http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_news/e...lk/3096377.stm
"Jailed farmer Tony Martin is determined to return to his farmhouse despite its rundown condition. "
Discuss! :)
Nick
Printable View
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_news/e...lk/3096377.stm
"Jailed farmer Tony Martin is determined to return to his farmhouse despite its rundown condition. "
Discuss! :)
Nick
If I was him I would not be so worried about the state of my house I would be more worried about the £60,000 that had been put on my head by a so called gypsy court.
i agree. If that gypsy sues successfully thentony will have to sell his house to pay him off :(Quote:
Originally posted by Trash Man
If I was him I would not be so worried about the state of my house I would be more worried about the £60,000 that had been put on my head by a so called gypsy court.
just to let u know, to coincide with tony martins release date, "tonight with trevor mcdonald" is looking at taking the law into ur own hands tony martin stylee on monday
were i him, & i had a choice, i wouldn't go back there but its his home....where else is he gonna go?
hm, this bugs me.
In America if someone enters ur land u can pretty much cut their head off, but in the UK, the intruder has the rights to steal ur stuff?
As this gives the impression, their is a law protecting law breakers.... does that make sense ?
it don't make sense does it - there was a programme on tv last week that interviewed some americans who said tony martin would have received an award for wot he did
afaik if someone steps inside ur home uninvited, with the express intention of stealing ur posessions (and possibly causing you harm if u should try stopping them) u should have the right to shoot them in the face
i know there are reasons why ppl end up turning to crime & its often the case that ppl who end up following a criminal lifestyle are themselves victims of circumstance but regardless of this, i didn't cause the hardships in their life that led them to crime & i have worked, honestly and hard, to earn the money to buy the posessions i have & should therefore be allowed to defend my right to retain posession of my property
The key is reasonable force. Martin shot an unarmed guy in the back from twelve yards away with an unlicensed and illegal gun(pump action shotguns are banned in the UK). The police have warned him in the past about illegal possession of firearms. Instead of calling the police or an ambulance for Fred Barras he went and spent the night in a hotel. The burglars weren't the nicest people in the world, but neither was Tony Martin, not by a long stretch. I have little sympathy for the guy.
sorry zathras, nowt peronal since i respect many of the opinions you've previously expressed on these 'ere forums, but i can't agree with you there, i know the law of this country relating to this issue centres around "reasonable force" and its specific definition on a case by case (or jury by jury) basis, but imho this law is wrong, i feel the key point is, the burglar was in tony martins house with the intention of deprriving him of things that were rightfully his....fair nuff, tony martin isn't the sanest person in the country & he has unwittingly become the "mascot" (for want of a bettter term) of the "right to defend your own property" cause, but imho why should he be calling an ambulance for the scum that has repeatedly violated his property? his intention that night was to ensure they didn't break into his property time & time again & he was successful in his goal, ringing an ambulance would possibly have saved the kids life & a few months later where would that same kid be??
....right back where they started, breaking into tony martins property, stealing his posessions
Just because someone is on your property does not change the law. It's as simple as that. Do you agree or disagree with that?
Do you think people should have the right to torture people on their property? Or shoot them in the back at point blank range and then leave them to bleed to death without telling anybody?
Ah now thats a different case.
Entry without permission is something else. IF a guy/girl broke thru ur window thats unlawful entry, and so u should have the right to remove them using a fairly poorly defined act of 'reasonable force'. Now if u dragged someone onto ur property... hence the difference.
America's laws make little sense, and i dont agree entirely with being able to shoot someone on ur grounds. But in this case, i think the court made the right choice of imprisoning neither of the people as they were both in the wrong.
'Ton's gun = illegal'
'Stealing = illegal'
maybe a short sentence for both would have been better,,,
Firstly, let's dispense with this nonsense where people state 'criminals forfeit their rights'. If you speed, does that give me the right to come round your house and cave your head in with an axe? If you pirate some software off the internet, can I castrate you with a rusty spoon? Of course not. We live in a civilised society and there is a judiciary and police force to deal with criminal justice. Barras and accomplice broke the law, but that does not give Tony Martin right to break the law and shoot them. I've talked to a criminal forensic scientist about this case and he is in no doubt Martin was under no direct threat from the burglars - they were trying to escape. He shot them because he was angry at them being on his property, not out of self defence. I have no sympathy for thieves, but I don't think that capital punishment is a suitable response. There have been cases in the past where manslaughter has been committed in self-defence and the jury have aquitted - this was far from the case with Martin. I see you show glee that Barras died and that Martin did absolutely nothing to try to save him - do you support capital punishment for burglary, not even aggrievated or violent burglary, just so it might stop perpetrators reoffending? Do you think that the decision is Martin's to take, rather than that of a legally appointed and independent judiciary? Martin has shown no remorse for what he did nor has there been any indication his behaviour will change, including the possession of illegal firearms. In my opinion Martin is a dangerous man and should be treated to psychological examination. It's all very well to paint a picture of a poor harrased decent working man and the evil 'gypsy' scumbag layabout thieves threatening his life but that is gross economies with the truth in this case.
Should you support householders being armed to 'ward off' burglars, you're only going to persuade burglars to be armed themselves. Not only will someone come to steal possessions, they're going to ensure the homeowner is suitably incapacitated as not to pull a weapon on them, so violent and aggrievated burglaries are going to proportionally increase. You also get towards the situation where guns are easily accessible to all, and we all know where that leads - look at gun-related crime in America. You may bring about a fall in burglaries, but you'll also ensure that the remaining burglaries will be violent and there will be fatalities. I'd rather have 10 non-violent burglaries than 5 burglaries but two home-owners and a number of perpetrators killed during those burglaries.
Imprisoning neither of the people? How do you mean?
to rights don't make a wrong, an illegal pump action justifys a longer sentence than an illegal entry.
I think that reasonable force is a very difficult thing to justify. Is reasonable force me beating someone over the head with a big stick should they enter my house illegally? i mean i'm but a young 17 year old scared minor :rolleyes: make me 18 though and the sentence if any may well be longer.
Whatever stops these people doing what they're doing to my house/family/friends is imho reasonable force, and i won't hesitate to use it.
Dont forget that the courts that make these rulings are made up of a jury of normal people like you and I. People (urged on by the Daily Mail et al) seem to work themselves up into a blind "us and the government/courts" panic, forgetting that the people that decide what "reasonable force" actually is are people like us.
Regarding what Knoxville said in his last paragraph, I think that sums it up pretty much. as long as it is reasonable, and not unreasonable force...I dont think there is an argument to suggest that a pump action in the back without warning at point blank range is unreasonable...
