Burglar wounded got what he deserved - judge

CaseyRyback

Burglar shot by householder got 'summary justice' rules judge

A burglar shot by a man defending his home was told by a judge that he had just received summary justice.
7:00AM GMT 18 Feb 2011

Lewis Patterson had smashed his way into the house with a metal bar and was trying to take a motorcycle when he was confronted by Gary Holmes and his air rifle. Mr Holmes, 19, had been relaxing at home with his girlfriend and two-month-old baby when he spotted Patterson creeping around his garden. He ran to grab his air rifle and challenged the intruder as he got into their home in Hull, East Yorks. During a scuffle, Patterson lunged at him with a metal bar but Mr Holmes managed to fire two shots, sending the burglar packing. Mr Holmes telephoned the police to report the attack. After escaping, Patterson dialled 999 to report the shooting.

The young father said he warned Patterson before firing. “I never expected to have to shoot a person,” he said. “The first officers who came seemed quite surprised when I said I had shot him. I don’t think they knew what to think. They seemed a bit confused about who they were going to be charging, so they sent officers from CID to take a statement the next day. They said that because he had threatened me that I should be fine.”

Police eventually arrested Patterson after they saw through his claim that he was shot at through a window while innocently walking past the house. Mr Holmes said: “I didn’t have much time to worry about if I was going to be prosecuted because I was more concerned about whether he would be coming back and whether my girlfriend and the baby were OK.

“I ran upstairs to get my rifle and looked through the window and saw him hit the window with a baseball bat so hard that it snapped. Then he used a metal bar. I ran down the stairs loading my rifle at the same time. When I went into the dining room, he was trying to pull my motorbike through the window. I told him, not very politely, to get out, but he just stared straight at me. Because I have the rifle, I know a bit about the law around it so I showed him the gun and gave him a chance to leave before I did anything. I knew you can’t just shoot someone. He raised this iron bar up and started coming towards me so I just pulled my gun up and shot him. Even then, he started to come towards me again and threw a brick at me. He must have thought it was a single shot rifle, but I shot him again. If I had let him hit me, I could have been in hospital or dead.”

Patterson pleaded guilty at Hull Crown Court to burglary. Sentencing him to 18 months in a young offenders institution, Judge Michael Mettyear, the Honorary Recorder of Hull and East Riding, said: “This was quite outrageous conduct. It’s true to say he got some summary justice but it is something that will live with him for a very long time.”

Mr Holmes did not need a licence to possess the rifle but it has been held by police as evidence since the incident.

Source

Skatedude

the law in this country is a joke. A far as i'm concerned, If you break into someones house, then you can expect to lose your life.

Instead the law protects the criminal in almost every case and thats simply wrong. Glad the judge saw sense in this case.

punchdrunk

shame it wasnt 5.56mm

shampon

Skatedude wrote: »

If you break into someones house, then you can expect to lose your life.

Makes alot of sense. :rolleyes:.:rolleyes:

RMD

Skatedude wrote: »

the law in this country is a joke. A far as i'm concerned, If you break into someones house, then you can expect to lose your life.

Instead the law protects the criminal in almost every case and thats simply wrong. Glad the judge saw sense in this case.

Giving people the right to kill someone if being burgled will eventually lead to some psycho killing a person, even if they are a scumbag. Reasonable force where common sense prevails, such as in this case is the best solution.

I'm not supporting the criminal, but the idea of giving people the right to kill someone is just idiotic.

CaseyRyback

RMD wrote: »

but the idea of giving people the right to kill someone is just idiotic.

I'm sure your view would have 100% support from those on death row, USA.

RMD

CaseyRyback wrote: »

I'm sure your view would have 100% support from those on death row, USA.

There's a difference between a judicial system giving someone the death penalty and giving the average citizen the right to kill a burglar, it's a huge difference.

meathstevie

RMD wrote: »

There's a difference between a judicial system giving someone the death penalty and giving the average citizen the right to kill a burglar, it's a huge difference.

It's not about the right to kill, it's about the right to use an amount of force sufficient to neutralise an unlawful threath to life. Do you deem it acceptable or not that this can result in the death of or serious injury to a violent criminal ?

Personally I believe this to be acceptable as long as the defensive actions were clearly intended to neutralise an unlawful threath and as long as the defensive actions were justifiable and proportionate.

Would you for example deem it acceptable that the owner of a lawfully held firearm fires a single shot at a burglar armed with a knife or a hatchet inside his/her home unintentionally killing the burglar ?

RMD

meathstevie wrote: »

It's not about the right to kill, it's about the right to use an amount of force sufficient to neutralise an unlawful threath to life. Do you deem it acceptable or not that this can result in the death of or serious injury to a violent criminal ?

Personally I believe this to be acceptable as long as the defensive actions were clearly intended to neutralise an unlawful threath and as long as the defensive actions were justifiable and proportionate.

Would you for example deem it acceptable that the owner of a lawfully held firearm fires a single shot at a burglar armed with a knife or a hatchet inside his/her home unintentionally killing the burglar ?

Look back at the quote I was originally refering to

Skatedude wrote: »

A far as i'm concerned, If you break into someones house, then you can expect to lose your life.

If the burglar is violent or poses a threat to your safety / life then quite obviously you should be able to act in self-defense and as it is now "within reasonable force", Ie doing enough to get rid of him, if he'll run after a punch give him a punch, if he's trying to kill you then you kill him, a law where common sense prevails. What Skatedude is proposing if you're breaking into a house you can expect to lose your life Ie the owner basically can kill you regardless of the circumstances.

In the situation you mentioned I think that's perfectly lawful, fire a warning shot in the direction of the burglar, if he doesn't run fire again and this time at the body mass. If you don't have time for a warning shot then fire at the bodymass, as I said, within reasonable force is the best solution, a law where common sense will prevail.

Shield

RMD wrote: »

Ie doing enough to get rid of him, if he'll run after a punch give him a punch, if he's trying to kill you then you kill him

The problem I see here is that we can't predict the future, and if you punch him, who's to say he won't produce a knife or simply overpower you and strangle you silly? How do we know which intruders will run after one punch and which ones will stand their ground?

There's a lot to be said for Oklahoma's "Make My Day" law, also known as Castle doctrine, because you simply don't know if an intruder in your home has the intention to violently attack you or your family if he's challenged.

Bear in mind the above doctrine is derived from English common law, so it's not just the Americans taking matters into their own hands. It's about the right to defend your property (belongings, etc.) and all those lawfully therein.

It's a bad day for justice if homeowners have to just retreat to a safe place and wait for an intruder to leave.

challengemaster

Texas' shoot first and ask questions later way of doing things seems quite reasonable to me when someone breaks into your home.

meathstevie

When someone unlawfully and forcefully enters an occupied dwelling I suppose they've more than declared their intent.

dermo88

Can I ask a small question RMD? I know your intentions are good, and that the world is a lovely nice place, with nice people. But can you please remove those nice rose tinted lenses in the main street instead of a cul de sac?

What does reasonable force mean? Does that mean politely asking the burglar to have some tea and biscuits, sing some Kumbayah, or does that mean......

In my world, it means beat the living bejaysus out of them. Just look at the Padraig Nally vs John Frog Ward case. Padraig Nally should have NEVER gone to jail, and been given the freedom of the City of Claremorris. The fact he did go to jail after shooting a 42 times convicted criminal is an indictment of a stupid, excessively politically correct system with no relevance to reality.

Shield

dermo88 wrote: »

But can you please remove those nice rose tinted lenses in the main street instead of a cul de sac?

No need to get personal. Attack the post, not the poster.

dermo88 wrote: »

In my world, it means beat the living bejaysus out of them. Just look at the Padraig Nally vs John Frog Ward case. Padraig Nally should have NEVER gone to jail, and been given the freedom of the City of Claremorris. The fact he did go to jail after shooting a 42 times convicted criminal is an indictment of a stupid, excessively politically correct system with no relevance to reality.

I think we need to compare like with like. In the Nally case, Ward was leaving (or had left) the property and no longer posed an immediate threat or a potential threat. Nally shot him because he feared Ward would return to kill him. That's very different to what we're discussing here.

dermo88

No need to get personal. Attack the post, not the poster.

What I said attacked the post. The view being presented seemed rather naive, putting it mildly. Perhaps RMD is playing Devils advocate. In the circumstances its a perfectly reasonable question to ask, and asked in the best way possible.

I think we need to compare like with like. In the Nally case, Ward was leaving (or had left) the property and no longer posed an immediate threat or a potential threat. Nally shot him because he feared Ward would return to kill him. That's very different to what we're discussing here.

