What's new
PNE Online
Welcome to PNE-Online. Why not register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox! You can also join up as a forum Patron to help support in the running costs of the forum.

Farmer shoots Burglar

prestonmadhouse said:
It didn’t end well for Tony Martin in 1999.
Click to expand...

That was a disgrace as well. You'd think from the public outcry back then that the law would have learnt from that event that the majority of the nation support a person's right to protect their property.

I always think it's an odd decision to target the members of society who own the majority of the guns in the country, yet still rural crime is a real problem.

I hope common sense prevails in this instance.
 
StayathomeFan said:
www.bbc.co.uk

Whaley Bridge: Farmer held over burglary shooting death

The man is being detained on suspicion of murder following the shooting, the BBC understands.
www.bbc.co.uk
If they were indeed Burglars, he shou wldalk free - the man should be able to defend his home from these scumbags.
Click to expand...

Society continues to devalue human life.

The man should be able to defend the safety of himself and his family. And if it turns out he was doing that, he will be rightly acquitted.

But this is a 19 year old lad. Nineteen. Not a hardened career criminal. Many lads do something stupid at that sort of age and we cannot have a society where it’s acceptable to kill someone for committing such an offence. This lad’s life has been ended - and his family’s ruined

Sure - it must have been horrible for the farmer to find burglars in the small hours. And, as I say, he might have been acted perfectly reasonably and lawfully. A charge of murder sounds harsh- unless they allege that he has acted vengefully or cruelly.
 
Regardless said:
But this is a 19 year old lad. Nineteen. Not a hardened career criminal. Many lads do something stupid at that sort of age and we cannot have a society where it’s acceptable to kill someone for committing such an offence. This lad’s life has been ended - and his family’s ruined
Click to expand...

Stupid is getting leathered and being caught having a piss in the street and getting put in the cells overnight. Not going out burgling people.
I'm sorry but whatever the age he deserved what he got. I'm sure if they'd got to the farmer before he got to them this case could be entirely different. Rats will do anything once they're cornered.
 
Regardless said:
Society continues to devalue human life.

The man should be able to defend the safety of himself and his family. And if it turns out he was doing that, he will be rightly acquitted.

But this is a 19 year old lad. Nineteen. Not a hardened career criminal. Many lads do something stupid at that sort of age and we cannot have a society where it’s acceptable to kill someone for committing such an offence. This lad’s life has been ended - and his family’s ruined

Sure - it must have been horrible for the farmer to find burglars in the small hours. And, as I say, he might have been acted perfectly reasonably and lawfully. A charge of murder sounds harsh- unless they allege that he has acted vengefully or cruelly.
Click to expand...
It can and does, rightfully you can use reasonable force proportionate to the circumstances. Details are limited in this case but if it’s anything like this https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ar-richard-osborn-brooks-london-a8896651.html then maybe the farmer had no choice to do what he did.

The age argument only goes so far, the surviving accomplices have been arrested for aggravated burglary implies weapon/s were used and a degree of planning went into it.

Sure - it must have been horrible for the farmer to find burglars in the small hours.
Click to expand...
I think you’re devaluing the impact of the initial crime on the farmer and diminishing the wider effects that crimes like this have in rural communities.
 
Libertine said:
I'm sorry but whatever the age he deserved what he got. I'm sure if they'd got to the farmer before he got to them this case could be entirely different. Rats will do anything once they're cornered.
Click to expand...

That really is reactionary and without basis unless you know of evidence that’s not in the article.

I certainly agree the age of the person killed is not relevant - but it just illustrates how his killing- IF it wasn’t justifiable on self-defence grounds- is an avoidable tragedy.
 
Regardless said:
That really is reactionary and without basis unless you know of evidence that’s not in the article.

I certainly agree the age of the person killed is not relevant - but it just illustrates how his killing- IF it wasn’t justifiable on self-defence grounds- is an avoidable tragedy.
Click to expand...

Not reactionary at all. I've thought about this long and hard in the 25 years since the Tony Martin case. For a start if someone who shouldn't be is in your house in the middle of the night I don't think you'd necessarily be in the correct frame of mind to weigh up your options. Fight or flight would kick in. The farmer fought and farmers have guns. The good news is this lad won't be bothering the gene pool any further.

The evidence is right there in the article; "Another man, in his 20s, was arrested on suspicion of aggravated burglary after the vehicle he was travelling in was stopped on the A6 near Chapel-en-le-Frith on Wednesday afternoon. He remains in custody."

As per Claudius's post above.

"An individual will be guilty of aggravated burglary under section 10 of the Theft Act 1986 if they commit any burglary – and have on them an offensive weapon. 'Simple' burglary is an offence under section 9 of the 1968 Act."
 
The Cottam one said:
He'd still be alive if he wasn't being a scumbag and trying to take something that wasn't his - got no sympathy for him.
Click to expand...
Nobody deserves to be shot dead for being a scumbag.

Torys and empathy/sympathy don't belong in the same sentence.
 
Libertine said:
Not reactionary at all. I've thought about this long and hard in the 25 years since the Tony Martin case. For a start if someone who shouldn't be is in your house in the middle of the night I don't think you'd necessarily be in the correct frame of mind to weigh up your options. Fight or flight would kick in. The farmer fought and farmers have guns. The good news is this lad won't be bothering the gene pool any further.

The evidence is right there in the article; "Another man, in his 20s, was arrested on suspicion of aggravated burglary after the vehicle he was travelling in was stopped on the A6 near Chapel-en-le-Frith on Wednesday afternoon. He remains in custody."

As per Claudius's post above.

"An individual will be guilty of aggravated
Click to expand...

