Martin determined to return home....

[Knoxville]

He can't see you , you have a baseball bat and a shotgun to hand, and you've been seeing her for 7 years and are engaged to be married next week.

If you disabled him you wouldn't take revenge out on him? the man who threatened a life that you love dearly, and would have taken it had you not intervined and had you not woken up possibly your own?

[Zathras]

Well I'd hit him over the head with the baseball bat. Easier to grab and swing round than the shotgun and less likely to kill him for definite. It really depends how close he is. I guess I could grab the shotgun and scream for him to stop dead still and I'd shoot if he didn't, but again if he were close enough to actually stab my gf when doing this I'd go baseball bat. My primary concern would be one of flight rather than fight to be honest, to get safe rather than get even. I'm also pretty confident that if I only take the action required to stop this guy, even if it were lethal, and I reported what happened immediately and didn't take revenge I'd be completely exonerated with the law the way it is. Someone standing over my girlfriend with a knife is pretty evident of an intent to cause harm. However if it were someone rifling through my drawers and I shot them dead or beat seven bells out of them then I wouldn't expect an easy let-off.

[DaBeeeenster]

Originally posted by Knoxville

Why is punishment only given out by a man in a dress and people who may never know what its like to be in such a situation and the fear and anger involved.

Come on mate! That's the British legal system. What on earth do you want? The sentences to be handed out by the victims? Or to be handed out by people who have been affected by the crime in hand?

Can you not see how ridiculous an idea that is?

[DaBeeeenster]

Originally posted by Knoxville

just out of interest zathras if you woke up at 3am to find someone in your house about to steal your things or about to kill or killing your loved ones what would you do?

would the man in a dress and his training be helping you then?

or would the baseball bat come into play?

tbh mate I think you are purposefully mixing two crimes at complete opposite ends of the spectrum to try and help your argument.

Theft and murder are utterly utterly different crimes. They can't be mentioned in the same sentence in this sort of regard.

If someone is trying to murder you partner then "reasonable force" is a completely different kettle of fish to if you find someone sneaking into your house...

[Knoxville]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
tbh mate I think you are purposefully mixing two crimes at complete opposite ends of the spectrum to try and help your argument.

Theft and murder are utterly utterly different crimes. They can't be mentioned in the same sentence in this sort of regard.

If someone is trying to murder you partner then "reasonable force" is a completely different kettle of fish to if you find someone sneaking into your house...

I'm not mixing these crimes to make my argument sound better, I said that for 2 reasons.

1. to get an idea of the way he'd react in the 2 different situations.

2.Many houses are burgled, and i'd imagine (i say this because i have no figures to back this up) are burgled and the occupants left dead. so the crimes i'm mixing may be utterly different, but are both very realistic.

[DaBeeeenster]

Originally posted by Knoxville
When it all comes down to it Zathras from what i read here you love the system and think it will protect you, when the real world breaks in through our back door's we'll see how well our methods work shall we, while your busy phoning the police i'll be standing over an unconcious burglar baseball bat in hand and loved ones safe.

Mate, I think we are arguing much the same thing. If using a baseball bat was reasonable force then I'd do exactly the same. The thing we are arguing about is quite simple.

Based on the circumstances, what is reasonable and what is unreasonable. REAL PEOPLE like you or I will make that decision. If you have done something unreasonable then you have to accept the concequences. I doubt any jury would find you hitting someone with bball bat and knocking them out if they were on your property as unreasonable. I know I wouldn't and I'm pretty liberal (in case you missed that ). Having said that, I do find the actions of TM unreasonable.

I dont think we disagree with each other - it's just a matter of making a decision as to what is reasonable or not.

[Knoxville]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
Come on mate! That's the British legal system. What on earth do you want? The sentences to be handed out by the victims? Or to be handed out by people who have been affected by the crime in hand?

Can you not see how ridiculous an idea that is?

I want justice, wether its handed out by a judge or not.

I think that people that have been through this are the only people qualified to know just how the people involved feel. I don't think any amount of training can simulate that.

[Knoxville]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
Mate, I think we are arguing much the same thing. If using a baseball bat was reasonable force then I'd do exactly the same. The thing we are arguing about is quite simple.

Based on the circumstances, what is reasonable and what is unreasonable. REAL PEOPLE like you or I will make that decision. If you have done something unreasonable then you have to accept the concequences. I doubt any jury would find you hitting someone with bball bat and knocking them out if they were on your property as unreasonable. I know I wouldn't and I'm pretty liberal (in case you missed that ). Having said that, I do find the actions of TM unreasonable.

I dont think we disagree with each other - it's just a matter of making a decision as to what is reasonable or not.

I think your right there, it all comes down to the decision. TM was wrong, i've said that, an i don't defend what he did.

