Farmer fires shot as intruder escapes

Rovi

Just heard about this on the RTE Radio 1 news.
To paraphrase what Mr. Lancaster said, he fired a shot at the intruder from about 60-70 yards. The intruder let a shout out of him, and got into a waiting car and made good his escape.
Mr. Lancaster said that the only reason he didn't fire more shots was because the ejector on his shotgun was faulty, and he couldn't reload in time. He called the Guards, and had nothing but praise for their politeness and courtesy. He hasn't heard of anyone making any complaints about him, and his neighbours are hailing him as a hero.

Some more info from the Irish Independent site (http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1539619&issue_id=13525)-

[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Arial]Farmer fires shot as intruder escapes

[/FONT] Sarah Murphy[FONT=Verdana, Arial]
GARDAI are probing the circumstances surrounding a shooting incident at an isolated farm house in Co Wexford.
Farmer John Lancaster, who is in his 60s and lives close to Ballycarney, near Bunclody, fired a single shot from a legally held gun when an intruder broke into his home around 4.40pm on Saturday.
Mr Lancaster disturbed the intruder when he returned to his home alone. Gardai were immediately notified by Mr Lancaster.
A technical examination was carried out at the scene and no blood was found but it remains unclear if the intruder was shot.
[/FONT]

I'm sure we'll hear more in due course.

.

Hagar

Just shows the true value of proper firearms maintenance

joejoem

Wheres Ballycarney?

Vegeta

I know some people will say that he was only defending his land or whatever but I think he should be punished severely for taking a shot at someone! :mad:

Clare gunner

Hmmm,As much as I sympathise and empathise with this gent,I really hope it stays fine for him.
A crime has been comitted by the farmer[reckless discharge would spring to mind].Also that the felon was in full flight,so again he was no threat.
Also as much as you might like to tell the world about your feeelings,your best bet is to SHUT UP &SAY NOTHING!!!!! Until you have your solicitor present,who will tell you pretty much the same thing.It is an old police trick to get you talking ASAP after they have arrived on the crime scene.You will be hyped up ,or distressed and more than likely to incriminate yourself in the first twenty minutes than over a longer period of time.
Saying things like,what the farmer apprently said on some news reports like about not being able to reload and wishing he had shot the SOB and such,will do him no favours if this does go to court.And worse is there will be enough bottom of the pond slime sucking creatures[AKA lawyers] who will be only too happy to defend and [advise him to go for a civil suit] the poor shot felon who was only going about his rightful busisness of burglaring peoples houses!:rolleyes:
Realistically folks,[one day God help us] one of us,might end up in a situation of a self defence shooting.Yeah,I know off topic of the subject of sport shooting,etc.But it would behove us all to know somthing about the rights and wrongs of having to use deadly force.Not a pleasent subject or idea of having to take a human life.But knowing how and what to do might save you from a lengthy spell behind bars.
Not to mind that no doubt said farmer will be now plasterd over the news tonite and the tabloids tomrrow.Which will do his personal security no good either.

Rovi

Here's a link to the interview- http://dynamic.rte.ie/av/2105408.smil

.

homerhop

Thats where the law sucks here.you should have the right to defend your property.I wish there were alot more like him and eventually the government will have to take a serious look at the fears that those living in rural ireland have.

DDLR

WoW, Are you people for real, Someone tryed to brake in to his home, They were on his land, I say far play to him its just unlucky he didnt have a rifle and get the PR**K with a headshot, I for one if anyone was in my home wre my kids are i'd do whatever i had to,

Some of you are just unreal, IMHO Its because of people like you scum like this get away with what they do! Next time it could be youre mum at home alone who gets RAPED or killed. i hope not but just something to think about,

Umiq88

its one thing protecting yourself but hitting a guy while he's running off is another but then again it depends on the guys aswell theres alot of scum that deserve it but sounds like this guy had the intention of killing him which is def wrong unless he was coming at you and had no choice. In most cases i think your much better without weapons and takin a baseball bat or something and give the chap a beating if he comes near you

jeffshc1

Maybe the bad guy will think twice before committing another crime.
Trends like this cause crime to go down.