BUT.....Ward was a potential future threat. We are talking about someone who had been burgled before. We are talking of a career criminal. Hes hardly the Virgin Mary appearing in Knock, is he? Before proceeding any further, I am not going to make any comments about the marginalised minority issue.

Shield

@dermo88 only:
Since you're new to the forum, you should be aware that if the moderators type in bold, it's moderator speak.

You can't accuse someone of wearing "rose tinted lenses" and claim that it's not a personal comment because that's exactly what it is. Just because their viewpoint doesn't agree with yours doesn't give you the right to claim their view is through "rose tinted lenses". Instead, you make comments to present your viewpoint in a respectful and mature manner.

Also, if a forum moderator types in bold, you don't reply on-thread to that part of the thread. Instead, you PM the mod in question, or take it to feedback.

Take these comments as general pointers, not to be replied to on-thread, and have a read of our forum charter to fully acquaint yourself with how the forum runs.

Back on topic please and thanks.

seanmc1980

I have to agree with RMD on this, reasonable force and common sense needs to prevail in situation like this.
it's a bit OTT to suggest that you have the right to kill someone if they trespass on your property.
At the end of the day its a human life your taking.
i've read about case's in the US where people shot burglars in the back of the head as they are leaving the property. thats just sadistic in my eye. Is a flat screen TV really worth that much that you'd kill someone for it?

Shield

Glad you mentioned that.

The time it takes you to bring your gun up and aim is greater than the time it takes someone facing you to turn and run. The last thing shooters remember is the threat facing them due to the "tunnel vision" that sets in when they realise they have to shoot. I might start a separate thread on this because I have quite a few interesting articles with scientific proof timed down to a tenth of second.

seanmc1980 wrote: »

i've read about case's in the US where people shot burglars in the back of the head as they are leaving the property. thats just sadistic in my eye. Is a flat screen TV really worth that much that you'd kill someone for it?

RMD

Lads I'm not stating in anyway the owner should retreat to their room and wait it out, not confront the burglar or just let the burglar waltz around the home and take what they like while making them a cup on tea in the process.

I'm stating the current law of acting within reasonable force is the best solution. I've been burgled myself, the guy didn't run when I shouted at him and came at me instead with a iron bar, he got a cricket bat to the chest which bruised his ribs so badly the Gards found 500m down the road hunched over a wall looking for breath, I wasn't charged as it was deemed reasonable force. Under the current law people can do what's necessary to protect their property and I think that's perfect.

In the Nally case the first shot was warranted and acceptable, he was protecting his property and Ward refused to leave. Once shot Ward ran away and Nally some hit again, that's exceeding excessive force as the threat was gone. I can understand how Nally would have been scared but if the law allowed him to shoot a fleeing person, what's to stop some other person shooting with the intent to kill a person later on? Ward's past history plays no part in the case, Nally didn't no whether he was a career criminal or a person with no convictions to date, so that can't effect his judgment and therefore is irrelevant in the case.

common sense brigade

You should have the right to protect your home and family. If someone came into my home I would defend it. I have a 1 year old child to protect and thats exactly what i will do. This country is a disgrace and lawlessness is getting worse and worse. Guards are swimming in red tape. And criminals get away with murder literally.

shampon

common sense brigade wrote: »

You should have the right to protect your home and family. If someone came into my home I would defend it. I have a 1 year old child to protect and thats exactly what i will do. This country is a disgrace and lawlessness is getting worse and worse. Guards are swimming in red tape. And criminals get away with murder literally.

If there is a new way, I'll be the first in line. The law is the law. Use of Reasonable force is allowed but what you, I and the law consider reasonable could well be different

common sense brigade

I would consider Baseball Bat to the head reasonable force if an intruder entered my home. And a few kicks to the ribs once immobilised and awaiting the guards.

seanmc1980

common sense brigade wrote: »

You should have the right to protect your home and family. If someone came into my home I would defend it. I have a 1 year old child to protect and thats exactly what i will do. This country is a disgrace and lawlessness is getting worse and worse. Guards are swimming in red tape. And criminals get away with murder literally.

