Unarmed Policing

[DanaC]

Since the idea of homeowners being charged for defending their property against burglars has been raised:

A judge has told two burglars permanently injured when they were shot by a homeowner: "That is the chance you take."

Judge Michael Pert QC jailed Joshua O'Gorman and Daniel Mansell for four years each after rejecting a plea that he take the shooting into account.

O'Gorman, who was shot in the face, and Mansell, who was hit in his right hand, had pleaded guilty to the break-in in Welby, near Melton Mowbray, at an earlier hearing.

Sentencing them at Leicester Crown Court, the judge said: "I make it plain that, in my judgment, being shot is not mitigation. If you burgle a house in the country where the householder owns a legally held shotgun, that is the chance you take. You cannot come to court and ask for a lighter sentence because of it."

He was responding to a mitigation plea from Andrew Frymann, representing O'Gorman, who said being shot was for his client akin to a "near-death experience" for which he was not prepared. His injuries left him with blurred vision, severe pain and problems with his balance.

Replying to Mr Frymann's suggestion that O'Gorman was traumatised, Judge Pert said the arrest of Mr and Mrs Ferrie on suspicion of grievous bodily harm could be considered just as disturbing. He said: "Some might argue that being arrested and locked up for 40 hours is a trauma."

Mr Ferrie, 35, and his wife Tracey, 43, were held in custody for nearly two days after Mr Ferrie called police to tell them he fired his shotgun at the intruders. Their arrests prompted widespread criticism. The couple were later bailed and told they would not face criminal charges.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/jail-burgla...130520655.html

Seems a reasonable response to me. Would have been different if they'd been shot in the back whilst attempting to flee (as in one much quoted conviction against a homeowner who 'defended' his property). Because if someone is attempting to get away then the immediate threat of harm is no longer a factor.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Since the idea of homeowners being charged for defending their property against burglars has been raised:

Tangentially, if someone has invaded your home, how would know your property was the only thing threatened rather than your life and property? I always think of it as a threat to life and property. I suppose burglars are operating within a different reality, so they don't get that?