Burglary at remote Peak District farm, murder arrest

[Oakey]

Condi said:

There is all sorts of bad examples of this law.

Young black lad knocked on the wrong door when delivering a parcel, the bloke shot him through the door. I forget whether he was charged for murder or not, but he believed he could do it because the law was such that if you felt threatened you could shoot. Lots of cases in America are rooted in racism as well.

It's a terrible idea to implement anything like that here.

There's also that guy who laid in wait for a teen couple who broke into his house and he shoots the boyfriend dead then executes the girlfriend as she begs for her life. All recorded on audio.

Wiki said:

As she made her way down the stairs, Smith shot her. Wounded, she fell down the stairs, and Smith can be heard on the recording sarcastically saying "Oh, sorry about that," followed by Kifer saying "Oh, my God" very quickly; Smith shoots her again, multiple times in the torso, in the midst of which she screams "Oh, my God!", and once next to her left eye.[10] He repeatedly called her derogatory names and then dragged her into the other room, tossing her body on top of her cousin's, and shot her one final time under the chin, murdering her.[1] Audio and video of the events were recorded by Smith's security system.[11]

Edited by Oakey on Thursday 2nd May 18:13

[mac96]

Biggy Stardust said:

mac96 said:

Well for one thing we don't know if he gave them a chance to leave before opening fire. Even burglars can't be shot on sight.

I beg to differ- if he felt endangered the he has the right to do a lot more than shout "go away".

Maybe, but only after he has shouted go away and indicated that he is armed.
Otherwise we have situations such as whereby people arriving for a party at the wrong address get shot. As per the US examples given earlier.

[boxst]

mac96 said:

Well for one thing we don't know if he gave them a chance to leave before opening fire. Even burglars can't be shot on sight.

I think America has a lot of things wrong with it - A LOT but the one thing I agree with is if you enter my home especially at night without my permission you lose all your rights.

[ChocolateFrog]

ATG said:

fttm said:

Hopefully the home owner isn't charged . I'm with the majority of decent people on this one , feral low life scum break into your property then their rights are left at the door , no ifs no buts .

That isn't the view of a decent person who has thought their position through.

Sounds like someone hasn't been burgled while they've been at home.

I'd only hope it takes a while and it's not painless.

[bitchstewie]

These threads really do bring out the Harry Brown types don't they.

[markbigears]

A footballer and a DJ … bingo!

[mac96]

boxst said:

mac96 said:

Well for one thing we don't know if he gave them a chance to leave before opening fire. Even burglars can't be shot on sight.

I think America has a lot of things wrong with it - A LOT but the one thing I agree with is if you enter my home especially at night without my permission you lose all your rights.

All? Right not to be tortured?
And how do you judge who qualifies for this loss of rights? Again, all the USA cases of mistakes and entrapment do not bode well for this sort of policy.

[MB140]

Biggy Stardust said:

mac96 said:

Well for one thing we don't know if he gave them a chance to leave before opening fire. Even burglars can't be shot on sight.

I beg to differ- if he felt endangered the he has the right to do a lot more than shout "go away".

This is not entirely correct. I have carried firearms for a living in the uk. You must give a warning unless to do so would increase the risk to life or further endanger life. Not just feel it. There has to be an actual risk not a felt risk.

If a warning has been given then the rule of minimum appropriate force to remove the risk to life applies.

What I mean by that for example is you can’t point your gun at him , he then starts to back away (the threat to life is diminishing) and then shoot him and say you felt there was a risk to life.

Alternative, you point you gun at him and he decides to charge at you. Have at it, but it must still be minimum force you can’t empty a round at him. He stops and you finish him off. After the first shot you were good, the risk has now diminished, shoot him again and you’re in a world of trouble.

[silentbrown]

QuartzDad said:

"Derbyshire Police was called to reports of a burglary in Eccles Road, in Whaley Bridge, at 01:20 BST on Wednesday."

"The force said it was keeping an open mind about whether the incident was linked to a reported burglary at the property at about 15:30 BST on Tuesday."

That's quite a gap.

That, and the 'targeted' comment make a "more to this than meets the eye" moment for me. Maybe lying in wait, maybe something personal?

[ChocolateFrog]

silentbrown said:

QuartzDad said:

"Derbyshire Police was called to reports of a burglary in Eccles Road, in Whaley Bridge, at 01:20 BST on Wednesday."

"The force said it was keeping an open mind about whether the incident was linked to a reported burglary at the property at about 15:30 BST on Tuesday."

That's quite a gap.

That, and the 'targeted' comment make a "more to this than meets the eye" moment for me. Maybe lying in wait, maybe something personal?

More likely that they targeted it because it was a secluded farm and a velied message to the local village residents not to start tooling up.

[mac96]

ChocolateFrog said:

silentbrown said:

QuartzDad said:

"Derbyshire Police was called to reports of a burglary in Eccles Road, in Whaley Bridge, at 01:20 BST on Wednesday."

"The force said it was keeping an open mind about whether the incident was linked to a reported burglary at the property at about 15:30 BST on Tuesday."

That's quite a gap.

That, and the 'targeted' comment make a "more to this than meets the eye" moment for me. Maybe lying in wait, maybe something personal?

