Burglars

F

FatBusinessman

Guest
The scary thing is apparently you don't even need to attack a burglar who's broken into your house. They just need to trip up on your carpet and they can sue you for negligence...
 
S

Stazbumpa

Guest
This is fucked up. Totally beyond a joke. They want to be bad boys, but as soon as someones stands up to them they go crying to whoever will listen.

This had better get thrown out of court or else the flood gates will open so that anyone who defends their property gets sued.

This actually reminds of a copper I know who once told me that a burglar who was trying to rob a car repair garage sued the firm because he fell through their roof and broke his leg during the attempt.
 
S

Scouse

Guest
Has anyone thought of this:

Lawyers - REFUSE TO REPRESENT HIM.



Don't get me wrong - the lads a scumbag - but if the law firms just put a bit of ethics before money they'd refuse to represent him - and shit like this would never happen.
 
G

granny

Guest
Originally posted by Scouse
Has anyone thought of this:

Lawyers - REFUSE TO REPRESENT HIM.



Don't get me wrong - the lads a scumbag - but if the law firms just put a bit of ethics before money they'd refuse to represent him - and shit like this would never happen.
Click to expand...

ROFL!! The words "law firms" and "ethics" in the same sentence, summat not right there :p
 
M

mank!

Guest
"I suppose Fearon has nothing to lose. The ideal scenario now would be for the courts to award £1 in compensation and fine him £5,000 for wasting the court's time."
Click to expand...

hehe!
 
W

wolfeeh

Guest
nuff said init.

totally sucks :/


i can only imagine what that farmer bloke was going through...

we were broken into over a decade ago, and my dad caught the little shits in our front room... they'd been wondering around our fucking house in the dark for a little bit evidently... i was only little... fucking traumatised me :/

should hang the fucking cunts up by the bollocks
 
S

Scouse

Guest
Granny - I think you misunderstood me....

We all know that Law and Ethics don't go hand in hand - I was making the point that perhaps they should...??
 
M

Munkey-

Guest
isnt this a great legal system?

Probably get sued 3 weeks later when a burglar cuts himself breaking open the window. problem is, they might win the case
 
G

granny

Guest
I know scouse, I was joking :) I agree, it's fucked, the law's an arse :/
 
S

Stazbumpa

Guest
The law is indeed an arse.

Apparantly its illegal to walk down the High Street on a Friday in York whilst wearing a false nose.








Sorry.
 
S

Shocko

Guest
Apparently, in Nottingham, it's legal to shoot scottish people with a crossbow... Or something :)
 
M

Munkey-

Guest
in chester it is perfectly legal to kill a welshman with a longbow after dark and from something like 5 metres
 
W

Wilier

Guest
You should get some therapy for that Welshman hatred youve got there.
 
W

Wij

Guest
I'm normally a fairly liberal guy but I couldn't give a flying fuck that Tony Martin killed Fred Barras even if he was only 16. Him and his friend had a record as long as your arm. What's the guy supposed to do. Sit there while they rob him ? It was dark. He probably thought he would just wound the buggers painfully. Nothing wrong with that. If I'd been in the house with a shotgun the time I got burgled I'd have happily had a pop at the bastard. It's just a pity this guy who is suing isn't completely crippled and in constant pain :)

Not that I hate burglars or anything :)
 
S

Scouse

Guest
Make no mistake about tony martin - he knew he'd kill the lad (wasn't far away, in the back with his shotgun - gonna make a big hole).

But this guy is a fuckwitt...... grrrrr 'n stuff....



And I'd heard the Chester thing too - after midnight inside the city walls you can shoot (bow and arrow) welshmen :)
 
Y

~YuckFou~

Guest
If somebody is in my house without my permission I'm going to hurt them, a lot, using my patented deterrent baseball bat (TM).
I don't think it's safe to assume that they are there to steal. They could be there to rape Mrs Yuck, or kill/maim both of us (reference naked samurai nutter). So I will hurt first, and let the plod ask the questions later in hospital.

If I had a shotgun though I think I would proberly go for non fatal shots, kneecaps etc. Although this would make an awful mess of our new carpet.
 
S

stu

Guest
It's a simple measure of "reasonable force". You may defend yourself and your possessions with an amount of force that your 'average' person would deem reasonable given the circumstances. Obviously this level changes depending on the situation - ie a different level of force is deemed reasonable should an intruder threaten you with a knife, than if you catch them stumbling about in the dark and shoot them with a shotgun.

And it's as simple as that really. It's pretty difficult to justify shooting someone, especially when they're unarmed. If you are incapable of reasonably making that judgement, then tough shit, you deserve to be punished for it.

Incidentally, how do you go for a "non-fatal" shot with a shotgun? If you've seen the kind of destruction a shotgun does, and the fact that they can hardly be considered a weapon of pinpoint accuracy, it's a bit of a misnomer.
 
E

Embattle

Guest
They were believed to be running away at the time but I still don't agree with this action, the sueing part(<---Just 4 stu), in any way.

'Reasonable Force' is a term often thrown a round but I find in comical when this situation arises that some body stops and starts thinking about 'reasonable force' sorry but I find it hard to believe any of us would think about it at that given time. A simple fact is that once your adrenaline starts going 'reasonable force' takes a back seat.
 
