Britain says "Burglars Need Protection" <or> The lunatics Have taken Over the Asylum - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

reconmike · 05-11-2003, 12:49 PM

4thTimeLucky,
Yes I am a retired Marine 20+ years, but what does thatr matter in this instance?

4thTimeLucky · 05-11-2003, 01:11 PM

reconmike

sorry, started post and then realised I had to get the image. hoped no-one would see it in its one-line form.

Hope you can see it all now.

My point is, that you are a Marine with 20+ years experience.
If you were in the case we are discussing you would have been forewarned, armed and ready. You would have been faced with an unarmed, scared 16 year old. When I picture the situation - grown marine with weapon, versus crying sixteen year old - I find it hard to imagine that you would feel threatened.

Not all break-ins are threatening. Certainly not to the extent that you would feel the need to shoot the intruder dead. I believe that either Mr.Martin was not scared and acted out of anger at being robbed and racist hatred of Gypsies, or that he was very scared, because he had the mind of a ten year old (as he claimed in his defence). In either case he should not have been arming himself and using a gun.

reconmike · 05-11-2003, 01:38 PM

4thTimeLucky,
Now the only thing that bothers me in your statement is the forewarned thing. If I was forewarned no I would not shoot a 16 year old to death, he would get a good ass beating though.

But I propose the situation that I awake to noises in my living room, I leave my bedroom armed with my Colt combat .45.
As I enter my living room there are 2 intruders one being attacked by my doberman, at this moment do I know if the are armed or not? What if one makes a sudden movement towards me?
All I am saying is that no one knows if the old man felt threatened. In his mind he did, was it just enough to kill a repeat offender? Your courts said no. Here in the states, each state is different. As sad as it might sound, this old man will never feel threatened by this boy again.

mirevolver · 05-11-2003, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by reconmike
But I propose the situation that I awake to noises in my living room, I leave my bedroom armed with my Colt combat .45.
As I enter my living room there are 2 intruders one being attacked by my doberman, at this moment do I know if the are armed or not? What if one makes a sudden movement towards me?
All I am saying is that no one knows if the old man felt threatened. In his mind he did, was it just enough to kill a repeat offender? Your courts said no. Here in the states, each state is different. As sad as it might sound, this old man will never feel threatened by this boy again.

You make a good point. If I were to awaken to noises in my apartment, and the first thing I saw was someone in the room with me, I don't know what this person's intentions are. This person may want my TV or this person might want my life. The safest course of action is to assume that this person wants my life and to use the element of surprise to eliminate the threat. It might be a policy of shoot first and ask questions later, but if I feel my life is on the line then it's the policy I choose. And it insures that this person will not be a repeat offender.

Knoweffects · 05-11-2003, 03:33 PM

definately, if you are armed and you see a person, or persons breaking into your house and stealing your posesions, its not so much that there stealing your stuff, for that you could just make them get the hell out, but the fact that you dont now if there armed or not, and you reely dont know how much of a threat they are, you might shoot them and not want to risk finding out if they are armed or not. i mean if you say "hey, get outta my house" they might turn and end your life instead of the opposite. IMO if someone is breaking into your house, there life is worth alot less than yours.

4thTimeLucky · 05-12-2003, 12:35 AM

Isn't the safest course of action to lock yourself in the bathroom with your mobile and ring 911/999? That is what the police in England would advise, and it seems to make intuitive sense. The chances of the intruder being a murderer or kidnapper are far far smaller than the chances of an armed altercation with burglars leading to you getting injured. Lock yourself in the bathroom and you will at worst lose some possessions. Confront them and you may lose your life.

And that is without even considering the fact that the 'lock yourself in the bathroom' scenario will mean the saving of a life at the expense of a few insured and easily replacable household belongings. As icky said earlier. The value of a life is surely higher than the value of a TV (or more strictly, the value of the time it takes to make the insurance claim and choose a new TV).

4thTimeLucky · 05-12-2003, 04:51 AM

Lebell

How do you square this.....

Quote:

Third, I'm VERY glad I live in the US where a) I can own a gun and b) I live in a state where I CAN shoot you in the back if you have broken into my home, where you have no business other than committing a crime.

[Edit> Your argument for shooting burglars.

.... with this .....

