Farmer accidentally shot burglars

Homer J

http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=155577249

Buckled_Rims

If I'm ever on a jury, no burglar (or any criminal) will ever get a fair trial. Also, no genuine homeowner defending his or her own property will ever get me finding them guilty of assault on the burglars.

Tonymufc

I wouldn't have thought that there was anything wrong with INTENTIONALLY shooting burglars.

Stewie Griffin

An MS sufferer with weed growing in a shed he rents out that he knew nothing about? Hhmm :P

finchy

Buckled_Rims wrote:

If I'm ever on a jury, no burglar (or any criminal) will ever get a fair trial.

Er, the purpose of jury trials is for the jury to consider the evidence and then decide on guilty or not guilty. I'm sure you would do that.

Buckled_Rims wrote:

Also, no genuine homeowner defending his or her own property will ever get me finding them guilty of assault on the burglars.

You will if the case is really blatant.

bails87

Buckled_Rims wrote:

Also, no genuine homeowner defending his or her own property will ever get me finding them guilty of assault on the burglars.

Of course, you're allowed to defend your property and yourself. Why do you think otherwise? :?

Mike Healey

I am reminded of the Quaker who woke up and found a burglar in his bedroom. Quakers being pacifists, he said, "Friend, I would not hurt thee for the world, but thee is standing where I am about to shoot".

Buckled_Rims

bails87 wrote:

Buckled_Rims wrote:

Also, no genuine homeowner defending his or her own property will ever get me finding them guilty of assault on the burglars.

Of course, you're allowed to defend your property and yourself. Why do you think otherwise? :?

You are allowed to defend yourself, but there's no real definition of how much force is allowed and when to defend yourself. It is YOU that has to explain why you hit a burglar 3 times, instead of once. The burglar will lie through his teeth saying he was giving himself up.

You cannot, by the way, claim defense if you move towards the burglar and he says he was retreating. In that effect the case will go to court to decide.

john-e-big-guns

Any burglar entering my property will have to admit that they where on their way to A&E

spen666

Buckled_Rims wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Buckled_Rims wrote:

Also, no genuine homeowner defending his or her own property will ever get me finding them guilty of assault on the burglars.

Of course, you're allowed to defend your property and yourself. Why do you think otherwise? :?

You are allowed to defend yourself, but there's no real definition of how much force is allowed and when to defend yourself.

This is for good reason. If the law precisely defined what you could do, but you do something necessary but not one law can't evolve and there will always be situations that cannot be envisaged by thot, that is defend you, not seek revenge or retribution

It is actually to the benefit of the accused in these situations that there is no list.

The law is very clear though. You can use the force you reasonably believe at that time to be necessary to defend you. n the list you would be guilty.

The use of precise definitions mean that those preparing the list.

It is YOU that has to explain why you hit a burglar 3 times, instead of once. The burglar will lie through his teeth saying he was giving himself up.

Erm again this is simply not accurate. It is for the crown tp PROVE the defendant was not acting in self defence if the issue is raised

You cannot, by the way, claim defense if you move towards the burglar and he says he was retreating. In that effect the case will go to court to decide.

This again is nonsense. Of course you can claim self defence. Whether you claim self defence or not, the case is likely to go to court. It is for the court to decide if you were acting in self defence.

you seem to have a strange idea of both the law and the processes involved in a criminal case. If you are referring to English & Welsh law, then what you write is not accurate.





Oh, and whilst I am at it, lets nail a few myths re the Tony Martin case (as its been raised by another poster earlier)


1. A jury of members of the public convicted him of murder - not lawyers or judges or police, but the PUBLIC
2. The Appeal court acquitted him of murder and substituted a lesser conviction than members of the public thought he deserved.
3. Tony Martin knowingly shot the victims as they were leaving the scene and he knew they were leaving the scene (see his evidence in the case, not the media bull). This is not self defence, ut retribution and or revenge which is always illegal and rightly so

OffTheBackAdam

The discussion amongst the farming community around chez OffTheBack's, after the Tony Martin case, was that he should have shot dead all three of the thieving Pikies, then buried them under the muck heap.

Buckled_Rims

spen666 wrote:

It is YOU that has to explain why you hit a burglar 3 times, instead of once. The burglar will lie through his teeth saying he was giving himself up.

Erm again this is simply not accurate. It is for the crown tp PROVE the defendant was not acting in self defence if the issue is raised

You cannot, by the way, claim defense if you move towards the burglar and he says he was retreating. In that effect the case will go to court to decide.

