UK - legal guns stolen, thief shot & jailed...no charges against shooter

[Pert_UK]

Apologies for not quoting the article title exactly, only I thought the whole issue needed to be highlighted.

"A burglar who was shot by a farmer was jailed for seven years after the judge said he was "an absolute menace".

Derby Crown Court heard how John Rae, 22, targeted farmer Kenneth Faulkner's isolated home three times before the pensioner hit back. Mr Faulkner, 73, will not be prosecuted despite firing a shotgun at Rae, leaving him with a leg wound.

A judge who sentenced Rae for break-ins said Mr Faulkner "could not be criticised" and was defending his home. Rae was shot when he returned to steal from Mr Faulkner's home at Keys Farm, Ockbrook, Derbyshire, for the third time in days.

During the first raid, in July 2003, he and two other men broke into a gun cabinet and took five shotguns, a longbow, arrows, a crossbow and bolts. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/3952727.stm

Wow! This is a double-whammy!

Someone in the UK using a gun to defend their property and not being prosecuted for it + a legal gun-owner having a load of weapons stolen by criminals.

We've hit pay-dirt!

Of course, I'm now in a dilemma..........Obviously I'm glad the pensioner could defend himself, but I don't want to suggest that guns should be available to all for self-defense purposes. Additionally, note that if the thief hadn't been super-greedy and gone back a THIRD time he'd have got away with a variety of weapons to sell on the black market to other villains, so would it have been better if the gun owner hadn't had them?

So much to think about............give me a while and I'm sure I'll have something interesting (ha ha ha) to say about it. In the meantime, here's some light music...

P.

[goju]

1. Why not?

"but I don't want to suggest that guns should be available to all for self-defense purposes"

Why not?

[Pert_UK]

4. I think I've already made my views clear on this many times....

but as "Advanced Search" is currently unavailable I can't go back and dig out a lengthy explanation of why.

Will this do for the time being, I posted it about 30 mins ago:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=91265&mesg_id=91351&page=

[goju]

6. I didnt notice who posted the thread

Hasty post I guess. I do recall discussing this with you.

I replied to your other post though.

[Pert_UK]

9. I wasn't being argumentative, just saying....n/t

[goju]

10. Me too, I just posted in haste n/t

[pen]

2. He should be prosecuted.

THere was no reason to shoot this person. Is it worth someones life for something material? He was not defending himself he was retaliating for his lost possesions.

[Pert_UK]

3. Not according to the police......

They have to decide whether there is enough evidence to press charges, then the Director of Public Prosecutions would have to decide whether it was worth taking it to court (i.e. would there be any chance of him being found guilty).

In this instance, it seems that the police and the courts considered the evidence and decided that they couldn't charge him with anything.

[iverglas]

37. mmm, not quite

"In this instance, it seems that the police and the courts considered the evidence and decided that they couldn't charge him with anything."

The court in question was simply determining whether the person who broke into the home had committed an offence. Anything that it said about the actions of the person who shot him were completely obiter dictum -- beside the point, in plain English. Of no more effect than if the court had said "the moon is made of green cheese". The issue of the criminal responsibility of the person who did the shooting simply was not before that court.

In fact, it was arguably quite improper for the court that sentenced the one person to make any comment at all about the actions of the other.

It was the Crown Prosecution Service that "ruled" (a bad choice of words -- the CPS decides things that it has authority to decide, it doesn't "rule") that no charges would be laid against the person who did the shooting.

A prosecution service can decline to prosecute for a variety of reasons, including the fact that it does not believe a conviction could be obtained even if it is persuaded that a crime was committed. In this case, it said "he had been acting 'in legitimate defence' of his property". And that doesn't quite jibe with what I thought I knew of criminal law in the UK.

[iverglas]

45. and more on that

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/news/s/134/134808_judge_backs_man_who_shot_burglar.html

A spokeswoman for Derby Crown
Prosecution Service said: "The decision
was not taken lightly, only after a
thorough review of all the available
evidence and careful consideration of the
specific circumstances of this case.

"Before deciding whether to prosecute,
we must be satisfied that there is
sufficient evidence to provide a realistic
prospect of conviction.

"On this occasion, we made the decision
not to charge Mr Faulkner on the basis
that a prosecution would not be able to
demonstrate the high standard of proof
required in a criminal prosecution that he
had committed an unlawful act.

"I would suggest that our decision was
reached only after taking into account the
particular circumstances of this incident.

"It does not mean that anyone using
violence against an intruder is above the
law and would not face prosecution."

[Pert_UK]

58. Splitting hairs, Ms I?

Yeah, I could have been clearer in my original post.....As per usual I believe that your comments represent a full and accurate picture.

I meant that in the UK the police can decide whether or not to charge someone. Then the CPS can decide whether that case goes to court if they are charged.

My reference to "court" here was probably inappropriate - I merely meant that the judge in question had stated his opinion. Yes, he probably shouldn't have done, but his opinion is still valid and legally informed, if not legally binding.

[iverglas]

71. moi?

(And I should maybe have clarified that I wasn't critiquing you for saying that the CPS "ruled"; that was the press report in question.)

"Yes, he probably shouldn't have done, but his opinion is still valid and legally informed, if not legally binding."

Informed, yes. And this report provides a little more insight into the actual issues:

http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=News&tBrand=edponline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED26%20Oct%202004%2019%3A47%3A46%3A587

Norman Brennan, a serving police officer and director of the Victims of Crime Trust, backed Mr Faulkner.

"The law does not need changing, it just needs to be explained in layman's terms to the public about what reasonable force can they use to protect themselves, their families and their homes," he said.

"Every householder has the right to protect themselves and their property and the law says that they can use what force they believe is necessary.

"The law is on the side of the householder, not the criminal.'

Victim Support spokesman Andrew Buckingham said: "We would not condone people taking the law into their own hands.

"The law says you are allowed to use reasonable force, but the Home Office itself says there is a lot of confusion about what is reasonable force.

