Just a shotgun

[Gump]

another chain mail to ponder

You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.

Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers.

At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.

With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun.

You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it.

In the darkness, you make out two shadows.

One holds something that looks like a crowbar.

When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire.

The blast knocks both thugs to the floor.

One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.

As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.

In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless..

Yours was never registered.

Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died.

They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.

When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.

"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.

"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing.

"Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys.

Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them..

Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times.

But the next day's headlinesays it all:

"Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die."

The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters..

As the days wear on, the story takes wings.

The national mediapicks it up, then the international media.

The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win.

The mediapublishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects.

After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.

The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial.

The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted.

When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you..

Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man.

It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.

The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened.

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one burglar and wounded a second.

In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term...

How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire ?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903.

This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license.

The Firearms Act of 1920expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns..

Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerfordmass shooting in 1987.

Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw.

When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions.

(The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objectiveeven though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane , Scotland , Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals.

Now the presshad a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners.

Day after day, week after week, the mediagave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns.

The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism.

Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun.

Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying,

"We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."

All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times,

and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences.

Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities.

Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law.

The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply.

Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns?

The guns had been registered and licensed.

Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?

WAKE UP AMERICA ; THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

"...It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."

--Samuel Adams

If you think this is important, please forward to everyone you know.

You had better wake up, because Obama is doing this very same thing, over here, if he can get it done

The UN Small Arms Treaty that Hilary is negotiating would take away our 2nd Amendment rights.

And there are stupid people in congress and on the street that will go right along with him.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just remember - the reason the Japanese didn't invade the USA is because they knew that Most

of the citizens were armed

[imprez55]

Since this is a chain email, don't forget to do your own digging instead of taking it word for word. The man booby trapped his house and ended up shooting the 16 yr old in the back with an illegal gun. The rest of the timeline after the "April, 2000" conviction:

-April 10, 2000 - At his trial at Norwich Crown Court, Mr Martin denies murdering Mr Barras, attempting to murder Mr Fearon, wounding Mr Fearon with intent to cause injury and possession of an illegal firearm with intent to endanger lives.

- April 19, 2000 - Outcry erupts after Mr Martin is found guilty of murdering Mr Barras and sentenced to life. During the trial, it emerged the burglars had 114 convictions between them.

-August 20, 2001 - At an appeal heard at London's High Court, Mr Martin's sentence is reduced to manslaughter and his sentence is cut to five years.

- January 2003 - Mr Martin's hopes of release are dashed by the Parole Board after he refuses to show remorse.

July 28, 2003 - Mr Martin is released from custody. He sells his story to the Daily Mirror for £100,000.

Also, the treaty and prejudice against Obama is false.

[Gump]

Interesting...

[ReconRat]

...The man booby trapped his house and ended up shooting the 16 yr old in the back with an illegal gun...

errr, don't think so

On the night of 20 August 1999, two burglars – Brendon Fearon, 29, and Fred Barras 16 – broke into Martin's house.[5] Shooting downwards in the dark, with a pump-action Winchester shotgun loaded with birdshot, Martin evidentially shot three times towards the intruders (once when they were in the stairwell and twice more when they were trying to flee through the window of an adjacent ground floor room). Barras was hit - fatally - in the back and both sustained gunshot injuries to their lower limbs. Both escaped through the window but Barras died at the scene.[2]

edit: making something illegal, doesn't make that something illegal... it makes the illegal something primarily

lol, did that make any sense at all?

[Gump]

yes... a little. Just becasue the shotgun was illegal to own doesn't make shooting someone illegal?

[idodishez]

Since this is a chain email, don't forget to do your own digging instead of taking it word for word. The man booby trapped his house and ended up shooting the 16 yr old in the back with an illegal gun. The rest of the timeline after the "April, 2000" conviction:

-April 10, 2000 - At his trial at Norwich Crown Court, Mr Martin denies murdering Mr Barras, attempting to murder Mr Fearon, wounding Mr Fearon with intent to cause injury and possession of an illegal firearm with intent to endanger lives.

- April 19, 2000 - Outcry erupts after Mr Martin is found guilty of murdering Mr Barras and sentenced to life. During the trial, it emerged the burglars had 114 convictions between them.

-August 20, 2001 - At an appeal heard at London's High Court, Mr Martin's sentence is reduced to manslaughter and his sentence is cut to five years.

- January 2003 - Mr Martin's hopes of release are dashed by the Parole Board after he refuses to show remorse.

July 28, 2003 - Mr Martin is released from custody. He sells his story to the Daily Mirror for £100,000.

Also, the treaty and prejudice against Obama is false.

Booby trapped his house against intruders. What's wrong w that?

