Sword-wielding resident confronts alleged thief

[David]

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?

-David

[Internal Boxer]

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! (just kidding)

[Black Jack]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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