PDA

View Full Version : Which of us belongs in prison?


Ramrod
22-07-2003, 14:39
I notice that Tony Martin is due for parole. He didn't get it earlier partly due to the fact that the parole board considered him to be a 'danger to burglars':rolleyes: .
If that's the case I should be banged up as well, anyone else?:D

Enterian
22-07-2003, 14:44
Abolutely! I was burgled a few years ago and I would cheerfully have had a go, only problem is a shotgun is too quick, I would rather have beaten them to death with a baseball bat!

Lock me up and throw away the key!

Enterian
(Bottled Rage a Speciality!)

Chris
22-07-2003, 14:50
I hope I'm a calm and reasonable person but you just never know ... at the very least I'm a danger to burglars as I'd have no qualms about locking them in my garage until the police turn up. I could probably get sued for wrongful imprisonment.

Jules
22-07-2003, 14:57
Ok I am going down for a long time then. I sleep with a hockey stick next to my bed and I have 2 dogs that I wont hold back and I live in a nice area :)

Stuart
22-07-2003, 14:58
Originally posted by towny
I hope I'm a calm and reasonable person but you just never know ... at the very least I'm a danger to burglars as I'd have no qualms about locking them in my garage until the police turn up. I could probably get sued for wrongful imprisonment.

The police apparently used to use a car that did that. The car would be sitting in the road (locked up), the burglar would break in, try to start it and would suddenly be locked in. The Police, presumably sitting near, would catch them.

Back on topic..

I don't know how I'd react to a burglar. I'd like to think I would be calm and rational, but I have seen the effects a burglary can have on people (an aunt was burgled, and eventually had to move house as she no longer felt safe), and wouldn't want to go through that..

Ramrod
22-07-2003, 14:59
It makes me blood boil:afire: :grind:

kink
22-07-2003, 15:02
I think you'd all be relatively safe as long as you don't shoot them in the back as they're making their escape...

:shrug:

Chris
22-07-2003, 15:05
Originally posted by whyme38
I sleep with a hockey stick <snip>

In the 19th century you could've got done for sexual deviancy, these days prolly just 'going equipped'... ;)

Seriously tho', I think they take a dim view if they know the stick lives permanently by your side. You are allowed to use 'reasonable force' but I think they expect you to assess what is reasonable on the spot, before selecting your weapon. The muppets.

and I live in a nice area :)

Yes, I think the final unforgiveable crime in this country is to be middle class. Taxed to death, burgled to death then prosecuted for trying to do something about it. :(

orangebird
22-07-2003, 15:07
Not to mention the fact that the burglar who survived but got injured is going to sue Tony Martion for loss of earnings!!!:afire::mad:

Ramrod
22-07-2003, 15:11
Originally posted by kink
I think you'd all be relatively safe as long as you don't shoot them in the back as they're making their escape...

:shrug:
.....on a dark night with an unknown number of assailants in your dark house threatening you with bodily harm......

Ramrod
22-07-2003, 15:12
Originally posted by orangebird
Not to mention the fact that the burglar who survived but got injured is going to sue Tony Martion for loss of earnings!!!:afire::mad:
....never having worked a day in his life.....

Ramrod
22-07-2003, 15:13
Originally posted by Drudge
If you keep any form of weapon near your bed which would not normally be in a bedroom e.g. baseball bat, club, sword etc, then the police may prosecute you.

However, if you keep a nice sharp saw, and just happen to be putting it away, FOR SAFETY REASONS, then the police will not prosecute you.

This advice came from a police sergeant.
now thats an interesting idea.....saw burglars up:D

Jules
22-07-2003, 15:15
Pmsl at Towny

So as a women living in her house with her 12 year old son I am not allowed to keep some thing near by to protect us both if some low life wants to come in to my home???

That is stupid

Defiant
22-07-2003, 15:21
Lets face it the majority of people in this country would do the same thing but the sad do gooder's rule

Chris
22-07-2003, 15:21
Originally posted by whyme38
Pmsl at Towny

So as a women living in her house with her 12 year old son I am not allowed to keep some thing near by to protect us both if some low life wants to come in to my home???

That is stupid

Sad but apparently true (although see a couple of posts above for some unofficial police advice regarding hacksaws!)

Pardon my limited understanding of forum abbreviations - pmsl?

Jules
22-07-2003, 15:25
pmsl = peeing my self laughing

Right I have sorted it if it ever happens I will tell the police I kept the hockey stick there for my own pleasure :)


(makes me eyes water thinking about it lol)

Ramrod
22-07-2003, 15:37
Originally posted by Defiant
Lets face it the majority of people in this country would do the same thing but the sad do gooder's rule Exactly my point, may the do-gooders get burgled several times by multiple intruders threatening them with bodily harm. Might put some common sense back into this country.

TigaSefi
22-07-2003, 15:39
if someone was to burgle me, their hands will be mashed into a bloody pulp cos my weapon are some heavy heavy shoes wiv metal shiny bits all over them

homealone
22-07-2003, 15:44
Originally posted by whyme38
Pmsl at Towny

So as a women living in her house with her 12 year old son I am not allowed to keep some thing near by to protect us both if some low life wants to come in to my home???

That is stupid

Hey Jules - I would have thought you kept the hockey stick nearby in case you needed to smash a window in the event of a fire?:shrug: :angel:

Mark W
22-07-2003, 15:45
have to agree, my home IS my castle, and woe betied anyone who tries to get in without my say so....

ill sit them down with a cup of ovaltine and explain the morals of that they are doing ;)

Chris
22-07-2003, 15:54
Originally posted by Drudge
Who mentioned Hacksaw, The one in question has a 22" blade with 244 "razor sharp teeth" and a handle that can't slip (or be pulled) out of your hand.

I stand corrected, I just thought the word 'hack' might conjure up therapeutic images for some folks ...

Enterian
22-07-2003, 16:05
Originally posted by Ramrod
....never having worked a day in his life.....

It's stopped him going on the rob, he can't climb through windows or run away with all his swag.

Poor soul! :grind:

dingosar
22-07-2003, 16:08
Well if someone broke into my property and i caught them at it i would most likely kick thier heads in , the problem is that in the part of the world where i spent a large part of my life there is a law against dropping SH&T on the sidewalk , but that would not stop me , so to all those low lifes out there ................
Wanna Try your luck and if you do better book a place in an ICU first

:2up:

kink
22-07-2003, 16:13
Originally posted by Ramrod
.....on a dark night with an unknown number of assailants in your dark house threatening you with bodily harm......

If that was the case..... which thankfully it wasn't.... i'd be grateful when they left my home and that i was not dead or in anyway damaged. I have had my life threatened and been attacked and have been so scared that i thought i'd never see my family or friends again. I came away from it all mentally scarred.
But i am here. Did i wish those that tried to harm me dead? Of course i did.... i still do.
Did i run after them with a mallet, brick or shot gun (and my father did have one) ? No.
If someone was trying to kill me or someone dear to me, then i would do anything to defend myself or my loved ones.. if that meant killing them, i really wouldn't know what i would do unless in that situation.
Would i KILL someone for burgling my home? No.
Would i KILL someone for threatening me? No.
My home is NOT my 'castle' it is were i live.... i'm sorry if you are offended by my views.... but my possessions are not worth the life of any human.
My life probably is.... as is that of others.
That's all :)

Stuart
22-07-2003, 16:38
Originally posted by kink

My home is NOT my 'castle' it is were i live.... i'm sorry if you are offended by my views.... but my possessions are not worth the life of any human.
My life probably is.... as is that of others.
That's all :)

True. we, and our lives are worth far more than any possessions. Possessions can be replaced, we can't.

Ramrod
22-07-2003, 16:39
Originally posted by kink
[B]But i am here. Did i wish those that tried to harm me dead? Of course i did.... i still do. That says it all
Did i run after them with a mallet, brick or shot gun (and my father did have one) ? No. You are female, it would have been suicidal to do so.
If someone was trying to kill me or someone dear to me, then i would so anything to defend myself or my loved ones.. if that meant killing them, i really wouldn't know what i would do unless in that situation. I do...
Would i KILL someone for burgling my home? No.
Would i KILL someone for threatening me? No. He was not done for murder, ie he was not trying to kill them.
My home is NOT my 'castle' it is were i live.... i'm sorry if you are offended by my views.... but my possessions are not worth the life of any human. It was a dark night, there had already been several break-ins there, Martin knew the police would not respond (or if they did, it would not be in time) and the burglars were menacing him with taunts that they were going to 'get' him. He didn't know what weapons they had with them and although he responded with (what we now know to be) excess force it obviously seemed reasonable at that time and place.

Ramrod
22-07-2003, 16:42
Originally posted by scastle
True. we, and our lives are worth far more than any possessions. Possessions can be replaced, we can't. But if we stand aside and let these people come into our homes and threaten and steal, we then become targets for repeated (and probably escalating) crimes. As Martin already was....

kink
22-07-2003, 16:55
Originally posted by Ramrod
That says it all
You are female, it would have been suicidal to do so.
I do...
He was not done for murder, ie he was not trying to kill them.
It was a dark night, there had already been several break-ins there, Martin knew the police would not respond (or if they did, it would not be in time) and the burglars were menacing him with taunts that they were going to 'get' him. He didn't know what weapons they had with them and although he responded with (what we now know to be) excess force it obviously seemed reasonable at that time and place.

You're right ramrod.

I am female :)

orangebird
22-07-2003, 17:07
Originally posted by Ramrod
But if we stand aside and let these people come into our homes and threaten and steal, we then become targets for repeated (and probably escalating) crimes. As Martin already was....

But it wasn't just possessions Martin was protecting - it was his livelihood....God knows, I'd do exactly the same. Allowing the other burglar to sue is just a kick in the face for those that have worked honestly their entire life - ie the taxpayers that are going to be paying for the rotten b*stards' legal aid... :mad:

Stuart
22-07-2003, 17:08
Originally posted by Ramrod
But if we stand aside and let these people come into our homes and threaten and steal, we then become targets for repeated (and probably escalating) crimes. As Martin already was....

And if the law allows us to kill intruders, we will eventually get Anarchy..

Edit: While I am not defending the burglar (he is ****), and while I don't know what I would do in that situation, I don't think attacking people is the answer.

Nemesis
22-07-2003, 17:09
so what is trespass supposed to mean then ?

and what are you allowed to do about it ?

Ramrod
22-07-2003, 17:11
Originally posted by orangebird
Allowing the other burglar to sue is just a kick in the face for those that have worked honestly their entire life - ie the taxpayers that are going to be paying for the rotten b*stards' legal aid... :mad: I just had a policeman in who said that he'd like to get hold of the person who suggested that they sue.:D

Stuart
22-07-2003, 17:13
Originally posted by Nemesis
so what is trespass supposed to mean then ?

and what are you allowed to do about it ?

Call the police?

Ramrod
22-07-2003, 17:13
Originally posted by Nemesis
so what is trespass supposed to mean then ?

and what are you allowed to do about it ? Bugger all apart from 'reasonable force' (the level of which has to be decided in a split second during a very stressful encounter-often with incomplete information to hand):(

Ramrod
22-07-2003, 17:14
Originally posted by scastle
Call the police? apparently in his case they weren't going to attend....I think....could be wrong.

Nemesis
22-07-2003, 17:14
From dictionary

tres·pa ss ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trsps, -ps)

intr.v. tres·pa ssed, tres·pa ss·ing, tres·pa ss·es

1. To commit an offense or a sin; transgress or err.

2. Law. To commit an unlawful injury to the person, property, or rights of another, with actual or implied force or violence, especially to enter onto another's land wrongfully.

3. To infringe on the privacy, time, or attention of another: †œI must... not trespass too far on the patience of a good-natured criticÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã‚Â (Henry Fielding).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So trespass is defined, what can you as a householder do about it in law ?

Stuart
22-07-2003, 17:16
Originally posted by Ramrod
apparently in his case they weren't going to attend....I think....could be wrong.

I thought that the only reason the police were allowed to refuse to attend a call out is if they had so many false call outs from an address in nine months?

I know that London police operate such a system..

Stuart
22-07-2003, 17:17
Originally posted by Nemesis

So trespass is defined, what can you as a householder do about it in law ?

I honestly think that ,legally, the only thing we are allowed to do is call the police.

Or, as ramrod says above, use "reasonable force" which is always difficult to actually define..

Enterian
22-07-2003, 17:25
Originally posted by scastle
Possessions can be replaced

Not always, when we were burgled my wife lost jewellery given to her by her late father, that cannot be replaced, only substitued with similar items that don't have any sentimental value.

Enterian

Mark W
22-07-2003, 17:35
call me over simplistic, but if a burgular knew that if he was to enter a house, and the occupants would be cowering in a cupboard dialling 999, i dont think he'll be fussed about entering and taking what he wants.....

but if, on the other hand, he knows that if he enters a house, he has got a good chance of being shot/stabbed/maimed by oiling oil ( ;) ) and if that happens he'll STILL be going down for attempted robbery, whilst the home owner gets away with a wagged finger - i somehow doubt said robber would be so keen no?

with this martin case, house breakers now seem to win both ways... they break in - if there is no resistance, they get what they want, if the house owner puts up a fight, they sue for damages....:mad:

generally im an advocate for turning the other cheek, but this is my HOME we are talking about. admittedly, at the moment that does not have a significant meaning as it will when i actually own my own home, and am raising a familiy in it but the theory still stands. Why should i sit back allow some **** to violate that and make me and one day my family be afraid in my own home?

Nemesis
22-07-2003, 17:49
Surely you have the right to protect your own property ?

If so how ?

zoombini
22-07-2003, 17:54
If you keep any form of weapon near your bed which would not normally be in a bedroom e.g. baseball bat, club, sword etc, then the police may prosecute you.


That sounds like just so much cods-wallop to me!

There are perfectly good & legal reasons for keeping a baseball bat, sword, club or other items that may be construed to be "weapons" in the bedroom.

Especially if you have children in the house, you simply keep them safe away from the kids who are not allowed in mummy/daddies bedroom.
Baseball bats are kept away from them to stop them hurting each other & only bought out when a game is played (or ya get burgled).

What may be considered to be a weapon outside the boundaries of the home often has perfectly legitimate uses inside it.

Household items can be found in any room within the house and have perfectly legitimate reasons for being there.
Just because they happen to still be there on the eve that you get an unwanted visit is purely circumstantial.

As is the unfortunate circumstance of the burglar walking into your baseball bat just as you were practising your swing methods because you cannot sleep (having told the rest of the household not to come downstairs as your practising "swinging your bat").

:D :D

Jail me, go on I dare them...

I think we should petition the european courts for a similar constitution to the states & allow us to carry arms, legs & baseball bats within our own homes.

zoombini
22-07-2003, 17:56
Originally posted by Nemesis
Surely you have the right to protect your own property ?

If so how ?

If you are in the UK, you have no rights any more.:rolleyes:

Defiant
22-07-2003, 18:01
Originally posted by zoombini
If you are in the UK, you have no rights any more.:rolleyes:

We used to but over the year's they have all been taken away and still being taken. Back to the Do Gooder thing it seems. Remember the days for instance when the police could clip kids around the ear for giving a bit of cheek. Now the kids just put two fingers up and laugh. Oh and now their saying you can't smack your own kids when their playing up. Well B@llocks. My son plays up and he knows what's coming

Ramrod
22-07-2003, 18:07
Originally posted by Defiant
We used to but over the year's they have all been taken away and still being taken. Back to the Do Gooder thing it seems. Remember the days for instance when the police could clip kids around the ear for giving a bit of cheek. Now the kids just put two fingers up and laugh. Oh and now their saying you can't smack your own kids when their playing up. Well B@llocks. My son plays up and he knows what's coming yup.

Stuart
22-07-2003, 18:41
Originally posted by Enterian
Not always, when we were burgled my wife lost jewellery given to her by her late father, that cannot be replaced, only substitued with similar items that don't have any sentimental value.

Enterian

Maybe replaced was the wrong word to use. I know that, in general, the law tends to value possessions less than people.

Stuart
22-07-2003, 18:44
Originally posted by zoombini
If you are in the UK, you have no rights any more.:rolleyes:

That's a bit extreme, isn't it? There are countries where the population really does have no rights (Iraq under Saddam for example). We are not one of them.

Ramrod
22-07-2003, 19:23
Originally posted by scastle
That's a bit extreme, isn't it? There are countries where the population really does have no rights (Iraq under Saddam for example). We are not one of them. While what you say is true, they do have the right to defend themselves against common criminals.

darkangel
22-07-2003, 23:15
I've not read every post so forgive me if I'm repeating things, the Tony martin case isn't a good example for this argument for several reasons firstly while people have claimed he was protecting his home, wrong Mr martin shot somebody in the back running through his garden not his home, the illegal weapon he had was not used to protect his livelihood against foxes etc since his farm was an over grown field, the guy was a well known nut with mental health problems who booby trapped his property with "lethal devices" a slept with a loaded unlicensed pump action shotgun, on a personal i would react differently from u average person as training kicks in, i understand people tend to react out of fear but no property is worth having to kill for i know this no many people here will do.

darkangel
22-07-2003, 23:16
Originally posted by Ramrod
While what you say is true, they do have the right to defend themselves against common criminals. you always have the right to use appropriate reasonable force

Ramrod
22-07-2003, 23:33
Originally posted by darkangel
you always have the right to use appropriate reasonable force An untrained person will always have a problem judging an appropriate response in a situation like that.
....and I would be setting booby traps if I lived miles from nowhere, been burgled before and knew the police were probably not going to respond.

Jerrek
23-07-2003, 01:19
In Texas, you have the right to shoot someone that is trespassing on your property if you warn people where your property starts. If you find your wife sleeping with another man in your house, you can shoot him without fear of being prosecuted.

darkangel
23-07-2003, 01:44
Originally posted by Jerrek
In Texas, you have the right to shoot someone that is trespassing on your property if you warn people where your property starts. If you find your wife sleeping with another man in your house, you can shoot him without fear of being prosecuted. well that says alot about texas then m8

Temporal
23-07-2003, 01:50
Originally posted by zoombini
If you are in the UK, you have no rights any more.:rolleyes:

President Tony has given all our rights to Europe and bought in some p1ss poor ones from Brussels..... :rolleyes:

On my bedroom door I have a chinning bar - I'm very good at doing chin ups on it, at night and during the day it tends to lie next to my bed to stop people hitting their head on it as they walk through the doorway. During the night it's the first thing to hand should I be 'startled'.

Quite often the three most important women in my life (mother, sister, girlfriend) are asleep in the same house and I will go very far to protect them.

kronas
23-07-2003, 02:19
Originally posted by darkangel
well that says alot about texas then m8

i like texans they know how to have fun beer and bar room fights :p

timewarrior2001
23-07-2003, 11:34
Well, my partners neighbour had an attempted break in on Sunday night. The tried to get in the kitchen window by removing the beading.
Police turned up at 9:30am this morning (wednesday). I'm pretty sure they were just making sure there were no nasty burglars around.
Makes you think though doesnt it, if the police wont protect you why cant we take the law into our own hands?

Ramrod
23-07-2003, 13:04
Originally posted by timewarrior2001
Makes you think though doesnt it, if the police wont protect you why cant we take the law into our own hands?
When the police were origionally set up, the authorities used that as an excuse to disarm the population- promising us that we no longer had to defend ourselves against intruders as there was a police force to do it. The police force is now not keeping up their end of the deal. Can we have our weapons back and the right to use them?

Stuart
23-07-2003, 13:30
Originally posted by Ramrod
While what you say is true, they do have the right to defend themselves against common criminals.

Not in all cases. Look at Zimbabwe..

zoombini
23-07-2003, 13:38
We had a burglary where someone tried to climb in through a small 10x14 ish window during the night.

Unfortunately for them, my Brother was home on leave & sleeping in the room.

He ended up chasing them down the road (wearing only his underpants) waving a decorative double bladed axe he pulled off of its nail in the wall.
Good job he never caught him...

Ramrod
23-07-2003, 14:27
Originally posted by scastle
Not in all cases. Look at Zimbabwe.. Now lets not get silly:)

philip.j.fry
23-07-2003, 14:54
Originally posted by orangebird
Not to mention the fact that the burglar who survived but got injured is going to sue Tony Martion for loss of earnings!!!:afire::mad:

Not just for loss of earnings, 'apparently' the experience has left him unable to perform sexually. :spin:

Ramrod
23-07-2003, 14:59
Originally posted by philip.j.fry
'apparently' the experience has left him unable to perform sexually. :spin: shame:D

Stuart W
23-07-2003, 15:01
Sound slike a bonus to me!

Depriving him of children can only be a good thing going by his "morals" or lack of them!

Mark W
23-07-2003, 15:04
Originally posted by philip.j.fry
Not just for loss of earnings, 'apparently' the experience has left him unable to perform sexually. :spin:

Well, looks like the human gene pool is gonna improve slightly

ntluser
23-07-2003, 18:37
I'm not sure which is worse. Having a police force armed with truncheons, electronic stun-guns, rubber batons etc who are never around if you need them and if they are they are reluctant to use their weapons; or courts with judges who don't want to send criminals to prison.

It is any wonder that people are obliged to protect themselves when the state is useless.

All you can do is reduce the chances of being burgled by implementing as many security measures you can afford and buy a large 'family pet' Doberman to greet unwelcome visitors.

The only way we will get proper justice in this country is when judges, senior politicians and others charged with operating the legal system are affected by crime. Then they really will stand up and take notice as it affects them.

Temporal
24-07-2003, 02:27
Hmmmmm...... to bring the police back into this.....

10 minutes ago they were way too busy tailgating me with their full beams on as I went about my own business driving home from seeing my girlfriend :rolleyes:

Shock - horror - it's the only time I've seen them in weeks and they were displaying the worst driving I've seen yet if I'd been doing 31mph........:rolleyes:

albone
24-07-2003, 21:17
I for one am apalled at the reaction of the police in any burglary, as they don't seem to deem it waranting any attendance unless life has been threatened. And even if you install alarms they don't take much heed to them either. As for poor Tony Martin, I think anyone who was on the recieving end of the campaign of breakins that he sustained, would have been going out of their minds with the hassle of it all and the result was as we know not good.
But the man should not have been there! If he wasn't he wouldn't have been shot in the first place! As to him sueing, well it beggars belief! So he can't have kids! Good! He isn't a good role model anyhow, and his kids would be like minded no doubt too, following his example and stealing their way through life as that seems to be all he knows.:mad:
So it leads to the fact that all us normal soles end up in prison and the nutters are on the loose! What a world!

Ramrod
24-07-2003, 21:40
What an incredibly liberal society we live in that we give career **** like that any rights and consideration under the law. In many parts of the world he would be told that he had brought his misfortune upon himself and to stop whining. Here we are concerned about whether his rights were infringed while he was committing his crime!

Mark W
25-07-2003, 20:33
lol....

http://www.ntlworld.com/partners/itn/britain/1261348.php

Lord Nikon
25-07-2003, 20:46
The police and government in this country banned the ownership of handguns which achieved the following...

The responsible licensed owners of the weapons handed them in as per the instructions of the law, meaning that the people legally entitled at the time to own the weapons no longer had them. Does anyone else see a flaw in this?

Yup, The criminals who posessed them didn't hand them in and still own them.

Yet another example of the government empowering the criminals.

If someone broke into my house and was armed then I am sure they would have gone via the kitchen and found a knife on the way by the time the police arrived to collect what was left of them.

Reasonable force in the defense of the property when someone is armed enough to kill you.....

Ramrod
25-07-2003, 22:57
Originally posted by Lord Nikon
If someone broke into my house and was armed then I am sure they would have gone via the kitchen and found a knife on the way by the time the police arrived to collect what was left of them.

I do like that:D

Graham
25-07-2003, 23:23
Ho hum, here we go with the Tony Martin debate again and, as traditional, we see the "string them all up, an Englishman's home is his castle" arguments.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think I can offer a few clarifications following discussions on this with a friend who is (but don't take this as gospel just in case I've misunderstood him)

1) Trespass: This is a *civil* offence, not a criminal offence. It only becomes a criminal offence when you have "aggravated trespass" eg when a trespasser obstructs or intimidates a lawful activity or when the trespasser commits another offence, such as damage to property.

If someone is trespassing on your property you have the right to remove them using "reasonable force".

AIUI the Police are not able to arrest someone for a civil offence.

2) Reasonable force: This is the *minimum* necessary force required to defend yourself or your family. It does *NOT* allow you to shoot someone in the back who is running away because this is not "defending yourself".

3) Assault and Battery, Actual Bodily Harm, Grievous Bodily Harm.

Assault is a hostile act that causes another person to fear attack. Battery is the actual use of force in an assault.

If you exceed the minimum level of necessary or reasonable force then you can be found guilty of a crime. This means that if you decide to kick seven bells out of an intruder or hit them with an axe or shoot them in the back you can be prosecuted for at least Assault and Battery and very possible Actual or even Grievous Bodily Harm which are *serious* offences.

It may have made you feel good, but you won't like the consequences, so don't be stupid.

4) Rights.

Everyone has the *same* rights to protection under the law. *Everyone*. Even burglars.

By the same token, everyone has the same responsibilities under the law and will face the same penalties if they break it.

IMO if we want to call ourselves a "civilised society" we *cannot* pick and choose who has rights and who does not otherwise we end up with "some are more equal than others" and that is not a society I want to live in.

Final point:

Speak up everyone who wants to pay *more* tax. (Listens to the sound of wind blowing...)

Everyone seems to demand "the Police should do more", "we need more Police", "the Police don't catch enough criminals", but it is *YOUR* money that pays for them, so if you want them to do more, you're going to have to put your hand in your pockets!

Steve H
25-07-2003, 23:46
Originally posted by Graham
1) Trespass: This is a *civil* offence, not a criminal offence. It only becomes a criminal offence when you have "aggravated trespass" eg when a trespasser obstructs or intimidates a lawful activity or when the trespasser commits another offence, such as damage to property.

If someone is trespassing on your property you have the right to remove them using "reasonable force".

Everyone has the *same* rights to protection under the law. *Everyone*. Even burglars.

By the same token, everyone has the same responsibilities under the law and will face the same penalties if they break it.



If someones tresspessing on my property, with intent to cause damage or steal MY things, then il remove them with whatever force i feel is required, be that knocking 7 bells into them.

Everyone has the *same* rights to protection under the law. *Everyone*. Even burglars.

Law needs changing them, because if a burglers allowed to come into your property, and then have rights protecting him.. well
:shrug:

Stuart
26-07-2003, 00:25
Originally posted by Drudge
Graham said: Everyone seems to demand "the Police should do more", "we need more Police", "the Police don't catch enough criminals", but it is *YOUR* money that pays for them, so if you want them to do more, you're going to have to put your hand in your pockets!


Our money also pays for the hundreds of police manning the speed cameras. A few less of them and a few more thief-takers might help reduce unsolved crime rates.

I think the newer speed cameras are totally automatic.

Anyway, surely every fine paid by a speeding motorist could go back to the police for more officers?

Ramrod
26-07-2003, 01:11
Originally posted by Graham

1) Trespass: This is a *civil* offence, not a criminal offence. It only becomes a criminal offence when you have "aggravated trespass" eg when a trespasser obstructs or intimidates a lawful activity afaik they were intimidating Martin....threats and taunts


2) Reasonable force: This is the *minimum* necessary force required to defend yourself or your family. It does *NOT* allow you to shoot someone in the back who is running away because this is not "defending yourself". As I have already said, it was a dark night and there were unknown numbers of burglars threatening him harm.

If you exceed the minimum level of necessary or reasonable force then you can be found guilty of a crime. This means that if you decide to kick seven bells out of an intruder or hit them with an axe or shoot them in the back you can be prosecuted for at least Assault and Battery and very possible Actual or even Grievous Bodily Harm which are *serious* offences.

It may have made you feel good, but you won't like the consequences, so don't be stupid.Thats nice, I'm glad you feel able to make split second decisions in the dark, in the middle of nowhere with multiple intruders on the premises. You have a cooler head than many of us.

4) Rights.

Everyone has the *same* rights to protection under the law. *Everyone*. Even burglars. Yes, thats a shame. Bit of an oversight don't you think?

By the same token, everyone has the same responsibilities under the law and will face the same penalties if they break it.No we don't. Martin stayed in jail longer because he was deemed to be a "danger to burglars"...ffs

IMO if we want to call ourselves a "civilised society" we *cannot* pick and choose who has rights and who does not otherwise we end up with "some are more equal than others" and that is not a society I want to live in. So you want thieving, drug dealing, never worked a day in their lives career **** to have the same rights as people who go about their business lawfully? I say you should forfeit some rights when you go about unlawfull business.

Final point:

Speak up everyone who wants to pay *more* tax. (Listens to the sound of wind blowing...)

Everyone seems to demand "the Police should do more", "we need more Police", "the Police don't catch enough criminals", but it is *YOUR* money that pays for them, so if you want them to do more, you're going to have to put your hand in your pockets! We pay enough tax already. It is the way that it is spent that is the problem.
Final point: The police are here to protect us. They failed to protect Martin to the point that he had to defend himself. All the police(and I meet a lot of them) that I have spoken to about his case say that the law needs changing and he should never have been locked up.
Wake up and smell the coffee...

Steve H
26-07-2003, 01:24
Well said Ramrod.

Jon T
26-07-2003, 13:47
Another anomally in all of this is that whilst an intruder is in your home, it becomes his workplace under the terms of the Health and Safety at Work Act, so if the burglar injures himself on any hazard in your home(for example being bit by a dog), you can become liable to prosecution under the H & S Laws.

Because of the above statement, it is now a legal requirement to clearly indentify any protective measures employed in the protection of your home(i.e. A dog) that may cause injury to an intruder.

Jon

Steve H
26-07-2003, 14:15
Originally posted by Jon T
Another anomally in all of this is that whilst an intruder is in your home, it becomes his workplace under the terms of the Health and Safety at Work Act, so if the burglar injures himself on any hazard in your home(for example being bit by a dog), you can become liable to prosecution under the H & S Laws.

Because of the above statement, it is now a legal requirement to clearly indentify any protective measures employed in the protection of your home(i.e. A dog) that may cause injury to an intruder.

Jon

Again, thats where the Law's wrong. Its pathetic that someone who comes into your home, with intent to damage and steal can still prosecute you, if they hurt themselves whilst commiting these acts.

Lord Nikon
26-07-2003, 16:03
Small point, the kid who is suing Tony Martin for loss of earnings (i.e. unable to make a living as a burglar) was jailed for drug dealing, does this mean he also intends to sue the police for loss of income from this line of work while he was incarcerated?

before you comment on how ludicrous this sounds, bear in mind that he is suing mr martin for loss of earnings due to one illegal enterprise already....

Jules
26-07-2003, 16:19
I have a clear sign up saying beware of the dog maybe I should alter that to dogs so that they can't get me on a technicality :D

albone
26-07-2003, 16:36
And the latest is: That the home secretary is asking questions as to why the thief was released early!!
It seems to be about face. Those who have been the victims are the ones penalised and the perpitrator is given all the help he/she can get. There in, the laws an ass for allowing this. And that's why so many people, are now helping Tony Martin free of charge, as they, like a lot here, feel he was unfairly treated in that he was the victim in all of this, not the perpitrator!
:mad:

Ramrod
26-07-2003, 22:47
It's ironic that after their inability to protect Martin from being repeatedly burgled and (I believe) not even turn up after the event on previous occasions, they are now going to have to give him round the clock protection because of the contract that he has on his head.
Bit like closing the stable door......

Graham
27-07-2003, 01:08
Originally posted by Steve_NTL
If someones tresspessing on my property, with intent to cause damage or steal MY things, then il remove them with whatever force i feel is required, be that knocking 7 bells into them.

And what happens if they weren't actually intending to cause damage or steal stuff, but you didn't take the time to check and you kick seven bells out of someone who is innocent?

"Oh well, they shouldn't have been on my property in the first place..."

And what if it was *you* on someone else's property who gets the kicking when you were there for a legitimate reason?

"Oh well, it was my fault for looking suspicious"?

Law needs changing them, because if a burglers allowed to come into your property, and then have rights protecting him.. well

Yes, they have rights to protect them.

The purpose of our laws and our justice system is not only to protect us from criminals, but to protect us from *ourselves*.

Do you *really* think that vigilantes and lynch mob "justice" do anyone any good? Sure, you might be able to exact your "righteous indignation" on a criminal. You might also be kicking the hell out of some poor innocent who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time and that innocent may even be *you*.

Graham
27-07-2003, 01:20
Originally posted by Ramrod
Thats nice, I'm glad you feel able to make split second decisions in the dark, in the middle of nowhere with multiple intruders on the premises.

Do you really think that Tony Martin blasting someone in the back with a shotgun *after* he had already fired several shots and the burglars were running away was a "split second decision"?

Everyone has the *same* rights to protection under the law. *Everyone*. Even burglars.

Yes, thats a shame. Bit of an oversight don't you think?

No, not an oversight in the slightest. As I've just said in another message, our laws exist not only to protect us from criminals, but to protect us from ourselves.

I don't want to live in a country where the Lynch Mob deals out "justice" (ie a good kicking), do you? Would you still want to if the person getting the kicking was you because you were just in the wrong place at the wrong time?


No we don't. Martin stayed in jail longer because he was deemed to be a "danger to burglars"

Martin was denied parole because he refused to show remorse for what he had done, something which is generally considered to be an important part of a parole hearing.

So you want thieving, drug dealing, never worked a day in their lives career **** to have the same rights as people who go about their business lawfully?

Tell me, which Tabloid newspapers do you read?

I say you should forfeit some rights when you go about unlawfull business.

And I say we should string them all up from the nearest lamp-post! - Signed Angry of Andover.

We pay enough tax already. It is the way that it is spent that is the problem.

So write to your MP. That's what he's there for.


Final point: The police are here to protect us. They failed to protect Martin to the point that he had to defend himself.

If you have to break the law to uphold the law there is *NO LAW*.

All the police(and I meet a lot of them) that I have spoken to about his case say that the law needs changing and he should never have been locked up.

He didn't *need* to shoot someone in the back, but he did, out of a desire for revenge, nothing else. He broke the law. He paid the penalty.

Wake up and smell the coffee...

Wake up and listen to the baying of the Lynch Mobs...

ntluser
27-07-2003, 10:05
Originally posted by Graham
Do you really think that Tony Martin blasting someone in the back with a shotgun *after* he had already fired several shots and the burglars were running away was a "split second decision"?



No, not an oversight in the slightest. As I've just said in another message, our laws exist not only to protect us from criminals, but to protect us from ourselves.

I don't want to live in a country where the Lynch Mob deals out "justice" (ie a good kicking), do you? Would you still want to if the person getting the kicking was you because you were just in the wrong place at the wrong time?




Martin was denied parole because he refused to show remorse for what he had done, something which is generally considered to be an important part of a parole hearing.



Tell me, which Tabloid newspapers do you read?



And I say we should string them all up from the nearest lamp-post! - Signed Angry of Andover.



So write to your MP. That's what he's there for.




If you have to break the law to uphold the law there is *NO LAW*.



He didn't *need* to shoot someone in the back, but he did, out of a desire for revenge, nothing else. He broke the law. He paid the penalty.



Wake up and listen to the baying of the Lynch Mobs...

The problem here is that we have a double standard in favour of criminals.

If the burglars of Tony Martin's house had arrived armed and had killed Tony Martin as he attempted to defend his home, they would have got away with murder and the possessions they came to steal. The odds of being caught are ,after all, fairly poor in remote areas.

But if Tony Martin attempts to defend himself, armed or unarmed, he is on a hiding to nothing because he is expected to allow them to get away with his possessions which to him may be irreplaceable rather than attempt to prevent them in any effective way.

It would have been interesting if Fearon and his companion had got away and on their next burglary had killed someone's grandmother.

The evidence is that hardened criminals repeat their crimes and it's time the law acknowledged that and put them away for a long time so that ordinary citizens are not put in the position that Tony Martin was placed in.

It does seem that you are supposed to stand by while crooks help themselves to your goods or take the risk of either being killed yourself or having to kill to protect yourself and your property.

The law is supposed to act as a deterrent to criminals. Ours is so disorganised that it doesn't and crime thrives.

Russ
27-07-2003, 10:34
The reason TM was treated this was IMO as an example to others. Although society wants criminals to be dealt with, the last thing the courts and police want is arnarchy, and taking the law in to your own hands is just a few steps away from this.

Now before I get shot down for this......

I agree that he was hard done by and let down by the police. had I been in his shoes.....I'd like to say I'd have been able to control myself but I cannot be sure. What I think we need to concentrate on is why the police had let him down so often.

And why that nugget Fearon is allowed to sue him for anything at all. "Affecting his ability to work", my ar*e :grind:

Lord Nikon
27-07-2003, 10:44
Consider this... had the situation taken place in the US then Tony Martin would never have faced a prison term....

IMHO he was perfectly justified in defending his property.

I am not suggesting "vigilante Justice" as has been commented earlier, I am merely saying that he took action when he felt his life was in danger to defend himself from people who were intent on robbing him and / or causing him personal injury or worse.

If someone breaks into a building with the intent of harming the occupant and / or depriving the person of their posessions then not only do they forfeit certain rights but they should expect that something physical may happen to them.

a legal system that incarcerates someone for defending his life and property from within his home and then allows the perpetrators of the crime to sue him for loss of earnings due to injuries suffered is perhaps delivering the letter of the law, but it most certainly is NOT delivering justice.

Mark W
27-07-2003, 11:19
Originally posted by Graham
And what happens if they weren't actually intending to cause damage or steal stuff, but you didn't take the time to check and you kick seven bells out of someone who is innocent?


:erm:
Ummm, so why would someone be tip toeing around my livingroom in the dead of night with a balaklava and torch? yet i should still be polite and civil until his intent is proved? how about "oh, good morning old boy, could i help you?"

"jewels? - why certainly, in that cabinet over there, second drawer down - whilst youre there, you might want to look in the cupboard, i've got a rather nice camcorder you'd have no trouble flogging on...."

ntluser
27-07-2003, 11:39
Originally posted by Mark W
:erm:
Ummm, so why would someone be tip toeing around my livingroom in the dead of night with a balaklava and torch? yet i should still be polite and civil until his intent is proved? how about "oh, good morning old boy, could i help you?"

"jewels? - why certainly, in that cabinet over there, second drawer down - whilst youre there, you might want to look in the cupboard, i've got a rather nice camcorder you'd have no trouble flogging on...."

That's a very amusing scenario, Mark. You've obviously got hidden comedic talents.

But it does have a serious point. I think if Tony Martin had just shot the guy in the legs he would probably have got away with it but as Russ said the police and the courts don't want a whole rash of burglars being shot to death though they don't seem that concerned about the reverse happening. I've lost count of the number of pensioners murdered or beaten up in their own homes.

The treatment of Tony Martin was a warning to ordinary citizens not to do the same kind of thing. It's a pity that the police and courts don't apply the same ruthless efficiency to dealing with criminals and for that matter bent policemen, corrupt politicians etc.

I just hope that nothing unpleasant or harmful happens to Tony Martin when he comes out.

Ramrod
27-07-2003, 19:14
Originally posted by Graham
And what happens if they weren't actually intending to cause damage or steal stuff, but you didn't take the time to check and you kick seven bells out of someone who is innocent? So what were they doing there in the first place?! They wanted to admire your fine PC modding? They just popped in (breaking the back window) to say hello, since they don't know you?

"Oh well, they shouldn't have been on my property in the first place..." Damn right!

And what if it was *you* on someone else's property who gets the kicking when you were there for a legitimate reason?

"Oh well, it was my fault for looking suspicious"? Thats right, I shouldn't have been trespassing/breaking and entering in the first place, at night, with an accomplice, making threats to the homeowner.



Yes, they have rights to protect them. Bit of an oversight don't you think? (As I said before)

The purpose of our laws and our justice system is not only to protect us from criminals, but to protect us from *ourselves*. erm...boll*cks

Do you *really* think that vigilantes and lynch mob "justice" do anyone any good? Sure, you might be able to exact your "righteous indignation" on a criminal. You might also be kicking the hell out of some poor innocent who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time and that innocent may even be *you*. Why would I have forced an entry into someones home, at night, in the middle of nowhere, with an accomplice??? ......I was short of essentials and wanted to borrow some milk and sugar and I couldn't find the doorbell?!?:confused: Don't be daft.
Like I said, wake up and smell the coffee.

Ramrod
27-07-2003, 19:30
Originally posted by Graham
Do you really think that Tony Martin blasting someone in the back with a shotgun *after* he had already fired several shots and the burglars were running away was a "split second decision"? Yes, it was dark, how do you know that he knew they were running away. He just started blasting away in a panic, thats why he was done for manslaughter and not murder. Or are you presuming to know better that the court?


I don't want to live in a country where the Lynch Mob deals out "justice" (ie a good kicking), do you?Why are you mentioning lynch mobs? I disapprove of them. Are you saying that Martin was a one man lynch mob? There is a difference between a mob going out and finding someone that may or may not have commited a crime and someone defending himself in his house at night.Martin was denied parole because he refused to show remorse for what he had done, something which is generally considered to be an important part of a parole hearing. and because he was deemed to be a "danger to burglars"



Tell me, which Tabloid newspapers do you read? The Times and The Telegraph, are they highbrow enough for you? (and don't try to get personal)



And I say we should string them all up from the nearest lamp-post! - Signed Angry of Andover. As I already said, that is not the right course of action. Mob rule gets paediatritians confused with paedophiles!


So write to your MP. That's what he's there for. rotflmao




If you have to break the law to uphold the law there is *NO LAW*. That's rather black and white...possibly the law is wrong and needs changing?



He didn't *need* to shoot someone in the back, but he did, out of a desire for revenge, nothing else. You seem to have remarkable insight into his motives and thinking....(and in direct contrast with what the appeal court thought had happened)
Wake up and listen to the baying of the Lynch Mobs... You are the one who is confusing a homeowner protecting himself with lynch mobs. They are two totally different creatures.

Ramrod
27-07-2003, 19:34
Originally posted by Russ D
The reason TM was treated this was IMO as an example to others. Although society wants criminals to be dealt with, the last thing the courts and police want is arnarchy, and taking the law in to your own hands is just a few steps away from this.

Now before I get shot down for this......

I agree that he was hard done by and let down by the police. had I been in his shoes.....I'd like to say I'd have been able to control myself but I cannot be sure. What I think we need to concentrate on is why the police had let him down so often.

And why that nugget Fearon is allowed to sue him for anything at all. "Affecting his ability to work", my ar*e :grind: too f*cking right :afire:

Ramrod
27-07-2003, 19:42
The problem is that while what Martin did was legally wrong, it was morally right but the law in this country does not distinguish between what is right and wrong, just between what is deemed to be lawfull and unlawfull (at that point in time, till the law is changed).The point is that what is right and wrong is a constant but what is lawfull and unlawfull is not constant (and changes, just like the speed limit)

Stuart
27-07-2003, 20:02
Originally posted by Russ D
The reason TM was treated this was IMO as an example to others. Although society wants criminals to be dealt with, the last thing the courts and police want is arnarchy, and taking the law in to your own hands is just a few steps away from this.

Now before I get shot down for this......

I agree that he was hard done by and let down by the police. had I been in his shoes.....I'd like to say I'd have been able to control myself but I cannot be sure. What I think we need to concentrate on is why the police had let him down so often.

And why that nugget Fearon is allowed to sue him for anything at all. "Affecting his ability to work", my ar*e :grind:

I think you are right Russ. TM is an example. I think if and when it happens again, the sentence will be lower..

I also agree that the law cannot allow us to take the law into our own hands.. You will eventually get to a point where somebody shoots a kid for nicking a Mars bar.

Having said all that, I have been in a situation where a loved one was attacked (while I wasn't around) and when the attacker was pointed out to me, I chased him down the street, although I never caught him, and don't know what I would have done if I did.

Ramrod
27-07-2003, 20:11
Originally posted by scastle
I also agree that the law cannot allow us to take the law into our own hands.But if the law cannot adequately protect us......and it is morally right for us to defend ourselves and our property against thieving scumbags in the dead of night. You will eventually get to a point where somebody shoots a kid for nicking a Mars bar.
That scenario needs to be 'headed off at the pass'

Graham
28-07-2003, 01:07
Originally posted by ntluser
The problem here is that we have a double standard in favour of criminals.

If the burglars of Tony Martin's house had arrived armed and had killed Tony Martin as he attempted to defend his home, they would have got away with murder and the possessions they came to steal. The odds of being caught are ,after all, fairly poor in remote areas.

You are presenting an opinion as fact here. You don't *know* that they would have "got away with murder" and indeed the figures rather tend to contradict this because the clear up rate for murders is actually around 90%.

But if Tony Martin attempts to defend himself, armed or unarmed, he is on a hiding to nothing because he is expected to allow them to get away with his possessions which to him may be irreplaceable rather than attempt to prevent them in any effective way.

You do not *prevent* someone from robbing you by shooting them with a gun! And nobody is "expected" to let them get away with anything, however attacking them either pre-emptively in revenge is not an "effective way" of preventing burglary either.

The evidence is that hardened criminals repeat their crimes and it's time the law acknowledged that and put them away for a long time so that ordinary citizens are not put in the position that Tony Martin was placed in.

The evidence, as even the Home Office agrees is that prison does *NOT* work as a deterrant to crime and locking someone away for longer does nothing to stop the cycle of crime, in fact it may well achieve entirely the opposite to its aim.

Originally posted by Lord Nikon
IMHO he was perfectly justified in defending his property.

I am not suggesting "vigilante Justice" as has been commented earlier, I am merely saying that he took action when he felt his life was in danger to defend himself from people who were intent on robbing him and / or causing him personal injury or worse.

You seem not to have addressed the point that Martin was jailed for shooting someone *IN THE BACK* as they were *running away*.

With that action he stepped *over* the line from "self defence" and into attempted murder.

There was *no* excuse for that action and he was, therefore, rightly jailed.

And what happens if they weren't actually intending to cause damage or steal stuff, but you didn't take the time to check and you kick seven bells out of someone who is innocent?

Ummm, so why would someone be tip toeing around my livingroom in the dead of night with a balaklava and torch? yet i should still be polite and civil until his intent is proved? how about "oh, good morning old boy, could i help you?"

Putting up silly arguments like this do nothing to support your case. Why not say he has a mask, a striped jersey and a bag saying "swag" on it?

Let me give you an alternative version:

You are wakened in the night by a crash from downstairs. You grab a convenient blunt instrument and sneak down to see a shadowy figure in your hallway.

In your righteous indignation you belt him over the head and then turn on the light, only to discover that it was your next door neighbour who had heard the noise, found the door open and decided to come in and check everything was ok.

Oops.

So what were they doing there in the first place?! etc

Already addressed in other messages, so I'm not going to repeat those remarks again.

The purpose of our laws and our justice system is not only to protect us from criminals, but to protect us from *ourselves*.

erm...boll*cks

Ah, reasoned debate, I see.

Perhaps if I give you a second chance you could come up with some responses that are slightly more conducive to a sensible discussion?

Originally posted by Ramrod
Yes, it was dark, how do you know that he knew they were running away. He just started blasting away in a panic

Let me quote from an article in the Telegraph: "Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice, said there was still "no excuse" for Martin's actions.

"Giving his judgment at the High Court in London, Lord Woolf said: "Mr Martin was entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself and his home, but the jury were surely correct in coming to their judgment that he was not acting reasonably in shooting dead one of the intruders, who happened to be 16, and seriously injuring the other."

Why are you mentioning lynch mobs? I disapprove of them. Are you saying that Martin was a one man lynch mob?

When he went from "defence" to "revenge", he went from "wronged householder" to lynch mob style justice.

Mob rule gets paediatritians confused with paedophiles!

As I may have mentioned before, I live just a few miles down the road from Paulsgrove.

If you have to break the law to uphold the law there is *NO LAW*.

That's rather black and white...possibly the law is wrong and needs changing?

If the law needs changing, there are perfectly good procedures available to "decent, law abiding people" to get it changed. One such method is by writing to your elected Parliamentry representative or MP, but for some (unstated) reason you think that's a source of amusement.

Originally posted by Ramrod
[B]The problem is that while what Martin did was legally wrong, it was morally right

Pardon me if I disagree with your sense of morals!

.The point is that what is right and wrong is a constant

Nonsense!

Right and wrong are not, despite what some may claim, graven on some stone tablets somewhere, they are *opinions*, nothing more.

Mick
28-07-2003, 02:24
Hi Graham instead of creating a new post why not edit your post and add to it, your last 6 posts have been made into 1....I'm not having a go, its just merely a suggestion. :)

Lord Nikon
28-07-2003, 03:29
*inspector clouseau voice* ahh.. the old "click on edit and keep typing" ploy....

Ramrod
28-07-2003, 14:46
Originally posted by Graham
You do not *prevent* someone from robbing you by shooting them with a gun! Yes you do. however attacking them pre-emptively is not an "effective way" of preventing burglary either. Yes it is.



With that action he stepped *over* the line from "self defence" and into attempted murder. He was done for manslaughter wasn't he?
Let me give you an alternative version:

You are wakened in the night by a crash from downstairs. You grab a convenient blunt instrument and sneak down to see a shadowy figure in your hallway.

In your righteous indignation you belt him over the head and then turn on the light, only to discover that it was your next door neighbour who had heard the noise, found the door open and decided to come in and check everything was ok.

Oops. Come on that is an unlikely scenario....unless your neighbour is a mute and therefore couldn't answer when you shouted "whos there?" and didn't stand by your door shouting "graham, are you ok m8?"



Let me quote from an article in the Telegraph: "Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice, said there was still "no excuse" for Martin's actions.

"Giving his judgment at the High Court in London, Lord Woolf said: "Mr Martin was entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself and his home, but the jury were surely correct in coming to their judgment that he was not acting reasonably in shooting dead one of the intruders, who happened to be 16, and seriously injuring the other." Hence the law needs changing



When he went from "defence" to "revenge", he went from "wronged householder" to lynch mob style justice. That probably happened in a split second in the dark. I hope you make a reasoned judgement in similar stressfull circumstances.



If the law needs changing, there are perfectly good procedures available to "decent, law abiding people" to get it changed. One such method is by writing to your elected Parliamentry representative or MP, but for some (unstated) reason you think that's a source of amusement. I have tried writing to my MP about other matters, nothing comes of it.




Nonsense!

Right and wrong are not, despite what some may claim, graven on some stone tablets somewhere, they are *opinions*, nothing more. So by that token it can be reasonable to argue that what Martin did was right.:D

Ramrod
28-07-2003, 15:28
Just had a parole officer in who said that he would go downstairs with his shotgun if he was being burgled.

kronas
28-07-2003, 15:45
Originally posted by Ramrod
Just had a parole officer in who said that he would go downstairs with his shotgun if he was being burgled.

ramrod in this day you have to use 'reasonable' force not shoot someone now if you were threatend by a gun then yeah i would deem shooting him with a gun 'reasonable' force

Mark W
28-07-2003, 16:04
so you encounter a person creeping about your house in the middle of the night are you going to stop and say :-

"ummm excuse me, sorry to disturb and all that, but do you have a gun about your person?......how about a knife then?....monkey wrench?....not handy at kung fu are you? splendid, thanks for that"

....before making up your mind how to deal with him? :erm:

course not, you are gonna creep up behind him and sock him one before he sees you then call the police :)

kronas
28-07-2003, 16:06
trouble is mark your going to get done for hitting him over the head...............

pin him down tie him up lock him in a room easier said then done :erm:

Mark W
28-07-2003, 16:16
Originally posted by kronas
trouble is mark your going to get done for hitting him over the head...............

pin him down tie him up lock him in a room easier said then done :erm:

and thats the main point of this thread - there seems to be alot of people, myself inculded, that feel if someone gets injured by you on your property whilst doing something you really dont want him to do than thats his loss, and there should be minimal comeback on you.......

kronas
28-07-2003, 16:20
Originally posted by Mark W
and thats the main point of this thread - there seems to be alot of people, myself inculded, that feel if someone gets injured by you on your property whilst doing something you really dont want him to do than thats his loss, and there should be minimal comeback on you.......

just thinking about the law again after all we have to adhere to it no matter how stupid it is :rolleyes:

ok so the person comes in and you rush downstairs and hit him over the head prob is you hit him instant action against you now if you did it my way you would have no action taken against you

but if he had a wepean and you hit him thats reasonable i know trespassers should be dealt with in a reasonable manner but you have to remember you have to stick to the rules of the law harsh but true

Ramrod
28-07-2003, 16:41
Originally posted by kronas
ramrod in this day you have to use 'reasonable' force not shoot someone now if you were threatend by a gun then yeah i would deem shooting him with a gun 'reasonable' force Like I said, it was a parole officer that said that......the police officers just say "they'd never find the body, hur, hur:D "

kronas
28-07-2003, 16:43
Originally posted by Ramrod
Like I said, it was a parole officer that said that......the police officers just say "they'd never find the body, hur, hur:D "

yeah but i bet there are always underhanded goings on anyway that could be a topic in itself :rolleyes:

darant
28-07-2003, 17:59
I think the truth is, Untill your in that same situation you can't say either way what you'll do. I'm not digging at any one in particular but to say you'll do this or that isn't how it works. Your adreneline will be rushing and unless your used to being in those situations there is a very good chance your freeze and do nothing...... Then fill your pants!!!:eek:

Mick
28-07-2003, 18:08
This will be an interesting question, someone said to me the other day that they have a weapon with them when they go to bed at night, I wanted to ask, does anyone here have some sort of weapon they would use to fend off an attacker, when they go to bed ?

I have a long metal pole (No rude jokes please :p) that I use to bring the ladders out of the loft area and it has a hook on the end of it, I've to said to my family I would use that in a panic situation.

Ramrod
28-07-2003, 18:14
Originally posted by darant
I think the truth is, Untill your in that same situation you can't say either way what you'll do. I'm not digging at any one in particular but to say you'll do this or that isn't how it works. Your adreneline will be rushing and unless your used to being in those situations there is a very good chance your freeze and do nothing...... Then fill your pants!!!:eek: ....or shoot in panic.

Ramrod
28-07-2003, 19:41
Originally posted by Dr. Plummer
I have a long metal pole (No rude jokes please :p) that I use to bring the ladders out of the loft area and it has a hook on the end of it, I've to said to my family I would use that in a panic situation. What metal is it made of? It's just that the pole we have is alluminium, not much use really.:D

Graham
28-07-2003, 20:08
Originally posted by Dr. Plummer
Hi Graham instead of creating a new post why not edit your post and add to it, your last 6 posts have been made into 1....I'm not having a go, its just merely a suggestion. :)

And I thank you for the suggestion and the non-judgemental way in which is was presented.

The problem is that I message in several different fora, eg this one, usenet, Which? Online etc, each of which has a different way of handling messages and each of which has different styles of responding, so I just stick with a style that I'm familiar with.

Also I prefer to answer the points each person has made individually unless they clearly overlap with another message I've just written because frankly I find it irritating if someone tells me to "see the message written to XYZ".

I hope you appreciate I'm not trying to be awkward here, but I'm just trying to keep things simple for myself! :)

Graham
28-07-2003, 20:24
Originally posted by Ramrod
Yes you do. Yes it is.

Is it Panto Season already?

He was done for manslaughter wasn't he?

Tony Martin was originally charged and convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. This was later reduced to manslaughter on appeal.

If you're going to argue, it's better to do it with the facts.

[Re: Hitting your neighbour]

Come on that is an unlikely scenario....unless your neighbour is a mute and therefore couldn't answer when you shouted "whos there?" and didn't stand by your door shouting "graham, are you ok m8?"

Has anyone actually *mentioned* challenging the intruder first? No.

Did Tony Martin challenge the intruders? No?

Perhaps the neighbour in the scenario I presented was worried there may be burglars still in the house so didn't want to attract their attention in case they attacked him (or maybe he was planning on exacting a little bit of "righteous justice" himself)

The fact is it is not, by any means, an *impossible* scenario.,

Consider this one:

You come out from a supermarket having done your shopping to see someone leaning in through the open door of your car.

What do you do? Grab them? Thump them?

Well, it happened to a friend of mine, who was about to yell at them when she suddenly realised that someone had parked a car which was the *same* model and the *same* colour right next to hers!

Unikely, maybe, impossible, clearly not. But if you'd made a "split second decision" you could have ended up in deep... trouble.

"Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice, said there was still "no excuse" for Martin's actions.

Hence the law needs changing

As I've already said, if the law *does* need changing, there is a proper way to go about it.

Tony Martin's actions

That probably happened in a split second in the dark. I hope you make a reasoned judgement in similar stressfull circumstances.

The jury, however, seemed convinced by the Prosecution's arguments that it was *not* a "split second decision in the dark" hence twelve good people and true convicted him of murder.

I have tried writing to my MP about other matters, nothing comes of it.

You don't supply any details, so it's difficult to comment further.




Right and wrong are not written in stone.

So by that token it can be reasonable to argue that what Martin did was right.:D

Replace "Martin" with "Saddam Hussein" and say that again...

Graham
28-07-2003, 20:54
Originally posted by kronas
ramrod in this day you have to use 'reasonable' force not shoot someone now if you were threatend by a gun then yeah i would deem shooting him with a gun 'reasonable' force

Just as an observation here, I recently saw a report on TV about another case of a man who, when armed with a rifle, confronted a burglar.

The burglar ran towards the man who shot him in the leg.

The man was later acquitted because, as the burglar had been coming towards the man it was accepted that he had acted in self defence.

Two points here:

1) Martin was only charged and convicted because he shot someone in the *back*

2) I've just spent the last 25 minutes trying to find *ANY* reference to the above mentioned story on the web, in newspaper archives or anywhere and I *can't*!!

I know the story exists, but it seems that it wasn't newsworthy enough to get the coverage that the Martin case did.

Odd that.

Ramrod
28-07-2003, 21:21
Originally posted by Graham
Is it Panto Season already?No, I was replying to your questions .

Tony Martin was originally charged and convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. This was later reduced to manslaughter on appeal.

If you're going to argue, it's better to do it with the facts.
fact: the conviction was reduced to manslaughter, therefore he is not guilty of murder but manslaughter.



Has anyone actually *mentioned* challenging the intruder first? No.

Did Tony Martin challenge the intruders? No?afaik he did challenge them.

Perhaps the neighbour in the scenario I presented was worried there may be burglars still in the house so didn't want to attract their attention in case they attacked him (or maybe he was planning on exacting a little bit of "righteous justice" himself)

The fact is it is not, by any means, an *impossible* scenario.,though rather unlikely that the neighbour wouldn't speak up if you challenged him....."don't shoot graham, its just me, the neighbour, theres some a**hole burglar in here as well!"

Consider this one:

You come out from a supermarket having done your shopping to see someone leaning in through the open door of your car.

What do you do? Grab them? Thump them? I would say "what are you doing in my car?"

Well, it happened to a friend of mine, who was about to yell at them when she suddenly realised that someone had parked a car which was the *same* model and the *same* colour right next to hers!

Unikely, maybe, impossible, clearly not. But if you'd made a "split second decision" you could have ended up in deep... trouble..... in deep trouble if you happened to be carrying a shotgun in the supermarket car park.





The jury, however, seemed convinced by the Prosecution's arguments that it was *not* a "split second decision in the dark" hence twelve good people and true convicted him of murder.....and were later found to be wrong......he is guilty of manslaughter. Can you not understand that?



Replace "Martin" with "Saddam Hussein" and say that again... wtf?!...You are the one who said that wright and wrong are not constant. I think that they are.


btw.....please comment on my examples of what the probation officer and police would have done in similar circumstances.

Lord Nikon
28-07-2003, 21:24
http://www.edp24.co.uk/Content/Features/TonyMartin/asp/RuralCrime.asp

has some of the info

also

http://www.lewrockwell.com/watson/watson43.html

Graham
28-07-2003, 21:35
Originally posted by Ramrod
[B]No, I was replying to your questions .

Could you explain that again when I put the comments back into here...

* * * * *
Me: You do not *prevent* someone from robbing you by shooting them with a gun!
You: Yes you do.

Me: however attacking them pre-emptively is not an "effective way" of preventing burglary either.
You: Yes it is.

* * * * *

Now, ignoring that they were statements, you simply posted contradicting remarks with nothing else to back them up, hence my Panto Season comment.

If you wish to disagree with me, please do, but don't do it by simply gainsaying what I have written with no new material.


fact: the conviction was reduced to manslaughter, therefore he is not guilty of murder but manslaughter.

Fact: The *original* conviction was murder. He was, therefore, found guilty *of* murder. Now that the conviction has been reduced he is only guilty of manslaughter, however it does not negate the fact that he was, in the first place, found guilty of murder.

afaik he did challenge them.

He claimed he did. They said he didn't. There is no way to prove either.

though rather unlikely that the neighbour wouldn't speak up if you challenged him....."don't shoot graham, its just me, the neighbour, theres some a**hole burglar in here as well!"

I would say "what are you doing in my car?"

The comments from several people in here imply that they'd "hit first and ask questions later"

btw.....please comment on my examples of what the probation officer and police would have done in similar circumstances.

As has been pointed out, what people *say* they will do and what they would actually do may well be very different.

Graham
28-07-2003, 21:39
Originally posted by Lord Nikon
http://www.edp24.co.uk/Content/Features/TonyMartin/asp/RuralCrime.asp

has some of the info also

http://www.lewrockwell.com/watson/watson43.html

The words "impartial" and "unbiased" would not be ones I would use to describe the second of those...!

Lord Nikon
28-07-2003, 21:47
Originally posted by Graham
The words "impartial" and "unbiased" would not be ones I would use to describe the second of those...!

It could be argued that the same could be said of a legal system which allows someone to start to sue someone for the loss of earnings from an illegal enterprise as a result of injuries sustained while in pursuit of that illegal enterprise.

(I say START to sue someone as the matter has now been dropped)

Ramrod
28-07-2003, 22:22
Originally posted by Graham
Could you explain that again when I put the comments back into here...

* * * * *
Me: You do not *prevent* someone from robbing you by shooting them with a gun!
You: Yes you do.

Me: however attacking them pre-emptively is not an "effective way" of preventing burglary either.
You: Yes it is.

* * * * *I don't understand. You manifestly can stop a robbery or effectively prevent a burglary by shooting the perp!
How can you say that it wouldn't?

Fact: The *original* conviction was murder. He was, therefore, found guilty *of* murder. Now that the conviction has been reduced he is only guilty of manslaughter, however it does not negate the fact that he was, in the first place, found guilty of murder. By saying that I assume that you feel that all those who have been found guilty of murder (through a misscarriage of justice) and then later aquitted, are still guilty of murder?!



He claimed he did. They said he didn't. There is no way to prove either. So who is the more credible witness, the homeowner or the career **** who have gone to his home specifically to rob him? (lets ignore, for the time being, the forensic evidence that contradicted Feardons 'evidence')



The comments from several people in here imply that they'd "hit first and ask questions later" Does the fact that you appear to be a lone voice for the prosecution not tell you something?
In most cases a quick "oy! what you doing?" would be enough to establish wether force was necessary.



As has been pointed out, what people *say* they will do and what they would actually do may well be very different. I think that if they had a gun you could be sure that they would stay within the law once they had used it...by hook or by crook. Thats the difference between 'right' and 'lawfull'.

Ramrod
28-07-2003, 22:37
Originally posted by Graham
The words "impartial" and "unbiased" would not be ones I would use to describe the second of those...!
But the words "accurate" and "true" could be used:D

musey
29-07-2003, 11:11
Tony Martin had an illegal gun which if he hadn't have had he probably wouldn't have killed the burglar. He knew the risks when he picked up that gun. He paid the price [however excessive].

How many of you keep a gun on your bedside cabinet? The amount of force he used was excessive, whatever his justification.

I think the media coverage is out of control over this. He was guilty after a trial and whatever evidence was heard in court prompted those jurors to make that decision. Perhaps it was a fluke and all the jurors were burglars or perhaps the evidence was there that proved Tony Martin went beyond the remits of reasonable force.

Ramrod
29-07-2003, 11:32
Originally posted by musey

How many of you keep a gun on your bedside cabinet? The amount of force he used was excessive, whatever his justification. the parole officer that I mentioned keeps one in his house

I think the media coverage is out of control over this. He was guilty after a trial and whatever evidence was heard in court prompted those jurors to make that decision. Perhaps it was a fluke and all the jurors were burglars or perhaps the evidence was there that proved Tony Martin went beyond the remits of reasonable force. The jury were not in possession of all the facts when they made their decision and they were not allowed to choose a verdict of manslaughter at the original trial.

darkangel
29-07-2003, 12:23
Originally posted by Ramrod
the parole officer that I mentioned keeps one in his house
legally?

Originally posted by Ramrod
The jury were not in possession of all the facts when they made their decision and they were not allowed to choose a verdict of manslaughter at the original trial.
what facts?

Ramrod
29-07-2003, 12:39
Originally posted by darkangel
legally?yes

what facts? That he was mentally ill at the time of the shooting.

Stuart
29-07-2003, 13:54
Originally posted by darkangel
legally?


Although, in my experience, being able to own a gun legally does not necessarily mean you should.

I know someone who had a gun pulled on her by her father, who was mentally ill and had a licenced gun.

Back on topic..

Do we know that the Media coverage of the Tony Martin case has been accurate and unbiased? I have seen coverage of this case in a few places, and would consider all the coverage to be biased either for or against Tony.

Does anyone here KNOW how they would react in a situation like this? It is easy to SAY that you would act this way, or that way, but not so easy to know... Believe me, I have experience of this.

darkangel
29-07-2003, 16:12
Originally posted by Ramrod
yes

That he was mentally ill at the time of the shooting. good point i agree he should have been in a secure unit

darkangel
29-07-2003, 16:18
Originally posted by scastle
Although, in my experience, being able to own a gun legally does not necessarily mean you should.

I know someone who had a gun pulled on her by her father, who was mentally ill and had a licenced gun.

Back on topic..

Do we know that the Media coverage of the Tony Martin case has been accurate and unbiased? I have seen coverage of this case in a few places, and would consider all the coverage to be biased either for or against Tony.

Does anyone here KNOW how they would react in a situation like this? It is easy to SAY that you would act this way, or that way, but not so easy to know... Believe me, I have experience of this. i throughly agree owning a licensed gun doesn't guarantee u will use it correctly or for the reason it's licensed i own 2 licensed shotguns and 2 mod licensed weapons and know how hard it's to get the license but that doesn't mean u wont go out and buy an illegal weapon like tony martin did

Ramrod
29-07-2003, 23:57
Anyhoo.....thats beside the point, Martin was given 12 months extra for the unlicensed weapon.

Mick
30-07-2003, 12:13
According to a newspaper this morning, Tony Martin's dog has now been threatened.:rolleyes:

Ramrod
30-07-2003, 12:18
Originally posted by Dr. Plummer
According to a newspaper this morning, Tony Martin's dog has now been threatened.:rolleyes: :rofl: , that is so stupid it's funny. It just shows what kind of people we are dealing with here, ****.

Graham
31-07-2003, 00:25
Originally posted by Ramrod
I don't understand. You manifestly can stop a robbery or effectively prevent a burglary by shooting the perp!
How can you say that it wouldn't?

Having gone back and re-read the original comments and responses, it seems that there's been a confusion about what's actually being talked about here.

When I said you don't "prevent" someone from robbing you by shooting them I didn't mean actively stopping them by putting a bullet into them, but deter them from planning on robbing you in the first place.

I've also realised that I missed out an "or" in my post #100 which makes the meaning of my sentence unclear.

By saying that I assume that you feel that all those who have been found guilty of murder (through a misscarriage of justice) and then later aquitted, are still guilty of murder?!

You can assume anything you want, I can't stop you doing that, but I never said that in the first place.

From post #117:

Quoting You: He was done for manslaughter wasn't he?

Me: Tony Martin was originally charged and convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. This was later reduced to manslaughter on appeal.

From post #118:

You: fact: the conviction was reduced to manslaughter, therefore he is not guilty of murder but manslaughter.

That's what's known as "moving the goalposts".

So who is the more credible witness, the homeowner or the career **** who have gone to his home specifically to rob him?

Sorry, are we still talking about the same mentally ill homeowner who was in possession of an illegal firearm?

Does the fact that you appear to be a lone voice for the prosecution not tell you something?

Yes, for instance it could tell me that I'm quite capable of making my own mind up instead of following the flock blindly like the rest of the sheep.

It could also tell me that I'm not afraid to stand up and the tell the whole world that it can go to hell and that I'm not scared of being out of step with everyone else.

Can you say the same thing? Oh and...

In most cases a quick "oy! what you doing?" would be enough to establish wether force was necessary.

Ramrod #79: As I have already said, it was a dark night and there were unknown numbers of burglars threatening him harm.

Ramrod #79: I'm glad you feel able to make split second decisions in the dark, in the middle of nowhere with multiple intruders on the premises. You have a cooler head than many of us.

Mark W #92: so why would someone be tip toeing around my livingroom in the dead of night with a balaklava and torch? yet i should still be polite and civil until his intent is proved? how about "oh, good morning old boy, could i help you?"

Ramrod #94: (Quoted) what if it was *you* on someone else's property who gets the kicking? "Oh well, it was my fault for looking suspicious"?

You: Thats right, I shouldn't have been trespassing/breaking and entering in the first place, at night, with an accomplice, making threats to the homeowner.

Scastle #98: I have been in a situation where a loved one was attacked (while I wasn't around) and when the attacker was pointed out to me, I chased him down the street, although I never caught him, and don't know what I would have done if I did.

Mark W #106: you are gonna creep up behind him and sock him one before he sees you then call the police

The "Prosecution" rests its case!!

Ramrod
31-07-2003, 00:38
Originally posted by Graham
When I said you don't "prevent" someone from robbing you by shooting them I didn't mean actively stopping them by putting a bullet into them, but deter them from planning on robbing you in the first place. Yes you can deter them from robbing you. The USA has half the number of burglaries that we have because homeowners have guns and are backed up by the law when they use them. Burglars know this.

From post #117:

Quoting You: He was done for manslaughter wasn't he?

Me: Tony Martin was originally charged and convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. This was later reduced to manslaughter on appeal.

From post #118:

You: fact: the conviction was reduced to manslaughter, therefore he is not guilty of murder but manslaughter.

That's what's known as "moving the goalposts". No, the origional conviction was found to be wrong. I ask again: Do you feel that all those who have been found guilty of murder (through a miscarriage of justice) and then later aquitted, are still guilty of murder?!



Sorry, are we still talking about the same mentally ill homeowner who was in possession of an illegal firearm? Yes, and your point is?
Ramrod #79: As I have already said, it was a dark night and there were unknown numbers of burglars threatening him harm.

Ramrod #79: I'm glad you feel able to make split second decisions in the dark, in the middle of nowhere with multiple intruders on the premises. You have a cooler head than many of us.

Mark W #92: so why would someone be tip toeing around my livingroom in the dead of night with a balaklava and torch? yet i should still be polite and civil until his intent is proved? how about "oh, good morning old boy, could i help you?"

Ramrod #94: (Quoted) what if it was *you* on someone else's property who gets the kicking? "Oh well, it was my fault for looking suspicious"?

You: Thats right, I shouldn't have been trespassing/breaking and entering in the first place, at night, with an accomplice, making threats to the homeowner.

Scastle #98: I have been in a situation where a loved one was attacked (while I wasn't around) and when the attacker was pointed out to me, I chased him down the street, although I never caught him, and don't know what I would have done if I did.

Mark W #106: you are gonna creep up behind him and sock him one before he sees you then call the police

The "Prosecution" rests its case!! How, why?:confused: The above seem reasonable to me, what are you, a burglar?:confused:

Steve H
31-07-2003, 00:49
Sorry, are we still talking about the same mentally ill homeowner who was in possession of an illegal firearm?

Reading that just made my jaw drop.

He's Mentally Ill, As you put it, Because 2 men came into his House in the middle of the night intent on damage/stealing stuff. As far as he knew, they could of been carrying guns/knives any sort of weapon. He had to protect himself, or he would of been the dead one now, and the thugs would of got away scot free. They got what they deserved.. if it was me it wouldnt of just been one shot, and there wouldnt be a guy sueing for a shot leg either, He'd of joined his mate.

Ramrod
31-07-2003, 00:52
Originally posted by Steve_NTL
Reading that just made my jaw drop.

He's Mentally Ill, As you put it, Because 2 men came into his House in the middle of the night intent on damage/stealing stuff. true, the reason that he was paranoid was because of the many times he'd been burgled.:( ...and not got much help from the police.
Both of them were career criminals, the elder with many convictions for assault. As I see it, Martin did the public a favour.
Feardon soon re-offended (selling heroin outside a police station!), Bark, the driver was done for burglary, actual bodily harm and making threats to kill and Barras senior has since been done for robbery!

from yesterdays Guardian newspaper:


But what about the burglars? Why do they burgle? Why don't they steal cars, or commit credit-card fraud instead? Probably because they enjoy burgling. My friend Steve spent some time working with criminals, and was fascinated most by the repeat burglars. One used to stack up the household goods by the front door, prior to making his escape. Then, at the last moment, he would pause and decide whether or not to take it all. He said that he enjoyed the thought of a couple coming home to discover that their home had been entered, but that their valuables had not been stolen - and then wondering what kind of man had shown them this strange mercy. It was about power.

Another young burglar would only steal from houses where he knew women with young children lived. Once he broke into a house just before Christmas and sat under the tree opening the family presents. In other words, just as the nervous homeowner imagines the burglar, the burglar imagines the homeowner. It may be unconscious, but the burglar enjoys the power of violation.



From The Spectator:


The law, in other words, leaves a citizen wanting to defend his life and property on a knife-edge. Pull the trigger while your dagger-wielding assailant is facing you at five yards and the law congratulates you; pull it at ten yards when your assailant has turned slightly away and you face a lifetime behind bars.



From The Eastern Daily Press:


Fearons father Joseph says he loves his son. But the 65-year-old retired nurse still sympathises with the man who pulled the trigger. I feel sorry for the farmer, he said. He was protecting his own property. It was his house, his home and they should never have been there. People have to be able to protect their own homes from burglary. People work hard for what they have got and it must be soul destroying to have it snatched away.


....you will note that the last extract quotes Feardons own father!

darkangel
31-07-2003, 09:29
Originally posted by Steve_NTL
Reading that just made my jaw drop.

He's Mentally Ill, As you put it, Because 2 men came into his House in the middle of the night intent on damage/stealing stuff. As far as he knew, they could of been carrying guns/knives any sort of weapon. He had to protect himself, or he would of been the dead one now, and the thugs would of got away scot free. They got what they deserved.. if it was me it wouldnt of just been one shot, and there wouldnt be a guy sueing for a shot leg either, He'd of joined his mate. he has a history of mental illness nothing to do with the burglaries thats why his gun license was revoked and his gun confiscated, i totally sympathize with martin but he crossed the line when he shot a trespasser outside his property he was not protecting his life as he was not being threatened, of course he had the right to protect his own safety but he shot somebody into his garden.

Ramrod
31-07-2003, 19:58
I understand that he shot them while they were inside the house.

timewarrior2001
31-07-2003, 20:04
It was a miscarraige of justice. The police failed Mr Martin when he needed them, and when he protected himself (a job the police are supposed to do) they were quick to condemn him.

I bet if those two lads had been making a getaway of 35mph in a 30 zone they would have been treat like.........*cough* criminals?

darkangel
31-07-2003, 20:05
Originally posted by Ramrod
I understand that he shot them while they were inside the house. u understood wrong then

Ramrod
31-07-2003, 22:58
Originally posted by darkangel
u understood wrong then
Apparently Feardon pulled a window out of its frame in order to get out of the building.
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-12388387,00.html...read the aug 20 1999 info

Stuart
31-07-2003, 23:16
Originally posted by Ramrod
Apparently Feardon pulled a window out of its frame in order to get out of the building.
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-12388387,00.html...read the aug 20 1999 info

from the above link
:: August 20 1999: Farmer Tony Martin confronts two burglars in his home, Bleak House, an isolated farmhouse in Norfolk. He fires twice from his pump-action shotgun killing 16-year-old intruder Fred Barras. He seriously injures Brendan Fearon, the second burglar, in the leg. Four days later Martin is charged with murder and remanded in custody. He is later bailed.

Where does that say Feardon pulled a window out of the frame?

homealone
31-07-2003, 23:33
Originally posted by darkangel
u understood wrong then

I believe "you" when you say stuff like that!;)

Graham
31-07-2003, 23:45
Originally posted by Ramrod

That's what's known as "moving the goalposts".

[QUOTE] No, the origional conviction was found to be wrong.

No, your original assertion was *wrong*. He was not "done" for, ie charged with, manslaughter, he was "done" for murder. The fact that it was later reduced on appeal doesn't change the nature of the original charge.

I ask again: Do you feel that all those who have been found guilty of murder (through a miscarriage of justice) and then later aquitted, are still guilty of murder?!

No, but I have never said they were.

Yes, and your point is?

You seemed to be arguing that someone who was known to be mentally ill was a reliable witness.

The above seem reasonable to me, what are you, a burglar?:confused: [/B]

No, I'm someone who doesn't support the right of *anyone* to take the law into their own hands.

And I'm trying to point out (through those fast moving goalposts) that your assertion that "In most cases a quick 'oy! what you doing?' would be enough to establish wether force was necessary." doesn't describe the positions of several people in here (including yourself) who have already publically and for the record(!) stated that they would "hit first and ask questions later"!

Ramrod
31-07-2003, 23:53
Originally posted by scastle
Where does that say Feardon pulled a window out of the frame? Not in that article. I think I got that info from the Times. Talk about fear giving you wings....

Ramrod
01-08-2003, 00:01
Originally posted by Graham
No, your original assertion was *wrong*. He was not "done" for, ie charged with, manslaughter, he was "done" for murder. The fact that it was later reduced on appeal doesn't change the nature of the original charge.It dosn't matter what the origional charge was, he was finally found guilty of manslaughter. You seemed to be arguing that someone who was known to be mentally ill was a reliable witness.and you are arguing that a career criminal is a reliable witness.



No, I'm someone who doesn't support the right of *anyone* to take the law into their own hands. Not anyone, just the people who find intruders on their premises.

"In most cases a quick 'oy! what you doing?' would be enough to establish wether force was necessary." doesn't describe the positions of several people in here (including yourself) who have already publically and for the record(!) stated that they would "hit first and ask questions later"! I never said that I would do that. (I think) Its been a long thread, but it dosn't sound like me:D

Stuart
01-08-2003, 00:43
Originally posted by Graham

You seemed to be arguing that someone who was known to be mentally ill was a reliable witness.


I think ideally, had the court known about the mental illness in time, the original trial would not have taken place. TM may just have been commited.


No, I'm someone who doesn't support the right of *anyone* to take the law into their own hands.


Too right! Whether right or wrong, the law CANNOT allow people to take it into their own hands. Most people would be quite reasonable, but there are a siginificant few who would kill other people over minor incidents. The public needs protection from that significant few.

Ramrod
01-08-2003, 01:04
Originally posted by scastle
Most people would be quite reasonable, but there are a siginificant few who would kill other people over minor incidents. The public needs protection from that significant few. I agree, but because the law protects us from those few who would harm us if we did wrong against them, it fails to protect us from those who would do us harm in our own homes when we are minding our own business.
In any case, the nutcases out there would probably not be detered by the law anyway. Leaving us still hamstrung when dealing with intruders.

Ramrod
01-08-2003, 01:07
Originally posted by Graham
No, I'm someone who doesn't support the right of *anyone* to take the law into their own hands.

But when the law dosn't/ can't defend us, what then?

Lord Nikon
01-08-2003, 01:56
Actually, its not so much a matter of taking the law into our own hands, but the fact that the law is empowering the rights of criminals more than the rights of the law abiding people.

It is showing that today, in the UK there is a BIG difference between the law, and justice.

ntluser
01-08-2003, 08:16
I think we've more than reached the stage where law-abiding citizens need to use the few legal rights they do have to lobby the government to remedy the situation.

Tony Martin would be more within his legal rights to sue Fearon for the distress he has caused.

What I find interesting is that a 16 year old boy isn't home in bed at 3 o'clock in the morning and his parents don't seem bothered.

Worse still he is in the company of a known habitual criminal and is an accessory to a crime. What were his family doing about this?

Tony Martin was placed in this inenviable position simply because parents failed to carry out their responsibilities. And a known criminal should have known better than to take a juvenile on a crime with him anyway.

Maybe in future when we are burgled we will not interfere with the burglar but merely gather evidence in the form of photographs,videos, witnesses, dna samples etc and take the burglar to court.