Nobama 2012

[Helmutt]

The gun laws over there are totally screwed up, at least the law-makers perception in the matter. Hard to believe that citizens there aren't allowed to defend themselves, and their homes, with firearms. Meanwhile, criminals get guns and use them as they care nothing for the laws to begin with.

What about crossbows? Technically not a firearm, but would still be better ( and presumably legal ) defense than a ballbat/crowbar. Either way, it sounds like bars on the windows and alarm systems appear to be the only tactic there to defend against thieves and further lawsuits for beaking their jaws with mean swings from a Louisville Slugger:nono:

Sad really. Government seems to suck in most any country anymore

[imprez55]

errr, don't think so

edit: making something illegal, doesn't make that something illegal... it makes the illegal something primarily

lol, did that make any sense at all?

It doesn't make sense to me, maybe try re-wording it or someone else explain? The email mentioned the shotgun as never being registered, so therefore it would be illegal to have. I could be taking for granted the facts presented but, if anything, that fact goes against what the email is trying to prove so I assumed it would be correct.

[ReconRat]

Hard to say it. What was once legal, becomes suddenly illegal. I would have to question the motive. I mean if it was illegal, why did it exist before it was illegal? Why was it once legal? This is political and social posturing. Changes for other than what society might deem proper, in the guise of being proper. And that can go both ways. The effect would have been the same if something illegal was suddenly made legal.

Also... I say again, careful what you wish for. Apparently Great Britain wasn't listening.

They wished for a society free of violence. Or at least gun violence. It didn't happen.

In this case, an average citizen was turned into a criminal, in preference to the actual criminals.

Pretty much the wrong thing to do.

[Scruit]

You wanna know anything about UK gun laws, ask me. Anything I don't know I can ask my brother who is a Police Seargent.

- Hungerford / Micheal Ryan was carried out with a legally held rifle - and it prompted a ban on rifles

- Dunblane / Thomas Hamilton was carried out with a legally held pistol - and it prompted a ban on pistols

- Bustfield / Albert Dryden was carried out with an illegally hand WWII Webley revolver - and it did not prompt any new laws. Video of the shooting here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VwlSihAMKs 1:24

- Tony Martin used an illegally held shotgun. The information I have says the fatal shot hit the burglar in the back. The burglar was trying to flee and the shooting was not an act of self defense. I'm not aware it prompted any law changes.

You can own shotguns and bolt-action rifles on a gun license obtained from the police IF you prove you have a good reason to own one. No handguns and no semi-auto rifles. Self-defense is not a 'good reason' to own a gun. The weapon must be stored in a prescibed manner that intentionally renders it effectively useless in self-defense. (Guns and ammo in separate safes, cannot be loaded) You can (and will) be visited at any time by a police officer who has the right to examine the gun storage and if not stored correctly you lose it.

[Scruit]

The gun laws over there are totally screwed up, at least the law-makers perception in the matter. Hard to believe that citizens there aren't allowed to defend themselves, and their homes, with firearms. Meanwhile, criminals get guns and use them as they care nothing for the laws to begin with.

What about crossbows? Technically not a firearm, but would still be better ( and presumably legal ) defense than a ballbat/crowbar. Either way, it sounds like bars on the windows and alarm systems appear to be the only tactic there to defend against thieves and further lawsuits for beaking their jaws with mean swings from a Louisville Slugger:nono:

Sad really. Government seems to suck in most any country anymore

Self defense in the UK is based upon the concept of "reasonable force", and there is no more legalistic definition than that. it is entirely up to the jury to decide if it was reasonable. Related to the Caldwell Test concept of "Would a normal person sharing the same characteristics, and having the same information as the defendant, have acted in this way?"

Problem is that the in UK the people (and therefore the jury) are far less likely to consider any "active" defense as reasonable, especially if you had the chance to avoid. Even if that means fleeing your house. Life is valued above property to such an extend that you have to PROVE you life was in danger and that the burglary was not just a property crime. Hot burglaries are common (because of this!) and are almost exclusively property crimes, and it is liekly to be considered unreasonable to force a physical confrontation to expel a burglar who was only committing a property crime. Add a weapon into the mix and now you look like you went looking for a fight. Add an illegal gun and you look like you went looking to shoot someone.

Imagine you hit a shoplifter with a baseball bat for stealing a candy bar... You physically hurt someone over a $1 candy bar. Just let them take the bar and call the police. That's how they view it in the UK.

Hot burglaries are much less common in the US - take-over home invasions are more common. Thus, in the US, anyone enters your home is orders of magnitude more likely to be there to do you physical harm.

[Gump]

Nice write up. I thought the primary function of laws is prevention. Sounds backwards over there.

[Helmutt]

Self defense in the UK is based upon the concept of "reasonable force", and there is no more legalistic definition than that. it is entirely up to the jury to decide if it was reasonable. Related to the Caldwell Test concept of "Would a normal person sharing the same characteristics, and having the same information as the defendant, have acted in this way?"

