View Full Version : Intruders: Is the law fair and clear?
Here is a link to the document that outlines homeowner's rights when confronted with an intruder.
It takes a few seconds to load
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/01_02_05_intruder.pdf
No i dont think the law is fair i think half the problem is the laws and punishments need to be overhauled and brought up to date.The intruder if he gets caught will probably get a £50 fine and a slap on the wrists.Whats £50 in this day and age a nights drinking thats all .I personally think they should bring back the berch in public viewing and a fine.Or maybay go to the extreme like what they do in the middle east they take one hand of if that person is caught stealing one things for sure he wont do it a third time.
There was a barrister on the radio this morning saying how sad it was to see such a straight-forward issue being confused by politicians using it as a political football. I agree with him. The law, as it stands, is quite sensible. It allows you to defend yourself (even before you are attacked) but doesn't allow you to set yourself up as a Bronsonesque vigilante.
Or maybay go to the extreme like what they do in the middle east they take one hand of if that person is caught stealing one things for sure he wont do it a third time.
Umm, what??!! Please tell me you're joking.
We're a funny lot, us Scots. We think nothing of berating countries in the Middle East for having laws and practices that are, in our minds, in the Dark Ages*.
Then along come a few petty criminals, the world's about to end, and we demand the right to 'do with them as we see fit'.
I don't get it, truly.
________________________
*Just as we should, where countries are demonstrated to have appalling records in terms of human rights abuses. Perhaps sanctions would be more appropriate than the Islamophobia so often demonstrated.
Now Drutt, you know that we expect others to do as we say and not as we do... I'd give you an example, but I don't much fancy being placed under house arrest without due legal process being served! [disgust]
Yes drutt im only joking i wouldnt go as far as that but i do think the law should favour the victim a lot more and be tougher on these thugs that break into houses .I had my flat broken into about 7 years ago on a friday night between 8pm 11pm and one thing i can assure everyone is that after the event everytime you come into your house after being out you are very wary of entering your own home incase there is a intruder at home the insecure feeling stays there for a while.
And i just wonder sometimes if how much of breakins are known criminals to the police and reoffenders
I was in Florida visiting friends last October. My British friend owns a gun and the question of security came up in conversation. He said the main ethos in america was, if you come across an intruder inside your property then shoot to kill.
It appears dead men tell no tales.
Was this Tony Martin's mistake, letting one live?
And i just wonder sometimes if how much of breakins are known criminals to the police and reoffenders
Probably quite a lot of them… but if you plan to change that through punishment alone then you're going to have to have VERY harsh punishments indeed. Something along the lines of the '3-strikes' system some US states have would probably do it. Is that what you would like to see?
And i just wonder sometimes if how much of breakins are known criminals to the police and reoffenders
Probably quite a lot of them… but if you plan to change that through punishment alone then you're going to have to have VERY harsh punishments indeed. Something along the lines of the '3-strikes' system some US states have would probably do it. Is that what you would like to see?
Yes, I would like to see that. Though I am not too sure about the amount of tolerance shown, maybe 1 strike and you are out seems fairer. We don't want them gettin' in the habit of breaking in to someones home, do we? :)
He said the main ethos in america was, if you come across an intruder inside your property then shoot to kill.
Ah, guns... what a fantastic idea they are! [disgust]
Was this Tony Martin's mistake, letting one live?
No. Tony Martin's mistake was stepping over the line between self-defence to vigilante.
jjc, your comments will only appeal to the liberals in society, not the conservatives...
(do not confuse conservative with the tory party though there is quite a bit of crossover in ideology)
Yes, I would like to see that. Though I am not too sure about the amount of tolerance shown, maybe 1 strike and you are out seems fairer. We don't want them gettin' in the habit of breaking in to someones home, do we?
Johnny Quirino – 25 years to life for the 'petty theft of razor blades'
Ruben Arriaga – 25 years to life for shoplifting
Brian Gerler – 25 years to life for shoplifting
Thomas Nathan – 25 years to life for shoplifting
Joey Bonner – 25 years to life for shoplifting
Raphael Rayford – 25 years to life for shoplifting (a packet of Aspirin)
Dana Desosa – 25 years to life for shoplifting
Truel Vincent – 25 years to life for shoplifting (a packet of AA batteries)
There are many, many more… but my two favourite have got to be:
Santos Reyes – 25 years to life for lying on a Driver's License application
George Anderson – 25 years to life for filling out a false DMV application
Perhaps you think these are reasonable sentences? Perhaps the concept of 'rehabilitation' means nothing to you? So let's try a different approach:
How much do you think it costs to send somebody to prison for 25 years?
