Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Another Tony Martin

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Another Tony Martin

Old 20th Jan 2010, 11:09
  #121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edinburgh and 3C
Age: 68
Posts: 195
Refused leave to appeal against conviction.
Succeeded in appeal against sentence.
MagnusP is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2010, 11:35
  #122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 81
I think Hussain clearly went too far in pursuing his assailant, in the eyes of the law. You can sympathise with him though, he has a very sound mitigation for acting in passion. If he had overpowered him in the house and done him there, it probably would have seemed more acceptable. the chasing bit was his undoing.
You know, this domestic self-defence question vexes you the older you get. I recall my mother being upset when she found a lead pipe under her 80 year old parents bed. What damage could someone in their '80's do to an intruder set on GBH?

20 years ago, I would probably have been OK with facing up to a couple of malnourished chavs if cornered. In fact I had the misfortune of having to eject an intruder about 5 years ago. Finding someone on your landing, while you emerge in the dark, middle aged, unarmed, stark naked and without your contact lenses in, is not a pleasant situation.

I know exactly what my plan is for dealing with this scenario if it happens again while I still remain reasonably swack. Intruder gets as many chances as possible to leave of his own accord, even if he has my watch or car keys in his hand. If he is looking for a physical fisticuffs struggle, I won't give him one, because I know, nowadays I would lose. But what if they want to hurt you?

Do armed police ever shoot to wound? When they make a decision that their or other lives are in mortal danger, they warn, then shoot to kill. If the person ends up immobilised and alive, so much the better, but if they die in the process, too bad. The law is on their side!

I would have thought most 'middle Englanders' would with a bit of prior consideration, defend themselves and their family from physical harm, and do everything possible to be sure that the outcome is successful. What good is a 'square go' when the consequences of losing are so high. You have plenty time to think about it when trussed up with a bag over your head. So get in there 100% once you make that decision.

Going down the route of discussing preferences for 'malice aforethought' is probably not where mods would like to go, so I'll leave it at that, except to say, amongst your socks and other things, a very bright tactical light that can strobe is a great thing to have in you bedside drawer.
Cheerio is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2010, 11:53
  #123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: SW England
Age: 73
Posts: 3,834
Cheerio - on a lighter note may I suggest a gentleman of your age should be wearing proper pyjamas and have a sensible dressing gown to hand - you'll feel much more confident when confronting intruders.
Tankertrashnav is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2010, 11:58
  #124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 81
Good God man! Pyjamas? Being of good 'Beaker People' stock, I'm just grateful Mrs C lets me in at night.....
Cheerio is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2010, 12:30
  #125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Quahog
Posts: 150
I think justice has been served, and I can understand Munir Hussain would have been severely provoked and afraid by having been tied up along with his family by intruders. The same cannot be said for Tokeer Hussain, which is no doubt why he received a heavier sentence. As for the intruder getting away scot free, I wouldn't say a lifetime with brain damage is exactly scot free, deserved or not.

Too many people view such matters as this or the Tony Martin case as the law going after the victims or householders being penalised for defending themselves, but nothing could be further from the truth. The law allows householders to defend themselves, family and property by whatever means are appropriate to the threat, and there have been many cases where householders have either not been prosecuted or have been cleared for reasons of self defence.

If you are able, you could legally do a reasonable amount of damage to an intruder, as long as you don't go totally stupid or pursue them outside your property with the intent of extracting revenge, which is what Martin and the Hussain brothers did. Understandable perhaps but oversteps the law and quite rightly so. The law may also take a view on responses that are deemed to be less than proportionate, such as the Uzzi or baseball bat beside the bed.

What you should do, however, is a different matter as Cheerio indicates. If I were an intruder and Cheerio emerged naked from his bedroom I certainly wouldn't stick around. Unfortunately some intruders may be made of hardier stuff and much of what is written on internet forums about what people claim they "would" do is bluster and bullsh*t, assuming they weren't overpowered by the intruder(s) or had their weapons taken from them and used against them. If intruders don't scarper after the initial confrontation your options are limited and the old 999 option probably the best. Worth a note, if you want to stay silent rather than talk to the emergency operator and alert intruders you are awake dialling "55" when the phone is answered automatically routes it to the police as an emergency call.

BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | When are silent 999 calls cut off?
Dodo56 is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2010, 14:42
  #126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Age: 56
Posts: 223
The salient point that I see as missing from this thread is the power of a citizen to arrest and the right to recover property.

This guy walked into a burglary perpetrated by an armed intruder who had obviously been there long enough to tie up his family. Doubtless, he had his pockets full of swag. It seems reasonable that he should give it back, and if he refuses to do so, there is probable cause to effect an arrest. As the subject is known to be armed and uncooperative, use of progressive force to obtain his compete submission seems entirely reasonable.


If it is not, then it appears to me that the precedent being set is that there is no right in the UK to protection of property...


(We'll just gloss over the fact that I happen to live in a place where there is no "duty to retreat" and I would have killed this son of a bitch before he was able to get out of my house.)
421dog is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2010, 15:56
  #127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Surrey UK/Quebec CA
Posts: 148
It seems to me that your home in the UK is not treated how it should be. As 421dog knows, I think that the USA have a much better belief when it comes to intruders in your home.

The 'make my day law' as I have heard it called perhaps doesnt put it in the best light but fundamentally it works. I hear someone break into my house downstairs. I pick up my Beretta 92fs, walk to the top of the stairs and shout down to the visiter, warning him. Infact it is his choice to decide whether "I am going to shoot you" is a warning clause or not, but we have the right to think for ourselves and all that.

Why is it that shooting and killing that intruder is not ok? He knows the risks involved with his chosen career. Why should I, already the victim of a crime by this point, have to wait to see if he leaves or wants to harm me or my family?

Of course if he is 100 yards down the road and I shoot him then yes, give me a life sentance (I'll take the 25 years, which is 15 after my degree and then 7 after I 'find' God).

I seriously do not understand why all this "equal" "appropriate" "reasonable" force crap applies in MY home.

Can someone explain why I am wrong please.
PilotPieces is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2010, 16:09
  #128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Age: 56
Posts: 223
There was a case in Houston a few years ago where a guy saw someone breaking into his truck about two blocks away. He grabbed his deer rifle and hollered at the guy to no avail. So he dropped him. There was a bit of rigamarole, but the upshot was that the grand jury declined to indict him. Apparently, in Texas, there is also precedent that appropriate force, up to and including deadly force may be used to protect property when failure to do so would result in an unreasonable risk of not being able to recover it.

This sort of makes sense in a realistic sense, for example: What would happen in the UK if someone charged up and knocked down the armed guard carrying the moneybags out of the bank? I would imagine he'd get shot. The excuse would be that the guard "feared for his life" but the reality is, the guard is protecting the money with his life, and there would be no danger to him if he just gave up the lolly...

In some places, they are just a bit more pragmatic (or honest)
421dog is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2010, 16:25
  #129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Surrey UK/Quebec CA
Posts: 148
Shot with what? Even the armed police are hesitant to shoot anyone due to having little support afterwards. Don't blame them.
PilotPieces is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.