Problem is that the in UK the people (and therefore the jury) are far less likely to consider any "active" defense as reasonable, especially if you had the chance to avoid. Even if that means fleeing your house. Life is valued above property to such an extend that you have to PROVE you life was in danger and that the burglary was not just a property crime. Hot burglaries are common (because of this!) and are almost exclusively property crimes, and it is liekly to be considered unreasonable to force a physical confrontation to expel a burglar who was only committing a property crime. Add a weapon into the mix and now you look like you went looking for a fight. Add an illegal gun and you look like you went looking to shoot someone.

Imagine you hit a shoplifter with a baseball bat for stealing a candy bar... You physically hurt someone over a $1 candy bar. Just let them take the bar and call the police. That's how they view it in the UK.

Hot burglaries are much less common in the US - take-over home invasions are more common. Thus, in the US, anyone enters your home is orders of magnitude more likely to be there to do you physical harm.

Makes sense once it's put that way, but it's not a 1970 flower-power driven planet these days. World peace is but a dream and as long as the human race exists, it will honestly never be reality will it? At least I doubt in our lifetime. It would seem that in a perfect world, we'd have time to stop for a second and evaluate a situation before deciding how it should be handled.....but then again, in a perfect world this sort of thing wouldn't be happening.

I am with you/your government's understanding that life is worth much more than any personal property could be, but the story read as the thieves brandished the weapons as if preparing to strike the homeowner. At my house, if a thief has weapon in hand or not and acts as if they're going strike me or not - they're getting a round or 2 in their midsection. Then I'd let the wife crack me in the face a couple times and claim he attacked me.

[Scruit]

I am with you/your government's understanding that life is worth much more than any personal property could be, but the story read as the thieves brandished the weapons as if preparing to strike the homeowner. At my house, if a thief has weapon in hand or not and acts as if they're going strike me or not - they're getting a round or 2 in their midsection. Then I'd let the wife crack me in the face a couple times and claim he attacked me.

The story as presented does not jive with the evidence. The dead burglar was killed by a shot in the back, as he was fleeing. Specifically, as he was struggling to climbing out of a window, stuck, and unable to be a threat to anyone. That is not self defense.

[imprez55]

Hard to say it. What was once legal, becomes suddenly illegal. I would have to question the motive. I mean if it was illegal, why did it exist before it was illegal? Why was it once legal? This is political and social posturing. Changes for other than what society might deem proper, in the guise of being proper. And that can go both ways. The effect would have been the same if something illegal was suddenly made legal.

...

I was not speaking on the correctness of the prior laws, just that he did in fact use a gun that was illegal at that time. You said that my quote was incorrect and I think we were both commenting on the latter portion (correct me if I am wrong).

The story as presented does not jive with the evidence. The dead burglar was killed by a shot in the back, as he was fleeing. Specifically, as he was struggling to climbing out of a window, stuck, and unable to be a threat to anyone. That is not self defense.

Bingo. I think the guy would be prosecuted even here for his actions, regardless of his owning a gun or not

[Beegreenstrings]

F that shit. That bastard had it in his hands....

First issue is they both died on the scene before the authorities arrived. They came in with the shotgun, I took them by surprise and took it from them (after pumping two rounds into random walls. Then I shot them after the struggle. (I know its horrible officer as I weep into my hands).

Ridiculous shit!!!

Fix the situation...

10-12 for some bullshit... I dont think so.

[redkow97]

You can "booby trap" an occupied structure to protect the occupants from physical harm, but you cannot use booby traps to protect property.

Furthermore, a trap does not make any judgment of whether or not force is necessary, so whoever sets it needs to be able to prove that they held a reasonable belief that the person breaking in is armed. Prior instances or video footage of prior attempts would be the best evidence. A warning sign outside wouldn't hurt either.

[Helmutt]

10-12 for some bullshit... I dont think so.

According to Imprez's timeline quotes, Martin only served about 4 yrs

[redkow97]

"only 4 years" is a naive way of looking at it.

Prison sucks. The stuff you miss while you're there is what really hurts though.

[speedytriple]

Thank goodness for castle doctrine state side.

[Scruit]

Thank goodness for castle doctrine state side.

Castle Doctrine won't help you if you shoot someone in the BACK while they are wriggling OUT of a window.

[speedytriple]

Armed in my house getting what ever I can shoot at them. I will deal with the rest after I defend my wife and kids.

[Scruit]

Your wife and kids don't need to be defended from someone who is wriggling OUT of a window. How are you going to defend them from future threats from jail?

Castle Doctrine creates a *rebuttable* presumption that the BG was there to do you harm. The investigation will rebut that presumption in a heartbeart you shoot them in the back as they are wriggling out of a window.