soubriquet 0 Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 In the Torygraph "A homeowner who confronted an intruder during an alleged burglary could be facing a murder charge after the man died in hospital. Farmer Tony Martin was jailed for shooting dead an intruder in 1999 Tony Martin was jailed for killing an intruder in 1999 The intruder, 43, fell up to 40ft from a fourth floor window after an altercation with the flat's occupant." What absolute borrox. The elf and safety elves are on the job. Criminals must be protected from their victims. Whatever happened to choice? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/09/nintruder209.xml Link to post Share on other sites
me jane 0 Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 What always confuses me is the martial arts law. If you trained and you hurt someone in self defence you are in much more trouble law wise than if you have never studied any. ...and why did the journalist decide to write "Farmer Tony Martin was jailed for shooting dead an intruder in 1999" and then "Tony Martin was jailed for killing an intruder in 1999" on the next line? Link to post Share on other sites
66jzmstr 0 Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 Yeah, that was odd. Maybe the first was a headline and the next was a subheading? Even still, it's not adding much. I did a double take on "fell up to 40 feet". I know what he means, but in no instance should one write "fall up" or "fell up". I thought only Americans and Japanese had bad English. Link to post Share on other sites
soubriquet 0 Posted August 10, 2007 Author Share Posted August 10, 2007 I'm not trying to be confrontiontial me jane, although fatty thinks I am. Martin was hit 4 or 5 times by the same family of burglars. The police and the state did nothing to protect him. When they broke into his home for the fifth time, he was waiting with a shotgun. They went free and he went to jail for murder. Perverse. Link to post Share on other sites
thursday 1 Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 THe burglar fell out of the window, but the home owner didn't bother to call the police. The burglar was found there. Link to post Share on other sites
Tubby Beaver 209 Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 Yeah Soubs, I thought it was shocking when Tony Martin went to jail. Like you say, he had been broken into and harrassed many times before without the Police doing squat, he lived on his own, I'd get the **** gun out and start shooting the Police!! Their own fault, if they hadn't been trying to commit a crime, they wouldn't have been shot. It was similar to those 2 guys that broke into Duncan Ferguson's house in Liverpool, tried to take DF to court after he chased them through his garden naked and punched **** outa one of them!! Luckily it was thrown out, but who gives these people the idea that its them who have been wronged?? You break into my house and I catch, I'm going beat you to within an inch of your life Link to post Share on other sites
me jane 0 Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 Originally Posted By: soubriquet I'm not trying to be confrontiontial me jane, although fatty thinks I am. Perverse. I didn't think you were, I agree with you. It's crazy that people can't defend themselves in a situation like that. The martial arts law is an extension of the same problem. Link to post Share on other sites
me jane 0 Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 Was just thinking that a related issue is the administration of first aid. If you try to help someone and they die or their injuries are long term, you are at risk of getting sued, more so if you are medically trained. Link to post Share on other sites
soubriquet 0 Posted August 10, 2007 Author Share Posted August 10, 2007 Remember, your taxes pay the elfs their salares. Your children will be paying their pensions. They tell us what to do. No travelling in the mountains. Link to post Share on other sites
thursday 1 Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 and then you have the Samaritan law. You just can't win can you. Link to post Share on other sites
Tubby Beaver 209 Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 That doesn't apply in the UK Jane does it?? I'd never heard of that until I came over here and this big obnoxious guy from the US brought it up in training, saying that it was a problem in the US. I didn't realise that we had similar laws Link to post Share on other sites
me jane 0 Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 Yeah, it applies in the UK too. I worked in a pub with a guy who had been on the Olympic karate team and he was paranoid about getting in fights. He's the one who told me about it. Link to post Share on other sites
soubriquet 0 Posted August 10, 2007 Author Share Posted August 10, 2007 Sorry me jane, mis-read your post Link to post Share on other sites
Rag-Doll 0 Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 Guys guys guys guys, it's all about proportionality. Is a human life not worth more than property? Is it reasonable to kill someone because they steal something from you? Is it reasonable to impose or threaten to impose arbitrary capital punishment on someone who is committing a property crime? Force may be used in self defense but it must be proportionate to the level of threat, it's not reasonable to use lethal force to protect private property. You’ll have us back in the ages when land owners thought nothing of shooting poachers or trespassers or a mother stealing to feed her staving children…. A failure of the local authorities to act on petty crime is not justification for imposing capital punishment on someone. Just generally speaking, it is a little incongruous that for some people on the one hand are for equity and equality and charity and human rights etc. (as I think most of us on here are) but on the other be willing to shoot any bastard who infringes their property rights. Link to post Share on other sites
