Which of us belongs in prison?

Originally posted by dozysplot
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.

And however many times you repeat that, it *STILL* does not justify *MURDER* (or, for the pedants out there, manslaughter).

Originally posted by Ramrod

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'

And I, in turn, agree with you (my god, we both agree with each other, that's got to be a first...!!

However the rest of us shouldn't allow the misrepresentation of isolated cases to be "the real state of affairs" to knee-jerk us into either excessive responses or to persuade us to give up our personal freedoms to allow us to be "protected".

[Ramrod]

Originally posted by Graham
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..."?

Lets see..... you cannot 100%prove who is lying but one person is a (fairly) law-abiding homeowner and the other is a career criminal who was committing a crime during the events under debate. The latter is obviously the least credable witness

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!

Of course you don't need to take the law into your own hands if there is no burglar on your property! There is no crime being committed if there is no one there.

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

I have re-read it and cannot find any reference to me saying that I would hit first and ask questions later.

However the rest of us shouldn't allow the misrepresentation of isolated cases to be "the real state of affairs" to knee-jerk us into either excessive responses or to persuade us to give up our personal freedoms to allow us to be "protected".

Where is the personal freedom in not being able to effectively defend yourself, as Martins uncle experienced?

[TheBig1]

The only thing that Tony Martin did wrong in my opinion was to leave the body to be found. Anyone capable of breaking into somebody's home in the dead of night to steal and potentially injur the homeowner should forfeit their right to a burial. Feed the body to the pigs or some such method, but destroy the evidence!

I know full well that if some lowlifes were to put my family in danger like that, they would never be seen again.

[leeswin]

heres a fresh scope for what ever reason he killed 1 person (i have my views and think whatever theye got was there own doing), how many people as this drug dealer killed or even worse injured to the point of no helpable?

There worried about the drug dealer

[Ramrod]

Originally posted by leeswin
heres a fresh scope for what ever reason he killed 1 person (i have my views and think whatever theye got was there own doing), how many people as this drug dealer killed or even worse injured to the point of no helpable?

There worried about the drug dealer

Good point

Ramrod:

I'm not interested in playing hair splitting word games, so pardon me if I save my time by not replying further to your comments.

[Ramrod]

Originally posted by Graham
Ramrod:

I'm not interested in playing hair splitting word games, so pardon me if I save my time by not replying further to your comments.

Strange way to end our discussion. I am confused and hurt by your comment.

[leeswin]

i forgot this heres an intresting twist since all this happend in 99 "we have had the 'don't jail burglars' speeches from the Lords Woolf and Irvine, which despite their protestations have the stated aim of sending fewer burglars to prison, in line with Government policy. "

fond here " http://www.tonymartinsupportgroup.org/ " anyone else remeber this on the news?

[Ramrod]

Originally posted by leeswin
i forgot this heres an intresting twist since all this happend in 99 "we have had the 'don't jail burglars' speeches from the Lords Woolf and Irvine, which despite their protestations have the stated aim of sending fewer burglars to prison, in line with Government policy. "

fond here " http://www.tonymartinsupportgroup.org/ " anyone else remeber this on the news?

I find this bit particularly interesting:

The claims of jury intimidation remain 'not proven', although a pointer may be the fact that some potential defence witnesses refused to testify for their own safety, and that the police advised Tony Martin's family not to attend the trial. So that in England, in the year 2000, a law-abiding mother could not see her son being unjustly tried and unjustly convicted, while the public gallery of an English court was wholly taken over by the relatives of the three career criminals who raided Bleak House that August night, cheering and punching the air when the verdict was returned, abusing the lone figure about to start his life sentence. Since then Fred Barras' father has been sentenced for an armed robbery (in which he held a gun to the head of a female security guard) carried out only a few weeks after the Martin verdict. To his credit, however, the father of Brendon Fearon has called for Tony Martin's release. Mr Fearon (one of the three burglars), who has now been released from prison, has actually been visited by Victim Support (whose side are they on?), consulted by the Home Office as to how long Tony Martin should serve, and has written him a letter which appeared from the language to have been dictated by social workers, inviting him to 'show remorse' before 'reconciliation' occurs

If there was jury nobbling going on, or if defence witnesses didn't testify, did Martin get a fair trial?

Originally posted by Ramrod Strange way to end our discussion. I am confused and hurt by your comment.

<Sigh> I'm probably going to regret this, but let me explain:

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..."?

Lets see..... you cannot 100%prove who is lying but one person is a (fairly) law-abiding homeowner [...] The latter is obviously the least credable witness

A "law-abiding homeowner" with a history of mental illness and in possession of an illegal weapon who had just shot someone in the back and thus whose word could be considered to be possibly less than reliable!

Whilst he may be "more credible" according to your lights, I'd point out that if the latter was 10% credible and the former 15% credible, it doesn't make either of them *reliable* witnesses whose evidence would *prove* anything.

Of course you don't need to take the law into your own hands if there is no burglar on your property! There is no crime being committed if there is no one there.

As I've said, this is such an obviously circular argument that it doesn't even need addressing.