Sniper220

MOD: This was deleted for a reason the first time - by reposting it you just earned a ban. Bye

Rovi

Sniper220 wrote:

Oh Yeah!! ... <snippage>

Someone's criusin' for a bruisin' :rolleyes:

.

Sparks

homerhop wrote:

Thats where the law sucks here.you should have the right to defend your property.

You do - with reasonable force. Firing at someone as they run off is not reasonable force in anyone's book and I'm rather surprised at the level of enthusiasm shown for that course of action here when what it actually was was not self-defence but assault with a deadly weapon at best, attempted murder at worst.

ClareGunner wrote:

Realistically folks,[one day God help us] one of us,might end up in a situation of a self defence shooting.

You would hope not. For all the chatter, firearms are about the worst tool available to someone for self-defence.

scout

Sparks wrote:

You would hope not. For all the chatter, firearms are about the worst tool available to someone for self-defence.

What if anything thats their purpose

either the farmer is a poor shot or the didnt hurt im too badly a bloke with a shotgun wound would raise a flag or 2 in a&e

No report he was actualy shoot it just said he let out a screem it chould ave been "for f**k sake lets get the f**k out of ere":rolleyes:

Rovi

Sparks wrote:

You would hope not. For all the chatter, firearms are about the worst tool available to someone for self-defence.

Whatever about the suitability or otherwise of firearms for self defence (a whole other kettle of fish!), I think that they are much more likely to be used for such by people with 'only the one oul gun' than by those of us who consider ourselves to be shooting enthusiasts.
Besides the fear of loosing our hard gained licences, our guns simply aren't as readily available.

At least, I know mine aren't.

The man in this case said that he grabbed the gun out of a cupboard in the hall, and two or three cartridges.
If I want to use a gun for any purpose, I have to disable a zone on the alarm, retrieve a key from one room, open a 'dummy' cabinet in another, and then open a double locked gun safe and a combination safe. All this before I can assemble a usable firearm and ammunition.
Even skipping the alarm bit, this is going to take a decent amount of time, and it's certainly not going to happen in 'the heat of the moment'.

Should the day ever dawn in this country that 'personal defence' is accepted as a legitimate reason for gun ownership, I'll look at the logistics of it then, but for the moment and the foreseeable future, my guns might as well not exist in these sort of situations.

.

Sparks

scout wrote:

What if anything thats their purpose

That's rather the point. If you were to use a firearm for self-defence, all you can do is shoot with the thing. The "brandishing" strategy that Lott talks about a lot has never been proven to work, and everytime someone looks at his figures in depth, they don't hold up. Which means you have a high probability of killing whomever you're shooting at. Which means you go to court to defend your actions and the family of the person you've killed get a good look at your face, get your name and address, and now you can kiss goodbye to the concept of personal security.

On top of which, you cannot get a firearm in this country for defence of life or property except in exceptionally extreme cases. Which means that if you have one, you've got it illegally or you've lied on your application form for your licence so you could be done for illegal possession.

Basicly, the argument that they're great for self-defence is entirely focussed on the few seconds where you're actually pulling the trigger and pays little heed to the time before or after that or the consequences of that action.

And all of this is moot anyway - as what Lancaster did couldn't be called self-defence since the intruder was in full flight.

Sparks

Rovi wrote:

for the moment and the foreseeable future, my guns might as well not exist in these sort of situations.

Not to mention the akwardness of trying to get an intruder to stand ten meters away from you holding a small black circle and not moving...

Rovi

scout wrote:

either the farmer is a poor shot or the didnt hurt im too badly a bloke with a shotgun wound would raise a flag or 2 in a&e

Even allowing for 'variability' in Mr. Lancaster's estimate of the range (70 yards, and getting longer), the chances of getting anything more than a few pellets on target are pretty slim. Unless he was 'loaded for bear' (buckshot or slugs), it sounds like the intruder was well out of normal shotgun range.

.

Rovi

Sparks wrote:

Not to mention the akwardness of trying to get an intruder to stand ten meters away from you holding a small black circle and not moving...

Or getting him to sit on the clay trap until I shout "Pull!"

.

