trashed

Re: The Legal Position?

Don't know about the legal perspective, but 'state of mind' should surely have been used in his defence. He was terrified, and had almost boarded up his house, and was sitting with a shotgun waiting for the next burglary. If people break into a house, they deserve whatever happens to them. If they don't want to get hurt, don't break and enter, don't thieve, and stay out of peoples houses. He should never have been sent down.

Even if you rugby tackle them, they'll probably sue you for £1m for loss of illegal earnings or something equally ridiculous......so you might as well short circuit all the time wasting in court, and blow their brains out and serve 3 years. At least you can sit in your cell satisfied that you got the bugger, because the police wont get them.

<hr width=100% size=1>Me transmitte sursum, caledoni
 
Re: And I thought...

A few years ago my brother and a few mates were on their way back from a bike GP (poss Czech) and made an overnight stop in a Norther Italy (I think). During the night one of the bikes was stolen from outside of the hotel. A quick visit to the plod brought an instruction that they should go away, have a coffee and call back in half an hour. This they did and on their return the bike was waiting outside the Police station, a very helpful policeman explained that the culprit (a well known local petty villain) was in the cells and that a lot of paperwork would be saved if they all went in and had a 5 min "talk" with him. They politely refused the offer.

<hr width=100% size=1>Semper Bufo
 
Re: The Legal Position?

Thought I might encounter some disagreement /forums/images/icons/smile.gif. In a sense, your first para is correct, because iirc, he was originally convicted of murder and his conviction (and hence sentence) was reduced, on appeal, to manslaughter, on the basis that the balance of his mind was disturbed at the time of the robbery. Only Tony Martin himself knows the truth or otherwise of this.

I agree that it is fundamentally wrong to enter other peoples' houses and steal their property. I have been robbed myself, and my initial thoughts for retribution centred around rusty castrating knives and boiling oil. And yet............ I cannot accept that someone should be killed or assaulted because they've committed a robbery; we stopped hanging people for stealing sheep a long time ago, didn't we?

I realise I'm not going to win on this one!

<hr width=100% size=1>Je suis Marxiste - tendance Groucho
 
Re: The Legal Position?

I'm with JHR on this one - the problem with Tony Martin is that he shot the burglar when he was on his way OUT of the property, did not shout a warning first and then failed to call the emergency services until morning, leaving the burglar who, though undoubtedly a criminal, was still a kid, to bleed to death in a field - no hero in my book. The law does permit you to act in self-defence, and it does permit you to exercise reasonable force to evict a trespasser who otherwise refuses to leave, but it doesn't give you the right to attack people simply because they're on your property unlawfully - and that's the way it should stay.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: The Legal Position?

Sorry, but any git entering my house without invite, deserves everything the law does not permit!?

<hr width=100% size=1>Me transmitte sursum, caledoni
 
Re: The Legal Position?

"I cannot accept that someone should be ....assaulted because they've committed a robbery"

Robbery is a particularly vicious form of 'assault' recognised by everyone who has suffered it, so why should the attacker be allowed to complain if he gets hurt too? He has chosen to put himself outside the law in the first place.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: The Legal Position?

On your property is one thing. In your house, posing a potential threat to you, your wife or family, is another. Reasonable force, IMHO is sufficient to ensure that the offender is not in a position to get up and attack me. That means he is rendered unconcious, immobile or dead and I don't particularly care which.

If this is not in compliance with the law, then it is time the law was changed to reflect the needs of the law-abiding citizen rather than to protect the so-called rights of the criminal.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
What a horrible thing to happen.

There but for the grace of God...go most of us. I am so sorry. I don't really know what to suggest. It must be horrible cleaning up the mess.

The only thing I can say is that it is most unlikely to happen again.

<hr width=100% size=1>Que scais-je?
 
So, what you are saying is...

...Wayne Thug decides that he rather fancies breaking into your house as it looks quite posh and is a nice area. He breaks in, and starts to remove YOUR property. He is just unplugging the new top of the range DVD player that you bought last weekend when you walk in on him. You ask him politely to leave, and he comes straight at you fists flying...

OK, the scene is set, YOU finish the story without resorting to violence or a 9 Iron!

<hr width=100% size=1>When God invented time he didn't give me enough of it. ND!
 
\"Reasonable force\", again

If he comes at you with fists flying and, in defending yourself or restraining him, you injure him, I think that would be regarded as reasonable and wouldn't land you in trouble. If you shoot him in the back as he walks away from you, however..................

<hr width=100% size=1>Je suis Marxiste - tendance Groucho
 
Re: So, what you are saying is...

That's fine - you can resort to violence to defend yourself - the law allows that. What the law doesn't allow, nor should allow, is for you to inflict violence on someone who isn't offering violence to you. If Wayne Wideboy is nicking your DVD and doesn't offer you violence, you can still make a citizen's arrest provided you only use reasonable force. What you can't do is what some peeps on this forum seem to want to do which is to kill anyone who's on their property uninvited. If that were allowed, imagine you were at someone's party and they decided you'd guzzled too much of their plonk and should leave - you, well-oiled, refuse - he then stabs you to death with a sausage on a stick - is that alright?

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: So, what you are saying is...

You've failed unless you play golf sans neuf fer! I'd be petrified and in my state of abject fear grab the nearest object intending to lump him one to lay him out .. as a non expert I'd probably overdo it .. if I was armed I'd probably use it .. legally I do'nt know if that is reasonable force to use .. but I guess if a jury was representative of the population I'd be very surprised if they did'nt agree .. Think there is a basic human right to defend against perceived threats to life or property ..

Remakable isnt it .. if I tell porkies about a threat and I'm the PM I get away with an armed response .. if I'm a lonely farmer faced with a real and present danger, I get banged away!



<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Our perimeter defences are constantly tested.

At least once a week we get any kind of white van, sometimes old Cavaliers (second favourite if not white van), they drive in and either do a smart u-turn when they see me, or they drive right round if they see my wife in the kitchen window, and straight out of the drive. Sometimes we miss them and only see them driving out of the farm yard.

Occasionally, very occasionally, I get in a position to stop them and ask them what they are doing. There's always a story, we're gardeners have you got manure to sell, (its a sort-of farm), have you got something else to sell (chain saws, mowers, w.h.y), my mates just run out of petrol down the road can you sell us some, etc. (Funny how they never come and ring the doorbell to ask).

It makes us really nervous of leaving the place for any period of time, the personal threat is perhaps low level but the underlying theft threat is pretty constant round here, (East Berks).


<hr width=100% size=1>John
http://www.on-line-marine.com
 
Re: What a horrible thing to happen.

Thanks, Mirelle - I think it was a couple of likely lads, out for a jolly, and my stumpy legged boat was the most accessible. And the mess could have been far far worse - at least they only pi**ed on a nasty bit of carpet due for dumping.

suse

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Our perimeter defences are constantly tested.

I sympathise Milltech, but I think the crime problem lies in policing (there aren't enough policemen, they aren't visible enough, they don't give enough priority to the most common crimes (eg burglary) they're too tolerant of loutish behaviour and they're not allowed to be as (ahem) "robust" as they used to be) sentencing (judges are under political pressure to keep prisoner numbers down) and the prison regime (prison sentences were shorter in the 1950's because prison was a much more unpleasant place to be). The law on self-defence, citizen's arrest and trespass relies mostly on case law going back to the 19th century, reflects some pretty wise judgments along the wayand is IMHO, about right.

Re your particular problem, have you tried - installing a gate/dummy surveillance camera at the entrance/noting down the numbers and sending them into the local nick (they'll have a database of "likely characters" in the area) - that sort of thing?

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Our perimeter defences are constantly tested.

It's amazing how hard it is to pick up a registration number when the vehicle is moving, but anyway I suspect they have never been registered as "owner". They probably don't have insurance or road tax, if you don't care about being caught, (in the sense of reputation, standing, employment etc.) there is no compulsion to obey.

I wrote next about how I protect my stock, but then, although I'm sure everyone on this forum is 100% honest, if you explain your security you don't have it anymore so I have decided to refrain.

<hr width=100% size=1>John
http://www.on-line-marine.com
 
Re: Our perimeter defences are constantly tested.

Milltech my friendly alarm man suggests;=
1 put up sold sign for couple of weeks
2 erect dummy cameras with signs (or better real ones)
3 if finances permit electic gates otherwise just gates.
It is sad but you will feel safer.
Regards Briani

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top