More likely that they targeted it because it was a secluded farm and a velied message to the local village residents not to start tooling up.

Was the police comment not about the killing being targeted, rather than the burglary? They were trying to reassure locals that there was no nutter with a shotgun on the loose.
At least that's how it read to me.

[silentbrown]

mac96 said:

silentbrown said:

That, and the 'targeted' comment make a "more to this than meets the eye" moment for me. Maybe lying in wait, maybe something personal?

Was the police comment not about the killing being targeted, rather than the burglary? They were trying to reassure locals that there was no nutter with a shotgun on the loose.

Checks... Yes, I think you're right.

But, two burglaries in 12 hours? You're not going to have got a replacement plasma TV from the insurance in that timeframe.

[coanda]

ChocolateFrog said:

silentbrown said:

QuartzDad said:

"Derbyshire Police was called to reports of a burglary in Eccles Road, in Whaley Bridge, at 01:20 BST on Wednesday."

"The force said it was keeping an open mind about whether the incident was linked to a reported burglary at the property at about 15:30 BST on Tuesday."

That's quite a gap.

That, and the 'targeted' comment make a "more to this than meets the eye" moment for me. Maybe lying in wait, maybe something personal?

More likely that they targeted it because it was a secluded farm and a velied message to the local village residents not to start tooling up.

It was probably labelled as 'targetted' because either they got disturbed during the break-in in the afternoon and wanted another pop - and said something intimating that, or they'd nicked the keys from the house, along with valuables in the day time and were coming back for the car/s after dark - i.e. the third one they caught in the car.

Allegedly.

Edited by coanda on Thursday 2nd May 19:09

[BikeBikeBIke]

silentbrown said:

Checks... Yes, I think you're right.

But, two burglaries in 12 hours? You're not going to have got a replacement plasma TV from the insurance in that timeframe.

My brother had that. They came, then went and my brother had a spider sense they were coming back for more.

He waited up for them the next night and sure enough they came back. (He was without a gun but a spotlight and a bit of shouting worked.)

So rapid return after a burglary is a thing and perhaps people with small holdings/stables know how these things work.

[and31]

hairykrishna said:

Ian Geary said:

Also I think Tony Martin hid behind a door and ambushed them

Not only was he lying in waiting for them but he shot them in the back as they were running away. With an illegally held gun. He was lucky to only do 3 years.

The burglars concerned haven’t done much burgling since though I’d imagine (one of them definitely not) .
Good riddance.
If you step outside of the law , you should be offered no protection from the law..

[and31]

ChocolateFrog said:

ATG said:

fttm said:

Hopefully the home owner isn't charged . I'm with the majority of decent people on this one , feral low life scum break into your property then their rights are left at the door , no ifs no buts .

That isn't the view of a decent person who has thought their position through.

Sounds like someone hasn't been burgled while they've been at home.

I'd only hope it takes a while and it's not painless.

Exactly right !

[gotoPzero]

MB140 said:

Biggy Stardust said:

mac96 said:

Well for one thing we don't know if he gave them a chance to leave before opening fire. Even burglars can't be shot on sight.

I beg to differ- if he felt endangered the he has the right to do a lot more than shout "go away".

This is not entirely correct. I have carried firearms for a living in the uk. You must give a warning unless to do so would increase the risk to life or further endanger life. Not just feel it. There has to be an actual risk not a felt risk.

If a warning has been given then the rule of minimum appropriate force to remove the risk to life applies.

What I mean by that for example is you can’t point your gun at him , he then starts to back away (the threat to life is diminishing) and then shoot him and say you felt there was a risk to life.

Alternative, you point you gun at him and he decides to charge at you. Have at it, but it must still be minimum force you can’t empty a round at him. He stops and you finish him off. After the first shot you were good, the risk has now diminished, shoot him again and you’re in a world of trouble.

All great, but you are a trained individual carrying as a professional, not a farmer.

Farmer John (probably) does not know any of this. (edit to add he does not need to act in the same way as police or military either)

And hopefully assuming all was reasonable, that's the way the CPS will view it.

Obviously if he has done wrong, then let the courts decide.

Edited by gotoPzero on Thursday 2nd May 19:32

[Fastpedeller]

bhstewie said:

I thought it was generally accepted that stopping burglars with reasonable force is fine whilst murdering them regardless of the circumstances isn't.

Can shooting them be self-defence if you believe the burglars have weapons and are approaching?

[gotoPzero]

Fastpedeller said:

bhstewie said:

I thought it was generally accepted that stopping burglars with reasonable force is fine whilst murdering them regardless of the circumstances isn't.

Can shooting them be self-defence if you believe the burglars have weapons and are approaching?

Case by case basis basically.

[ATG]

ChocolateFrog said:

ATG said:

fttm said:

Hopefully the home owner isn't charged . I'm with the majority of decent people on this one , feral low life scum break into your property then their rights are left at the door , no ifs no buts .

That isn't the view of a decent person who has thought their position through.

Sounds like someone hasn't been burgled while they've been at home.

I'd only hope it takes a while and it's not painless.

Having been through an ordeal certainly educates you about the way victims feel, but it doesn't tell you anything more, and there is a pretty obvious risk that it'll cloud your judgment about what is and isn't just.