"someone please think of the children" the lowest common denominator to throw out in any argument.
What are you protecting? Is the burglar going to make off with a plasma TV, DVD player and your 1 year old baby and sell it down the market?

common sense brigade wrote: »

I would consider Baseball Bat to the head reasonable force if an intruder entered my home. And a few kicks to the ribs once immobilised and awaiting the guards.

would you be happy if you killed the guy? would you have any remorse that you smashed a guys head in with a baseball bat to save your materialistic possessions? what if he had a "1 year old child" would you feel remorse for that child whos parent up bludgeoned to death over a few CDs

common sense brigade

I dont own a plasma tv or have much in the way of things a burgler might want albeit alot of Toys!.
4 years ago an intruder broke into my aunts house in South Dublin and raped her. He beat her and degraded her and stole what little money she had and a laptop. He was convicted to 18 months in Jail. Her life is destroyed.
So yes if someone breaks into my house i will definitely use a baseball bat on them. Without a second thought.

would you be happy if you killed the guy?

It actually would not bother me if a scumbag intruder died no. I wouldnt loose any sleep. Only thing that would concern me is jail time.
I think some people live in a liberal dream. Where burglars are gentlemen like robin hood. Oh dear me the poor burglar has had a hard life etc.

shampon

=common sense brigade;70801510
It actually would not bother me if a scumbag intruder died no. I wouldnt loose any sleep. Only thing that would concern me is jail time.
I think some people live in a liberal dream. Where burglars are gentlemen like robin hood. Oh dear me the poor burglar has had a hard life etc.

Having watched and seen people die I can tell you, unless your a robot Rambo made out of stone, it's going to affect you. And you say you would be concerned at Jail time? Get a grip man

seanmc1980

sorry to hear about your aunt's ordeal, truly I am,
but her case most be a 1 in a million case, in ireland its just not a regular occurrence for a break in to go to that extent.
I wouldn't say i'm living in a liberal dream either, I just value life and murdering people in cold blood makes you no better than the "scumbag" you wouldn't lose sleep over murdering.
Do you mind me asking where do you draw the line on murdering people? Would you kill someone who killed your family in a car crash, would you kill someone who pick pocketed you, would you murder someone who jumped your wall to get their football out of your garden?
Is it strictly in your home you have a total discard for the law and human life or does it extend outside that?

common sense brigade

Having watched and seen people die I can tell you, unless your a robot Rambo made out of stone, it's going to affect you. And you say you would be concerned at Jail time? Get a grip man

Well I dont know what to tell you 'Shampon Man' but honestly if some one broke in to my home and threatened me physically and i retaliated and they died. I really dont think i would loose sleep. Now if they are the gentleman burglar i think you dream of. and they tiptoed in and stole some cd's and tiptoed off and sold the cd's to feed their poor starving family. fair enough i wouldnt be inclined to follow them and shoot them. but if they punched me or my husband i would pick up the nearest object and beat them around the head.

common sense brigade

killed your family in a car crash,

Of course not, thats accidental presuming ur not discussing drink driving?

would you kill someone who pick pocketed you

No but i would punch them if i caught them trying.

would you murder someone who jumped your wall to get their football out of your garden

Thats a ridiculous question

Bad things happen here all the time (Brian hennessy was postman who murdered woman and 3 kids after breaking in to her home on christmas day). Burglary, Rape and murder are becoming more and more common here.

common sense brigade

Just out of interest Shampon and Sean, could you both describe to me what you deem reasonable force? Say if an intruder is a male and threatens you and punches you? what would you two do if anything?

seanmc1980

common sense brigade wrote: »

Of course not, thats accidental presuming ur not discussing drink driving?

No but i would punch them if i caught them trying.

Thats a ridiculous question

Bad things happen here all the time (Brian hennessy was postman who murdered woman and 3 kids after breaking in to her home on christmas day). Burglary, Rape and murder are becoming more and more common here.

what if they were drink driving, speeding, breaking the law? would you murder them to teach them a lesson?

Why would you punch a pick pocket, if i was to use your logic you should murder them. eliminate the risk of them retaliating on you?

why is it a ridiculous question, they are trespassing on your property? shoot 1st ask questions later is your motto why would this differ in different circumstances? they are on your property and are a potential risk to your "1 year old" KILLLL

PS i just noticed your a wife so in reality you would send your husband down to check if there was a noise/ he would go down himself so it kinda makes your argument nul and void.

stephendevlin

There is a nice forest beside my house.. If someone breaks in to my house. Expect it to be your resting place. Scubag or not. Entering someones home is more than just breaking an entering.