Thread: Should the security guard be prosecuted

Originally Posted by jackiew

another shooting by an aggreived allotment holder in Ilkeston attracted a lot of publicity for a while ( for those not in the know an Allotment is a piece of land rented from the local council for the purpose of growing vegetables )

http://oxcheps.new.ox.ac.uk/casebook...bery%20doc.pdf

A key part of the judge's ruling in this case, also has a bearing on the guilty verdict passed on Tony Martin:

The discharge of a shotgun towards burglars who are not displaying any intention of resorting to violence to the person is, in my judgment, out of all proportion to the threat involved, even making all due allowances for the agony of the moment, and therefore any injury sustained by such discharge cannot be said to be an integral part or a necessarily direct consequence of the burglary.

Whilst this applies to both the 'allotment' case and Tony Martin (where even he admitted that the burglars were fleeing his dogs at the time he fired on them), it does not appear to apply to the Oz case - I think self defense must play a part in her defense.

I voted yes. I am a Police Officer and don't get me wrong, one less crook is one less crook. BUT...

She carries a gun to protect HERSELF. She does not carry a gun to protect money. The money is insured. If she'd shot the man whilst being bashed, different story, she was protecting herself from death or serious injury, fully justified grounds for shooting the assailant.

She is not, however justified in chasing down a fleeing offender and shooting him. The man was no longer a threat and as such she was not justified in killing him.

Companies like Armaguard and Chubb train their employees to allow the crook to take the money if it will prevent confrontation. Somehow these security guards can't help themselves and have to let a few zingers go.

I went to a stick up once in a shopping centre where one of the guards was shot before the offenders fled with several hundred thou. The other security guard sent one (a .357 cal round) after the crooks from behind a pinball machine without even aiming. The round travelled 300m inside a crowded shopping centre in the middle of the day, ricocheting eight times and coming to rest in the wall of a shop after passing through the open door. Maybe if some of these cowboys (girls) get in the poo they might think before they try to shoot someone.

OK, I'm done.

Dan

Which brings us to another interesting fact.
If armor guards get trigger-happy, we will find the crooks will just shoot the guards, then take the money.

Problem solved.

I believe that the police in Britan don't carry firearms, for just such a reason.
If you don't have a gun, I don't need a gun.

Ben.

Originally Posted by Ben from Vic.

I believe that the police in Britan don't carry firearms, for just such a reason.

Interesting that you believe that! A lot of police have guns at their disposal - my wife's brother (an ordinary policeman) has a gun in his car. OK, it's locked away generally, and he does not carry it when walking around. This is aside from 'armed response units' which get deployed in the event that someone is reportedly toting arms, and the guys constantly walking around major UK airports openly carrying automatic weaponry.

Just don't believe all you hear about British police not being armed.

Gotta go along with DanP. While he was belting the crap out of her; self defence; but she chose to chase after him and zap him. Her moment of danger had passed. Was it revenge???? How bad was she concussed?????

What a sh*tfight it will turn out to be. The shrinks will probably find a new syndrome; CBOOFSG (crap belted out of female security guard) just to go along with the PMT, PND etc etc. She is responsible for her own actions; nobody else. She was the one calling the shots (pun intended).

On the other hand. One less sh*thead to to injure/harm innocent people which could have been members of your family. He also chose to do an act where he could have reasonably expected to be shot. (during; not after).

My 2 cents worth.

Ken

Must have watched to many eppisodes of The Bill. :eek:

I stand corrected

The firearms arn't usually carried on their person are they?

Ben.

Ps. You can all relax, I only watched The Bill when my father had it on TV. He was brought up in (Nottingham) England.

Originally Posted by Ben from Vic.

The firearms arn't usually carried on their person are they?

True - except in the case of those patrolling airports. They are seriously armed! They've been in the airports for some time, too - pre 9/11 for sure. Probably due to the IRA and stuff.

Nothing (much) wrong with the Bill! Not on any more though. As an aside, one of the actors in the Bill joined the police when the series finished. He was fed up with acting and assumed he had all the insight required!

I agree with Zed
let her go she did a service and he deserved it.
Kill em all and let God sort em out :mad:
We should have a concealed carry law in Oz too as quite a few states in the US have found crime rates go down...... mmmm which house is armed?? nah Ill try BM's place its safer.
Pete (I like red dots ...go for it)
This house is guarded 3 nights a week with a shotgun ....you guess which days. :eek:

She shouldnt be prosecuted.
Sure she went after the bash merchant and shot him.
But she had just been seriously hurt by him so she just reacted like a normal person.