bushpig 0 Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 fair point RD. Link to post Share on other sites
soubriquet 0 Posted August 10, 2007 Author Share Posted August 10, 2007 I don't believe murder is justified for a property crime. However, Martin was not protected by the law. He was driven over the edge by repeated burglaries and the failure of the law to protect him. Breaking into someone's flat carries an unquantifiable risk. Like skiing in an avalanche gulley, if you don't want to take the risk, then don't do it. Caveat emptor. Link to post Share on other sites
soubriquet 0 Posted August 10, 2007 Author Share Posted August 10, 2007 It puts me in mind of something that happened in Texas about 15 years ago. Two young thugs tried to mug a wrinkled old git at knifepoint. It turned out that he was a Vietnam vet who's speciality was taking on the vietcong hand-to-hand in their tunnels. As he disarmed them and cut them up, he was heard to say: "you eff with me, you're effing with death". Link to post Share on other sites
keba 0 Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 In Oz, doctors are protected from litigation by "Good Samaritan" legislation, so that you can't be held responsible for problems that arise if you are acting in good faith to assist someone as a bystander. Unless you are criminally negligent, of course. Otherwise, who would answer the call "Is there a doctor in the house?" Link to post Share on other sites
thursday 1 Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 Knock knock, scues me, anyone home? You wake up, find there is a stranger in your home at the dead of night and what do you think he's there for? House call? You have every right to assume the worst and this person is there to do you the utmost harm. So you protect yourself and your family. Personally I'd like to take out his legs first with a baseball bat and then the arms with a sand wedge. But if he get's killed in the process then what the hell was he doing in my home in the dead of night in the first place. Of course he could've done himself a favour and shout, "I'm only here for the gear", but maybe he broke into a newly arrived immigrant family who wanted to get away from just these situations. Where does it say anywhere that an intruder is by default a petty thief burglar? And that your self defence resulting in an "unfortunate" death is overhanded and should not be given consideration for the terror that the intruder has suddenly thrust upon the inhabitants. Assume at your peril and live with the consequences. Or just simply, by human nature, defend yourselves. Link to post Share on other sites
bushpig 0 Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 Even fairer point thursday. Link to post Share on other sites
Tubby Beaver 209 Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 I stand by my point above that if you break into my place and have the nerve to take what I have worked hard to pay for, then you'd better be willing to take the consequences when caught cos I'm gonna batter the living daylights outa you!! How many ppl here have actually been broken into? I have, once in my house where they stole my video games console, my wee bros hand held one and a bunch of my older brothers designer threads. I've had my shed screwed upteen times, my bike stolen and washing taken from my line. This is nothing about the ACTUAL material things, this is about the cheek of people coming into my domain and doing what they like, **** that!! I have never caught any little bastard who has done it but god help the one who I do cos I reckon he's gonna get a beating for each and every time its happened to me Link to post Share on other sites
Rag-Doll 0 Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 The force you use has to be reasonable in the circumstances. Shooting someone as they are attempting to leave your house is not reasonable. Throwing someone out of a 4th storey window is not reasonable - if you can do that your life is probably not in danger. If you're a 6ft 4 professional boxer being threatened by a drunk of average height and weight, it is not reasonable to beat him to death. You do have a right to defend yourself. The trouble is most of the homeowner-shoots-intruder situations involve someone blazing away without any clear idea of what the threat is or, even worse, blazing away when clearly the intruder is trying to escape - kind of hard running a self defense argument when you've just shot a 15yr old in the back of the head on your front lawn. As a parent I fully agree with the sentiment of using maximum force against any and every threat to my family but it doesn't work that way. Link to post Share on other sites
Tubby Beaver 209 Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 I think we'll have to agree to disagree, although I do concede the examples you give would be considered excessive. I can only talk for me, who isn't a pro boxer, doesn't own agun but will attempt to hit you to within an inch of your life with a golf club or such object if I catch you breaking into my home......so don't!! Link to post Share on other sites
thursday 1 Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 oooh Tubby, I'll stay away from you clothes line, especially the soiled undies. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts