Sword-wielding resident confronts alleged thief

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Mat
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.

Should "border line psychotics with regressional tendencies and obsessive compulsive disorders" be held under a different set of laws than the rest of us?

BTW, are those official diagnoses, or are you characterizing based upon his affiliation with persons and values you find distastefull?

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.

[Christopher M]

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

Straw man: he didn't trade a life for some property.

[neit]

well at least that kid won't be burgling any more homes. good riddance

[Royal Dragon]

If someone wants to break into another's home, then they should be prepared to accept whatever consequences befall him. Including losing his life.

I have no sympothy for the criminal element. I've delt with them growing up, and most of them would care less about what happens to their victems. If they partake in that lifestyle, they deserve to get killed for it, ESPECIALLY if they are invading the sanctity of someone's home.

The only sad part here, is the guy got jailed for doing what he had every right to do. Sociaopath or not, if those burglars had not been violationg his home, they'd be alive right now. The SOLE responsibility is on the criminals that broke into his home. He had every right to defend it how ever he felt Most effective.

[Christopher M]

Also, the injured burglar is suing Martin for damages. He's recieved 5,000 pounds so far.

[Royal Dragon]

He should have been killed too.

How ****ed up is it when it's illegal to defend your self, and your home?

What motivation does a criminal have to NOT invade a home? he knows you can't defend yourself, you just have to let him take what he wants, and if you do defend youeself, he can sue you for it, adn get a sizeable amount of cash anway, probably MORE than if you just let him take what he wanted.

If I lived there, I'd bust up my basement floor, ahead of time, and set it up so I could just burry a body 10 feet under my house in minutes, just incase anything happened. Hell, I'd burry'em alive if need be.

[Internal Boxer]

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]

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

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.

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]

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]

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! 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]

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.


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]

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 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]

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]

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]

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. 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