Again, it's something the judiciary will take into account. Believe it or not, the system would be on your side, not on whoever's broken in, and evidence showing your emotional state to be extremely frightened would most definitely be taken into account. However if you had the choice of the big stick and a bf gun and you chose the gun when the stick would have more than sufficed, you'll be for it. The idea is "whatever" is good enough but not excessively more force than that.
Just a quick correction. Pump action shotguns and semi-autos are not ilegal in this country as long as the total capacity is less than 3 shots on a shotgun certificate, or you can still have 10 shots (or more) on a section 1 FAC. Martin had his certificate taken away due to mental problems, he then acquired the shotgun.
Flibb
Pump action shotguns are also illegal if they have a barrel shorter than 24 inches, or an overall length of less than 40 inches, which I believe was the case with Martin.
Think its the same type I used to shoot. Looks like a 3 shot, but might have been more. Is definately legal in the UK on a FAC and probably a shotgun cert. Also very cheap to buy 2nd hand probably around the £250 mark, bit of a classic pumpaction, but not really my thing, takes a lot of effort to run one.
http://www.edp24.co.uk/Content/Featu...RuralCrime.asp
Flibb
I think the fact that his house had been burgled so many times before was the crap factor in this case, the police had again done bugger all, and imo and one that tends to be growing inside me is that the criminal justice system in this country is quite frankly dead as a dodo.
We don't know how to correct criminals ways. We prosecute people who have defended themselves or there property and then to rub salt in the wound we allow them funds to sue the person they where about to rob.
Its all wrong if you ask me. I hardly think any of you could really stand up and say that if you had your house burgled 6 times, your mum was crying daily because she couldn't take any more etc and you heard someone downstairs and you where at breaking point you wouldnt find the nearest offensive weapon and go downstairs to investigate.
Sure Tony Martindale isn't the best example and i don't believe he should have killed the person but you've got to put yourself in his shoes rather than condemning a man without walking in his shoes first!.
Thanks
TiG
Gonna pick you up on some points here mate ;)Quote:
Originally posted by TiG
I think the fact that his house had been burgled so many times before was the crap factor in this case, the police had again done bugger all, and imo and one that tends to be growing inside me is that the criminal justice system in this country is quite frankly dead as a dodo.
We don't know how to correct criminals ways. We prosecute people who have defended themselves or there property and then to rub salt in the wound we allow them funds to sue the person they where about to rob.
Sure Tony Martindale isn't the best example and i don't believe he should have killed the person but you've got to put yourself in his shoes rather than condemning a man without walking in his shoes first!.
Thanks
TiG
We do NOT prosecute people for defending their property. Defending your property is perfectly legal. Tony martin could have defended his property by using blank cartridges and then reporting the incident to the police. I think we can all agree that what Tony Martin did went beyond defence.
Well, I totally agree with you. That's not what Tony Martin did tho is it!Quote:
you wouldnt find the nearest offensive weapon and go downstairs to investigate
At the end of the day I think he has got off lucky. When was he sent down? 1999? I think he can count himself VERY lucky...
Yer being burgled 6 times then going to prison for years and attempted to be sued by the little scroat who tried to burgle you is lucky.
Damn i'd hate to be unlucky :)
TiG
He did murder someone mate! I reckon he got off lightly tbh.
If the thief hadnt been in tony martins house then he would not have got shot. A simple way of looking at things but theres no way tony should have been charged with any crime. I just watched itn news and an american man who shot someone trying to break into his home was being congratulated :eek: surely there must be a happy medium ??
Im wondering if this 60K bounty on his head is serious or not.
Bottom line if you enter someone's property either house, car even garden shed with intent to do wrong then they should accept the actions of the owners of said property.
If the owner is unable to perform such actions then the law should allow you to either fine them or jail them or cut their hands off either of these three would be better than the punishment I would give them.
I believe the only reason TM went to jail because the person he shot was only 16.
Tan
So if I am trespassing on someones land, say I am walking across their field in the countryside, they are legally entitled to do what they like to me? Torture me? Rape me? How about lieing in wait and shooting me in the back by surprise with a shot gun, then leaving me to bleed to death without telling anyone?Quote:
Originally posted by tanman
Bottom line if you enter someone's property either house, car even garden shed with intent to do wrong then they should accept the actions of the owners of said property.
If the owner is unable to perform such actions then the law should allow you to either fine them or jail them or cut their hands off either of these three would be better than the punishment I would give them.
I believe the only reason TM went to jail because the person he shot was only 16.
Tan
I know I am taking things to an extreme, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. As it stands the line is drawn at defending yourself, and I am happy with that. I would have thought this was sufficient for most people. Those that overstep the mark (like Martin clearly had done), well, they have to abide by the law and take their medicine if they overstep the mark.
this case disgusts me. why should a man defending his property with the force he deems necesarry be imprisoned for 5 years or so, and the dirty gypo scumbag who was injured by him gets hardly any jail time for dealing f*****g heroin? the law has gone mad! tony martin's property had been broken into and stolen many, many times before, and the poor man was at the end of his tether. i have so much sympathy for him. the dirty scumbag pikeys who make stealing a lifetime occupation (i have a gypsy camp 5 mins walk from my house, i know what the b*****ds are like) only get a short sentence for selling something that kills many more people and ruins lives. this case is insane. killing pikeys should be legal anyway, in my eyes they are vermin, not humans.
Mate you might want to edit out that sweary asap...
Tbqh, I think that is not only the fault of the law system in this country, but also the attitudes of the people and society in general.
If a criminal breaks into somewhere, tries to rape some girl, and is stopped by a boyfriend with a baseball bat, then that criminal has every right to sue for damages caused from a baseball bat injury.
Lets face the facts now, everyone who has a brain realises this kind of outlook on life is wrong, and we are turning into a blame culture, caused mainly from, imo, America and its influences and also Claims Direct style companies.
People have a right to be protected, and if the police cannot do that (as is impossible in many cases), then these kinds of acts are going to happen.
In the case of TM, someone is breaking in YET AGAIN to steal your stuff, and you've got a shotgun next to your bed, what are u gonna do? I know I would pick it up. And this guy was obviously pretty ****ed off. I understand why he shot the guy, and I think he was in every right to do so.
Now hes being sued, and thats just the cherry on top of the cake really. I'm not sure if I agree with murder for theft, but equally if he had indeed gone downstairs with a baseball bat and batted the guy real hard once and killed him, would there have been the same uproar? I think not.
Why are people making such a big deal of one guy killing this scumbag, and ridding the planet of them for the rest of the good people? Gees, get a grip.
The media are never gonna leave this guy alone, and that in itself is completely unfair. Not matter where he moves hes gonna be followed by cameras and newspapers.
What a world we live in....
