Wasp Spray - The Almost Perfect Solution

[Tellie]

Originally Posted by GordMay

The case wasn't as simple as you suggest.
Tony Martin was convicted of murder, which was reduced to manslaughter on appeal; and his life sentence reduced to 5 years. He was released after serving three years.
The prosecution theory had Martin lying in wait, to ambush the two burglars.

Interesting point. We all know laws vary from country to country. I read many times here from all sorts of posters about the consequences of either killing or seriously maiming an intruder in another country. Are there any real stories of people who have rightfully defended themselves aboard and found themselves locked up unfairly because the victims brother was the local cop or the many other reasons people here elude to? Or are these stories perhaps just as fanciful as a quad fifty mounted on the bow.

[sailorboy1]

Nothing to do with wasp spray, but................I wonder if having a gun makes you a lot more prone thinking it is OK to shoot someone? Almost like having a liferaft makes you more prone to abandon ship.

And I'm not suggesting it is wrong to protect or defend yourself, just maybe the method.

[denverd0n]

Originally Posted by Don Lucas

I wonder if having a gun makes you a lot more prone thinking it is OK to shoot someone?

I think you've got it backwards. You don't procure a gun for self-defense if you don't ALREADY believe that it is okay to use lethal force (shooting someone) in defense of your own life and/or property. So, it's not that having a gun makes you think it's okay, it's that thinking it is okay makes you get a gun.

I will leave all debates as to whether or not it is ACTUALLY okay to use lethal force in your defense to those who cannot resist beating a dead horse.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Don Lucas

... I wonder if having a gun makes you a lot more prone thinking it is OK to shoot someone? Almost like having a liferaft makes you more prone to abandon ship.
And I'm not suggesting it is wrong to protect or defend yourself, just maybe the method.

Perhaps, according to the law of the instrument (Maslow's Hammer), which describes an over-reliance on a familiar tool.
As Abraham Maslow said: "It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail."

[Islander1]

I didn't want to get away from the Wasp Spray thread by entering into detail. Very rarely is anything simple but that was how I was trying to keep it. Anyway how's this. English law permits one person to kill another in self defence only if the person defending him or herself uses no more than "reasonable force"; it is the responsibility of the jury to determine whether or not an unreasonable amount of force was used.The jury at the trial were told that they had the option of returning a verdict of manslaughter rather than murder, if they thought that Martin "did not intend to kill or cause serious bodily harm". However, the jurors found Martin guilty of murder by a 10 to 2 majority.
He was sentenced to life in prison, the mandatory sentence for murder under English law. Nick Makin, Martin's solicitor, said: "It is appalling that the family of a burglar who has a criminal record for burglary and assault should attempt to claim any damages of criminal injury when he was shot while burgling the dwelling of an innocent person... It is also appalling that they may get legal aid while his victim is in prison and patently unable to work and equally cannot get legal aid... There is something wrong and perverse with our legal system that it permits this.

An appeal was considered in October 2001 by three senior judges headed by Lord Woolf, LCJ. Submissions by the defence that Martin had fired in his own defence were rejected by the appeal court. On this occasion the defence also submitted evidence that Martin suffered paranoid personality disorder specifically directed at anyone intruding into his home. This submission was accepted by the Court of Appeal and, on the grounds of diminished responsibility, Martin's murder conviction was replaced by manslaughter carrying a five year sentence, and his ten year sentence for wounding one of the burglars Fearon was reduced to three years. These sentences were to run concurrently.

Martin was imprisoned in Highpoint Prison, Suffolk. When he became eligible for parole and early release in January 2003, the Parole Board rejected his application without stating a reason.The chairman of the parole board, Sir David Hatch, in an interview with The Times described Martin as "a very dangerous man" who may still believe his action had been right.
Martin challenged the decision in the High Court, where the parole board's decision was upheld. Probation officers on Martin's cases said there was an "unacceptable risk" that Martin might again react with excessive force if other would-be burglars intruded on his Norfolk farm.On 28 July 2003, Martin was released after serving three years of his five-year sentence,the maximum period for which he could be held following good behaviour.

Compensation claim

During 2003, Fearon applied for, and received, an estimated £5,000 of legal aid to sue Martin for loss of earnings due to the injuries he had sustained. However, the case was thrown into doubt when photographs were published in The Sun, showing him "cycling and climbing with little apparent difficulty" suggesting that Fearon's injuries were not as serious as had been claimed. While the case was pending, Fearon was recalled to jail after being charged with the theft of a vehicle while on probation on a conviction for dealing heroin. Fearon later dropped the case when Martin agreed to drop a counter-claim. Tens of thousands of pounds of public money had been spent on the case.

