courtroom it is easy for lawyers to say what should and shouldn't have happened and in the cold light of day and that safe environment of the courtroom I'm sure Tony Martin would have agreed. In the dark isolated farmhouse, alone and afraid, I'm sure he did what he thought right to survive.

Juries are told that people cannot be expected to ‘weigh to a nicety’ (R v Palmer) in the heat of the moment the exact level of appropriate force to use when defending themselves, so anyone raising that defence should be given significant leeway and the benefit of the doubt by a jury.

Martin was more extreme than you describe. (iirc) He lay in wait, in a hole in the floor, with his (unlicensed) shotgun and opened fire without warning then opened fire again and shot the youth (16 year old, who was a complete scrote btw) in the back as he was running away. I can see why a jury convicted him on those facts and it certainly (to me) extends beyond mere survival on his part. It’s also right to say that the basis for his conviction being reduced to manslaughter on appeal was the significant mental health issues that he was subject to. He was also subsequently deemed ‘a very dangerous man’ by the parole board.

Like I’ve said previously, it’s a huge deal for twelve people like you and me to convict someone in these circumstances. People will always understand the need to defend your own home when someone invades it. I reckon I’d have thought long and hard about convicting Martin, but there have to be certain, rare instances where people go too far. The fact you are talking about a case from the last century serves to underline how rare these prosecutions are.

The CPS are hugely reluctant to prosecute people in those instances, because (inter alia) they are a PR nightmare They certainly don’t want to send a message thst people should not, or cannot defend their own homes and their families within it. Thst would be plainly contrary to the public interest.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

The law says use minimum force to defend yourself

This is wrong mate. See what I said in my last post about R v Palmer.

Lord Morris:

"If there has been an attack so that defence is reasonably necessary it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his necessary defensive action. If a Jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary that would be most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken."

Palmer (1971)

www.e-lawresources.co.uk

 

[SWP's back]

This is one weird story. The two blokes are fucked, no way can they claim self defence. Only carry the weapon you're prepared to do the time for. Carrying a knife means if you have to use it there is a large possibility someone will die. A couple of baseball bats would have been better so long as you don't keep smashing it over someone's head.

They must have been after something, four blokes at 6:25 pm just don't randomly rob a house for the telly and laptop. Also two Joe Bloggs don't arm themselves with knives and go and confront four burglar's either. Odd one.

Screams drug/gang related to me.

 

[m7mcfc]

Screams drug/gang related to me.

It has it written all over it. These burgulars were not there for the 50" telly and dell laptop.
More like the killos of Peruvian marching powder or the proceeds from it.

 

[paulchapo]

Juries are told that people cannot be expected to ‘weigh to a nicety’ (R v Palmer) in the heat of the moment the exact level of appropriate force to use when defending themselves, so anyone raising that defence should be given significant leeway and the benefit of the doubt by a jury.

Martin was more extreme than you describe. (iirc) He lay in wait, in a hole in the floor, with his (unlicensed) shotgun and opened fire without warning then opened fire again and shot the youth (16 year old, who was a complete scrote btw) in the back as he was running away. I can see why a jury convicted him on those facts and it certainly (to me) extends beyond mere survival on his part. It’s also right to say that the basis for his conviction being reduced to manslaughter on appeal was the significant mental health issues that he was subject to. He was also subsequently deemed ‘a very dangerous man’ by the parole board.

Like I’ve said previously, it’s a huge deal for twelve people like you and me to convict someone in these circumstances. People will always understand the need to defend your own home when someone invades it. I reckon I’d have thought long and hard about convicting Martin, but there have to be certain, rare instances where people go too far. The fact you are talking about a case from the last century serves to underline how rare these prosecutions are.

The CPS are hugely reluctant to prosecute people in those instances, because (inter alia) they are a PR nightmare They certainly don’t want to send a message thst people should not, or cannot defend their own homes and their families within it. Thst would be plainly contrary to the public interest.

Thanks for that explanation. It was a while ago now and it was the one that I remember. There was another one in London ( Again from a travelling family) when the locals were tearing down flowers left at the scene, but Martin was the one that sprang to mind.

I think the majority of people would be too scared to confront intruders for the reasons mentioned, the risks of it going badly wrong are too great.

Going back to Martin I guess he was just pushed over the edge. It wasn't the first time he'd been targeted and being rural he knew the police wouldn't be able to help him as he saw the intruders approaching. He would have felt under siege/attack and reacted accordingly.

 

[paulchapo]

This is wrong mate. See what I said in my last post about R v Palmer.

Lord Morris:

"If there has been an attack so that defence is reasonably necessary it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his necessary defensive action. If a Jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary that would be most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken."

Palmer (1971)

www.e-lawresources.co.uk

Am I right in saying it was recently modified due to high profile cases like the Tony Martin one?

 

[Johnny Mars Bar]

The big question here is, what were all these scousers doing out of prison in the first place?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Am I right in saying it was recently modified due to high profile cases like the Tony Martin one?

There was some amendment to the law around intruders in the home (nothing to do with Martin), which I personally don’t think changed anything, but the law around self defence more generally has been set since the Palmer case in 1971.

 

[paulchapo]

There was some amendment to the law around intruders in the home (nothing to do with Martin), which I personally don’t think changed anything, but the law around self defence more generally has been set since the Palmer case in 1971.

Cheers. It's a situation nobody wants to find themselves in obviously. For intruders, forcibly entering somebody's home all bets are off as the poor sods inside would be in great fear for their safety and react accordingly.