I see no problem with this...

[DonkeyApple]

Jasandjules said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

I believe the position would be exactly the same in UK.

I am not sure.

Is it reasonable to use a gun against a knife? But then that's traded off against the fact that it would be a female alone with two blokes breaking in......

Sadly. It should be clear cut!

I think it I pretty clear cut in the UK. It is the media that makes it murky for their financial gain.

In the situation described in the article, so long as the gun was owned legally and the entry wound was in the front of the body then the system would go through the basic motions and that would be it.

The media is very good at distorting our perception of British justice especially in regard to domestic self defense.


The one matter I would raise about this US story is that as I read it I got the impression that there was back story to all of this and that it wasn't suddenly a friend of the dead man suddenly deciding to aggressively rob/rape the widow and obviously this will add to the context of the incident.

For example, for all we know he was the genetic father of the child, the deceased husband could have stolen all his savings etc. it certainly wasn't a random attack so he would have had some reason for the actions that led to his death.

[turbobloke]

RacerMDR said:

apparently the sidekick is being charged with 1st degree murder. Fantastic. As scumbag number 1 wouldn't be dead if they hadn't tried to break in.

Sounds odd, but I like it!

If so, very creative, I could see our injustice system doing likewise - if I injected a few psychotropic / hallucinogenic chemicals.

[turbobloke]

DonkeyApple said:

Jasandjules said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

I believe the position would be exactly the same in UK.

I am not sure.

Is it reasonable to use a gun against a knife? But then that's traded off against the fact that it would be a female alone with two blokes breaking in......

Sadly. It should be clear cut!

I think it I pretty clear cut in the UK. It is the media that makes it murky for their financial gain.

The point isn't whether she would walk free in the end which, if a particular type firearm was used while lawfully held, is quite likely. It's more the fact that she would have been arrested and held overnight after laborious 'processing' including DNA sampling of course so adding another trauma on top of a life-threatening nightmare experience. CPS would then take days to remove the pencil from behind its collective ear before eventually stating there would be no charges. That period of time would also be very stressful for the victim. Her DNA would then be retained. This is all pointless and needless but exactly what happens when low quality people with no common sense and weak judgement rely on 'manual says so' - and the author of the manual is somebody like Brunsrom (not Brunstrom but an apprentice Brunstrom who escaped traffic by virtue of being able to spell words with more than four letters). No offence to front line BiB, obviously.

[Finlandia]

turbobloke said:

The point isn't whether she would walk free in the end which, if a particular type firearm was used while lawfully held, is quite likely. It's more the fact that she would have been arrested and held overnight after laborious 'processing' including DNA sampling of course so adding another trauma on top of a life-threatening nightmare experience. CPS would then take days to remove the pencil from behind its collective ear before eventually stating there would be no charges. That period of time would also be very stressful for the victim. Her DNA would then be retained. This is all pointless and needless but exactly what happens when low quality people with no common sense and weak judgement rely on 'manual says so' - and the author of the manual is somebody like Brunsrom (not Brunstrom but an apprentice Brunstrom who escaped traffic by virtue of being able to spell words with more than four letters). No offence to front line BiB, obviously.

Plus one.
The point is the trauma before she would eventually be set free.

[DonkeyApple]

turbobloke said:

The point isn't whether she would walk free in the end which, if a particular type firearm was used while lawfully held, is quite likely. It's more the fact that she would have been arrested and held overnight after laborious 'processing' including DNA sampling of course so adding another trauma on top of a life-threatening nightmare experience. CPS would then take days to remove the pencil from behind its collective ear before eventually stating there would be no charges. That period of time would also be very stressful for the victim. Her DNA would then be retained. This is all pointless and needless but exactly what happens when low quality people with no common sense and weak judgement rely on 'manual says so' - and the author of the manual is somebody like Brunsrom (not Brunstrom but an apprentice Brunstrom who escaped traffic by virtue of being able to spell words with more than four letters). No offence to front line BiB, obviously.

It would have to be done though and hardly as stressing as shooting someone, for which she would have instant support.

They have to remove everyone from the scene and do exactly as they would if they suspected murder. And the legal system also needs to go through the motions.

This is all common sense.

You can't just have police arriving at the scene and signing it all off as being fine and dandy.

[DonkeyApple]

Finlandia said:

Plus one.
The point is the trauma before she would eventually be set free.

