Sword-wielding resident confronts alleged thief [Archive]

Internal Boxer

05-11-2003, 03:12 AM

The Government's already drawing more legislation to protect burglars from the victim defending themselves or their property, I tell you its a total pi.ss take over here, they really take the side of the criminal its pathetic, and pi.sses every body I talk to about it.

If you live over here you will see political correctness gone mad, the politicians are so scared of their own shadow they do not want to face real issues because they are too scared of any bad PR, so they just ignore it and things get worse.

The police are too busy focusing on speeding fines as it increases their revenue, as it is easier to tackle a law abiding citizen who fu.cks up by driving a little fast than it is to chase real criminals.

The only time the average person sees a policeman is when they get a speeding fine or they have just been burgled. I have been burgled twice and they never caught the bas.tards. I have talked to many coppers and they are so frustrated that when they eventually catch a burglar, spending hundreds of man hours on the case, the courts are so lenient. Our courts have got to be at the top of the pile for JOKE sentencing.

One time when I was burgled, I was asleep in bed and did not wake, if I had woke up, then confronted them and hurt them I would be in court, if they had hurt me the police would not have caught them.

Its fact that you cannot attack someone in your home even if they just get a few bruises you will be taken to court by the CPS for assault.

As for Tony Martin, his lack of remorse for taking a life has contributed to his negative press, if it was me I would have been gutted to take someones life, but lets look at the facts, he is an old guy, there were two burglars on his property, one was heavily into Martial Arts, he would have been no match for these guys, and he obviously shi.t him self and just started shooting at the guy, for me this is SELF DEFENCE. But there are many many stories of people who have defended themselves in their home and used a weapon, wether knife, club or air-rifle, and they have been take to court by the CPS. I remember a case where a burglar broke into a mans shop where his dog bit two of his fingers off, the burglar tries to sue for damages, he was unsuccessful, but the dog was put down due to it being a "danger" to the public.

It pays to be a Criminal in the UK!

Mr Punch

05-12-2003, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by Christopher M

Should "border line psychotics with regressional tendencies and obsessive compulsive disorders" be held under a different set of laws than the rest of us?
I didn't say that. But since you come to mention it, a man with no basic recognition of right and wrong should not have the same access to freedom as the rest of us, and certainly not the same access to weapons. For his own safety or others'.

Quite apart from that, he shot an unarmed boy of 15 in the back. He is being held under the same set of laws as the rest of us.

BTW, are those official diagnoses, or are you characterizing based upon his affiliation with persons and values you find distastefull?
Yes, indeed they were. Not verbatim, but as close as I can remember. If you are interested do what I suggested and check the forum, or follow CSN's link and the links from the Guardian. If this is too lefty for you try the links the Guardian supplied to the psych reports, and to various more reactionary press.

He didn't affiliate with any 'persons': he was a recluse. He doesn't affiliate with any values: he is fairly incapable of moral judgement, so whether I would call it good or bad moral judgement is not related. Check the history.

I suspect you are not interested in the issues however, merely in presenting an unresearched opinion. 'Fair' enough :rolleyes:

So while we're at it, perhaps you'd like to show us the benefit of your research into what I find distasteful...?

The recent articles have been about his parole being denied under the reasoning that he represents an unacceptable risk to future would-be burglars on his property. :eek:
The recent articles don't change the original judgement of the psychiatrists. Nor do they change the results of the numerous appeals and lobbies for same.

However, psychiatrists are as emasculated as the legal system in most of these cases, and as such the reasoning that he is a danger to would-be burglars is both a legal euphemism for being dangerous to anyone, and an excuse to keep a sick man from harming anyone.

I'm not shedding any tears over the kid's death. Death seems a little strict for breaking and entering, but Tony Martin didn't know if this kid was dangerous or what, so fair enough, he shot him. Martin's lack of recognition of any of the implications of his actions are what determined his psychological diagnosis, and what left the law no option but to hold him (so I'm not shedding any tears over him either). The rest of the case has been the usual media hype and hysteria whipped up by lobbyists with vested interests.

If you actually read some of the background, you may be able to persuade me to join this 'discussion' again. Otherwise, I rest my case!

{Edit, checking back, I've just realised it was your ****ing post about Martin in the first place... check the ****ing background there you smug ****, before your start your insinuations about what other ****ing people know about the case... I find that pretty ****ing distasteful. }

bob10

05-12-2003, 01:35 AM

Originally posted by Kung Lek
A life vs a property crime. hmmmm.

I think the killing of anybody over some property is a bit crazy. Seriously, that's what insurance is for.

So you should ask the intruder you find in your home at 3am -

"are you here just for property, or will you be wanting to assault me, or rape my wife or smash up my house and crap on the carpets too? If it's just property, go ahead, I have insurance for that. Those old photographs of my grandmother - it's ok, insured. My mothers wedding ring - insured too. Those ornaments that have been in the family for years - oh take them, insured as well"

And of course, if there are people who can't afford the exorbitant insurance prices - well I'm sure they can have nothing worth stealing.....

Mr Punch

05-12-2003, 01:44 AM

Generally I agree with what you said but...
Originally posted by Internal Boxer
... to face real issues because they are too scared of any bad PR, so they just ignore it and things get worse.Everybody has a different opinion of what the real issue is. That's one of the main problems with judiciary, legislature and executive. They may not be ignoring it, they may be concentrating on more information than most of us have... Does this mean I trust them with my welfare, wellbeing and governance...? **** no!:D They can ****ing show me that information!

The police are too busy focusing on speeding fines as it increases their revenue, as it is easier to tackle a law abiding citizen who fu.cks up by driving a little fast than it is to chase real criminals. Different departments mate. But you do have a point in that these departments compete for funding.

The only time the average person sees a policeman is when they get a speeding fine... Good, people shouldn't speed. At least some of the ****ing police are doing their jobs right!
I have been burgled twice and they never caught the bas.tards. I know it doesn't help your case at all, but it's a really difficult job finding burglars. Plus this is unrelated to the state of the self-defence.

One time when I was burgled, I was asleep in bed and did not wake, if I had woke up, then confronted them and hurt them I would be in court, if they had hurt me the police would not have caught them.

Its fact that you cannot attack someone in your home even if they just get a few bruises you will be taken to court by the CPS for assault. This is not a fact. It may be an increasing common occurance but it isn't an immutable fact, and it is still in the minority of cases.

You didn't wake up. You don't know what would have happened.

...But there are many many stories of people who have defended themselves in their home and used a weapon, wether knife, club or air-rifle, and they have been take to court by the CPS. And there are many many cases where the CPS kicks it out. And many cases where people have defended themselves without excessive violence, and nobody has ever found out.

But you hit the nail on the head when you said Martin didn't fully know what he had done. Now maybe, he could have been a harmless lunatic, living in seclusion for the rest of his life, but for the two ****wits who broke in and pushed him over the edge. We don't know. But given his psychological state the chances are he would have gone over the edge at some point anyway. And there are just as great chances of him being targetted by criminals again, and of him going over the edge again, or just with an innocent citizen.

Internal Boxer

05-12-2003, 04:33 AM

Mat
"Different departments mate. But you do have a point in that these departments compete for funding. "

Its not so much competition for funding, its about prioritising, when we have sitautions where they cannot catch the majority of the perpertrators for property theft, and are happy to pour masses of money into targeting motorists, I think most would agree that there is an imbalance, you have to deal with the more important issues ie, burglary and car crime with more resources and funding then you do with lesser offences like motoring offences which should be lower down the list, but sadly minor motoring offences are deemed more of a priorty which is a view everyone I have spoken to share!

"Good, people shouldn't speed. At least some of the ****ing police are doing their jobs right!"

Yes you are correct, but again a question of priorities, have you never gone slightly over the limit? do you drive, or when you try to get in the car does it knock your halo off.

"I know it doesn't help your case at all, but it's a really difficult job finding burglars. Plus this is unrelated to the state of the self-defence. "

Thats my point mate, it is because it is difficult that they target motorist, Duh, that why more resouces should be focused on such crimes rather than minor motoring offences! It does relate to self defence, cause if the crimes where reduced by catching them and locking them up for a long time then they would not be at risk of injury from the homeowner.:rolleyes:

my quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One time when I was burgled, I was asleep in bed and did not wake, if I had woke up, then confronted them and hurt them I would be in court, if they had hurt me the police would not have caught them.

Its fact that you cannot attack someone in your home even if they just get a few bruises you will be taken to court by the CPS for assault.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

you quote "This is not a fact. It may be an increasing common occurance but it isn't an immutable fact, and it is still in the minority of cases. "

I never said it was fact, a lot of the recourse of members of the public depends on their first statement to the police, that can lead to their prosecution or not, but the fact remains, you cannot assult a burglar, but then its rather grey as what consitutes "reasonable force" It bases its presumption that a person has the "ABILITY" to defend themselves, that person may not be physically capable of doing so therefore need a weapon.

"You didn't wake up. You don't know what would have happened."

I was just spectulating as to what may have happened if I had done I don't understand your logic for this observation. Are you saying I am not allowed to examine outcome if I had woken.

"And there are many many cases where the CPS kicks it out."

