Burglar to sue...

[Meatballs]

If he was put in a wheelchair mostly incapacitated - say paralyzed from the neck down, (the farmer has been shown to have been a bit overzealous in the first place otherwise he wouldn't have been convicted?), how would you suppose he lives the rest of his life?

Burglary such a heinous crime that you deserve to rot and die?

In the real circumstance he doesn't deserve a penny, but I wouldn't feel the same in others. Hence a court system to judge merits of every case.

 

[old.Dillinja]

Originally posted by Jonny_Darko
If he wins, that's it. I'm leaving this country and joining a monastery in Tibet. This isn't the kind of world I want to live in, or the kind of society that deserves anything more than the hellhole it's slowly becoming.

I don't blame ya mate, this country becomes more and more like America every day, without the good things. Thought about leaving the country a lot recently.

 

[Gumbo]

Originally posted by Meatballs


Burglary such a heinous crime that you deserve to rot and die?

He has over thirty convictions for that and other heinous crimes like heroin dealing, and in my opinion yes he does deserve to rot and die. Suiing for loss of earnings for a start makes me laugh, what, he can't jump through that window to rob someone cos he limps a bit now?

How many lives has he destroyed through his other crimes in the past. The court system is not wrong because he can sue Tony Martin. It is wrong because he is still on the street now, and was still on the street and able to rope in his pikey mates to go and rob another house in the first place.

His bad luck he chose the house of someone who had the means and desire to defend it, whatever it took.

 

[old.Fweddy]

Thought about leaving the country a lot recently.

And go where though?

 

[tris-]

Originally posted by old.Fweddy
And go where though?

holland

 

[Meatballs]

Originally posted by Gumbo
He has over thirty convictions for that and other heinous crimes like heroin dealing, and in my opinion yes he does deserve to rot and die. Suiing for loss of earnings for a start makes me laugh, what, he can't jump through that window to rob someone cos he limps a bit now?

Aye does kinda suck he's still about with all his other convictions

 

[Jonny_Darko]

How can we trust the courts are going to get it right? That farmer's still in prison!

If I try to steal honey from a bear, I'm going to get mauled. If I break into a farmer's house in the dead of night I'm going to get shot. Ergo I don't. Plus of course, it's wrong. Though in the current climate I'm starting to think a life of crime is perhaps an easier way to get those things I want from life than trying to live honestly (which is damn hard work and sometimes impossible as I'm sure you all know).

Yes, maybe he shouldn't have acted the way he did but think about it. It was night, it was dark, someone broke into his house. He was no doubt absolutely terrified. He didn't know how many people had broken in, what they were armed with, or if they were planning on killing him with half the chance. The courts need to realise that people don't, nay, CAN'T, think clearly in these circumstances. Adrenaline kicks in and you run on survival instict. He didn't have time to slowly assess the situation before opening fire, and I'm sorry someone died, but the kid's death is Feardon's fault, NOT Martin's.

If I heard someone kick my door down, if I had a gun, I'd reach for it. I keep a hammer under my bed as it is. I have a girlfriend to protect, so stay the f*ck out of my home unless you want your skull caved in. Sorry but there it is.

 

[nath]

Didn't he shoot the kid as they were running away? If so, it's not quite as clear cut as you make out.

 

[ECA]

Originally posted by nath
Didn't he shoot the kid as they were running away? If so, it's not quite as clear cut as you make out.

Whether he was running or not is imho irrelevant.

Oh no theres consequences for robbing someone this time lets run off.

Okkkkk.

 

[Jonny_Darko]

Originally posted by nath
Didn't he shoot the kid as they were running away? If so, it's not quite as clear cut as you make out.

Admittedly I haven't looked at the specifics since it all happened and my memory's a bit hazy. But my point stands. If someone did break into my home and I reached for my hammer and smashed some skull, I'd be doing soap-dropping duties alongside Martin right now, and you know it.

 

[Cdr]

Okay dokey, I've just gone back and re-read the case notes / decision of the Martin trial.

