Still a Major Fraud???
That well known trendy lefty liberal campaigning rag, ‘The Daily Telegraph’ outlined Barras' criminal record, and his emotional state at the time. The paper revealed that:
“THE teenage burglar shot dead at a farmhouse last August had a criminal record stretching back to when he was 12, Norwich Crown Court was told yesterday. Fred Barras, 16, had made 18 court appearances - mainly for burglary and theft but including two for assaults on policemen - by the time he was shot in the back at Bleak House in Emneth, Norfolk”
Other papers reported that this was to have been Barras' first 'big job'. The Telegraph described the incident in some detail.
"Fearon maintained that he and Barras had set out to rob a cottage in the farm's grounds and had entered the farmhouse only to escape Martin's three guard dogs......Confronted by one of the rottweilers, however, he said the pair retreated into a wooded area. Mr Fearon said: "Fred was clinging to my shoulder. He was frightened and crying." With the dog snarling and barking, he said they had stumbled across what they believed was a shed and accidentally smashed a window. They clambered in to escape the dog. They were not interested in stealing anything by this time, he said. Then the shooting started. "I saw what I thought was a torch. I saw a flash. I heard Fred say: 'He got me.' " He said he turned to see an "old man" in the hallway. "I saw another flash and next my leg felt numb."
"Tony Martin, 55, shot Fred Barras in the back from about 12 feet, causing injuries that killed him within two minutes, it was claimed. Fearon said in desperation to escape he ripped out a window covered in iron bars. He had crawled away, across a field, passing out twice before reaching a bungalow. Barras crawled after him but collapsed and died in undergrowth about 15 yards from the house.
Rosamund Horwood-Smart, QC, prosecuting, said that Mr Martin had not acted in self-defence and the shooting had been calculated. Mrs Horwood-Smart told the court that the dying teenager's last words were: "He's got me. I'm sorry. Please don't. Mum!"
Mrs Horwood-Smart added: "He was vitriolic about burglars, particularly gipsies, and he talked about putting them in one of his fields surrounded by barbed wire and machinegunning them." She said the unsolved thefts from his farm had led to him losing all faith in the police to handle rural crime. "You're on your own and you're the law," he told fellow farmers, according to the prosecution.
Mrs Horwood-Smart said: "He fired at Barras and Fearon not in self-defence but in accordance with his professed view that the only way to stop thieves was to shoot them. In acting the way he did, his intent was to kill or cause really serious injuries to his victims."
The Telegraph also offered the snippet that it had been alleged that:
"after the shooting, Martin had planted two silver jugs and a silver pot found in the holdalls he had left in the farmhouse, in an attempt to justify killing Barras."
and that
"Martin went to his neighbours and told them that he had shot at what he believed to be three burglars. He was told to call the police. He drove to his mother's home, where he left the shotgun in a lavatory, and went to a friend's hotel in Wisbech, where he was arrested at about 7am on Aug 21."
“THE teenage burglar shot dead at a farmhouse last August had a criminal record stretching back to when he was 12, Norwich Crown Court was told yesterday. Fred Barras, 16, had made 18 court appearances - mainly for burglary and theft but including two for assaults on policemen - by the time he was shot in the back at Bleak House in Emneth, Norfolk”
Other papers reported that this was to have been Barras' first 'big job'. The Telegraph described the incident in some detail.
"Fearon maintained that he and Barras had set out to rob a cottage in the farm's grounds and had entered the farmhouse only to escape Martin's three guard dogs......Confronted by one of the rottweilers, however, he said the pair retreated into a wooded area. Mr Fearon said: "Fred was clinging to my shoulder. He was frightened and crying." With the dog snarling and barking, he said they had stumbled across what they believed was a shed and accidentally smashed a window. They clambered in to escape the dog. They were not interested in stealing anything by this time, he said. Then the shooting started. "I saw what I thought was a torch. I saw a flash. I heard Fred say: 'He got me.' " He said he turned to see an "old man" in the hallway. "I saw another flash and next my leg felt numb."
"Tony Martin, 55, shot Fred Barras in the back from about 12 feet, causing injuries that killed him within two minutes, it was claimed. Fearon said in desperation to escape he ripped out a window covered in iron bars. He had crawled away, across a field, passing out twice before reaching a bungalow. Barras crawled after him but collapsed and died in undergrowth about 15 yards from the house.