Quote:

In my world view, our goal is to reach salvation and oneness with God. We struggle to do that throughout our lives as we fail repeatedly. When a person is executed, there is no more opportunity, no more chance to experience epiphany, to experience the saving grace of God.

[Edit> Your argument for not executing murderers.

Dragonlich · 05-12-2003, 05:48 AM

Oh, that's very simple, 4thtime...

When talking about it (like in this thread), a criminal is an abstract concept: not a human, but a thing, a sub-human. This creature can be shot without regret or remorse, because it's not human, after all. Of course, in reality, the criminal is a human too...

I sometimes think about what I'd do when someone breaks into my home, and the result is usually me sticking a very large knife in the burglar's body, and calling the cops afterwards (which would get me imprisoned, by the way). I have no idea how I'd react in real life, but I imagine I'd be terrified, and hardly able to act. Even if I could act, could I actually *kill* someone?

Let's just hope I never need to test my resolve...

Lebell · 05-12-2003, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 4thTimeLucky
Lebell

How do you square this.....

[Edit> Your argument for shooting burglars.

.... with this .....

[Edit> Your argument for not executing murderers.

Very easily.

When a criminal is a danger to me or my family I have no problem protecting them with deadly force.

A burglar may or may not fall into this catagory, being a completlely unknown quantity. You may be in my house to steal, you may be in my house to kill, you may be in my house to do both.

Do not confuse the second quote of mine with sympathy for criminals. A lot of people grow up in tough neighborhoods or under difficult circumstances and do not turn to crime.

But what I said still holds because once a criminal, especially a murderer, is behind bars, he is no longer a threat to me (assuming that he has been sentenced to life w/o parole). In that case, I think he should be given the opportunity to find salvation for his life and soul if he can. (No one needs to tell me that most won't. I already know that.)

miked10270 · 05-12-2003, 08:44 AM

I must admit that I am with 4thtimelucky here.

The problem is that Martin is "something of a nutter". He'd been burgled before and his reaction was not to improve his home security. Instead he effectively reduced the apparent security of his home to the point where it would prove a tempting target, and to the point where Fearon (I think) wasn't actually charged with burglary but with attempted theft! In effect there was no "break-in". Martin, having already had his right to hold firearms revoked due to previous behaviour then used an illegally held firearm to fatally shoot an intruder IN THE BACK as the intruder was leaving. I doubt that this scenario would even get past the law in Colorado or Texas.

Someone running away from you is not a threat to you! There is no such thing as an aggressive or threatening retreat!

Until Martin shows genuine remorse for his actions then society should be protected from him.

That said, I frankly do not understand the fact in the UK that a criminal in the act of committing a crime (which is surely a major violation of the victim's human rights) should retain his (the criminal's) human rights.

Mike.

Mad_Gecko · 05-12-2003, 11:50 AM

Very interesting thread this is turning out to be.

For me the mitigating circumstance is also the running away. That negates any use of force, shooting someone in the back is highly unreasonable in my opinion. This is where I agree with 4thtimelucky. For me It isn't the fact that he shot burglars, its how he shot them. Which is where our emphasis differs, I think.

If (and I hope this never happens) my flat was burgled and I had access to a pistol (which thanks to the foresight of my govt. I haven't /end sarcasm), it would be the first thing I went for, If upon confronting the burgler he/she turned violent or threatened my family, no hesitation I would pull the trigger. I was also taught from a young age how to shoot and how to be a responsible gun owner, so it would probably be fatal. The difference (IMO) between myself and Tony is he wasn't physically threatened at the time of his pulling the trigger. Thats why he got the time.

As I have stated in a previous post I agree everyone has the right to defend themselves using reasonable force, and I'll make the call at the time i need to use force as to what's reasonable. It will be up to the legal system to say if I was right or wrong.

Quote:

Originally posted by 4thTimeLucky

Examples:
- A man sets a series of near fatal traps (unreasonable force) on their property, intending to inflict debilitating injuries upon trespassers. A person (they could be a burglar or a child fetching their ball) goes on to the property, is injured and is no longer able to walk or work again.

- A black man breaks into a house and is trapped by the owner. The owner then calls the police, who have a grudge against this person also. Both the owners and the police start to beat up the handcuffed offender. (I make him black and involve the police to make analogies with other cases you will be familiar with, where you would probably have no qualms awarding compensation).