I have followed certain cases and have been dismayed at an innocent person protecting their home and family have been prosecuted, they still have prosecuted the victims of crime quite unashamedly and prosecuting people protecting themsleves and their property is a fundamental right, in my opinion, and I will put seriously money that the majority of other people will share this view, (I think a poll is in order) that the burglar reliquishes his rights the moment he sets foot in the property.

"And many cases where people have defended themselves without excessive violence, and nobody has ever found out. "

Your point being??? what if the innocent person is not able to defend themselves without a weapon, this is where the whole argument for "reasonable force" is totally flawed, as soon as a weapon enters the situation, it is viewed in a completely different light regardless if the person weilding it would have any chance without it.

I think with the new legislation it can at least allow the burglar to take back defective goods to the victim and demand they are in working order.

__________________
My power is discombobulatingly devastating. I could feel is muscle tissues collapse under my force. It's ludicrous these mortals even attempt to enter my realm.

Shut up and train!

David Jamieson

05-12-2003, 06:18 AM

Truthfully, if someone entered mybhome while I was in it, I would first:

-attempt to make them flee, by making them aware of my presence and that I know they are there.

-call the police

-defend myself if need be if attacked.

My point is, there is a huge difference between issuing a warning and just blowing someone away because they are a thief.

Bob10-

The whole idea of "what ifs" is strictly a fear factor. I try not to live in the world of what if, it's more dangerous for me if I think like that in regards to the future. I would rather deal with "what is".

The idea of having the right to kill someone because they steal something is tantamount to the ideals of taliban law. I'm really surprised that some people still cannot see they are operating in the same theatre of thought as those they proclaim to despise.

Even if the thief was to take sentimental items, well, that's how it goes. They are only things after all, sentimental or not. That would be a lesson in acceptance. Get over it, you can't take it with you anyway and who knows if it's inheritor won't just pawn it anyway and go buy a guiness eh?

A human life should never be taken in favour of ones material baubles. It is a fundamental precept of all spiritual thought. Most people are effected by spiritual awareness at some level, even if it is to deny it entirely :D Frankly, I think it is those folks who wrestle with their spirituality the most.

RD-

Are you a fundamental islamist? Because what you are saying fits well with that line of thought. You know, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.

But life for a vcr? I think not.
I belive in the use of reasonable force to protect hearth and home. I do not believe in the use of excessive force, and I do not think anyone "deserves" to die. I think that how the law in England works regarding the current situation reflects the moral ideals of that Country.

Life is sacred. No matter whoes.

cheers

Shaolin-Do

05-12-2003, 06:27 AM

Gotta agree with lek.
Your designer toaster and extra tall micro-wave so the syrup bottle fits, are not worth somebody's life.
I know Ive done any number of stupid @ss things in my younger days, not really any theft, but probably some vandalism to compete in $ damages... Didnt mean I shoulda been shot or stabbed for being a dumb @ss young kid tho.

bob10

05-12-2003, 06:33 AM

To some extent I agree with what you say, but my point was that in that situation you don't neccesrily have the luxury of time to make an informed decision.

For instance you say you would a) make the intruder aware of your presence then b) call the police

The last time I did this (following a car being broken into outside the house - and getting part of the reg number of the thieves) the police never actually bothered coming round at all. On speaking to them about this a few days later we were told "you are on your own out there. The nearest station is x miles away and it would take at least 30 minutes to get a car to you".

I don't want to kill anyone, I don't want to hurt anyone, least of all to protect my VCR. But there is also such as thing as taking responsibility for your actions. If a thief can accept that if he breaks into my house, he may get hurt, maybe that will act as a deterrent.

Maybe if he thinks he can get away without anything bad happening to him this time, he will do something worse next time.

There is also the issue that we assume the guy is there just to steal your "material baubles". Still I guess rape or sexual assault could provide another lesson in "acceptance". Just get over it?

As for living in fear of "what ifs". Do you wear a seat belt? Do you have insurance? Do you walk down dark alleys with money hanging out of your pocket? Do you leave your doors and windows open when you go out?

If life is sacred, then what is reasonable force if someone is trying to kill you?

David Jamieson

05-12-2003, 06:55 AM

bob10-

In regards to a physical attack by a thief on a person who is within their home.
Then, I fully endorse defending and protecting oneself. If you should fall prey, then what else can you do other than hope for the law to work for you and that that person is persued and brought to justice through due process dependent upon the severity of the crime.

As for the personal injury and psychological scars that will ensue from losing in the confrontation, then one must accept that and move on in life.

I wear a seatbelt out of common sense not out of what if. What is, is the fact that there are hundreds of drivers on the road of varying degree and abilty. I wear a mouth guard when I box knowing that the potential for an accident exists in the frame of context vis a vis common sense. It's not a what if, there is an active potential for the manifestation of injury.

Life insurance is not a what if either. It is known to me that I will die someday. In the event of my death, I want money to be given to those who live on after me so that any undue hardship is not on them because my ability to support them is no longer there.

Walking down an alley with money hanging out of your pockets is something I'm sure there are not many who do. :D Unless of course you are attempting to get into a mixup.

Also, windows and doors can be left open dependant upon where you live. If you live in a neighbourhood or a community that has a track record of proerty crimes, then to lock your doors and windows is a reasonable measure of protection, but truthfully, if someone wants to get in badly enough, they will.

A reasonable amount of force against someone who is trying to kill you does not necessarily equate to the escalation level of becoming the killer yourself. This is one of the benefits of practicing Kung Fu (not just martial arts, but Kung Fu). When you gain Kungfu, you can control a violent situation to a degree. One should make their best attempt at stopping the attack and containing the attacker.

If a death should occur, as the killer, you will always question the necessity of causing that death. That's when one will wrestle with could'ves and would'ves and should'ves. This in turn becomes mentally and spiritually destructive for the person.

Because someone else does not have conscience regarding their actions doesn't have any bearing on how I will act.

vengance is an ugly thing. It consumes a person and it turns them into that thing that they are seeking to destroy.

cheers

David

05-12-2003, 09:28 AM

After Lister and Kryten start planning major violence towards the invading alien, Rimmer has other ideas...

"Well, that's certainly an option, Lister, yes. Erm, but here's my proposal: Let's get tough. The time for talking is over. Call it extreme if you like, but I propose we hit it hard and hit it fast with a major -- and I mean major -- leaflet campaign, and while it's reeling from that, we'd follow up with a whist-drive, a car boot sale, some street theatre and possibly even some benefit concerts. OK? Now, if that's not enough, I'm sorry, it's time for the T-shirts: "Mutants Out" ... "Chameleonic Life Forms, No Thanks" ... and if that's not enough, well, I don't know what will be."

BTW speeding: if the police do it, it must be legal, right? :D

-David

Internal Boxer

05-12-2003, 09:41 AM

Kung Lek

"A reasonable amount of force against someone who is trying to kill you does not necessarily equate to the escalation level of becoming the killer yourself. This is one of the benefits of practicing Kung Fu (not just martial arts, but Kung Fu). When you gain Kungfu, you can control a violent situation to a degree. One should make their best attempt at stopping the attack and containing the attacker."

Hmm considering a lot of bulgary happens at night, waking up, half asleep, bleary eyed and wander about in the darkness and faced with an intruder, I certainly feel that in that threatening situation, instincts tend to kick in and just keep hitting/attacking the figure in front of you until it stops moving is the most likely human reaction, I cant see me doing some chi'na move or phoenix punch, its just CAVEMAN mode for me. Thats why I think "controlling" such a situation in darkness is naive to say the least the guy will be adrenaline pumped, as any law enforcement officer will tell you how hard it is to "CONTROL" one guy pumped with adrenaline.

Hey but maybe you are different from the rest of us and do a spinning back kick as the asssailant flies through the window!:D (just kidding)

Black Jack

05-12-2003, 10:18 AM

It is shamefull propaganda to believe that just by dailing 911 the authorities will arive, take charge and difuse the situation before any serious harm can be inflicted on your person.

911 is not a legitimate form of self-defense.

Having a false sense of security through the dependence of others to come to your rescue is for the timid who may become prey for the strong. Take responsibility for your own safety and use your basic human right to self defense when needed. If someone breaks into my home they will get shot period. My right to safety and the safety of my family comes first before any scumbag theif.

Weapons first with hand to hand combat as a LAST resort. This is not Crouching Tiger and Hidden Dragon for keerists sake.

Kuen

05-12-2003, 10:28 AM

so it is not safe to assume that anyone breaking into your living quarters has any other plans other than killing you, raping your wife, eating your dogs, etc...

My wife and I have a system. The intruder gets one warning...
the sound of the pump on my sawed off 12 gauge, after that it's open season on thugs and we shoot for the head because we don't want to hit our dogs and by invading our space said thug has forfeited his right to life.

Being able to protect the sanctity of the home is a fundamental human right. Or should be.

GeneChing

05-12-2003, 10:42 AM

I don't beleive that there is a simple answer to a breaking and entry situation. Obviously, you defend yourself, but to what degree? Being martial artists, we all assume the worst - some eviil villain straight out of a comic book. But maybe it's just some kid.