Clare gunner

QUOTE=DDLR]WoW, Are you people for real, Someone tryed to brake in to his home, They were on his land,[/QUOTE]
Reality !!Trespassing is NOT a reason to use deadly force on anyone.Yet.If your kids were nicking my apples,under that kind of law I would be entirely then within my rights to shoot them dead.Breaking into a home is questionable,stuff can be replaced,as much as a PITA it is to do so.You can only use deadly force when your life is in clear,and provable danger.[Lawyer speak ,not mine.]EG you have retreated up a flight of stairs,and have nowhere else to go,and you can see the perpr is armed.

I say far play to him its just unlucky he didnt have a rifle and get the PR**K with a headshot, I for one if anyone was in my home wre my kids are i'd do whatever i had to,

Oh good!THAT kind of attitude will really do the responsible shooting community a power of good.Doing somthing like that what you suggest will get you a long stretch away from wife&kids.Even police officers who use guns DO NOT have a free for all right to a shoot to kill policy.They can only fire in the gravest extreme to protect their life and those of bystanders.This is the really real world not some Hollywood crap fantasy!!!

Some of you are just unreal

,
How so????

IMHO Its because of people like you scum like this get away with what they do! Next time it could be youre mum at home alone who gets RAPED or killed. i hope not but just something to think about

Oh,so you would rather have armed posses of untrained armed mobs roaming the streets?Gunning down all and sundry for dropping sweet papers or parking illegally??That is what you are suggesting.Where do you think we are living ?In some post war apocalpitc society where we are free to do what we want????It isnt that bad out there yet.
Suggest you start retaking any medicines you were on at once.Cos it is compleate lunacy what you are suggesting.

Sparks

Clare gunner wrote:

You can only use deadly force when your life is in clear,and provable danger.

The actual law is that you may use whatever force is necessary if at the time you believe honestly that your life is in danger. It's a very simple law which grants enormous leeway if you act honestly, and which takes into account the stress such a situation puts on the protagonists involved, and there really isn't much in the way of confusion over it 99% of the time - it's the Tony Martins of this world that cause all the headaches

Oh good!THAT kind of attitude will really do the responsible shooting community a power of good.

Amen to that. :mad:

Vegeta

I'm with CG 100% on this!

Clare gunner

QUOTE=Sparks]That's rather the point. If you were to use a firearm for self-defence, all you can do is shoot with the thing. The "brandishing" strategy that Lott talks about a lot has never been proven to work, and everytime someone looks at his figures in depth, they don't hold up[/QUOTE].

That one Sparks I beg to differ from personal experiance.By "brandishing" I would suppose Lott or whomever means ,waving it in a futile and "I have a gun,now go away ." type affair will not work.
However adapting a firing stance and jacking a 12gauge round into a pistol gripped 12 gauge pump and putting a red dot on the first of a very pissed off skinhead gang leaders forehead who was waving a very nasty sword in my direction and just about squeaking out words that if anyone moved they would know what happend next,whilst covering two other fugitive recovery agents while they lifted on of the brothers out of a very scummy bar in downtown LA in the 1990s,and watching the crowd of skins becoming very docile with a sudden brake applied to the mob. I will say it does work.That has been the closest I have ever come to a very nasty firearms useage situation,and I do NOT EVER want to repeat it again in my life.I puked my ring up for about two hours later from shock and adrenaline dump.Anyone who thinks using a firearm on another human being is a great craic or it will be somthing like out of the movies will be in for a very rude awakning.
So maybe I am trhe exception to the rule on this matter?

Which means you have a high probability of killing whomever you're shooting at. Which means you go to court to defend your actions and the family of the person you've killed get a good look at your face, get your name and address, and now you can kiss goodbye to the concept of personal security

.

Not necessarily,but see above post as well.Actually they will be more intrested in getting as much money as possible out of you in a civil suit,rather than killing you.going by most high profile self defence cases in the US and here.As the survivors of the family that P Nally shot are trying to do.

On top of which, you cannot get a firearm in this country for defence of life or property except in exceptionally extreme cases. Which means that if you have one, you've got it illegally or you've lied on your application form for your licence so you could be done for illegal possession.

