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

Lebell · 05-09-2003, 12:09 PM

If I were an ultra right Christian, I would seriously wonder if we were in the end times, especially when black becomes white and right becomes wrong.

Check it out.

(btw, in Colorado you can be legally killed by the owner of a residence if you break into it.)
------------------------------------------------

STORY HERE

Government lawyers say burglars 'need protection'

By Robert Verkaik, Legal Affairs Correspondent
05 May 2003

Government lawyers trying to keep the Norfolk farmer Tony Martin behind bars will tell a High Court judge tomorrow that burglars are members of the public who must be protected from violent householders.

The case could help hundreds of criminals bring claims for damages for injury suffered while committing offences.

In legal papers seen by The Independent, Home Office lawyers dispute Mr Martin's contention that he poses no risk to the public because he only represents a threat to burglars and other criminals who trespass on his property.

They say: "The suggestion ... that the Parole Board was not required to assess the risk posed by Mr Martin to future burglars or intruders (on the grounds that they do not form part of the public at large) is remarkable."

"It cannot possibly be suggested that members of the public cease to be so whilst committing criminal offences, and whilst society naturally condemns, and punishes such persons judicially, it can not possibly condone their (unlawful) murder or injury."

A recent report by the Law Commission, which advises ministers on proposed changes to the law, argued that judges had been too willing to reject criminals' claims for damages. The commission insisted that "even a criminal who has committed a serious offence" must be allowed to exercise their civil rights. In recent years, the courts have accepted a number of arguments to defeat actions brought by criminals on the basis of the principle that "crime should not pay".

Legal experts say the case for treating criminals as ordinary litigants will have been boosted by the arguments raised by the Home Office lawyers in Martin's case.

But Oliver Letwin, the shadow Home Secretary, said the rights of the victim needed to be addressed. "There certainly seems to be an imbalance [between the householder and burglar] made clear by the fact that burglars can sue for damage done to them in the course of committing a crime. We've put forward an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill which would rebalance the law in the appropriate way."

Norman Brennan, a serving police officer and the director of the Victims of Crime Trust, said that, by committing crime, burglars gave up "any rights". He added: "The public in this country are sick and tired of all these organisations pandering to the offender. Burglary is a despicable offence." He said: "sensible and reasonable" members of the public knew that, when criminal committed crime, they were putting themselves at risk.

Martin, 59, wants the court to order the Parole Board to reconsider its decision that he is not a suitable prisoner for early release. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for murdering 16-year-old Fred Barras at his Norfolk farmhouse, Bleak House, in August 1999 but his conviction was later reduced to manslaughter by the Court of Appeal when he was given a five-year prison sentence.

A second burglar shot by Martin, Brendan Fearon, was granted legal aid to sue him for damages. Fearon's claim was thrown out by Nottingham County Court last month.

Martin's barristers, Bitu Bhalla and Tony Baldry, of One Essex Court chambers in London, will tell the judge tomorrow that their client's application "concerns the liberty of the citizen which is a matter of paramount concern in English law". They will tell Mr Justice Kay that the Parole Board failed to acknowledge the true extent of Martin's remorse or properly consider the risk he posed to the public.

In Martin's application for judicial review, his lawyers argue: "The risk that has to be assessed in Mr Martin's case is any risk of the use of excessive force when he is either burgled or attacked in his home."

Martin's solicitor, James Saunders, says that this risk is significantly diminished since he no longer owns a gun and has agreed to fit an air-raid siren to his home that "could be heard all over the Fens".

The court will decide tomorrow whether to grant Martin a full review hearing. He is due for release at the end of July.

spectre · 05-09-2003, 12:25 PM

I don't know whether to laugh or start banging my head against the wall (probably should do both). If someone breaks into another person's house, they are a threat, and should be handled as such. If that person gets beaten into a coma by a homeowner, it's their own fucking fault for breaking into that person's house.

MrSmashy · 05-09-2003, 12:30 PM

Yeah. There are some real morons who work in these areas of the justice system...in all countries...

hrdwareguy · 05-09-2003, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
(btw, in Colorado you can be legally killed by the owner of a residence if you break into it.)

We have a law like that in Oklahoma as well. It's called the Make My Day law.

Lebell · 05-09-2003, 02:18 PM

Yup, that's what we commonly call ours too.

MrSmashy · 05-09-2003, 02:24 PM

despite the rediculous nicknames that goes with those laws, I can't say I am against them...depending, of course, on the particularities of the legal jargon that make up their actual written body. Still, in principle its not without sense...

mirevolver · 05-09-2003, 03:00 PM

Someone breaks into my place of residence, he's a dead man.

sixate · 05-09-2003, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by spectre
I don't know whether to laugh or start banging my head against the wall

I'm certainly not gonna laugh. This is complete bullshit. If burglars need protection then that means that the innocent victims are not protected. That is fucked up and very wrong!

4thTimeLucky · 05-09-2003, 04:55 PM

Well someone has got to do it, so here goes.....

1) The issue here is whether he deserves to be released early. From what I have read he has shown little remorse and has said he would do the same thing again. Therefore he does not deserve to be released early.

2) Does he deserve to be in prison? Yes. Or at least in a secure hospital. He shot a 16 year old in the back as they were leaving through a window. He also shot a second man as he was leaving. Mr.Martin was also in possession of an illegal firearm, the licence for which had been revoked after he shot at a car. He needlessly and deliberately took the life of another human being and all he will lose in return is a maximum of five years of his freedom, probably less.

Mr. Martin is guilty, guilty, guilty. He may have been a disturbed and angry individual, but that doesn't excuse taking another's life.

maximusveritas · 05-09-2003, 06:09 PM

Good points 4thTimeLucky.
I don't like the way the lawyers phrased it, but we can't allow people like this to think they can go around taking the law into their own hands. If the burglars posed a direct threat to him and he was just defending himself, that would be one thing. But shooting a kid in the back is something else altogether.

sixate · 05-09-2003, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 4thTimeLucky
Well someone has got to do it, so here goes.....

1) The issue here is whether he deserves to be released early. From what I have read he has shown little remorse and has said he would do the same thing again. Therefore he does not deserve to be released early.

2) Does he deserve to be in prison? Yes. Or at least in a secure hospital. He shot a 16 year old in the back as they were leaving through a window. He also shot a second man as he was leaving. Mr.Martin was also in possession of an illegal firearm, the licence for which had been revoked after he shot at a car. He needlessly and deliberately took the life of another human being and all he will lose in return is a maximum of five years of his freedom, probably less.

Mr. Martin is guilty, guilty, guilty. He may have been a disturbed and angry individual, but that doesn't excuse taking another's life.

I don't agree with a single thing you just said. When someone breaks into my home they lost all rights of a citizen who follows the law. If I caught someone leaving my window and I had a gun I would kill their ass too. If I didn't have a gun I'd drag their ass back in my home get a knife and slice their god damn throat! Criminals should be punished not given rights to protect them.

Dragonlich · 05-09-2003, 10:28 PM

What people here don't seem to realize, is this: there's a vast difference between US laws and European laws. In the UK for example, you're usually not allowed to own a gun. And you're usually not allowed to kill intruders, unless they try to kill you first (self-defense rules). Same goes for most of Europe.

And no, I don't agree with it either, nor do many other members of the public. But we're led by left-wing people; compared to US politicians, that'd be extreme left-wing, almost communist guys. The people in power (and most intellectuals) believe everyone has human rights, including criminals, and that nobody is allowed to infringe on those rights. It's slowly starting to change because of some serious persistent problems with a small number of repeat offenders, some as young as 13... Hugging and helping them doesn't seem to work.

Anyway, prosecutors tend to emphasize the dangers of playing your own judge, and always demand high penalties for it. Judges seem to turn around, though: last week, a jeweler here was sentenced to pretty much nothing for shooting someone that just robbed his store and was now running away; he got punished for illegal firearms possession, not for the shooting (which was ruled self-defense).