Here's a confession. I broke and entered into a friend's house as a teen. He was sneaking out to see midnite showing of Rocky Horror, and boasting about it. He used to even make this dummy of himself, asleep in bed, to cover his tracks. We all hated him and a teen angst sort of way, so I was elected to sneak into his room and set his alarm to midnite because I was the most ninja-like. Well, my mission was successful but it was a stupid thing to do - who knows? Maybe his dad had a gun. So, coming from the other perpective, I don't think you can catagorically state that you'll kill anyone who breaks into my house. It's short sighted - who knows what the scenario might be?

BTW, I didn't tell that friend about that incident for years. He thought he messed up his alarm. ;)

Black Jack

05-12-2003, 10:51 AM

I agree with verbel warnings and I also have dogs which IMHO are one of the very BEST forms of security one can have in that department.

I do not care what other plans of action a burglar would take to invade someone's home. If they are breaking into someone's house then those plans are not legit and I am not going to take the time to ponder if this is some kid trying to steal jewelry to get high or go to a concert.

Again my safety comes first. It's really that simple.

If someone breaks into your house. They are taking their life into their own hands. Be it for whatever reason.

Christopher M

05-12-2003, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by Mat
I didn't say that.

What you said was, "Regardless of who the kid was or what he did, Tony Martin is a borderline psychotic with regressional tendencies and obsessive compulsive disorders and a dangerous sociopath."

You're obviously implying we conclude something about this characterization of Martin. Although you don't clarify, the only obvious conclusion of pertinence would be that it effects how we should treat him under the law.

You still didn't clarify what you mean, so we're left to wonder.

But since you come to mention it, a man with no basic recognition of right and wrong should not have the same access to freedom as the rest of us

Who determines who falls under this label?

According to present legal thinking, people with no basic recognition of right and wrong are thought of as less culpible, rather than more. Would you care to expound upon the alternative you're implying here?

Quite apart from that, he shot an unarmed boy of 15 in the back.

Interesting description of the event. Let me give it a shot:

In the middle of the country, 30 minutes by car from the nearest other person, and in the middle of the night; two young men, both larger than Tony Martin broke into his house with planned intent to damage and/or burglar it, and possible wound or murder the occupants. Outnumbered and outsized, Martin faced these assailants, still wielding the tools they used to violate his property, and chased them off with a blast from his shotgun.

Sounds a little different, huh? Maybe absurdly biased accounts of events aren't particularly useful...

He is being held under the same set of laws as the rest of us.

Then why did you bring up the previous characterizations, whimsy? And why were they brought up in court? Judicial whimsy?

Yes, indeed they were. Not verbatim, but as close as I can remember.

You might try to remember a little bit more closely, since most of what you said doesn't constitute a legitimate diagnosis in the first place.

The recent articles don't change the original judgement of the psychiatrists.

I never said they did.

the reasoning that he is a danger to would-be burglars is both a legal euphemism for being dangerous to anyone

The legal system has a problem with saying "an unacceptable risk" now? Funny... I seem to have read exactly that in any number of other parole hearings lately. What's special about this case that required them to use this euphemism?

Recall that I suggest it's not a euphemism at all, but simply the only remark they could make that accords with the facts.

Martin's lack of recognition of any of the implications of his actions are what determined his psychological diagnosis

I never commented on court-ordered mental treatment. I commented on imprisonment.

The rest of the case has been the usual media hype and hysteria whipped up by lobbyists with vested interests.

I'll freely admit my vested interests: I believe in property rights and right to self-defense.

If this is too lefty for you try the links the Guardian supplied... I suspect you are not interested in the issues however, merely in presenting an unresearched opinion... I've just realised it was your ****ing post about Martin in the first place... check the ****ing background there you smug ****, before your start your insinuations about what other ****ing people know about the case... I find that pretty ****ing distasteful.

Please refrain from calling people ignorant since they disagree with you, and being rude to them since they hold different opinions than you. Thank you.

Black Jack

05-12-2003, 01:05 PM

The media used the typical lone-gun nut classification on Mr. Martin. He lives alone and owns a gun thus presto he is a lone gun nut.

Helps to sell papers. Mr.Martin is the victim in this situation.

Christopher M

05-12-2003, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by Kung Lek

The idea of having the right to kill someone because they steal something is tantamount to the ideals of taliban law.

No one is saying this. You're continuing to straw man the other side of the argument.

What people are saying is that you have a legal right to kill someone to prevent them from certain utterly unacceptable crimes such as murdering and/or raping and/or torturing you and/or your loed ones.

Unfortunately, criminals don't fill out forms in advance to inform you of your intentions. So when an "unsure" situation arises you can either side with the criminals or you can side with the victims:

If you side with the criminals you say: even though you've been outnumbered and outarmed by violent invaders in your house, you are not allowed to stop them unless they start raping or murdering you or your family, in which case it's too late.

Sounds like those old witch trials...

If someone breaks into your house, they have given up their legal freedoms as a citizen of your country. Meeting a burglar on your stairs is not a meeting of equals. You are in the right, and the criminal is in the wrong. How can you not believe this?

David Jamieson

05-12-2003, 03:15 PM

If someone breaks into your house, they have given up their legal freedoms as a citizen of your country. Meeting a burglar on your stairs is not a meeting of equals. You are in the right, and the criminal is in the wrong. How can you not believe this?

I never said I didn't believe that.

And I did say that everyone has a right to defend their hearth and home and using reasonable force.

What I do not believe in, is killing someone by shooting them outright and calling that defending oneself. When a person has the power to take a life vis a vis a firearm, whereas the offender does not have an equal weapon, then I think it is the person with the gun, on their home ground who has the upper hand and who should use the power responsibily.

I don't think that someones property is worth someones life whether they are intending to commit criminal acts or not.

Now, If someone is actively trying to kill you, then I think you should do what you can to protect and defend yourself. But again, there are many variables.

Shoot first ask questions later is a bit barbaric and not much different in mentality from the criminal mind itself. It denotes a lack of caring about a human being and that human beings life.

The case against Mr. Martin has been made in a court, and that's the way it is. That is the law and that is how it is upheld. The law is similar here in Canada.

In actuality, Britain does have provisions for the use of reasonable force. apparently, Mr. Martin could not proove that he used reasonable force and was found to use excessive force which resulted in the death of a minor.

I have a close friend who spent 5 years in prison for completely and accidentally killing another person in a fight. He threw the man to the ground and cracked his skull open against a parking curb and the guy died.
They were both drunk and the fight shouldn't have even started.

He knows he was responsible for the guys death and he was prepared to face the consequences and he did. Something to think about in all the "what it is" scenarios.

A thief in the night is by nature not confrontational. They are there to steal money and valuables. There is a lot of work on the psychology of criminal archetypes. Burglars are very rarely killers and can for the most part easily be frightened away by the simplest of things (especially kids). Perhaps this is why Mr. Martin received the punishment he has?

cheers

Christopher M

05-12-2003, 03:17 PM

What would you have preferred Martin do?

A thief in the night is by nature not confrontational.

I don't understand this. If waking up in the privacy of your own home to find a stranger looming over you isn't confrontational, what is?

This seems to me to be fundamentally more confrontational than any sort of physical engagement one can get into in the streets or at a club or in any other public venue.

When a person has the power to take a life vis a vis a firearm, whereas the offender does not have an equal weapon

How do you propose home-owners go about determining whether or not an intruder has a weapon?

I don't think that someones property is worth someones life

We all agree on this point, it seems.

The case against Mr. Martin has been made in a court, and that's the way it is. That is the law and that is how it is upheld.

I don't understand what you are saying here.

Because something is the position of the state, people shouldn't question it?

I have a close friend who spent 5 years in prison for completely and accidentally killing another person in a fight.

I'm sorry to hear this. My prayers go out to your friend and the other person.

David Jamieson

05-12-2003, 03:41 PM

I don't understand this. If waking up in the privacy of your own home to find a stranger looming over you isn't confrontational, what is?

This is a scenario. It is not the actuality. It is more likely in the event of a burglary that the theif will avoid rooms with people in them.

If you do find someone looming over you, then by all means, do what you can to defend yourself, clearly, their intent is severe and confrontational. I do not think this was the case in the Martin case.

How do you propose home-owners go about determining whether or not an intruder has a weapon?

You can't make that determination without actually being able to see them clearly. The intent is changed entirely when a thief enters into an abode with a weapon in hand and an intent to harm as opposed to an attempt to steal.

I don't understand what you are saying here.

This is in regards to how the law has dealt with Mr. Martin, and what I am saying is that by law, even though in this particular case there was at the onset 2 theifs, in the end Mr. Martin was determined to have used excessive force, taken the law into his own hands and in the end became a criminal himself under the law.

The example of my friend was not to illicit prayers, it was to point out that it is not always the criminal mind that breaks the law. It can happen quite by accident, but the consequences must and will be payed.

If someone broke into my house while I was in it, I would do my best to get them out of my house. I would protect myself if there should be any confrontation and you can bet the police would get a call first. If someone was over me while I was still half asleep, then I would only do what I could to stop anything harmful from happening. There are too many variables to think about to make an exact statement of an action plan. There are measures that can be taken to ward off property crime, but again, if someone really wants what you have, they may very well find a way to get it.

cheers

Christopher M

05-12-2003, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by Kung Lek
This is a scenario. It is not the actuality. It is more likely in the event of a burglary that the theif will avoid rooms with people in them.