Rosamund Horwood-Smart, QC, prosecuting, said that Mr Martin had not acted in self-defence and the shooting had been calculated. Mrs Horwood-Smart told the court that the dying teenager's last words were: "He's got me. I'm sorry. Please don't. Mum!"
Mrs Horwood-Smart added: "He was vitriolic about burglars, particularly gipsies, and he talked about putting them in one of his fields surrounded by barbed wire and machinegunning them." She said the unsolved thefts from his farm had led to him losing all faith in the police to handle rural crime. "You're on your own and you're the law," he told fellow farmers, according to the prosecution.
Mrs Horwood-Smart said: "He fired at Barras and Fearon not in self-defence but in accordance with his professed view that the only way to stop thieves was to shoot them. In acting the way he did, his intent was to kill or cause really serious injuries to his victims."
The Telegraph also offered the snippet that it had been alleged that:
"after the shooting, Martin had planted two silver jugs and a silver pot found in the holdalls he had left in the farmhouse, in an attempt to justify killing Barras."
and that
"Martin went to his neighbours and told them that he had shot at what he believed to be three burglars. He was told to call the police. He drove to his mother's home, where he left the shotgun in a lavatory, and went to a friend's hotel in Wisbech, where he was arrested at about 7am on Aug 21."
Fair enough Jacko,
Martin should have had no fear, these thieving (potentially murdering), bastards have a code that we should all feel at ease with. You really are a tw*t and I look forward to your response to their first visit to your abode in the depths of your comfortable sleep.
Put the kettle on and chat about the hardknocks will you??
Martin should have had no fear, these thieving (potentially murdering), bastards have a code that we should all feel at ease with. You really are a tw*t and I look forward to your response to their first visit to your abode in the depths of your comfortable sleep.
Put the kettle on and chat about the hardknocks will you??
Last edited by osbo; 26th Apr 2003 at 09:32.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Osbo
Society demands that we conduct ourselves in a certain manner:[list=1][*]When confronted by a burglar, we are required to make a judgment as to whether taking a person's life is warranted. If our life is threatened, we are entitled to kill in self-defence. We are not entitled to kill for any other reason. If we make the choice to kill for other reasons, we are criminals and will be punished by the law. (Of course, the law should punish the burglar, as well.) [*]When confronted with an opinion with which we disagree, we are required to make a judgment also. We can either counter the argument, or we can resort to puerile name-calling. If we make the choice to resort to puerile name-calling, we diminish ourselves and our argument.[/list=1]
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko
Thank you for clearing that up. Looks like we're agreed that Barras (like the other two burglars with him) had a long criminal record including using violence on previous occasions when caught. And agreed there is no basis for your earlier claim that Barras "begged (sobbing, apparently) for his life and Mr Martin shot him.
The Telegraph simply quotes Fearon's account of the burglary. ie the account of a professional burglar who has been proved on numerous occasions to be thoroughly dishonest. Just because the jury was satisfied that Mr Martin was wrong to shoot doesn't mean they believed Fearon's 'we only broke into the farmhouse to escape the dogs' story.
I'm not trying to go behind the verdict of the jury. They heard the evidence and came to what they considered to be the proper verdict.
My concern was that, for some reason, you seem very anxious to play down the fear in which Mr Martin lived and do all you can to make him (the victim of the burglary) out to be such an evil man whilst trying to make the burglars sound like naughty boys. They weren't; they were criminals with long records. This was not a spur of the moment 'opportunist' burglary. These professional burglars had selected Mr Martin's farmhouse because of the belief in the criminal world that there were rich pickings to be had, and travelled all the way from the Midlands to Norfolk especially to break into his house in the middle of the night knowing he would be at home on his own and unable to summon help.
Thank you for clearing that up. Looks like we're agreed that Barras (like the other two burglars with him) had a long criminal record including using violence on previous occasions when caught. And agreed there is no basis for your earlier claim that Barras "begged (sobbing, apparently) for his life and Mr Martin shot him.
The Telegraph simply quotes Fearon's account of the burglary. ie the account of a professional burglar who has been proved on numerous occasions to be thoroughly dishonest. Just because the jury was satisfied that Mr Martin was wrong to shoot doesn't mean they believed Fearon's 'we only broke into the farmhouse to escape the dogs' story.
I'm not trying to go behind the verdict of the jury. They heard the evidence and came to what they considered to be the proper verdict.
My concern was that, for some reason, you seem very anxious to play down the fear in which Mr Martin lived and do all you can to make him (the victim of the burglary) out to be such an evil man whilst trying to make the burglars sound like naughty boys. They weren't; they were criminals with long records. This was not a spur of the moment 'opportunist' burglary. These professional burglars had selected Mr Martin's farmhouse because of the belief in the criminal world that there were rich pickings to be had, and travelled all the way from the Midlands to Norfolk especially to break into his house in the middle of the night knowing he would be at home on his own and unable to summon help.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 26th Apr 2003 at 18:31.
Flying Lawyer,
It's about balance. Martin benefited from a media campaign which sought to explain and excuse what he did, and which painted him as a completely innocent 'ordinary bloke' who made an honest mistake and accidentally and unintentionally killed some major criminal while quaking in his boots with fear.
I don't think that is an accurate picture.
Fearon was undeniably a man with a long record. Barras had a long record for one so young, but it would be foolish to judge him as a 'violent career criminal'. That was not the impression of his parole officer (or are we going to accept the stereotype that all such people are wet, hand-wringing liberals who always see the best in their 'clients'?).
Having many friends who work in the criminal justice system, I can assure you that the impressive sounding 'assaulting the police' charge is remarkably common (and in some Forces has been used as a catch-all), and that those so-charged have often done no more than resist arrest. I don't condone it, of course, I'm just suggesting that it may give a misleading impression of these chaps 'hard man' image.
You can 'google' just as well as I can, and so (if you choose) will come across the various accounts of Barras sobbing. In one such account (Sunday Times if memory serves), Martin himself acknowledged hearing crying - but before he entered the room.... In any case his last words were fairly descriptive - "He's got me. I'm sorry. Please don't. Mum!"
Use your imagination and wit to picture the circumstances under which such words would be used. Or did he mistake Martin for his mother, perhaps?
Osbo,
If I ever get a nocturnal visit of this sort, you may be assured that I will not shoot the visitor to death. As a law-abiding bloke, you may also be assured that I do not possess a repeating pump action shotgun, nor a convenient 'sawn off'. As a sane person, if I did have one, and if I kept it loaded under the bed, I'd ensure that the first round was blank or ball (and not buckshot), in order that it could be used as a warning shot. You would be unwise to assume that I would not posess and would not use a baseball bat or its equivalent.
You may also be assured that I will take the law into my own hands in what I would view as a rather more proportionate manner, but which might still lead to my facing charges. If my actions involved a kettle and hardknocks it wouldn't involve either tea or sympathy, however. If convicted of ABH, GBH, or criminal assault, it will be a fair cop, and I would trust to the good sense of a jury to decide whether my actions were appropriate.
No-one is suggesting that Barras didn't deserve a damned good hiding, nor that he should not already have been in prison. I have never suggested that Barras' deprived background excused his criminality, nor that his criminality should go unpunished. It may even be that Barras represents exactly the sort of case for which 'cruel and unusual punishments' outlawed by the EU (like the birch) would actually serve a useful purpose.
The argument here is the very narrow one as to whether an unbalanced, racist, thug like Martin had the right to carry out a death sentance.
It's about balance. Martin benefited from a media campaign which sought to explain and excuse what he did, and which painted him as a completely innocent 'ordinary bloke' who made an honest mistake and accidentally and unintentionally killed some major criminal while quaking in his boots with fear.
I don't think that is an accurate picture.
Fearon was undeniably a man with a long record. Barras had a long record for one so young, but it would be foolish to judge him as a 'violent career criminal'. That was not the impression of his parole officer (or are we going to accept the stereotype that all such people are wet, hand-wringing liberals who always see the best in their 'clients'?).
Having many friends who work in the criminal justice system, I can assure you that the impressive sounding 'assaulting the police' charge is remarkably common (and in some Forces has been used as a catch-all), and that those so-charged have often done no more than resist arrest. I don't condone it, of course, I'm just suggesting that it may give a misleading impression of these chaps 'hard man' image.
You can 'google' just as well as I can, and so (if you choose) will come across the various accounts of Barras sobbing. In one such account (Sunday Times if memory serves), Martin himself acknowledged hearing crying - but before he entered the room.... In any case his last words were fairly descriptive - "He's got me. I'm sorry. Please don't. Mum!"
Use your imagination and wit to picture the circumstances under which such words would be used. Or did he mistake Martin for his mother, perhaps?