S

stu

Guest
Originally posted by Embattle
They were believed to be running away at the time but I still don't agree with this action in any way.
Click to expand...

You don't agree that shooting an unarmed person in the back is unreasonable force? I'm glad you don't make the law.

'Reasonable Force' is a term often thrown a round but I find in comical when this situation arises that some body stops and starts thinking about 'reasonable force' sorry but I find it hard to believe any of us would think about it at that given time. A simple fact is that once your adrenaline starts going 'reasonable force' takes a back seat.
Click to expand...

I'm not using "reasonable force" in layman's terms... that's the actual phrase used in statute for determining mitigating circumstances for offences against the person (and in the vast majority of criminal, negligence, etc law). The test of "reasonableness", as it is applied in the courts, is actually fairly scientific, and interpretation follows very strict rules. People mix it up with the general non-law meaning of the word 'reasonable', which is why it is assumed to have a rather woolly, undefined quality - it does not at all.

As for the (very real) argument about snap judgements etc, you're quite right - which is why the test of reasonableness is applied based on the facts presented, and in the position of the defendant. ie, it is a test of what the average person would deem reasonable, being in the situation presented by the facts of the case. You could never ever convince me that, regardless of situation, shooting an unarmed person with a shotgun as they were running away could be considered the actions of a reasonable man protecting himself. And obviously the judges agreed.
 
D

Durzel

Guest
Originally posted by Scouse
And I'd heard the Chester thing too - after midnight inside the city walls you can shoot (bow and arrow) welshmen :)
Click to expand...
I'm amazed no one has actually put this Law to the test yet, then again I suppose its difficult to determine whether someone is Welsh on looks alone.

"Excuse me mate, are you Welsh?" "Yeah" *twang*
 
X

Xavier

Guest
this reminds me of when spike milligan got a visit from the plod because of complaints of an explosion late one night...

turns out after he was told he couldn't renew his shotgun license he decided to lace the grass approach to his rear patio with landmines... one night a badger knocked a bin over and *bang* - the bin was sent 40 feet skywards...

heh
 
S

stu

Guest
Originally posted by Durzel
I'm amazed no one has actually put this Law to the test yet, then again I suppose its difficult to determine whether someone is Welsh on looks alone.

"Excuse me mate, are you Welsh?" "Yeah" *twang*
Click to expand...

"Implied Revocation" - a term used for any law that is no longer relevant or appropriate to modern times, but has not been expressly tested (and therefore revoked) in court. It's like the law stating that London taxis have to carry a bale of hay around with them - irrelevant to this day and age, and assumed to have lapsed. Anyone shooting a Welshman in Chester and relying on this law to excuse them would get a pretty rude awakening.
 
M

Munkey-

Guest
think it be hard to pick up a crossbow/longbow nowadays. although saying that theres a nice shop up on the rows that sells medievil stuff, saw a spiffing sword there.

*runs for wallet*
 
D

Durzel

Guest
I'd always been under the impression that "reasonable force" covered only defensive actions, not offensive ones. It's also difficult to see how a shotgun could be ever be seen as being an object with which to defend your person. A handgun maybe, because you can incapacitate someone - but a shotgun is going to do serious damage wherever you point it, at the very least you're going to blow off part of someone at close range, and the spread of shot at medium/long range would render any directed shot obsolete. If you pointed a shotgun at anyone at medium/long range, you'd kill them - irrespective of where you were pointing on them.

The fact they were running away indicates "motion toward" on the part of Tony Martin, ie. not a defensive action. Had he simply threatened them, and let's face it you're not going to argue with someone holding a shotgun, then there would never have been any of this mess. :(

That said, I have absolutely zero compassion for the bloke that was killed. Live by the sword, die by the sword n' all that.
 
P

Perplex

Guest
fucking lol :)

Also, from my brothers interpretation of the procedings (being a trainee solicitor and all that jazz) the farmer was basically a nutter that slept with his shotguns every night praying and waiting for the day some pikey tried to break in

This is prefectly demonstrated in the fact that he shot them in the back whilst they tried to run away
 
E

Embattle

Guest
Originally posted by stu


You don't agree that shooting an unarmed person in the back is unreasonable force? I'm glad you don't make the law.
Click to expand...

Er no I was referring to the farmer being sued although again you try to twist what I say in to your own version.

I have no doubt it was OTT although I've not claimed any thing else and I do know what the law version refers to thanks very much. My belief is it still does'nt work because what you say you would do in that situation as an average person, what the fuck is an average person any way, and what you would actually do are quite different.
 
S

stu

Guest
Originally posted by Embattle


Er no I was referring to the farmer being sued although again you try to twist what I say in to your own version.
Click to expand...

I'm merely responding to what you write... try to not be so aggressive and/or see conspiracies everywhere?

It's another principle of law that if you're liable for a criminal action, you're almost certainly liable for a civil suit. The levels of proof required, chains of causality etc are considerably lower for civil cases, so if you can get someone convicted you're pretty much a shoe-in for a fat payout.

Sorry if I'm treading on the toes of your 'legal knowledge' again, I'm merely pointing something out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top Bottom