"As a law-abiding organisation, we believe that home-owners should follow the letter of the law but the home is the one place you expect to feel safe.

"When there is confusion to what reasonable force is, coupled with residents' anger at being targeted, it makes for a very complex set of circumstances.'

Tony Martin shooting an unarmed fleeing 16-year-old in the back and killing him, after making racially-motivated statements of intent to kill intruders and generally making his neighbours afraid of him, is one thing.

An old man living alone who is repeatedly targeted by someone apparently properly described as "an absolute menace" and who fires a shotgun (I'm not quite clear on what he fired, and what it was loaded with) at that person and hits him with a pellet in his leg, and (in the opinion of the DPS) credibly states that he did not intend to harm, let alone kill, the person, is really just another thing.

[Dolomite]

5. Actually, he wasn’t retaliating – he was defending –

Actually, he wasn’t retaliating – he was defending – it’s pretty clear in the article that this wasn’t the farmer’s fault that someone got shot in the leg – it was the burglars.

Anyway, if you make one variable the amount of armed & capable pensioners and place it under another variable representing the number of times a burglar is capable of breaking into a pensioner’s home, one effective way to dilute the ratio of burglars is to increase the number of armed & capable pensioners.

See, the reason liberal gun laws work in this country is not because of the fact that bad guys, (like home invaders and rapists) are ending up dead stacked up like cords of wood – it’s because when keeping their life becomes a variable within their chosen career field – they begin to think about spending their time on other, less violent, activities.

What’s the next step? When every woman in the world becomes skilled at arms – rapists will spend their Saturday nights masturbating alone in the dark. It’s a dream I know - alternatives to this would be to reduce the number of rapists in society (which isn’t going too well so far) or eliminating women from the equation entirely (which would be, in the internet vernacular: teh suck).

Authoritarian types: feel free to rip me to shreds.

[pen]

7. Defending vs. retaliating

Was he in fear for his life? I think he had just had enough of the thievery. Does this justify bodily harm to another human being?

The only gun laws that work are those that keep the guns off the street. Right now you can buy a gun in any back alley. This needs to stop. That will make us safer.

[BigDaddyCaine]

12. what do you propose that we do

The only gun laws that work are those that keep the guns off the street. Right now you can buy a gun in any back alley. This needs to stop. That will make us safer.

What gun law will keep guns off the streets? If they are being bought in an alley they are already illegal guns. What laws do you think we need?

[pen]

13. Laws

THis isn't the Wild West. What do YOU NEED a gun for?

[BigDaddyCaine]

16. Was you not going to answer my question.

I use my guns for hunting and playing. I like shooting so some guns are for fun while some are for hunting. I suppose we could be set back into the days of the wild west, just as soon as the first oil shortage. Its nice to know that if things get bad, i always have a few guns for food and defence.

Now that i answered your question, could you answer mine and tell me what gun law do you think will get guns off the steets?

[pen]

18. Answer

Good answer. Thanks for the info.

If no one had guns except for the police and military, would that not take guns off of the street. Your guns could be stolen tomorrow, thus more guns on the street.

[BigDaddyCaine]

21. You still havent answered but i will play along

Im not working today, what else do i have to do?

So are you saying that banning guns will get them off the street? What if the military or police had their guns stolen? THen those guns would be on the street. What if the drug cartels decided they could make just as much money smuggling guns across the border? They already smuggle bales of marijuana, im sure they can get crates of guns over here. ANd i would bet those guns would be fully auto, only america has a semi auto assault rifle, the rest of the world has the real ones.

Do you really want to live in a world where the military and police are the ones with the only weapons? We have a president who has said his job would be easier if he was a dictator. And it would be easy for a dictator to take power if the only people with guns are members of the government(police and military)

[pen]

22. Playing along

Actually, just wanted to see how well you can defend your position. Nice job. :)

[BigDaddyCaine]

24. so i was right when i said you was a troll

You probably arent even anti guns are you?

My first question still stands if you know any laws that will take guns off the street.

[pen]

25. No

No to #1

I don't know of any way to get all guns away from all the criminals. Open carry might work to lessen crime. IMHO

[MacDo]

26. Wow

That was good, are you two going to kiss and make up?:D

[pen]

35. XOXO

:)

[LibLabUK]

8. Hmm..

"When every woman in the world becomes skilled at arms – rapists will spend their Saturday nights masturbating alone in the dark."

I'm not sure how a gun would stop a drug rape.

[Pert_UK]

11. I just don't know what to say, I really don't........

"When every woman in the world becomes skilled at arms – rapists will spend their Saturday nights masturbating alone in the dark."

I think this is one of the most obvious displays of overly-simplistic, patronising, offensive nonsense I've had the displeasure to read on here, and you've had some competition.

Shall we leave aside the fact that we're now compelling women (in our free society) to go around armed to protect themselves? Or the fact that the problem still exists (viz. the desire to rape remains and dangerous men remain within society, held in check ONLY until the first opportunity arises)? Do you really think that rapists will happily swap to masturbation rather than targeting people they know to be unarmed (e.g. children)? And of course rapists would never resort to even MORE violent attacks in order to subdue their victims before they had any chance to defend themselves?

How about we think about the "Rapists should just have a damn good wank and then the problem's solved" argument? You don't think that it's as much about power, mental illness, misogyny or a desire to take complete control over and humiliate another human, rather than just the need for an easy orgasm? Rapists risk capture & prison (and the horrors therein) each time they commit their heinous crimes - surely, if your opinion had any merit, they'd have worked out by now that bashing the bisop was a risk-free alternative?

And now being a rapist is a "chosen career field" is it? Are you genuinely suggesting that people sit around going, "Hmmmmm.....what shall I do with my life?.......I know, I'll be a rapist!.....Oh no, hang on....I might get killed being a rapist, so maybe I'll be a plumber instead and just toss myself when I feel like it."

Or should we think about that you're now pretty much assuming that every single member of society needs to be armed in order to protect ourselves from crime.......But criminals are part of society, and future criminals are certainly part of society - how do you know who to arm and who's going to turn out to be a bad guy?

There are, undoubtedly, many excellent arguments for allowing citizens to arm themselves in self-defense. Unfortunately you have made comments that are hopelessly naive, juvenile and show a TOTAL lack of knowledge on the topics you discuss.

[MacDo]

14. There are, undoubtedly, many excellent arguments,

for allowing citizens to arm themselves in self-defense.

We call it the constitution. I'll keep my guns thanks.

[Pert_UK]

17. Yes....."many arguments" = "constitution"

Never mind whether it's right or wrong or even says what you think it says.

You blindly follow your bit of paper, I'm sure it will all work out fine for you.

Footnote:

I have tremendous respect for the American Constitution and am not criticising it per se. What I'm criticising is people who wheel it out without thought as if it's some magic trump card that means that they don't have to think for themselvs, and which means that they automatically win the argument. Rather defeats the object of entering a discussion forum, eh?

[MacDo]

19. There are those

of us who believe, the Constitution is not open for discussion or interpretation by anyone. You can't change what a country was founded on to suit the tastes of modern idiocies.

[Pert_UK]

30. A laudable belief, in many ways.....

I've a great deal of respect for history and tradition and the founding philosophy of the USA.

The problem is that words aren't "neutral" - they always need to be interpreted one way or another. Moreover, values aren't all timeless - for example, there's still a law in the UK that says if you catch a Welshman in Chester after dark you have to kill him. Again, laudable in many ways (unless you're Welsh)......

"You can't change what a country was founded on to suit the tastes of modern idiocies."

No...but apparently you can use a document from the musket era to justify personal possession of semi-automatic weapons, grenade launchers, machine guns etc. etc. etc.

Like it or not, people don't agree on the interpretation of the Constitution or the 2nd Amendment to it (notice the Amendment bit - my history's poor, but this implies it's changed at least twice).

Of course the constitution is open to interpretation - that's what people do when they read things. There are no "objective" readers or "objective" interpretations - everyone brings baggage with them.

[MacDo]

32. Call me hardcore

but one thing that the Constitution guarantees me is the right to bear arms. As long as it says that, I will.
Don't mess with my house or my family, or you will feel the anger of a free man.
Being in the UK, you should feel robbed of freedom.

[Pert_UK]

56. But...

a) not everyone agrees that the 2nd amendment does give everyone the RKBA without limitation or some control

b) why should I feel more robbed of freedom than you? In the UK we don't have "First Amendment Zones", the "Patriot" act etc. Our country is so safe that even our Police officers don't feel the need to be armed. We have free treatment from a National Health Service. We can wear anti-Bush or anti-Blair T-shirts without being thrown out of shopping malls.

I'm not saying that the UK is better than the US, but what I am saying is that I believe many pro-RKBAers are so focused on keeping that "right" that they failing to see the undermining of far more fundamental rights.

Bread and circuses and all that.....

[Retired AF Dem]

61. Is dental free to?

just wondering. :)

[Pert_UK]

65. Britain doesn't have any dentists - don't you know anything?

:-)

Dental is, I believe, subsidised by the government and free until you leave full time education (with free dental checks if you're unemployed or a low wage earner + heavily subsidised or free treatment).

Hospitals and operations and doctor visits - free. Each drug you need on prescription - free if you're young or unemployed, somewhere around £5 per item if you're not (regardless of the drug's actual cost).

Eye tests - free for the young/old/unemployed, subsidised glasses for the same.

[LibLabUK]

73. Almost :)

" free if you're young or unemployed, somewhere around £5 per item if you're not (regardless of the drug's actual cost)."

£6.80, or free if you have certain chronic illnesses/conditions (you have to apply for a prescription-charge exemption certificate). I have one and it saves me an absolute fortune on prescriptions.

You should also point out that the £6.80 fee does not apply to the multiples of the same item.

So 1 pack of 100 Co-proxamol tablets will cost £6.80, and 10 packs of 100 co-proxamol tablets will also cost you £6.80 in total. A pack of 100 co-proxamol tablets and one pack of 28 amoxycillin tablets will cost you £13.60 in total.

"Eye tests - free for the young/old/unemployed, subsidised glasses for the same."

Employers must pay for eye tests for employees who work with VDUs, and subsidise the cost of glasses necessary for work.

Diabetics also get free eye tests.

[pen]

36. 2cnd Amendment

The 2cnd amendment was part of the Constitution originally signed by all the states. The reason it is there is the Founding Fathers realized that over time people would forget why they successfully resisted the British. It is part of the original Bill of Rights. It has not been changed since the original document was signed.

:)

[Wickerman]

40. Welcome to DU

always a pleasure to see the new guys mingling with the old.

:hi:

[BigDaddyCaine]

48. Youre flip flopping you flip flopper

First you hate guns, now you defend the constitution... make up your mind. :-)

[BigDaddyCaine]

27. What are your opinions of

People from other countries, like Canada or the UK, telling people from the US what their constitution really means and which amendments in it are worthless and/or misunderstood? :-)

Dont flip out, im only playing.

[Pert_UK]

28. Heh heh heh.....

The odd thing is, I don't recall ever telling anybody furrin' what to do or how to interpret their laws.

I just try to point out when people aren't making a lot of sense.

:-)

I like a good argument / discussion and it just seems bizarre to refuse to discuss something, or enter a discussion forum and totally refuse to justify your views other than in reference to a piece of paper.....

[MacDo]

29. That piece of paper

is what this country is founded on, and better yet, what I have sworn to defend.
Guns are evil, in evil hands. To everyone else they are tools to be used when the right job comes along.

[Pert_UK]

31. Well yes....and again laudable in some ways but.......

The Bible is what Christianity was founded on and the Koran / Qu'ran is what Islam is founded on, and look at the interpretations/misinterpretations we've got there.

It doesn't do anybody any good ever to follow instructions without thinking about them, and you're fooling yourself if you think you have a handle on an objective interpretation of what the constitution actually means.