The fact that he shot them as they were running away had a massive effect on the case - as he was pleading self-defence. They had already commited the crime, and were leaving the property when he shot them - thus it can not be self-defence.

Secondly, you only have the right to use 'reasonable force' to protect property - is shooting someone who is running away 'reasonable'? And as it is an objective test - the reasonable man - it's not what Martin thinks is reasonable, its what an avg man thinks is reasonable.

The prosection also argued that he laid in wait for the two men - which gives the pre-meditation (or mens rea) for murder. Which if true, then it's not as clear cut as some posts have made out.

If you would like me to copy and paste the case from Westlaw, I'd be happy to do that - so you can have a read whenever?

edit - its a good 17 pages long tho

 

[Meatballs]

Originally posted by Jonny_Darko
Admittedly I haven't looked at the specifics since it all happened and my memory's a bit hazy. But my point stands. If someone did break into my home and I reached for my hammer and smashed some skull, I'd be doing soap-dropping duties alongside Martin right now, and you know it.

You think your possesions are worth more than someones life? As far as I know they didn't threaten him in any way, just taking a tv or what not. OMG my poor tv! blam blam! die suqaz

If someone stole from me, I'd be pissed off, but I'd sit tight, phone police, collect insurance, get over it. If they threatened you, or came armed etc then it'd be different.

 

[Meatballs]

Originally posted by ECA
Whether he was running or not is imho irrelevant.

Oh no theres consequences for robbing someone this time lets run off.

Okkkkk.

Consequences shouldn't be death, consequences should be jail etc, not the farmers place to be judge jury and executioner.

 

[Jonny_Darko]

Originally posted by Meatballs
You think your possesions are worth more than someones life? As far as I know they didn't threaten him in any way, just taking a tv or what not. OMG my poor tv! blam blam! die suqaz

If someone stole from me, I'd be pissed off, but I'd sit tight, phone police, collect insurance, get over it. If they threatened you, or came armed etc then it'd be different.

The point is, generally, you don't know. If someone's in your house you don't know what they're after, if they're armed, how willing or able they are to hurt or kill you or rape your girlfriend, and you're hardly in a position to ask. Maybe I could just brew him a cuppa and point out that he can have my belongings as long as he doesn't hurt me / mine.

And making out that I'm materialistic just because I don't want people to take my hard earned stuff is silly. What about irreplacable, valueless stuff with sentimental value? If I can use violence to stop people stealing my things I will.

It COULD be a scared kid getting money for his heroin addiction, just after my DVDs, in which case no huge loss to me and an insurance claim, or it could be a hardened crim that killed old Betty down the road last week and didn't get caught for it. I'm not willing to risk it personally. And I will not hide in the cupboard weeping til they go away either.

Hey here's an idea. Don't break in, in the first place. Like I said before that should be the end of it.

 

[SilverHood]

make it like it is in the US... would solve these problems

shoot the intuders

 

[ECA]

it was about the 5th time they had burgled him.

What are the odds they were gonna do it again unless he did something?

He heard them arrive, waited then shot the cunts.

Tbh he should have got all of the little shits.

They wern't robbing him to feed 5 starving children, they were doing it for beer money.

Utter Utter Scum.

 

[Driwen]

If what the farmer did is allowed and he would not go to jail for it. It would be abused in other ways. People will claim someone broke into their house and killed them, while it was just a good planned murder.
You should be able to defend yourself from criminals, but if you are not in danger, you should not have to right to inflict lasting injuries. So if a burglar is in your house and as soon as he sees you and flees. It can be ok to make him stop, but not if it means that he will end up in the hospital. This is because it can be abused as i said earlier and because you are not the judge on what the punishment should be. The burglar is fleeing so that means your life is safe, if you can catch up with him and he becomes dangerous then off course its self defense.

Everyone saying here that once your a criminal, you should have no rights anymore. The criminal gets punished for his crime after that he is let back in society and apart from having the crime on his record is a normal citizen again. If you dont agree with that, change that system. Btw if he is convicted for over 30 crimes, why the hell is he still in society? He has shown that he just wants to be a criminal and not a member of society.

