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

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 :)

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.......

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

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:

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:

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.

....or shoot in panic.

What metal is it made of? It's just that the pole we have is alluminium, not much use really.:D

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! :)

Is it Panto Season already?

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.

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.

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

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.

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


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

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.

No, I was replying to your questions .

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Has anyone actually *mentioned* challenging the intruder first? No. Did Tony Martin challenge the intruders? No?

afaik he did challenge them.

Quote:

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!"

Quote:

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?"

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/Content/Featu...RuralCrime.asp

has some of the info

also

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

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 *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.

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

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

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

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)

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?

Quote:

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?!

Quote:

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')

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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'.

But the words "accurate" and "true" could be used:D

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.

the parole officer that I mentioned keeps one in his house

Quote:

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.

legally?

what facts?

yes

Quote:

what facts?

That he was mentally ill at the time of the shooting.

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.

good point i agree he should have been in a secure unit

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

Anyhoo.....thats beside the point, Martin was given 12 months extra for the unlicensed weapon.

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, ****.

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.

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".

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

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...

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!!

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.

Quote:

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?!

Quote:

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

Yes, and your point is?

Quote:

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:

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.

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!

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.

I understand that he shot them while they were inside the house.

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?

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...388387,00.html...read the aug 20 1999 info

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

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ramrod

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

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.

No, but I have never said they were.

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

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"!

Not in that article. I think I got that info from the Times. Talk about fear giving you wings....

It dosn't matter what the origional charge was, he was finally found guilty of manslaughter.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

"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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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!!

Heres another one for you darkangel: http://www.lewrockwell.com/watson/watson43.html (5th paragraph down)

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??

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

Perhaps the following sounds a bit more like you?

Care to try again??

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.

But you choose to believe the career ****.....

Quote:

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

Exactly.....and your point is?

Quote:

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

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.....

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

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

I suppose it depends how stubborn you are.

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 *******s had not gone out to commit crime that night, none of this would have happened.

:mad:

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

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 Martinââ‚Ã⠀šÃ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s sentence †â€ÂÂÂ� I have known killers with far less reason to kill than Mr Martin who received far shorter sentences †â€ÂÂÂ� 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 publicââ‚Ã⠀šÃ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢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‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t feel safe.

If we canââ‚Âà ‚¬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 †â€ÂÂÂ� as Mr Martin did †â€ÂÂÂ� 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 †â€ÂÂÂ� 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‚Âà ‚¬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 Duncanââ‚Ã⠀šÃ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢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 Duncanââ‚Ã⠀šÃ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢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‚Âà ‚¬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‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t want to protect myself against intruders by violence. I donââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t want to live in a gated community either, with no human contact with anyone outside it. I donââ‚Âà ‚¬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

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:( )

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

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..."?

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!

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

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

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".

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

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.

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

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.:(

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::rolleyes:

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

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

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.

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

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:

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.

I'm glad you decided to continue.
(taken from The Tony Matrin support group website)Just because he was deemed to be mentally ill at the time dosn't necessarily make his testimony unreliable.




Forensics back Martins version of events up more than Feardons



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.



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

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.

Obviously an impartial source...!

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

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

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]

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

But it doe add weight to Martins testemony and casts doubt on Feardons testemony.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.......

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?

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)

Probably because they have more guns. I don't think that we should have guns.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

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

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...

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.

My views on guns and burglars are already mentioned in my last post.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.....

*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*.

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.

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"!

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

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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'

Quote:

, 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)

Quote:

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

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 *******s they should have very little recourse in the law. I don't think that vigilante behaviour should be allowed.

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:

: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.

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!

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.

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......

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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

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.

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

yup!

Quote:

Besides... there was a sense of "tongue in cheek" with my initial post... http://www.thesoulgirl.com/emotis/tongue.gif

I know :D

Just as a side-note--
http://www.ntlworld.com/partners/itn...in/1286201.php

I know, great innit?:D

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 exposÃÃâ€*’© of our screwed up legal system:)

Gaz