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by GordMay

The case wasn't as simple as you suggest.
Tony Martin was convicted of murder, which was reduced to manslaughter on appeal; and his life sentence reduced to 5 years. He was released after serving three years.
The prosecution theory had Martin lying in wait, to ambush the two burglars.

Three years is too long.

Set in ambush - so what. Police set up ambushes all the time. The new word is sting I guess.

[zeehag]

sting, entrapment--same same.

[captain58sailin]

Doesn't change the fact that if those men had not been on Martin's property in the first place no harm would have come to them. I'm sorry, but those men had no business being on his property in the first place. I don't understand when it became okay to do this.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by captain58sailin

Doesn't change the fact that if those men had not been on Martin's property in the first place no harm would have come to them. I'm sorry, but those men had no business being on his property in the first place. I don't understand when it became okay to do this.

we're off wasp spray now

were the men on the property, or in Martin's house? big difference between the 2 in my mind

[GordMay]

They were IN the house; but (in most jurisdictions) breaking & entering doesn’t carry a death sentence. Were Martin in fear of his person, he would probably have been justified in shooting (perhaps, even with an illegal weapon). Apparently, the Jury, and subsequent appeal Judges, didn’t so find.
In which case, wasp/pepper spray may have been a more proportional response.
I didn't hear the evidence, and cannot, therefor, judge.

[sailorboy1]

I'll accept that. It is a pretty long established ruling that you can not ambush, set booby traps, shot them, etc in your house to catch people who break in.

Except in immediate defense of your person.

So for boating, if you carry a gun and shoot the people breaking into your boat, they better have a weapon that you can say they were threating you with. And a knife from 5 feet away isn't going to cut it if you just shot them with a shotgun etc.

Now I've gone down the gun hole and the thread is going to be closed. Sorry!

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by Don Lucas

I'll accept that. It is a pretty long established ruling that you can not ambush, set booby traps, shot them, etc in your house to catch people who break in.

Except in immediate defense of your person.

So for boating, if you carry a gun and shoot the people breaking into your boat, they better have a weapon that you can say they were threating you with. And a knife from 5 feet away isn't going to cut it if you just shot them with a shotgun etc.

Now I've gone down the gun hole and the thread is going to be closed. Sorry!

Don't be.

Wasp spray is stupid.

FYI - I have a son who has a friend that is training in the Sheriffs Office in another FL county. Part of this training includes being pepper sprayed, having to fight their way back to their cruiser (not our kind -their four wheeled kind ), get another weapon, call for help and then get back after the "bad guy".

Next week they get tazered.

So even pepper spray isn't so good for someone determined.

Don't know about bear spray.

Ok to close the thread now.

Thanks.

[Tellie]

Originally Posted by Therapy

Three years is too long.

Set in ambush - so what. Police set up ambushes all the time. The new word is sting I guess.

Agreed. The English way of thinking, sheesh. Maybe they're still smarting all these years after the Minute Men gave them a Jolly good education in ambushes. So back to wasp spray.....

[Islander1]

I'm missing something here; I fail to see what a dig at the English "Minute Men" (many of whom were mainly descended from "English stock") has to do with this thread?.
I'm off to buy some Sharp Stainless Steel Nails (Ref my interaction with Bruce 626) a few cans of hair Spray, a loud audible alarm of a Grizzly in Heat and a Bright Adjustable Motion Sensor Flood light.

[Bruce626]

Don Lucas opined "And a knife from 5 feet away isn't going to cut it if you just shot them with a shotgun etc." ==> I fear that belief in this seriously mistaken opinion can get someone seriously injured and/or killed. A person only five feet from you with a knife is well within potentially lethal range - a single step and a thrust could imbed a large knife in your chest, and quicker than you might imagine - especially under low light conditions where you might miss the start of the movement. I believe the literature recognizes a somewhat longer distance of around seven yards/meters is required to be able to stop someone from closing to contact.

A review of the literature might provide a current distance that LEO training manuals might cite. If one doesn't want to rely on a manual meant for well trained and equipped law enforcement officers, get a rubber knife and an airsoft pistol and experiment for yourself. Be sure to use goggles - and you can get darkened goggles to simulate low light conditions. It is my belief that you will find that the person wielding the knife is not as helpless as you might think from watching cinematic encounters (which is the 'training' that most people have).

Note that the person with the airsoft gun knows they are not using deadly force and will likely be less inclined to hesitate in pulling the trigger as might a person wielding a real firearm in a deadly situation.