Which of us belongs in prison?
 

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

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!)

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.

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 :)

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..

It makes me blood boil:afire: :grind:

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:

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.

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. :(

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:

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

....never having worked a day in his life.....

now thats an interesting idea.....saw burglars up:D

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

Lets face it the majority of people in this country would do the same thing but the sad do gooder's rule

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?

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)

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.

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

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:

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 ;)

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

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

Poor soul! :grind:

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:

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 :)

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

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.

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....

You're right ramrod.

I am female :)

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:

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.

so what is trespass supposed to mean then ?

and what are you allowed to do about it ?

I just had a policeman in who said that he'd like to get hold of the person who suggested that they sue.:D

Call the police?

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):(

apparently in his case they weren't going to attend....I think....could be wrong.

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 criticââ‚Ã⠀šÃ‚¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÂ� (Henry Fielding).

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

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..

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..

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

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?

Surely you have the right to protect your own property ?

If so how ?

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.

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

yup.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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?

Not in all cases. Look at Zimbabwe..

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...

Now lets not get silly:)

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

shame:D

Sound slike a bonus to me!

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

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

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.

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:

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!

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!

lol....

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

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.....

I do like that:D

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!

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.

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

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?

afaik they were intimidating Martin....threats and taunts

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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...

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.

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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"

Quote:

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)

Quote:

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!

Quote:

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

rotflmao

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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)

Quote:

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.

too f*cking right :afire:

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)

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.

But if the law cannot adequately protect us......and it is morally right for us to defend ourselves and our property against thieving *******s in the dead of night.

Quote:

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'

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%.

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, 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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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."

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

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

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.

Pardon me if I disagree with your sense of morals!

Nonsense!

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

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. :)

*inspector clouseau voice* ahh.. the old "click on edit and keep typing" ploy....

Yes you do.

Quote:

however attacking them pre-emptively is not an "effective way" of preventing burglary either.

Yes it is.

Quote:

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

He was done for manslaughter wasn't he?

Quote:

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?"

Quote:

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

Just had a parole officer in who said that he would go downstairs with his shotgun if he was being burgled.