 

[ECA]

Originally posted by driwen
If what the farmer did is allowed and he would not go to jail for it. It would be abused in other ways. People will claim someone broke into their house and killed them, while it was just a good planned murder.
You should be able to defend yourself from criminals, but if you are not in danger, you should not have to right to inflict lasting injuries. So if a burglar is in your house and as soon as he sees you and flees. It can be ok to make him stop, but not if it means that he will end up in the hospital. This is because it can be abused as i said earlier and because you are not the judge on what the punishment should be. The burglar is fleeing so that means your life is safe, if you can catch up with him and he becomes dangerous then off course its self defense.

Everyone saying here that once your a criminal, you should have no rights anymore. The criminal gets punished for his crime after that he is let back in society and apart from having the crime on his record is a normal citizen again. If you dont agree with that, change that system. Btw if he is convicted for over 30 crimes, why the hell is he still in society? He has shown that he just wants to be a criminal and not a member of society.

Somewhat agree.

I think our system of crime and punishment is wrong.
A convicted criminal should get a set jailterm. Nothing they do will shorten it. At the end of that period they should be put into a rehabilitative controlled establishment where they can learn new skills, and apply for jobs etc, when they get a job and are deemed unlikely to commit further crimes they should then be free released under parole for a period of time ( dependant on crime committed, repeat offender etc. ).

Carrot and Stick. It has to be both or it doesnt work.

 

[Cdr]

'Reasonable force' is the key thing here - what is reasonable in the situation.

I know of a few cases like Martin's case, where the question of reasonable force is raised.

One that springs to mind is an old bloke who owned an allotment. Over a period of a few months his shed had been broken in to and tools etc stolen. In order to stop this he waited in the shed one night armed with a shotgun. He saw the potential robber walk upto the shed door and blew the guys head off. Is this reasonable? He's only protecting his property after all. He was obviously found guilty of murder.

Yet, I can cite one case where the exact opposite happened. Similar facts to the Martin case, with a house break-in. The owner shot and killed the burgular, but unknown to the owner at the time of the shooting, the burgular had come 'prepared' and was armed with knives and other offensive weapons. He was found not guilty.

'Reasonable force'

Martin had not used reasonable force, and thus convicted (of voluntary manslaughter). And it is on this conviction that litigation regarding the burgular is taking place. If Martin had be found not guilty then there could not possibly be any suing.

 

[ECA]

All I can say is that I have gone over the facts and had I been on that jury I would have argued my ass off not guilty.

 

[SilverHood]

wonder whether any conviced criminal has sued the government for loss of earnings because he's in jail



If you break the law, in disrespect of others peoples right, why should they have any respect towards the person who violated their home and property?

 

[Cdr]

Personally - following the law - I would have had to have said guilty. As his defence of self-defence failed, as he had shot them while running away, as there was pre-meditation.

'On a number of occasions at meetings of the local Farm Watch and in discussions with neighbours and the local policeman Mr Martin was said to have made his dissatisfaction with the police very plain. He was heard to express the view repeatedly that self-help was the better way of dealing with criminals. He is said to have used such remarks as "you know the best way to stop them -- shoot the bastards"; that if a particular team of burglars returned he would "blow their heads off"; and he was also said to have suggested that he would recommend putting such criminals in a field and using a machine gun on them.'

Quoted from the case.

Guilty I'm afraid.

 

[Jonny_Darko]

But at the same time maybe he shouldn't be in a position where the police have proved time and time again they couldn't do anything.

The police's hands are so tied these days that they are practically powerless. There's very few of them, they never seem to have the time to deal with stuff that comes up and when they do nothing comes of it. I know I don't feel protected by the police, so, I'm afraid, when you get to a point in society that the government aren't protecting people, then people will take matters into their own hands. It's natural and completely understandable. Someone said they'd already robbed him five times? Well if the law system was working they'd have been in jail after the first time and we'd have got nowhere near to the point where this guy felt he had no option but to take it into his own hands.