Osbo,
If I ever get a nocturnal visit of this sort, you may be assured that I will not shoot the visitor to death. As a law-abiding bloke, you may also be assured that I do not possess a repeating pump action shotgun, nor a convenient 'sawn off'. As a sane person, if I did have one, and if I kept it loaded under the bed, I'd ensure that the first round was blank or ball (and not buckshot), in order that it could be used as a warning shot. You would be unwise to assume that I would not posess and would not use a baseball bat or its equivalent.
You may also be assured that I will take the law into my own hands in what I would view as a rather more proportionate manner, but which might still lead to my facing charges. If my actions involved a kettle and hardknocks it wouldn't involve either tea or sympathy, however. If convicted of ABH, GBH, or criminal assault, it will be a fair cop, and I would trust to the good sense of a jury to decide whether my actions were appropriate.
No-one is suggesting that Barras didn't deserve a damned good hiding, nor that he should not already have been in prison. I have never suggested that Barras' deprived background excused his criminality, nor that his criminality should go unpunished. It may even be that Barras represents exactly the sort of case for which 'cruel and unusual punishments' outlawed by the EU (like the birch) would actually serve a useful purpose.
The argument here is the very narrow one as to whether an unbalanced, racist, thug like Martin had the right to carry out a death sentance.
Lupus Domesticus
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In life, we all have choices, and choices all have consequences. When we make a choice, we must, by definition, accept the consequences of that choice.
If a person chooses to break into another person's home, with the intention of stealing that person's property or doing them harm, one of the consequences they must accept is that they may get shot.
If this happens, they don't really have the right to complain.
Whether the response of the victim is legal, or morally justifiable, is irrelevant. Shot is shot. It is an undeniable possible consequence.
Perhaps, with the benefit of hindsight, the now deceased young burglar will make better choices in his next life.
Like not robbing people.
Life can sometimes appear harsh, but in the long run, it often proves to be fair.
If a person chooses to break into another person's home, with the intention of stealing that person's property or doing them harm, one of the consequences they must accept is that they may get shot.
If this happens, they don't really have the right to complain.
Whether the response of the victim is legal, or morally justifiable, is irrelevant. Shot is shot. It is an undeniable possible consequence.
Perhaps, with the benefit of hindsight, the now deceased young burglar will make better choices in his next life.
Like not robbing people.
Life can sometimes appear harsh, but in the long run, it often proves to be fair.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said. I think it's called Darwinism. If you're stupid enough to go out and rob people, there's a fair chance you'll end up out of the gene pool. Which is a good thing, me thinks.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Oxfordshire
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Morality of Martin versus Barras
Statistics show, perhaps surprisingly to some, that the UK is one of the most violent and drug-ridden countries in the World, and certainly in Europe.
I hesitate to suggest that one of the reasons for this is that our very liberal laws protect, and indeed encourage the belief in criminals that they can get away with almost anything.
And is it not so? Ask yourself this: on the evening in question, was it Barras who went all that way to burgle Martin's home, or was it Martin who went all the way to Nottingham to murder Barras?? If Barras had not been in the act of burgling Martin's home, there would not have been this so-called murder!!
Will 'commonsense' ever return??? Alas, I suspect that if it ever did, countless UK lawyers would be living less lucratively!!
I hesitate to suggest that one of the reasons for this is that our very liberal laws protect, and indeed encourage the belief in criminals that they can get away with almost anything.
And is it not so? Ask yourself this: on the evening in question, was it Barras who went all that way to burgle Martin's home, or was it Martin who went all the way to Nottingham to murder Barras?? If Barras had not been in the act of burgling Martin's home, there would not have been this so-called murder!!
Will 'commonsense' ever return??? Alas, I suspect that if it ever did, countless UK lawyers would be living less lucratively!!
Enough of this pinko nonsense.
Any burglar, thief or housebreaker should expect to be shot on sight. No excuses, no mercy - just shot. There is no place in society for such scum.
Any burglar, thief or housebreaker should expect to be shot on sight. No excuses, no mercy - just shot. There is no place in society for such scum.
So you'd have Major Ingrams and his cronies shot too, BEags? There's no moral difference, after all..... Thieves, eh?
And how about those who recklessly endanger other people's lives, rather than just their property? I hope you'll be just as tough on drink-drivers.
And those who park illegally? They could obstruct the emergency services.....
I have to own up to not having a dog licence, myself (I don't have a dog, either)........
