Only if he takes them to the game dealer !!
Home Defence
- Thread starter chriswjx
- Start date
- Status
Correct. In that singular and specific moment the doctrine that necessity knows no law applies.
Last edited:
The shotgun owner was arrested by police and the CPS made a decision that it wasn't in the public interest to proceed further . Very lucky that the CPS put it in the " not in the public interest" stamp on it ! This does in no way mean it a legal course of action to take by another householder / gun owner .Total rubbish. I've kept out of this thread yet there comes time to say enough of the same nonsense being repeated needs rebuttal. There was indeed a case in Loughborough where a licensed shotgun shooting was used.
Farm Shooting: Burglars Jailed For Four Years
Two burglars shot by a homeowner who was later arrested are each jailed for four years.news.sky.com
%20and%20Daniel%20Mansell)
'Being shot is a chance you take if you're a burglar': Judge shows no leniency to raider blasted by shotgun
Joshua O’Gorman begged for a reduced sentence after being blasted with a shotgun during a raid on a cottagewww.mirror.co.uk
This in no way makes using a firearm against a burglar, expectable in Law . It cannot now be used in case law as a precedent in various other cases after it that make it into the court room . I suspect that was a big primary reason it never actually ended up in court .
Be interesting to know if the farmer lost his licence for his actions
I wonder whether CPS thought it wasn't in the public interest to prosecute the householder because he had behaved appropriately in law - and therefore the chance of successfully prosecuting him for anything was slim.
Dunwaters
Well-Known Member
The soldier was operating under active standing orders, he opened fire at a vehicle which had refused to stop at a checkpoint at a time when the police and military in NI were effectively operating on a war footing.
The court found that it was acceptable to shoot while the vehicle was coming towards him at speed, where he was found to be at fault was by continuing to fire after the vehicle had passed him and no longer constituted a threat.
That’s the bit I find unacceptable, when your reptile brain floods your system with adrenaline and you react, you can’t transition back to logical brain instantly.
If you get into the twilight zone of reactive violence, you won’t stop until you’re dead or the threat to you or your family is neutralised to your satisfaction.
To expect instant constant and logical reevaluation of a life threatening situation of less than a couple of seconds duration is unreasonable.
That, by the way, is just my opinion, I’m not a solicitor, barrister or a judge.
The Clegg decision is now legal precedent in the UK, having been made by a court of record, it sets a very tight definition of self defence.
Sorry but can we be talking about different cases?
I said Lee Clegg, not Lee Corey.
Rake Aboot
Well-Known Member
I’m still waiting
Apologies,
The Corey was a typo. The clegg case was not self defence the minute the immediate threat passed in my opinion, no standing order ever decreed to engage vehicle does not posing a threat, although the rumoured shoot to kill policy may be the alleged order you are referencing. The premise of which never made any sense, no one ever shoots to wound although some will claim that it is a taught practice.
However the court found later and under some dispute that the fatal shot was fired in to the side of the vehicle and not the rear.
Unfortunately the decision to continue firing in to the rear of the car was a foolish one, all be it in the heat of the moment.
Unfortunately Clegg and the other members of that patrol will have to make peace with the decisions they made, only they truly know the detail of the incident. And two young people paid with their life’s, the action of joy riding through an army checkpoint as they and people they associated with had likely done before proved fatal. I agree the soldiers were likely frightened beyond the imagination of most and reacted instinctively. But they were soldiers and therefore accountable for the actions of the day.
The army anywhere should by no means be above the law NI was a very difficult environment to operate in. Where it became easy to view certain groups as all enemy. Regardless of the truth.
All sides have shameful days. I am glad the worst off the troubles have long since past.
I hope the families of the two teenagers killed and the families of the innocent victims on all sides can seek some comfort in a now largely peaceful North, although not quite as peaceful as the mainland news would have us all think.
Last edited:
LeftHandGuy
Well-Known Member
The Army is indeed not above the law, but it should be noted that Clegg was cleared on appeal of first the murder conviction, and subsequently the conviction for "attempting to wound". If he's still alive, and if he applied for an FAC, my guess is that he'd probably get one.
As may be Ratel - but not sensible on here respectfully
We can guess and guess some more . The gun was not used legally within the law in our Nation but the case precedent likely had a good enough chance at setting a precedent if it went before the court with the right jury , meaning others could use it again and again to get off the hook for shooting intruders . Now that would be serious !
Could you please just let us know what you are basing this opinion on?
Swedish
Well-Known Member
That is not correct at all. This is what was said:
Judith Walker, chief crown prosecutor for the East Midlands, said: "Looking at the evidence, it is clear to me that Mr and Mrs Ferrie did what they believed was necessary to protect themselves and their home from intruders.
"As crown prosecutors, we look at all cases on their merit and according to the evidence in the individual case.
"I am satisfied that this is a case where householders, faced with intruders in frightening circumstances, acted in reasonable self-defence.
"The law is clear that when anyone acts in good faith, using reasonable force, doing what they honestly feel is necessary to protect themselves, their families or their property, will not be prosecuted for such action."
shakey jake
Well-Known Member
she clearly doesnt know anything about the law, has she even asked bowlands opinion??
LlygodenFawr
Well-Known Member
Donate to #freethefarmer, organized by Joshua Lomas
Hi We are raising much needed funds to support our family and my father, Rob, through this very diffic… Joshua Lomas needs your support for #freethefarmer
www.gofundme.com
I was commenting on the use of a firearm . Particularly in the fact that firearms are not allowed in UK law and in self defence the reaction to the threat faced should be balanced to the threat posed . IE if the attacker has a bat the defender may use a bat or similar , in reality of course " balanced " being the important bit . I think if the case is as the media portrays ( rarely does this happen i feel in the press ) its something of a "precedent" setter within the law . Although what you read in the press is never going to be same as in reality .
Perhaps due regard to the circumstances not reported by the press it was balanced to the actual offence . Number 6 at 100 + yards say? ( though firearms need a plan , like opening a safe , loading etc before use ) . The issue here is "REASONABLE " FORCE
A crazy move to take and a lucky escape for the homeowner IMHO If as reported by the press !
Read the law on self defence particularly regards firearms , remember this is a press article and we do not have all the facts mind .
Stalker62
Well-Known Member
The irony of this comment is staggering - bearing in mind your continued denial of the facts as explained (ad nauseam) to you, on this forum, by a goodly cross-section of the members.
It is OK to not know a thing.
It is not OK to continue to not know a thing when one has been told, until you are ...
I am not a great fan of censorship, but I do wonder if closing this thread may be an act of mercy.
Forgive me speaking bluntly.
You are either incapable of understanding the issues on which you post, or you are wilfully and mischievously maintaining your position, in spite of (and contrary to), the facts, the law and the evidence.
Whatever it is, it is an unattractive trait, and I for one, grow weary of it.
Swedish
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry but this is gibberish.
- Status
