JURIES - Not boaty

[tripleace]

Re: On the other hand

you mean get some money for all those things that can't be replaced.

example: Wedding photos worth say one roll of fim and a nice book to put them in. all thats required is a time machine...

How much is a good nights sleep worth if you have been burgled a few times


Better crime is stopped than insure and then have to pay higher premiums next year.

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

 

[BarryH]

Re: On the other hand

Unfortunatly thats the sad messed up world we live in. Common sense has been thrown out the window. Everyone want to "sue the arse" off of everyone else at the drop of a hat. It was expected, when I was young, that if you did something wrong you'd get punished. If you got caught scrumping the farmer would give you a wallop. If all the burglers are taking out lawsuits against their victims, I'll think I'll give up my job and turn to crime. Keep a lookout for a Jolly Roger in the Solent area. It'll be fair warning for you that I'm coming to earn a few 'bob guv'ner!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Richard_Blake]

I think you've stated the central issue here, clearly - although our conclusions might be different. Deciding to rob someone (for example) is deciding to violate THEIR human rights. I would argue that by making that decision and carrying it out you lose some of yours. Which ones? Which crime? Who decides? We have discussions like this and gradually a combination of informed and public opinion produces legislation. Imprisonment is itself a violation of human rights unless the victim has committed a crime. Which crime leads (for example) to imprisonment varies between societies and between centuries. The fierceness of this discussion at the moment perhaps shows that something is out of balance, and that our approach must change, or at least be adjusted. New definitions? New guidelines? More talk of human rights to make things personal - to make it clear to criminals that they are violating ours? I don't know. The discussion is necessary - even if it goes over the top now and then.
Thinking about this in personal terms - as I grow older I am less instinctively confident in my ability to physically protect myself or those close to me. If I was forced to do so, I would react, I think, far more fiercely than 20 years ago - one chance to hit him, no chance to run away, must make sure he doesn't get up. Split second stuff. What if I do serious damage? How do I stand in court? Yes, I think this is all worth talking about, on a boating forum or wherever.

<hr width=100% size=1>LowTech

 

[Duster]

Very much agree with you on both topics , on the first (Tony Martin ) I can not think of anyone I know who would convict a homeowner for shooting a theiving didicoy. I would not mind a bit more wild west justice - they had a saying in early Texas " we do not hang people for stealing horses - we hang them so that horses will not be stolen"
On the second topic -as a teenager I day dreamed of meeting Mrs Robinson (or similar ) after seeing The Graduate, still do come to think about it!!

Regards mikej


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tripleace]

brilliant...

yes agree 100%

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

 

[pheran]

Bloody Hell Byron. See what you've started now? Intellectual debate on MoBoChat. Whatever next /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

But I'm with Colin and Tom on this. In law , the response has to be not only appropriate but also proportionate. Which Martin's clearly wasn't. We certainly expect that in sentencing otherwise there would still be public hangings of small boys for stealing a loaf of bread!

<hr width=100% size=1><font color=blue>A hangover is just the Wrath of Grapes</font color=blue>

 

[duncan]

I am probably wrong but I thought the key in Martin's case was that he stood by his decision to shoot, with the intention of serious injury or death rather than in defence of himself at that point. All this because of what he was being put though in the longer term, rather than as 'appropriate or necessary defensive force at that precise moment.
I am sure the facts will be cut and pasted in here shortly!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BrendanS]

That's one of the key issues in the case to my mind. Not that he used unreasonable force at a moment in time, but that he was expecting to be burgled and persecuted. Many sleepless nights.

We allow asylum seekers entry to the country for reasons of fear of, or actual persecution, with which I am in total agreement, but don't protect people in this country who live in similar fear.

Expect some new laws, once TM gets on the media circuit, as I believe there is going to be a huge public response.

<hr width=100% size=1>Err, let me know if Depsol enters the forum, I'll go and hide

 

[Lynda]

You're quite right, this was I believe the central cause of his original conviction for murder. Personally, I detest violence of any kind, but most particularly that which is perpetrated by use of weapons - guns especially. However, when confronted two years ago by an intruder coming through our bedroom window at 4am (knowing we were in there) - I can honestly say that my fear was so great at that precise time, if someone had put a gun in my hand I don't believe I would have fired it in the air.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tripleace]

well said Lynda,

thats the whole point.

weeks of fear because of previous thefts and at the moment of being confronted he made a decision.


"Tony Martin for Home Secretary" can you imagine the debates in the house of commons with a 12 bore slung under his arm

or star in Terminator 4

"I'll be back"


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

 

[Bejasus]