Originally Posted by fxst

nah Ill try BM's place its safer.

At one time our insurer was demanding that we left the till open in our shop, with a light on and $100 in it. The idea being that a thief would not do any damage looking for cash.

After losing a window and $100 three nights in a row at 3.10am they finally relented and we leave all cash in the safe....trust me I could write a book about burglars but have never had the urge to shoot one dead. Usually my urges stop at about the point where I am having their pressed and dessicated testicles framed for my pool room wall.

At home, please help yourself...it's insured and identifiable. Oh, you won't get shot, but I CAN'T guarantee that you won't get hurt (you're welcome to find out how ), and you'll be photographed every inch of the way, with the footage stored on the web (just in case you knock off the computer!)

The place is monitored by the way, but the alarm is silent so as not to give you a fright and a sudden heart attack (so I can't get sued), and be careful that you don't cut yourself on the glass as you attempt to break OUT won't you (assuming the door locks work the way they are designed).

Cheers,

P
Why kill anyone when you can scar them for life?

Originally Posted by Toggy

One less sh*thead to to injure/harm innocent people which could have been members of your family. He also chose to do an act where he could have reasonably expected to be shot. (during; not after).

Hear Hear.

Originally Posted by Ben from Vic.

If you don't have a gun, I don't need a gun.

I have carried a gun for the last eight years, and trusted with the decision making process involved in when to use it. In that time I have only had to draw it a couple of times and only had to decide once. My decision was that it was going to be a bad day for the crook, who was pointing a sawn off .22 at me. Luckily, for him and me and about twenty 15 year old witnesses, he did all the right things just as the hammer was about to drop.

At the time I was on foot and in plain clothes. My two off siders and I just happened across a man with a gun in the face of a kid. If I was not armed, the best I could have done is absolutely nothing.

Dan

Originally Posted by DanP

She is not, however justified in chasing down a fleeing offender and shooting him. The man was no longer a threat and as such she was not justified in killing him.
Dan

No longer a threat ?????

How about the people he may kill in his attempt to flee the scene of the crime ?
How about the next person he decides to attack tomorrow ?

I know you are probably arguing from a "legal" perspective.....but don't suggest for one minute that the man was no longer a threat.

Originally Posted by Honest Gaza

No longer a threat ?????

How about the people he may kill in his attempt to flee the scene of the crime ?
How about the next person he decides to attack tomorrow ?

I know you are probably arguing from a "legal" perspective.....but don't suggest for one minute that the man was no longer a threat.

I've read this thread with interest and didn't want to get involved in the argument but now can't help myself.
Honest Gaza you must be kidding with that line of thinking. "How about the next person he decides to attack tomorrow?" Come on get real - that's as bad as saying "Well I think I'll shoot me next door neighbour cause he may bash his missus tomorrow"!!! You can't speculate on what his state of mind will be tomorrow etc.
I agree with DanP - the initial "threat" - had passed - he had dropped the bag got into his car and that's all we know.
Was he trying to start his car and drive off???
Was he trying to get a gun to shoot her???
Was he just trying to get away from a crazy woman that he had just belted the beejeezus out of and was now pointing a BIG handgun at him???
That's what we don't know and everyone is speculating on what has occurred. Everyone is going on the 'Media version' and we all know how true and exact that is.
All we know is that after the big fracas she shot him dead.
Had she done it whilst he was belting the crap out of her then it maybe a totally different story as she would've been in immediate fear of her life and then maybe acting in self defence.

Possibly she has had a 'brain explosion' - admittedly been belted and savagely bashed - and in the 'heat of the moment' thinking he was going to 'get away' decided to stop him by shooting him.
Don't forget we have had hours & days to think about this she had only a split second to act as she did.
Although I sympathise with her I still feel she had no right in shooting him in the way she did.
I don't think she has intentionally wanted to kill him but by pulling the trigger she has definitely wanted to harm him that's for sure.

I've said enough - will get off the soapbox and crawl back into my hole now.

Originally Posted by BigPete

I've said enough - will get off the soapbox and crawl back into my hole now.

No need to do that BigPete. I thought we were having a debate. You are as much entitled to your opinion as anyone else.

Cheers
Craig