So, Sixate, if you were living in Europe, and do what you say you'd do to a burglar... you'd likely be thrown in jail for years to come, unless you have a *very* sympathetic judge.

Lebell · 05-09-2003, 10:53 PM

Dragonlich,

All of what you say is true....unfortunately.

First I consider it a crime that Britain has disarmed its citizens.

Second, I consider it a crime that people cannot defend their property, including their homes.

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.

And like Sixate, I disagree with every single word 4thTimeLucky said. As for showing remorse, for what? Shooting a 16 year old criminal who has broken into your home? More shame to Britain for the fact that this kid and his friends KNEW that the odds were greatly in their favor for at most a scolding in a court of law and not getting shot at by the homeowner.

Dragonlich · 05-10-2003, 12:08 AM

Lebell, you do realize it works both ways, don't you? If everyone carries guns, criminals will carry them too. If people regularly shoot burglars, criminals will shoot more easily too.

In the Netherlands, deaths during a burglary are almost unheard of. I don't know the numbers for the US, but I assume they'd be higher. I could be wrong, of course...

Don't bash the British system until you've lived there, dude. It's a different society, with a different value system, and a very different view of justice. Some would argue that your system is barbaric and way too violent.

Lebell · 05-10-2003, 12:41 AM

Dragonlich,

I'm well aware of what you say.

In a recent study, over 50% of criminals interviewed in prison stated that the number one thing they feared was getting shot by a home owner.

Also, London now surpasses New York in terms of violent crime.

While I know there is a component of being comfortable with what you grew up with, even examing other countries and their systems, I'm still of the opinion that the original story is completely fuxored.

I mean really, a guy can't even protect his own property? No, you'll never convince me that's ok.

(sorry, it's late. If you want me to post links, let me know. Going to bed now.)

4thTimeLucky · 05-10-2003, 02:38 AM

- "a guy can't protect his own property?"... Sure they can. They can have locks on the doors, security lights, security cameras, dogs even security guards if you want them.

- Dragonlich is right about the arms thing. Arming yourself becomes an escalating thing, until you have a country awash with them. If you are a gun owning owning family you double the chances of your family suffering a gun-related death. They don't protect they put you in danger.

- And what's with this idea that as soon as you do something wrong (trespass or burglary) you suddenly lose all your rights and its okay for Sixate or Tony Martin to start their (seemingly premeditated) killing or torture spree!!

Quote:

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men,

I don't agree with the God part of the above, but it clearly states that these rights are unalienable. But, you cry, surely the robber is taking away your rights to happiness and liberty! Yes, and the next line tells you who resolves these conflicts and secures your rights - the Government. Not any crackpot with a gun and a chip on their shoulder.

- This was a 16 year old with their whole life ahead of them. They broke the law, sure. But who here hasn't broken the law? It doesn't mean that lying in wait in your home with a gun until someone illegally enters and then killing them in cold blood as they leave can ever be right.

One day you may have a kid of 16. And one day they may decide that they need the thrill or the money that breaking into another's property can give. Imagine you could decide right now whether your son was allowed to leave empty handed and be arrested or was fatally shot in the back. Which would you honestly choose?

Lebell · 05-10-2003, 09:05 AM

Quote:

It doesn't mean that lying in wait in your home with a gun until someone illegally enters and then killing them in cold blood as they leave can ever be right.

If you can write this and not see the fundamental wrongness in it, I don't see that we can agree.

Perhaps Tony Martin was overzealous, perhaps not. But all the arguements you are throwing at me do not change the basic facts. A couple of CRIMINALS decided that Mr. Martin was an easy VICTIM and decided to rob him. Mr. Martin defended his property, which I and many on this side of the pond applaud him for.

Now Britain has made Mr. Martin the criminal for his "cheek" in wanting to be secure in his home and now makes a CRIMINAL the VICTIM. After all the 16 year old CRIMINAL has his whole life ahead of him (during which he can commit more CRIMES) while the VICTIM is just an old 'crackpot'.

I hope you do not personally experience the rising crime rate of muggings, assaults and rapes in England by CRIMINALS who care not one wit about your "Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness". Even worse, I hope that you, the VICTIM do not dare to fight back, least you become a CRIMINAL.

Maybe you can hire a security guard.

Poor me, I can't afford a security guard. I can afford a Kel Tec 9mm however. (Which strangely enough has killed anyone in my family.)

God made Men, but Samuel Colt made them equal. Even young criminals and old victims.

Dragonlich · 05-10-2003, 09:33 AM

Lebell, I don't think we can ever agree either. The reason is that you and me grew up in totally different societies, with totally different rules.

In my society, violence is wrong, no matter who it is directed at. The government has a monopoly of violence, legally speaking: they are the only ones allowed to use violence against anyone. The rest of us just have to sit back and hope for the best.

Generally speaking, this hasn't been a problem in the past. However, there's a growing realization that the police isn't doing enough to stop crime, nor can they ever do enough. That means we're at the mercy of criminals. That is something I do worry about. That does not mean that I would find it acceptable if people kill any and all intruders; if I can scare burglars away with my (illegal) knife, or if I can incapacitate them legally (self-defense), I can call the police, and they'll deal with it.

I trust my government to protect me when needed, and I trust them not to abuse their powers. After all, I have no reason whatsoever to believe they cannot be trusted... I think that if you had grown up here, or even if you were to live here for a few years, you'd agree with me. Now, that outlook is the result of a life without guns, and a life without fear of violence. I do not *need* to defend myself, because there is hardly anything to defend myself against; and I certainly do not need to defend myself with a firearm, when my fists or a knife (or baseball bat) will do just fine.

Lebell · 05-10-2003, 09:59 AM

Dragonlich,

I think we understand each other even if we don't agree.

I would like to say that contrary to what some of our brothers over on your side believe, Americans are generally not a 'fearful' people, at least not as I see it.

I don't walk out the door or around the lake expecting to be attacked. Nor do I spend nights craddling my pistol, staring at the front door just waiting for home invaders or burglars to "plug".

But what I do recognize is something you mentioned yourself. We're at the mercy of criminals.

To me, this means you have two choices. You can adapt a sheep mentality and hope that the size of the flock can save you by making it statistically less likely that the wolf will pick on you or you can grow teeth so that if the wolf DOES pick you, you have a chance and can fight back.

There was a court ruling a few years back that is often tossed around gun circles. I forget the exact details, but the heart of it was that the police do NOT have a legal obligation to protect citizens (I recall that someone was sueing the police for failure to respond to a 911 call).

Think about it.

The police aren't obligated to protect you. Not to mention, if they are busy, they might take quite a while to respond.

So no, I don't wholly rely on my government to protect me. Nor (given past indiscretions), do I trust them always to not abuse their powers. We have laws that say they can't, but governments are made up of very fallible human beings, and that means that some are good, and some are not.

While you worry about being at the mercy of criminals, I worry about being at the mercy of my government.

Strange isn't it? You grew up with your system and accept it as the right one, while I've done the same. Yet they are very very different.

Mad_Gecko · 05-10-2003, 01:47 PM

Dragonlich, Lebell very interesting arguments.

4thtimelucky get the facts please. Tony Martin had been robbed by these specific individuals at least once before. He had also been robbed four times inclusive up to this point. The people convicted of this crime have 114 convictions for various offences at the time of writing.

Tony Martin lives in rural East Anglia, the equivalent of Bum Fuck Egypt for you yanks, in my home town the police station closes at 8pm (BFE). He did not have the option to call the local sherriff. He had to protect his land the only way he could.

For anyone who says that he was wrong to protect his livelyhood, I only have two words for you. One of them is a repeat of the last word in the first sentance of this paragraph.

4thTimeLucky · 05-10-2003, 04:02 PM

Mad_Grecko

I am fully aware of the facts thank you, and don't believe I have used any facts that you have contradicted.

"He had to protect his land the only way he could".
The facts of the case are that he had already protected his land.
The burglars were fleeing through a window to escape empty handed. Barras was shot in the back. Barras begged not to be shot saying, "I'm sorry. Please don't. Mum."
Martin did not need to kill to protect his land and killing was not "the only way".

Lebell

The world does not divide so neatly into VICTIMS and CRIMINALS. Nor is one group always in the right and the other always in the wrong.
In the law the CRIMINAL does have diminished rights and the VICTIM has the right to defend themselves with "reasonable force". What Martin did was deemed unreasonable by a court jury. He was therefore also a CRIMINAL and the murdered intruder a VICTIM.

Martin's own defence claimed that he had a "paranoid personality disorder", that this 54-year old man considered himself to be ten years of age and that he was traumatised by sexual abuse as a child. He brought a 4 foot Teddy Bear to court every day. He had previously used guns in violent incidents in the past and had lost his licence because of it. He hated thieves and Gypsies with an abnormal intensity.
None of this changes his rights, but it gives you an insight into the mind of a man who set booby traps in his house, slept fully dressed and with a shotgun, who went downstairs when he heard people (Gypsies as it happened) breaking in, ignored their pleas not to be shot and then killed one of them as they were running away.

It seems that you are saying that decisions of justice, law and order, life and death, should lie with a man who was mentally disturbed. I cannot agree with that.

Oh, and violent crime is on the decline in England. I believe it fell by 2% in 2002. Overall crime fell 9%.

Lebell · 05-10-2003, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 4thTimeLucky
Lebell

The world does not divide so neatly into VICTIMS and CRIMINALS. Nor is one group always in the right and the other always in the wrong.

It doesn't?

4thtimelucky get the facts please. Tony Martin had been robbed by these specific individuals at least once before. He had also been robbed four times inclusive up to this point. The people convicted of this crime have 114 convictions for various offences at the time of writing.

Quote:

In the law the CRIMINAL does have diminished rights and the VICTIM has the right to defend themselves with "reasonable force". What Martin did was deemed unreasonable by a court jury. He was therefore also a CRIMINAL and the murdered intruder a VICTIM.

More the pity that England has decided a criminal has rights that trump a victim when they break into a home. As I've stated, if Mr. Martin lived in one of several US states there would have been no charges brought.

Quote:

Martin's own defence claimed that he had a "paranoid personality disorder", that this 54-year old man considered himself to be ten years of age and that he was traumatised by sexual abuse as a child. He brought a 4 foot Teddy Bear to court every day. He had previously used guns in violent incidents in the past and had lost his licence because of it. He hated thieves and Gypsies with an abnormal intensity.

Not relevant to this discussion. Maybe he has mental problems, maybe he doesn't. That doesn't mean punks and thugs have the right to terrorize him, in or out of his home.

Quote:

None of this changes his rights, but it gives you an insight into the mind of a man who set booby traps in his house, slept fully dressed and with a shotgun, who went downstairs when he heard people (Gypsies as it happened) breaking in, ignored their pleas not to be shot and then killed one of them as they were running away.

The only thing I see is the shame of a nation that fails to protect its citizens by punishing punks like these and that disarms its citizens, calling them "criminals" if they dare stand up for themselves.

Quote:

It seems that you are saying that decisions of justice, law and order, life and death, should lie with a man who was mentally disturbed. I cannot agree with that.

You have missed the point. What I have consistently said is that when you break into another person's home uninvited with criminal intent, you should be prepared to pay with your life.

Quote:

Oh, and violent crime is on the decline in England. I believe it fell by 2% in 2002. Overall crime fell 9%.

Good!

Because things haven't been looking so good in England lately:

------------------------------------

A Quarter of English are Victims of Crime

By Sean O'Neill
London Telegraph

PEOPLE living in England and Wales are at greater risk of falling victim to crime than citizens of most other industrialised nations, according to a study published yesterday.

The International Crime Victims Survey, based on 34,000 telephone interviews across 17 countries, found that 26 per cent of people - more than one in four - in England and Wales had been victims of crime in 1999. The figure for Scotland was 23 per cent and in Northern Ireland 15 per cent.

Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, said the research confirmed previous evidence "that levels of victimisation are higher than in most comparable countries for most categories of crime". Mr Straw said that although the police and other agencies were working hard to reduce crime, "no one should be under any illusions about the challenges ahead".

England and Wales were second only to Australia in the examination of "victimisation rates", details of which appeared in the Economist. There was a downward trend in crime levels from previous surveys in 1991 and 1999. People in England and Wales were at greater risk than anywhere else of having their cars stolen: 2.6 per cent fell victim to vehicle theft.

The average rate was 1.2 per cent and the Japanese were least likely to have their cars stolen with a victim rate of just 0.1 per cent. Theft from cars was highest in Poland, where nine per cent of people had items stolen from their vehicles. In England and Wales the level was eight per cent.

The percentage of the population which suffered "contact crime" in England and Wales was 3.6 per cent, compared with 1.9 per cent in the United States and 0.4 per cent in Japan. Burglary rates in England and Wales were also among the highest recorded. Australia (3.9 per cent) and Denmark (3.1 per cent) had higher rates of burglary with entry than England and Wales (2.8 per cent).

The risk of robbery was comparatively low in all the countries surveyed. Highest rates were in Poland, where 1.8 per cent of the population said they had been robbed in 1999, followed by Australia and England and Wales (both 1.2 per cent). By far the lowest robbery risks were in Japan and Northern Ireland (both 0.1 per cent)

After Australia and England and Wales, the highest prevalence of crime was in Holland (25 per cent), Sweden (25 per cent) and Canada (24 per cent). The United States, despite its high murder rate, was among the middle ranking countries with a 21 per cent victimisation rate.

Portugal, Japan and Northern Ireland, each with 15 per cent, recorded the lowest overall victimisation rates in the survey which was conducted by Leiden University in Holland and published by the Dutch justice ministry.

Mad_Gecko · 05-10-2003, 05:30 PM

4thtrimelucky

You have not contradicted any of my points.

These "people" were convicted criminals. They breached Tony's 4th bill of rights (The right to the people to be free of unreasonable search and seizures of their property), these RGHTS are not applicable to MR. Martin in what way? In the same way they are NOT applicable to you and your family? Dunno 'bout you but some fucker break in my home he/she is dead! Give or take a few inches if I'm drunk.

I would be very interested in how you could defend these criminals (remember they had between them 114 convictions).

smooth · 05-10-2003, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mad_Gecko
They breached Tony's 4th bill of rights (The right to the people to be free of unreasonable search and seizures of their property), these RGHTS are not applicable to MR. Martin in what way?

Assuming England's citizens are protected by the "4th bill of rights," the right "to be free of unreasonable search and seizures of their property" wouldn't apply to Mr. Martin's scenario since that right specifically pertains to unlawful or unreasonable search and seizures via government entities.

Mad_Gecko · 05-10-2003, 05:40 PM

lebell

Gotta say, yes car theft is up in England, but that's mainly due to us not havin' adequate (sp?) defences. Lo~Jack aint the big deal here yet..

Yep, "contact crime" is also high, but we run less risk of getting shot for our troubles. So we are more likely to offer someone outside for a bit of a scrap.

In my area we also run a higher risk of getting mugged, and shot, but not the sort of risk I ran livin' in north Dade.
Generally we are more violent but in a less fatal way. 'Cept for some gangsters (gettin' more yardies now).

Mad_Gecko · 05-10-2003, 05:46 PM

smooth As I was taught they were man's inalienable (sp?) rights. Not governed by any body or person. I could be wrong, anyone disagree?
EDIT:
I'd go so far as to say "A man's home is his Castle"

And UK citizens at this moment have NO "Bill of Rights ' 'xcept the Magna Carta, my argument rests solely on the basis of fact.

- Two lads broke into his home for the second time and he had the means to protect it. He used it, no bad IMHO, and the yanks should have nothin' to say about it, cause these rights are fundemental to your law. I want my law to change. I want the right to bear arms, and I want the right to defend my home!

smooth · 05-10-2003, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mad_Gecko
smooth As I was taught they were man's inalienable (sp?) rights. Not governed by any body or person. I could be wrong, anyone disagree?
EDIT:
I'd go so far as to say "A man's home is his Castle"

And UK citizens at this moment have NO "Bill of Rights ' 'xcept the Magna Carta, my argument rests solely on the basis of fact.

