Which of us belongs in prison?

[Ramrod]

Originally posted by Graham
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"?

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?

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.

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"

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)

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!

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

rotflmao

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?

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)

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.

[Ramrod]

Originally posted by Russ D
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

too f*cking right

[Ramrod]

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)

[Stuart]

Originally posted by Russ D
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

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.

[Ramrod]

Originally posted by scastle
I also agree that the law cannot allow us to take the law into our own hands.

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.

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'

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%.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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."

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.

Mob rule gets paediatritians confused with paedophiles!

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

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.

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!

.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.

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.

[Lord Nikon]

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

[Ramrod]

Originally posted by Graham
You do not *prevent* someone from robbing you by shooting them with a gun!

Yes you do.

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

Yes it is.

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

He was done for manslaughter wasn't he?

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?"

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

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.

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.

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.

[Ramrod]

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

[kronas]

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

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

[Mark W]

so you encounter a person creeping about your house in the middle of the night are you going to stop and say :-

"ummm excuse me, sorry to disturb and all that, but do you have a gun about your person?......how about a knife then?....monkey wrench?....not handy at kung fu are you? splendid, thanks for that"

....before making up your mind how to deal with him?

course not, you are gonna creep up behind him and sock him one before he sees you then call the police

[kronas]

trouble is mark your going to get done for hitting him over the head...............

pin him down tie him up lock him in a room easier said then done

[Mark W]

Originally posted by kronas
trouble is mark your going to get done for hitting him over the head...............

pin him down tie him up lock him in a room easier said then done

and thats the main point of this thread - there seems to be alot of people, myself inculded, that feel if someone gets injured by you on your property whilst doing something you really dont want him to do than thats his loss, and there should be minimal comeback on you.......

[kronas]

Originally posted by Mark W
and thats the main point of this thread - there seems to be alot of people, myself inculded, that feel if someone gets injured by you on your property whilst doing something you really dont want him to do than thats his loss, and there should be minimal comeback on you.......

just thinking about the law again after all we have to adhere to it no matter how stupid it is

ok so the person comes in and you rush downstairs and hit him over the head prob is you hit him instant action against you now if you did it my way you would have no action taken against you

but if he had a wepean and you hit him thats reasonable i know trespassers should be dealt with in a reasonable manner but you have to remember you have to stick to the rules of the law harsh but true