Sparks,people DO LIE to get things in this life,and it will only be logical to assume that alot of people who put down"vermin shooting" as a reason to own a shotgun have never fired at a crow,and keep the gun under their bed to have some form of protection,because they are living alone away from the middle of civilisation and they know that the police will never get to them on time or neither will their neighbours.Unfortuneatly it is reality of this life here in Ireland.And you can argue the legality or otherwise of it till the cows come home.
But it is a fact that you have to PROVE as well that somone lied on their application.Well,maybe Vermin shooting is being truthful,rats do come in both two and four legged varieties.
But will the Gardai go and enquire how many rats and crows you intend to shoot, or have shot to prove that some shotgun holders are truthful or not????Apart from a massive waste of police time and resources,it would be laughed out of court because the gaurds arrested farmer Jones for not killing a fox in the last ten years with his shotgun,therefore he must want it for self defenc???
I know personally of two women who lived out in the middle of nowhere,who were encouraged by their local Garda Sgt to apply for a shotgun cert for "Vermin disposal".These were two earth mother types whom killing anything was anethema.Yet you have to wonder at that Good Sgts motives.He was being realistic in that he knew it would be ages before they ever got to that place and that those two would be on their own if anything happened.

Basicly, the argument that they're great for self-defence is entirely focussed on the few seconds where you're actually pulling the trigger and pays little heed to the time before or after that or the consequences of that action.

Errr,not really a Concealed Weapons Permit course in the US will cover alot more than just what you described.It will go into the law for the state on self defence.What you can expect to happen in a shooting situation,pre and post,the legal aftermath and what to expect from the police[At least a ride downtown in the squad car with your hands behind the back,the loss of your firearm used in the shooting until the end of the investigation and court side of things].All in all a good firearms self defence course will focus on more the if,but how etc than the actual how to make it go bang.
Have a read of Massayd Ayoobs"in the gravest extreme" for the whole thing on using a firearm for self defence.If you can get a copy in English Sigfreid Hubner's book "Home defence with all means"gives a European perspective[albiet abit dated] on this whole matter,even less leathl methods of home defence.

And all of this is moot anyway - as what Lancaster did couldn't be called self-defence since the intruder was in full flight

]
Agreed,the courts look at it like this if somone is running away from you what threat are they posing???

homerhop

Sparks wrote:

You do - with reasonable force. Firing at someone as they run off is not reasonable force in anyone's book and I'm rather surprised at the level of enthusiasm shown for that course of action here when what it actually was was not self-defence but assault with a deadly weapon at best, attempted murder at worst.


Ya, I was in a situation a few years ago where I had to use reasonable force. Landed me in an ass load of.... Thankfully the guard on the case knew my background and that of other individuals and to be quiet honest other than that fact, I would have had been in trouble. Reasonable force of any kind in this country will land you with an assault charge.

To be quiet honest I have no sympathy for the guy he shot at. Having lived in a rural area and witnessed the fears of old people esp during the 80's when there were some vicious assaults on the elderly.The biggest mistake the man made was to go public about it

Sparks

homerhop wrote:

To be quiet honest I have no sympathy for the guy he shot at.

I doubt anyone has - I certainly don't. Thing is, not having sympathy for him doesn't mean that Lancaster was right to do what he did.

recipio

:rolleyes: The Irish Times reports him as using a rifle. He gave the distance to the intruder as about 60 yards so he fired in anger with a shotgun or he thought he had a chance of hitting him with a .22 round. Either way he faces the loss of his gun and possible legal charges.Not worth the short term feeling of revenge in my view.

Rovi

recipio wrote:

:rolleyes: The Irish Times reports him as using a rifle.

I just listened to the interview again, and he definitely mentions the word 'cartridges' twice. This leads me to strongly suspect that he used a shotgun, as I'd expect the term 'bullets' to be used if it was a rifle. The type of firearm isn't specified, and it's referred to as a 'gun' a few times.

.

Vegeta

The scumbag who got shot was probably a thief but the guy who shot him very nearly became a murderer. If you had to choose one which would it be?

I haven't heard/read the interview myself, was the shooter being robbed regularly or was this the first time

Clare gunner

Many times robbed.First time shooting back.:eek:

Vegeta

Was it the same guy robbing him all the time