OT - Interesting trial outcome in the UK

[perry owens]

From my local newspaper......

Jury clears man of shotgun murder
A court has cleared a man accused of murdering a nightclub bouncer in a sleepy village.
A jury found Kenneth Batchelor, 50, not guilty after just one hour’s consideration at Maidstone Crown Court of the murder of 20-stone Matt Clements.
Mr Batchelor had denied it was murder claiming it was self-defence.
Clements, from Wayside Avenue, St Michaels, in Tenterden, was shot at point-blank range in November 2007 in Chilham.
Senior investigating officer, Detective Chief Inspector Mick Atkinson said: "We worked closely with the Crown Prosecution Service to bring this case before the court as it was believed it was one which a jury should decide upon.
"It was a complex investigation for us to follow through due to the history and relationships between the parties involved.
"In this case in particular, the jury clearly took into account Batchelor's evidence around the fact that the gun was discharged accidentally and therefore he was acquitted of murdering Matthew Clements.
"We would urge anyone who feels under threat in a situation like this one to contact police at the earliest opportunity and not to take the law into their own hands."
Earlier, the court had heard how Batchelor, of Hendon Cottages, Chilham, described how he was in fear of his life when bouncer 'Mad Matt' Clements battered his way through a top-floor window of his home.
He had turned up at Batchelor’s home on a mission to secure a £150-a-week maintenance payment for the three children his partner had with Batchelor’s brother Gary. Gary had died just three days prior to the shooting.
In a series of phone calls to Batchelor, Clements had threatened in graphic detail that he would 'slit his throat while asleep'.
A jury at Maidstone Crown Court heard how Batchelor kept telling him to go away.
He said he'd locked all the windows except the ones in a roof extension and saw Clements climbing up a ladder onto scaffolding.
Batchelor knew Clements had a violent reputation and owned guns including an Uzi machine pistol.
He said: "I had the shotgun to deter him from going any further. I thought of putting a shot in the air but I didn't intend to aim a shot at him."
Batchelor told the court: "Clements said 'I'll get my gun out before you can raise them barrels’.
"My phone was next to me. I had been talking to my fiancee Linda. I heard a scream and for a split second I turned. He just smashed into the window and it smashed back into me. I fell back and snatched at the trigger and the gun has gone off."
In that split second he realised Clements had been hit in the chest.
He said: "I looked at him wide-eyed and he looked at me wide-eyed and then he ran around the corner. I looked out of the window and saw blood spots on the scaffolding. I was in bits I didn't know what to do. I did not intend to pull that trigger.
"My life was in danger. I believed I was being threatened but I didn't deliberately aim the gun at him."
Earlier in the trial the court heard Clements took drugs and body building steroids.
He was a thug who boasted of being shot twice and stabbed several times. He either settled disputes by violence or turning up with his Uzi to threaten people with.
Clements, 42, was known to police because of his violent behaviour.

Ok, so he fired the gun "accidentally" and it wasn't murder, but it's interesting to compare this case with that of Tony Martin 10 years ago. Tony killed a burglar in similar circumstances and was banged up for murder for several years. Maybe juries are growing just a little tired of the police attitude to people who defend themselves
Perry Owens

[Tycer]

From my local newspaper......



O Maybe juries are growing just a little tired of the police attitude to people who defend themselves
Perry Owens

We can only hope!

I followed the Tony Martin case pretty closely, and from this side of the pond it did seem that he made some avoidable mistakes. I still question whether he was truly in immediate grave danger or if he was just angry and vengeful. I'm not passing judgement, but here in the courts, you must prove you were in immediate danger and had no other choice.

[kimwcook]

People need to remember it's the legislature, judge and juries that make the laws and pass judgement. It's not the police. They only enforce the laws that are passed. Anything that gets past the LEO, in other words isn't handled on the spot, is in the hands of the judicial system and not up to the police. They have no authority to do anything after the reports have left their hands and gone on to the prosecutor. LE can make suggestions, but inevitably it's beyond their control and authority. So, get your legislators to change the laws or vote them out. I admit my ignorance to English law other than English common law that came with our history. But, generally in the United States that's how it plays out.

[20cows]

Wow. The "victim" routinely carried an Uzi around and was known by the police to do so?