Case 1 has two parts easily defined -
a) The person with criminal intent got what he/she deserved and deserves NO compensation. - Outside the Law
b) The person involved in an accident only deserves compensation if there is NO warning given to the type of dangers involved in his/her actions. ie. The dangers should be highlighted clearly at all entrances. this is using your word of Trespass Unlawful interference with another's person, property or rights. (by the way I am not taking into account young children, they would not be expected to pay heed to the warning, and I mean young not 16 yr old kids who know what trespassing is). Setting traps on known ramblers paths or common access land would of course be punishable to the fullest extent of the law.

2. Compensation is warranted but in that situation will be rarely granted. Again I think it was unreasonable force, the threat was over.

Mad_Gecko · 05-12-2003, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 4thTimeLucky
Isn't the safest course of action to lock yourself in the bathroom with your mobile and ring 911/999? That is what the police in England would advise, and it seems to make intuitive sense. The chances of the intruder being a murderer or kidnapper are far far smaller than the chances of an armed altercation with burglars leading to you getting injured. Lock yourself in the bathroom and you will at worst lose some possessions. Confront them and you may lose your life.

And that is without even considering the fact that the 'lock yourself in the bathroom' scenario will mean the saving of a life at the expense of a few insured and easily replacable household belongings. As icky said earlier. The value of a life is surely higher than the value of a TV (or more strictly, the value of the time it takes to make the insurance claim and choose a new TV).

Not applicable in the Tony Martin case. As I've stated before he lived in North Norfolk (I refered to it as Bum Fuck Egypt). The nearest police would have been at least 20-30 miles away and there isn't the greatest coverage there for vodaphone (or any provider). Furthermore this was the fourth time he had been burgled, without receiving aid from the police.

Lebell · 05-12-2003, 11:59 AM

Just to clarify something perhaps lost in this thread:

If I personally saw a kid trying to leave my house in a failed burglarly, I would not shoot him in the back.

If there is one fault I find in Mr. Martin's actions, it's that.

iccky · 05-13-2003, 09:51 AM

Quote:

If I personally saw a kid trying to leave my house in a failed burglarly, I would not shoot him in the back.

And as far as I can tell it would be illegal in colorado too, since the colorado law requires that you

Quote:

reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.

MSD · 05-15-2003, 01:17 PM

I don't think that it is appropriate to use lethal force against an unarmed person who is not attacking you. Non-lethal force is fine. In my opinion, a 50,000+ volt taser is sufficient to deal with unarmed robbers and assailants. If someone is escaping, I don't want him to get away, but I wouldn't feel right shooting him in the back. If he only has a knife, I'd feel better about disabling him than killing him. If he has a gun, then I wouldn't have a problem shooting back or shooting first.

If you're breaking into my house, you should expect to give up some (not all) of your rights.

Dragonlich · 05-15-2003, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrSelfDestruct
If you're breaking into my house, you should expect to give up some (not all) of your rights.

I agree, morally and ethically. However, our Dutch legal system disagrees. Luckily, it's slowly being changed to a more realistic approach to criminals.

Mad_Gecko · 05-19-2003, 01:43 PM

Dragonlich The fuckin' problem is the UK system is changin' in the opposite way.. We're gonna give 'em more rights.. ARGHHHH...

Did the Netherlands legal system give the criminals more rights, and are now restricting them?

Dragonlich · 05-19-2003, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mad_Gecko
Dragonlich The fuckin' problem is the UK system is changin' in the opposite way.. We're gonna give 'em more rights.. ARGHHHH...

Did the Netherlands legal system give the criminals more rights, and are now restricting them?

Well, we certainly never had the right to kill burglars unless it is in self-defense, and there is no other way to safe yourself... The laws are quite strict here, and although the government isn't changing the laws yet, there is a growing number of people here that simply don't understand the whole situation, and do not agree with it. Of course, that depends on how safe one feels, and how often the police/prosecutors fuck up.

Mad_Gecko · 07-30-2003, 01:10 PM

Well, Tony has been let out as of yesterday.

Funny how no-one noticed.

Good on him, he has sold his story to a national newspaper for a few grand.

For a few of u who commented, read his own words.

LINK

Apologies Dragonlich I didn't reply, but I feel after my own experiences with the police\prosecutors they have fucked up too many times already.