All the same: isn't someone with criminal intentions, whatever they may be, violating your house fundamentally confrontational?

Specifically, much more confrontational than just about anything that could happen in a public place?

I mean, just about the worse confrontation you can have in a public space is to have someone grab you and bring you somewhere private where they can execute criminal actions with planned intent. This is allready the case in the circumstance of a home intruder.

If you do find someone looming over you, then by all means, do what you can to defend yourself, clearly, their intent is severe and confrontational. I do not think this was the case in the Martin case.

So what's a home owner to do?

Surely not assume an intruder is not severe and not confrontational until the intruder is looming over him; at which point, of course, it's too late.

You can't make that determination without actually being able to see them clearly.

Right. So what's a home owner to do?

Surely not assume the intruder is not severe and not confrontational if he cannot be seen clearly.

what I am saying is that by law... in the end Mr. Martin was determined to have used excessive force, taken the law into his own hands and in the end became a criminal himself under the law.

Right. That was covered in the first post on the topic. What's your point though?

it was to point out that it is not always the criminal mind that breaks the law. It can happen quite by accident, but the consequences must and will be payed.

I don't think anyone suggested otherwise; except perhaps Mat, but it's not clear what he means to indicate.

Black Jack

05-12-2003, 03:55 PM

Kung Lek their seems to be a lot of victimization in your kind of thinking and what you believe to be "the correct " reality.

Mr. Martin got ripped off by the system. A system which is growing in its anti-self defense mindset. U.K is already doomed in that respect and here in America the fight goes on everyday to keep our rights intact from assualt by certain agendas.

It's called imminent threat distance and mine begins when billy the bum starts to tread on ground where he does not belong.

Call me selfish but my life is above that of the criminal in EVERY single respect.

David Jamieson

05-12-2003, 04:38 PM

Call me selfish but my life is above that of the criminal in EVERY single respect.

This is what I don't agree with. But, maybe it's just me who thinks that everyone has value be they criminal or not.

What is it that makes a criminal? A law could be passed that would by default make you criminal for some offense tha you may well consider to be innocuous. That's a reality of law.

There are certain fundamental laws and then there are those laws that are created for all kinds of reasons. We essentially know the basic laws of not stealing from others, not causing harm and the others that are also found in the moral codes of many a social construct.

Without law, there is anarchy. Without observance of the law there is vigilanteism. Vigilantes, while often attempting to uphold a type of morality are also just as often criminal in their actions.

Yes there are failings to every system ever used, but one can't discount the requirement of a system to maintain order.

Martin did have his sentence reduced to Manslaughter. It was a jury that convicted him of murder. Which, in England carries an automatic life sentence. There are plenty of extenuating circumstances regarding this case, not the least of which is the intent of both parties.

cheers

Watchman

05-12-2003, 04:58 PM

Kung Lek:

Without laboriously going back and pulling quotes through your last few posts I'll make the observation that your arguments are based on the supposition that Mr. Homeowner has some form of Jedi-like ability to read the home invader's intent before deciding on the "proper" response.

Since most of us regular-type humans don't have this ability there is absolutely no way to read a home invader's intent. How am I supposed to know if Mr. Perpetrator is planning on "just" burglarizing the house, or is intent on murdering my family?? Should I fix him some tea and sit down at the table to interview him?

Here in my little corner of the Land of the Oppressed and Home of the Cowardly the law recognizes my right to self-defense, and I am justified in responding with deadly force to anyone who invades my home. Does this mean I kill everyone who steps into the perimiter? Absolutely not. What it means is that the law recognizes that in many circumstances I have no way of knowing if the intruder is armed or not, or what his intent is - therefore if I fear that my life is in danger I am justified in responding with deadly force.

This is what I don't agree with. But, maybe it's just me who thinks that everyone has value be they criminal or not.What is it that makes a criminal? A law could be passed that would by default make you criminal for some offense tha you may well consider to be innocuous. That's a reality of law.

I think what we're discussing here isn't just breaking the law in general, but other human beings attempting to subvert my right to self-defense and physical security.

David Jamieson

05-12-2003, 05:48 PM

I'll make the observation that your arguments are based on the supposition that Mr. Homeowner has some form of Jedi-like ability to read the home invader's intent before deciding on the "proper" response.

Well, that's not exactly what I was saying and I did state that there are many variables.

There is also a difference in Home invader and burglar. A home invader under the current definition enters the home while the ccupant is home and have fullo intent of everything under the law up to and including hostage taking.

I think that hearing someone fiddling with your lock would probably be a lot different than the home invader M.O of taking out the door and storming the house.

I don't think one needs to be a "Jedi" to figure that out. But those are only a couple of what ifs.

Common sense dictates that if someone has you at gunpoint, then you will do what they tell you to or attempt an escape. So, in scenario one (fiddling at the lock) it is entirely inappropriate under the law to let the person finish fiddling with the lock, enter and then shoot them. It is however quite appropriate to call the police, tell the potential burglar that you have called the police and if you do have a firearm tell them you have one and even draw a bead on them. It is just as appropriate to wound if they do not heed your warning.

In scenario two (which is much more drastic) there are definitely less options regarding the action plan and the intent is entirely different. You may still have the opportunity to get through this without a killing taking place.

I am against the idea that every crime warrants harsh punishment. Some of you have stated exactly what I havce stated. A material possession is not worth another persons life.

I think that if the only thing you can think of doing is blowing someones head off, then it is perhaps a problem in your socialization that has led to that inability to react with reasonable force. It may even be a symptom of a greater social ailment.

I don't understand why many people here take the stance that killing is right and they dehumanize people who are petty criminals and thieves.

I would venture that everyone on this board at some point in time has commited a crime common or civil or even traffic offenses.

Not all criminals are the horrible monsters that many are blanketed with. Many are just trying to eat and live in the world. Perhaps they will find a better way, perhaps not. Should it cost them their lives?

here's a quote:

"Under the equal laws of society, the rich as well as the poor are forbidden from sleeping under bridges and stealing bread".

Crime and rising crime is a result and a symptom of degradation of the core values of a society.

I'm not condoning acts of criminality and I certainly believe in the use of some form of legal consequences. But I can't agree with shooting someone because they are stealing from you. There are other ways and not everyone just goes off blindly and starts shooting when someone enters their property.

I do believe that the person the topic is about did shoot the boy in the back as he attempted escape and as well shot the other thief in the legs while also attempting to escape upon realizing that someone was home.

So, in this scenario, what Mr. Martin did was NOT use reasonable force and instead enacted his own form of speedy justice based upon vengeance and frustration.

Which is what some of you here are condoning. In my opinion, that is simply wrong.

cheers

joedoe

05-12-2003, 06:14 PM

I tend to agree that people should be allowed to defend their house from intruders/burglars and should not be criminally prosecuted for doing so. However, it does raise an interesting point. By doing so, you indirectly create a particular situation where it is legal for one person to kill another. This would offer a legal loophole to the criminally minded to get away with murder.

It is a tough issue.

Laughing Cow

05-12-2003, 06:26 PM

I guess the real question is:

Where does Self Defense end and where does commiting a crime begin.

Shooting ANYBODY in the back I guess is a crime, regardless of what preceeded that action.

Naturally giving citizens too much leeway in issues of home-protection and self defense will result in abuse of those privileges.
And, pls, nodoby deny that it won't.
;)

Other problem is that as a citizen of a country you are givent certain rights which are involatile unless the exact condition under which a revocation of those rights applies.

Too many people I think tend to use too broad a picture to paint SD, Criminals and related issues.

I also think that many people totally mis-understand Self Defense and waht it entails and what they can do to protect their lifes.
Home security is a totally different issue.

How many of those "lets kill the Intruder" have researched non-violent means of deterents.

One of my friends has a nifty system installed in his house, he can switch on ALL the lights in the house and sound a siren with a flick of a switch from ANYWHERE in the house.
So far it has served him well and 2 Intruders retreated immediately.

Cheers.

Laughing Cow

05-12-2003, 06:35 PM

Someone menitioned:

"That it is a human right to defend yourself".

Can you show me where this is written and how it applies to ALL humans.

Humans GOT no rights besides those given to them by their respective goverments and if you don't act within those rights, rules and laws than YOU are a criminal.

Natures law specifies "survival of the fittest and most adaptable, which I think rules out most people that follow rules and laws.
;)

BTW, as a law-abiding Citizen you shouldn't even know how to get hold of illegal stuff and similar.

But I guess all the tough talking guys are all model citizens without pirate software, illegally downloaded songs, copied games/software/movies, and so on and never break any law.

Be good.

Black Jack

05-12-2003, 09:14 PM

"I think what we're talking discussing here isn't just breaking the law in general but other human beings attempting to subvert my right to self-defense and physical security."- Watchman

Those words sum up my feelings on the topic at hand.

People that want to coodle criminals are sowing their own problems in the legal system. The Canadian legal enviroment is a good example of this revolving door.