Those examples are just the tip of the iceberg, think of all the offences they never got caught for.
For example, not all mass murderers get convicted for every homocide.
I do think some of the sentences are harsh though, in British law, theft has a maximum sentence of ten years. I think this is reasonable, if the US took our maximum sentence then they could cut their gaoling costs by 60%
jjc, your comments will only appeal to the liberals in society, not the conservatives...
Liberals... sane....
you say tomato, I say tomato...
you say tomato, I say tomato...
So lets call the whole thing off? :lol: :lol:
Was this Tony Martin's mistake, letting one live?
No it was shooting a 16 year old boy without warning in the back as he was running away with an illegal pump action shotgun.
Tony Martin was found guilty by a jury. Unlikely they were all liberal or hadnt been burgled and its unlikely they condoned the boys behaviour but they still found Tony Martins behaviour unacceptable
This article is interesting http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=938&id=817212003 as it points out that although all want the right to sleep safely in our beds and our homes we should not and do not condone people shooting children in an effort to achieve this. It also says that there is a strange seperation between the law and justice and it talkes about the definition of reasonable.
As the site says at the end
"It is reasonable to expect effective policing. If our police forces were even half as visible and as diligent as our traffic wardens, we would all sleep easier.
Reasonable people do not want the right to sleep with a shotgun by the bed. They are alarmed by vigilantism and gun crime, whatever its source. But when reason and the law part company, reasonable men make heroes of extremists" thats what has happened with Tony Martin.
There are 4 standards of law in Britain:
One for the rich, one for the poor, one we would l;ike to see happen, and one of what actually happens, and they are all as different as eachother.
Some say that the law is an ass. However, it is not the law that is an ass, but the people who implement the law...
It would seem that present legislation leans towards the criminal rather than the victim. We have become to "liberalised" in society, where there are to many rights for all the wrong reasons...
Ciao,
Dave the Rave :cool:
Was this Tony Martin's mistake, letting one live?
No it was shooting a 16 year old boy without warning in the back as he was running away with an illegal pump action shotgun.
Tony Martin was found guilty by a jury. Unlikely they were all liberal or hadnt been burgled and its unlikely they condoned the boys behaviour but they still found Tony Martins behaviour unacceptable
This article is interesting http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=938&id=817212003 as it points out that although all want the right to sleep safely in our beds and our homes we should not and do not condone people shooting children in an effort to achieve this. It also says that there is a strange seperation between the law and justice and it talkes about the definition of reasonable.
As the site says at the end
"It is reasonable to expect effective policing. If our police forces were even half as visible and as diligent as our traffic wardens, we would all sleep easier.
Reasonable people do not want the right to sleep with a shotgun by the bed. They are alarmed by vigilantism and gun crime, whatever its source. But when reason and the law part company, reasonable men make heroes of extremists" thats what has happened with Tony Martin.
let us get into the mind of Tony Martin for a moment. He had repeatedly contacted the police about breakins but nothing was done about it. So he had got into the frame of mind that he was under a continuing attack. That said, he expected them to return so eventually a retreat equated to an attack on his property. He felt he had to take drastic action.
BTW I wouldn't describe the intruder as a 16 yr old boy, he was a criminal who worked as a thief and was known to the police on several occasions.
Lets face it, if the cops had kept obs on his property then Martin would not have been sent down. So I kinda blame the police in a way.
Rheghead,
None of what you have said about Tony Martin excuses what he did.
if it was your son would you have thought him a boy at 16?
My boy is a boy at 16
My sister in law had a boy at 16 who was always getting into trouble with the police and even spent time in prison. As a man he has a good job, a nice family, and lives a law abiding life. who knows whether this "boy" would have been the same. He didnt get the chance to know.
I know people are at the end of their tether, i know how distressing burglary can be, having been burgled and even mugged i know if i got my hands on the guy i would have smacked him with something heavy but shooting someone is not reasonable.
If I had gone down every lawful route to ensure the security of my property without lasting success, I and many others will start to devise unlawful ways to secure our properties. The system failed Tony Martin and in the end it failed him again. I don't think for one second that he was the type that I would like next door, however that doesn't mean he wasn't entitled to live in a peaceful and secure society.
that doesn't mean he wasn't entitled to live in a peaceful and secure society.