Garak · 07-30-2003, 02:04 PM

On the one hand I can see the governments point that every citizen has a basic right to justice, and that by killing someone even in self defence you take away the right of that person and act as the judge jury and executioner.

My personal opinion is this, if someone breaks the law seriously enough, as in breaking into my house, then I believe they forfeit the laws protection when it comes down to it. Also in a situation where someone broke in armed and I managed to subdue them, I would feel scared that the burgalar would come back once they are out of jail for revenge. Especially since now the government in the UK is considering letting first time burgalars off with community service.

In the case of Tony Martin it sickens me to see the law being used to protect the guilty and destroy the innocent,after all I know if someone were to break into my house I'd be scared for myself and my family and I would have no hesitation about blasting them to hell, but now I have the constant worry that if I did I would be the one surving a sentance.

05-11-2003, 12:49 PM	#41 (permalink)
reconmike Thank You Jesus Location: Twilight Zone	4thTimeLucky, Yes I am a retired Marine 20+ years, but what does thatr matter in this instance? __________________ Where is Darwin when ya need him?

05-11-2003, 01:11 PM	#42 (permalink)
4thTimeLucky Psycho Location: 4th has left the building - goodbye folks	reconmike sorry, started post and then realised I had to get the image. hoped no-one would see it in its one-line form. Hope you can see it all now. My point is, that you are a Marine with 20+ years experience. If you were in the case we are discussing you would have been forewarned, armed and ready. You would have been faced with an unarmed, scared 16 year old. When I picture the situation - grown marine with weapon, versus crying sixteen year old - I find it hard to imagine that you would feel threatened. Not all break-ins are threatening. Certainly not to the extent that you would feel the need to shoot the intruder dead. I believe that either Mr.Martin was not scared and acted out of anger at being robbed and racist hatred of Gypsies, or that he was very scared, because he had the mind of a ten year old (as he claimed in his defence). In either case he should not have been arming himself and using a gun. __________________ I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless! Last edited by 4thTimeLucky; 05-11-2003 at 01:17 PM..

05-11-2003, 01:38 PM	#43 (permalink)
reconmike Thank You Jesus Location: Twilight Zone	4thTimeLucky, Now the only thing that bothers me in your statement is the forewarned thing. If I was forewarned no I would not shoot a 16 year old to death, he would get a good ass beating though. But I propose the situation that I awake to noises in my living room, I leave my bedroom armed with my Colt combat .45. As I enter my living room there are 2 intruders one being attacked by my doberman, at this moment do I know if the are armed or not? What if one makes a sudden movement towards me? All I am saying is that no one knows if the old man felt threatened. In his mind he did, was it just enough to kill a repeat offender? Your courts said no. Here in the states, each state is different. As sad as it might sound, this old man will never feel threatened by this boy again. __________________ Where is Darwin when ya need him?

05-11-2003, 03:33 PM	#45 (permalink)
Knoweffects Tilted Location: san marcos CA	definately, if you are armed and you see a person, or persons breaking into your house and stealing your posesions, its not so much that there stealing your stuff, for that you could just make them get the hell out, but the fact that you dont now if there armed or not, and you reely dont know how much of a threat they are, you might shoot them and not want to risk finding out if they are armed or not. i mean if you say "hey, get outta my house" they might turn and end your life instead of the opposite. IMO if someone is breaking into your house, there life is worth alot less than yours. __________________ no h8 only <3

05-12-2003, 12:35 AM	#46 (permalink)
4thTimeLucky Psycho Location: 4th has left the building - goodbye folks	Isn't the safest course of action to lock yourself in the bathroom with your mobile and ring 911/999? That is what the police in England would advise, and it seems to make intuitive sense. The chances of the intruder being a murderer or kidnapper are far far smaller than the chances of an armed altercation with burglars leading to you getting injured. Lock yourself in the bathroom and you will at worst lose some possessions. Confront them and you may lose your life. And that is without even considering the fact that the 'lock yourself in the bathroom' scenario will mean the saving of a life at the expense of a few insured and easily replacable household belongings. As icky said earlier. The value of a life is surely higher than the value of a TV (or more strictly, the value of the time it takes to make the insurance claim and choose a new TV). __________________ I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

05-12-2003, 05:48 AM	#48 (permalink)
Dragonlich 42, baby! Location: The Netherlands	Oh, that's very simple, 4thtime... When talking about it (like in this thread), a criminal is an abstract concept: not a human, but a thing, a sub-human. This creature can be shot without regret or remorse, because it's not human, after all. Of course, in reality, the criminal is a human too... I sometimes think about what I'd do when someone breaks into my home, and the result is usually me sticking a very large knife in the burglar's body, and calling the cops afterwards (which would get me imprisoned, by the way). I have no idea how I'd react in real life, but I imagine I'd be terrified, and hardly able to act. Even if I could act, could I actually kill someone? Let's just hope I never need to test my resolve...

05-12-2003, 08:44 AM	#50 (permalink)
miked10270 Banned Location: Scotland	I must admit that I am with 4thtimelucky here. The problem is that Martin is "something of a nutter". He'd been burgled before and his reaction was not to improve his home security. Instead he effectively reduced the apparent security of his home to the point where it would prove a tempting target, and to the point where Fearon (I think) wasn't actually charged with burglary but with attempted theft! In effect there was no "break-in". Martin, having already had his right to hold firearms revoked due to previous behaviour then used an illegally held firearm to fatally shoot an intruder IN THE BACK as the intruder was leaving. I doubt that this scenario would even get past the law in Colorado or Texas. Someone running away from you is not a threat to you! There is no such thing as an aggressive or threatening retreat! Until Martin shows genuine remorse for his actions then society should be protected from him. That said, I frankly do not understand the fact in the UK that a criminal in the act of committing a crime (which is surely a major violation of the victim's human rights) should retain his (the criminal's) human rights. Mike.

05-12-2003, 11:59 AM	#53 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Just to clarify something perhaps lost in this thread: If I personally saw a kid trying to leave my house in a failed burglarly, I would not shoot him in the back. If there is one fault I find in Mr. Martin's actions, it's that. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

05-15-2003, 01:17 PM	#55 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	I don't think that it is appropriate to use lethal force against an unarmed person who is not attacking you. Non-lethal force is fine. In my opinion, a 50,000+ volt taser is sufficient to deal with unarmed robbers and assailants. If someone is escaping, I don't want him to get away, but I wouldn't feel right shooting him in the back. If he only has a knife, I'd feel better about disabling him than killing him. If he has a gun, then I wouldn't have a problem shooting back or shooting first. If you're breaking into my house, you should expect to give up some (not all) of your rights.

05-19-2003, 01:43 PM	#57 (permalink)
Mad_Gecko Pro Libertate Location: City Gecko	Dragonlich The fuckin' problem is the UK system is changin' in the opposite way.. We're gonna give 'em more rights.. ARGHHHH... Did the Netherlands legal system give the criminals more rights, and are now restricting them? __________________ [color=bright blue]W[/color]e Stick To Glass "If three of us travel together, I shall find two teachers." Confucious

07-30-2003, 01:10 PM	#59 (permalink)
Mad_Gecko Pro Libertate Location: City Gecko	Well, Tony has been let out as of yesterday. Funny how no-one noticed. Good on him, he has sold his story to a national newspaper for a few grand. For a few of u who commented, read his own words. LINK Apologies Dragonlich I didn't reply, but I feel after my own experiences with the police\prosecutors they have fucked up too many times already. __________________ [color=bright blue]W[/color]e Stick To Glass "If three of us travel together, I shall find two teachers." Confucious Last edited by Mad_Gecko; 07-30-2003 at 01:16 PM..

07-30-2003, 02:04 PM	#60 (permalink)
Garak Upright	On the one hand I can see the governments point that every citizen has a basic right to justice, and that by killing someone even in self defence you take away the right of that person and act as the judge jury and executioner. My personal opinion is this, if someone breaks the law seriously enough, as in breaking into my house, then I believe they forfeit the laws protection when it comes down to it. Also in a situation where someone broke in armed and I managed to subdue them, I would feel scared that the burgalar would come back once they are out of jail for revenge. Especially since now the government in the UK is considering letting first time burgalars off with community service. In the case of Tony Martin it sickens me to see the law being used to protect the guilty and destroy the innocent,after all I know if someone were to break into my house I'd be scared for myself and my family and I would have no hesitation about blasting them to hell, but now I have the constant worry that if I did I would be the one surving a sentance.