This again is nonsense. Of course you can claim self defence. Whether you claim self defence or not, the case is likely to go to court. It is for the court to decide if you were acting in self defence.

[/quote]


Which comes back to my original statement, if I was on the jury a genuine homeowner defending his property will not get my jury vote for conviction no matter what the judge recommends. The CPS will attempt to get the easiest conviction, which is usually the poor householder who has never been in trouble with the police before.

What do I think of the law? Well, imagine squatting down and straining your bowels out after the senna pods have done their work

The lessons I've learnt in life regarding the law is never saying anything, you can't remember because you were drunk and the CPS will always charge the easiest targets with the best chance of conviction.

Argue otherwise, but you ain't going to change my view.

EKIMIKE

Tony Martin also illegally possessed the firearm he used. He never contested that.

I'd argue the Martin case isn't really a great barometer of the issue. It got too bogged down in technicalities and lies. Also the guy was acquitted on grounds of diminished responsibility owing to mental health issues. From what i've read, the guy really did have issues.

The law is the law and that's what it boils down to eventually. Whether it goes against the instinct of many or most of us is not really important when you're in that court charged with murder. TBH i think i'd be inclined to act pretty violently towards burglars. I think alot of people would. The last thing i'd be thinking about are the technicalities of the law and what is reasonable force e.t.c. But It's hard to know what you'd do unless you're put into the situation. Maybe most of us wouldn't have the balls to pull the trigger or swing the bat at their heads e.t.c. Maybe we'd threaten such action but what happens then?

Either way it would be ridiculous to have a law which allows for killing or injuring of burglars yet have a law for murder, manslaughter and GBH. There would be a serious contradiction. It also assumes that situations are always black and white. In reality they're often not.

Mad Roadie

Buckled_Rims wrote:

If I'm ever on a jury, no burglar (or any criminal) will ever get a fair trial. Also, no genuine homeowner defending his or her own property will ever get me finding them guilty of assault on the burglars.

+1

Frank the tank

Buckled rims is right, Spen 666.

My nephew was not allowed to plead self defence in his case because he "persued his attacker" a few metres down the street. This being despite having had a glass stuck in his face in an unprovoked attack.

The irony was my nephew was charged his attacker was not.

spen666

Frank the tank wrote:

Buckled rims is right, Spen 666.

My nephew was not allowed to plead self defence in his case because he "persued his attacker" a few metres down the street. This being despite having had a glass stuck in his face in an unprovoked attack.

The irony was my nephew was charged his attacker was not.

Frank, you'd better tell the Supreme court this news, and also the authors of Archbold on Criminal pleadings,and Blackstones Criminal Practice as well as all members of the criminal Bar as well as all those solicitors practicing criminal law because they are all clearly wrong. Oh and tell the CPS as well because they are clearly operating under a mistaken belief as well.

Never mind- all those people clearly know nothing and are wrong and you are right

spen666

Frank the tank wrote:

Buckled rims is right, Spen 666.

My nephew was not allowed to plead self defence in his case because he "persued his attacker" a few metres down the street. This being despite having had a glass stuck in his face in an unprovoked attack.

The irony was my nephew was charged his attacker was not.

There is a good reason why your nephew was not allowed to plead self defence. The only pleas allowed are guilty or not guilty.

If what you mean is that your nephew was not allowed to run self defence, then that is complete nonsense. Your nephew may not have been believed by a court, but he is still entitled to have run that as his defence.

Clearly in your nephew's case the evidence is not as you suggest it was. There must have been evidence that your nephew was not acting in self defence and also a lack of evidence to show your nephew was indeed attacked.

dilemna

A court and I mean the Mags could always make up their own mind and find suitable reasons to support their decision, for example, that they didn't believe the defendant was entitled to use self defence or if he was the belief he held of the threat he faced was misplaced or insufficient, or indeed the type or extent of self defence he did use was not appropriate or slightly too much force force was used, etc. And yet the defendant using self defence in the heat of the moment in immediate response to an aggressive act is not supposed to be held to a prescriptive list as his defence is on the spur of the moment. It is therefore extremely difficult to determine what is reasonable on such narrow prescriptive grounds. If the defendant appeals to the Crown Court they have to go through it all again as do all the other witnesses. He could then have a much more serious sentence imposed as well as huge costs.

Obviously if the initial self defence had very serious consequences then it wouldn't be prosecuted in the Mags court, but in the Crown Court where much more serious cases are heard and more severe penalties can be imposed.