And how about those who recklessly endanger other people's lives, rather than just their property? I hope you'll be just as tough on drink-drivers.
And those who park illegally? They could obstruct the emergency services.....
I have to own up to not having a dog licence, myself (I don't have a dog, either)........
Not being expert in these things, I understand that there is a technical distinction between someone who breaks in to steal something, someone who gets into a house through an open window and someone who keeps the old lady talking whilst an associate rifles through her bedroom looking for money?
Whatever. All should be shot on sight. Except the old lady.
Since you ask - that coughing idiot and his co-conspirators should have been made to do some time in clink.....those who park illegally should be fined.....drink-drivers treated as at present.....drug pushers boiled alive in their own excrement.
Wouldn't shoot rapists or child molestors though. I'd have them castrated. Slowly.
Whatever. All should be shot on sight. Except the old lady.
Since you ask - that coughing idiot and his co-conspirators should have been made to do some time in clink.....those who park illegally should be fined.....drink-drivers treated as at present.....drug pushers boiled alive in their own excrement.
Wouldn't shoot rapists or child molestors though. I'd have them castrated. Slowly.
Last edited by BEagle; 27th Apr 2003 at 19:51.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: kent, England
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Statistics show, perhaps surprisingly to some, that the UK is one of the most violent and drug-ridden countries in the World, and certainly in Europe.
This is news to me, I have spent the last month looking over US, UK and French crime stats for a academic project. This all largely stems from a (in)famous telephone survey undertaken some years ago that apparantly revealed the UK and Australia to be the most dangerous countries in the Western world. However much more accurate crime surveys and levels of recorded crime tell a different story.
Barras almost certainly was a victim of his own actions, but Martin still broke the law, and however understandable his actions were he did NOT kill in self defence and thus must suffer the consequences.
This is news to me, I have spent the last month looking over US, UK and French crime stats for a academic project. This all largely stems from a (in)famous telephone survey undertaken some years ago that apparantly revealed the UK and Australia to be the most dangerous countries in the Western world. However much more accurate crime surveys and levels of recorded crime tell a different story.
Barras almost certainly was a victim of his own actions, but Martin still broke the law, and however understandable his actions were he did NOT kill in self defence and thus must suffer the consequences.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Official statistics show that crime in Britain has been falling for a decade. This includes the British Crime Survey, which, rather than relying on police statistics, obtains information by asking people about crimes they have experienced.
The fact is, the gutter press (Sun, Daily Mail et al) can't make good headlines out of falling crime figures. They can, however, sensationalise extremely rare occurrences, such as burglars being killed by householders. The gullible are happy to lap-up this nonsense, whereas those with a more enquiring mind look elsewhere for their information.
The fact is, the gutter press (Sun, Daily Mail et al) can't make good headlines out of falling crime figures. They can, however, sensationalise extremely rare occurrences, such as burglars being killed by householders. The gullible are happy to lap-up this nonsense, whereas those with a more enquiring mind look elsewhere for their information.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Deepest Oxfordshire
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reasonable force?
Jacko, BEagle, Flying Lawyer et al
Whilst accepting that this has about as much to do with military aviation as the proverbial accordion has to do with deer hunting...
My understanding is that the law of the land is based upon the actions of the 'reasonable man' (man = species, not gender, so no sexist ripostes, please!)
This means that any individual is entitled to use 'reasonable' (there's that word again!) force to defend himself and his property.
But what on earth is the definition of 'reasonable'?
Someone please explain to me why any citizen should expose him/herself to any personal risk in order to repel an attack. Surely, at the point where an individual decides to go and do something that they know (or 'reasonably' should know) is unlawful, the burden of risk passes to them?
I am not condoning the holding of illegal firearms (and I am deliberately not commenting on the legal technicalities of the Tony Martin case) but it seems to me that anyone who breaks into an isolated rural property at night should consider that barbed wire/piss*d-off dogs/shotguns are among the run-of-the-mill hazards that they are likely to face. Coming to grief as a result should not, therefore, come as any great surprise. Unless, of course, the would-be criminal is 'prepared' for these eventualities and has a cunning plan for dealing with them...
If I had a spade/pitchfork/shotgun to hand, I don't think that I'd be too inclined to wait around to find out what it was, either.
And, Jacko...you have a reputation for wisdom on this forum that I think most journos would die for. However, I am at a loss to understand how Barras could have simultaneously been pleading for his life and running for his life...please explain!