I think the important thing here is not to gratify or condem what Tony Martin did, but to look at what the current society has reduced us to. An honest person works hard to be able to reap the rewards he seeks in life. A dishonest person seeks to obtain what the honest man has by theft or ruse. Society now sees as wrong, the right of an individual to protect his family and investments. You cannot tell when a burglar, who in the middle of the night in an attack on someones home or person, whilst carrying an offensive weapon of any type, may or may not resort to violence, which may or may not prove fatal. The appropriate response in this case then becomes unknown at the time of the incident. What are you supposed to do. Shout and hope the intruder runs away, if not then attack with fists and feet, if that fails then up the level of response. Meanwhile, said intruder has stabbed you several time with his sharpened screwdriver which he used to gain entry.
As can be seen from the Tony Martin case. The government/police force do not wish the individual to take things into their own hands. Hence the incessant drive to remove weapons/guns from the public domain. Thus leaving the only armed people in this country being the police/armed forces and the criminal fraternity who don't give a toss. The police cannot respond in time to these attacks, therefore what is the victim to do. Just give up. I don't think so. Fundamental issues are at stake here. Perhaps some of the arab solutions are not so barbaric after all. Justice is what works, not what doesn't. Pikeys/Gippoes whatever don't give a damn about anyone else. They are a plague in our society, with no input into our social wellbeing. They are a drain on our resources. Christ, they even have their on welfare liasion officers within local government to sort out their benefits. A proportion of them own homes which they they then let out to the DSS for rents, whilst they are out doing roofing, tree felling etc. Pay no taxes/insurance etc. All the time scoping out the areas they are in for what they can purloin. The police will not get involved. We have just been through all of this where I live in Norfolk. They are parasites with no place in modern society. They are also not the only ones.
Now where should I start next.........................../forums/images/icons/crazy.gif

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

 

[ari]

Absolutely bang on.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tripleace]

bulleye..

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

 

[byron]

Yo! You de man buddy. I vote for you as Home Secretary.

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

 

[Col]

NAIL-HEAD-HIT!!
Well said George, think that just about sums it up.

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

 

[duncan]

Gillian Bowditch's article in yesterday's Scotsman 'Why reasonable people see Tony Martin as a hero' is well worth a read agains the above comments / views, and draws similar conclusions to those above.
Tony Martin wasn't right to do what he did, reasonable people don't want the right (and shouldn't feel the need) to sleep with a shotgun.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[pbdrivers]

I have been following this discussion with a great deal of interest.
It is an extremely emotive subject and I would like to add my 2d worth before the thread disappears.

I agree wholeheartedly with some of the comments made and can understand how many people may feel let down by the justice system.

The comments regarding how gypsies appear to operate with impunity from the law and with total disregard of it prompted these thoughts

Murder (the offence for which tony martin was originally convicted)..... is the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought.

I do not know the case details but I would imagine that borrowing a shotgun from someone may have suggested to the jury that there was malice aforethought. The sentence for that offence is life imprisonment.

Manslaughter.....the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought or premeditation.....mr martin's sentence was reduced to manslaughter on appeal....
maybe convinced the appeal court he was going to shoot rabbits with the borrowed gun, heard the noises of his house being burgled and used the gun in fear and instinctively perhaps....vis a vis no pre-meditation
His sentence was rightly reduced to 5 years, he served 2/3 of that sentence and was released 3 years later.
The common part of the 2 offences is the term 'unlawful killing'
That is not so easy to define. It is easier to say what is lawful...accidental killing, warfare etc.

It is every citizen's right to defend his/her self, family, property or indeed that of another by using reasonable force as is necessary in order to carry out that protection. Here we get into the realms of escalation.....you hit me with a fist...i hit you or restrain you. You come at me with a stick, i wallop you with the umbrella i am carrying, you threaten me with a knife, i wallop you with my stout walking stick so hard that i knock you out and remove the threat.
If anything like the above scenarios happen in Lawful self defence/property etc etc then who decides in each case what is and what isnt lawful? Yup it is the court and eventually a jury (directed by a judge).

If we look at Tony Martins case.....Did he kill a human being.......yup
Was there malice aforethought..nope (appeal)
Was the killing unlawful.....The mere fact that 1...he was in possession of an illegal firearm
2...fired the gun twice
3..injured one burglar and killed the other
Would probably suggest to the jury and appeal judge that the killing was unlawful.

We all resent people who are seen to act outside the law the gypsies, the habitual criminals etc. Mr martin was acting outside the law when he took a borrowed shotgun and killed someone with it ,that is a legal fact. The jury/judge etc were absolutely correct in the conviction (after appeal) IMHO.
As Law abiding citizens we cannot possibly allow the unlawful use of firearms without the matter then being heard by a judge and jury.

On a personal note......I do not know what I would have done in mr martin's situation, it is impossible to say how I would react under these circumstances. I can sympathise tremendously with the man. He doesnt seem to have solved all of his problems by killing the burglar though does he?

Finally....I agree the burglar should not have been there and that the poor man had suffered terribly at the hands of these scrotes, I would imagine that these and other similar matters would have been taken into account and used as mitigation to reduce the conviction from murder to manslaughter.

<hr width=100% size=1>Please help, every time I learn something new it pushes out the old stuff.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by pbdrivers on 30/07/2003 18:40 (server time).</FONT></P>

 

[byron]

Having followed everyone's views and weighed everything up. I can't help but think... SOD 'EM I'm glad the little Git died and wished the other one had died too" furthermore Mr Martin should receive an award for saving people from further incursions from the 16 year old as he moved on to bigger and better criminal acts.

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

 

[Bejasus]

SOD 'EM I'm glad the little Git died and wished the other one had died too


Oooh Byron, such a profound statement. Why don't you just say how you really feel .................................................... /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

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

 

[byron]

I would have been more forceful but I wanted to stay within the bounds of being politically correct.

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