Buckled rims is right. Deny everything and admit nothing. Being helpful or co-operative as would any normal never been in trouble person would if they ever found themselves in such a position will cost them dear, more than likely a criminal record and a LONG spell in prison, their life and reputation in ruins. No decent job prospects ever again. Disaster. One may as well top one's self.

spen666

Buckled_Rims wrote:

.....

Which comes back to my original statement, if I was on the jury a genuine homeowner defending his property will not get my jury vote for conviction no matter what the judge recommends.

This is exactly as it should be and is exactly what the legal position is. A genuine(?)(What is a non genuine homeowner?) homeowner or indeeed occupier is entitled to defend himself. There is a huge difference between defending oneself and seeking revenge

The Judge does not make any recommendation to the jury. The Judge's role is to sum up the evidence and to direct the jury on the law. The judge does not recommend what the jury should decide

The CPS will attempt to get the easiest conviction, which is usually the poor householder who has never been in trouble with the police before.

Complete tabloid nonsense. Despite having been a defence lawyer for more years than I admit, I cannot allow a slur like this on the CPS to go uncorrected.

The CPS do not seek to get a conviction at all costs. Their role is to convict the guilty and to present the evidence to a court fairly.

The police are the ones who arrest people, interview them and gather evidence which is presented to the CPS to prosecute. The CPS rarely prosecute someone defending their property.

What do I think of the law? Well, imagine squatting down and straining your bowels out after the senna pods have done their work

The lessons I've learnt in life regarding the law is never saying anything, you can't remember because you were drunk and the CPS will always charge the easiest targets with the best chance of conviction.

Would you prefer the CPS charge the cases with the least chance of conviction?

Argue otherwise, but you ain't going to change my view.

So you are narrow minded and not prepared to consider any evidence that points against you. It says a lot about you that you are not prepared to even consider other points of view

spen666

dilemna wrote:

A court and I mean the Mags could always make up their own mind and find suitable reasons to support their decision, for example, that they didn't believe the defendant was entitled to use self defence or if he was the belief he held of the threat he faced was misplaced or insufficient, or indeed the type or extent of self defence he did use was not appropriate or slightly too much force force was used, etc. And yet the defendant using self defence in the heat of the moment in immediate response to an aggressive act is not supposed to be held to a prescriptive list as his defence is on the spur of the moment. It is therefore extremely difficult to determine what is reasonable on such narrow prescriptive grounds. If the defendant appeals to the Crown Court they have to go through it all again as do all the other witnesses.

Buckled rims is right. Deny everything and admit nothing. Being helpful or co-operative as would any normal never been in trouble person would if they ever found themselves in such a position will cost them dear, more than likely a criminal record and a LONG spell in prison, their life and reputation in ruins. No decent job prospects ever again. Disaster. One may as well top one's self.

Not necessarily always the best approach. Remember the caution upon arrest "you do not have to say anything BUT IT MAY HARM YOUR DEFENCE IF YOU FAIL TO MENTION WHEN QUESTIONED SOMETHING YOU LATER RELY ON IN EVIDENCE. "

If you have a positive defence, then it may well be better to put it forward at an early stage. EG if you are arrested for a murder in Newcastle on 1st December at say 10pm but at that time you were say in Bristol at the cinema, you have an alibi and this could possibley be supported by CCTV evidence from near the cinema.

If you do not mention this, then: -
1) The CCTV evidence will not be seized and is likely to be destroyed by the trial date
2) The prosecution can comment adversely on your failure to mention this in interview
3) The jury can use your failure to mention this in interview as a reason to effectively discard/ discount your evidence at trial.

Thus it would probably not have been in your interest to fail to mention this in interview upon arrest.

This is a good example of how things are rarely black and white in law. sometimes it may be better to say nothing, but not always

dilemna

spen666 wrote:

Buckled_Rims wrote:

.....

Which comes back to my original statement, if I was on the jury a genuine homeowner defending his property will not get my jury vote for conviction no matter what the judge recommends.

This is exactly as it should be and is exactly what the legal position is. A genuine(?)(What is a non genuine homeowner?) homeowner or indeeed occupier is entitled to defend himself. There is a huge difference between defending oneself and seeking revenge

The Judge does not make any recommendation to the jury. The Judge's role is to sum up the evidence and to direct the jury on the law. The judge does not recommend what the jury should decide

The CPS will attempt to get the easiest conviction, which is usually the poor householder who has never been in trouble with the police before.

Complete tabloid nonsense. Despite having been a defence lawyer for more years than I admit, I cannot allow a slur like this on the CPS to go uncorrected.