Gadget
Whilst accepting that this has about as much to do with military aviation as the proverbial accordion has to do with deer hunting...
My understanding is that the law of the land is based upon the actions of the 'reasonable man' (man = species, not gender, so no sexist ripostes, please!)
This means that any individual is entitled to use 'reasonable' (there's that word again!) force to defend himself and his property.
But what on earth is the definition of 'reasonable'?
Someone please explain to me why any citizen should expose him/herself to any personal risk in order to repel an attack. Surely, at the point where an individual decides to go and do something that they know (or 'reasonably' should know) is unlawful, the burden of risk passes to them?
I am not condoning the holding of illegal firearms (and I am deliberately not commenting on the legal technicalities of the Tony Martin case) but it seems to me that anyone who breaks into an isolated rural property at night should consider that barbed wire/piss*d-off dogs/shotguns are among the run-of-the-mill hazards that they are likely to face. Coming to grief as a result should not, therefore, come as any great surprise. Unless, of course, the would-be criminal is 'prepared' for these eventualities and has a cunning plan for dealing with them...
If I had a spade/pitchfork/shotgun to hand, I don't think that I'd be too inclined to wait around to find out what it was, either.
And, Jacko...you have a reputation for wisdom on this forum that I think most journos would die for. However, I am at a loss to understand how Barras could have simultaneously been pleading for his life and running for his life...please explain!
Gadget
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Section 3 Criminal Law Act 1967 states:
"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large."
Additionally, there is a common law right to use reasonable force in self-defence or in the defence of another.
What is 'reasonable force' is a question for the jury. A court, in considering what is reasonable force will, in the words of the Criminal Law Revision Committee, "take into account all the circumstances, including in particular the nature and degree of force used, the seriousness of the evil to be prevented and the possibility of preventing it by other means".
This law takes into account the nature of the crisis leading to the use of force and that the person using force may have acted in the heat of the moment. Even the most reasonable man cannot be expected to judge with fine accuracy the minimum force required. In the words of one appeal judge, in a case where the amount of force used was in question, "In the circumstances one did not use jewellers' scales to measure reasonable force".
It is for the jury (ie ordinary people, like those who have contributed to this debate), having heard all the evidence, to decide whether the amount of force used by the accused was reasonable or not. In the Martin case, for example, they decided that, in the circumstances, the amount of force used by the defendant was not reasonable. In other, (less well publicised) cases, juries have decided that using fatal force on a burglar was reasonable. It all depends on the facts of the case, which, IMHO, is exactly how it should be.
"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large."
Additionally, there is a common law right to use reasonable force in self-defence or in the defence of another.
What is 'reasonable force' is a question for the jury. A court, in considering what is reasonable force will, in the words of the Criminal Law Revision Committee, "take into account all the circumstances, including in particular the nature and degree of force used, the seriousness of the evil to be prevented and the possibility of preventing it by other means".
This law takes into account the nature of the crisis leading to the use of force and that the person using force may have acted in the heat of the moment. Even the most reasonable man cannot be expected to judge with fine accuracy the minimum force required. In the words of one appeal judge, in a case where the amount of force used was in question, "In the circumstances one did not use jewellers' scales to measure reasonable force".
It is for the jury (ie ordinary people, like those who have contributed to this debate), having heard all the evidence, to decide whether the amount of force used by the accused was reasonable or not. In the Martin case, for example, they decided that, in the circumstances, the amount of force used by the defendant was not reasonable. In other, (less well publicised) cases, juries have decided that using fatal force on a burglar was reasonable. It all depends on the facts of the case, which, IMHO, is exactly how it should be.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain Gadget
As you say, this topic has got nothing whatsoever to do with military aviation.
I only responded because Jacko's persistent attempts to make the criminals who tried to burgle Mr Martin's house seem like poor little children engaged in high jinks was getting on my tits (as we lawyers say). He even described Barras as an innocent child at one point.
How he can say that there's no moral difference between cheating on a game show and breaking into somebody's house at night to steal from them is, I confesss, beyond my understanding.
As you say, this topic has got nothing whatsoever to do with military aviation.
I only responded because Jacko's persistent attempts to make the criminals who tried to burgle Mr Martin's house seem like poor little children engaged in high jinks was getting on my tits (as we lawyers say). He even described Barras as an innocent child at one point.
How he can say that there's no moral difference between cheating on a game show and breaking into somebody's house at night to steal from them is, I confesss, beyond my understanding.