If the general consensus is that she is innocent then she will not only be treated very well but also offered immediate help for the trauma.

Actually, removing her from the scene for a while is the best thing that could happen.

And any upset at the process after is nothing in comparison to the incident.

Let's not get soppy over this. A man has died and it is important to establish why. Even of it will almost certainly transpire to be as it looks at first glance.

[Corsair7]

She was on the phone to the police for 21 minutes before shooting the bloke.

Thats a ste response time from the police.

[Marf]

Corsair7 said:

She was on the phone to the police for 21 minutes before shooting the bloke.

Still, backs up my assertion that had this happened in the UK she'd have had ample time to obtain a firearm from its locked cabinet, load it and use it.

DonkeyApple said:

The media is very good at distorting our perception of British justice especially in regard to domestic self defense.

Indeed.

[Finlandia]

DonkeyApple said:

Finlandia said:

Plus one.
The point is the trauma before she would eventually be set free.

If the general consensus is that she is innocent then she will not only be treated very well but also offered immediate help for the trauma.

Actually, removing her from the scene for a while is the best thing that could happen.

And any upset at the process after is nothing in comparison to the incident.

Let's not get soppy over this. A man has died and it is important to establish why. Even of it will almost certainly transpire to be as it looks at first glance.

Someone decides to break in, and plan to do who knows what, she defends herself and her baby, and she ends up being on the DNA register? That is in great conflict with my way of common sense thinking.

[Halb]

oyster said:

RacerMDR said:

good for her. One more dead scum. Shame she didn't shoot them both.

Did the surviving scumbag say what their intentions were?

They should give him the chair for being part of it.

The chair for being part of a break-in?

What's the punishment for worse crimes then?

Two chairs?

[DonkeyApple]

Finlandia said:

DonkeyApple said:

Finlandia said:

Plus one.
The point is the trauma before she would eventually be set free.

If the general consensus is that she is innocent then she will not only be treated very well but also offered immediate help for the trauma.

Actually, removing her from the scene for a while is the best thing that could happen.

And any upset at the process after is nothing in comparison to the incident.

Let's not get soppy over this. A man has died and it is important to establish why. Even of it will almost certainly transpire to be as it looks at first glance.

Someone decides to break in, and plan to do who knows what, she defends herself and her baby, and she ends up being on the DNA register? That is in great conflict with my way of common sense thinking.

The article doesn't say this is the case for starters. It was mentioned by a poster.

Second if that is the law in the US then that is how it is. It doesn't have much relevance to the arguement that there is no need to follow protocol and collect evidence.

DNA is important to collect as it could show blood from a 4th person present etc. whether it is stored on a record after is separate.

[Dr Jekyll]

freecar said:

Folks, don't believe the Daily Mail, you have the right to own a shotgun (seriously, the onus is upon them to find reasons not to give you one!) and the right to defend yourself in your own home.

But don't you have to give a reason for wanting one? And self defence is no longer accepted as a reason?

[FestiveFreddy]

Dr Jekyll said:

But don't you have to give a reason for wanting one? And self defence is no longer accepted as a reason?

Self defence is certainly not a reason for owning any type of gun in this country.

However, there isn't a strict definition of what a 'good reason' to own one is and this is where the administration of the laws needs some changes IMO.

When you fill out the application form for a certificate, you are asked some questions, one of which is what do you intend to use the shotgun/firearm for. You can put whatever you like in there but once the application is submitted you will get a visit from your local firearms enquiry officer (FEO) who will then ask you whatever questions they deem fit to assess whether you have a good reason and are a suitable candidate and that's where it will vary from force to force and person to person, because these are essentially 'unauthorised' questions (in that they are not required by 1968 firearms act).

Here's a very good explanation from the BASC (The British Association for Shooting and Conservation) about what happens then:

BASC said:

The Firearms Acts are based on the assumption that every applicant has a good
reason for possessing shotguns. The Chief Constable (or his FEO) must make that
same assumption unless there are genuine reasons for suspecting your motives. As
Home Office Guidance (11.9) says, "The Act does NOT require the applicant to make
out a good case for being granted a certificate but rather extends the chief officer’s
ground for refusing one. A chief officer should therefore need to make further
enquiries only when it comes to his notice that there may be genuine doubts about
an applicant’s reasons for possessing a shotgun."

If you are pressed, ask for written reasons for the questions. They may talk about
"elementary co-operation with the licensing authority" as recommended by Lord
Cullen but elementary co-operation does not necessarily include answering questions
which are not part of the normal process. If questioning becomes aggressive or rude,
ask for the name, rank and number of the officer concerned and then politely
terminate the interview saying that before going any further you wish to contact
BASC for advice.

If the FEO asks where and what you shoot, then a general reply will suffice.
"General" means rough shooting, wildfowling, game shooting, clay shooting etc. You
are definitely NOT required to get landowners or clayshooting club officials to sign
papers confirming this nor should you give the FEO their names or telephone
numbers unless, as set out above, the police have some reason to be suspicious. If
they have such suspicions then they should explain them to you. If the reply is that,
"It is the chief constable’s policy", that is not an adequate explanation and is
certainly not grounds for making intrusive inquiries.

N.B. this advice applies to shotgun applications. The application procedure for firearms is generally stricter but the law is still the same, meaning that they have to find a reason for not granting you a firearms certificate.

In either case though, if you say "just to protect myself and shoot burglars" that would be deemed a reason not to grant you one

HTH

Edited by FestiveFreddy on Friday 6th January 13:03

[Halb]

Dr Jekyll said:

freecar said:

Folks, don't believe the Daily Mail, you have the right to own a shotgun (seriously, the onus is upon them to find reasons not to give you one!) and the right to defend yourself in your own home.

But don't you have to give a reason for wanting one? And self defence is no longer accepted as a reason?

It is in Northern Ireland

[Bill]

FestiveFreddy said:

In either case though, if you say "just to protect myself and shoot burglars" that would be deemed a reason not to grant you one

However, "to shoot vermin" is perfectly acceptable...

[DonkeyApple]

turbobloke said:

The point isn't whether she would walk free in the end which, if a particular type firearm was used while lawfully held, is quite likely. It's more the fact that she would have been arrested and held overnight after laborious 'processing' including DNA sampling of course so adding another trauma on top of a life-threatening nightmare experience. CPS would then take days to remove the pencil from behind its collective ear before eventually stating there would be no charges. That period of time would also be very stressful for the victim. Her DNA would then be retained. This is all pointless and needless but exactly what happens when low quality people with no common sense and weak judgement rely on 'manual says so' - and the author of the manual is somebody like Brunsrom (not Brunstrom but an apprentice Brunstrom who escaped traffic by virtue of being able to spell words with more than four letters). No offence to front line BiB, obviously.

But TB she obviously has to be read her rights and arrested. She has just killed someone. It is not in the hands of the police to say on the spot who is and isn't guilty of what.

There is obviously arrest and arrest. I doubt she would have been hurled to the floor, lobbed in a car and then bumped down the corridor to her cell. It is a basic process that must occur when this sort of thing happens. I am sure that the stay in police custody for someone like this is a world away from what the surviving offender experienced.

They must also keep her away from what is a crime scene so they can collect all relevent evidence etc and I doubt she will be in a rush to go home.

I'm honestly not understanding in any way what could be the issue other than the possible story re DNA but that was only something thrown in by a PHer, not from the article and at the end of the day is not all that relevent.

[gareth_r]

turbobloke said:

RacerMDR said:

apparently the sidekick is being charged with 1st degree murder. Fantastic. As scumbag number 1 wouldn't be dead if they hadn't tried to break in. Sounds odd, but I like it!

If so, very creative, I could see our injustice system doing likewise - if I injected a few psychotropic / hallucinogenic chemicals.

I believe that's "felony murder" in US law. If several people commit a crime, and someone dies during the commission of that crime, they can all be charged with murder, even if the deceased is one of the criminals.

EDIT:
According to Wikipedia, it originated in English/Welsh Common Law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule
England and Wales, Northern Ireland - The rule was abolished in England and Wales by section 1 of the Homicide Act 1957, and in Northern Ireland by section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1966; but its effect is partly preserved by changes in the law concerning murder. In England and Wales, the definition of murder requires only an intent to cause grievous bodily harm to the victim, rather than specific intent to kill; the effect is the same as that of the felony murder rule applied to crimes of personal violence, though not to all felonies.

Edited by gareth_r on Friday 6th January 15:04