[DaBeeeenster]

Originally posted by Zathras
Well I'd hit him over the head with the baseball bat. Easier to grab and swing round than the shotgun and less likely to kill him for definite. It really depends how close he is. I guess I could grab the shotgun and scream for him to stop dead still and I'd shoot if he didn't, but again if he were close enough to actually stab my gf when doing this I'd go baseball bat. My primary concern would be one of flight rather than fight to be honest, to get safe rather than get even. I'm also pretty confident that if I only take the action required to stop this guy, even if it were lethal, and I reported what happened immediately and didn't take revenge I'd be completely exonerated with the law the way it is. Someone standing over my girlfriend with a knife is pretty evident of an intent to cause harm. However if it were someone rifling through my drawers and I shot them dead or beat seven bells out of them then I wouldn't expect an easy let-off.

I think one crucial fact that we are ignoring in all this is the actions of martin after the event. We are dicussing what you would do to disable an assailant. That's fine. We can debate what "reasonable force is" and that's fine.

The question I want to ask people who think martin got the bad end of the wedge is: what would you do immediately after the event? Would you call the police and an ambulance if needed or would you leave the assailant to die from bloodless and check into a hotel?

I would not be surprised if the jury found has actual actions as reasonable, but his actions after the event as the ones that found him guilty of manslaughter. It was at that point that he took the law into his own hands...

You see what I mean?

[DaBeeeenster]

Originally posted by Knoxville
I want justice, wether its handed out by a judge or not.

I think that people that have been through this are the only people qualified to know just how the people involved feel. I don't think any amount of training can simulate that.

So if, god forbid, (and this is purely theoretical - i'm not implying that it would ever happen) you fell asleep while driving causing an accident and killing a small girl in another car, youd be happy for the mother of that child to sentence you?

[DaBeeeenster]

Originally posted by Knoxville
I don't respect the legal system here and i know people that work for it that don't. If you choose to its up to you.

I find this very interesting. Can you explain what areas you dont respect?

[Knoxville]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
So if, god forbid, (and this is purely theoretical - i'm not implying that it would ever happen) you fell asleep while driving causing an accident and killing a small girl in another car, youd be happy for the mother of that child to sentence you?

yes i would, i took a life and an innocent one, i'd deserve any sentence she deemed fit.

[Knoxville]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
I find this very interesting. Can you explain what areas you dont respect?

I have a lack of respect for our system as it is because i feel it is archaic and out-dated, it can be manipulated by someone who knows the loopholes to prove almost any point and has been in the past and will continue to be unless it is changed.

I also belive that as i said the people that dish out sentences in some cases should be people that have personal experience, they should at least be in the jury imo.

[Knoxville]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
I think one crucial fact that we are ignoring in all this is the actions of martin after the event. We are dicussing what you would do to disable an assailant. That's fine. We can debate what "reasonable force is" and that's fine.

The question I want to ask people who think martin got the bad end of the wedge is: what would you do immediately after the event? Would you call the police and an ambulance if needed or would you leave the assailant to die from bloodless and check into a hotel?

I would not be surprised if the jury found has actual actions as reasonable, but his actions after the event as the ones that found him guilty of manslaughter. It was at that point that he took the law into his own hands...

You see what I mean?

well said Beeeenster, gawd i hate agreeing with people in arguments but you tend to make to much sense not too sometimes.

His actual actions were slightly irresponsible too the degree that he fired at people running away......i put that down to being scared witless of these people and not fully there mentally.

The weapon he used was out of line, i don't care how you wanna try and justify it. he could have got a legal weapon to protect himself. had he used a normal 12 guage that was licensed i think mine and the jurys opinions would have been different.

The final point is i think what got him his longer sentence (before it was changed) it shows him as being quite heartless and almost as if he doesn't realise what he's done.

[DaBeeeenster]

Originally posted by Knoxville
I have a lack of respect for our system as it is because i feel it is archaic and out-dated, it can be manipulated by someone who knows the loopholes to prove almost any point and has been in the past and will continue to be unless it is changed.

I also belive that as i said the people that dish out sentences in some cases should be people that have personal experience, they should at least be in the jury imo.

You think there should be a (at least partially) specially selected jury?

Interesting. That's a pretty radical line I think.

btw have you served on a jury? I spent two weeks doing jury service at the Old Bailey and I was astonished at the quality of the system. It was _extremely_ fair.

[Knoxville]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
You think there should be a (at least partially) specially selected jury?

Interesting. That's a pretty radical line I think.

btw have you served on a jury? I spent two weeks doing jury service at the Old Bailey and I was astonished at the quality of the system. It was _extremely_ fair.

I've never served on a jury (you have to be 18 or over don't you?), i know a few people that have though and they've said it seemed fairly done aswell but i feel that more perspective could be gained from a different pov.