The CPS do not seek to get a conviction at all costs. Their role is to convict the guilty and to present the evidence to a court fairly.

Surely the CPS or Crown Prosecutor's role is to present the Crown's case against the defendant to the court? Fairly - I am not so sure. The CPS are not there to convict. The magistrates or jury do this. Prosecutors will use any manouevre they think they can get away with fair or foul to further the Crown's case, just as any defence barrister will for his client to sow seeds of doubt or discredit a witness or evidence. It is an adversarial system. Sometimes unfair things happen and it takes a lot legal wrangling to put them right if indeed they are put right. Sometimes it is just too much trouble and things have to stand as they are. The only way of rectifying matters if the result is a conviction is by appeal and this brings a new set of uncertainties.



The police are the ones who arrest people, interview them and gather evidence which is presented to the CPS to prosecute. The CPS rarely prosecute someone defending their property.

What do I think of the law? Well, imagine squatting down and straining your bowels out after the senna pods have done their work

The lessons I've learnt in life regarding the law is never saying anything, you can't remember because you were drunk and the CPS will always charge the easiest targets with the best chance of conviction.

Would you prefer the CPS charge the cases with the least chance of conviction?

Argue otherwise, but you ain't going to change my view.

So you are narrow minded and not prepared to consider any evidence that points against you. It says a lot about you that you are not prepared to even consider other points of view

dilemna

spen666 wrote:

dilemna wrote:

A court and I mean the Mags could always make up their own mind and find suitable reasons to support their decision, for example, that they didn't believe the defendant was entitled to use self defence or if he was the belief he held of the threat he faced was misplaced or insufficient, or indeed the type or extent of self defence he did use was not appropriate or slightly too much force force was used, etc. And yet the defendant using self defence in the heat of the moment in immediate response to an aggressive act is not supposed to be held to a prescriptive list as his defence is on the spur of the moment. It is therefore extremely difficult to determine what is reasonable on such narrow prescriptive grounds. If the defendant appeals to the Crown Court they have to go through it all again as do all the other witnesses.

Buckled rims is right. Deny everything and admit nothing. Being helpful or co-operative as would any normal never been in trouble person would if they ever found themselves in such a position will cost them dear, more than likely a criminal record and a LONG spell in prison, their life and reputation in ruins. No decent job prospects ever again. Disaster. One may as well top one's self.

Not necessarily always the best approach. Remember the caution upon arrest "you do not have to say anything BUT IT MAY HARM YOUR DEFENCE IF YOU FAIL TO MENTION WHEN QUESTIONED SOMETHING YOU LATER RELY ON IN EVIDENCE.

If you have a positive defence, then it may well be better to put it forward at an early stage. EG if you are arrested for a murder in Newcastle on 1st December at say 10pm but at that time you were say in Bristol at the cinema, you have an alibi and this could possibley be supported by CCTV evidence from near the cinema.

If you do not mention this, then: -
1) The CCTV evidence will not be seized and is likely to be destroyed by the trial date
2) The prosecution can comment adversely on your failure to mention this in interview
3) The jury can use your failure to mention this in interview as a reason to effectively discard/ discount your evidence at trial.

Thus it would probably not have been in your interest to fail to mention this in interview upon arrest.

This is a good example of how things are rarely black and white in law. sometimes it may be better to say nothing, but not always

If you were at a cinema in Bristol Spen666 maybe the reason for you not mentioning it at first would be on account of the company you had enjoyed on that evening ...............? Shall we say, to be less than discreet, would compromise the identity and very possibly reputation of your lady (or gentleman).

spen666

dilemna wrote:

...
Surely the CPS or Crown Prosecutor's role is to present the Crown's case against the defendant to the court? Fairly - I am not so sure. The CPS are not there to convict. The magistrates or jury do this. Prosecutors will use any manouevre they think they can get away with fair or foul to further the Crown's case, just as any defence barrister will for his client to sow seeds of doubt or discredit a witness or evidence. It is an adversarial system. Sometimes unfair things happen and it takes a lot legal wrangling to put them right if indeed they are put right. Sometimes it is just too much trouble and things have to stand as they are. The only way of rectifying matters if the result is a conviction is by appeal and this brings a new set of uncertainties.

Absolutely and totally wrong.

The CPS and the defence are officers of the court and will be struck off for using foul methods.

I clearly did not express my last post very well. The role of the CPS is to present the evidence to the court fairly with a view to obtaining the conviction of the guilty and the acquittal of the innocent.

The CPS represent the Crown, not the alleged victim. Their role is different from that of the defence who are representing the defendant. The CPS are not there to get convictions at all costs. Indeed I have had cases where when something unusual happened in a case, after an adjournemnt the CPs present me with case law which showed the court should acquit my client, and subsequently did not continue the case.

It is a strange role that of the CPS, but they are not out to get convictions at all cost.

This is from the Code for Crown Prosecutors which all CPS lawyers must comply with

2.1 The decision to prosecute or to offer an individual an out-ofcourt
disposal is a serious step. Fair and effective prosecution is
essential to the maintenance of law and order. It is the duty of
prosecutors to make sure that the right person is prosecuted for
the right offence and to bring offenders to justice wherever
possible. Casework decisions taken fairly, impartially and with
integrity help to deliver justice for victims, witnesses, defendants
and the public.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/code2010english.pdf

Frank the tank

spen666 wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

Buckled rims is right, Spen 666.

My nephew was not allowed to plead self defence in his case because he "persued his attacker" a few metres down the street. This being despite having had a glass stuck in his face in an unprovoked attack.

The irony was my nephew was charged his attacker was not.

Frank, you'd better tell the Supreme court this news, and also the authors of Archbold on Criminal pleadings,and Blackstones Criminal Practice as well as all members of the criminal Bar as well as all those solicitors practicing criminal law because they are all clearly wrong. Oh and tell the CPS as well because they are clearly operating under a mistaken belief as well.

Never mind- all those people clearly know nothing and are wrong and you are right

I don't like your condecending tone. I was at court in support of my nephew and was present when the barrister informed my nephew and his parents that a plea of self defence would not be accepted by the crown as he (my nephew) had persued his attacker (who by the way was not charged at all) a few metres down the street.

spen666

Frank the tank wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

Buckled rims is right, Spen 666.

My nephew was not allowed to plead self defence in his case because he "persued his attacker" a few metres down the street. This being despite having had a glass stuck in his face in an unprovoked attack.

The irony was my nephew was charged his attacker was not.

Frank, you'd better tell the Supreme court this news, and also the authors of Archbold on Criminal pleadings,and Blackstones Criminal Practice as well as all members of the criminal Bar as well as all those solicitors practicing criminal law because they are all clearly wrong. Oh and tell the CPS as well because they are clearly operating under a mistaken belief as well.

Never mind- all those people clearly know nothing and are wrong and you are right

I don't like your condecending tone. I was at court in support of my nephew and was present when the barrister informed my nephew and his parents that a plea of self defence would not be accepted by the crown as he (my nephew) had persued his attacker (who by the way was not charged at all) a few metres down the street.

quite how you are able to decide my tone from text typed I don't know

You may have been in court, but either you do not understand the law or did not have the full picture on evidence.

Your nephew was not prevented from running a self defence argument. He was ADVISED it would not succeed. That is very different from him being PREVENTED from running such a defence.

Now, why did the barrister advise that self defence would not succeed? Firstly whether the CPS accept it or not is irrelevant as it would be for a jury to decide on guilt or innocence. The CPS may say they would not accept it- as they do in every case that goes to a trial.
The fact the barrister advised that self defence would not succeed and that your nephew pleaded guilty is clear indication that he did not act in self defence, but went beyond self defence and was actually guilty of an assault.

It is perfectly possible to be attacked by someone, and to go beyond self defence in your response. For example if you attacked me with a glass causing cuts etc to me and I punch you to the ground- that is self defence, but if I then continue to put the boot in whilst you are on the ground, then I have gone beyond self defence and would be guilty of an assault.

It is also possible that there is insufficient evidence to convict you of the initial assault, but sufficient evidence to convict me.

A distinction needs to be made between what is the legal position and what is the evidential position. It seems to me, on the information you have posted (& I accept that is not all the evidence/ information) thatyou are mixing the two. To properly understand your nephew's case one would need to see all the evidence in the case, not a summary of a couple of paragraphs from someone who was not a party to the proceedings and is not in a position to fully appreciate the leaglities of the case.

spen666

Frank the tank wrote:

....
I don't like your condecending tone. I was at court in support of my nephew and was present when the barrister informed my nephew and his parents that a plea of self defence would not be accepted by the crown as he (my nephew) had persued his attacker (who by the way was not charged at all) a few metres down the street.

The key here is this sentence. Your nephew in pursuing his assailant before assaulting him was not acting in self defence.