Libertine said:
burglary under section 10 of the Theft Act 1986 if they commit any burglary – and have on them an offensive weapon. 'Simple' burglary is an offence under section 9 of the 1968 Act."
Click to expand...
Was he tooled up to change it from simple Burglary to "aggravated burglary?" I can't find anything, anywhere, that says he was.
 
Claudius said:
It can and does, rightfully you can use reasonable force proportionate to the circumstances. Details are limited in this case but if it’s anything like this https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ar-richard-osborn-brooks-london-a8896651.html then maybe the farmer had no choice to do what he did.

The age argument only goes so far, the surviving accomplices have been arrested for aggravated burglary implies weapon/s were used and a degree of planning went into it.


I think you’re devaluing the impact of the initial crime on the farmer and diminishing the wider effects that crimes like this have in rural communities.
Click to expand...

Not at all. As clearly stated, if he has sound self-defence grounds then he should and will be acquitted.
I also clearly stated that it must have been frightening for the farmer to find burglars in the middle of the night - this fact should and will be taken into account when they weigh up self-defence.

What I baulk at is this simple reaction from some - particularly the OP - that a burglar is definitely fair game, no matter what the circumstances.
 
Regardless said:
Not at all. As clearly stated, if he has sound self-defence grounds then he should and will be acquitted.
I also clearly stated that it must have been frightening for the farmer to find burglars in the middle of the night - this fact should and will be taken into account when they weigh up self-defence.

What I baulk at is this simple reaction from some - particularly the OP - that a burglar is definitely fair game, no matter what the circumstances.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how you would define a "career criminal" and link it to age. There will be lots of teenagers out there with prior criminal convictions that certainly put them in "career criminal" territory.

Ultimately someone has broken in to his house with the intention of taking things that do not belong to them. The homeowner doesn't know if that extends to harming him and/or his family. All they know is that someone is in the house and if they've broken one law, the chances are they'll happily break another. What someone may or may not do in the heat of the moment with adrenaline in overdrive if they fear for their own or their family's safety is essentially a risk that the burglar has accepted as part and parcel of their "career" choice.
 
Libertine said:
Not reactionary at all. I've thought about this long and hard in the 25 years since the Tony Martin case. For a start if someone who shouldn't be is in your house in the middle of the night I don't think you'd necessarily be in the correct frame of mind to weigh up your options. Fight or flight would kick in. The farmer fought and farmers have guns. The good news is this lad won't be bothering the gene pool any further.

The evidence is right there in the article; "Another man, in his 20s, was arrested on suspicion of aggravated burglary after the vehicle he was travelling in was stopped on the A6 near Chapel-en-le-Frith on Wednesday afternoon. He remains in custody."

As per Claudius's post above.

"An individual will be guilty of aggravated burglary under section 10 of the Theft Act 1986 if they commit any burglary – and have on them an offensive weapon. 'Simple' burglary is an offence under section 9 of the 1968 Act."
Click to expand...

I need to row back to a degree. The bit about aggravated burglary appears in the article long after it starts rattling on about background stuff - and I skim-read those parts and missed that in the detail. Fair enough- but that surely should have been in the opening couple of paragraphs.

But my point stands that if there is evidence that there was a reasonable case for self defence then he should and will be acquitted. If the burglary was aggravated, then this questioning on suspicion of murder is likely to be pretty short.

People should, and are, allowed to kill in certain circumstances - but I still baulk greatly at attitudes that say people essentially deserve to be shot dead for stealing. Yours was a good post except for the gene pool comment. If it turns out that the lad genuinely was in a frame of mind to kill, then I tend to agree. But there’s a tabloid glorification of “scumbags getting their just desserts” that is unhealthy.
 
Damp Squib said:
I'm not sure how you would define a "career criminal" and link it to age. There will be lots of teenagers out there with prior criminal convictions that certainly put them in "career criminal" territory.

Ultimately someone has broken in to his house with the intention of taking things that do not belong to them. The homeowner doesn't know if that extends to harming him and/or his family. All they know is that someone is in the house and if they've broken one law, the chances are they'll happily break another. What someone may or may not do in the heat of the moment with adrenaline in overdrive if they fear for their own or their family's safety is essentially a risk that the burglar has accepted as part and parcel of their "career" choice.
Click to expand...


I knew my post would prove controversial because it is seems not to be socially acceptable to state that there can be circumstances where it is immoral and criminal to shoot a burglar.
There are many circumstances when it not immoral or criminal too - and as I stated right from the start- this may well prove to be one of those.
 
Regardless said:
People should, and are, allowed to kill in certain circumstances - but I still baulk greatly at attitudes that say people essentially deserve to be shot dead for stealing. Yours was a good post except for the gene pool comment. If it turns out that the lad genuinely was in a frame of mind to kill, then I tend to agree. But there’s a tabloid glorification of “scumbags getting their just desserts” that is unhealthy.
Click to expand...

Yep, maybe a bit far that bit not knowing the lad. I just kind of judge these people by me and my mates at 19 who would never consider burgling someone and others from back then who we knew of locally who have been convicted of this and what they're like now. The ones who are still with us that is. You definitely wouldn't want them living next door to you. I consider getting into burglary as being a big step on the criminal ladder.

Also not shot for stealing. Burglary is much bigger. You've gone into someone's house, where they should feel safe in the middle of the night, in this case down a country lane so it's pitch black. The person who owns that house absolutely has the right to defend themself and ask questions later. If these lads don't burgle this doesn't happen, so the blame for the consequences lies solely with them.

I'd like to think if this ever happened to me my response would be to fight to protect my family. I'm hoping I never need to find out, because I don't know how you sleep soundly at night afterwards.
 
Top