Here we go
A few years ago I was broke into they stole a few bits and bobs they where caught coming back for more. The local plod took my statement asking what was stolen.
To cut a long story short aboot 4000 grands worth. The plod said with that amount taken they should get a good sentence. I said what if I had gold taps worth 50000 would they get a bigger sentence, he more or less said yes. I then asked if I didn't have two penny's to my name and had a cheap radio of which I listened to each day and they stole this would their sentence only be a couple of days..... !!!!!
Bottom line a gold tap or cheap radio if you violate other peoples property you should accept what ever punishment that is dealt to you.
Tan
He can try to sue but it would get thrown out immediately if the baseball bat were sufficient and also necessary to stop the rapist from committing his act. You are perfectly entitled to use reasonable force to protect yourself and prevent criminal action. You aren't however entitled to disable the attempted rapist then cave his head in with repeated blows.Quote:
Originally posted by [R4A]Bigman
If a criminal breaks into somewhere, tries to rape some girl, and is stopped by a boyfriend with a baseball bat, then that criminal has every right to sue for damages caused from a baseball bat injury.
But would you then use this shotgun to shoot someone who is unarmed in the back while they were trying to escape you with your shotgun, then leave them to bleed to death? If so then you should be locked up. There are many things Martin could have and should have done but failed to do so.Quote:
In the case of TM, someone is breaking in YET AGAIN to steal your stuff, and you've got a shotgun next to your bed, what are u gonna do? I know I would pick it up.
There's a significant difference between the likely outcome of hitting someone with a baseball bat and shooting them with a shotgun. You can kill someone with one random blow of not particular force with your hand or elbow if you hit them in the right place. However it would be a lot clearer that your intent was not to kill compared to using a pump-action shotgun. You also need to get your facts right too, Martin is not being sued by Brendon. The latter's legal team knew there would be no chance of any victory so didn't even start legal proceedings.Quote:
Now hes being sued, and thats just the cherry on top of the cake really. I'm not sure if I agree with murder for theft, but equally if he had indeed gone downstairs with a baseball bat and batted the guy real hard once and killed him, would there have been the same uproar?
If you want that sort of legal system, go and live in somewhere like Nigeria or other places that offer strict interpretation of Sharia law. We live in a civilised country with an impartial and independent judiciary and one where violent behaviour is rightly outlawed. A large part of our society is based on reasonable sentencing and treatment of offenders, devolving this process from the immediate emotion and anger felt by whoever a crime is committed against.Quote:
Originally posted by tanman
If the owner is unable to perform such actions then the law should allow you to either fine them or jail them or cut their hands off either of these three would be better than the punishment I would give them.
Zathras
I think you live in a bowl of cotton wool. One day soon take a walk into the dole office or go to a court at aboot 09:30 - 09:45 and you will see the vermin thats lurks in ur wee world.
At least in Nigeria you know where u stand here the laws are so old that the victim loses big time.
Bottom line you break the law here, only the truly good citzens have remorse for their crimes. As for the repeat offenders its a way of life, if the punishment was more in line with the crime then maybe the crimes would not be committed and people would be able to get on with their lives without fear. I for one will not let anyone demean my standard of living what ever the law.
Tan
Tanman, I think you're making presumptions about me that are completely false. I've done jury service, I've seen plenty of people on the dole, my grandfather has lived on the roughest estate in Lancashire for all his life thankyou very much. Don't try to preach to me about how bad people can be.
Well if you break the law "protecting" your standard of living completely contrary to the law and the legal system of this country decides to demean your standard of living and throw you in prison, I'll certainly have no sympathy.Quote:
I for one will not let anyone demean my standard of living what ever the law
Zathras
So for me not to make presumptions about you
You see someone has broken into your house and has violated your partner had their way with your kids, ripped out your hard drive & stole your best cd and are leaving thru the backdoor
Do you
Use what ever you have to take this person into custody bearing in mind this person will only stop once they or you are no longer in a fit state to continue.
or
Phone the police and let the law take its course
Scene two
The same person who has been all over the news and has done many bad things to people and their households is knocking on your door
do you
Use what ever you have to take this person into custody bearing in mind this person will only stop once they or you are no longer in a fit state to continue
or
phone the police and let the law take its course & or flee your house
Tan
In the first scenario I take reasonable action to apprehend them. This does not extend to beating the living daylights once I have apprehended them, nor does it extend to shooting them in the back as they are leaving. This is exactly what the law allows me to do. If in the process of apprehending them I am required to use lethal force to defend myself, I am perfectly entitled to do so.
In the second scenario, I call the police.
Not difficult and I would imagine this is exactly the action that most members of the board would take.
Zathras: I appologise for my incorrect facts. I haven't been strictly following the story, and it was me trying to remember stuff.
But still its not just this case, or the exact facts which matter, as I'm sure you can see, its the matters which arise from it.
And tbqh, if i were in the first scenario I'm pretty sure id beat seven shades of **** out of the person who did that. And probably try for a couple more shades after that. And I'm saying that now, when im completely calm and without just reason to. In a fit of rage people do some very rash things without thinking.
I do think though, that there is a whole world of difference between rape and assualt etc, and theft. Imo, rapists and such utter scum dont deserve to live, and they might as well have never been born. However, theives generally dont do it because they want to, more that they need to or have been brought up thinking that its completely acceptable.
However, I do not agree with locking these people up in three star prisions, paying for their food and drink every day or the maintainance of their accomodation. I'd say throw them on a remote island somewhere and let them try to survive (but thats already been done :p). Otherwise theres gotta be someway of making them earn their food so that the tax payers of this country do not have to fork out so much every year.
I have a feeling that TM most likely shot the guy in the back because he didnt want him to get away. In fact its quite a logical thing to do except for the fatally of the method. A mistake in a fit of rage. Hence the short prison sentence methinks.
How are people reacting to his release anyway? Not heard much of it of recent, not watched the news or anything.
if anyone broke into my house, i'd feel perfectly innocent taking a baseball bat to them and teachin em a lesson. they aint gonna be able to burgle anyone gain with shattered kneecaps are they? whatever happened to 'an englishmans home is his castle' etc.. we should be able to use whatever force necessary to remove these thieving pieces of sh*te from our houses or property, as they shouldn't be there and have no right to be there. the law doesn't seem to recognise this. tony martin is a hero for many people now, including me, for refusing to recognise what he did as being wrong.
Certainly agreed. I concede that there is a possibility I too may be incensed enough to beat the living daylights out of someone. However I haven't been in that situation nor do I ever wish to be so I have little idea whether I'd be able to keep my composure. Provocation would definitely be taken into account in deciding any judicial action taken against you should you beat up someone doing such a thing, and the severe difference between non-aggrievated theft and rape would definitely be a factor.Quote:
Originally posted by [R4A]Bigman
And tbqh, if i were in the first scenario I'm pretty sure id beat seven shades of **** out of the person who did that. And probably try for a couple more shades after that. And I'm saying that now, when im completely calm and without just reason to. In a fit of rage people do some very rash things without thinking.