- Two lads broke into his home for the second time and he had the means to protect it. He used it, no bad IMHO, and the yanks should have nothin' to say about it, cause these rights are fundemental to your law. I want my law to change. I want the right to bear arms, and I want the right to defend my home!

As a US citizen you've got me on the point that we _claim_ to hold certain rights to be universally applicable. Some people, like me, actually attempt to uphold that claim. That particular reference, however, only applies to the relationship between people and their government--not between citizens.

Common law determines and is the foundation for civil and criminal regulations between citizens.

You might find it interesting that our Bill of Rights actually stemmed from England's Bill of Rights. (here's a copy)

While there isn't a mention of unlawful searches and seizures (that came later to protect government officials and not, as popularly assumed, to protect the citizens) there is a mention of the right to bear arms for self defense. Looks like you've got a bone to pick with the crown

as to where the hell that right went!

edit: oops--that "right" is only for Protestants! Isn't Martin a Catholic?

Quote:

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

reconmike · 05-10-2003, 06:30 PM

An intruder in my house would recieve this statement from me:

Would you like to use my phone, because I think you need to cancel christmas.

Now in Jersey I would have to retreat all the way to my bedroom before I can legally use deadly force, this would give the intruder ample time to leave my house while I was trying to cower to my room. Well cowering has never been one of my strong suits, so I am pretty sure that said intruder will never be intruding again.

iccky · 05-11-2003, 12:26 AM

Lets just state this really simply so that maybe I can understand where the vigilantes on this board are coming from.

You think that an intruder's life is worth less then your television, or whatever they happen to be taking?

Whatever dispicable trash that human being is, I think a life is always more valuable then a television set.

No one's attackign your right to self-defense, and if you feel threatened with just cause then obviouslly you have a right to defend yourself. But until you can convince me that a television is worth more then a human life I'm gonna have to go with the british lawyer on this one.

iccky · 05-11-2003, 12:31 AM

Quote:

If I were an ultra right Christian, I would seriously wonder if we were in the end times, especially when black becomes white and right becomes wrong.

I just had to say something about this. Did't christ teach us to turn the other cheek? If an ocuppying soldier makes you carry his pack one mile carry it two and all that. Jesus would probablly say give him your TV set, and while your at it your car and stereo and pray for him and love him.

I'm not terribly religious but if you study Christianity you realize how much the original message gets twisted by the so called christian right.

4thTimeLucky · 05-11-2003, 04:23 AM

You have the right to defend yourself. Of course. BUT with "reasonable force".

What you guys seem to be talking about is a mixture of self defence and self-administered justice. 'These were bad CRIMINALS and deserved to die'. Personally I find the death penalty to be abhorrent when there is a judge, jury, evidence and avenues of appeal. When the death penalty is being administered on the spot by angry/disturbed individuals then I find it even more terrible.

If however you deny this and say it is just about self defence, then you cannot say that Mr.Martin didn't go too far. He had defended himself, the robbers were fleeing and were begging for their lives. At that point he was safe. But then (or probably many years earlier) he made the judgement that these people deserved to die for their crimes and executed them. No judge, no jury, no right of appeal. That is what the court decided in this case and that is the conclusion that I too reach. Such actions are, IMHO, inexcusable.

Mad_Gecko · 05-11-2003, 05:34 AM

smooth
Thanks, I'll have a read of those rights when I haven't got a hangover.

Your absolutely right that I have a bone to pick with the crown. I have had the fortune to live for some time in both UK and US, and many of my ideas stem from this cross breed.

/no reply to iccky shakes head, smiles

4thtimelucky can't argue the point that he used unreasonable force, he's in jail for it as he should be. I am arguing that he had the right to defend his home and livelyhood. Especially as this was a second incident caused by these individuals. I believe the appellate court saw my point when they reduced an overly harsh life term to five years. (My interpretation of that particular ruling). His lawyers state that he will not be a danger because he now does not own a gun. They also go on to state he will now be installing an air raid siren. Ingenious way to deafen a would be intruder. And if it happened again I would defend this man's and every person's right to defend themselves.

Furthermore that these criminals should have any rights over Mr. Martin's property is absolutely laughable. As stated in the original article they gave up their rights when they committed the offence. I believe that in ye olden days they would have been referred to as Outlaws (one living outside the law).

recomike That made me laugh, "cancel christmas", brilliant.

4thTimeLucky · 05-11-2003, 06:01 AM

Mad-Gecko
So do you think it was right that Mr.Martin went to jail?

My argument is:
i) Every person has a right to defend themselves using only reasonable force.
ii) A person who uses unreasonable force to defend themselves should be punished.
iii) Mr. Martin used unreasonable force to defend himself.
iv) A prisoner who threatens to act in the same way again and show no repentance or remorse, you should not get parole.
v) Mr.Martin has said he would do the same again (despite the air raid siren stuff) and shows no repentence or remorse.
ii + iii) Mr.Martin should be punished/ in prison.
iv + v) Mr.Martin should not be released early.

Tried to make that a nice bit of predicate logic for you. So the floor is open to say which of my premises (i to v) you disagree with, or you can challenge whether the conclusions follow from the premises.

If logic isn't your cup of tea, then consider your argument that burglars give up their rights when they commit the offence. I have some questions for you:

1) Which crimes mean you lose your rights? Murder, theft, fraud, speeding, jay walking....
2) Do you always lose all of your rights when you commit these crimes?
3) If you do lose your right to life, then can anyone kill you (presumably yes as you're are an 'outlaw') or do you only lose your right to life in regard to your victim?
4) Is this lose of rights time limited? Can Mr.Martin trap the burglar and then torture them for the rest of their life? If not, then how many hours/days/weeks do you lose your rights for?
5) What if two people both commit crimes in regard to each other, do you both lose all rights or does the right-losing cancel itself out?
6) Assuming you are not killed, when do you regain your rights? When you leave the house? When you leave the property? When you return everything you've stolen?

I have a few more questions on your theory, but I think six is enough for now.

I look forward to hearing your answers.

PLEASE NOTE: This is not just intended for Mad_Gecko. Every one of you who believe that Mr.Martin and anyone else has the right to kill intruders should be able to say what is wrong with my argument at the top of this page and then answer the questions at the bottom. If you find the argument solid, or some of the questions silly, then maybe it is because your position is silly and that something as fundemantal as the right to life is not something you lose when you try to steal something as trivial as a piece of furniture.

Mad_Gecko · 05-11-2003, 07:05 AM

i-iii - Agree, and decision was upheld by the judge. In relation to myself, I'll be the one who decides what reasonable force is at the time, and the Judge will be the one to decide if I was right (or Jury).

iv. In self defence cases is this applicable?

v, Mr. Martin is absolutely right to show no indication that he will not protect himself again. According to point i. he has that right to defend himself.

It won't be up to us to judge when he is released from prison, ultimately that is down to the legal system.

re: your points 1-6 -
"Furthermore that these criminals should have any rights over Mr. Martin's property is absolutely laughable"

So the perpetrators of this crime are entitled to compensation?

Furthermore if you think my position is "silly" why bother wasting time trying to argue against it?

4thTimeLucky · 05-11-2003, 07:48 AM

Mad_Gecko

Thanks for replying. I'm glad to see we agree on points i-iii. There are some on this thread who do not.

Then there is (iv) and (v). I take you aren't disagreeing with (v) as Mr.Matin's position is stated fact. What you disagree with is (iv). Yet I think you'll find we may agree even on this.
Point (iv) sates - A prisoner who has been found guilty of X and then shows no remorse for X and threatens to do X again should not be released on parole.
What Mr.Martin did (his X) was use unreasonable force in executing Barras. He has shown no remorse for this X and he has said that put in the same position again he would do the same again - i.e. he is still threatening to break the law once more and be a repeat offender.
I have no problem with him saying he will defend himself, but that is a different claim, that is Y. What I have a problem with is him threatening to do X again.
Have I brought you with me on this one?

Compensation?
You may know this already, but I am staunchly against a compensation culture and have argued against it on a number of threads (McDonalds, the valedictorian girl and 9-11 victims).
Therefore I am not in favour of frivilous law suits about losing sexual performance because you were shot at by an angry farmer (as happened in this case).
There are two options open to a person with my beliefs.
1) Say that I have no problem with trespassers and burglars locing their right to compensation, but not their right to life.
2) Say that in certain circumstances bruglars have the right to sue.

Choosing (1) would be a hellof a lot easier in this conservative crowd and given my dislike of litigation, but I am going to say (2).

So here goes: In certain circumstances people who are injured as a result of their offences have a right to compensation. Whether compensation is due must be decided in a court of law.

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).

I hope that this answers your question.

I think, Mad_Gecko that we are not so far apart in our views, but may differ in emphasis.

What I am really interested to know is whether any of those who claimed that a robber loses their right to life will step forward and challenge my seven step argument or my six questons.

Lebell · 05-11-2003, 09:47 AM

4thTimeLucky,

It's impossible to have a discussion when the parties involved cannot agree on the basis of discussion.

Quote:

i) Every person has a right to defend themselves using only reasonable force.

In this specific case and in this specific context, you say that shooting burglars in your home is unreasonable while I say it is reasonable.

I don't really see that further progress can be made.

From the State of Colorado's Revised Statutes:
---------------------------------------------------------

18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.

Statute text

(1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.

(3) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.

(4) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.

History
Source: L. 85: Entire section added, p. 662, § 1, effective June 6.

4thTimeLucky · 05-11-2003, 10:49 AM

Lebell

You may well be right, but at least I know where you stand on this and which premise you disagree with.

It does not surprise me that a US state has denied the right to life for burglars, but I still find it hard to stomach. It seems so alien to me that people would place the right to "absolute safety within your home" - where the threat is described as anything, "no matter how slight" to your safety - above the right to life of an individual, even if they are a CRIMINAL. I see it as being on a par with the simplistic and brutal legal systems that cut off the hands of offenders to stop them posing a threat to anyone's safety in the future and to deter other offenders. They have in effect removed the "reasonableness" that is so central to English justice.

Maybe we can at least agree to disagree on this and consider each other's view to be bizarre, but not ridiculous.

Daval · 05-11-2003, 10:57 AM

Wow, i thought only in the US would such rubbish make it through the court system. I thought the British had more sense.

reconmike · 05-11-2003, 12:23 PM

4thTimeLucky,
I will reply to your statements,
i) what is reasonable force? not shooting to kill? how about a good maiming?
ii) how is it if this man has been terrorized by these same people before he was just doing what it took to insure it did not happen again.
iii)sorry but he defended himself the best way he knew how, this 16 year old will never break into his home again, will he? I would sayt that is the perfect defense.

iv and v) ofcourse he has no remorse he did what he believed would stop the intrusions and it did, I would have no remorse either.

you lose you right to live if you;
1. break into my home while I am at home. I will feel threatened and will defend myself by killing you, hence making sure you will never come looking for me again.

2. Jay walk in front of me while I am traveling at over 50 mph, because I am not going to die trying to swerve to aviod hitting your dumb ass for walking in front of me.

3. Murder is an easy one, automatic, you lose your right to live.

4thTimeLucky · 05-11-2003, 12:41 PM

reconmike

If I remember correctly you were/are in the military.

Scenario:
You are expecting an intruder, have set traps and have armed yourself.
The intruder breaks in.
You go downstairs to confront them.
You are faced by a unarmed, 16 year old kid who looks like this:

You raise your gun at the kid.
He looks terrified.
He pleads with you, "I'm sorry. Please don't. Mum."
He turns to run away and is half way out of the window.

Are you really saying that you would feel threatened by this unarmed, petrified, fleeing, boy. Or that the right course of action is to shoot this kid in the back? I may be wrong, but I would have thought that military honour, and indeed the honour of any decent human being who placed value upon human life, would tell you not to pull the trigger.

With the best parenting in the world, that boy's face could be your son, my son or anyone here's son. If they did break into a stranger's house I wouldn't want them to escape justice, but I would be heart-broken and enraged if they had been cold-bloodedly killed because of it.

05-09-2003, 12:09 PM	#1 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Britain says "Burglars Need Protection" <or> The lunatics Have taken Over the Asylum If I were an ultra right Christian, I would seriously wonder if we were in the end times, especially when black becomes white and right becomes wrong. Check it out. (btw, in Colorado you can be legally killed by the owner of a residence if you break into it.) ------------------------------------------------ STORY HERE Government lawyers say burglars 'need protection' By Robert Verkaik, Legal Affairs Correspondent 05 May 2003 Government lawyers trying to keep the Norfolk farmer Tony Martin behind bars will tell a High Court judge tomorrow that burglars are members of the public who must be protected from violent householders. The case could help hundreds of criminals bring claims for damages for injury suffered while committing offences. In legal papers seen by The Independent, Home Office lawyers dispute Mr Martin's contention that he poses no risk to the public because he only represents a threat to burglars and other criminals who trespass on his property. They say: "The suggestion ... that the Parole Board was not required to assess the risk posed by Mr Martin to future burglars or intruders (on the grounds that they do not form part of the public at large) is remarkable." "It cannot possibly be suggested that members of the public cease to be so whilst committing criminal offences, and whilst society naturally condemns, and punishes such persons judicially, it can not possibly condone their (unlawful) murder or injury." A recent report by the Law Commission, which advises ministers on proposed changes to the law, argued that judges had been too willing to reject criminals' claims for damages. The commission insisted that "even a criminal who has committed a serious offence" must be allowed to exercise their civil rights. In recent years, the courts have accepted a number of arguments to defeat actions brought by criminals on the basis of the principle that "crime should not pay". Legal experts say the case for treating criminals as ordinary litigants will have been boosted by the arguments raised by the Home Office lawyers in Martin's case. But Oliver Letwin, the shadow Home Secretary, said the rights of the victim needed to be addressed. "There certainly seems to be an imbalance [between the householder and burglar] made clear by the fact that burglars can sue for damage done to them in the course of committing a crime. We've put forward an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill which would rebalance the law in the appropriate way." Norman Brennan, a serving police officer and the director of the Victims of Crime Trust, said that, by committing crime, burglars gave up "any rights". He added: "The public in this country are sick and tired of all these organisations pandering to the offender. Burglary is a despicable offence." He said: "sensible and reasonable" members of the public knew that, when criminal committed crime, they were putting themselves at risk. Martin, 59, wants the court to order the Parole Board to reconsider its decision that he is not a suitable prisoner for early release. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for murdering 16-year-old Fred Barras at his Norfolk farmhouse, Bleak House, in August 1999 but his conviction was later reduced to manslaughter by the Court of Appeal when he was given a five-year prison sentence. A second burglar shot by Martin, Brendan Fearon, was granted legal aid to sue him for damages. Fearon's claim was thrown out by Nottingham County Court last month. Martin's barristers, Bitu Bhalla and Tony Baldry, of One Essex Court chambers in London, will tell the judge tomorrow that their client's application "concerns the liberty of the citizen which is a matter of paramount concern in English law". They will tell Mr Justice Kay that the Parole Board failed to acknowledge the true extent of Martin's remorse or properly consider the risk he posed to the public. In Martin's application for judicial review, his lawyers argue: "The risk that has to be assessed in Mr Martin's case is any risk of the use of excessive force when he is either burgled or attacked in his home." Martin's solicitor, James Saunders, says that this risk is significantly diminished since he no longer owns a gun and has agreed to fit an air-raid siren to his home that "could be heard all over the Fens". The court will decide tomorrow whether to grant Martin a full review hearing. He is due for release at the end of July. __________________ "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!

05-09-2003, 12:25 PM	#2 (permalink)
spectre Junkie	I don't know whether to laugh or start banging my head against the wall (probably should do both). If someone breaks into another person's house, they are a threat, and should be handled as such. If that person gets beaten into a coma by a homeowner, it's their own fucking fault for breaking into that person's house. __________________ "Fuck these chains No goddamn slave I will be different" ~ Machine Head

05-09-2003, 02:18 PM	#5 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Yup, that's what we commonly call ours too. __________________ "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!

05-09-2003, 03:00 PM	#7 (permalink)
mirevolver Inspired by the mind's eye. Location: Between the darkness and the light.	Someone breaks into my place of residence, he's a dead man. __________________ Aside from my great plans to become the future dictator of the moon, I have little interest in political discussions.

05-09-2003, 04:55 PM	#9 (permalink)
4thTimeLucky Psycho Location: 4th has left the building - goodbye folks	Well someone has got to do it, so here goes..... 1) The issue here is whether he deserves to be released early. From what I have read he has shown little remorse and has said he would do the same thing again. Therefore he does not deserve to be released early. 2) Does he deserve to be in prison? Yes. Or at least in a secure hospital. He shot a 16 year old in the back as they were leaving through a window. He also shot a second man as he was leaving. Mr.Martin was also in possession of an illegal firearm, the licence for which had been revoked after he shot at a car. He needlessly and deliberately took the life of another human being and all he will lose in return is a maximum of five years of his freedom, probably less. Mr. Martin is guilty, guilty, guilty. He may have been a disturbed and angry individual, but that doesn't excuse taking another's life. __________________ I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

05-09-2003, 12:30 PM	#3 (permalink)
MrSmashy Crazy Location: Soviet Canukistan	Yeah. There are some real morons who work in these areas of the justice system...in all countries...

05-09-2003, 02:24 PM	#6 (permalink)
MrSmashy Crazy Location: Soviet Canukistan	despite the rediculous nicknames that goes with those laws, I can't say I am against them...depending, of course, on the particularities of the legal jargon that make up their actual written body. Still, in principle its not without sense...

05-09-2003, 06:09 PM	#10 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	Good points 4thTimeLucky. I don't like the way the lawyers phrased it, but we can't allow people like this to think they can go around taking the law into their own hands. If the burglars posed a direct threat to him and he was just defending himself, that would be one thing. But shooting a kid in the back is something else altogether.

05-09-2003, 10:28 PM	#12 (permalink)
Dragonlich 42, baby! Location: The Netherlands	What people here don't seem to realize, is this: there's a vast difference between US laws and European laws. In the UK for example, you're usually not allowed to own a gun. And you're usually not allowed to kill intruders, unless they try to kill you first (self-defense rules). Same goes for most of Europe. And no, I don't agree with it either, nor do many other members of the public. But we're led by left-wing people; compared to US politicians, that'd be extreme left-wing, almost communist guys. The people in power (and most intellectuals) believe everyone has human rights, including criminals, and that nobody is allowed to infringe on those rights. It's slowly starting to change because of some serious persistent problems with a small number of repeat offenders, some as young as 13... Hugging and helping them doesn't seem to work. Anyway, prosecutors tend to emphasize the dangers of playing your own judge, and always demand high penalties for it. Judges seem to turn around, though: last week, a jeweler here was sentenced to pretty much nothing for shooting someone that just robbed his store and was now running away; he got punished for illegal firearms possession, not for the shooting (which was ruled self-defense). So, Sixate, if you were living in Europe, and do what you say you'd do to a burglar... you'd likely be thrown in jail for years to come, unless you have a very sympathetic judge.

05-09-2003, 10:53 PM	#13 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Dragonlich, All of what you say is true....unfortunately. First I consider it a crime that Britain has disarmed its citizens. Second, I consider it a crime that people cannot defend their property, including their homes. 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. And like Sixate, I disagree with every single word 4thTimeLucky said. As for showing remorse, for what? Shooting a 16 year old criminal who has broken into your home? More shame to Britain for the fact that this kid and his friends KNEW that the odds were greatly in their favor for at most a scolding in a court of law and not getting shot at by the homeowner. __________________ "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!

05-10-2003, 12:08 AM	#14 (permalink)
Dragonlich 42, baby! Location: The Netherlands	Lebell, you do realize it works both ways, don't you? If everyone carries guns, criminals will carry them too. If people regularly shoot burglars, criminals will shoot more easily too. In the Netherlands, deaths during a burglary are almost unheard of. I don't know the numbers for the US, but I assume they'd be higher. I could be wrong, of course... Don't bash the British system until you've lived there, dude. It's a different society, with a different value system, and a very different view of justice. Some would argue that your system is barbaric and way too violent.

05-10-2003, 12:41 AM	#15 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Dragonlich, I'm well aware of what you say. In a recent study, over 50% of criminals interviewed in prison stated that the number one thing they feared was getting shot by a home owner. Also, London now surpasses New York in terms of violent crime. While I know there is a component of being comfortable with what you grew up with, even examing other countries and their systems, I'm still of the opinion that the original story is completely fuxored. I mean really, a guy can't even protect his own property? No, you'll never convince me that's ok. (sorry, it's late. If you want me to post links, let me know. Going to bed now.) __________________ "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!

05-10-2003, 09:33 AM	#18 (permalink)
Dragonlich 42, baby! Location: The Netherlands	Lebell, I don't think we can ever agree either. The reason is that you and me grew up in totally different societies, with totally different rules. In my society, violence is wrong, no matter who it is directed at. The government has a monopoly of violence, legally speaking: they are the only ones allowed to use violence against anyone. The rest of us just have to sit back and hope for the best. Generally speaking, this hasn't been a problem in the past. However, there's a growing realization that the police isn't doing enough to stop crime, nor can they ever do enough. That means we're at the mercy of criminals. That is something I do worry about. That does not mean that I would find it acceptable if people kill any and all intruders; if I can scare burglars away with my (illegal) knife, or if I can incapacitate them legally (self-defense), I can call the police, and they'll deal with it. I trust my government to protect me when needed, and I trust them not to abuse their powers. After all, I have no reason whatsoever to believe they cannot be trusted... I think that if you had grown up here, or even if you were to live here for a few years, you'd agree with me. Now, that outlook is the result of a life without guns, and a life without fear of violence. I do not need to defend myself, because there is hardly anything to defend myself against; and I certainly do not need to defend myself with a firearm, when my fists or a knife (or baseball bat) will do just fine.

05-10-2003, 09:59 AM	#19 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Dragonlich, I think we understand each other even if we don't agree. I would like to say that contrary to what some of our brothers over on your side believe, Americans are generally not a 'fearful' people, at least not as I see it. I don't walk out the door or around the lake expecting to be attacked. Nor do I spend nights craddling my pistol, staring at the front door just waiting for home invaders or burglars to "plug". But what I do recognize is something you mentioned yourself. We're at the mercy of criminals. To me, this means you have two choices. You can adapt a sheep mentality and hope that the size of the flock can save you by making it statistically less likely that the wolf will pick on you or you can grow teeth so that if the wolf DOES pick you, you have a chance and can fight back. There was a court ruling a few years back that is often tossed around gun circles. I forget the exact details, but the heart of it was that the police do NOT have a legal obligation to protect citizens (I recall that someone was sueing the police for failure to respond to a 911 call). Think about it. The police aren't obligated to protect you. Not to mention, if they are busy, they might take quite a while to respond. So no, I don't wholly rely on my government to protect me. Nor (given past indiscretions), do I trust them always to not abuse their powers. We have laws that say they can't, but governments are made up of very fallible human beings, and that means that some are good, and some are not. While you worry about being at the mercy of criminals, I worry about being at the mercy of my government. Strange isn't it? You grew up with your system and accept it as the right one, while I've done the same. Yet they are very very different. __________________ "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!

