JURIES - Not boaty

[byron]

Juries, where do they find them? I mean, bearing that the geezer just out of Nick was originally found guilty of Murder (it was a Court that reduced it to Manslaughter). Even if the 16 year old copped it in the back, so what? In a million years I would have never agreed a 'Guilty' verdict had I been a Juror. Similarly when you see a Woman charged with having sex with say a 14 year old boy. Jeeze! she should receive an MBE for services to the community. When I was 14 I would have given up my Paper Round money for such an experience. This was something I would dream about and discuss with other school friends. Such ladies are a credit to society. All IMHO of course but I would like the views of others.

<hr width=100% size=1>http://www.alexander-advertising.co.uk

 

[Dave_Snelson]

Byron - you could get Kimmerised for this, but lets see how far it runs anyway.

It has been suggested that the jury was nobbled by friends and relatives of the toe-rag that bought it.

We live in the most *insane* country on the planet. If such a thing as a central position exist, we are as far toward the opposite end of the spectrum from America with its gun culture.

Oddly enough, I have done jury service for an alledged rape which in which the guy was acquitted (and rightly so) - and that was an education!

I can see some mileage in your further discussions on women etc. A lad I went to school with was involved in just such an encounter. How jealous were all his class mates including me!!

<hr width=100% size=1>Madoc Yacht Club
<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.madocyachtclub.co.uk>http://www.madocyachtclub.co.uk</A>

 

[tripleace]

defend yourself against a thug 3 years in jail

steal off a widow - (see gibbs thread) - sorry, I mean borrow money for almost two years - no action.


<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.boating-ads.co.uk> Boating Website</A>

 

[jhr]

Byron, got to disagree with you about this.

I was a juror on a murder trial last autumn and (without going into the details of our deliberations, which we're not supposed to do) the judge spent a great deal of time explaining the difference between murder and manslaughter. The crucial point being whether or not the accused had "murder in his mind" and had acted deliberately when he killed. Tony Martin was waiting in the dark, with a loaded gun, and shot someone in the back, presumably whilst they were trying to get away. In the face of that evidence it seems to me that a murder conviction was the only one the jury could bring in. An appeal then produced the evidence (not presented to the original jury) of a paranoid personality disorder which meant, quite rightly, that the verdict was reduced to manslaughter.

None of this detracts from the fact that the burglars were thieving lowlife scumbags, and that Tony Martin's life had been made a misery by them, but I don't think it was a reasonable reaction to kill one of them, albeit that a fair degree of "reasonable force" would have been appropriate. I find the whole process of trying to turn him into a hero a bit disturbing, to be honest.

I am going now, as I have an appointment for a flameproof suit fitting......



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Tiger Rag]

Couldn't agree more, what I find strange is the fixation about the little t###er being shot in the back, would everyone have supported Mr Martin if he had shot him in the chest? Just seems a little hypocritical, either you agree he had every right to defend his home (as I do) or you don't. Pedantics regarding which way he was facing are to my mind irrelevant.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BarryH]

Its a joke. I'll let people burgle my house and rape the wife while I sit by shall I. Its a natural reaction to protect your property. What juries can never do is experience the feelings and emotions that he would have gone thru. Especially as his life had been affected over a period of time by theses people.

What makes it even more laughable is that the surviving pikey got leagal aid to take martin to court for compensation. Sorry, but if you enter someone elses property with a view to burgle etc, then you loose the right of the normal law abiding citizen. All IMHO, of course...........bloody nanny state!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Bejasus]

What makes it even more laughable is that the surviving pikey

He was also given remission for his latest exploits, which was repeatedly refused to Tony Martin. The Prison Service boss should now be replaced ASAP and Mr. Blunkett needs to take a serious look(sic) at his latest proposals.
Personally speaking, I have been burgled twice, and believe me, if I come across an oik the next time, I have a baseball bat with his name on it. There are lots of marshes and pigs around here.
......now where did I leave that tin helmet???

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.arweb.co.uk/argallery/h00>http://www.arweb.co.uk/argallery/h00</A>

 

[Chris_d]

Hear Hear, thank god we have justice system that doesn't bow to media pressure and public opinion, but establishes the facts and forms a judgement. There are always 2 sides to story.

getting ready to duck too....

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tripleace]

I agree with Byron.

You try and steal from a persons home and you get whats coming.


If you don't want to get hurt don't steal.

I wonder how many times Tony Martin will be burgled in the future!!!!!




<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.boating-ads.co.uk> Boating Website</A>

 

[ari]

I think there is more to this than meets the eye. Without being at the trial it's very hard to form a proper opinion.

However there does seem to me to be a basic principle which is how can someone so blatantly and knowingly break the law (ie breaking into someones house, not something you can do accidently) and then expect the law to be on their side in the event of things turning sour?

I cant help feeling that if people deliberately act completely outside of the law then they should immediately forfeit the right to the laws protection.

Simply put, if you want the law on your side then you should operate within it, not break the law and then complain when someone retaliates in a way the is also outside the law.

Simplistic I know, and no doubt there are lots of reasons why in practice this might not work, but it just gets my goat when people break the law, then expect it to protect them whilst they are doing it!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ari]

I think Tripleace has just summed up my above post even better!! :-D

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[whisper]

Totally agree, in the circumstances presented to the court at the time, Murder was the only verdict possible. If we think this is wrong then we must persuade the Government to change the law with regard to the specific rights of burglars "on a job". Personally, I'd have shot the creature in the leg, after asking him to turn around please. I do believe that such people should lose some of their rights in these situations.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[TomIsitt]

Isn't this all about "appropriate" response? Taking someone's life because they're trying to steal your possessions is insane. A life in exchange for a VCR or a TV? Would we condone a newsagent beating a kid to death because he stole some chewing gum from his shop? I've been burgled twice, and although it's not nice, I didn't feel inclined to anything other than give the little toe-rags a slap.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ccscott49]

Whilst I have every sympathy with the man, you cannot in a reasonable society, take a gun to somebody and kill them, it is just not acceptable behaviour. Unless you are defending your life or your kins life and use the same force as the assailant has. Defending property just doesn't cut it. IMHO. Now beating the living daylights out of em' thats acceptable.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tripleace]

agreed, but

1. I believe he was on his own
2. There were 2 of them
3. Farm house dark, at night, I'd be S%^t scared just on my own let alone with two unknown thiefs, possibly armed.


Its a case of the situation and what was right for the situation.

Nice thought to shout out " go away I have a gun" but i'm sure by doing that he was thinking that the two noises he heard could have been a whole clan....

In the situation I think we would all think, better I'm safe ..... "bang"..... oh yes I'm safe....

ps I don't have a gun or ever want to own one so, in my case it would be a bat or boat hook.


<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.boating-ads.co.uk> Boating Website</A>

 

[ari]

Call me simplistic but...

If you don't want to get shot, don't break into peoples houses!!!!

Yes of course shooting burglars is inappropriate and over the top, but they shouldn't and didn't have to be there in the first place.

I stuggle with the concept that someone can break the law so flagrantly, and then say "You can't do that to me, it's against the law". So is breaking into the bloody house!

All I'm saying is, don't break the law and then expect the law to stand up for you, it's immoral.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ccscott49]

What about human rights? Even a burglar has human rights and believe me I am no bleeding heart liberal, my politics are a little right wing of Genghis Khan.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tr7v8]

He was trying to shot him in the legs thats where Fearon got his. However what he didn't know was that the 16 year old was kneeling or had bent down, thats why he got hit in the back.
This is about 5 miles from where my mother lives and the police control is in Norwich, basically you don't expect a response......
Oh and a copper comment to my mother, if he'd shot the other one (dead) and buried them in the land with the JCB he'd have saved us a lot of work! And no one would have missed them.

<hr width=100% size=1>Jim

Draco 2500

 

[ari]

Surely their victim has rights too? They have the right not to have their house broken into and the intruder has the right not to be shot.

The intruder is happy to forfiet the home-owners rights so should take the forfeit of his own rights as part of that. Why should he expect his rights to be upheld when he's not prepared to uphold anothers rights?

After all, the home owner had no choice whether or not to be put in that situation, the intruder had every choice.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tripleace]

yes they have rights but should they???

surely anyone involved in a crime should depending on the crime have a decreased right to human rights.



<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.boating-ads.co.uk> Boating Website</A>