Which of us belongs in prison?

[Ramrod]

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

Like I said, it was a parole officer that said that......the police officers just say "they'd never find the body, hur, hur "

[kronas]

Originally posted by Ramrod
Like I said, it was a parole officer that said that......the police officers just say "they'd never find the body, hur, hur "

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

[darant]

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

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

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

[Ramrod]

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

....or shoot in panic.

[Ramrod]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by Ramrod
Yes you do. Yes it is.

Is it Panto Season already?

He was done for manslaughter wasn't he?

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

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

[Re: Hitting your neighbour]

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

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

Did Tony Martin challenge the intruders? No?

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

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

Consider this one:

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

What do you do? Grab them? Thump them?

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

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

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

Hence the law needs changing

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

Tony Martin's actions

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

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

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

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

Right and wrong are not written in stone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two points here:

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

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

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

Odd that.

[Ramrod]

Originally posted by Graham
Is it Panto Season already?

No, I was replying to your questions .

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

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

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

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

Did Tony Martin challenge the intruders? No?

afaik he did challenge them.

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

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

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

Consider this one:

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

What do you do? Grab them? Thump them?

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

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

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

.... in deep trouble if you happened to be carrying a shotgun in the supermarket car park.

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

....and were later found to be wrong......he is guilty of manslaughter. Can you not understand that?

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

wtf?!...You are the one who said that wright and wrong are not constant. I think that they are.


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

[Lord Nikon]

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

has some of the info

also

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

Originally posted by Ramrod
[B]No, I was replying to your questions .

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

afaik he did challenge them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by Lord Nikon
http://www.edp24.co.uk/Content/Featu...RuralCrime.asp

has some of the info also

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

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

[Lord Nikon]

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

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

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

[Ramrod]

Originally posted by Graham
Could you explain that again when I put the comments back into here...

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

So who is the more credible witness, the homeowner or the career **** who have gone to his home specifically to rob him? (lets ignore, for the time being, the forensic evidence that contradicted Feardons 'evidence')

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

Does the fact that you appear to be a lone voice for the prosecution not tell you something?
In most cases a quick "oy! what you doing?" would be enough to establish wether force was necessary.

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

I think that if they had a gun you could be sure that they would stay within the law once they had used it...by hook or by crook. Thats the difference between 'right' and 'lawfull'.