05-10-2003, 01:47 PM	#20 (permalink)
Mad_Gecko Pro Libertate Location: City Gecko	Dragonlich, Lebell very interesting arguments. 4thtimelucky get the facts please. Tony Martin had been robbed by these specific individuals at least once before. He had also been robbed four times inclusive up to this point. The people convicted of this crime have 114 convictions for various offences at the time of writing. Tony Martin lives in rural East Anglia, the equivalent of Bum Fuck Egypt for you yanks, in my home town the police station closes at 8pm (BFE). He did not have the option to call the local sherriff. He had to protect his land the only way he could. For anyone who says that he was wrong to protect his livelyhood, I only have two words for you. One of them is a repeat of the last word in the first sentance of this paragraph. __________________ [color=bright blue]W[/color]e Stick To Glass "If three of us travel together, I shall find two teachers." Confucious

05-10-2003, 04:02 PM	#21 (permalink)
4thTimeLucky Psycho Location: 4th has left the building - goodbye folks	Mad_Grecko I am fully aware of the facts thank you, and don't believe I have used any facts that you have contradicted. "He had to protect his land the only way he could". The facts of the case are that he had already protected his land. The burglars were fleeing through a window to escape empty handed. Barras was shot in the back. Barras begged not to be shot saying, "I'm sorry. Please don't. Mum." Martin did not need to kill to protect his land and killing was not "the only way". Lebell The world does not divide so neatly into VICTIMS and CRIMINALS. Nor is one group always in the right and the other always in the wrong. In the law the CRIMINAL does have diminished rights and the VICTIM has the right to defend themselves with "reasonable force". What Martin did was deemed unreasonable by a court jury. He was therefore also a CRIMINAL and the murdered intruder a VICTIM. Martin's own defence claimed that he had a "paranoid personality disorder", that this 54-year old man considered himself to be ten years of age and that he was traumatised by sexual abuse as a child. He brought a 4 foot Teddy Bear to court every day. He had previously used guns in violent incidents in the past and had lost his licence because of it. He hated thieves and Gypsies with an abnormal intensity. None of this changes his rights, but it gives you an insight into the mind of a man who set booby traps in his house, slept fully dressed and with a shotgun, who went downstairs when he heard people (Gypsies as it happened) breaking in, ignored their pleas not to be shot and then killed one of them as they were running away. It seems that you are saying that decisions of justice, law and order, life and death, should lie with a man who was mentally disturbed. I cannot agree with that. Oh, and violent crime is on the decline in England. I believe it fell by 2% in 2002. Overall crime fell 9%. __________________ I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless! Last edited by 4thTimeLucky; 05-10-2003 at 04:06 PM..

05-10-2003, 05:30 PM	#23 (permalink)
Mad_Gecko Pro Libertate Location: City Gecko	4thtrimelucky You have not contradicted any of my points. These "people" were convicted criminals. They breached Tony's 4th bill of rights (The right to the people to be free of unreasonable search and seizures of their property), these RGHTS are not applicable to MR. Martin in what way? In the same way they are NOT applicable to you and your family? Dunno 'bout you but some fucker break in my home he/she is dead! Give or take a few inches if I'm drunk. I would be very interested in how you could defend these criminals (remember they had between them 114 convictions). __________________ [color=bright blue]W[/color]e Stick To Glass "If three of us travel together, I shall find two teachers." Confucious

05-10-2003, 05:40 PM	#25 (permalink)
Mad_Gecko Pro Libertate Location: City Gecko	lebell Gotta say, yes car theft is up in England, but that's mainly due to us not havin' adequate (sp?) defences. Lo~Jack aint the big deal here yet.. Yep, "contact crime" is also high, but we run less risk of getting shot for our troubles. So we are more likely to offer someone outside for a bit of a scrap. In my area we also run a higher risk of getting mugged, and shot, but not the sort of risk I ran livin' in north Dade. Generally we are more violent but in a less fatal way. 'Cept for some gangsters (gettin' more yardies now). __________________ [color=bright blue]W[/color]e Stick To Glass "If three of us travel together, I shall find two teachers." Confucious

05-10-2003, 05:46 PM	#26 (permalink)
Mad_Gecko Pro Libertate Location: City Gecko	smooth As I was taught they were man's inalienable (sp?) rights. Not governed by any body or person. I could be wrong, anyone disagree? EDIT: I'd go so far as to say "A man's home is his Castle" And UK citizens at this moment have NO "Bill of Rights ' 'xcept the Magna Carta, my argument rests solely on the basis of fact. - Two lads broke into his home for the second time and he had the means to protect it. He used it, no bad IMHO, and the yanks should have nothin' to say about it, cause these rights are fundemental to your law. I want my law to change. I want the right to bear arms, and I want the right to defend my home! __________________ [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; 05-10-2003 at 06:02 PM..

05-10-2003, 06:30 PM	#28 (permalink)
reconmike Thank You Jesus Location: Twilight Zone	An intruder in my house would recieve this statement from me: Would you like to use my phone, because I think you need to cancel christmas. Now in Jersey I would have to retreat all the way to my bedroom before I can legally use deadly force, this would give the intruder ample time to leave my house while I was trying to cower to my room. Well cowering has never been one of my strong suits, so I am pretty sure that said intruder will never be intruding again. __________________ Where is Darwin when ya need him?

05-11-2003, 12:26 AM	#29 (permalink)
iccky Psycho Location: Princeton, NJ	Lets just state this really simply so that maybe I can understand where the vigilantes on this board are coming from. You think that an intruder's life is worth less then your television, or whatever they happen to be taking? Whatever dispicable trash that human being is, I think a life is always more valuable then a television set. No one's attackign your right to self-defense, and if you feel threatened with just cause then obviouslly you have a right to defend yourself. But until you can convince me that a television is worth more then a human life I'm gonna have to go with the british lawyer on this one.

05-11-2003, 04:23 AM	#31 (permalink)
4thTimeLucky Psycho Location: 4th has left the building - goodbye folks	You have the right to defend yourself. Of course. BUT with "reasonable force". What you guys seem to be talking about is a mixture of self defence and self-administered justice. 'These were bad CRIMINALS and deserved* to die'. Personally I find the death penalty to be abhorrent when there is a judge, jury, evidence and avenues of appeal. When the death penalty is being administered on the spot by angry/disturbed individuals then I find it even more terrible. If however you deny this and say it is just* about self defence, then you cannot say that Mr.Martin didn't go too far. He had defended himself, the robbers were fleeing and were begging for their lives. At that point he was safe. But then (or probably many years earlier) he made the judgement that these people deserved to die for their crimes and executed them. No judge, no jury, no right of appeal. That is what the court decided in this case and that is the conclusion that I too reach. Such actions are, IMHO, inexcusable. __________________ I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

05-11-2003, 05:34 AM	#32 (permalink)
Mad_Gecko Pro Libertate Location: City Gecko	smooth Thanks, I'll have a read of those rights when I haven't got a hangover. Your absolutely right that I have a bone to pick with the crown. I have had the fortune to live for some time in both UK and US, and many of my ideas stem from this cross breed. /no reply to iccky shakes head, smiles 4thtimelucky can't argue the point that he used unreasonable force, he's in jail for it as he should be. I am arguing that he had the right to defend his home and livelyhood. Especially as this was a second incident caused by these individuals. I believe the appellate court saw my point when they reduced an overly harsh life term to five years. (My interpretation of that particular ruling). His lawyers state that he will not be a danger because he now does not own a gun. They also go on to state he will now be installing an air raid siren. Ingenious way to deafen a would be intruder. And if it happened again I would defend this man's and every person's right to defend themselves. Furthermore that these criminals should have any rights over Mr. Martin's property is absolutely laughable. As stated in the original article they gave up their rights when they committed the offence. I believe that in ye olden days they would have been referred to as Outlaws (one living outside the law). recomike That made me laugh, "cancel christmas", brilliant. __________________ [color=bright blue]W[/color]e Stick To Glass "If three of us travel together, I shall find two teachers." Confucious