However, when we get there we'll probably find that we have violated his/her human rights.

Bring back horse-whipping and let criminals live with the pain!!

Ramrod
01-08-2003, 11:45
Originally posted by darkangel
u understood wrong then Heres another one for you darkangel: http://www.lewrockwell.com/watson/watson43.html (5th paragraph down)

Graham
02-08-2003, 01:18
Originally posted by Ramrod you are arguing that a career criminal is a reliable witness.

Rubbish.

I said (on the subject of shouted warnings) "He claimed he did. They said he didn't. There is no way to prove either"

See that last sentence? "There is no way to prove either". Hardly "a career criminal is a reliable witness" is it??

I'm someone who doesn't support the right of *anyone* to take the law into their own hands.

Not anyone, just the people who find intruders on their premises.

Ah, just *anyone* who finds intruders...!

several people in here (including yourself) who have already publically and for the record(!) stated that they would "hit first and ask questions later"!

I never said that I would do that. (I think) Its been a long thread, but it dosn't sound like me:D

Perhaps the following sounds a bit more like you?

Ramrod #94: (Quoted) what if it was *you* on someone else's property who gets the kicking? "Oh well, it was my fault for looking suspicious"?

You: Thats right, I shouldn't have been trespassing/breaking and entering in the first place, at night, with an accomplice, making threats to the homeowner.

Care to try again??

Graham
02-08-2003, 01:24
Originally posted by Ramrod
But when the law dosn't/ can't defend us, what then?

Somehow, despite the assertions of some media sources (including, I hasten to add, the broadsheets!) I really don't think that our society in general has collapsed to that level.

A few isolated cases may make the headlines, but they are not representative of the country as a whole.

Ramrod
02-08-2003, 10:37
Originally posted by Graham
Rubbish.

I said (on the subject of shouted warnings) "He claimed he did. They said he didn't. There is no way to prove either"

See that last sentence? "There is no way to prove either". Hardly "a career criminal is a reliable witness" is it?? But you choose to believe the career ****.....



Ah, just *anyone* who finds intruders...! Exactly.....and your point is?



Perhaps the following sounds a bit more like you?: Ramrod #94: (Quoted) what if it was *you* on someone else's property who gets the kicking? "Oh well, it was my fault for looking suspicious"?

You: Thats right, I shouldn't have been trespassing/breaking and entering in the first place, at night, with an accomplice, making threats to the homeowner.



Care to try again?? Nowhere in the above does it say that I would hit first and ask questions later. I think that you should try again.:D

Ramrod
02-08-2003, 21:57
Apparently Tony Martin had suffered over 30 break-ins on his property.
He inherited the property from his uncle who had also been a victim of burglary. During one of the burglaries his uncle had been assaulted so viciously that he had suffered permanent brain damage, possibly leading to the onset of Parkinsons disease. Shame that his uncle didn't have a gun to hand at the time.....

Stuart
03-08-2003, 16:36
Originally posted by Graham
Somehow, despite the assertions of some media sources (including, I hasten to add, the broadsheets!) I really don't think that our society in general has collapsed to that level.

A few isolated cases may make the headlines, but they are not representative of the country as a whole.

Good point. If society had collapsed to that level, it would not be news, and the papers would not bother publishing it..

Stuart
03-08-2003, 16:39
Originally posted by Ramrod
Apparently Tony Martin had suffered over 30 break-ins on his property.
He inherited the property from his uncle who had also been a victim of burglary. During one of the burglaries his uncle had been assaulted so viciously that he had suffered permanent brain damage, possibly leading to the onset of Parkinsons disease. Shame that his uncle didn't have a gun to hand at the time.....

After 30 break ins (and more before that), I would seriously consider moving.

Ramrod
03-08-2003, 16:43
Originally posted by scastle
After 30 break ins (and more before that), I would seriously consider moving. I suppose it depends how stubborn you are.

dozysplot
03-08-2003, 16:46
Originally posted by Ramrod
Apparently Tony Martin had suffered over 30 break-ins on his property.
He inherited the property from his uncle who had also been a victim of burglary. During one of the burglaries his uncle had been assaulted so viciously that he had suffered permanent brain damage, possibly leading to the onset of Parkinsons disease. Shame that his uncle didn't have a gun to hand at the time.....

This is exactly the point, when you read the story behind this tragedy you can understand why he pulled the trigger that night.

He was on his own, no chance of help from the police, with people in his house who , for all tony martin knew, were the same **** who had burgled his house repeatedly and battered his uncle close to death.

What the HELL did police/CPS expect him to do? He defended himself and his property.

Never forget the basic point of this. If those 2 scumbags had not gone out to commit crime that night, none of this would have happened.

:mad:

dozysplot
03-08-2003, 16:50
Originally posted by Ramrod
I suppose it depends how stubborn you are.

why the hell should he. why the hell should he be forced out of his house by criminals. He's got every right to live in that house. He also had a right for help and protection from the police but that never came. He was left to defend himself and he did

Ramrod
03-08-2003, 16:59
Good article:


From the Times
July 29, 2003

We don't need gun law for protection. Just the law
Theodore Dalrymple
The Martin case exposes the futility of the State



Tony Martin was released from prison yesterday after serving two thirds of his sentence for manslaughter. He was kept in prison because he refused to express a remorse that he did not feel for shooting dead one burglar and wounding another. As far as he was concerned, he was simply defending his property from the constant depredation of burglars †” something that the British State had signally failed, one might say refused †” to do.
The comparative severity of Mr MartinÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s sentence †” I have known killers with far less reason to kill than Mr Martin who received far shorter sentences †” gave the British people the impression, not entirely accurate, that the State is far more solicitous of the safety of burglars than of the property of citizens.

The fact is that there are incomparably more burglars in prison that there are people who have assaulted or killed burglars. Yet the publicÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s impression is understandable: not long ago I was leafing through a patientââ‚à ‚¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s extensive criminal record when I read of the sentence he received for his 57th conviction for burglary: a £50 fine. No wonder we donââ‚ ¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t feel safe.

If we canââ‚ ¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t shoot burglars, what can we do to defend our property? We can insure it, we can fortify our houses (how many of us have been told by the police that the theft of our property was our own fault because we didnââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t have suitable locks, bolts and alarms?), or we can take the Buddhist path, and give up our attachment to what we own. But when none of these work, when we find ourselves †” as Mr Martin did †” confronted by an intruder or intruders, to what extent are we entitled to protect it by physical means?

The law says that we may use reasonable force †” but most of us have doubts about how reasonable the idea of being reasonable in such circumstances is. Reasonable force is graded according to the situation, and risks turning the confrontation of householder with intruder into a sporting contest that the intruder is likely to win, because the defender of his property has to abide by the equivalent of the Queensberry Rules, whereas the burglar recognises no rules. One canââ‚ ¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t know what weapon the thief might be carrying: is it reasonable to give him an opportunity to use it? Not long ago I talked to a murderer who had killed his victim: a householder who was trying to apprehend him by the use of reasonable force. He was not remorseful.

For those of us who are unused to violence of any kind, a pre-emptive and incapacitating strike of great force would seem best. But this is to risk injuring the burglar, and subsequent criminal and civil proceedings. In any case, we are likely to be frightened and angry at the same time, rather than rational and reflective about the precise grade of violence we may legally employ. As Macbeth says, in justification of the killing of the two grooms who sleep outside the murdered King DuncanÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s bedroom, and who he claims to have killed Duncan:


Who can be wise, amazed,
tempâ₠¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢rate, and furious,
Loyal and neutral, in a moment?
But this is precisely what the law demands of us when confronted by a burglar: that we should be wise, amazed, temperate and furious at the same time. Of course, Macbeth was himself DuncanÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s murderer, and his words were therefore completely dishonest: and this points to a problem with the granting of carte blanche to householders to deal with burglars as they see fit.

It might encourage those so inclined to attack strangers on the pretext that they themselves were under attack, an allegation intrinsically difficult to disprove. The general level of violence would rise.

On the other hand, it would certainly deter burglars: one of the reasons burglary is so much less frequent in the United States than in Britain is that householders there are permitted much more vigorous defensive action than the law permits us here, with no questions asked.

The law here will neither protect us nor allow us to protect ourselves. This is a dangerous situation, for it both undermines the credibility of the law and reduces the legitimacy of the State, which so signally fails in its first and indispensable duty. It will also in the long run produce social divisions †” literal, physical ones †” of the kind that we once looked down upon American society for having created.

Most people donââ‚ ¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t look forward with enthusiasm to the day when they will have to protect their own property against intruders by means of violence. Unlike the enthusiastic marksmen of America, they have neither the taste for such action nor the technical competence to resort to it.

And so what will they do? Those with the money to do so will increasingly cut themselves off physically from burglary, by means of gated communities and by the employment of security companies. How long will it be before notices such as those that one sees in the suburbs of Johannesburg appear in Britain: XYZ Security: Armed Response?

Most people, of course, will not be in a position to employ such methods to protect their property. Resentment against the small and rich sector of society that is able to isolate itself from the day-to-day horrors of life in a burglarââ‚à ‚¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s world will grow.

Why should those who, objectively speaking, need it least, be able to secure the best, indeed the only, protection? A class of rich people will be turned into a caste of rich people, with less and less contact with their fellow citizens. They will live in fear, while the others live in hatred.

For myself, I donââ‚ ¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t want to protect myself against intruders by violence. I donââ‚ ¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t want to live in a gated community either, with no human contact with anyone outside it. I donââ‚ ¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t want to employ thugs to protect me. I want the police and the law to protect me: but, of course, they have better things to do, such as filling in forms.


The author is a prison doctor

dozysplot
03-08-2003, 17:10
Originally posted by Ramrod
The law here will neither protect us nor allow us to protect ourselves.

exactly.......... What hope do we the victim have, when the law favours the criminal

Ramrod
03-08-2003, 17:16
Originally posted by dozysplot
exactly.......... What hope do we the victim have, when the law favours the criminal
Somantics.........I don't think that the law favours the criminal, it is just all to eager to criminalise otherwise law abiding people (the easy targets:( )

Ramrod
03-08-2003, 17:40
Originally posted by Graham
Somehow, despite the assertions of some media sources (including, I hasten to add, the broadsheets!) I really don't think that our society in general has collapsed to that level.

A few isolated cases may make the headlines, but they are not representative of the country as a whole. I agree with you but that is of no comfort to those victims of crime who are the 'isolated cases'

Graham
04-08-2003, 02:53
Originally posted by Ramrod
But you choose to believe the career ****.....

I'm sorry? Please could you explain the logic that gets you from "there's no way of proving either claim is true" to "you choose to believe..."?

Me: I'm someone who doesn't support the right of *anyone* to take the law into their own hands.

You: Not anyone, just the people who find intruders on their premises.

Me: Ah, just *anyone* who finds intruders...!

You: Exactly.....and your point is?

Oh ye gods...! (shakes head)

According to your logic, those who don't find intruders on their property won't *need* to take the law into their own hands which is a blatantly circular argument!

Nowhere in the above does it say that I would hit first and ask questions later. I think that you should try again.:D


Certainly, go back and read the *rest* of your post 94. Maybe then you'll stop trying to weasel out of this.

Graham
04-08-2003, 02:56
Originally posted by dozysplot
Never forget the basic point of this. If those 2 scumbags had not gone out to commit crime that night, none of this would have happened.

And however many times you repeat that, it *STILL* does not justify *MURDER* (or, for the pedants out there, manslaughter).

Graham
04-08-2003, 03:01
Originally posted by Ramrod

A few isolated cases may make the headlines, but they are not representative of the country as a whole.

I agree with you but that is of no comfort to those victims of crime who are the 'isolated cases'


And I, in turn, agree with you (my god, we both agree with each other, that's got to be a first...!! :D

However the rest of us shouldn't allow the misrepresentation of isolated cases to be "the real state of affairs" to knee-jerk us into either excessive responses or to persuade us to give up our personal freedoms to allow us to be "protected".

Ramrod
04-08-2003, 10:34
Originally posted by Graham
I'm sorry? Please could you explain the logic that gets you from "there's no way of proving either claim is true" to "you choose to believe..."?Lets see..... you cannot 100%prove who is lying but one person is a (fairly) law-abiding homeowner and the other is a career criminal who was committing a crime during the events under debate. The latter is obviously the least credable witness



Oh ye gods...! (shakes head)

According to your logic, those who don't find intruders on their property won't *need* to take the law into their own hands which is a blatantly circular argument! Of course you don't need to take the law into your own hands if there is no burglar on your property! There is no crime being committed if there is no one there.



Certainly, go back and read the *rest* of your post 94. Maybe then you'll stop trying to weasel out of this. I have re-read it and cannot find any reference to me saying that I would hit first and ask questions later. :confused:
However the rest of us shouldn't allow the misrepresentation of isolated cases to be "the real state of affairs" to knee-jerk us into either excessive responses or to persuade us to give up our personal freedoms to allow us to be "protected".Where is the personal freedom in not being able to effectively defend yourself, as Martins uncle experienced?

TheBig1
04-08-2003, 17:27
The only thing that Tony Martin did wrong in my opinion was to leave the body to be found. Anyone capable of breaking into somebody's home in the dead of night to steal and potentially injur the homeowner should forfeit their right to a burial. Feed the body to the pigs or some such method, but destroy the evidence!

I know full well that if some lowlifes were to put my family in danger like that, they would never be seen again.

leeswin
04-08-2003, 17:30
heres a fresh scope for what ever reason he killed 1 person (i have my views and think whatever theye got was there own doing), how many people as this drug dealer killed or even worse injured to the point of no helpable?

There worried about the drug dealer

Ramrod
04-08-2003, 17:59
Originally posted by leeswin
heres a fresh scope for what ever reason he killed 1 person (i have my views and think whatever theye got was there own doing), how many people as this drug dealer killed or even worse injured to the point of no helpable?

There worried about the drug dealer Good point

Graham
04-08-2003, 21:37
Ramrod:

I'm not interested in playing hair splitting word games, so pardon me if I save my time by not replying further to your comments.

Ramrod
04-08-2003, 21:43
Originally posted by Graham
Ramrod:

I'm not interested in playing hair splitting word games, so pardon me if I save my time by not replying further to your comments. :confused: Strange way to end our discussion. I am confused and hurt by your comment.:(

leeswin
04-08-2003, 22:34
i forgot this heres an intresting twist since all this happend in 99 "we have had the 'don't jail burglars' speeches from the Lords Woolf and Irvine, which despite their protestations have the stated aim of sending fewer burglars to prison, in line with Government policy. "

fond here " http://www.tonymartinsupportgroup.org/ " anyone else remeber this on the news?

Ramrod
04-08-2003, 23:40
Originally posted by leeswin
i forgot this heres an intresting twist since all this happend in 99 "we have had the 'don't jail burglars' speeches from the Lords Woolf and Irvine, which despite their protestations have the stated aim of sending fewer burglars to prison, in line with Government policy. "

fond here " http://www.tonymartinsupportgroup.org/ " anyone else remeber this on the news?
I find this bit particularly interesting:The claims of jury intimidation remain 'not proven', although a pointer may be the fact that some potential defence witnesses refused to testify for their own safety, and that the police advised Tony Martin's family not to attend the trial. So that in England, in the year 2000, a law-abiding mother could not see her son being unjustly tried and unjustly convicted, while the public gallery of an English court was wholly taken over by the relatives of the three career criminals who raided Bleak House that August night, cheering and punching the air when the verdict was returned, abusing the lone figure about to start his life sentence. Since then Fred Barras' father has been sentenced for an armed robbery (in which he held a gun to the head of a female security guard) carried out only a few weeks after the Martin verdict. To his credit, however, the father of Brendon Fearon has called for Tony Martin's release. Mr Fearon (one of the three burglars), who has now been released from prison, has actually been visited by Victim Support (whose side are they on?), consulted by the Home Office as to how long Tony Martin should serve, and has written him a letter which appeared from the language to have been dictated by social workers, inviting him to 'show remorse' before 'reconciliation' occurs:rolleyes:

If there was jury nobbling going on, or if defence witnesses didn't testify, did Martin get a fair trial?

Graham
05-08-2003, 00:40
Originally posted by Ramrod Strange way to end our discussion. I am confused and hurt by your comment.

<Sigh> I'm probably going to regret this, but let me explain:

Please could you explain the logic that gets you from "there's no way of proving either claim is true" to "you choose to believe..."?