Would I die for a piece of paper? No. Would I die for the ideals expressed on that piece of paper? Possibly, but I'd have a damn good think about what they meant before I'd do that...

[MacDo]

33. Would I die for the ideals expressed on that piece of paper?

Don't insult me by assuming I haven't thought about dying for that"piece of paper".
It's the exact reason I joined. Basic rights. Something the world has shoved aside.

[Pert_UK]

57. Not meaning to insult anybody...but don't really follow you...

"Don't insult me by assuming I haven't thought about dying for that"piece of paper"." - do you mean that you've thought about what's on the paper and what it means, or that you've thought about dying for the piece of paper? It's not clear. Not being funny, it's just not clear.

"It's the exact reason I joined" - joined what? DU? Sorry, am I being slow today?

"Basic rights. Something the world has shoved aside." - yes, true....and I'll resist the urge to talk about how the US and UK governments have been instrumental in undermining human rights both at home and abroad. However..........it's only in the US that guns are seen as a "basic right" - pretty much every other country either allows them as a privilege in law, or is anti guns. This fact alone ought to give you some idea that you can't just assume that the RKBA is a right at all - you have to debate and prove it. It might be a legal right in the US, but it's certainly not recognised as a basic human right.

[MacDo]

60. Sorry

I wasn't clear, but I'm in the US Military. When I talk of rights, I'm not talking about Human Rights, but the Bill of Rights
Human Rights I leave up to the politicians. I'm also sorry, because I don't know what RKBA stands for.

[Pert_UK]

62. You come in here and don't know what RKBA stands for?

Bloody hell! I'm a Brit and even I know the gungeon shorthand.....but then, I have been wasting my life in here for a few years.

RKBA - the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

pro-RKBAers - crappy shorthand for people who support the above and believe the 2nd amendment gives the RKBA.

Thanks for the explanation, although I don't know what being in the Military has to do with things!

Will try to respond at length later, but mucho busy at the moment with genuine paid work.....

[MacDo]

66. Thanks

I've spent the last 17 years overseas and never heard the RKBA thing. Now that you have told me what it, you can file me under that category.
As long as it is a Constitutional Right, I will support and defend it. That's where the Military part comes in.
If the Constitution get amended to take away that right, you can count me as the enemy.

[Pert_UK]

67. It never ceases to amaze me....

Law-abiding, patriotic citizens who state quite publicly that they'd turn against everything in their country if their legally elected representatives tried to restrict their legal right to bear arms.

Clearly, I don't get it. I can't see how this one thing can be more important to someone that everything else in their country.

[JeebusB]

68. Perhaps it's because...

rights are not granted by the Constitution. (I will speak for myself here even though I know my vews are shared by many.) The Constitution assigns various authorities to the government and defines how the government is structured. Knowing the tendency of governments to become authoritarian and oppressive, the framers added the bill of rights to ensure that those rights enumerted therein, as well as others not enumerated, would remain protected from the government. I understand the history of the documents and I know that the rights pre-existed the documents instead of existing because of them.

These principals constitute much of the foundation of my belief system. If the documents are changed, then as far as I am concerned they no longer reflect the principals on which the country was founded and are therefore invalid.

It's not a question of us abandoning our principals... It's a question of the country abandoning us. Our principals remain constant.

[iverglas]

38. or how about ...

"... alternatives to this would be to reduce the number of rapists in society (which isn’t going too well so far) or eliminating women from the equation entirely ..."

... eliminating men from the world?

May as well put all the available options on the table, eh?

If I'd been "skilled at arms", I might not have been abducted and sexually assaulted and thisclose to killed. But I might have been.

If men had been eliminated from the world, I definitely wouldn't have been.

Funny how eliminating me from the equation was the first thing that came to your mind, isn't it?

[enfield collector]

41. might be hard for the human race to continue without either men or

women, or both.

[LibLabUK]

47. Err..

The science exists to eliminate men, much as it pains me as a man to admit. You can take the nucleus of one ovum and fuse it with the nucleus of another ovum and you'd have a viable embryo which couldbe implanted in a woman and nine months later you'd have baby girl (only girls because only the sperm brings the Y chromosome necessary for male baby).

Women could get by without us quite happily if they so chose.

[enfield collector]

53. Bummer, I stand corrected.

[Pert_UK]

59. I don't know about "quite happily".....

Who'd fix their cars or mow their lawns?

:evilgrin:

God, I hope everyone knows me well enough by now to know when I'm taking the piss, rather than being genuinely sexist.

Actually, maybe what I should have said was, "Who'd start their wars or kill their fresh meat", if I was going to be genuinely controversial......Always the easy option for me, eh?

[JeebusB]

15. You break into someone's house,

you deserve to get shot. Period. If you die as a result, that's just too damned bad.

[Pert_UK]

20. Are you saying that.........

Burglars should be shot, or

If a burglar gets shot while housebreaking then he's only got himself to blame, it's a risk he takes when he crosses that line.

There's a distinct difference.

[JeebusB]

34. The second one, actually. n/t

.

[alwynsw]

23. Since when is defense of hearth and home retaliation? n/t

[iverglas]

39. what seems to have been lost in the flurry

... of the usual blah blah ...

During the first raid, in July 2003, he and two other men broke into a gun cabinet and took five shotguns, a longbow, arrows, a crossbow and bolts.

Gee. I wonder why they broke into the house in the first place.

I'll bet they just picked it at random, and had no idea at all that there was a small arsenal of weapons on the premises, stored in an easily defeatable protective device.

Had there been no firearms on the premises, or had the firearms on the premises been stored in an actually safe storage device (which might not have worked were the householder home and were it possible to coerce him into opening it), I wonder whether the break-in would have occurred.

Damn. That's a tough one.

[JeebusB]

42. Interesting bit of supposition.

But you have no way of knowing that. I find it more plausible that they discovered the gun cabinet after they broke in and made the best of it.

[iverglas]

44. of course

"I find it more plausible that they discovered the gun cabinet after they broke in and made the best of it."

you do.

