Quote:
Originally posted by ntluser
The problem here is that we have a double standard in favour of criminals.
If the burglars of Tony Martin's house had arrived armed and had killed Tony Martin as he attempted to defend his home, they would have got away with murder and the possessions they came to steal. The odds of being caught are ,after all, fairly poor in remote areas.
|
You are presenting an opinion as fact here. You don't *know* that they would have "got away with murder" and indeed the figures rather tend to contradict this because the clear up rate for murders is actually around 90%.
Quote:
|
But if Tony Martin attempts to defend himself, armed or unarmed, he is on a hiding to nothing because he is expected to allow them to get away with his possessions which to him may be irreplaceable rather than attempt to prevent them in any effective way.
|
You do not *prevent* someone from robbing you by shooting them with a gun! And nobody is "expected" to let them get away with anything, however attacking them either pre-emptively in revenge is not an "effective way" of preventing burglary either.
Quote:
|
The evidence is that hardened criminals repeat their crimes and it's time the law acknowledged that and put them away for a long time so that ordinary citizens are not put in the position that Tony Martin was placed in.
|
The evidence, as even the Home Office agrees is that prison does *NOT* work as a deterrant to crime and locking someone away for longer does nothing to stop the cycle of crime, in fact it may well achieve entirely the opposite to its aim.
Quote:
Originally posted by Lord Nikon
IMHO he was perfectly justified in defending his property.
I am not suggesting "vigilante Justice" as has been commented earlier, I am merely saying that he took action when he felt his life was in danger to defend himself from people who were intent on robbing him and / or causing him personal injury or worse.
|
You seem not to have addressed the point that Martin was jailed for shooting someone *IN THE BACK* as they were *running away*.
With that action he stepped *over* the line from "self defence" and into attempted murder.
There was *no* excuse for that action and he was, therefore, rightly jailed.
Quote:
And what happens if they weren't actually intending to cause damage or steal stuff, but you didn't take the time to check and you kick seven bells out of someone who is innocent?
Ummm, so why would someone be tip toeing around my livingroom in the dead of night with a balaklava and torch? yet i should still be polite and civil until his intent is proved? how about "oh, good morning old boy, could i help you?"
|
Putting up silly arguments like this do nothing to support your case. Why not say he has a mask, a striped jersey and a bag saying "swag" on it?
Let me give you an alternative version:
You are wakened in the night by a crash from downstairs. You grab a convenient blunt instrument and sneak down to see a shadowy figure in your hallway.
In your righteous indignation you belt him over the head and then turn on the light, only to discover that it was your next door neighbour who had heard the noise, found the door open and decided to come in and check everything was ok.
Oops.
Quote:
|
So what were they doing there in the first place?! etc
|
Already addressed in other messages, so I'm not going to repeat those remarks again.
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
|
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?
Quote:
Originally posted by Ramrod
Yes, it was dark, how do you know that he knew they were running away. He just started blasting away in a panic
|
Let me quote from an article in the Telegraph: "Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice, said there was still "no excuse" for Martin's actions.
"Giving his judgment at the High Court in London, Lord Woolf said: "Mr Martin was entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself and his home, but the jury were surely correct in coming to their judgment that he was not acting reasonably in shooting dead one of the intruders, who happened to be 16, and seriously injuring the other."
Quote:
|
Why are you mentioning lynch mobs? I disapprove of them. Are you saying that Martin was a one man lynch mob?
|
When he went from "defence" to "revenge", he went from "wronged householder" to lynch mob style justice.
Quote:
|
Mob rule gets paediatritians confused with paedophiles!
|
As I may have mentioned before, I live just a few miles down the road from Paulsgrove.
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?
|
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.
Quote:
Originally posted by Ramrod
[B]The problem is that while what Martin did was legally wrong, it was morally right
|
Pardon me if I disagree with your sense of morals!
Quote:
|
.The point is that what is right and wrong is a constant
|
Nonsense!
Right and wrong are not, despite what some may claim, graven on some stone tablets somewhere, they are *opinions*, nothing more.