Page 11 | AIBU to think this isn’t murder

AldiAisleofCrap · 2021-01-13T21:30:19+00:00

AIBU to think this is really wrong. In America four teenagers break into a house , the home owner fires a gun and one teenager dies. The boys age 17 are charged with murder and sentenced to 55 years in prison. The judge said done one has to be held responsible but surely the teen who is dead is responsible for his own actions.

ProfessorSlocombe · 14/01/2021 13:15

@SchrodingersImmigrant

Mildly surprised to get this far into a thread like this with no mention of Tony Martin ....

I was thinking about him. So odd yet interesting case

Hardly. It only showed that 90% of the tabloid reading public hadn't a clue about the law, it's origin, or it's nuances.

And that's not news in any decade or century. And certainly not interesting legally

LimitIsUp · 14/01/2021 13:17

I wouldn't be chuffed about fleeing my own home either, but given that you don't know the intent of the people breaking in, how many of them there may be and what levels of violence they are prepared to use, if you can get away then this would seem eminently sensible.

SchrodingersImmigrant · 14/01/2021 13:17

And that's not news in any decade or century. And certainly not interesting legally

I found it interesting without reading tabloids. I wasn't here when it happened only came across it during law at college as the teacher found it interesting.

ProfessorSlocombe · 14/01/2021 13:17

@chomalungma

Would people have been surprised if the accomplice in the Tony Martin case had been charged with murder?

I would. But then I know the law.

Biker47 · 14/01/2021 13:19

Mildly surprised to get this far into a thread like this with no mention of Tony Martin ....

Because it's largely irrelevant for a number of reasons.

Technically there's nothing stopping you using a firearm or a shotgun in this country against an intruder, it can be entirely justifiable in some instances, just with everything else you could use to defend yourself. Likely to end up in court, but not always.

ProfessorSlocombe · 14/01/2021 13:23

@SchrodingersImmigrant

And that's not news in any decade or century. And certainly not interesting legally

I found it interesting without reading tabloids. I wasn't here when it happened only came across it during law at college as the teacher found it interesting.

We all have our interests. All the Tony Martin case did was provide a platform for people who would like the law to give them permission to go around shooting people they didn't like with no fear of reprisals.

The defendant basically admitted all they needed to for a charge of murder. And they did so assuming they would either not be charged, or would get off when the jury heard their story. (Suggesting poor or ignored legal advice).

If there was anything interesting in the case, it was simply that it restated once again the asymmetric nature of the social contract in England where we give up a truckload of rights to the state expecting something in return, and its' crystal clear in law we are owed nothing as a general principle. But that again isn't news.

Coopz · 14/01/2021 13:27

They were robbing a house they had every reason to believe was empty. The man was defending his stuff, not his family. He came downstairs and shot them rather than ringing the police

Oh well, if they thought it was empty that's ok. It's a practically a victimless crime if no one's at home when you try and rob a house.

And how dare someone not want them to steal stuff that was presumably bought and paid for and even cherished.

I'm not agreeing that someone should have been killed for it, but I assume the burglars live in the US and are familiar with the laws and gun culture over there. Actions have consequences which they found out to their detriment.

SchrodingersImmigrant · 14/01/2021 13:33

@ProfessorSlocombe yes, it was the debate around it. He pitched us in teams to argue the different points and I have to say it turned out to be interesting debate. I don't think the case is in textbooks, but it's interesting nonetheless. (Needless to say I didn't pursue law later for career purposes🙈).

Homer28 · 14/01/2021 13:35

@diamondpony80 What is unfair about the Lisa Montgomery case?

sofiaaaaaa · 14/01/2021 13:37

@ProfessorSlocombe thanks for the link, I had that case in mind!

Tony Martin is interesting. It does come across that he was seeking retribution for the past burglaries more than self defence, so I think the right verdicts were made.

chomalungma · 14/01/2021 13:39

If someone robs a house, then they can expect the consequences. In the case of the USA, that can involve being shot at and killed. Those are the risks you take when you commit such a crime. I don't have a problem with that. You try to burgle someone, you run the risks.

I do have an issue with the charge of murder though against the accomplices.

There are lots of possible ways that someone could end up getting involved in such a crime. That does not make them a murderer.

SchrodingersImmigrant · 14/01/2021 13:40

[quote sofiaaaaaa]@ProfessorSlocombe thanks for the link, I had that case in mind!

Tony Martin is interesting. It does come across that he was seeking retribution for the past burglaries more than self defence, so I think the right verdicts were made.[/quote]
Yes. I am in "he knee what he was doing" camp and it's not ok.

ProfessorSlocombe · 14/01/2021 13:50

[quote sofiaaaaaa]@ProfessorSlocombe thanks for the link, I had that case in mind!