I do think though, that there is a whole world of difference between rape and assualt etc, and theft.
However people can get severely annoyed and/or upset should other perfectly legal situations occur. I'm sure finding out your wife or girlfriend was cheating on you would make you far angrier than someone burgling your house. Other scenarios are possible, I'll leave them to your imagination. The fact you are angry about something, be it legal or illegal, does not give you the absolute right to act on your anger.
That's a fair assumption. However his actions following the shooting do not bear out claims of rational behaviour outside a momentary peak of rage. Leaving Barras there to die whilst spending the night in a hotel does not fit in with momentarily 'losing it' or attempting solely to incapacitate Barras. There's a lot more to the case than the tabloids who wish everything to be black and white and hero and villain are giving out. Had Martin shown any remorse that Barras died or for his actions subsequent to the shooting I'm sure he would have gained parole much earlier on. However this isn't the case and as such I now have very little sympathy for him.Quote:
I have a feeling that TM most likely shot the guy in the back because he didnt want him to get away. In fact its quite a logical thing to do except for the fatally of the method. A mistake in a fit of rage. Hence the short prison sentence methinks.
I'd also feel perfectly happy if you were locked up for a long time for taking this sort of 'revenge' out on no more than common burglars. Neither in this country nor in any country we describe as civilised or having Western values is the decision on punishment yours to either make or dole out. Do you also consider doling out your own form of 'justice' to those who anger you in perfectly legitimate ways such as cutting you up on the road?Quote:
Originally posted by not_your_punk
if anyone broke into my house, i'd feel perfectly innocent taking a baseball bat to them and teachin em a lesson. they aint gonna be able to burgle anyone gain with shattered kneecaps are they?
of course i wouldn't do this to someone who cuts me up. at the end of the day, the burgling rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbish should notbe in my house at all, he has no right to be there, and i have very right to stop them from being there and taking my property, which i worked for to buy. i'm not going to let them take my things, then go to someone else's house and do the same. also, why should TM show remorse for what he did? the way i see it, his actions are perfectly justified, he had been burgled and robbed and whatever so many times before, he had to put an end to it. if the 'justice system' worked, which it doesn't, then people wouldn't have to take the law into their own hands to protect themselves and their property.
its not revenge, revenge would be hunting him down in his house and doing it. something i'd be all to happy to do myself.Quote:
Originally posted by Zathras
I'd also feel perfectly happy if you were locked up for a long time for taking this sort of 'revenge' out on no more than common burglars. Neither in this country nor in any country we describe as civilised or having Western values is the decision on punishment yours to either make or dole out. Do you also consider doling out your own form of 'justice' to those who anger you in perfectly legitimate ways such as cutting you up on the road?
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.
people who cut you up on the road? anyone who takes a baseball bat to them has anger managment problems and needs help.
I dont think anybody really knows what happened, especially not Martin. He had mental problems and was woken in the middle of the night and confronted them in the dark. As to civilised countrys, i think that America is counted as that, or most of the rest of Europe. Also Police officers have shot unarmed people in circumstances similar to Martins ie the dark and having made a similar assumption ie the person being armed, and plod havent gone to prison. Think its just a bad decision made in the middle of the night. Yep he had a gun but most farmers take this as being an everyday thing, I have arranged for firearms to be placed on a ticket when they have been sitting in a shed for years. This would seem like a big thing to some but to many of us who work or use firearms it isnt. A car thief was killed near me a few years ago he was stealing a car, in court it was an accident, in reality the car owner was threatend so he used what he had taken as a deterant. He even took the "victim" to a Police station.
Think this kind of thing is a total waste all round but most people would do the same thing. Just hope I am never forced to make a similar decision.
Flibb
It is revenge, revenge because you have been targeted and wish to teach this person a lesson. I don't wish to go into a semantics argument here, but revenge is a perfectly adequate word for that sort of behaviour. 'Teaching someone a lesson' for the action they are taking against you isn't taking revenge?
I've also shown the areas in which Tony Martin could be expected to show reasonable remorse, first for actually killing someone rather than incapacitating them and second for leaving them there to bleed to death instead of reporting the incident. There's no justification for that, other than the justification of a sick minded person. If you support these actions then you're supporting capital punishment for non-aggrievated theft, pure and simple. The justice system works more than adequately. It's not perfect but then again nothing is. As a citizen of the UK you agree to abide by it. This includes the right to make reasonable attempt to apprehend someone committing a crime, plus reasonable force in self defence. If this isn't enough for you and you feel the need to cave someone's head in, you desperately need anger therapy. God forbid anyone making you angry, through illegal act or legal. Don't like it? There's always the option of emigrating.
Knox: when is it 'allowed' to be angry? Why does the feeling of anger give legitimacy to acts of violence against someone, after all that's what we're discussing here, the 'paying someone a lesson' because of anger at what they have done. The 'man in a dress' you so quickly denigrate would happen to be an expert in legal matters and would have ample training of situations, plus expert counsel who will have spent many years on the issues of situations of burglaries and fear and anger, something you don't have, period.
Then why was the original ruling overturned buy another expert?
Flibb
And you'd do better?
Over-rulings are usually done with the presentation of new evidence or 'pressure' for a populist decision. Those cases that go to appeal often balance on very fine arguments and it is extremely rare that incompetence on the part of a judge is at fault for cases overturned at appeal.
The incompetance was on the part of the defence team. But hey judges have been known to make mistakes as well. And as to would I do better errr probably not and I havent made any sarky comments to you have I? Obviously if I could do better I would be judge Jon or lord Jon or God Jon but I aint Im just a bloke trying to say what I think without beng a total arse and without taking the piss out of other people.
Flibb
I'm not even gonna discuss the tony martin side of things now, shooting the guy in the back was wrong. i'm now gonna take this personally as i found your post pretty patronisingQuote:
Originally posted by Zathras
It is revenge, revenge because you have been targeted and wish to teach this person a lesson. I don't wish to go into a semantics argument here, but revenge is a perfectly adequate word for that sort of behaviour. 'Teaching someone a lesson' for the action they are taking against you isn't taking revenge?