I'm totally against vigilante-ism and agree that this stuff needs to be dealt with by the law. But the law is pathetically inept at dealing with criminals, as no doubt we've all had personal experience of. Ergo, people take the only, if drastic, course of action left to them - to deal with it themselves.

 

[Gumbo]

If we're arguing reasonable force, maybe what is considered reasonable needs to be addressed and brought more in to line with peoples perceptions today.

I find it entirely reasonable that if someone breaks into my house I should be able to do what I like to stop the fucker. That, in my opinion is what is reasonable.

You can't say if you're not physically in danger then you have no right to harm them, what about the psychological damage of being repeatedly burgled? This can be absolutely devastating, you can't appreciate it until it happens to you or someone close to you.

Being afraid to sleep in your own home, or leave your house for fear of returning to find it ransacked, and those 'possesions' which you can just claim back on the insurance missing.

Possesions like your wedding ring, perhaps, or those baby photos of your first born that the cunts strew across the floor and trod all over, oh yeah Norwich Union'll replace those no probs at all.

Yes, under the law as it stands Martin had to be found guilty, but how long can we go on like this? Recently the government has tried to essentially de-criminalise burglary for first, and even second time offenders. Burglary next to physically harming people has to be the most horrible of crimes. Yes, if some punk steals your car, fair enough, bung in the claim get it sorted, but don't tell me to do that when they've just gone through your most personal things looking for anything of value, especially when it's the fourth time this year and the police won't do fuck all, and don't even come to have a look till a couple of days after the event.

Oh, and then they catch the guy, and he gets jailed, finally we get some justice.... Nope he's back on the street in 6 months, and doing the exact same thing.

 

[ECA]

I know its not game.net related but perhaps we could have a poll on this ( tony martins guilt/not-guilt )? It would be interesting to know what the lurkers and doac people thought

Guilty/Not guilty/abstain

GO GO GO POWER FORUM PEOPLE!!

 

[Cdr]

Unfortunately the law as a whole is based around the idea of reasonableness, and what is reasonable. Many of the principles that we consider as the law are tested by the reasonable man test. I know from studying it it becomes a massive headache when you have a case study in front of you and you have to try and guess what is reasonable.

Although it does cause problems - it does give the law flexability when addressing the issues. Its the flexability that makes common law what it is. If we put more strict definitions on what reasonable is in burglary, or murder etc, we would have trouble later on when perhaps a case arises that doesnt fit into those definitions set out by statute.

As I see it there are a few issues here. Personally I dont see how he could have possibly been found not-guilty of manslaughter. Secondly I think yes, the police should have done more, but again thats a seperate issue from the actual guilty / not guilty. Thirdly, I think everyone should have the right to defend their property (which the law states we do), but there has to be a line drawn at what we consider excessive. Lastly there is the issue of whether or not he should be allowed to sue. Yes, he should be allowed to sue, because what we dont want is a situation where the law starts to discriminate against certain people - say you took a pen and the owner beat the living shit outta you, would you want compensation? Should he succeed in his litigation? No he shouldnt, and I doubt he will.

Yes the law needs to be reformed in various areas, but I don't think there is such a bigger problem as people think.

 

[nath]

If they were running away, and he shot them.. it strikes me he must have shot them in the back. That's pretty fucking nasty, regardless of how you look at it.

The fact is, he wasn't defending his property, waving a gun about had done that already. Shooting them was an act of revenge.

 

[ECA]

Originally posted by nath
If they were running away, and he shot them.. it strikes me he must have shot them in the back. That's pretty fucking nasty, regardless of how you look at it.

The fact is, he wasn't defending his property, waving a gun about had done that already. Shooting them was an act of revenge.

Doesn't the fact that they had robbed him before and probably would have done so against make anyone else think its still self defence?

 

[nath]

No, that only makes more of a case for the fact that it was revenge.

 

[Gumbo]

I had the good fortune to read from the trial report, and it's quite amusing that the forensic evidence shows that the fatal shot that killed Barras hit him whilst he was bent over stuffing Martins silver into the holdall he had brought with him...

As I said in irc, now that's justice!