Intruders shoot dead homeowner in St Ives.

[Piersman2]

From reading that report a lesson to self would be NOT to wait around for an ambulance but bundle the injured person in a car and get them to A&E yourself.

[poo at Paul's]

Piersman2 said:

From reading that report a lesson to self would be NOT to wait around for an ambulance but bundle the injured person in a car and get them to A&E yourself.

It's depressing reading. I wonder how many of the other higher priorities have ended up with a guy who was alive, ending up dead?

[Piersman2]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Agree with everything you've said there - reinforces my view that if the patient is in any condition to be moved, bundle into car and go hell for leather to the nearest A&E.

Unfortunately, all the coroner investigations, lessons learnt, estate claims, etc... are not going to bring this poor fella back from the dead.

[Challo]

K50 DEL said:

Time homeowners were afforded the legal right to defend our property by any means necessary.
Who knows, if this chap had been armed there may well have been a different outcome.

So it would have all been ok if he had a gun himself?

[jjlynn27]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Call handlers prioritise calls based on the responses to standard questions. Unfortunately, scumbags know exactly what to say to get an ambulance to give them a lift to the city centre.

Of course, they are going to release a carefully worded statement. The last thing that they want is yet another ambulance chaser to try to scam some money out of NHS.

[anonymous-user]

Challo said:

K50 DEL said:

Time homeowners were afforded the legal right to defend our property by any means necessary.
Who knows, if this chap had been armed there may well have been a different outcome.

So it would have all been ok if he had a gun himself?

As long as he didn't miss, then yes.

[FurtiveFreddy]

garyhun said:

Challo said:

K50 DEL said:

Time homeowners were afforded the legal right to defend our property by any means necessary.
Who knows, if this chap had been armed there may well have been a different outcome.

So it would have all been ok if he had a gun himself?

As long as he didn't miss, then yes.

The way the current law stands, if he had owned a gun it would have been locked up somewhere he couldn't get at it quickly and even if he had managed to retrieve it and used it against the intruders, he'd have been charged and awaiting trial by now.

[768]

Which, while not a nice place to find yourself in, it's probably preferable.

[TooMany2cvs]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Sounds as if the wrong information was given to the call handler.

The local paper said:

The information received at the time of the initial call at 3.05am from the police reported the patient as conscious and breathing. It was during the incident, when additional information was received, that this call was upgraded to a category one incident at 3.31am. Ambulance crews arrived on scene at 3.51am

So 26min from "reported conscious and breathing", then "additional information received", call upgraded, ambulance arrived in 20min.

Lawyers are going to be listening carefully to the call recordings, that's for sure.

[anonymous-user]

I would hate to need an ambulance on a weekend. So many times they are running at critical levels.

FurtiveFreddy said:

The way the current law stands, if he had owned a gun it would have been locked up somewhere he couldn't get at it quickly and even if he had managed to retrieve it and used it against the intruders, he'd have been charged and awaiting trial by now.

Despite the common misconception, the law isn't looking to prosecute home owners if they shoot and kill burglars (Tony Martin was revenge before anyone mentions it).

Especially since the law was (unnecessarily) strengthened.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/ho...

[FurtiveFreddy]

La Liga said:

espite the common misconception, the law isn't looking to prosecute home owners if they shoot and kill burglars (Tony Martin was revenge before anyone mentions it).

Especially since the law was (unnecessarily) strengthened.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/ho...

Well, that guidance specifically fails to mention what might happen if a legally held shotgun or firearm were used in self defence.

It is very rare for a burglars to come equipped with guns, as we've already said, so if I were to wait until I was sure the burglar was armed before going to my gun cabinet, retrieving a gun, loading it and defending myself, I fear I would already be dead.

If I happened to have a loaded gun ready, just in case, and used it against a burglar (armed or not) I'm sure I would then be punished for not keeping it locked up safe and sound.

Whatever happens, you can be sure that if I discharged a firearm in my house for any reason, the Police would take them all away and there would be a long period of time before I would get them back, if ever.

[Yipper]

TooMany2cvs said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Sounds as if the wrong information was given to the call handler.

The local paper said:

The information received at the time of the initial call at 3.05am from the police reported the patient as conscious and breathing. It was during the incident, when additional information was received, that this call was upgraded to a category one incident at 3.31am. Ambulance crews arrived on scene at 3.51am

So 26min from "reported conscious and breathing", then "additional information received", call upgraded, ambulance arrived in 20min.

Lawyers are going to be listening carefully to the call recordings, that's for sure.

Getting an ambulance is just a pure lottery. Know someone who recently waited 8hrs (in agony) for an ambulance to arrive. As others have said, take a car or taxi if you can get someone faster to the hozza. Don't delay or dawdle.

[anonymous-user]

FurtiveFreddy said:

La Liga said:

espite the common misconception, the law isn't looking to prosecute home owners if they shoot and kill burglars (Tony Martin was revenge before anyone mentions it).

Especially since the law was (unnecessarily) strengthened.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/ho...

Well, that guidance specifically fails to mention what might happen if a legally held shotgun or firearm were used in self defence.

It is very rare for a burglars to come equipped with guns, as we've already said, so if I were to wait until I was sure the burglar was armed before going to my gun cabinet, retrieving a gun, loading it and defending myself, I fear I would already be dead.

If I happened to have a loaded gun ready, just in case, and used it against a burglar (armed or not) I'm sure I would then be punished for not keeping it locked up safe and sound.

Whatever happens, you can be sure that if I discharged a firearm in my house for any reason, the Police would take them all away and there would be a long period of time before I would get them back, if ever.

It doesn't need to. It talks of force being reasonable in the circumstances (even allowable if it's disproportionate) and not having to make fine judgements in the circumstances.

The idea home owners will be prosecuted for using lethal force in self-defence (by whatever means) in highly stressful circumstances is a myth.

[MrBrightSi]

Challo said:

K50 DEL said:

Time homeowners were afforded the legal right to defend our property by any means necessary.
Who knows, if this chap had been armed there may well have been a different outcome.

So it would have all been ok if he had a gun himself?

Yeah, i think so.

When the product of your hardwork is fair game to people who have no care in the world for you, your safety, your things or any kind of mind to society as a whole why should they be afforded any kind of defense, be it legal or personal.

I'm not into having big flashy things, but those who are, they've worked for them, gave their free time and hard work to afford them and we shouldn't disregard that because it's only a "thing".

Also to the people who are in defense of burglars with some kind of robin hood mentality or "Theyre just poor/[race]/misunderstood" so fking what, so what? Is your life so good and so easy that you cannot fathom the victim, is your empathy/sympathy so screwed up you'd rather afford someone who would give no two thoughts about you, your things or your loved ones a chance and ignore what they have done to people who probably have more conscience and caring about society at large?

By making firearms illegal in this country and having certain legislation that protects the criminal when they're in the act we've left us normal people with only the police who sadly are more than likely 20minutes+ away from coming to protect you should the worst happen, i'd rather have my own defense under my own control.

[FurtiveFreddy]

MrBrightSi said:

By making firearms illegal in this country and having certain legislation that protects the criminal when they're in the act we've left us normal people with only the police who sadly are more than likely 20minutes+ away from coming to protect you should the worst happen, i'd rather have my own defense under my own control.

Firearms are not illegal in this country. It's the use of legally-held firearms which is the issue.

La Liga said:

The idea home owners will be prosecuted for using lethal force in self-defence (by whatever means) in highly stressful circumstances is a myth.

In my experience, the Police do whatever they can to prevent civilians owning firearms. If it was up to them, we wouldn't have them. If I shot a burglar, you may be correct that I wouldn't end up in prison, but my belief is that the Police would come up with all sorts of reasons why I shouldn't be allowed to own firearms any more.

[dudleybloke]

I'm guessing that the perps have form for similar crimes so what is needed is longer jail terms for repeat offenders.
No pussyfooting, no excuses, you keep robbing people and you will be put away for a long, long time.
I don't care about the rights of the offender, the rights and safety of decent folk come first.

[MrBrightSi]

FurtiveFreddy said:

MrBrightSi said:

By making firearms illegal in this country and having certain legislation that protects the criminal when they're in the act we've left us normal people with only the police who sadly are more than likely 20minutes+ away from coming to protect you should the worst happen, i'd rather have my own defense under my own control.

Firearms are not illegal in this country. It's the use of legally-held firearms which is the issue.

La Liga said:

The idea home owners will be prosecuted for using lethal force in self-defence (by whatever means) in highly stressful circumstances is a myth.

In my experience, the Police do whatever they can to prevent civilians owning firearms. If it was up to them, we wouldn't have them. If I shot a burglar, you may be correct that I wouldn't end up in prison, but my belief is that the Police would come up with all sorts of reasons why I shouldn't be allowed to own firearms any more.

Very true, sorry to have put what i wished to get across incorrectly. It was more in terms of the owning of hand guns, we can own long arms, but as you've said, keeping parts to stop them from being fired in other locked cases and even keeping ammunition in separate places too, i don't want people shooting each other left right and centre, but the home owner deserves more protection than a police force that is sadly overstretched/unable to do anything/never shows up in some anecdotal cases.

I was talking more in terms of hand gun ownership, if we allowed normal people to fulfill criteria, go through the red tape etc to own handguns and completely disregard the rights of the criminal we'd end up with an un-hamstrung populace, rather than some weak, unable and vulnerable people who have to let those who will happily go beyond the law to tool up to disrespect society at a whole.

[anonymous-user]

MrBrightSi said:

By making firearms illegal in this country and having certain legislation that protects the criminal when they're in the act we've left us normal people with only the police who sadly are more than likely 20minutes+ away from coming to protect you should the worst happen, i'd rather have my own defense under my own control.

We have a system which works for us and have very little firearms crime.

The greater harm that would likely occur through wider ownership vs the unlikeliness of using a gun in self-defence wouldn't be justified in my view.

FurtiveFreddy said:

In my experience, the Police do whatever they can to prevent civilians owning firearms. If it was up to them, we wouldn't have them. If I shot a burglar, you may be correct that I wouldn't end up in prison, but my belief is that the Police would come up with all sorts of reasons why I shouldn't be allowed to own firearms any more.

Shotguns are easily obtained, other types are much harder.

In terms of getting your firearms back after shooting someone I wouldn't have enough experience to agree / disagree with you. Ultimately, I imagine someone who has used firearms lawfully would have a strong legal challenge to get them back, especially if they were used in connection with work.

[Gareth79]

Alucidnation said:

Third now charged.

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/15269622.Thr...

Surely only one of them can be actually found guilty of murder, as all three wouldn't have pulled the trigger?

Hmm, I googled the address and it looks like an average council estate, all pretty tidy except for one house with tipper transits (wit amber lights) and wrecked cars in the front.

[Alucidnation]

West Howe really isn't somewhere you would want to live unless absolutely necessary.

Mind you, its been a while since i have been through there so it might be better now, but unlikely.