It does sound like was one of those that "needed killin'".

[66GTO]

Over here on this side of the Atlantic, at least in my state, there would have been no need to claim an accidental discharge with no intention of shooting the assailant. If someone forces his way into your house and you can articulate that you felt your life and safety were threatened you are justified in using deadly force under the "Castle Doctrine". Not only that, but neither the intruder or his survivors have any legal recourse in civil court for damages.

Even though the homeowner had to claim the shooting was accidental, at least the outcome was the correct one.

[don Tomás]

My tag line...

[Ysabel Kid]

Same in my state as in 66GTO's - someone forces their way into your home, and you have every right to assume they are there to cause you or your loved ones great bodily harm. You have every right to dispatch them and don't have to wait until the actually attack you or brandish a weapon.

20 stones huh? Isn't that 280 pounds? Big enough fellow that even without potential weapons, he would have caused most men pause...

[Nath]

Good man him and thanks for sharing PO.
Clear cut case to me, if I was on that jury they would of had my answer within 2 seconds of closing the door and then I could of enjoyed my pipe in peace, job done.
Every one should have the caperbilities of removing predatory vermin by how ever they wish period!

Nath.

[gamekeeper]

I'm glad this guy got off the murder rap but it's a shame he had to squirm in court about it being an accident. Any villain that's known to use an Uzi to get his own way deserves both barrels from anyone he threatens. Clear case of self defense.

Quote
"We would urge anyone who feels under threat in a situation like this one to contact police at the earliest opportunity and not to take the law into their own hands."

Who ever said that has the IQ to match his shoe size!

[Nath]

Yeah I picked up on that one GK.
"Oh yes we strongly recomend that before you do anything risky like defending your self take a moment to think and phone your nearest police so we can nail you for defending your self more easy (what we call taking the law into your own hands)."
Stupid people+stupid laws+stupid politics=dangerous place to live.

Nath.

[Doc Hudson]

Maybe juries are growing just a little tired of the police attitude to people who defend themselve

Isn't that a bit much to hope for after 60 years of the Welfare State telling people "The police will protect you?"

[Ysabel Kid]

So, how many good folks in the UK have died on the telephone line waiting for the police?

Gosh, you guys over there sure are nice to your thugs. The police seem to try really hard to make the criminal's lives safer...

[Griff]

Wow. The "victim" routinely carried an Uzi around and was known by the police to do so?

It does sound like was one of those that "needed killin'".

Yep... that one jumped out at me also.

[creosote]

A good outcome, I would like to add that here in california , anyone breaking into a home in the dark of night is presumed to have evil intent and may be dealt with accordingly.




creosote

[JustaJeepGuy]

A good outcome, I would like to add that here in california , anyone breaking into a home in the dark of night is presumed to have evil intent and may be dealt with accordingly.

Wow--California hasn't outlawed the concept of "presumed to have evil intent" yet? How old-fashioned! I'm sure there are legislators working on that, though.

[otteray]

A good outcome, I would like to add that here in california , anyone breaking into a home in the dark of night is presumed to have evil intent and may be dealt with accordingly.

Wow--California hasn't outlawed the concept of "presumed to have evil intent" yet? How old-fashioned! I'm sure there are legislators working on that, though.

Actually, it's a pretty good set of clearly laid out of rules.
30 years ago, it was called the "Make my day" law.

[Leverdude]

How does somebody carry around an uzi in the UK with police knowledge? Kinda seems like if they enforced their laws against criminals instead of just the law abiding none of this coulda happened.

[JustaJeepGuy]

But Leverdude, they DON'T CARE about criminals! If they cared about criminals committing crimes, they'd DO something about them.

Whoops! This post is getting dangerously close to politics! Sorry 'bout that!

[Charles]

In the Lone Star State of Texas, it is doubtful that charges would have been filed. Certainly the Grand Jury would not have indicted. It is clearly a righteous shooting in Texas. Somebody should have droped the hammer on that jerk years before and saved lots of folks the grief of having to deal with him. He needed killing!

[Jaguarundi]

In "Bama no charges would have been filed either.Same as in the states of Florida,Texas etc ,Castle doctrine is the law.