Breaking into someones home is not an accidental act. Using a less effective means of self defense as your first line of defense is not noble its just plain stupid. Any person who has no regard for the sanctity of my home and chooses to break into it will more than not have no more regard for my physical well-being.

Which means that more than not if they keep pressing their advance they will end up with some brass Pavlovian conditioning for their actions.

I have the very best home security alert system on the market that makes electronic toys seem petty by comparison. Their furry, big, have prenatural senses, are amazingly strong, and best yet listen to any comand I utter. Next to that I have my Pavlovian conditioning units and a plan of action for such occurances.Same as I do a firedrill plan.

Got my safe room, got my zone of fire, got my cell-phone, got my escape route, if my girl is home I've got two trained shooters in the house incase one of us has to stay on the phone, I know where everything is in the dark.

Oh yea so just to stay on the side of nobility I got a taser to but to hell with that thing unless I find the weird-o standing over my bed at night.

Watchman

05-12-2003, 11:43 PM

Humans GOT no rights besides those given to them by their respective goverments and if you don't act within those rights, rules and laws than YOU are a criminal.

Sorry for the hijack, but my rights are at the complete whim of the government??

Laughing Cow

05-12-2003, 11:50 PM

Originally posted by Watchman

Sorry for the hijack, but my rights are at the complete whim of the government??

Yes, as they are the law & rule-makers and enforcers of those.
Goverments can change anything they want and there is very little that the average citizen can do about it.

Unless you got a higher authority that can control your goverment and guarantee/fight for your rights.

Even the constitution can and will be changed/amended as the goverment sees fit.

The goverment only grants authority and rights, and what it gives it can take away too.
Thus it is important who gets elected.

Cheers.

David

05-13-2003, 02:13 AM

Stop thinking about yourselves as citizens or all is lost!

There is nothing in our genetic makeup which includes a respect for written law, nor is such a respect necessary to sustain our natural lives. Government is an arbitrary method of control, having no meaning or consequence in the real Gandhi-like sense. Civilisation is the process of self-imprisonment, man :)

Once, I opened the door to a man who produced a knife and forced entry to my home. I ran back to another room and seized my Ethiopean spear. He chased me across the hall and entered the room just as I span back towards him throwing the spear. I felt betrayed by my own sense of self-preservation then - it transpired that I didn't/couldn't let the spear fly. For that, I was hung out of the 4th floor window and threatened with being shot.
My one consolation (apart from not being dropped or shot) was the image of this man's freakishly-wide, white eyes as he saw the spear coming straight at him while he was running straight at it.
If you're wondering how he was going to shoot me with a knife; after the spear he ran back outside and called for re-inforcements at which point the biggest man I ever saw came in and smacked me almost senseless. He had the gun. Why did it happen? They thought I was someone else.
After that event, I left and hardly had the nerve to come and get my belongings (I only took a few things before the whole place was burgled).

It served me no purpose that there was such a thing as the police. So, here I am many years later, training and changing by design. People have to look out for each other and for themselves. If you are going to dial 911/999* then dial it and put the phone where it can pick up the sounds cos I bet you'll be too busy to go through the palaver of wait, service?, name?, address?, nature of the problem?, immediate danger?

A legal spokesman addressing the issue of violence against criminals in the home said that a burglar is still a member of the public and, as such, must be accorded the full protection of the law. Yeah, right :rolleyes:

*******s!

*In the UK, you dial 999 for emergency services. A few years back I heard that they were going to use 911 aswell because of the visiting Americans who seemed unable to remember the UK number when they needed it. It was thought that a disproportionate number of Americans were dying in gutters etc. I just dialled 911 and... it doesn't work! "Go figure!" ;) (Probably revenge for friendly-fire:eek: ).

-David

Mr Punch

05-13-2003, 03:45 AM

Internal B... I was agreeing with you. The only points I was picking you up on are ones that other people have used to pick holes in my argument before, so I was suggesting you might want to accept these as arguments to prepare yourself for when people throw them at you... or maybe not...!

Never had so much trouble agreeing with someone before!

Originally posted by Internal Boxer
Its not so much competition for funding, its about prioritising,...which is a view everyone I have spoken to share!

Er, agree. But I'm coming at it from a political point-of-view, having liased with local government, MPs, NGOs, community groups and occassionally the police.

In real political terms it's about funding. They only prioritise to get the funding, based on how much revenue they can generate from prosecutions vs man-hours.

Yes you are correct, but again a question of priorities, have you never gone slightly over the limit? do you drive, or when you try to get in the car does it knock your halo off.Don't drive, but have. Have never gone over the limit in built-up areas and unless I've got someone behind me in those areas, I usually take my time and drive slower than the limit (I'm form a very built up area, loads of parked cars, loads of kids playing in the streets). Don't agree with any limit on the highway, and would occasionally break highway limits as I see fit. Don't have a halo, but I'm working on it. Don't wanna any further into my potential halo/speeding status away from the subject of Martin and home/self defence.

Thats my point mate, it is because it is difficult that they target motorist, Duh, that why more resouces should be focused on such crimes rather than minor motoring offences! I agree again. But maybe the problem with that is that every crime's different. Sure, as some people have said, you can't afford to wait around and see if the criminal is a young Gene Ching, or David's assailants, but the police look at stats.

According to police figures, the proportion of burglaries that end in violence is very low, and the proportion of non-violent burglaries that remain unsolved is very high, so they don't build-up enough of a database on potential burglars, or the potential violent offenders.

The ones they catch are more often the ones who have been violent/subject to homeowners' violence. The problem with this first category is, those who were violent get stiffer sentences with no access to learn about responsibility, in places where they learn more violence and better techniques for burglary. When released, they don't wanna go back, so they are more like to commit violence to avoid it.

(And no, I don't agree with the soft soap approach, but I don't wanna get sidetracked into sentencing.)

The second category unbalances public perception, which further distorts the police and legislature's sense of priorities towards the public.

The answer...? Dunno mate!:D

I feel it may be something to do with community policing. If you haven't got the data on potential offenders, you've only got the hindsight of stats after the crime. If you haven't got people on the ground, you've got no data beforehand.

My other gut reaction is that Britain is seriously overcrowded and all of the services are obviously overstretched, so we should be exercising zero-immigration policies. Or gassing people over 70 (sorry Granny!).

It does relate to self defence, cause if the crimes where reduced by catching them and locking them up for a long time then they would not be at risk of injury from the homeowner. Man, I really don't understand this! Are you suggesting burglars should be locked up for their own defence?!:D

But OK, response times obviously have an effect on violence to and from housebreakers.

...a lot of the recourse of members of the public depends on their first statement to the police, that can lead to their prosecution or not, but the fact remains, you cannot assult a burglar, but then its rather grey as what consitutes "reasonable force" It bases its presumption that a person has the "ABILITY" to defend themselves, that person may not be physically capable of doing so therefore need a weapon. Completely agree.

"You didn't wake up. You don't know what would have happened."

I was just spectulating as to what may have happened if I had done I don't understand your logic for this observation. Are you saying I am not allowed to examine outcome if I had woken. Of course you are free to speculate, but I don't understand your logic for including this speculation in this argument. It seems to me to be kinda like saying, 'Well, I was burgled in my sleep, and I dreamt I woke up and attacked him, and went to prison...': it didn't happen, it is not a moral judgment, or an ethical position; it is fantasy.

I have followed certain cases and have been dismayed at an innocent person protecting their home and family have been prosecuted,... the burglar reliquishes his rights the moment he sets foot in the propertyYep agreed with the first bit. It's the vast minority of cases, but even one such case is wrong. The burglar should of course relinquish rights: right to live in a comfortable room with a TV and three squares (oh the ****ing irony of prison! :rolleyes: ), the right to live without punishment, and certainly the right to prosecute/sue for damages the homeowner... but the right to live? They should get that (with reservation: please see my answer below.)

...what if the innocent person is not able to defend themselves without a weapon, this is where the whole argument for "reasonable force" is totally flawed, as soon as a weapon enters the situation, it is viewed in a completely different light regardless if the person weilding it would have any chance without it.Agreed completely. The law should take into account the homeowner's physical and mental ability to defend themselves with or without a weapon, the level of force used intentionally, and the perceived degree of threat at the time. This would be a difficult law to make fair, but shouldn't be impossible.

If a homeowner intentionally kills a burglar, and can convince the court that the perceived level of threat was sufficient to do so, I don't have a problem with that. If the (burglar-killing) homeowner is deemed psychologically unfit, a danger to the general public (even if this is only as result of the crime) and incapable of remorse or even recognition of his actions he should be treated as such.

I think with the new legislation it can at least allow the burglar to take back defective goods to the victim and demand they are in working order.LOL. Of course. Cheapskate skanks!

"And many cases where people have defended themselves without excessive violence, and nobody has ever found out. "
Your point being...???Reasonable level of force. like when I grabbed some little ****bag in a gang by the throat and asked where the guy who tried to rob my house was, before chasing said guy down the road whilst politely informing him I would break his legs if I heard of him robbing anything in our area again...

didn't kill anyone. Didn't think it was necessary. Looking back on it I was lucky the repercussions were minor, but then looking back on it, I like to think that had something to do with my level of judgment of the threat... maybe it did, maybe it didn't. The kid never did anything else in the area until I moved out a couple of years later as far as I know though... (shrug)

Mr Punch

05-13-2003, 04:01 AM

Originally posted by Black Jack
Having a false sense of security through the dependence of others to come to your rescue is for the timid who may become prey for the strong. Take responsibility for your own safety and use your basic human right to self defense when needed. If someone breaks into my home they will get shot period. My right to safety and the safety of my family comes first before any scumbag theif.