05-11-2003, 06:01 AM	#33 (permalink)
4thTimeLucky Psycho Location: 4th has left the building - goodbye folks	Mad-Gecko So do you think it was right that Mr.Martin went to jail? My argument is: i) Every person has a right to defend themselves using only reasonable force. ii) A person who uses unreasonable force to defend themselves should be punished. iii) Mr. Martin used unreasonable force to defend himself. iv) A prisoner who threatens to act in the same way again and show no repentance or remorse, you should not get parole. v) Mr.Martin has said he would do the same again (despite the air raid siren stuff) and shows no repentence or remorse. ii + iii) Mr.Martin should be punished/ in prison. iv + v) Mr.Martin should not be released early. Tried to make that a nice bit of predicate logic for you. So the floor is open to say which of my premises (i to v) you disagree with, or you can challenge whether the conclusions follow from the premises. If logic isn't your cup of tea, then consider your argument that burglars give up their rights when they commit the offence. I have some questions for you: 1) Which crimes mean you lose your rights? Murder, theft, fraud, speeding, jay walking.... 2) Do you always lose all of your rights when you commit these crimes? 3) If you do lose your right to life, then can anyone kill you (presumably yes as you're are an 'outlaw') or do you only lose your right to life in regard to your victim? 4) Is this lose of rights time limited? Can Mr.Martin trap the burglar and then torture them for the rest of their life? If not, then how many hours/days/weeks do you lose your rights for? 5) What if two people both commit crimes in regard to each other, do you both lose all rights or does the right-losing cancel itself out? 6) Assuming you are not killed, when do you regain your rights? When you leave the house? When you leave the property? When you return everything you've stolen? I have a few more questions on your theory, but I think six is enough for now. I look forward to hearing your answers. PLEASE NOTE: This is not just intended for Mad_Gecko. Every one of you who believe that Mr.Martin and anyone else has the right to kill intruders should be able to say what is wrong with my argument at the top of this page and then answer the questions at the bottom. If you find the argument solid, or some of the questions silly, then maybe it is because your position is silly and that something as fundemantal as the right to life is not something you lose when you try to steal something as trivial as a piece of furniture. __________________ I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless! Last edited by 4thTimeLucky; 05-11-2003 at 06:07 AM..

05-11-2003, 07:05 AM	#34 (permalink)
Mad_Gecko Pro Libertate Location: City Gecko	i-iii - Agree, and decision was upheld by the judge. In relation to myself, I'll be the one who decides what reasonable force is at the time, and the Judge will be the one to decide if I was right (or Jury). iv. In self defence cases is this applicable? v, Mr. Martin is absolutely right to show no indication that he will not protect himself again. According to point i. he has that right to defend himself. It won't be up to us to judge when he is released from prison, ultimately that is down to the legal system. re: your points 1-6 - "Furthermore that these criminals should have any rights over Mr. Martin's property is absolutely laughable" So the perpetrators of this crime are entitled to compensation? Furthermore if you think my position is "silly" why bother wasting time trying to argue against it? __________________ [color=bright blue]W[/color]e Stick To Glass "If three of us travel together, I shall find two teachers." Confucious

05-11-2003, 07:48 AM	#35 (permalink)
4thTimeLucky Psycho Location: 4th has left the building - goodbye folks	Mad_Gecko Thanks for replying. I'm glad to see we agree on points i-iii. There are some on this thread who do not. Then there is (iv) and (v). I take you aren't disagreeing with (v) as Mr.Matin's position is stated fact. What you disagree with is (iv). Yet I think you'll find we may agree even on this. Point (iv) sates - A prisoner who has been found guilty of X and then shows no remorse for X and threatens to do X again should not be released on parole. What Mr.Martin did (his X) was use unreasonable force in executing Barras. He has shown no remorse for this X and he has said that put in the same position again he would do the same again - i.e. he is still threatening to break the law once more and be a repeat offender. I have no problem with him saying he will defend himself, but that is a different claim, that is Y. What I have a problem with is him threatening to do X again. Have I brought you with me on this one? Compensation? You may know this already, but I am staunchly against a compensation culture and have argued against it on a number of threads (McDonalds, the valedictorian girl and 9-11 victims). Therefore I am not in favour of frivilous law suits about losing sexual performance because you were shot at by an angry farmer (as happened in this case). There are two options open to a person with my beliefs. 1) Say that I have no problem with trespassers and burglars locing their right to compensation, but not their right to life. 2) Say that in certain circumstances bruglars have the right to sue. Choosing (1) would be a hellof a lot easier in this conservative crowd and given my dislike of litigation, but I am going to say (2). So here goes: In certain circumstances people who are injured as a result of their offences have a right to compensation. Whether compensation is due must be decided in a court of law. 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). I hope that this answers your question. I think, Mad_Gecko that we are not so far apart in our views, but may differ in emphasis. What I am really interested to know is whether any of those who claimed that a robber loses their right to life will step forward and challenge my seven step argument or my six questons. __________________ I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless! Last edited by 4thTimeLucky; 05-11-2003 at 07:51 AM..

05-11-2003, 10:49 AM	#37 (permalink)
4thTimeLucky Psycho Location: 4th has left the building - goodbye folks	Lebell You may well be right, but at least I know where you stand on this and which premise you disagree with. It does not surprise me that a US state has denied the right to life for burglars, but I still find it hard to stomach. It seems so alien to me that people would place the right to "absolute safety within your home" - where the threat is described as anything, "no matter how slight" to your safety - above the right to life of an individual, even if they are a CRIMINAL. I see it as being on a par with the simplistic and brutal legal systems that cut off the hands of offenders to stop them posing a threat to anyone's safety in the future and to deter other offenders. They have in effect removed the "reasonableness" that is so central to English justice. Maybe we can at least agree to disagree on this and consider each other's view to be bizarre, but not ridiculous. __________________ I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

05-11-2003, 10:57 AM	#38 (permalink)
Daval Junkie Location: The True North Strong and Free!	Wow, i thought only in the US would such rubbish make it through the court system. I thought the British had more sense. __________________ "It is impossible to obtain a conviction for sodomy from an English jury. Half of them don't believe that it can physically be done, and the other half are doing it." Winston Churchill

05-11-2003, 12:23 PM	#39 (permalink)
reconmike Thank You Jesus Location: Twilight Zone	4thTimeLucky, I will reply to your statements, i) what is reasonable force? not shooting to kill? how about a good maiming? ii) how is it if this man has been terrorized by these same people before he was just doing what it took to insure it did not happen again. iii)sorry but he defended himself the best way he knew how, this 16 year old will never break into his home again, will he? I would sayt that is the perfect defense. iv and v) ofcourse he has no remorse he did what he believed would stop the intrusions and it did, I would have no remorse either. you lose you right to live if you; 1. break into my home while I am at home. I will feel threatened and will defend myself by killing you, hence making sure you will never come looking for me again. 2. Jay walk in front of me while I am traveling at over 50 mph, because I am not going to die trying to swerve to aviod hitting your dumb ass for walking in front of me. 3. Murder is an easy one, automatic, you lose your right to live. __________________ Where is Darwin when ya need him?

05-11-2003, 12:41 PM	#40 (permalink)
4thTimeLucky Psycho Location: 4th has left the building - goodbye folks	reconmike If I remember correctly you were/are in the military. Scenario: You are expecting an intruder, have set traps and have armed yourself. The intruder breaks in. You go downstairs to confront them. You are faced by a unarmed, 16 year old kid who looks like this: You raise your gun at the kid. He looks terrified. He pleads with you, "I'm sorry. Please don't. Mum." He turns to run away and is half way out of the window. Are you really saying that you would feel threatened by this unarmed, petrified, fleeing, boy. Or that the right course of action is to shoot this kid in the back? I may be wrong, but I would have thought that military honour, and indeed the honour of any decent human being who placed value upon human life, would tell you not to pull the trigger. With the best parenting in the world, that boy's face could be your son, my son or anyone here's son. If they did break into a stranger's house I wouldn't want them to escape justice, but I would be heart-broken and enraged if they had been cold-bloodedly killed because of it. __________________ I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless! Last edited by 4thTimeLucky; 05-11-2003 at 12:56 PM..