Well said Ramrod.

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.

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....

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

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:

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......

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"?

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*.

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.

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:

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.

: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.

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?

Quote:

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

Damn right!

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Yes, they have rights to protect them.

Bit of an oversight don't you think? (As I said before)

Quote:

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

Quote:

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.