Far be it from me to suppose otherwise, eh?

[JeebusB]

46. The difference, dear friend,

is that I am at least willing to consider your point. Note, please, that I didn't claim my explanation to be the absolute truth, just that I found it more plausible.

You, on the other hand, act as if it's a foregone conclusion that the theives broke in specifically to steal the guns. I see no evidence to that effect.

Edited to add:

Never mind. I had to go back and re-read the article. It does say that the thief admitted to going after the arms. My mistake.

Still... Are we going to blame the owners of expensive vehicles when their cars are stolen? Why is it the fault of the property owner when someone else tries to steal said property?

[iverglas]

50. I, on the other hand, ...

"You, on the other hand, act as if it's a foregone conclusion that the theives broke in specifically to steal the guns. I see no evidence to that effect."

... bothered to have evidence (as you can see in my subsequent post -- the population/geography of the area in question, which, darn, I do have to admit I originally assumed, based on general knowledge in my possession, to be pretty much exactly what they in fact are).


"Never mind. I had to go back and re-read the article. It does say that the thief admitted to going after the arms. My mistake."

Damn. Isn't it amazing how often the fucking obvious explanation is the explanation?


"Why is it the fault of the property owner when someone else tries to steal said property?"

I dunno, I'm sure. Have you considered asking someone who said it is?

[JeebusB]

51. Is it at all possible

for you NOT to be condesending???


Regardless of the explanaiton, it isn't obvious at all. Just because the theif and the 3-time victim lived in somewhat close proximity doesn't mean they were at all familiar. There are quite a few people living within a stone's throw from my front door with whom I am not closely acquainted and whose homes I have no knowledge of.

But then, I must not be as omnipotent as you.

</sarcasm>

[iverglas]

55. well, that ...

" I must not be as omnipotent as you."

... or something. Omniscient, maybe? (Does omni-anything come in degrees? Wouldn't that be like something being really unique, or a little bit pregnant?)

Or maybe ... reasonably well-informed, capable of making reasonable inferences from available facts, not determined to ignore the nose on my face or select the least likely scenario from a range of possibilities and insist that it invalidates the obvious inference ...


"Just because the theif and the 3-time victim lived in somewhat close proximity doesn't mean they were at all familiar. There are quite a few people living within a stone's throw from my front door with whom I am not closely acquainted and whose homes I have no knowledge of."

If you and your neighbourhood were relevant here, I'd ask for more details. But of course they aren't. The neighbourhood that's relevant in our case is the neighbourhood around Keys Farm, Derbyshire, UK.

This is what Stanton-by-Dale looks like -- the irregular pale yellow thingies alongside the darker yellow roads are actual buildings.



This is what it looks like up close. Really.



Here's yer aerial view:



http://www.multimap.com/map/photo.cgi?client=public&X=446500&Y=338000&scale=10000&width=500&height=300&gride=&gridn=&lang=&db=freegaz

And here's Keys Farm -- the closest I can get you without it just being a blank space, on a map a mile wide:



Here's the aerial view of the above map:



Farmer Faulkner's house, I have to conclude.

The map below is two miles wide; the pale yellow thing next to the words "Keys Farm" must be farmer Faulkner's house:



And the aerial view of that one:



And again -- this map is about 4 miles wide, and the little blue blotch down and to the left of Stanton-by-Dale is pretty much Keys Farm:



There just ain't any there there, you see. We really are not talking Manhattan here.

I'm sure there are people living within 1.5 miles of you whom you have never seen. I'm about as sure that you just don't have any idea what you're talking about when it comes to Ockbrook and Stanton-by-Dale, Derbyshire.



Btw, here's a little more info about the incident in question, from August:

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/06/ushoot.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/08/06/ixportaltop.html

A spokesman for Derbyshire police said: "At around 6am today, a 73-year-old farmer had phoned the police after discovering a burglar on his premises.

"The offender fled the farm. During the incident the farmer fired a shotgun and a man was later found a short distance away suffering from minor pellet injuries to his left leg."

This (less authoritative) site, apparently quoting an earlier version of that report, adds:

http://www.theenglandproject.net/mt/archives/000561.html

Police said the farmer, 73 - who has been burgled twice in recent months - had spotted a burglar at a detached garage at Keys Farm, in Ockbrook, at 6am.

Hmm. Not inside his home, just in case anyone thought that relevant.

But the point to which I am drawing attention is that the farmer apparently did not use "deadly force" -- he may have used a firearm, but it wasn't exactly an assault weapon, and he doesn't really seem to have been aiming to do anything other than stop the crime one might quite reasonably believe was in progress or about to be undertaken. (You won't think me omniscient if I infer this, will you?)

[JeebusB]

63. Well that's a first

I've never seen or heard anyone refer to the use of a firearm as anything other than deadly force. He hit the guy in the leg but (somehow) wasn't shooting at him. If you believe that I've got a bridge to sell you. It was just a few short years ago that some poor elderly schmuck got sent to prison for life under almost identical circumstances. Perhaps the brits were a bit embarrassed over the reaction from the rest of the world or perhaps these particular officials thought the little shit got what he deserved, I don't know. Whatever the reason, the old fellow says "I didn't mean to shoot him, honest" and they chose to take that at face value.

Oh, silly me! Obviously you MUST be correct! It's impossible for this septuagenarian and this 20-something to be anything other than close acquaintances! Fast friends and drinking buddies, most probably! We need only to look at a map to know this is a fact!!! He probably hosted raves on his farm at least monthly!

</sarcasm>

[iverglas]

69. work on that sales technique

"He hit the guy in the leg but (somehow) wasn't shooting at him."

Damn. Did somebody say that? I'm really quite sure that I didn't.

But oh look, maybe you're right:

http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=News&tBrand=edponline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED26%20Oct%202004%2019%3A47%3A46%3A587

Mr Faulkner fired at the intruder in a bid to frighten him away, the court heard - but ended up shooting him in the leg.

"Whatever the reason, the old fellow says 'I didn't mean to shoot him, honest' and they chose to take that at face value."