Where is the personal freedom in not being able to effectively defend yourself, as Martins uncle experienced?

It has been said too many times already in this discussion that Martin exceeded the bounds of "reasonable force", hence his conviction for Manslaughter (even though reduced from murder).

As regards your post #94:

Me: 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?

You: So what were they doing there in the first place?! [...]?

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

You: Damn right!

You're going to have to split some hairs pretty fine to claim that this isn't "hit first and ask questions later", however I'm just not interested in playing any more.

[Ramrod]

I'm glad you decided to continue.

Originally posted by Graham
[BA "law-abiding homeowner" with a history of mental illness and in possession of an illegal weapon who had just shot someone in the back and thus whose word could be considered to be possibly less than reliable!

(taken from The Tony Matrin support group website)

In a judgement which was a slap in the face for law-abiding people, the Lord Chief Justice rejected an acquittal on grounds of self-defence, despite new forensic evidence which supported Tony Martin's testimony, but reduced the conviction to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.

Just because he was deemed to be mentally ill at the time dosn't necessarily make his testimony unreliable.

Whilst he may be "more credible" according to your lights, I'd point out that if the latter was 10% credible and the former 15% credible, it doesn't make either of them *reliable* witnesses whose evidence would *prove* anything.

Forensics back Martins version of events up more than Feardons

As I've said, this is such an obviously circular argument that it doesn't even need addressing.

I don't see how this is a circular argument. If you don't have a intruder on the premises you don't need to defend yourself, if you have you do need to.

It has been said too many times already in this discussion that Martin exceeded the bounds of "reasonable force", hence his conviction for Manslaughter (even though reduced from murder).

I am arguing that we should adopt a more US style to dealing with intruders, for this reason:

are householders really at risk from burglars ? Was Tony Martin being paranoid when he feared for his life as three men broke into his isolated property at night? Home Office figures supplied to the Tony Martin Support Group show that over a five year period at least SIXTY SIX householders have been killed by burglars, many of the victims being elderly. These figures are an understatement, as they do not include those killed by 'intruders'.

As regards your post #94:



You're going to have to split some hairs pretty fine to claim that this isn't "hit first and ask questions later", however I'm just not interested in playing any more. [/B]

Ah, I see now why you thought that. Sorry. I was referring to the fact that burglars shouldn't be on your premises in the first place and that if they are then their motives are extremely suspect, not that I would hit first and ask questions later. Of course I would say something (like "what you doing here?")and wait for the guilty body language before I hit them. Lets face it, your idea of the neighbour checking your house at night scenario is rather tenuous. Can you come up with another, more realistic scenario?

Originally posted by Ramrod
I'm glad you decided to continue.

I haven't because there's frankly little else to say that hasn't been said or is just arguing about semantics but there's a couple of comments I want to make about your response before I drop this entirely.

(taken from The Tony Matrin support group website)

Obviously an impartial source...!

Forensics back Martins version of events up more than Feardons

Forensics is evidence in and of itself. It has nothing to do with the reliability or not of statements.

I don't see how this is a circular argument. If you don't have a intruder on the premises you don't need to defend yourself, if you have you do need to.

Because you argue that "not everybody" needs to do this, but of course they don't, only those with intruders! QED.

I am arguing that we should adopt a more US style to dealing with intruders, for this reason:

You seem to be arguing to put guns in the hands of people who may have poor eyesight, impaired hearing or reduced mental faculties!

"Hello Granny, just popped round to..." [BANG]

Can you come up with another, more realistic scenario?

I am not going to come up with other scenarios because that's just going to get into more quibbling.

[Ramrod]

Originally posted by Graham
Forensics is evidence in and of itself. It has nothing to do with the reliability or not of statements.

But it doe add weight to Martins testemony and casts doubt on Feardons testemony.

You seem to be arguing to put guns in the hands of people who may have poor eyesight, impaired hearing or reduced mental faculties!

"Hello Granny, just popped round to..." [BANG]

Seems to work in the USA, they have half the burglaries we have here. In any case, I am not advocating that householders have guns, I am suggesting that the idea of reasonable force be re-examined/scrapped as it gives intruders the upper hand in any given situation. ie. the householder is constantly forced to be on the defensive but the criminal can 'up the ante' at any point.

I am not going to come up with other scenarios because that's just going to get into more quibbling.

or maby you just can't think of a credable scenario.......

[Stuart]

Originally posted by Ramrod

Seems to work in the USA, they have half the burglaries we have here. In any case, I am not advocating that householders have guns, I am suggesting that the idea of reasonable force be re-examined/scrapped as it gives intruders the upper hand in any given situation. ie. the householder is constantly forced to be on the defensive but the criminal can 'up the ante' at any point.

Unless I am very much mistaken, the Americans also have a higher murder rate.

Also, if you take away the idea of Reasonable Force, what do you replace it with? If it is just scrapped, you will eventually end up with somebody getting killed because they nicked something insignificant.

Thirdly, if a burglar knows a householder is armed (which if the reasonable force rules are relaxed, they may actually assume), what is to stop them taking a gun (or other weapon) and killing (or otherwise incapacitating) the householder before they burgle?