Tony Martin is interesting. It does come across that he was seeking retribution for the past burglaries more than self defence, so I think the right verdicts were made.[/quote]
Shooting someone in the back is a very hard sell for self defence. Not impossible, but certainly it would need a lot of backstory.

If someone robs a house, then they can expect the consequences. In the case of the USA, that can involve being shot at and killed. Those are the risks you take when you commit such a crime. I don't have a problem with that. You try to burgle someone, you run the risks.

Not in English law. "Reasonable force" are the watchwords here. And what is "reasonable" will be decided in a nice warm courtroom, which is something I have long felt needed addressing.

You also aren't allowed to booby trap your house. No matter how tempting.

Two wrongs do not make a right in law.

nocoolnamesleft · 14/01/2021 14:32

I can't help but wonder how many of the people who seem to think home invaders are fluffy little bunnies who are only ever interested in theft have ever come face to face ( or in my case face to mask) with an intruder? I can assure you that at that point you don't give a flying fuck about TVs or laptops. Am I going to die? Am I going to be raped? How badly am I going to be hurt? That's where your mind races to.

chomalungma · 14/01/2021 14:46

@nocoolnamesleft

That's not really what the thread is about.

I think people have a right to defend themselves in their property.

I don't think that these accomplices who were shot at should face a sentence of murder because one of them got shot dead.

LimitIsUp · 14/01/2021 15:29

"I can assure you that at that point you don't give a flying fuck about TVs or laptops. Am I going to die? Am I going to be raped? How badly am I going to be hurt? That's where your mind races to"

Exactly, that's why I would (given the opportunity) flee and leave them to the laptop, car keys etc rather than confront them with a cricket bat (UK style) or a gun (US style)

Sorry that you had to go through this

ProfessorSlocombe · 14/01/2021 15:39

Exactly, that's why I would (given the opportunity) flee and leave them to the laptop, car keys etc rather than confront them with a cricket bat (UK style) or a gun (US style)

Generally in the UK, it's a matter of public policy that a person should not be chased from their own home - hence the "reasonable" in "reasonable force" changes dramatically for a person in their own home, or who has managed to reach their own home.

However you generally can't go after fleeing burglars.

This is nothing like the US "Stand Your Ground" doctrine, by the way.

ChestnutStuffing · 14/01/2021 16:24

It's worth remembering that what is defined as murder, under the law, is not the same everywhere. In some places the same act might be defined as murder or manslaughter - but it could have identical repercussions in terms of sentences and such.

The fact that this event was called murder is not really the point. The questions are around the events and results. Was the homeowner culpable for defending his home as he did? Not under American law, no. He might have been in the UK, but we don't really have the details to know.
Were those in the group, who were involved in the burglary, responsible in some sense for the death? I would say yes, and that's in line with how many crimes are treated. If a young man gets in a car high, and another gets in with him knowing that, and the latter ends up dead, guess what - the driver will have some kind of culpability, even though the passenger chose to get in the car.

Was the sentence really likely to accomplish anything positive for anyone, or even justice? It seems unlikely?

What sentence would have been? Difficult to say without more details, and likely not the same for each of the men involved.

ZoeCM · 14/01/2021 23:17

@XDownwiththissortofthingX

I don't see the public interest in charging anyone with anything in this case, but it's the States, where things frequently make no sense whatsoever.

I can understand thinking a murder charge was unwarranted, but seeing no public interest in charging any of them with anything? Surely they needed to be charged with burglary?

saltinesandcoffeecups · 14/01/2021 23:31

@LimitIsUp

I wouldn't be chuffed about fleeing my own home either, but given that you don't know the intent of the people breaking in, how many of them there may be and what levels of violence they are prepared to use, if you can get away then this would seem eminently sensible.

That’s why the law is in place that gives you the right to defend yourself... the fact someone has entered your house without your permission (noting the stipulations I posted earlier) legally means they that you as the homeowner can reasonably assume they mean harm to you physically. The law allows for you not to have to determine the level of harm before defending yourself, as delays could cause more harm.

In other words, legally, I don’t have to ascertain if the guy who broke into my house is after my tv or me... I can assume it’s me and protect myself.

Look.. ~42% of US households have firearms. If you are going to break into someone’s home, that is a statistic worth noting...it’s also prudent to know what the possible charges are if you get caught and/or something goes very wrong. Most criminals are repeat offenders and are well versed in the laws and risk.

I do not feel sorry for these criminals when they are made to face consequences. I do feel empathy for them that their life took such a wrong turn that this was their outcome.

ZoeCM · 14/01/2021 23:32

And the probability is that it's more likely a burglary than a murder.

It doesn't matter - if there's even a 10% chance they've broken into your home to murder and/or rape you and your family, you have the right to defend yourself. If you break into someone's home, you have to accept that they may fear for their lives and attack you. It's an occupational hazard of being a burglar.