I see the quotation marks ... but I'm just not seeing the footnote.

Whatever. Maybe he was credible. After all, assessing credibility is one thing that prosecutors have to do in determining whether a prosecution is advisable. And they probably do it better than people on internet boards a continent away.

"It was just a few short years ago that some poor elderly schmuck got sent to prison for life under almost identical circumstances."

"Elderly"? By my calculations, he was 54 at the time of the shooting. Damn, I guess I'd better start shopping for dentures.

Actually, the circumstances were quite different.

Did ya happen to recall that the Tony Martin in question KILLED his victim? By shooting him in the back from a distance of four feet? And that he had repeatedly stated that he would kill intruders, and was known to be racist (he specifically made violent statements about "Gypsies") and was regarded as dangerous by his neighbours? He just wasn't quite like Faulkner, who "had lost his wife, was 73 years old, and had been burgled twice before".

And I'd venture to guess that if the person who committed the break-ins and thefts in this case had been seriously injured or killed, the outcome might have been somewhat different too.

The issue is the meaning of "reasonable force".

Cases do have facts. And it's not that difficult to distinguish between shooting a fleeing trespasser in the back, from four feet away, and killing him, and shooting a fleeing trespasser in the leg with a pellet.

"Perhaps the brits were a bit embarrassed over the reaction from the rest of the world ..."

Yeah, right. "The brits" spend a lot of time reading freerepublic.com and worrying about what it says.

"Oh, silly me! Obviously you MUST be correct! It's impossible for this septuagenarian and this 20-something to be anything other than close acquaintances! Fast friends and drinking buddies, most probably! We need only to look at a map to know this is a fact!!!"

Yes, silly you. You do get caught up in fantasy, doncha though? Goodness, if you had a point about something that someone actually said, one would think you might be able to make it by referring to something that someone had actually said at some time. Guess that isn't going to happen.

[JeebusB]

70. blah blah blah - you're silly - blah blah blah

Are you really trying to say that this man fired a shotgun at someone else with the intent of only hitting him in the leg with one or two pellets?

Get real!

[iverglas]

72. "Domari Nolo"

I wonder whether it's the imaginary enemies that are the problem.

"Are you really trying to say that this man fired a shotgun at someone else with the intent of only hitting him in the leg with one or two pellets?"

If you'd stop imagining that people have said things they have not said, and stick to what they said, you might not have this apparent concern about being subjugated ...

Of course, who can tell whether you're really imagining these things, or just making them up?

[JeebusB]

74. more blah blah blah

"If you'd stop imagining that people have said things they have not said, and stick to what they said, you might not have this apparent concern about being subjugated ..."

It was a simple question. Can't you answer a simple question? Let me spell it out for you since you obviously aren't as interested in discussing the points as you are in displaying your smug self-righteousness.

You said, "he may have used a firearm, but it wasn't exactly an assault weapon, and he doesn't really seem to have been aiming to do anything other than stop the crime one might quite reasonably believe was in progress or about to be undertaken."

If you discharge a firearm in someone's direction, regardless of whether or not it's a so-called assault weapon (I don't know what difference that makes but it evidently holds some relevence for you), you should reasonably expect the person to be injured, perhaps fatally. I am not aware, either directly or indirectly, of any department or agency that does not consider this deadly force. The fact that the man was shot at all evidences that the shotgun was pointed in his direction. If injury/death was not the intended result, is it not reasonable to assume that the shooter would have pointed the gun somewhere else? You went to a great deal of trouble to look up and post maps and satellite images of the area in question. (God only knows why) There's a great deal of open country - Plenty of "safe" directions to point that shotgun if he only wanted to frighten the burgler. Clearly, that was not the case.

What I'm left with is the fact that person "A" fires a shotgun at person "B." Your statement that "he doesn't really seem to have been aiming to do anything other than stop the crime" leads me to believe that you somehow think it all turned out exactly the way person "A" intended. This all seems somewhat unlikely to me so I ask you a simple question to which you reply with your typical style of ridicule.

If you don't get my point, you could simply say so without posting a thousand words of crap. But if you were as smart as you think you are, then you would have gotten it in the first place.

[iverglas]

75. "Domari Nolo"

"Let me spell it out for you since you obviously aren't as interested in discussing the points as you are in displaying your smug self-righteousness."

Ah, but what's obvious to the goose ... sometimes calls for a gander through more suitable specs, doesn't it just?

So far, I'm liking mine just a whole lot better than whatever prescription you're wearing.


If you discharge a firearm in someone's direction, regardless of whether or not it's a so-called assault weapon (I don't know what difference that makes but it evidently holds some relevence for you), ..."

And here I'm not even a firearms fan, but it just seems to me that something fired, and the circumstances in which that something is fired, that result in a "pellet wound to the leg" are just a whole lot different from quite a number of other things that can be fired and quite a number of circumstances in which they can be fired -- things which, when fired, and when fired in other circumstances, are not going to result in a pellet wound to a leg.

"... you should reasonably expect the person to be injured, perhaps fatally."

Far be it from me to suggest that people should go around the world indiscriminately firing off firearms and then claiming they didn't know somebody might get hurt. Nooo. But that's just not what we're talking about here.

We're talking (as I've tried already to point out) about REASONABLE FORCE used by a property owner to protect property. And I dunno, given that so many of this guy's firearms had already been stolen, just what he might have had left to be shooting with. But in any event:
(a) he really did not attempt to cause serious harm to anyone, or
(b) he tried to cause serious harm to someone but failed, or
(c) he was using something to stop the offence being committed against him that was damned unlikely to cause serious harm to anyone.

-- exactly what information are YOU in possession of that puts you in a better position than the police and CPS to determine what really happened?

I'm not the one claiming to be smarter than those pansyass Brit prosecutors, after all.


"If injury/death was not the intended result, is it not reasonable to assume that the shooter would have pointed the gun somewhere else?"

Ooops. "Injury/death"? That's quite the slippery slope we've just slid down there. Injury..................death. Just like that.

"Reasonable force". Try to keep that in mind.


"There's a great deal of open country - Plenty of "safe" directions to point that shotgun if he only wanted to frighten the burgler. Clearly, that was not the case."

Ah ... "Clearly". Perhaps you were watching from one of those satellites, in the cloudless early dawn, when it all went down.


"You went to a great deal of trouble to look up and post maps and satellite images of the area in question. (God only knows why)"

I'm sure it didn't occur to you (despite how many strange and wonderful things seem to occur to you), but I had quite a great deal of fun learning some stuff about an obscure little bit of the world I'd never looked at close up before. Dreadfully sorry if you didn't take the same interest or pleasure in the exercise.


"What I'm left with is the fact that person 'A' fires a shotgun at person 'B.' Your statement that 'he doesn't really seem to have been aiming to do anything other than stop the crime' leads me to believe that you somehow think it all turned out exactly the way person 'A' intended."

You see? Like I wuz getting at ... if *I* were that easily led, I'd probably be worrying about getting subjugated too.

Not that you've necessarily got yourself led astray, or down the garden path, or anyplace else you shouldn't be going; I think that "it all turned out exactly the way person 'A' intended" is a perfectly plausible possibility. But in actual fact, I don't "think it all turned out exactly the way person 'A' intended" -- because *I* don't make things up without the necessary raw material, and *I* just don't have the raw material I'd need in order to think this: the FACTS. But I gather that the CPS did have -- the police arrested the man, let us not forget, and investigated the incident -- and I just can't think of a good reason for me to dispute their assessment of the facts in this particular instance. Bring me some more facts -- like, what was that firearm loaded with? -- and we'll talk.


"This all seems somewhat unlikely to me so I ask you a simple question to which you reply with your typical style of ridicule."

And I do apologize for failing to immediately accept you as more authoritative when it comes to what is "likely" or "unlikely" with respect to a matter of fact about which I know very little -- the actions and intentions of the farmer in question -- and certainly far less than the police and CPS which investigated and assessed the evidence, whom I don't really have solid grounds for distrusting or not thinking competent at their jobs.

So dear me, "a simple question"? --

"Are you really trying to say that this man fired a shotgun at someone else with the intent of only hitting him in the leg with one or two pellets?"

Hardly. Sounded more to me like you were asking me to peer into my crystal ball, or hop a transatlantic flight and then get into my time machine, so I can tell you what this man did. How the fuck do I know?? Why on earth would you ask me what he did?

Of course, that's not what you asked. You asked whether I was trying to say that this was what he did. And I'm still failing to see the evidentiary foundation for your question, and accordingly not seeing any reason at all why I would grace it with an answer, any more than most of the other questions I've seen from you here should be so graced.


Do feel free to count the words in my post now, and be sure to report back.

[JeebusB]

77. Chapter 6. In which Eeyore has a birthday, and gets 2 presents.

And here I'm not even a firearms fan, but it just seems to me that something fired, and the circumstances in which that something is fired, that result in a "pellet wound to the leg" are just a whole lot different from quite a number of other things that can be fired and quite a number of circumstances in which they can be fired -- things which, when fired, and when fired in other circumstances, are not going to result in a pellet wound to a leg.

You say that as if a shotgun is not as deadly as a scary black rifle. Shotguns are capable of inflicting horrendous injuries. A great deal depends on the load and range. I could only guess what type of load was in the gun so I won't bother, lest I be accused of making something up.

"-- exactly what information are YOU in possession of ..."

Just experience. For the past 20 years, in my personal and professional life I've carried a weapon of one type or another just about every day. If a man can carry it, I've probably used it. I've trained with military and police personnel. To a man, none of them would consider firing a weapon at another individual to be anything other than deadly force - Force that may reasonably be expected to cause serious bodily injury or death.

But to clarify my position, I never said the local authorities didn't know what happened. In fact, I said they chose to believe a convenient answer. I don't know and don't really care why they chose to believe it.

You've used the term "reasonable force" several times to describe the shooter's actions. On one hand, I agree with you. I think the amount of force he used was reasonable. On the other hand, it seems to me that you are making a distinction between reasonable force and deadly force. While deadly force is not always reasonable, and reasonable force is not always deadly, they are sometimes one in the same thing. If I've misinterpreted your meaning, please just say so. (In 50 words or less, please.)

"I'm not the one claiming to be smarter than those pansyass Brit prosecutors, after all."
I'd much appreciate it if you could show me where I made such a claim. It is you who are making things up.

"if *I* were that easily led, I'd probably be worrying about getting subjugated too."
Perish the thought! I'm sure you wouldn't know the difference.

Ooops. "Injury/death"? That's quite the slippery slope we've just slid down there. Injury..................death. Just like that.

"Reasonable force". Try to keep that in mind.
No, it's not a slippery slope at all. Gunshot wounds are often fatal and shotguns are not at all precise. If you shoot at someone with any sort of firearm, you should reasonably expect that the result may range anywhere from a complete miss to a fatal injury.

Ah ... "Clearly". Perhaps you were watching from one of those satellites, in the cloudless early dawn, when it all went down.
I hardly think that's necessary. If you intend to discharge a weapon without injuring anyone, the probability of your causing injury decreases dramatically if you don't point the fucking gun at someone and pull the trigger.

[iverglas]

79. dear dear cluck cluck

"I'm not the one claiming to be smarter than those pansyass Brit prosecutors, after all."
"I'd much appreciate it if you could show me where I made such a claim. It is you who are making things up."

Well, I'll be glad to do that ... just as soon as you show *me* where I asserted that you made such a claim. If that's what you're asserting I asserted. You'll forgive me for assuming that this is what you asserted, if it wasn't what you were asserting, since I can't think of any other reason you'd ask *me* to show you that thing.


"You've used the term 'reasonable force' several times to describe the shooter's actions."

Oh, I don't thiiiiink so.

I've used the term "reasonable force" several times to describe THE ISSUE in the situation, and in the police investigation, and in the CPS's deliberations.