Lets see..... you cannot 100%prove who is lying but one person is a (fairly) law-abiding homeowner [...] The latter is obviously the least credable witness

A "law-abiding homeowner" with a history of mental illness and in possession of an illegal weapon who had just shot someone in the back and thus whose word could be considered to be possibly less than reliable!

Whilst he may be "more credible" according to your lights, I'd point out that if the latter was 10% credible and the former 15% credible, it doesn't make either of them *reliable* witnesses whose evidence would *prove* anything.

Of course you don't need to take the law into your own hands if there is no burglar on your property! There is no crime being committed if there is no one there.

As I've said, this is such an obviously circular argument that it doesn't even need addressing.

Where is the personal freedom in not being able to effectively defend yourself, as Martins uncle experienced?

It has been said too many times already in this discussion that Martin exceeded the bounds of "reasonable force", hence his conviction for Manslaughter (even though reduced from murder).

As regards your post #94:



Me: And what happens if they weren't actually intending to cause damage or steal stuff, but you didn't take the time to check and you kick seven bells out of someone who is innocent?

You: So what were they doing there in the first place?! [...]?

Me: "Oh well, they shouldn't have been on my property in the first place..."

You: Damn right!

You're going to have to split some hairs pretty fine to claim that this isn't "hit first and ask questions later", however I'm just not interested in playing any more.

Ramrod
05-08-2003, 12:33
I'm glad you decided to continue.
Originally posted by Graham
despite new forensic evidence which supported Tony Martin's testimony, but reduced the conviction to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. Just because he was deemed to be mentally ill at the time dosn't necessarily make his testimony unreliable.




Whilst he may be "more credible" according to your lights, I'd point out that if the latter was 10% credible and the former 15% credible, it doesn't make either of them *reliable* witnesses whose evidence would *prove* anything.Forensics back Martins version of events up more than Feardons



As I've said, this is such an obviously circular argument that it doesn't even need addressing. I don't see how this is a circular argument. If you don't have a intruder on the premises you don't need to defend yourself, if you have you do need to.



It has been said too many times already in this discussion that Martin exceeded the bounds of "reasonable force", hence his conviction for Manslaughter (even though reduced from murder).I am arguing that we should adopt a more US style to dealing with intruders, for this reason: are householders really at risk from burglars ? Was Tony Martin being paranoid when he feared for his life as three men broke into his isolated property at night? Home Office figures supplied to the Tony Martin Support Group show that over a five year period at least SIXTY SIX householders have been killed by burglars, many of the victims being elderly. These figures are an understatement, as they do not include those killed by 'intruders'.


As regards your post #94:



You're going to have to split some hairs pretty fine to claim that this isn't "hit first and ask questions later", however I'm just not interested in playing any more. [/B]Ah, I see now why you thought that. Sorry. I was referring to the fact that burglars shouldn't be on your premises in the first place and that if they are then their motives are extremely suspect, not that I would hit first and ask questions later. Of course I would say something (like "what you doing here?")and wait for the guilty body language before I hit them. Lets face it, your idea of the neighbour checking your house at night scenario is rather tenuous. Can you come up with another, more realistic scenario?

Graham
07-08-2003, 12:40
Originally posted by Ramrod
I'm glad you decided to continue.

I haven't because there's frankly little else to say that hasn't been said or is just arguing about semantics but there's a couple of comments I want to make about your response before I drop this entirely.

(taken from The Tony Matrin support group website)

Obviously an impartial source...!

Forensics back Martins version of events up more than Feardons

Forensics is evidence in and of itself. It has nothing to do with the reliability or not of statements.

I don't see how this is a circular argument. If you don't have a intruder on the premises you don't need to defend yourself, if you have you do need to.

Because you argue that "not everybody" needs to do this, but of course they don't, only those with intruders! QED.

I am arguing that we should adopt a more US style to dealing with intruders, for this reason:

You seem to be arguing to put guns in the hands of people who may have poor eyesight, impaired hearing or reduced mental faculties!

"Hello Granny, just popped round to..." [BANG]

Can you come up with another, more realistic scenario?

I am not going to come up with other scenarios because that's just going to get into more quibbling.

Ramrod
07-08-2003, 13:14
Originally posted by Graham
Forensics is evidence in and of itself. It has nothing to do with the reliability or not of statements.But it doe add weight to Martins testemony and casts doubt on Feardons testemony.



You seem to be arguing to put guns in the hands of people who may have poor eyesight, impaired hearing or reduced mental faculties!

"Hello Granny, just popped round to..." [BANG] Seems to work in the USA, they have half the burglaries we have here. In any case, I am not advocating that householders have guns, I am suggesting that the idea of reasonable force be re-examined/scrapped as it gives intruders the upper hand in any given situation. ie. the householder is constantly forced to be on the defensive but the criminal can 'up the ante' at any point.



I am not going to come up with other scenarios because that's just going to get into more quibbling. or maby you just can't think of a credable scenario.......

Stuart
07-08-2003, 14:13
Originally posted by Ramrod

Seems to work in the USA, they have half the burglaries we have here. In any case, I am not advocating that householders have guns, I am suggesting that the idea of reasonable force be re-examined/scrapped as it gives intruders the upper hand in any given situation. ie. the householder is constantly forced to be on the defensive but the criminal can 'up the ante' at any point.


Unless I am very much mistaken, the Americans also have a higher murder rate.

Also, if you take away the idea of Reasonable Force, what do you replace it with? If it is just scrapped, you will eventually end up with somebody getting killed because they nicked something insignificant.

Thirdly, if a burglar knows a householder is armed (which if the reasonable force rules are relaxed, they may actually assume), what is to stop them taking a gun (or other weapon) and killing (or otherwise incapacitating) the householder before they burgle?

Defiant
07-08-2003, 14:19
If they break into someone's house they know they shouldn't be their, then they should not be protected by the law. The only thing they would get from my house is a baseball bat.


ps yes the yanks have more breakin's but whats the population over their 250/350 million ?

UK 60 million (well what they know about)

Ramrod
07-08-2003, 14:38
Originally posted by scastle
Unless I am very much mistaken, the Americans also have a higher murder rate. Probably because they have more guns. I don't think that we should have guns.

Also, if you take away the idea of Reasonable Force, what do you replace it with? If it is just scrapped, you will eventually end up with somebody getting killed because they nicked something insignificant. I am not saying that we should be allowed to try to kill criminals (most people would have a very hard time trying to deliberately kill someone anyway), just that if a criminal does die in the event of a burglary it should be a case of tough sh*t m8. I leave any new legal framework to the judges to work out, thats their job. It is grossly unfair to hold up to the cold light of legal analysis something that a homeowner has done one dark night, in a panic when being threatened by who knows what.

Thirdly, if a burglar knows a householder is armed (which if the reasonable force rules are relaxed, they may actually assume), what is to stop them taking a gun (or other weapon) and killing (or otherwise incapacitating) the householder before they burgle? True. Lets go with the 'arm homeowners' argument for the minute.....If we all had guns in our homes burglaries would probably decrease (as they have in the US) because most would-be burglars would not want to take the risk. We would then be left with the hardcore burglars who probably go tooled up at the moment anyway, and are probably responsible for the murders that I mentioned in a previous post.

Graham
07-08-2003, 21:38
Originally posted by Ramrod
Seems to work in the USA, they have half the burglaries we have here.

And how many *accidental* gun deaths? And how many burglars go *armed*?

I am suggesting that the idea of reasonable force be re-examined/scrapped as it gives intruders the upper hand in any given situation. ie. the householder is constantly forced to be on the defensive but the criminal can 'up the ante' at any point.

So "reasonable force" is redefined to allow you to use a baseball bat, for instance. So the burglar "ups the ante" by carrying an iron bar...

or maby you just can't think of a credable scenario.......

You are free to believe whatever you want, however I can guarantee that whatever scenario I may come up with you could think up some sort of allegedly plausible reason for why it isn't "credible" and so on and so on.

Sorry, I'm still not going to play.

Ramrod
07-08-2003, 22:14
Originally posted by Graham
And how many *accidental* gun deaths? And how many burglars go *armed*?My views on guns and burglars are already mentioned in my last post.



So "reasonable force" is redefined to allow you to use a baseball bat, for instance. So the burglar "ups the ante" by carrying an iron bar... But the burglars have already upped the ante, they have got the upper hand. We are forced to react to circumstances as they change them. We cannot take the upper hand, in terms of force used (because of the reasonable force concept), until the burglar plays his hand, by wich time it is probably too late as we are now a statistic.
Let me paint a scenario: I am in a karate tournament. I know the rules and they are that (amongst other things) no blows to the head or genitals are allowed. The fight starts and my opponent kicks me in the knackers (he's fighting to a different set of rules)and I am down and out. I didn't have a chance to re-adjust my strategy to cope with the low blow before it was too late. If I had fought from the beginning with the knowledge of the rules he was using I would have had more of a chance against him. (Thats why we sometimes fight using "dojo rules" ie. anything goes.)
In a similar vein: If you are in a situation where you don't know what your opponent is going to use against you it is foolish in the extreme to wait for him to declare his hand. You have to hit him first and put him down, it's his fault for putting you in that situation in the first place. I am not advocating (for the most part)guns/blasting away/not challenging the intruder first. I am just saying that the homeowner should be allowed to up the ante first and not automatically incur a penalty under the law.


You are free to believe whatever you want, however I can guarantee that whatever scenario I may come up with you could think up some sort of allegedly plausible reason for why it isn't "credible" and so on and so on.
Go on, try. I challenge you to come up with a good scenario:) I don't think you can.....

Graham
09-08-2003, 14:00
Originally posted by Ramrod
But the burglars have already upped the ante, they have got the upper hand. We are forced to react to circumstances as they change them. We cannot take the upper hand, in terms of force used (because of the reasonable force concept), until the burglar plays his hand, by wich time it is probably too late as we are now a statistic.

*NONSENSE*!

I have already quoted the case of the *armed* householder who was acquitted after shooting a burglar in the leg because the burglar *was* coming towards him and it was agreed that this was self-defence.

We are talking about *taking revenge* by for instance "kicking seven bells" out of someone or by shooting them *in the back*. These, as I have pointed out several times already, go beyond the grounds of *reasonable force*.

Let me paint a scenario: I am in a karate tournament. I know the rules and they are that (amongst other things) no blows to the head or genitals are allowed. The fight starts and my opponent kicks me in the knackers (he's fighting to a different set of rules)

Then either he or you got it wrong. If he got it wrong he would be cautioned for breaking the rules and if he did it again he would be ejected from the tournament.

However if *you* decided that, because *he* had breached the rules, you were going to get revenge by kicking him in the same place, were I the referee I would have no problem in ejecting you from the tournament since you already knew better.

I am just saying that the homeowner should be allowed to up the ante first and not automatically incur a penalty under the law.

And as I have pointed out and will keep doing so, provided what you do does not *go beyond* reasonable *self-defence* you should not have a problem. Kicking seven bells out of someone or shooting them in the back is *not* "defending yourself"!

Go on, try. I challenge you to come up with a good scenario:) I don't think you can.....

Which part of "I'm not playing" is giving you trouble?

Ramrod
09-08-2003, 22:29
Originally posted by Graham
*NONSENSE*!

I have already quoted the case of the *armed* householder who was acquitted after shooting a burglar in the leg because the burglar *was* coming towards him and it was agreed that this was self-defence.[/qoute] Excellent, common ground at last. My point all along has been that Martin didn't shoot the burglars in revenge. He just fired 3 shots in the dark when threatened. If he had hit Barras in the front of the body (lets say with the first shot) instead of in the back (as Barras was legging it) with the second shot. He would not have been found guilty. He didn' even know that he had hit anyone, much less fatally woulnded them.

{quote]We are talking about *taking revenge* by for instance "kicking seven bells" out of someone or by shooting them *in the back*. These, as I have pointed out several times already, go beyond the grounds of *reasonable force*. I don't advocate shooting or 'kicking seven bells' either. I just think that if, in the unpredictability of a fight, something excess does occur, the homeowner should not be punished for it. Sh*t sometimes happens. Making us timid in our own defense (because of the'reasonable force' rule) can get us injured or killed.



Then either he or you got it wrong. If he got it wrong he would be cautioned for breaking the rules and if he did it again he would be ejected from the tournament.My point is that in real life the intruder dosn't get a caution for breaking the rules, and I don't get a second chance at him.

However if *you* decided that, because *he* had breached the rules In real life by the time I decided that he had breached the rules I would be down or dead. But hey, at least I didn't exeed 'reasonable force', you were going to get revenge by kicking him in the same place, were I the referee I would have no problem in ejecting you from the tournament since you already knew better. already done *big grin at the memory*, and I won with that one(though it wasn't in the knackers but it was technically illegal-but only he and I knew that)



And as I have pointed out and will keep doing so, provided what you do does not *go beyond* reasonable *self-defence* you should not have a problem. Kicking seven bells out of someone or shooting them in the back is *not* "defending yourself"! And my point origionally is that I don't believe that Martin knew where he was shooting them.



[qoute]Which part of "I'm not playing" is giving you trouble? [/QUOTE] The part where you won't play:D

darkangel
09-08-2003, 23:10
Originally posted by Ramrod

And my point origionally is that I don't believe that Martin knew where he was shooting them. what did he think he was shooting at then, u don't aim with a full shot pattern round, at close range you'll blow a hole straight through somebody, he meant to kill somebody he's been a farmer for a long time so shotgun will be second nature no way did he mean to injure, although i do understand that the story is he shot out of fear & surprise you don't fire twice in different locations out of fear.

Ramrod
09-08-2003, 23:29
Originally posted by darkangel
what did he think he was shooting at then, u don't aim with a full shot pattern round, at close range you'll blow a hole straight through somebody, he meant to kill somebody he's been a farmer for a long time so shotgun will be second nature no way did he mean to injure, although i do understand that the story is he shot out of fear & surprise you don't fire twice in different locations out of fear. Maby Barras turned and ran into the path of the next shot.....
I just think that if sh*t happens to scumbags they should have very little recourse in the law. I don't think that vigilante behaviour should be allowed.

kink
09-08-2003, 23:45
Originally posted by Ramrod
Maby Barras turned and ran into the path of the next shot.....


Let me get this straight ramrod.... is your argument now that he committed suicide? :shrug:

:p ;)

I'm sorry!!! But this thread has been going round and round in circles for ages and i've just lost my head......
i plead insanity due to heatstroke, m'lud :naughty:

Ramrod
09-08-2003, 23:58
Originally posted by kink
Let me get this straight ramrod.... is your argument now that he committed suicide? :shrug:

:rofl: No, I'm saying that it was so dark that no-one could see sh*t. Especially Martin who had just had 2 torchlights shone in his eyes.

Graham
10-08-2003, 04:11
Originally posted by Ramrod
My point all along has been that Martin didn't shoot the burglars in revenge. He just fired 3 shots in the dark when threatened.

So, let me get this straight, you think that, if you feel threatened, it is *ACCEPTABLE* to blast away with a shotgun (thus targetting *anyone* in its cone of effect) no matter who they may be???

Remind me never to catch *you* by surprise!

And my point origionally is that I don't believe that Martin knew where he was shooting them.

If you don't know *where*, or indeed *who* you may be shooting at with a shotgun then firing it "blindly" is an act of *extreme* irresponsibility!

PS I know the quoting system on this style of forum is a pain, but please could you check to make sure the quote closure tags are working properly, thanks.

Ramrod
10-08-2003, 22:10
Originally posted by Graham
So, let me get this straight, you think that, if you feel threatened, it is *ACCEPTABLE* to blast away with a shotgun (thus targetting *anyone* in its cone of effect) no matter who they may be???If I was burgled 30 times with no joy from the police, had an uncle who was brain damaged by a burglar on the same premises Yes, I might be inclined to fire away if I was confronted by multiple intruders at night in pitch darkness. Who knows till they are put in similar circumstances......

Remind me never to catch *you* by surprise! In a situation like that it is inadvisable to catch anyone by surprise. You will provoke a fight or flight response which is an ancient reflex that is built into all of us.
If you don't know *where*, or indeed *who* you may be shooting at with a shotgun then firing it "blindly" is an act of *extreme* irresponsibility! Nevertheless he was firing at multiple intruders who should not have been there (miles out in the country at night on private premises) and who probably meant him ill. In a situation like that you probably want to fire in their general direction. Martin says that he was not even aware of firing untill it was over. Hell, they shouldn't have been there and shone torches in his face in the dark, thereby blinding him. What were they thinking doing that to a man in his home?