I've also shown the areas in which Tony Martin could be expected to show reasonable remorse, first for actually killing someone rather than incapacitating them and second for leaving them there to bleed to death instead of reporting the incident. There's no justification for that, other than the justification of a sick minded person. If you support these actions then you're supporting capital punishment for non-aggrievated theft, pure and simple. The justice system works more than adequately. It's not perfect but then again nothing is. As a citizen of the UK you agree to abide by it. This includes the right to make reasonable attempt to apprehend someone committing a crime, plus reasonable force in self defence. If this isn't enough for you and you feel the need to cave someone's head in, you desperately need anger therapy. God forbid anyone making you angry, through illegal act or legal. Don't like it? There's always the option of emigrating.
Knox: when is it 'allowed' to be angry? Why does the feeling of anger give legitimacy to acts of violence against someone, after all that's what we're discussing here, the 'paying someone a lesson' because of anger at what they have done. The 'man in a dress' you so quickly denigrate would happen to be an expert in legal matters and would have ample training of situations, plus expert counsel who will have spent many years on the issues of situations of burglaries and fear and anger, something you don't have, period.
Its revenge they could easily of avoided had they not broken into my f*cking house!!
you seem to miss the point completely here zathras, they SHOULDN'T EVEN BE THERE!
A feeling of anger does not give legitimacy, it gives a reason, when angry a person will do things they'd never do normally.
The man in a dress may be trained in law, but does he have actual real world experience of how it feels?
so because by your logic i don't have official training i can't understand my own anger??
a completely disjointed post for you there, not long, not fancy but to the point i feel.
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?
Where was my "sarky" comment? The "And you'd do better?" was a serious question. Far too many people are derisive of judges based solely on the fact their attire makes them appear outmoded and aloof, whereas they are far from this. Put yourself in the position faced by a judge, getting cases ranging from extremely intricate fraud to simple drunken aggression. Of course there will be the occasional case where a judge may not know what an MP3 is or other things we as computer-literate people may think is an abhorrent hole of knowledge, but you can guarantee he'd have expert counsel to inform him of what it was.
zathras, you talk bulls**t.
No they shouldn't be there by law or by any moral judgement, but the fact that they are there doesn't suddenly give you carte-blanche to act with whatever base emotion you feel necessary. Someone stealing your milk from your front door doesn't give you the right to torture them does it? Them breaking a law doesn't suddenly make it okay for you to break the law back. There is a proscribed course of action to take to punish them for not being there in the first place.Quote:
Originally posted by Knoxville
you seem to miss the point completely here zathras, they SHOULDN'T EVEN BE THERE!
So you'd admit that rational behaviour is not always forthcoming when you're angry. I'm sure everyone's done something when angry that they later regret. Being angry isn't sufficient excuse for breaking the law, although levels of provocation will be taken into account in determining punishment for your actions under the red mist.Quote:
A feeling of anger does not give legitimacy, it gives a reason, when angry a person will do things they'd never do normally.
As I stated "the man in the dress" will have experts in the areas of "how it feels" to provide him with analysis of how this will have affected happenings. I'm also sure a trained psychologist will be able to accurately predict and explain anger and how it effects people. Do you always understand your behaviour when you're angry, or do you simply attribute what you do to the simple fact that "you're angry"? Do you know the behavioural differences the presence of adrenaline through anger will cause, and can you attribute for certain whether you would have taken the same action faced with the same situation but without the physical reaction caused by the emotion?Quote:
The man in a dress may be trained in law, but does he have actual real world experience of how it feels? so because by your logic i don't have official training i can't understand my own anger??
I've already stated exactly what I would do, but to save you actually having to read my posts I'll quote it here for you.Quote:
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?
Quote:
In the first scenario I take reasonable action to apprehend them. This does not extend to beating the living daylights once I have apprehended them, nor does it extend to shooting them in the back as they are leaving. This is exactly what the law allows me to do. If in the process of apprehending them I am required to use lethal force to defend myself, I am perfectly entitled to do so.
The "man in the dress and his training" would pass the sentence that the independent and impartial legal system in this country felt necessary for the crime committed or attempted against me. It is not for me to decide what sentence this person gets. It doesn't mean I have to be happy about any decision made, but I have to live with whatever it is.
All I can say is change many outdated laws and put the criminals to work for their crimes.
No workie no eatie
simple
I think that constitutes a direct attack on me as forbidden by the rules of this forum, and I think I can demand an apology from you. If you can't argue your case without having to resort to such direct insults then you really shouldn't post here.Quote:
Originally posted by not_your_punk
zathras, you talk ********.
No it doesn't give the right to torture milk thieves, but they're not in my house, they're not a threat to me, my family and my possesions.Quote:
Originally posted by Zathras
No they shouldn't be there by law or by any moral judgement, but the fact that they are there doesn't suddenly give you carte-blanche to act with whatever base emotion you feel necessary. Someone stealing your milk from your front door doesn't give you the right to torture them does it? Them breaking a law doesn't suddenly make it okay for you to break the law back. There is a proscribed course of action to take to punish them for not being there in the first place.
Being angry does give me a right to exert what ever force on them at the time imho. If i'm angry and i loose control and he looses the ability to chew solid food it serves him right for being in my house.Quote:
So you'd admit that rational behaviour is not always forthcoming when you're angry. I'm sure everyone's done something when angry that they later regret. Being angry isn't sufficient excuse for breaking the law, although levels of provocation will be taken into account in determining punishment for your actions under the red mist.
I do understand my behaviour when angry, i also understand just how much adrenaline will affect me physically and mentally and how much my decision making capabilities would differ if adrenaline wasn't present in my system.Quote:
As I stated "the man in the dress" will have experts in the areas of "how it feels" to provide him with analysis of how this will have affected happenings. I'm also sure a trained psychologist will be able to accurately predict and explain anger and how it effects people. Do you always understand your behaviour when you're angry, or do you simply attribute what you do to the simple fact that "you're angry"? Do you know the behavioural differences the presence of adrenaline through anger will cause, and can you attribute for certain whether you would have taken the same action faced with the same situation but without the physical reaction caused by the emotion?
Did you think i hadn't read that? i know exactly what you said, but i want to know what you'd do? do you know how your decisions might be affected?Quote:
I've already stated exactly what I would do, but to save you actually having to read my posts I'll quote it here for you
You would indeed, and would you rather live unhappy with they're punishment, or happy with your own?Quote:
The "man in the dress and his training" would pass the sentence that the independent and impartial legal system in this country felt necessary for the crime committed or attempted against me. It is not for me to decide what sentence this person gets. It doesn't mean I have to be happy about any decision made, but I have to live with whatever it is.
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.
Its not a direct attack on you, a direct attak on you would be to say "Zathras you ARE *******". Thats an attack on your opinions, he shouldn't be using that kind of language on a family forum though.Quote:
Originally posted by Zathras
I think that constitutes a direct attack on me as forbidden by the rules of this forum, and I think I can demand an apology from you. If you can't argue your case without having to resort to such direct insults then you really shouldn't post here.