**I** have simply NEVER characterized the actions of the individual in question as ANYTHING.

The CPS apparently decided that his actions could be characterized as the use of "reasonable force", based on whatever the people there considered. I assume that they considered the known facts, the accounts given to them by the people present at the time, the credibility of the people giving those accounts, and the result, in their own minds, of applying the "reasonable force" test to the situation. If, after considering those facts, they were persuaded that there were grounds for a prosecution and they then did not prosecute, I would assume that they had also considered the likelihood of securing a conviction, and I would think it possible that they also considered, perhaps improperly, the fallout for themselves, in terms of public opinion and media attention, of prosecuting the individual in question, and/or, quite properly, the public interest in prosecuting vs. not prosecuting.

But moi, I've never said a damned thing. I've said how things might *seem* to moi, but I've never said how they *were*.

I just don't claim to be omniscient, or to know about things that I don't know nuttin' about.

'Course, that doesn't mean that I'm not capable of drawing and defending reasonable inferences. That being a whole lot different from making stuff up and pretending that it's what really happened.

[JeebusB]

80. Interesting debate technique you have.....

You throw out a bunch of useless blather then, later on, claim that that it didn't mean what it appeared to mean at the time. Of course, you never actually come out and define those statements in unequivocal terms or frame them in any sort of concrete context. Oh no, couldn't do that, eh? That would prevent you from again denying that you said what you obviously said.

whatever

[iverglas]

81. dear me

"Oh no, couldn't do that, eh? That would prevent you from again denying that you said what you obviously said."

Now, if I were to attempt to draw a reasonable inference from that collection of words, I'd be inferring that someone is saying that I am less than truthful. I'm open to other suggestions, of course.

I guess it's just a personal quirk of mine that I expect someone who alleges that I said or did something will offer up some evidence to support the allegation. Not just make another such allegation, and another, and another ...

Well, not 100% idiosyncratic, I guess. You do seem to have acquired another fan, and to have flattered him in that highest form.

I've been meaning to ask, btw, how someone with such a focus on not being subjugated acquired so many "principals". Doesn't being a mere agent just kinda make you feel kinda, I dunno, icky? Or maybe ... subjugated?

And maybe it's just me, but I found this

"For the past 20 years, in my personal and professional life I've carried a weapon of one type or another just about every day. If a man can carry it, I've probably used it. I've trained with military and police personnel. To a man, ...

just some odd sorts of things for a (you'll allow me to quote you?) gurl to be saying. If a man can carry it, you've probably used it? Damned odd.


Now, not that I don't love the attention and all, but I'm not seeing anything in your post that has anything to do with anything.

[JeebusB]

82. Ditto

"Now, not that I don't love the attention and all, but I'm not seeing anything in your post that has anything to do with anything."

[Pert_UK]

76. Interesting debate technique you have.....

Ignore 99% of what someone says, suggest they're saying something else, tell them they're wrong but that you're not interested in what they're saying anyway, make random assumptions with no evidence and then pretend that you never said any of the stuff that they've just criticised you for saying + criticise them for using actual evidence.

Repeat ad nauseum.

Curious way to make a point on a discussion forum.

[JeebusB]

78. You've certainly presented a lot of information

But no evidence.

As for the rest...

"sez you."

[JeebusB]

52. Oh, and another thing...

You may not have said that the blame lies with the property owner, but you implied just that.

[iverglas]

54. sad

"You may not have said that the blame lies with the property owner, but you implied just that."

Jeez, I guess it must have been just, like, obvious that I think something that, in fact, nothing that I said implied, in any way whatsoever, that I think.

Is it at all possible for you NOT to be ... oh, I dunno ... disingenuous? Or at least not to actually make statements about me for which you have not a shred of foundation?

[JeebusB]

64. perhaps not. n/t

.

[iverglas]

49. just the facts

From info accessible here:
http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/azserv/exec04.htm

... I can't find anything for Stanton-by-Dale, where the offender lives, which simply seems to be too small to be counted separately. (Stanton, quite a different place, has a population of 1888 (in 777 households), of whom 406 are under the age of 15. There's also Stanton-by-Bridge, ... and there's Stanton-in-Peak, and Stanton Gate, and Stanton Ford ... just in Derbyshire itself.)

Ockbrook and Borrowash (the farmer lives in Ockbrook) has a population of 7331 (in 3006 households), of whom 1443 are under the age of 15.

Go here:
http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=446614&y=337649&z=3&sv=stanton&st=3&tl=Stanton+by+Dale,+Derbyshire+&searchp=newsearch.srf&mapp=newmap.srf
and look just to the left of Stapleford, near the centre of the map. Ockbrook and Stanton-by-Dale appear to be just under 5 kilometres apart (about 3 miles).

Stanton-by-Dale looks like this:
http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=446680&y=337640&z=3&sv=446680,337640&st=4&ar=Y&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf&dn=605

and Ockbrook looks like this:
http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=443500&y=336500&z=3&sv=443500,336500&st=4&ar=N&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf&dn=605

and darned if there isn't Keys Farm -- the farm owned by the householder in question -- right there.

And here it is:
http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=445500&y=337500&z=3&sv=445500,337500&st=4&ar=N&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf&dn=605

in relation to Stanton-by-Dale -- just over 2 km between Keys Farm and Stanton-by-Dale, as the crow flies (under 1.5 miles).

Yes ... I'm sure that the individuals in question were total strangers to each other, and that the break-in, by a 22-year-old at the farm a mile and a half (that's three farms) away from where he lived, at the farm where the 73-year-old had lived for all of that 22-year-old's 22 years -- was just completely random.

And that the 22-year-old neither knew the farmer, and what was in his household, personally, nor knew quite well that the farmers in the area were firearms owners ...

[TX-RAT]

43. Not fair Iver

Bringing common sense into a discussion in J/PS.
Most of the burglary's we investigated involving guns nearly always came back to an acquaintance, friend or family member.
Not many just picked at random.