PS I know the quoting system on this style of forum is a pain, but please could you check to make sure the quote closure tags are working properly, thanks. yes, noticed it after the edit time had expired:shrug:




btw....still not come up with a decent scenario?:D

Soulgirl
12-08-2003, 00:19
Originally posted by kink
I think you'd all be relatively safe as long as you don't shoot them in the back as they're making their escape...

:shrug:

That was the reason he got prosecuted... because they WERE running away and he shot them in the back... that wasnt self defense... he thought "right you little fookers... Im gonna have you"... not good...

So, next time - shoot them in the face :D

Ramrod
12-08-2003, 00:31
Originally posted by Soulgirl
That was the reason he got prosecuted... because they WERE running away and he shot them in the back... that wasnt self defense... he thought "right you little fookers... Im gonna have you"... not good...

So, next time - shoot them in the face :D He didn't know that they were running away, it was too dark. He just knew that he had intruders.

Soulgirl
12-08-2003, 00:33
So luckily, in the dark, he caught him straight between the shoulder blades? That was a shot in the dark... pardon the pun :D

Besides... there was a sense of "tongue in cheek" with my initial post... https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2003/08/4.gif

Ramrod
12-08-2003, 00:39
Originally posted by Soulgirl
So luckily, in the dark, he caught him straight between the shoulder blades? yup! Besides... there was a sense of "tongue in cheek" with my initial post... http://www.thesoulgirl.com/emotis/tongue.gif I know :D

hobbie
19-08-2003, 22:21
Just as a side-note--
http://www.ntlworld.com/partners/itn/britain/1286201.php

Ramrod
19-08-2003, 22:29
Originally posted by hobbie
Just as a side-note--
http://www.ntlworld.com/partners/itn/britain/1286201.php I know, great innit?:D

Ramrod
19-08-2003, 22:30
Originally posted by hobbie
Just as a side-note--
http://www.ntlworld.com/partners/itn/britain/1286201.php I know, great innit?:D I can't see why Graham would be arguing this guys corner:rolleyes:

homealone
19-08-2003, 23:26
Originally posted by Ramrod
I know, great innit?:D I can't see why Graham would be arguing this guys corner:rolleyes:

hmm - not entirely fair - Graham didn't have that info when he was arguing about the principles involved in this case:p

- but yes it is "good news" as an exposÃÃ*’© of our screwed up legal system:)

Gaz

Graham
20-08-2003, 03:18
Originally posted by Ramrod
I know, great innit?:D I can't see why Graham would be arguing this guys corner:rolleyes:

Ramrod:

Either you produce some evidence, hell *ANY* evidence, that I have "argued this guy's corner" or withdraw this comment *IMMEDIATELY*.

This is a *blatant* mis-representation of what I have been saying all along in this thread since my first post #74 and I find your usage of this sort of tactics to be deplorable in the extreme.

And please don't try to argue that because I support people's rights under the law I am somehow condoning or justifying what this person did because that will *also* be a blatant mis-representation of what I have said.

Graham
20-08-2003, 03:22
Originally posted by homealone
hmm - not entirely fair - Graham didn't have that info when he was arguing about the principles involved in this case

It would not have mattered a damn whether I had that information or not.

The *principles* that I have been supporting still hold, ie that *everyone* is entitled to the protection of the law and that if anyone goes beyond the limits of the law they should expect to face the consequences.

but yes it is "good news" as an exposÃÃ*’© of our screwed up legal system

No, it's an expose of the "Compensation Culture", not the *legal system*. I have never approved of the "No Win, No Fee" system for compensation because it is open to abuse.

hobbie
20-08-2003, 04:29
Just so that no-one is in any doubt where I stand--I have read EVERY post in this thread, and I have seen Ramrod's and Graham's differing opinions.
And I have to say--they are both very strong in their beliefs.

But the topic is " which of us belongs in prison?"

To which I have to reply---I do .

If I find someone in my house at 3 am ,whilst my wife and 3 year old daughter are fast asleep,I will not hesitate to use extreme force.Not "acceptable" force, or "minimal" or any other term that people may choose to use .I will use every weapon available to me in order to safeguard my family's safety.

If that means I am sent to prison for 5 years so be it. I have saved my wife and daughter from having their lives put at risk.

Graham--you obviously have very strong beliefs,also-so does Ramrod .I hope that you are both mature enough to accept a draw in this particular battle of wits, and engage in another topic in the future.I know that I will look forward to it !

Graham
20-08-2003, 12:39
Originally posted by hobbie Graham--you obviously have very strong beliefs,also-so does Ramrod .I hope that you are both mature enough to accept a draw in this particular battle of wits, and engage in another topic in the future.I know that I will look forward to it !

Hobbie: I had intended to conclude my contributions to this thread with my post #195 posted on the 10th of August and, indeed, had not written anything further until yesterday after Ramrod's unwarranted and unjustified comments.

I will *NOT* under any circumstances allow *anyone* to so blatantly mis-represent my viewpoints as Ramrod has just done and you can be damn sure that I will call anyone who does so to account.

timewarrior2001
20-08-2003, 12:55
I blame left wing politics for this kind of situation arising in the first place.
I have stated before and will do so again, anyone trespassing in my home will be met with the most extreme and prejudiced force I am capable of delivering and at 5' 10" and 18 stone (ex rugby and american football player and ex Athlete) it can be a fair amount of force.
I dont care what happens to the **** invading my house, i dont care if he sufferers extreme pain, if he hadnt been a theiving b*stard in the first place it wouldnt have happened to him.
Now thats a deterrent to the thick in-bred smack heads that go around the streets looking to steal.
For the organised burglar, well most homes offer little in value anyway and they probably would be raiding offices for their stock of printers and PC's.

Most burglars are actually armed, with knives or other instruments to pry open windows etc, any admission of this makes the crime aggravated burglary which carries a stiffer sentence.

Ramrod
20-08-2003, 16:43
Originally posted by Graham
Ramrod:

Either you produce some evidence, hell *ANY* evidence, that I have "argued this guy's corner" or withdraw this comment *IMMEDIATELY*.

This is a *blatant* mis-representation of what I have been saying all along in this thread since my first post #74 and I find your usage of this sort of tactics to be deplorable in the extreme.

And please don't try to argue that because I support people's rights under the law I am somehow condoning or justifying what this person did because that will *also* be a blatant mis-representation of what I have said. Thought that would get you back into the discussion.......
I was referring to the way you were giving equal credability to both parties statements on what happened that night, when Feardon was very probably (and has now been proven to be) a lier. Thats all, nothing more than that.:)
Good to have you back in the discussion. I'd missed you:)

ntluser
20-08-2003, 18:25
I think the sad thing about all this is that householders are placed in this position when dealing with burglars because legal deterrents to crime are ineffective.

The law operates in the favour of crimininals. Factors like low crime detection rates, lenient sentencing and the unwillingness of judges to send people to prison, the early release of prisoners all contribute to an increase in crime and an increase in the social vulnerability of the ordinary citizen.

The New Labour slogan of "Tough on crime and the causes of crime" is a farce because "tough" they ain't. Like Chamberlain, they are operating a policy of appeasement and instead of the state dealing effectively with criminals, it is left to the ordinary person.

Sentences and prison conditions need to be far harsher so that criminals do not relish the prospect of going back inside. Lack of freedom is not enough. Demands need to be made on prisoners to change their ways.

Maybe then we can rest easy in our beds without the need to have a shotgun by our bedsides.

Graham
21-08-2003, 00:00
Ramrod:

Goodbye.

Ramrod
21-08-2003, 00:43
Originally posted by Graham
Ramrod:

Goodbye. I would also like to point out that you have not had a single bad thing to say about Feardon. Not one! In how many posts? Rather proves my point dosn't it? Like I said earlier: 'what are you? A burglar?' 'cos you sure as hell seem to be on their side!
...and you didn't come up with a credable scenario either....yet, go on I challenge you. I would be really pleased if you could come up with something that is realistic....might convert me yet:D

Graham
21-08-2003, 03:39
Ramrod:

If you can't understand "Goodbye", there is very little hope that you will understand anything else I have to write in this thread.

Goodbye.

Ramrod
21-08-2003, 10:46
Originally posted by Graham
Ramrod:

If you can't understand "Goodbye", there is very little hope that you will understand anything else I have to write in this thread.

Goodbye. Of course I understand 'goodbye'. I am merely trying to keep you in the debate since it is rare to find an decent 'sparring partner':) and this is such a good debate! [/B][/QUOTE]
Still, if you don't want to, fair 'nuff:( ....shame though:shrug:

Graham
21-08-2003, 13:05
Ramrod:

See my personal message. I will no longer reply to you in this forum.

Ramrod
21-08-2003, 16:05
Message read and digested:)
I don't agree with the points raised, However I don't want to conduct any part of this discussion via pm as I don't see why any of it should be private. We were having a great time thrashing over all the issues and (imo) as soon as you were running out of arguments you clammed up and took it to pm.

Ramrod
21-08-2003, 18:17
From the Times:D :

August 19, 2003

Iâ₠™m back just in time to find itâ₠¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s backs against the wall time for my back wall
By: Alan Coren



Yes, you are not wrong, I am back. As a matter of fact, I am as back as it is possible for me to be. I am up a ladder leaning against my back wall. I am not here in order to say, hello, wall, I am back, too, I missed you, I am not even up here to thank the wall for the terrific job it did in protecting the house that the wall is at the back of, I am up here because I have come back to discover that the terrific job it did is in jeopardy. I am up here because I have been asked to sack the wall, and I wanted to run my hand along the top of it just to make sure of something before I let fly at the people who want to take my back wallâ₠¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s livelihood away. I intend to fight to save its job.
It has being doing that job unswervingly for nigh on 200 years. I say unswervingly, but it has, not surprisingly, grown a bit buckled in service, it has lost its ruddy youth, it has got mossy, it has been nibbled away by this climbing creeper and that, but as for the climbers it was formally employed to keep out, it has never failed: it has deterred Regency footpads and Jack the Ripper, it has seen off all three Krays and Osama bin Laden, it has taken it upon itself to reassure Mrs Coren and me and all who preceded us down the long arches of the criminal years that we may pick up our buckets and spades with a light and carefree heart and decamp to wherever in the world our fancies take us, in the sure and certain knowledge that our premises were in the safe hands of our back wall.

That is because it has broken glass along the top. It is very old glass: this is a back wall you could lorry on to the Antiques Road Show to bring the serried experts whimpering gratefully to their knees. But now the council wants me to chisel it off: I have just arrived home to discover among the teetering pile of mail a curt note informing me that the glass on my back wall constitutes a danger to anyone who might want to climb over it. Which is why I have come down off the ladder, now, and into the house, and vaulted over the bags that Mrs Coren is unpacking †” silently, because the years have taught her not to ask a man why he has brought only one sandal back when, without even a sidelong glance, he has hurtled past a screen on which South Africa has just lost its eighth wicket for only 81 †” grabbed a telephone and begun letting myself be bounced from one to another of 183 different departments which would not exist without my heavy subsidy until I at last find myself in contact with a prong who explains that the glass-on-wall initiative is part of the ongoing policy of care in the community. Broken glass on top of a wall could mean that someone might get hurt.

I am very patient with him. My voice is hardly more than a shriek when it points out that I am the community and what I care about is someone who might get hurt when there is no glass on top of a wall to stop hurters from climbing in. For this I get a literally sharp answer: the prong suggests a *****ly shrub. I observe that it would take a *****ly shrub ten years to grow to deterrent height, does he appreciate how many household chattels could disappear over the course of four thousand days and nights, by 2013 I might not have even one sandal to stand up in, and anyway, what is the difference between a villainââ‚à ‚¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s cutting his hand on a bit of beer-bottle and poking his eye out on a thorn, is there an ongoing policy about organically grown sharp things, but he merely invites me to ring my local Crime Prevention Officer; who says, yes, a glass-topped wall could be construed as an offensive weapon, and when I reply that I would be prepared to sign a piece of paper promising not to pick my wall up and chase a burglar down the street with it, insists that this is a serious matter, I could well find myself in trouble if a thief were hurt on my premises. He does not elaborate, but hanging in the air between us, I can tell, is the reminder that Tony Martin has recently left a cell vacant, Mrs Coren could soon be repacking my bag.

Where might this not end? I do not tell him I have coated my drainpipes with slippery paint †” it is possible that a second-storey man might not make it past the first floor, break his ankle, and leave the courts to decide which of us gets six months †” nor that my burglar alarm is a bit loud, it could quite literally frighten the life out of a villain with a dodgy ticker, nor that I have a sash-window that comes down, uninvited, at a hell of a lick and could easily leave an intruderââ‚ ‚¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s head rolling around on my bedroom carpet. I merely thank him, and ring off, because I have been up the ladder and I know two things. I know that my broken glass is very old, and I know that this is a listed building, and no one may touch a hair of its heritage fabric without asking the freeholderââ ¬â„¢s permission. The freeholder is the Crown. I intend to do nothing. The council may write to the Queen, if it has the bottle.

Graham
22-08-2003, 03:35
Originally posted by Ramrod
Message read and digested:)
I don't agree with the points raised, However I don't want to conduct any part of this discussion via pm as I don't see why any of it should be private. We were having a great time thrashing over all the issues and (imo) as soon as you were running out of arguments you clammed up and took it to pm.

BALDERDASH.

See PM again.

Ramrod
22-08-2003, 10:27
I am perfectly happy to discuss this here, not in pm:)
btw....which bit of post 217 is balderdash:confused:

grum1978
22-08-2003, 10:40
Now now children lets play nicely :p :D

Ramrod
22-08-2003, 10:42
Originally posted by grum1978
Now now children lets play nicely :p :D but he dosn't want to play:cry: :D

Graham
22-08-2003, 14:30
For the benefit of others reading this, I would like to point out that my personal messages to Ramrod have *not* been about the issues raised in this thread, but about his behaviour and conduct in mis-representing my viewpoints and making what I could consider to be libellous accusations against me.

I took this to PM because I don't believe in arguing such things in public as I'm sure most people wouldn't be interested in reading it and it would only clutter up the forum, however Ramrod has once again seen fit to distort the facts by implying that I am trying to discuss the *issues* of this thread in private or that I have "run out of arguments", neither of which are true.

I re-iterate that I will no longer respond to his arguments in this thread because of his unacceptable behaviour.

Ramrod
22-08-2003, 15:03
Originally posted by Graham
For the benefit of others reading this, I would like to point out that my personal messages to Ramrod have *not* been about the issues raised in this thread, but about his behaviour and conduct in mis-representing my viewpoints and making what I could consider to be libellous accusations against me.

I took this to PM because I don't believe in arguing such things in public as I'm sure most people wouldn't be interested in reading it and it would only clutter up the forum, however Ramrod has once again seen fit to distort the facts by implying that I am trying to discuss the *issues* of this thread in private or that I have "run out of arguments", neither of which are true.

I re-iterate that I will no longer respond to his arguments in this thread because of his unacceptable behaviour. The words 'high horse' and 'get off your' spring to mind:D
Now.... since this appears to be getting out of hand and in the interests of fostering peaceful relations (since I appear to have horribly and grievously insulted you) and getting this thread back on topic, I apologise completely and unreservedly for any hurtful comments that I have made or may make in the future.:)
Now can we get back on with the debate?:shrug:

Ramrod
23-08-2003, 21:38
Still sulking?:(
...or just not read it yet?

grum1978
23-08-2003, 21:41
Originally posted by Ramrod
Still sulking?:(
...or just not read it yet?

From what i can see Ramrod, Graham has made it very clear that he no longer wants to post on this thread

I re-iterate that I will no longer respond to his arguments in this thread

So can we just leave it at that rather than saying that people are sulking :rolleyes:

Ramrod
23-08-2003, 21:53
Originally posted by grum1978
From what i can see Ramrod, Graham has made it very clear that he no longer wants to post on this thread



So can we just leave it at that rather than saying that people are sulking :rolleyes: I know that, but he's said that before and then he keeps 'chirping up' from time to time, so I thought it was worth a try to get things moving again. :)
Hence the full apology:)