He did not just as you said earlier move towards his assailant, he pursued him. That suggests that he was no longer acting in self- defence.

The attack had taken place and concluded it would seem by the fact your nephew needed to pursue his assailant.

If his assailant was say 6 feet away and throwing glasses at your nephew, then he may have been justiified in moving towards his assailant ot disarm him. to chase him as he is running away is not necessary for self defence.

Quite rightly, the law prevents revenge attacks/ assaults. Otherwise we would have lynch mob justice

Frank the tank

I said in my first post my nephew persued him a few metres down the street. I never said move towards him that would imply a step (singular) or upper body movement.

The attacker hit my nephew in the face with a glass, then retreated. Obviously shaken and bleeding profusely and believing himself to be very seriosly hurt (which he was) nephew persued his assailant a few metres where he punched him three times knocking him to the ground and then too his credit walked away, leaving assailants' mates to look after him.

The reason why he was charged was he actually admitted he attcked his assailant (but claimed self defence and severe provocation) whereas his assailant denied he carried out the initial attack at all.

Why the cps didn't persue the initial attacker I don't know. What I do know is I believe given those circumstances (being hit in the face with a glass) most people if they were able too would have reacted as my nephew did, beit right or wrong in the eyes of the law, it's a human reaction. As it turns out it was the only retribution he got, so fair play otherwise some one would have carried out an unprovoked attack and got away with it scott-free.

EKIMIKE

dilemna wrote:

If you were at a cinema in Bristol Spen666 maybe the reason for you not mentioning it at first would be on account of the company you had enjoyed on that evening ...............? Shall we say, to be less than discreet, would compromise the identity and very possibly reputation of your lady (or gentleman).

Errrr so, Murder or exposed affair(which is a voluntary undertaking) ? Urrrrmmmm i'm struggling here as to which i'd choose. Jesus man! Are you joking?

I think it's pretty funny here that despite all the bigoted, tabloid sourced, bullshit that people believe - the law has an answer. Seriously, there's no conspiracy guys. The Law may not be black and white but it's certainly not arbitrary as some here would appear to believe.

EKIMIKE

Frank the tank wrote:

I said in my first post my nephew persued him a few metres down the street. I never said move towards him that would imply a step (singular) or upper body movement.

The attacker hit my nephew in the face with a glass, then retreated. Obviously shaken and bleeding profusely and believing himself to be very seriosly hurt (which he was) nephew persued his assailant a few metres where he punched him three times knocking him to the ground and then too his credit walked away, leaving assailants' mates to look after him.

The reason why he was charged was he actually admitted he attcked his assailant (but claimed self defence and severe provocation) whereas his assailant denied he carried out the initial attack at all.

Why the cps didn't persue the initial attacker I don't know. What I do know is I believe given those circumstances (being hit in the face with a glass) most people if they were able too would have reacted as my nephew did, beit right or wrong in the eyes of the law, it's a human reaction. As it turns out it was the only retribution he got, so fair play otherwise some one would have carried out an unprovoked attack and got away with it scott-free.

The law covers Self Defence and Provocation. The law doesn't cover Retribution. Simple.

markos1963

Whilst I agree with a lot of sentiments on here and would have no regret in pulling the trigger on someone who was attacking my family I have to go with a lot of Spen666's comments.

The law is there for a reason and whether we like it or not the CPS,Police and courts have to deal with these types of cases in the way they are presented to them. If we don't like it then we have to vote in politicians who will change it to what we want.

To a previous poster, I have served on 2 juries and there is no way I would prejudge a case just because of my beliefs(right or wrongly) It is far too an important thing to do for your community to bring your own agenda into court.

spen666

Buckled_Rims wrote:

....
You cannot, by the way, claim defense if you move towards the burglar and he says he was retreating. In that effect the case will go to court to decide.

Frank the tank wrote:

Buckled rims is right, Spen 666.
My nephew was not allowed to plead self defence in his case because he "persued his attacker" a few metres down the street. This being despite having had a glass stuck in his face in an unprovoked attack.

The irony was my nephew was charged his attacker was not.

Hence why I was talking about moving towards. Clearly we were not ad idem

BTW Provocation is not a defence to an assault, its only mitigation at best. That is not a defence.

The reason he was charged was because there was sufficient evidence to give a reasonable prospect of conviction.
This evidence may have come in part from his admission.

Similarily with other party. He was not charged because there was not sufficient evidence to give a reasonable prospect of conviction. The lack of an admission is paret of this.

It is an example of when an admission may not have helped his case