Weapons first with hand to hand combat as a LAST resort. This is not Crouching Tiger and Hidden Dragon for keerists sake.

Fair enough. I agree in principle. If I lived in the US, I would unfortunately feel forced to have to submit to the paranoid siege mentality and keep a gun or two, as the likelihood is that anyone breaking in would be armed.

In the UK, however some crime rates may be growing, it is still different, so while I kept my dog, a bokken, and various other implements to hand and in strategic places, I wouldn't keep a gun. besides, it would be too expensive for me to learn how to use the **** thing!:D

Internal Boxer

05-13-2003, 04:57 AM

Quote. "The only points I was picking you up on are ones that other people have used to pick holes in my argument before, so I was suggesting you might want to accept these as arguments to prepare yourself for when people throw them at you... or maybe not...!

I understand you "generally" agree with what I have said but to be honest your nit picking points are so weak it really does not stand up to scrutiny, or observation, my post was purely subjective and in such a fasion you can either agree or disagree, ironically your the only one to pick up on these "holes", there are holes in any argument my friend that is why it becomes a bit pointless, when you say you are trying to show me these "holes" for my benefit............... very noble of you.:rolleyes:

The general consenus is that people have the right to attack intuders in their home, the result may be the death of the intruder, which is not what anyone wants to happen but then when we look a majority of opinion on this issue which is what democracy is based on there is something fundamentally wrong with the judicial system when it does not represent the democratic view. That victims of burglary should never be prosecuted!

Take the case recently where the guy with the air rifle pointed it at the inrtuder, the intruder struggled with the air rifle and it went off blinding the intruder in one eye, now the homeowner is at this moment being prosecuted, my point again relating to "reasonable force", the homeowner could have been helpless against the intruder without this air rifle, and it appears not to be deliberate as there was a struggle, the intruder did not loose his life, yet the victim is the one that is being prosecuted by the CPS, thats why the whole of our judicial system is fu.cked up. It should have NEVER NEVER FU.CKING NEVER have gone to court, this is what people see with dismay.

I am scared that if I defend my self proetecting my family from an intruder, since no matter how low the statistics are on the intruder killing or raping the victim, and believe me the chance that this will happen is still a REAL risk and cannot be ignored. When we look at statistics, it is not a REAL representation as the statistics are taken as a whole of all burglaries, since the majority of which happen with nobody at home, the ones that relate to victims being harmed should be cross referenced against those burglaries that have taken place with someone in the house. That would give a much much higher percentage as this is the only "fair" way to establish the potential risk, it is easy to massage figures that do not represent the true picture.

Every case should be evaluated on its merit with the whole emphasis on the victim of the burglary being the injured party, the home owner should have never been placed in that situation but sadly this is not the view shared by the undemocratic judicial system.

Mr Punch

05-13-2003, 05:11 AM

Originally posted by Christopher M
You're obviously implying we conclude something about this characterization of Martin. Although you don't clarify, the only obvious conclusion of pertinence would be that it effects how we should treat him under the law.

You still didn't clarify what you mean, so we're left to wonder.

I said explicitly: {But since you come to mention it, a man with no basic recognition of right and wrong should not have the same access to freedom as the rest of us, and certainly not the same access to weapons. For his own safety or others'.} Is this not clear enough for you? "the only conclusion of pertinence" is indeed that it affects how we should treat him under law: as highlighted in red. That would seem to be a clarification, and definitely not an implication, but an explicit statement. Sorry if it was too tricky for you to follow.:rolleyes::D

I can't offer you any more specifics for reasons set out in my summation below, but let me just say generally...

He should not have been allowed to keep a gun. In fact, his licence had been revoked some years earlier, so it was illegal anyway, regardless of his mental state.

I don't think he should be let out. Admittedly, I have no access to the recent psychological assessments. He said he would not take the law into his own hands again. Unfortunately, any psychological assessments may be biased due to the political spin on the case. But from what I read, from a number of pro- and anti-sources, my opinion is he that is dangerous to the public and delusional.

Who determines who falls under this label?Psychiatrists. Do I trust them? Not necessarily: they are subjective individuals, often with divided opinions. Also, again affected by political agenda. But can be a necessary evil.

According to present legal thinking, people with no basic recognition of right and wrong are thought of as less culpible, rather than more. Would you care to expound upon the alternative you're implying here?Now read my posts again very carefully. This is important. I was not implying any alternative in regard to culpability of people with a moral dysfunction. I was not making a judgment about the rights and wrongs of the initial case, though it is obvious, I would think, that I don't agree with Martin's actions.

Then why did you bring up the previous characterizations, whimsy? And why were they brought up in court? Judicial whimsy?Martin's mental state is relevant to the reasons he committed his actions. It is also relevant to his sentence. It are not directly relevant to the laws he broke.

You might try to remember a little bit more closely, since most of what you said doesn't constitute a legitimate diagnosis in the first place.
...
The legal system has a problem with saying "an unacceptable risk" now? Funny... I seem to have read exactly that in any number of other parole hearings lately. What's special about this case that required them to use this euphemism?

Recall that I suggest it's not a euphemism at all, but simply the only remark they could make that accords with the facts.

I never commented on court-ordered mental treatment. I commented on imprisonment.

I'll freely admit my vested interests: I believe in property rights and right to self-defense.This is the crux of my initial response. I don't give a ****. I'm not going to look up anything more about Martin's mental state (actually I just did - and surprise surprise, those articles have gone, from both the Guardian and the Norfolk EDP site), or give you the specifics of why I think Martin should be kept locked away. I called it the Tony Martin BS in the first place, because

1) Of course I am biased;
2) More importantly, every other ****er who reads anything about the whole sorry story, with its political spin from all angles, is also completely biased to the point that any relevant points about home/self defence are completely lost.
3) From what you've posted before, when you haven't been trying to lead people into nit-picking off-topic arguments with passive-aggressive insinuation, implication and a basic failure to comprehend wtf is put in front of your face (which admittedly doesn't seem to be so often), we are probably in the same ball park about self/home defence.

Please refrain from calling people ignorant since they disagree with you, and being rude to them since they hold different opinions than you. Thank you. No, thank you! Look at my post again. I didn't call you ignorant, I said I suspected you hadn't researched.

And I wasn't being rude to you because you disagree with my opinion, but because you had implied in your previous post that I knew little about the case, and I was being rude to you, sir, because I think you're a *****. So I would like to apologise, but I'm afraid I still think you're a *****, so I'll go back to not responding to any of your posts. Cheers.

(Climbs down off high horse, wanders off looking for that **** halo... guess I ain't getting that in a hurry!:D )

Mr Punch

05-13-2003, 05:19 AM

Originally posted by Internal Boxer
Quote. "The only points I was picking you up on are ones that other people have used to pick holes in my argument before, so I was suggesting you might want to accept these as arguments to prepare yourself for when people throw them at you... or maybe not...!

I understand you "generally" agree with what I have said but to be honest your nit picking points are so weak it really does not stand up to scrutiny, or observation, the post was purely subjective and in such a fasion you can either agree or disagree, ironically your the only one to pick up on these "holes", there are holes in any argument my friend that is why it becomes a bit of a pointless exercise we can only offer our views accross. LOL. :D

WTF's your problem?! :D

My weak nitpicking points are the same points that people who don't agree with US use in courts and the Houses of Parliament. If you don't argue more objectively, you're gonna be stuck on the net while they erode your liberties further.

My post was based on knowledge of the workings of local govt, communities, police etc: when you've researched the stats and talked to some of these people instead of wittering on about your ****ing dreams and putting up a black and white 'poll', then you can have an opinion as 'subjective' as mine! LOL :D:rolleyes:

Man, forget gassing old people, bomb Manchester!:D

Internal Boxer

05-13-2003, 05:27 AM

Mate yeah lets call people ****wits just because they say you did not have any knowledge about the case, shows you up for what you are bud!!

Internal Boxer

05-13-2003, 05:43 AM

"My weak nitpicking points are the same points that people who don't agree with US use in courts and the Houses of Parliament. If you don't argue more objectively, you're gonna be stuck on the net while they erode your liberties further. "

"My post was based on knowledge of the workings of local govt, communities, police etc: when you've researched the stats and talked to some of these people instead of wittering on about your ****ing dreams and putting up a black and white 'poll', then you can have an opinion as 'subjective' as mine! LOL"

Your right and your post was purely objective........ BWAAAAHHAAAAAA. Mate practice what you preach, post objective posts yourself not the ramblings of a feeble mind.

Working in Local Gov, I have more contact with Councillors, MP's political machines, I think you over estimate your own mental ability and intellectual capacity, reasoning and logic.

"Man, forget gassing old people, bomb Manchester!"

LOL your about 8 years too late you plonker rodney, the IRA already did it, must be nice in you unreality bubble, mmm wish the rest of us could hide away in la la land like you!!

