In my world, the homeowner ought to have a right to use of deadly force simply because they're British gingers.
Posted on 09/26/2012 3:54:27 PM PDT by naturalman1975
Two burglars shot by a homeowner who was later arrested were given a stern warning as they were jailed today.
Sentencing the pair to four years in prison, the judge told them: 'If you burgle a house in the country where the householder owns a legally held shotgun, that is the chance you take'.
Joshua O’Gorman and Daniel Mansell broke in to Andy Ferrie's home near Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire, in September.
Businessman Mr Ferrie fired a legally-owned shotgun at the men after discovering the masked raiders in his kitchen.
Mansell, 33, and O’Gorman, 27, both from Leicester, were injured during the confrontation in the remote cottage.
....
Sentencing the pair, Judge Michael Pert QC told them their injuries - O’Gorman was shot in the face and Mansell was hit in his right hand - were not included, in his opinion, as part of their sentence or defence.
He said: 'I make it plain that, in my judgment, being shot is not mitigation.
'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.'
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
In this case, in the end, this was considered fairly straightforward because of the following outlined in the article:
'On the 2nd of September, when he and his wife Tracey were asleep in bed, they were disturbed by noises, banging coming from downstairs,' Mr Murphy said.
'There was clearly an intruder or intruders in their house.
'They investigated. They went from their bedroom, downstairs, and on their way down Mrs Ferrie took hold of the couple’s lawfully held shotgun and gave it to Mr Ferrie.
'They went downstairs and described seeing three males in the hall or kitchen area wearing some kind of face covering.
'One of the males, suspected to be Mr O’Gorman, was about to reach into a drawer in the kitchen which, they were aware but he probably was not, held a number of knives, as can be expected in a kitchen.
'As a result of that, Mr Ferrie fired his shotgun.
Because Mr Ferrie did not fire his weapon until one of the burglars did something that could have given him access to a weapon, his position that he only used force in response to a genuine belief he and his wife were in danger was fairly easily demonstrated. If he had opened fire earlier, he might have been able to demonstrate a genuine fear - people have done so simply because an intruder was in their home - but it was a lot easier and straightforward in this case than in many others.
He and his wife still spent forty hours in police custody before being cleared, and I do think that the system may place too high an onus of proof on the victims of crime who act in self defence - but the right is there, and I think should be properly understood.
Good judge.
Nah... the judge should have charged the homeowner... and sentenced him to... 10 hours of target practice!
Target practice ? Yeah....
Other accounts of this case describe the terrifying ordeal the victims endured while in jail.
Bird shot. Had to have been.
I sure am glad people in most places in this country don't have to juggle those legal points in their minds before blasting the perps. This happens in my house and you get a face full of buck, dispensed from either my Remmington 1100 or The Judge. Either way.
In my world, the homeowner ought to have a right to use of deadly force simply because they're British gingers.
The fact that shooting burglars invading one’s home is considered controversial enough to be a serious topic of debate is a depressing symptom of the liberalitis that is infecting Britain.
That they were eventually released without charge relegates this episode to the status of a mere absurdity, rather than the outright abomination that it would have been had any further action had been taken against the residents.
*
Good judge. We need more like him, both there and here.
I cannot rationally justify any more restrictive of a legal standard.
Neither can anyone else.
Here’s me droogies out for some fun an lookin to inflict jus a litll a the good ol Ultraviolence!
If these two don’t look like they walked right out of A Clockwork Orange, I don’t know who would.
I do not think they were looking for evidence to convict the burglars.
Come on, even if the babe was raped, it’s still worth giving these poor men another chance to keep working in their profession.
Isn’t that the British Way, at least these days?
They both could use black bowler hats, braces, boots, and white sanitarium clinic outfits. Then they'd be right out of Kubrick's central casting for the movie.
The real news in this story is that the judge's ruling is so unusual, naturalman1975's explanation to the contrary?
Not an unusual ruling at all. I could list a dozen cases where people have been found to have acted in self defence - far more than cases where they haven’t been. Tony Martin is the exception not the rule and that was because he shot people running away from him in the back, and when questioned admitted to police that he didn’t think they were a threat anymore - and so could not argue self defence.
What is unusual is the judge being so clear in his statements. But the decision not to prosecute (not taken by the judge, but by a crown prosecutor) is quite typical and based on clearly settled law.
I am glad to hear it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.