LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksI'm not familiar with which specific case you're discussing there. I am familiar with the Martin case, so I addressed that.Originally Posted by Zak33
I'm not familiar with which specific case you're discussing there. I am familiar with the Martin case, so I addressed that.
you dont need to be familiar with it. Should she have stood up to the muggers or rolled over and let them take her purse?
In that split second, when she had to decide, did she decide right? We now know she died. But was the decision the right one anyway? It seems not, cos we know she diedBut if everyone rolled over, we'd all be in a worse world, surely. Martin is a nutter. But he is a nutter who did something that he thought was right. Maybe he should be locked away. Result He is. But maybe....just maybe.....he was similar to the woman who was mugged, but who was armed. Maybe...just maybe....a few farms HAVENT been broken into this last year BECAUSE thieves might just think "these farmers have guns".
Just a thought. If you could prove that Martin "lured" them in so that he could shoot at them it would be another story. But what we can't see is what if he had been fast asleep and then woken with them in his room and shouted out? They'd have panicked and "what if" they hit him with something to shut him up. I know its a what if....but these things happen too. We'd all feel terribly sorry for him. If it had even made the news
We'll never know....but we do know that he is alive and that a thief is dead. Seems that the decision might have been the only one from two wrongs
Well Zak, if you believe that Chechens are Russians then it isn't ME who needs educating with regard to the states which were part of the former Soviet Union. In ethnicity, religious conviction and history, Chechnya is no more Russian than Latvia or Ukraine or for that matter any other of the regions which were taken by military conquest. Yes, the Russians should walk out and leave them to be their own state because that's what the overwhelming majority of them want; they've wanted it for 300 years since their country was taken by military conquest. Chechnya is no more Russian than Brazil is. By your reasoning, the apartheid regime was right to deny black South Africans their rights, because they believed that they "owned" South Africa; what Putin chooses to believe isn't the issue. He's wrong. Chechnya wants to be an independent state and indeed, the Yeltsin government was planning their transition to that status, recognizing a legitimate government of Chechnya; it's Putin's mob who threw that process out of the window and basically restarted the conflict.
The Falklands are an entirely different situation. Those islands have never been settled by anyone but the British, and the only competing territorial claim (from Spain) was irrevocably ceded in 1793. The islands lie in international waters and are a clear British possession (and no, we shouldn't have stood aside and let anyone take them). Chechnya is an area which was seized by Russian military conquest, which has its own people, its own language and history. In the same way that India or the other colonies wanted (quite rightly) independence from Britain, Chechens want their own country back.
And I note you don't debate any of the substantive facts surrounding that looney Martin; I'd avoid relying upon him as an authoritative figure in a debate. Oh, and he wasn't defending anything, since the two criminals in question were actually fleeing.
I would have understood if she had, I certainly wouldn't have criticised her for that. Likewise I would certainly never criticise her for standing up to the muggers in question; I have to say that if a mugger with a knife demanded my wallet, I'd probably hand it over. I can get another wallet, cancel my cards, whatever; a corpse isn't much use to my family, and actually I don't even think my wallet is worth my ass even disregarding my other obligations. I don't say she was wrong, I'm not criticising her, but my choice would have been different.you dont need to be familiar with it. Should she have stood up to the muggers or rolled over and let them take her purse?
In that split second, when she had to decide, did she decide right? We now know she died. But was the decision the right one anyway? It seems not, cos we know she died
Actually I try not to comment on cases where I don't at least have a passing familiarity with the facts; it's poor form. I don't want to accidentally make assumptions about that woman that are in conflict with the facts. The dangers of such commentary are amply demonstrated by the number of people who are unaware of Martin's lawless history, his mental disorder and the facts around the shooting who still hold him up as some kind of hero. If he'd fired in defence of himself or his property, he'd have been acquitted completely.
Russia is mammoth. From the Allens to the present day, more countries and people have marched through her land and taken her, and then been defeated and recinded than I can grasp, although they have left their marks. Look at the Russian architecture of their churches. Look at the complex lives of Jews in Russia. Look at the orthodox way of crossing themselves. It is a rich tapestry of culture. And luckily it is currently run by a quite free thinking governement who allows a lot of what has never been allowed.
But does that mean Russia should give up what they believe to be theirs? It cant, not if you think of the entire game plan..or national politics.
It also means that we might possibly be on the brink of another very Cold War. Because if Blair and Bush continue sleeping together, there will be a time when you are right....they must be forced to give back what is not actually theirs. But the thing is they BELIEVE it is theirs. You and I might not go with that, but we must understand that they at least think it is theirs. I try my damndest to see things from both sides. I think Putin sits there and says "Right.....go get them...I dont wanna look wet- if people die, we'll make sure they get a good funeral and I'll blame it on the terrorists". OK he is more spohisticated than myself, but thats what it boils down too. And the funny thing that I dont think is shown up is that the majority of his countrymen agree with him.
The outlying countries that have been dominated, either contiune to get dominated or dont. If not, then you give in. You let go of a border. You let someone else win. Northern Ireland. Falklands. Chetchnya. Latvia. Do you give it all back or do you fight on?
Perfect world: you give it all back, to whoever wants it and we all hold hands
Real world: you fight on and dont let other people take from you.
The world in which we live now is not perfect, but to understand how people tick makes it easier to understand. And in my opinion we have no power over Vladimire Putin. Period. Therefore we must go along with him. If he says he owns Chetchyna and we actually stand up and say "No you dont big boy" we start it all off again.
I dont want this to become a Russian history lesson. we can do that another time...I am studying. But what a huge subject.
I am gonna hold this point: I believe that the Russian people like their leader. Not love him. Like and respect him. If I was him I would have nailed the terrorists too. I would have had too. I'd not just hand the Chetchens the keys to their own country. Cos i would NOT want anyone wandering in and taking it over.
Period. Its to valued a position. Its on the border. It is too risky.
no...he wouldn't. Dont believe that for one moment. Even if his shotgun was legal and legally owned, he'd have gone down. Of that I am sure.
You're wrong, Zak; I'm sorry, but I've studied the law on self-defence, my wife's a senior lecturer in law who teaches criminal law and SHE agrees that if they'd been presenting a threat and he'd fired then he'd have been acquitted. The law would have allowed his acquittal and consider this; look at the reaction of the vast majority of Mail/Sun/Express/Mirror readers in the UK to this case. 12 people just like that, not lawyers, judges, campaigners do-gooders, 12 ORDINARY PEOPLE who'd have been looking for a reason to acquit him instead found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder.
The majority of Russians might agree with Putin, but then contrary to what you say, Russia is actually quite small; they've been able historically to dominate a lot of other peoples' lands, but then that's rather the point. Those weren't their lands to begin with and in Chechnya at least they've been committing mass murder for a decade to hang onto them. And as I've noted, the Falklands were a completely different situation; still less does Northern Ireland (where the majority consider themselves British and wish to remain so) have any relevance to Chechnya. Latvia does, but then that rather proves my point; like Lithuania etc, it was taken by military conquest and in that case, that was acknowledged and it is now independent. Despite having been possessions of Russia. They have their own people, history and languages and those people wanted to be independent. Guess what? Lithuanians and Latvians aren't Russians either. What the Russian people think about the occupation of Chechnya isn't really relevant; if we had been invaded in 1940, and the majority of Germans thought that the occupation of Britain was right, would you consider that they were morally right? That they had the "right" to determine that question? I don't think so.
So...just because we can't use force to remove Russia from Chechnya, we should say that its occupation is right? That's looney - and it directly conflicts with your example of the woman being mugged. According to this idea, she should have said "Of course take the purse...silly me...my mistake - it was really your purse all along, wasn't it?".
I'm very happy for them and him; but the Chechens don't and it's their country that his government's occupying.
But it IS their own country; your argument is akin to saying that Germany was right to invade Czechoslovakia because if they didn't Russia might have. It doesn't alter the basic fact that Chechnya is a historically separate and distinct country which is being occupied by a foreign power. Doesn't matter that they've got away with it for 300 years, it's still wrong, and attempting to justify doing that sort of wrong by saying that "if one bunch doesn't do it then another bunch might" doesn't make it any righter, and doesn't make the demands of the Chechen people for sovereignty any less valid.
edit: ...and it still doesn't make the terrorists right.
Last edited by nichomach; 04-09-2004 at 04:18 PM.
We'll have to disagree on this one then. First bit anyway...last bit...you are right. It happened and they knew he was a nutter.
But even if he had been defending himself with a gun I am convinced that he would be in prison. If I had a gun (which I do) and my house was robbed and I shot someone dead tonight I would go to prison. I am positive. Because being man, in my own home, I am still capable of either attempting defending myself with other means OR running away. Hence your admitance that if you were mugged by a man with a knife you would give over your wallet. Me too. I would NOT pull a gun on him and shoot him dead, even if had one with me. I would not even hit him on the head with a handy brick. If he DID die from a brick to the head injury I would get off with it. It was almost a fair fight. But if I was in my Mum's home, when I walked onto the landing outside my room, and waked straight into a pair of burgulars, going back to my room, and getting a gun out of its cupboard, loading it and hunting them down would STILL GET ME A PRISON SENTENCE. It all takes too long to claim it was spur of the moment.
And that what I dont agree with. I am almost arguing with myself cos I dont want it to be like this. I want to think that if I WAS burgaled and I had a gun, and I felt threatened, I would be allowed to shoot the thief. But I'm not. At all. I mean, where would the personal threat have to begin. Knife at my throat. Knife at my Mum's throat? Or just being scared silly and wetting my pants? Whats the level when its ok to kill someoone else? It doesn't exist. I'd like to think it did, but it doesn't
(Side note: Had I been a battered wife for 10 years and finally killed my nasty husband I think I would get away with it)
Your wife I respect for her views. and her profession. But as she will tell you, new precidents occur, and the 12 jurors would have had a hard time deciding that he couldnt escape or defend himself in another way. It was a shooting. He killed a thief. I think that had he not been known as a nutter he would STILL have been in prison. Maybe a shorter sentence. Maybe even a suspended. But he would not have been aquitted.
Ask your wife this: If he HAD been aquitted, and HAD owned legal guns, legally, would he have been allowed to keep his Gun Licence?
Nope. No way
Morning after my friend had his license taken away and his shotguns confiscated. It has taken over a year and legal help from the BASC, and three re applications to get his license back. Thats a bit off the track but you see what I mean? If you cant defend someonel else with a punch on the nose and keep your guns, you certainly cant shoot someone dead.
Which is wrong
Zak, you're wrong. It isn't about whether he could escape; in fact the law specifically provides that someone may use reasonable force to avoid being driven from their own property, and what constitutes reasonable force is determined by the circumstances. The jury would have looked at an elderly man being threatened by two fit young men (if he was being, which he wasn't) and would have excused the use of the shotgun.
As for the reasons why I would hand over my wallet, they've got damn all to do with the process of law and everything to do with a pragmatic assessmenty of risk versus benefit; when I could just cancel my cards and what have you I'm certainly NOT going to take the chance of being filleted.
I'm sure my wife would appreciate your "respect", but it's not her "views"; that is the state of the law. You're just wrong, Zak. The problem is that you're making a load of assumptions based upon an incorrect understanding of law. It's got absolutely NOTHING to do with whether it was "the spur of the moment" or not. It's got everything to do with whether you believe yourself or another person to be threatened - note that, the first question is subjective; do YOU believe that you or another person is in danger. If that is the case, you are entitled to use force to defend yourself or another person. The next question is whether the force you use in response is reasonable. That's an objective test; would the reasonable person in the same circumstances consider the level of force that you used to be justified. In the example you give of someone (or multiple someones) with a weapon in your home, if they were threatening you or another person, I think any jury would consider your use of a weapon in response to be reasonable. Martin never got as far as the second question, though, because when he pursued and shot the two burglars, they were fleeing and he was not being threatened in any way. Indeed they were leaving his property as fast as they could.
As for your friend, I assume that he was taken into custody and accepted a caution? If so, then he admitted something like an offence of affray or behaviour likely to occasion a breach of the peace. And they revoked his license. A caution remains on record at the local police station for 12 months. A year later he gets his license back.
Were Martin a legal gun owner who had been acquitted, then actually, yes he WOULD have kept his guns - there would have been no justification for removing them. But he wasn't, on either count.
As for Martin, he should thank his lucky stars that he IS a nutter; the facts of the case were sufficient to secure a conviction for murder from 12 ordinary people. It was the Court of Appeal following an assessment of his mental health that reduced his conviction to manslaughter.
Last edited by nichomach; 04-09-2004 at 04:42 PM. Reason: sperling chunk
the kind of world where scum who take over a school and kill innocent children are called "hostage takers" by our media and scum who fly passenger jet aircraft into skyscrapers are called terrorists, the difference ones in russia the other usa. There all terrorists it doesnt matter what the cause is nobody has the right to torture and murder innocent children.
Zak, this has gone very OT - if we want to discuss the rights and wrongs of British law in regard to self-defence, we should do that in another thread.
Zakky edit: yeah...my fault....sorry. Just deleted lots of stuff on my next post
Last edited by Zak33; 04-09-2004 at 04:55 PM. Reason: He's right....got right off track...sorry peeps
Agreed completely.
thats power
We own it, right? Someone else claimed it, right? We fought for it, right? We kept it, right?
Its not connected to us by land. But it is ours. Lots of the Eire people want it back. Period. We defend it.
trueand the Russians decided in that case it was ok. This time the situation is clearly different. They want to keep it.
it is. If they didnt like it, the government would be overthrown by the people. Its happened enough in the past. Maybe its in planning now. But it doesnt seem so.
and I would be fighting for freedom, as you would. But that wouldnt stop the Germans feeling they were right. In this imaginary situation you and I would be Chetchens and the Germans would be the Russians. I would not kidnap kids, nor would you, BUT we'd be up to something. And the rest of the world would be up to something else. Probably agreeing with the Germans that you and I were a bunch of trouble making Terrorists. And they'd be right..not on terror maybe, but on rebellion.
and hence my arguement that the Goverment is doing what is right, is a sound arguement. OK you and I would be miserable, but the people on the side of the German Rightness would be....well...right. We might hate them, but that doesnt stop the fact that if you and I DID try to take "our" country back, we'd have to expect it to result in a big war. Which we would probably loose. And die in
She wants to fight. The Chetchens want to fight. Both for what is theirs IN THEIR OPINIONS. But you said you'd hand over your wallet. I'm confused now. Do you want to fight or not) but in another you say you'd hand over your wallet cos you could get another. What if you couldn't What if it WAS a matter of principle?
in which case it is currently his country. No? Right or wrong, he holds the cards.
that is what I'm saying. When the sh1t hits the fan, grab what you can to win. If you dont YOU will be the repressed
right or wrong is not as important as who wins
agreed
agreed . No argument there.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote