Which of us belongs in prison?

[Ramrod]

Originally posted by darkangel
u understood wrong then

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

Originally posted by Ramrod you are arguing that a career criminal is a reliable witness.

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??

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.

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

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

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??

Originally posted by Ramrod
But when the law dosn't/ can't defend us, what then?

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.

[Ramrod]

Originally posted by Graham
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??

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

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

Exactly.....and your point is?

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.

[Ramrod]

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.....

[Stuart]

Originally posted by Graham
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.

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

[Stuart]

Originally posted by Ramrod
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.....

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

[Ramrod]

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

I suppose it depends how stubborn you are.

[dozysplot]

Originally posted by Ramrod
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.....

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.

[dozysplot]

Originally posted by Ramrod
I suppose it depends how stubborn you are.

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

[Ramrod]

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

[dozysplot]

Originally posted by Ramrod
The law here will neither protect us nor allow us to protect ourselves.

exactly.......... What hope do we the victim have, when the law favours the criminal

[Ramrod]

Originally posted by dozysplot
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 )

[Ramrod]

Originally posted by Graham
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.

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

Originally posted by Ramrod
But you choose to believe the career ****.....

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..."?

Me: I'm someone who doesn't support the right of *anyone* to take the law into their own hands.

You: Not anyone, just the people who find intruders on their premises.

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

You: Exactly.....and your point is?

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!

Nowhere in the above does it say that I would hit first and ask questions later. I think that you should try again.

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