KC Elbows

05-13-2003, 07:10 AM

Aside from the flames, interesting dicussion.

It always amazes me how good discussions pop up on this board from initial articles that don't really apply.

I mean, we are talking about the aryan dude who shot the gypsy kid in the back, an attempted execution, right?

And those kids ARE being tried for their crimes, those that survive, right?

That guy's not being charged for defending his home, had he just successfully defended his home, he wouldn't have nearly as much to worry about.

It was that execution bit that put it over the edge.

I mean, self defense advocates need to start putting more attention on the positive examples of problems with the law, and stop making use of weirdos like Bernard Goetz and this aryan dude who WERE NEVER on trial for defending themselves, but for taking part in executions AFTER defending themselves. Bit of a difference there.

However, it's good that a better discussion can come out of it than it deserves.

Christopher M

05-13-2003, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by Mat
He should not have been allowed to keep a gun. In fact, his licence had been revoked some years earlier, so it was illegal anyway, regardless of his mental state.

I don't think anyone's complaining about the possession charge. It's more the murder thing that people are upset about.

Now read my posts again very carefully. This is important. I was not implying any alternative in regard to culpability of people with a moral dysfunction.

Then what are you implying?

You went out of your way above to make sure your statements about his moral state were very explicit, and very explicitly related to how the law treats him, so I have it on good authority (yours) you're trying to say something on this topic. What is it?

To clarify, I was trying to point out previously that when the sense of right and wrong is diminished in criminal cases, culpibility is also meant to diminish. You've clarified above that you don't propose any alternative.

However, the opposite has occurred here; at least, and I mean this specifically with respect to your original comment on the thread: "Regardless of who the kid was or what he did, Tony Martin is a borderline psychotic with regressional tendencies and obsessive compulsive disorders and a dangerous sociopath."

So it's not clear what you're trying to say.

you had implied in your previous post that I knew little about the case

Could you point out the section of my previous post where I did that, please?

I'm sorry that I offended you.

Christopher M

05-13-2003, 01:13 PM

Kung Lek

On the practical front, and per my previous post to you, I'm still very curious as to what you recommend a home-owner do.

This seems to me to be the very crux of the issue, including Internal Boxer's and Watchman's points (re: Jedi-like powers).

GeneChing

05-13-2003, 04:17 PM

Yeah, you *******s would have plugged me if it was your house. Don't deny it. That's the thanks I get for keeping this forum running for y'all. :p

Seriously, I think the issue here is about knee-jerk reactions and martial myopia. Surely if your space is invaded in a potentially life threatening way, you must defend. I mean, this is a kung fu forum, after all. So to me, the question is whether a home intruder automatically constitutes a life threatening home invasion. If you think it is always so, I'd have to suggest that your spending too much time in a fantasy world. There are so many possible scenarios that wouldn't warrent such a reaction. Give the forum and the net a break and go outside. ;)

Here's another real life scenario. No, not me breaking into friend's houses again. Quite the opposite. I used to live in this funky old house in SF - it had been turned around so my front door was actually the old back door and split into two rentals. We had the upstairs and there was this nice family downstairs. One day I was kicking back and these two kids I'd never seen before walks right into my bedroom. They were around 10 or so. It turns out that they were friends of the kids downstairs and got mixed up as to which door was the right door and went into mine, which I had accidently left open (it was a funky old house and the front/back door lock didn't always work right.) So should I have clobbered them with my nunchuks? Of course not. As soon as I saw them, I knew they were not a serious threat. It was a bit shocking, but a decent martial artist trains to think when shocked, not react by killing everybody. Any decent human being would have made the same judgement, irregardless of training. Now my two breaking and entering scenarios are clear examples, but I could certainly imagine scenarios that are more ambiguous.

Laughing Cow

05-13-2003, 04:29 PM

Here is another example, I have quiet often witnessed.

At one stage of my life I did quiet a bit of sharing of premises with friends.

At times it happened that one of my friends brought a drunk buddy home to crash on the couch in the communal area, coming home late and the other occupants being asleep nobody was informed.

Come 04:00 the drunk Guy needs to hit the loo and starts looking around for it, ebing unfamiliar with his surroundings he knocks things, etc.
You wake up and hear someone moving around the House, you know it is none of your mates.

What do you do now??
BTW, at that time everybody in the house owned a Firearm, burglar bars and other preventive measures did exist.
As we were living in an area with a very high crime-rate where 10yr old Kids got killed for their bicycles.

Christopher M

05-13-2003, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by GeneChing
So to me, the question is whether a home intruder automatically constitutes a life threatening home invasion. If you think it is always so, I'd have to suggest that your spending too much time in a fantasy world.

This isn't anyone's position.

The question is: how can you tell if it's a life threatening situation?

And if you can't tell, who get's the benefit of the doubt, you or the criminal?

Until you address those points, you're only arguing with yourself.

David Jamieson

05-13-2003, 06:00 PM

And if you can't tell, who get's the benefit of the doubt, you or the criminal?

I think that's the point that was made with the example of the kids walking in mistakenly.

The benefit of the doubt tends to go to the property owner, but there is always evidence that is weighed against a humanitarian factor dependent entirely on the Judges interpretation of the written law.

And what do you mean by "what is a homeowner expected to do?" Is this an out that by default allows people to shoot other people that are on their property regardless of the scenario?

Do you think there is a solution to every scenario that can be outlined in minutia as to how a person should act in any of a thousand given situations?

I think that every society has an underlying social ethic and based upon that, the behaviour of it's citizens can be more or less peaceful. I also think that if we expect the worse en masse, then that's all there is going to be in our minds and it will perpetuate into a manifest reality. Kind of Orwellian, but there you have it.

So where do we draw the line when it comes to citizens shooting each other for stealing property, or even citizens becoming vigilantes at the other end?

The more that a society becomes a grouping of camps the worse it will get. The root of the problem is deeper than being prosecuted if you shoot a burglar. It's at a socio-economic level as well. The criminal element will only get hardened as it adapts to the hardening civilian protectionists.

cheers

Christopher M

05-13-2003, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by Kung Lek
I think that's the point that was made with the example of the kids walking in mistakenly.

How does a situation where it's utterly obvious what's going on address the problem of what to do in an ambiguous situation?

Is this an out that by default allows people to shoot other people that are on their property regardless of the scenario?

No. That seems like quite a silly position to me. Don't you think so too?

Do you think there is a solution to every scenario that can be outlined in minutia as to how a person should act in any of a thousand given situations?

No. But that doesn't invalidate asking about a specific situation.

I think that every society has an underlying social ethic and based upon that, the behaviour of it's citizens can be more or less peaceful.

Everyone here believes that, so far as I can tell.

I also think that if we expect the worse en masse, then that's all there is going to be in our minds and it will perpetuate into a manifest reality.

You don't expect the worst en masse.

You expect the worst when the cost of not expecting the worst is the death, torture, and/or rape of your loved ones.

So where do we draw the line when it comes to citizens shooting each other for stealing property

The only one here who has suggested citizens shooting each other for stealing property is you. This is what I meant by "you are only arguing with yourself."

Laughing Cow

05-13-2003, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by Christopher M

The only one here who has suggested citizens shooting each other for stealing property is you. This is what I meant by "you are only arguing with yourself."

Are you saying that (for example) a US Citizen that commits a burglary, break-in or similar all of a sudden is no longer a US Citizen with all the rights & privileges due to him as a US Citizen?
:confused:

Pls, provide sources that substantiate this type of thinking.

Cheers.

Christopher M

05-13-2003, 06:20 PM

Here's an analogy:

If someone pulls me into an alley and draws a knife on me, some possibilities as to his intentions are: he won't hurt me but will try to take my wallet, and he will kill me.

If the latter is true, it seems we all agree I have the legal right to defend my life with equal threat against his. If the former is true, it seems we all agree that I do not have the legal right to kill him to save a few of my dollars.

Let's hypothesize further that there is some distance between us and he is closing, but I have the acumen and circumstance to react against him.

I have a choice here. I can either choose to assume my life is in danger, and respond with the appropriate force. Or I can choose to assume my life is not in danger, and similarly react appropriately.

Let's assume in either case my assumption is wrong. The cost in the former situation will be the assailant's life. The cost in the latter situation will be mine.

This is what I mean when I say: who gets the benefit of the doubt, the criminal or the victim?

This is what I mean when I say: when the cost of not expecting the worst is the death, torture, and/or rape of you or your loved ones.

So, I've established a model here, and I am furthermore putting forth my personal opinion: that we give the benefit of the doubt to the victim. I am saying explicitly that if confronted with a knife in an alley, the victim has the right to assume his life is being threatened and react appropriately, even though this may not be the case, because the cost of doing otherwise is his own life, and is too high a cost to pay.

Does this mean that if you and some buddy's are fooling around on your way home from a bar, and one of them shows you the new knife he bought, you're legally obliged to kill him? Of course not; this is not at all the situation described.

Does this mean that if you're legally obliged to kill someone over the contents of your wallet? Of course not; this is not at all the situation described.

Now... apply this analogy to the house-invader situation.

