Almost certainly they will not have had to post bail (few people do these days) as the Bail Act 1976 creates a rebuttable presumption that everyone will bailed on their own recognizance unless articulable reasons exist as to why they should not (may flee, may commit further offences while on bail, may interfere with witnesses)
Farm tenant arrested after burglars shot ...
- Thread starter pnac
- Start date
How wonderfully generous of the Crown police.
Here in Oklahoma the police can only arrest a person who kills a home invader when there is proof of a crime. We have no gun registration here. Home invasions went down drastically after the "make my day" law went into effect.
The Oklahoma law was written up in a British paper.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...Day-law-cut-epidemic-of-violent-burglary.html
So if the guy in this case didnt have the illegal weapon good chance he would be dead... Thats why I say this is groupthink at its grandest.
How does one ever think that granny and grandpa in general is going to fight off some thugs at home or on the street without firearm? I guess they have a right to be beaten and/or killed but not in general to defend themselves with a weapon that can even up the physical disparity.
If your police regularly get beaten by steet thugs and have multiple documented cases of retreating from riots and refusing to answer calls from the public in riot areas... you would think they would want arms that even up the situation.... But alas its not my worry as I would never live in such a situation willingly... after doing my service... No offense, but 70 & 80 year olds will not generally equal a 20 year old thug without a gun..
Also women of little body weight are also I guess entitled to the beat down or worse... It just does not make sense that these groups of people in a general way are going to have a chance without a firearm.
I wish you all the best but holy smokes...
How does one ever think that granny and grandpa in general is going to fight off some thugs at home or on the street without firearm? I guess they have a right to be beaten and/or killed but not in general to defend themselves with a weapon that can even up the physical disparity.
If your police regularly get beaten by steet thugs and have multiple documented cases of retreating from riots and refusing to answer calls from the public in riot areas... you would think they would want arms that even up the situation.... But alas its not my worry as I would never live in such a situation willingly... after doing my service... No offense, but 70 & 80 year olds will not generally equal a 20 year old thug without a gun..
Also women of little body weight are also I guess entitled to the beat down or worse... It just does not make sense that these groups of people in a general way are going to have a chance without a firearm.
I wish you all the best but holy smokes...
Last edited:
So you think it should be ok to shoot someone an there be no police investigation. Not the sort of country i would like to live in.
A case a while back in the UK a guy rang police saying he had shot dead a intruder in his house. After a police investigation it was discovered that their was a history of feuding between the two. The shooter had lured the man to his house shot him cut himself with a knife and claimed self defense. He was found guilty of murder. The posts on the forum seem to be saying incidents like these should not be investigated. Strange that some are saying that the police should just believe someone saying that they shot someone in self defence without investigating.
A case a while back in the UK a guy rang police saying he had shot dead a intruder in his house. After a police investigation it was discovered that their was a history of feuding between the two. The shooter had lured the man to his house shot him cut himself with a knife and claimed self defense. He was found guilty of murder. The posts on the forum seem to be saying incidents like these should not be investigated. Strange that some are saying that the police should just believe someone saying that they shot someone in self defence without investigating.
Quote. Here in Oklahoma the police can only arrest a person who kills a home invader when there is proof of a crime. We have no gun registration here. Home invasions went down drastically after the "make my day" law went into effect.
How do they investigate without questioning the shooter. In the UK someone has to be questioned under caution so not to implicate themselves. They have to be arrested to be questioned just part of the legal system.
PS So people are never arrested and questioned in America after what turns out later to be a lawful shooting.
A link from another post. With the facts rather than people seen to make up as they go along.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/s...e/#The_Law_and
How do they investigate without questioning the shooter. In the UK someone has to be questioned under caution so not to implicate themselves. They have to be arrested to be questioned just part of the legal system.
PS So people are never arrested and questioned in America after what turns out later to be a lawful shooting.
A link from another post. With the facts rather than people seen to make up as they go along.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/s...e/#The_Law_and
Last edited:
manta49, an arrest is not required for an investigation to take place in my neck of the woods.
Are you claiming that in your country, the police MUST make an arrest in order to initiate an investigation? That seems entirely backwards.
OTOH, if they do NOT have to make an arrest in order to investigate, then why are you defending the arrest of the couple in this case? The Crown found there was no cause to charge them; so, why should an arrest be automatically assumed?
Note: I am not claiming that people involved in good shootings are never arrested over here; I am claiming that in cases where prima facie evidence indicates that an act was justifiable, the police are generally able to use their discretion. It does not seem such discretion was used, in your country, in the incident under discussion here.
Are you claiming that in your country, the police MUST make an arrest in order to initiate an investigation? That seems entirely backwards.
OTOH, if they do NOT have to make an arrest in order to investigate, then why are you defending the arrest of the couple in this case? The Crown found there was no cause to charge them; so, why should an arrest be automatically assumed?
Note: I am not claiming that people involved in good shootings are never arrested over here; I am claiming that in cases where prima facie evidence indicates that an act was justifiable, the police are generally able to use their discretion. It does not seem such discretion was used, in your country, in the incident under discussion here.
The police are not able to use their discretion in a case like this. Maybe for a speeding ticket. Allowing the police to use their description in a case like this would be a recipe for disaster. And leave the police open to corruption and bribery. The police investigate the incident they don't decide if to prosecute or not they send a report to the crown prosecution service the district attorney in America i think. They decide if whether to prosecute or not. If someone rings the police and claims that they were shot then the police are going to investigate to find out the facts that can mean arresting and questioning the shooter. My point self defence using lethal force is allowed in the UK. Most on this forum seem to think that you are not allowed to defend yourself in the UK which is rubbish. One even saying that he read that you were not allowed to defend your self in the UK. This in the kind of misinformed nonsense i am reading in some posts. PS I am not saying its perfect what system is.
Last edited:
The police in US conduct thousands of investigations before making am arrest. Common practice here. The presumption is you are innocent until evidence is found that is strong enough the DA is willing to prosecute.
I don't think the UK was in any danger of this couple going on a killing spree while an investigation of the scene and interviews and data was gathered.
Obviously our countries differ in their fundamental rights. Ours is suppose to error on the side of presuming innocence, not on the side of making it easy for the police or prosecutor.
I don't think the UK was in any danger of this couple going on a killing spree while an investigation of the scene and interviews and data was gathered.
Obviously our countries differ in their fundamental rights. Ours is suppose to error on the side of presuming innocence, not on the side of making it easy for the police or prosecutor.
Quote.Mk VII, the thing is, one of your countrymen claimed you have protections over there that are just like ours.
Obviously, many of us disagree. Apparently, so do you.
I claimed we have the right to self defence in the UK. The same as you have the right to self defence in the USA. Including the use of lethal force if necessary.
That is factual what part do you disagree and why. I didn't say the laws were the same or the way self defence is interpreted by the police or courts is the same in the USA as the UK. Or the procedures when investigating cases or the same.
Obviously, many of us disagree. Apparently, so do you.
I claimed we have the right to self defence in the UK. The same as you have the right to self defence in the USA. Including the use of lethal force if necessary.
That is factual what part do you disagree and why. I didn't say the laws were the same or the way self defence is interpreted by the police or courts is the same in the USA as the UK. Or the procedures when investigating cases or the same.
manta49, there is theory, and then there is practice.
In theory, you have the same rights.
In practice, with the exception of certain jurisdictions in the US, you do not.
edit: I just looked at the last post in your parallel thread... no stun guns, no mace or other sprays, guns have to be in safes... yet you keep insisting you have the same rights.
In theory, you have the same rights.
In practice, with the exception of certain jurisdictions in the US, you do not.
edit: I just looked at the last post in your parallel thread... no stun guns, no mace or other sprays, guns have to be in safes... yet you keep insisting you have the same rights.
Quote. edit: I just looked at the last post in your parallel thread... no stun guns, no mace or other sprays, guns have to be in safes... yet you keep insisting you have the same rights.
I am saying we have the same right to self defence. If someone in the UK is attacked they can use any means to defend themselves same as the USA.
What weapons you are allowed is another debate.
I am saying we have the same right to self defence. If someone in the UK is attacked they can use any means to defend themselves same as the USA.
What weapons you are allowed is another debate.
You mean a Brit citizen cannot use force, up to and including lethal force to stop a fleeing person who has committed aggravated felony crime like we can in so much of America? Try to flee my place after one of these violent felony crimes and you will "HALT" at my word or action...
Brent
Brent
ScottRiqui
New member
Depending on where you are the in the U.S., shooting an *unarmed* fleeing suspect could put you on *very* shaky legal ground.
Hogdogs - nope, kill someone who is running away and you will go to prison, unless you can in some way show that you were preventing a crime serious enough to warrant violence to prevent it. Just the idea that they might do it again because they have done it before is not enough.
A person can use force to stop a fleeing criminal, but it has to be reasonable, and in the interpretation of that word in our legal system, shooting someone running away is most certainly not reasonable.
A person can use force to stop a fleeing criminal, but it has to be reasonable, and in the interpretation of that word in our legal system, shooting someone running away is most certainly not reasonable.
And the Court sentence:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-burgle-gun-owners-judge-warns-criminals.html
O’Gorman and Mansell appeared at Leicester Crown Court where they were both jailed for four years after admitting burglary.
In a move welcomed by justice campaigners, Judge Michael Pert QC, told the pair they could not expect any leniency simply because they had been wounded in the incident.
He told them: “If you burgle a house in the country where the householder owns a legally-held shotgun, that is the chance you take. You cannot come to court and ask for a lighter sentence because of it.”
Alan Murphy, prosecuting, said Mansell was released from prison in May last year after serving part of a six-year sentence for wounding with intent. In total, his criminal record consisted of eight previous convictions involving 19 offences. O’Gorman had 16 previous convictions involving 27 offences.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-burgle-gun-owners-judge-warns-criminals.html
O’Gorman and Mansell appeared at Leicester Crown Court where they were both jailed for four years after admitting burglary.
In a move welcomed by justice campaigners, Judge Michael Pert QC, told the pair they could not expect any leniency simply because they had been wounded in the incident.
He told them: “If you burgle a house in the country where the householder owns a legally-held shotgun, that is the chance you take. You cannot come to court and ask for a lighter sentence because of it.”
Alan Murphy, prosecuting, said Mansell was released from prison in May last year after serving part of a six-year sentence for wounding with intent. In total, his criminal record consisted of eight previous convictions involving 19 offences. O’Gorman had 16 previous convictions involving 27 offences.