I think he has tried to argue his case and been met with the same argument back from you every time, he can't help the way he feels on the matter.
Knoxville
I'm glad I'm no the only one smellin the coffee, some people do live sheltered lives.
Tan
I actually respect the police and judges and think they do a hard job BUT you cant in one sentance say that they have the best information etc and were right in this case and then the conviction gets changed form 10 years to 3 and from murder to manslaughter.... Then the response is thats its down to new evidence or public pressure. The public pressure bit makes a joke of the judicery (how the hell is that spelt?), the new evidence was that Martin had mental problems and was acting under deminished responsibility, surely the judge knew this from the original evidence. And the could you do better bit is the oldest piss take in the book, christ Adam probably used it on God. Could I have done better, err no I aint a judge, but Lord Chief Justice Woolf did do better he changed the conviction to manslaughter.
Look at the BBC time line on the tony Martin case nobody had a clue what was going on, if he was so dangerous why did a judge let him out on conditional bail? All the judges involved the case all came to different answers. As to expert witneses dont make me laugh both side employ them saying totally different things.
Flibb
What I would physically do depends very much on the situation I faced. I've outlined the general strategy I'd face, but unless you're more specific I can't say that I'd go for the baseball bat first or phone the police or get out of the house or whatever. The system we're talking about is the judicial system, what happens after the initial confrontation, and I do respect the legal system we have here and our methods of trying cases is one of the most fair, just, independent and impartial in the world. The law allows you reasonable self defence, be it a fist, a baseball bat or a shotgun it all depends on the situation you face. If I had to kill to protect myself from a very real danger of severe injury then I would do so and the law would allow me to do so. What I wouldn't do is take matters into my own hands after the event is over - that's up to the police. Noone's trying to deny you what you already have, the legal right to reasonable action to defend yourself.
Please point out the horse dung that I am talking and why it is horse dung. There's ways and means of debating an issue, losing your rag and resorting to dismissing my opinions as horse dung isn't one of them. If I replied to you solely saying you were simply talking **** how's that not both an offensive attack and a sign that someone is getting far too angry to continue rational debate?Quote:
Originally posted by Knoxville
Its not a direct attack on you, a direct attak on you would be to say "Zathras you ARE *******". Thats an attack on your opinions, he shouldn't be using that kind of language on a family forum though.
I didn't say i agreed with his opnion that they were horse dung did i?Quote:
Originally posted by Zathras
Please point out the horse dung that I am talking and why it is horse dung. There's ways and means of debating an issue, losing your rag and resorting to dismissing my opinions as horse dung isn't one of them.
no, i merely pointed out why he'd said that and that it wasn't an attack on you.
I'm all for debate and am quite enjoying this one (btw next time you accuse me of spamming anywhere just remember this thread, its not just you who can do the long replys)
everybody loves an argument and i think he just got a bit too agitated.
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.Quote:
Originally posted by Zathras
What I would physically do depends very much on the situation I faced. I've outlined the general strategy I'd face, but unless you're more specific I can't say that I'd go for the baseball bat first or phone the police or get out of the house or whatever. The system we're talking about is the judicial system, what happens after the initial confrontation, and I do respect the legal system we have here and our methods of trying cases is one of the most fair, just, independent and impartial in the world. The law allows you reasonable self defence, be it a fist, a baseball bat or a shotgun it all depends on the situation you face. If I had to kill to protect myself from a very real danger of severe injury then I would do so and the law would allow me to do so. What I wouldn't do is take matters into my own hands after the event is over - that's up to the police. Noone's trying to deny you what you already have, the legal right to reasonable action to defend yourself.
You want a scenario? ok you wake up in bed next to your wife/gf/whatever and see a huge guy standing over her with a knife, what would you do?
remain completely calm and "disable him" using reasonable force, or loose control and damn near kill him like i would?
They didn't necessarily have the best information - they don't collect the actual information. What they do have is expert counsel and analysis available to them on the information that exists. I'm not talking about what analysis is presented by both the defence and prosecution but the actual independent staff of the judge himself and all the backup that he has.Quote:
Originally posted by Flibb
I actually respect the police and judges and think they do a hard job BUT you cant in one sentance say that they have the best information etc and were right in this case and then the conviction gets changed form 10 years to 3 and from murder to manslaughter.... Then the response is thats its down to new evidence or public pressure.
Did he do 'better' or did he do different? The 'can you do better' bit - well some people really do believe they can do better, and somehow that their knowledge of events and the situation that has happened is superior to that of the judge and jury who actually sit through the entire legal proceedings. That's where the whole attack on the judiciary started in this thread - people don't agree with their verdicts on certain things therefore the judge must be wrong and they must be right.Quote:
And the could you do better bit is the oldest piss take in the book, christ Adam probably used it on God. Could I have done better, err no I aint a judge, but Lord Chief Justice Woolf did do better he changed the conviction to manslaughter.
RIGHT F*** the lot if you I need sleep, just back from the pub and get involved in this. I need a kebab and Knox is tempting me with pictures of his freezer. Facts stand original judge was wrong Wolff was right and if Martin had been convicted of deminished responsibility originaly he probably would have been out of a loony bin a few years ago. Im going to bed to sharpen my knifes, will put the shotgun under the bed and the cleaning kit up my arse, at least have the defence I was cleaning it when it went off. Sleep tight and keep the phone handy incase you hear something go BUMP in the night...
Flibb
PS Did martin have a phone or had he eaten it?
There's a difference between not respecting the legal system's decision on certain things yet living with it because it's the law of the land and actually seeking to implement your own form of justice. As I said, there are going to be decisions people don't like because of their own personal opinions on certain areas or personal involvement in the case. If someone precious to me were hurt I'd naturally want the largest sentence possible, but I'd also recognise that I was too biased to be able to make a fair judgement. I would obviously be disappointed if this didn't happen, but I wouldn't take action of my own if the sentencing didn't go my way, nor would I let the possibility of not getting the sentence I desired affect what action I would take in during the incident in the first place. The last thing on my mind had I knocked down someone attacking me or my family is worrying that they would get off with a light sentence therefore it's up to me to kick seven bells out of them.Quote:
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.
What weapons do I have available? Where is he in relation to me and my girlfriend? Can he see me from where he's standing? There are far too many variables. However I do know if and when I have disabled him I would hope not to take my revenge upon him, rather get my family to safety and call the police.Quote:
You want a scenario? ok you wake up in bed next to your wife/gf/whatever and see a huge guy standing over her with a knife, what would you do? remain completely calm and "disable him" using reasonable force, or loose control and damn near kill him like i would?
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?
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.
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?Quote:
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.
Can you not see how ridiculous an idea that is?
tbh mate I think you are purposefully mixing two crimes at complete opposite ends of the spectrum to try and help your argument.Quote:
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?
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.Quote:
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...
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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 :D ). 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 want justice, wether its handed out by a judge or not.Quote:
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 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.
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.Quote:
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 :D ). 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 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.Quote:
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.
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?
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?Quote:
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.
I find this very interesting. Can you explain what areas you dont respect?Quote:
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.
yes i would, i took a life and an innocent one, i'd deserve any sentence she deemed fit.Quote:
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?
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.Quote:
Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
I find this very interesting. Can you explain what areas you dont respect?
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.
well said Beeeenster, gawd i hate agreeing with people in arguments but you tend to make to much sense not too sometimes.Quote:
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?
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.
You think there should be a (at least partially) specially selected jury?Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
Well, if the government of the day has its way, we'd soon be loose the right to trial by jury... Not any specially selected jury, just NO jury! :mad:Quote:
Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
You think there should be a (at least partially) specially selected jury?
Wow, what a read! This certainly has taken off!
Now how about a rating ;)
Nick
jurys should be made up of impartial individuals with no specific interests in the case presented. only then can a fair trial occur.
zathros, you mentioned about how we would defend ourselves as against the law e.g. baseball bat to the head a few times, but here's a secenario for you : The government legalises rape. Your wife/gf/wotever, gets raped and you found out who the rapist was. would you :
1. beat the sh*t out the rapist with a bat or shoot them?
2. do nothing because rape is now legalised and you'd be breaking the law by punishing them for it?
First off, wow what a thread, some great points here and respect to Knox for taking the punishment, that he's taken.
I don't really know where to start, but i'll try and summarise my thoughts on the multiple questions raised here.
The first thing that really struck me was punishment to be decided by the victim, in the current context that would mean that TM would be at the mercy of the dead guys parents and he'd be a dead man.
Difficult to take this view from my own point of view as it would make me sick to think that the real villians of this whole escapade would be able to deal out vengance after his death. I can understand knox's point of view on running a small child down, i think if i did that i wouldn't be able to live with myself. However this isn't a common view - i think most people would leg it and hide and hope never to be caught.
Surely this is human nature to try and avoid punishment?. It really comes down to a sense of morals which is really what this whole discussion is about imo. What is an acceptable level of force in your own mind. Sadly TM's accepable level of force was coloured by his own bad experiences of being burgled so many times.
Sadly within the law its not his acceptable level of force that is how he is judged its the members of the jury and the media that colour this. Its difficult to come up with true guidelines for these sorts of things as each case needs to be judged on its own situation.
I think the last point to round off which is what i feel knox is trying to get across is that IF people didn't try and burgle him they wouldn't have died and TM wouldn't have committed any Crime.
If he was out of the house at the time he would not have killed them and would still be an innocent man, Its just circumstances that made him a killer, and can you tell me that you would know what you would do if you had just killed someone. Its alright saying you shouldn't do it, but if you had can you honestly say you'd do the sensible thing?.
Maybe Zathras would be dead if he tried to take someone out with the baseball bat instead of shooting them with the gun, as the guy stops the baseball bat and took it to you, and he didn't just want to immobilise you, he wanted you out the way as a witness.
TiG
I am in total agreement here, even though its a little off subject, I do think that would solve some problems.Quote:
Originally posted by tanman
All I can say is change many outdated laws and put the criminals to work for their crimes.
No workie no eatie
simple
DaBeeeenster: I'd just like to say how much I respect the way you talk through these situations. You really should be a diplomat or something, coz ur just like a exceptional bomb-defusing kit.
Now round to my argument.
I think that this thread is going off in the wrong direction. Is it really that important what you would have done in that situation, or how people would react? I don't think so. What has happened has happened. If we say as a country "TM was wrong, and should be locked up forever" then we achieve nothing. If we say "TM was right, and should be released and left alone" then we achieve nothing. In fact it really doesn't matter what happens to TM, we achieve nothing.
What we really should be discussing is why criminals do what they do, and what can be done about it. A constructive method which reduces the cost of crime on the whole of society.
I put to you, that British Citizens expect far too much of everything we have. We expect the NHS to be perfect, we expect to not have to pay for healthcare, education or indeed justice, and for them all to be the best they can possibly be, far better than they are at the moment. This really aint gonna happen.
For example, I believe that the Police force is understaffed and underbudgetted. If we pour more money into it, then we get more Police, better facilities, more protection. However, the side effect from this is that we then get more criminials caught, and less places to put them, and spend more money on prisions. The more cash we stick into the Police, the more we have to pour into Prisions. Then healthcare and education suffer, coz there really isn't enough money to go around as it is.
Why do criminals act the way they do? I'm not talkin about murderers, rapists and that class of scumbag (who imo deserve nothing less than a painful death), I'm talking about milk theives, and burglers. Maybe the key to it is education. I don't know.
If we can resolve crime in another way to beating the living daylights out of burglers with baseball bats and torturing milk theives (that made me giggle btw, I like that idea ;) ), then the world will be a far better place and the Police can spend more of their precious time on things which really do matter like Class A criminals such as murderers, rapists etc.
Discuss :p
Ok ill have a go at this
I would say the biggest crime activity revolves around drugs
So with that nearly every country in world spends money on combating this problem. So why dont all the countries pull together and buy the drugs at source. Then destroy it.
I am sure overnight the drug problem would drop like a lead balloon. Sure short term the people who are depent on drugs would suffer,
but long term no supply = no usage
No cartel or crimelord can compete against so many countries.
A penny for them
tan
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An All-Party Group of MPs investigating alcohol and crime was advised by the British Medical Association that alcohol is a factor in:
* 60-70% of homicides
* 75% of stabbings
* 70% of beatings
* 50% of fights and domestic assaults
The Police Superintendents advised that alcohol is present in half of all crime.
The National Association of Probation Officers advised that 30% of offenders on probation and 58% of prisoners have severe alcohol problems and that alcohol is a factor in their offence or pattern of offending.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fraid not Tan Man. Alcohol is worse. see the thread called Dabeenster on here for more info...
Thanks
TiG
Ok
Point taken but drug cime is also a major burden on the uk budget directly / indirectly
Tan
Again, why do people take drugs and why do people do socially acceptable drugs such as alcohol?
If people are drinking themselves to the point where they are commiting crime, that suggests to me there is a serious problem. Everyone likes a drink, but to take it so far so you cannot remember the next morning, that is the fault of someone/thing.
As has already been pointed out, drugs arent a huge problem, and I personally don't see anything wrong with people taking drugs. If they want to, then let them. Doesn't harm anyone else does it? You talk about drug-related crime. I'm willing to bet that somewhere in the region of 80-90% of drug-takers do not break the law to find the money to feed their lifestyle.