Instead of the "implied but ambiguous threat" of someone pulling a knife on you, there is the "implied but ambiguous threat" of someone breaking into your house with criminal intent.

Apply the exact same logic as above, and you'll find my (and I presume Watchman's, Internal Boxer's, and Blackjack's) positions on this topic.

Similarly, are we saying that it's ok to kill people over property? No. That it's ok to kill criminals? No. That it's ok to kill kids who walk into your house? No. That it's ok to kill drunks your roomies bring home? No. As with the two "silly" examples brought up in the knife-alley situation, none of these situations are described by this position for home-invaders.

I hope that clarifies things.

Christopher M

05-13-2003, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by Laughing Cow
Are you saying that a US Citizen that commits a burglary, break-in or similar all of a sudden... no longer [due] the rights & privileges due to him as a US Citizen?

Yes.

Pls, provide sources that substantiate this type of thinking.

Substantiation: that burglars are thrown in jail. To my knowledge, despite the efforts of the office of Homeland Security, this is still against the rights & privileges due people as US citizens.

Cheers.

Laughing Cow

05-13-2003, 06:35 PM

Christpher M.

May I suggest you re-read the US Consitution and Homeland Security act with a Lawyer at hand, who can explain it to you.

I think like with many other discussion I see you holding here, you are insisting that your viewpoint is correct and the true one when in reality it is slanted and skewed by what your perception of what you would like it to be.

This is not an attack, but an observation based on your posts on this board.

joedoe

05-13-2003, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by Christopher M

Yes.

Substantiation: that burglars are thrown in jail. To my knowledge, despite the efforts of the office of Homeland Security, this is still against the rights & privileges due people as US citizens.

Cheers.

I think you will find that legally this is not correct. They are still considered US citizens, but their criminal status means that they are incarcerated. If you kill a man in jail, you are still charged with murder.

Christopher M

05-13-2003, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by Laughing Cow
May I suggest you re-read the US Consitution and Homeland Security act with a Lawyer at hand, who can explain it to you.

Yes you may.

May I suggest that if you disagree with something, you state that disagreement rather than making an ambiguous appeal to a percieved authority along with the assumption of other people's knowledge?

you are insisting that your viewpoint is correct

I'm insisting on having a viewpoint, on being able to explain it, and being able to repond to arguments against it.

I'm not sure why you believe that to be inappropriate.

Christopher M

05-13-2003, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by joedoe
They are still considered US citizens, but their criminal status means that they are incarcerated.

Right. Which is why I explicitly didn't agree to the part about them not being considered US citizens.

Laughing Cow

05-13-2003, 06:43 PM

Christopher M.

Why should I state the obvious that even most primary school kids are aware off.

In NO country in this world does commiting a criminal act result in loosing your Citizenship.
If that were true, all the criminals released from Prison would be stateless and the USA the BIGGEST human rights violator.

Research "stateless" and than come back and tell us if your thinking and view of the subject is correct.

Or do you think that the Goverment simply re-instates their citizenship when they are released from prison.

FWIW, incarceration ONLY happens after the criminal has been tried and sentenced, which is quiet some time AFTER the crime.

TheGhostDog

05-13-2003, 07:17 PM

Can someone please point out to me how shooting a 15 yr old kid in the back when he is trying to get away, is self-defense and not using excessive force ?

Despite what some of you people may think, you DON'T have the right to kill someone simply because they are in your home. Last year there was the case of a drunk guy in the U.S who was trying to get into his home but unfortunately all the apartments looked the same and he was trying to get into the wrong place. The owner of the unit that the drunk guy was trying to get into shot the drunk guy believing he was a burglar.
So an innocent guy dies, but that's okay ?

Royal Dragon

05-13-2003, 07:59 PM

If someone breaks into my home, the last thing I want is for them to live, and come back and take revenge on me for fighting back and hurting them. Criminals do stuff like that all the time. Better to shoot them running away, and not have to worry about it, then have to live in fear that will return to hit you again and possibly kill you.

The guy shot the kid in the back. Big deal, he was a criminal, and knows the risks of being so.

If I ever have to deal with a situation like this, i'm killing them, and buring the body under my basement floor, and just keeping very quiet about it. I wouldn't even admit there was a burglary attempt.

I sure as hell wouldn't let the SOB get out alive.

Maybe I'm jaded form dealing with this type of element on a regular basis growng up, but as far as I'm concerned the only good criminal is a dead criminal. I place absolutely NO value on their lives, not in the least little bit. My garbage is worth more to me than their lives.

Laughing Cow

05-13-2003, 08:08 PM

RD.

In that case I hope nobody misses the criminal or knew where he went on the night he went missing.

Because if the Police track him down to your place guess who will be facing the Judge and Jury.

BTW, you can't claim SD anymore after the corpse is found in your basement.

Cheers.

Christopher M

05-13-2003, 10:46 PM

Originally posted by Laughing Cow
In NO country in this world does commiting a criminal act result in loosing your Citizenship.

Right. And I never claimed it did.

Please tell me you're calling me ignorant over something other than your failure to read my post. :confused:

Especially even after I point it out allready.

Royal Dragon

05-14-2003, 01:02 AM

If you burry the body in your basement, it saves the risk of dumping it and getting caught. Also, If you burry it really deep, and dump a few feet of concrete over it, by the time it's found, 50 years would probably have gone by, and there would be no way to know how long it had been there, or who put it there. It could be anyone from a former owner of the home, to the contractor that built it, to complete strangers who just happened to need a good dumping ground when the house was being built.

As for his freinds, you have to worry about that no matter what, so it's not an issue anyway.

The other option would be to cap a couple of rounds off into your wall, and place a drop gun in his hand after you shoot him. A nice little 22 would be good for that.

Either way, if your faced with going to jail because you defend yourself, you got nutin to loose anyway. Figuring out how to get away with it is the first and foremost consideration in a situation like that.

I'm just glad I don't live in the UK.

Laughing Cow

05-14-2003, 01:05 AM

Originally posted by Royal Dragon
Figuring out how to get away with it is the first and foremost consideration in a situation like that.

Than I think you better need to get up to speed on forensic techniques.
;)

The scenario you described will be debunked in a very short time, using modern methods like DNA testing and similar.

Have fun trying to outwit the Cops.

shaolin kungfu

05-14-2003, 01:11 AM

Is anyone else seriously afraid of RD?

Laughing Cow

05-14-2003, 01:18 AM

Originally posted by shaolin kungfu
Is anyone else seriously afraid of RD?

Not me.
Lots of water separates him and me.

Internal Boxer

05-14-2003, 04:15 AM

LMFAO at Laughing Cow getting a good bi.tch slapping from Christopher M.
:D :D :D

Laughing Cow

05-14-2003, 04:43 AM

Originally posted by Internal Boxer
LMFAO at Laughing Cow getting a good bi.tch slapping from Christopher M.
:D :D :D

Would be even funnier if he wasn't on my ignore list or if I gave a **** what that moron has to say or anybody that thinks he actually sprouts some wisdom and knowledge.

:D :D :D

But it is easy to sit behind a keyboard and laugh and give an electronic "***** slapping", funny those guys are never around when you wanna meet them in Person. More Raleks and heroes of the Internet I guess.

;)

Internal Boxer

05-14-2003, 05:01 AM

Ooooh dear, scratched a nerve there I think!

Laughing Cow

05-14-2003, 05:16 AM

Originally posted by Internal Boxer
Ooooh dear, scratched a nerve there I think!

Not at all.

:D :D

Just bored.

;) ;)

Royal Dragon

05-14-2003, 05:40 AM

The scenario you described will be debunked in a very short time, using modern methods like DNA testing and similar.

Curious, How? I mean, first they would have to know a crime occured. They would have to have more than his criminal buddies telling the cops thier friend went in, and never came out. You can't just search a place on hearsay. By the time they got a warrent. the cement would be hard, and the floor would be replaced.

They can't have a murder investigation if they don't have a body.

Hel1, the hole for the sump pump is almost deep enough to do it. All I'd have to do is remove a few feet more, dump the dirt under the crawl space, drop his sorrry dead asss in and drop cement ontop of him. Then, place the pump on top of the cement. I mean, who would ever even think to look there for a body? Let alone start digging through concrete and mud?

I think the safest bet to avoid prosicution, would be to hide the fact a crime was commited to beging with.

Serously, the mob drops bodies in the desplains river all the time, so do a few others, noone ever gets caught for those. My method acomplishes the same goal, only you don't risk having a witness see you making the drop, because all the work is hidden behind your walls. Plus, you have some legal protection due to the fact they would have to get a warrent to search. In order to do that, they need significant evidance. Certianly alot more than the word of some criminal element who might have known the burglar was planning to hit your house.

All you have to do when the cops come is say "Nope, sorry no burgluries here", and they can't touch you. They would be forced to conclude the Crimials who complained didn't really know which house was suposed to be burgled, and were confused.

It's pausible deniability, combine with lack of credible enough evidence to warrent a search.

I could even invite the officers in, and talk to them wile I'm working on my sump to get it fixed before the next rain storm, and all they would see was a guy trying to fix his sum pump. There's no way they could know the body was right there unless they dig, and that requires a warrent that they have no grounds to get.