The media is to blame for the stereotypical drug user who steals, kills and causes as many problems for society as possible everyday. The fact of the matter is that the criminals who are caught and have alcohol problems, or are addicted to heroin [sp?]or something were going to do it anyway, as that is their nature.
Maybe I shouldn't say nature, coz I don't believe that murders are just born. I believe it is the nurture [sp?] of the people and they are 'trained' into the mindset. In which case this throws the blame on education, their upbringing and their parents / guardians.
Maybe if drugs were not against the law, and there were special places to go and get stoned or whatever with ur mates and have a good time, all supervised to stop people from abusing the system, there would not be a problem? Who knows?
Anyway, in a very roundabout way of getting back to the argument, I think that TM should be left well-enough alone, and people should take this event (and many many others) and try to find the route of the problem, and have a good go at fixing it.
Just before anyone comments, I do not take drugs, I drink sensibly, and I have never touched a ciggarette or bong. However, to validate my argument, I know a great many people who take drugs, cannabis esp, and none of them are criminals (other than taking the drugs of course).
one word for ya mate - AMSTERDAM. and only 5 days till i go there :DQuote:
Originally posted by [R4A]Bigman
Maybe if drugs were not against the law, and there were special places to go and get stoned or whatever with ur mates and have a good time, all supervised to stop people from abusing the system, there would not be a problem? Who knows?
when someone is intruding in your property, your clearly not in the best position to make rational descisions as to what reasonable force is, it's also much easier to shoot someone than to restrain them! if 2 men were robbing my property and i wished to stop them, how would i go about it with 'reasonable force'? i can ask them to leave, tell them i'll call the police then am i suppose to except that the probably isn't a way in which i can make them leave using reasonable force and just call the police and hope that they catch the burglars and return my belongings. starting a fight would probably be the best idea if you did want to stop them and get away with it because if they fought back you are then just defending yourself, but then that just puts you at risk, rather than incapacitating them with 'unreasonable force' to begin with.
"An Englishmans home is his castle"
So, therefore, everyone in this country has the right to defend his home, and his very life, with every available means. Even if it does lead to severe punishment from the state.
These criminals you speak of, burglars, thieves etc steal for the most simple reason in the world. Nessecity.Quote:
Originally posted by [R4A]Bigman
Why do criminals act the way they do? I'm not talkin about murderers, rapists and that class of scumbag (who imo deserve nothing less than a painful death), I'm talking about milk theives, and burglers. Maybe the key to it is education. I don't know.
They either need to steal to survive (no money/no home etc) or they steal to fund the life they want or think they need.
There are very few ways of stopping this, education and punishment don't work well in these cases as they are being implemented in todays society with little sucess.
Thats already been said, the argument was the level of punishment that should be recieved from the state based on the situation.Quote:
Originally posted by THCi
"An Englishmans home is his castle"
So, therefore, everyone in this country has the right to defend his home, and his very life, with every available means. Even if it does lead to severe punishment from the state.
It may be fair on the criminal but is it fair on the victim?Quote:
Originally posted by not_your_punk
jurys should be made up of impartial individuals with no specific interests in the case presented. only then can a fair trial occur.
Thats an extrememly hypothetical situation, quite absurd tbh, what government would legalise that???Quote:
zathros, you mentioned about how we would defend ourselves as against the law e.g. baseball bat to the head a few times, but here's a secenario for you : The government legalises rape. Your wife/gf/wotever, gets raped and you found out who the rapist was. would you :
1. beat the sh*t out the rapist with a bat or shoot them?
2. do nothing because rape is now legalised and you'd be breaking the law by punishing them for it?
But illegal or not i've discussed this with many of my friends i could never turn a blind eye to something like that i've said before, should i EVER see someone being raped, or a woman being beaten i'll go and have a go at whoevers doing it, i don't care if they're 7 ft 2 and 5 ft wide, i'd rather go down and distract them for a while knowing i've at least made a difference.
If its worth fighting over, its worth getting the sh*t kicked out of you over.
This is completely absurd. The government are not going to legalise rape! If you need to make that sort of example to back up your point, doesnt that say something about your position?Quote:
Originally posted by not_your_punk
jurys should be made up of impartial individuals with no specific interests in the case presented. only then can a fair trial occur.
zathros, you mentioned about how we would defend ourselves as against the law e.g. baseball bat to the head a few times, but here's a secenario for you : The government legalises rape. Your wife/gf/wotever, gets raped and you found out who the rapist was. would you :
1. beat the sh*t out the rapist with a bat or shoot them?
2. do nothing because rape is now legalised and you'd be breaking the law by punishing them for it?
I've just been for a run ( :eek: ) and had a think about this. I think the basic point is this. Ignore the fact that he shot the guy in the back. Just answer this question:
For leaving the burglar bleeding to death on his property, checking into a hotel and not alerting the emergency services, is TM guilty of a crime?
I dont think that there is any reasonable argument to say that he is not guilty of a crime for doing that. Ok. So if he is guilty of that, it's simply a matter of deciding what he is guilty of. Manslaughter seems to be the correct crime IMHO. He didn't mean to murder the guy, but his actions did kill him.
I think if you look at it in this respect there is no argument to say that he should not have been jailed. I think he received the right sentence tbh...
its a hypothetical situation....
Quote:
Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
I've just been for a run ( :eek: ) and had a think about this. I think the basic point is this. Ignore the fact that he shot the guy in the back. Just answer this question:
For leaving the burglar bleeding to death on his property, checking into a hotel and not alerting the emergency services, is TM guilty of a crime?
I dont think that there is any reasonable argument to say that he is not guilty of a crime for doing that. Ok. So if he is guilty of that, it's simply a matter of deciding what he is guilty of. Manslaughter seems to be the correct crime IMHO. He didn't mean to murder the guy, but his actions did kill him.
I think if you look at it in this respect there is no argument to say that he should not have been jailed. I think he received the right sentence tbh...
But then that is murder.....
He made a predetermined choice to keep a gun (illegally) To carry the (illegal) gun when investigating a noise in his house. To point the gun at someone and pull the trigger (when not exactly provoked) and then to leave the scene for the two to bleed to death. By not contacting the emergency services he made a decision to allow someone who he shot to die.
TBH my opinion is that the 2 deserved everything they got. They broke in to someone's house to steal from them. They put THEMSELVES in to that situation, they got shot. Tough rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbish, you shouldn't have been there in the first place.
This is the point i tried to make in my other post, If no-one had broken into TM's house he wouldn't have killed anyone.
Thats the thing that i think is missed out on here. It has a massive impact on how i view this case.
TiG