He is ABSOLUTELY entitled to live in a peaceful and secure society. He is ABSOLUTELY NOT entitled to keep an illegal weapon and shoot a boy in the back whatever happened.
I remember two instances where it has been 'justified' to 'shoot in the back'.
Remember the IRA cell in Gibraltar? I haven't googled this only recalling from memory, the British SAS shot the unarmed IRA in the back on the assumption that they could be reaching for weapons
On a grander scale, the Falklands. The General Belgrano was steaming away from the exclusion zone yet it was attacked in the back because it still posed an immediate threat.
If you are in the middle of nowhere, on your own, and you have been attacked then it is my opinion that it makes no difference if your attacker has his back turned on you or not. Those intruders could be going back for a gun or further help to kill you. Martin was still in immediate danger, sorry.
Naefearjustbeer
04-Feb-05, 09:51
If anyone enters my property with the intention to harm or steal from me I feel that I should have the right to what ever I see fit to defend my family my property and myself...!! I dont have any illeagal weapons and I feel using something like that would be stupid. But from my understanding of the Tony Martin affair he did what he had to. If the police did what they had too that 16 year old "boy" would not have been in the farmhouse in the first place. In my mind when you break the law you are giving up your rights and should expect whatever you get.
If the police did what they had too that 16 year old "boy" would not have been in the farmhouse in the first place.
The 16-year-old boy wasn't in the farmhouse... he was running away from it when he was shot in the back.
Okay, so you would defend yourself and your family – can you tell me what it is about a 16-year-old running in the opposite direction that you would consider to be so threatening that you would shoot him dead?
jjc, can substantiate he was not in the house? As far as I remember the case, the dead boy was just in the foyer but the older man got injured as he was fleeing the house.
jjc, can substantiate he was not in the house? As far as I remember the case, the dead boy was just in the foyer but the older man got injured as he was fleeing the house.
"I hate the way they did it, they said 'We found a person in your garden and we are now going to charge you with murder, do you understand.' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/3153537.stm) - Tony Martin
When his trial began in April 2000 Martin argued that he had genuinely been acting in self-defence. But it emerged the pair had been shot as they tried to flee through a window. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/3009769.stm)
DannyThe Manny
04-Feb-05, 19:48
Does anyone here remember the case a few years ago involving a Scottish tourist in the USA, I think it was Louisiana? His hire car broke down and he went to the nearest house to ask if he could use the phone to call a breakdown service. He knocked on the door and was shot dead by the householder, who fired through the door without even opening it. In court the householder was found not guilty of manslaughter.
Do you really want a society like that?
The Pepsi Challenge
04-Feb-05, 19:56
Just don't choose to live in a country where every citizen has the right to carry arms. Simple really.
jjc, can substantiate he was not in the house? As far as I remember the case, the dead boy was just in the foyer but the older man got injured as he was fleeing the house.
"I hate the way they did it, they said 'We found a person in your garden and we are now going to charge you with murder, do you understand.' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/3153537.stm) - Tony Martin
When his trial began in April 2000 Martin argued that he had genuinely been acting in self-defence. But it emerged the pair had been shot as they tried to flee through a window. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/3009769.stm)
Sorry, but that substantiates nothing, as far as I remember the case the lad was shot whilst inside the house and died outside.
"...but it emerged the pair had been shot as they tried to flee..."
Inside the building/outside the building – they were still running away. Can you tell me what it is about a fleeing burglar that you consider to be so threatening as to warrant taking his life? :confused
Were they trying to flee or were they regrouping for a more concerted assault with lethal weapons? This brings us back to the justifying shooting in the back arguement. The fact remains that Fred was inside Tony's property when he shouldn't have been. If they thought about the real dangers of burgling somebody's property then I am sure Fred would still be alive today
You say potato, I say potato.
Were they trying to flee or were they regrouping for a more concerted assault with lethal weapons?
“I killed them because they might, at some point in the future, maybe, possibly have come at me with a weapon”??? Something of a stretch there, Rheghead.
This brings us back to the justifying shooting in the back arguement. The fact remains that Fred was inside Tony's property when he shouldn't have been. If they thought about the real dangers of burgling somebody's property then I am sure Fred would still be alive today.
So being on somebody’s property uninvited is now a sufficient crime to warrant execution?
You know, I’d have thought that you, as a ‘former police constable’, would be more inclined to believe that the officers investigating this crime understood the situation well enough to press the charges they deemed appropriate than that Martin, with his illegal, pump-action shotgun, who had earlier threatened to shoot the next burglar on his property and who had to load the gun before confronting the burglars, shot one of them in the leg and another in the back ‘instinctively’.
In the days before the police force, it is a point in common law that every citizen is responsible for upholding the law. As the law had failed and was absent in this case then the police have no bearing in the arguement . Martin was acting in self-defense and was right to shoot. I know you bleeding hearts out there are shouting 'oh, but the poor boy ' but what about the poor guy who wants to be left in peace. I think of the Martin case that it serves as a warning to others who decide to break into folk's houses. In the end, the law upheld Martin's case and he was eventually set free well before his sentence ran out.
I actually don't agree with gun ownership, neither for the police or for the private citizen except for hunting.
Martin could have used a bow and arrow, a chair, a flying milk bottle anything but the principle is still there, Martin used a gun for the purpose of self defence and he should have that right, whether it succeeded in killing anyone is immaterial.
In my eyes, Martin is only guilty of possession of illegal firearms, again where were the police to prevent him from doing this?
I know you bleeding hearts out there are shouting 'oh, but the poor boy ‘
No, that’s not what I’m saying at all… This is far, far bigger than the life of a single individual; it’s about living in a society where stepping on soil owned by somebody else doesn’t carry the death penalty; it’s about living in a society were we aren’t ruled by fear, barricaded in our houses with signs on the lawn warning trespassers that they will be shot; it’s about being able to live our lives in safety without having to worry about what other people might be worrying about us.
In the end, the law upheld Martin's case and he was eventually set free well before his sentence ran out.
No, it didn’t. He was released on parole three years into his five year sentence. His murder conviction was reduced to a conviction for manslaughter on appeal ‘solely on the strength of his state of mind (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/world_at_one/1627860.stm)’, but he is still a guilty man.
Martin could have used a bow and arrow, a chair, a flying milk bottle anything but the principle is still there, Martin used a gun for the purpose of self defence and he should have that right, whether it succeeded in killing anyone is immaterial.
He does have the right… and yes, whether he kills somebody doing it or not is entirely irrelevant. As an ex-copper you know that better than most.
What he does not have the right to do is set himself up as a vigilante and take it upon himself to act as judge, jury and – literally – executioner.
I have to say the Martin case ended tragically - he was let down by the Police due to their low levels of manpower covering the rural areas. He felt cornered by the repeated attacks on his property by burglars. He was cornered and acting, in whatever his mindset was at the time, out of desperation. He felt he had no choices left.
The two that broke in did have a choice. They were known criminals. Both had served time for burglary and Barrass had only been out of prison a few days when he broke into Martins home.
They could have gone straight by Martins property and Barrass would still have been alive today. But they figured an old man in a run down farmhouse in the middle of nowhere an easy target. They took the option of breaking in.
Their paths crossed with fatal consequences. Barrass died, Martin went to prison. It could have ended completely differently. Martin, an elderly man could have ended up dead. Another statistic in the crime returns. Fearon and Barrass would still be up to their thieving ways. You could be their next victim. You could be the one to have to fight back.
The law is an ass on this subject. You shouldn't have to defend yourself from burglars, and then the law, if you get burgled. You should be able to take any steps to protect yourself and your property from crime. If a criminal, of whatever age or gender, crosses the threshold of your property they are a fair target.
But at present, if someone breaks into my garden and gets bitten by my dog, I get the blame for failing to have proper control of my dog!?
On my property?
Yes!
How crazy is that?
Theres an election looming at this whole pamphlet thing is an attempt at winning votes for the government, "Look how tough we are on crime..." .
It needs the law on this subject changing to something robust and in the interests of law abiding residents.
jjc wrote
What he does not have the right to do is set himself up as a vigilante and take it upon himself to act as judge, jury and – literally – executioner.
In the Martin case I didn't recall any where when Martin donned either ermines, a black cloth, or black mask or acting as a vigilante and attacking burglars in thier homes, You are completely over exaggerating again. There was no evidence to suggest that Martin shot to kill. In my view however, you should only pull a gun in self defense if you need to kill to defend your life and property and there is no other way. In police marksmanship, they never shoot to injure, they shoot to kill.
Martin, however may have shot in the direction as a warning, to injure or even to kill. We simply do not know the full facts at the heat of that moment. One thing was for certain, he was defending himself and his property when all those around him failed to do.
You are completely over exaggerating again. There was no evidence to suggest that Martin shot to kill.
Is it possible to shoot a pump-action shotgun at somebody’s back in such a way as to remove the risk of killing them??
In my view however, you should only pull a gun in self defense if you need to kill to defend your life and property and there is no other way.
Great. So as the burglars were fleeing out of a window at the time and, therefore, there was no ongoing risk to Martin’s property or person, what was he doing shooting either of them?
Martin, however may have shot in the direction as a warning
Twice?
Colin Manson
05-Feb-05, 15:47
In my view however, you should only pull a gun in self defense if you need to kill to defend your life and property and there is no other way.
Great. So as the burglars were fleeing out of a window at the time and, therefore, there was no ongoing risk to Martin’s property or person, what was he doing shooting either of them?
Stopping them from returning, can't say I blame him.
jjc, you are failing to grasp or clouding the issue here. The abject reaction of the bleeding hearts is because he used a gun to defend his property and life. I could strike you with a chair leg and I still would not remove the risk of killing you. It is the same with a gun. His modus operandi is immaterial to the arguement. Martin was a man in his 60s up against 2 young nutters in the middle of the night, he was scared,he was on his own, he was defending his property and life. He was afraid for his life. He didn't know their intention was to steal, he thought they are going to kill him.
The abject reaction of the bleeding hearts is because he used a gun to defend his property and life.
No, it’s really not… that you keeping saying it doesn’t make it any more true.
The fact is, Martin was found guilty of manslaughter. The law allowed for him to defend himself and his property if he did so instinctively and with reasonable force. The law allowed for the fact that in so defending himself or his property there was the chance that he might accidentally take a life. The investigating officers, the CPS, a jury of his peers and the court of appeal found him to have acted outside of the law.
It is the fact that he took the law into his own hands and, after the point where they posed a threat to neither him nor his property, shot two people that causes people to react negatively towards him.
He didn't know their intention was to steal, he thought they are going to kill him.
Now hang on a second, Rheghead; I thought you said (and you were correct) that Martin had been burgled repeatedly? He had told the police that he would shoot the next burglar that came to his house. Now you decide he didn’t know that they were burglars and thought they were, instead, there to murder him. Your argument is full of enough holes, without adding more by making things up.
that doesn't mean he wasn't entitled to live in a peaceful and secure society.
He is ABSOLUTELY entitled to live in a peaceful and secure society. He is ABSOLUTELY NOT entitled to keep an illegal weapon and shoot a boy in the back whatever happened.
Maybe he should have whacked him with a baseball bat? Would you think he was justified in doing that?
It maybe that Tony Martin did not want to end up like this poor woman who was beaten to a pulp by intruders.
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2004/11/07/nburg107b.jpg
or this woman
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2004/11/07/nburg107.jpg
Those gypsies that broke into Tony Martin's house got what they deserved.
Do you think a headlock, a rugby tackle or a single punch to the head could have saved these poor ladies? I doubt if they could do such a thing against 2 young thugs.
jjc, go back and rethink the meaning of 'reasonable force'.
Naefearjustbeer
06-Feb-05, 09:06
Those gypsies that broke into Tony Martin's house got what they deserved
Damm right they did. If they were law abiding citizens they would not of been in range of Martins Shotgun. After all a shotgun only has a fairly short effective killing range.
~~Tides~~
06-Feb-05, 14:02
Great. So as the burglars were fleeing out of a window at the time and, therefore, there was no ongoing risk to Martin’s property or person, what was he doing shooting either of them?
Could it have been that they were fleeing with his family silver?
The nature of my untidy life means that I have quite a few possibly lethal implements lying about the house. If I killed the robber im my home, would I even make it to the papers due to the fact I had not used a gun? I'm thinking particularly about the large hammer that i kick my toes off on the way to the toilet. I'm pretty sure that in a hightened state of fear and anger I'd have a corpse on my hands after 1 blow. My fault for having a hammer lying about, or the thief for breaking in?
You can say all you like about restraint etc, but having been mugged once in the city, I can tell you that restraint goes right out the window and had a couple of passers-by not stepped in, I would probably have been in quite a sticky situation, with 1 unconcious body and 3 opposing witnesses (his backup). Its like rheghead says, the court would only have ruled on the evidence as was presented to them. As it was, the muggers obviously realised that my witnesses outweighted them by sheer public standing and did not bother.
SandTiger
06-Feb-05, 16:20
Putting Tony Martin to one side for a moment the Bill has been published and if passed will be law for England & Wales. Are there simular proposals for Scots Law?
This is the main text of the bill:
1 Amendment of the Criminal Law Act 1967
(1) The Criminal Law Act 1967 (c. 58) is amended as follows.
(2) In section 3 (use of force in making arrest, etc.), after subsection (1), insert—
“(1A) Where a person uses force in the prevention of crime or in the defence of persons or property on another who is in any building or part of a building having entered as a trespasser or is attempting so to enter, that person shall not be guilty of any offence in respect of the use of that force unless—
(a) the degree of force used was grossly disproportionate, and
(b) this was or ought to have been apparent to the person using such force.
(1B) No prosecution shall be brought against a person subject to subsection (1A) without the leave of the Attorney General.”
The two main points as I see it are the definition of grossly disproportionate and the fact that that a prosecution can only be brought with the leave of the DPP.
Did someone mention an election was coming up? :lol: :lol:
It maybe that Tony Martin did not want to end up like this poor woman who was beaten to a pulp by intruders.
I’m quite sure that he didn’t… but then he achieved that goal the second that he chased them from his house – shooting one of them in the back as a parting gift was an act of vengeance, not self-defence.
Those gypsies that broke into Tony Martin's house got what they deserved.
I take it you mean ‘travellers’? [disgust]
Do you think a headlock, a rugby tackle or a single punch to the head could have saved these poor ladies? I doubt if they could do such a thing against 2 young thugs.
No, I don’t… but as you well know they were not restricted under current legislation to ‘a headlock, a rugby tackle or a single punch to the head’. Had they grabbed a carving knife and rammed it into the eye-socket of their assailant the law would have been on their side. Where they would have parted ways with the law, and where Martin did part ways with the law, would have been the point where, having chased off their assailant, they ran down the street after him and buried the knife up to the hilt in his back.
jjc, go back and rethink the meaning of 'reasonable force'.
I don’t need to ‘rethink’ the meaning of ‘reasonable force’; it has been clearly explained to mean exactly what most sensible people knew it to mean anyway.
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2005/02/01/intruder_leaflet2005.pdf
So it is not reasonable to fire a couple of warning shots in the dark but it is reasonable to thrust a 10 inch carving knife into an eye?
As more than 50% of the voters think that the law isn't fair and only most of the sensible of us think it is(your word) then you will agree that the law does not represent the views of the majority of the people? Since we live in a democracy, do you think the law should be changed?
Is gypsy now a non pc term?
SandTiger
07-Feb-05, 02:07
Rheghead
Where does your 50% mark come from?
Personally i think the law on self defence is pretty straight forward and that is exampled by the very low level of prosecutions that are bought when home owners who have attacked burglars... and as a former Officer you will be aware of it also, just as you will be aware of Parliamentary spin
My 50% comes from the poll results.
However, to prove a criminal act, you have to prove that a suspect had mensrea. This is a legal term that translates to 'guilty knowlege', 'knowlege of acting illegally', 'illegal intention', 'feelings of guilt' etc etc.
In the Martin case, the prosecution, in my opinion, failed to do this basic requirement to convict him legally. In the absence of lawful protection, or even if he did, Martin felt personally that he had the right to use his gun for purposes of defending his life and property, in the circumstances that arose, ie 2 thugs breaking into an isolated property with him on the premises.
IOW, mensrea was not proved so his conviction,imho, was not legal in the strictest sense of the law. The jury failed Martin, perhaps by putting how they might have acted, but as they were in the calm surroundings of a courtroom then they could not possibly represent the frame of mind of a man in a desperate and potentially fatal situation.
They have to prove mensrea in the mind of the suspect, not theirs.
So given that a large section if not the majority of the British Public thought that the Martin conviction was unjust, we return to the term 'reasonable force'. If the majority think Martin was justified then 'reasonable force' was seen to be used because , really in the strictest sense that depends how the majority feel about it.
We should not have laws that would criminalise large tracts of the British people in a given set of circumstance.
SandTiger
07-Feb-05, 10:42
It's actually mens rea.
Don't forget the Court of Appeal reduced the finding to manslaughter and had his original legal team concentrated more on Diminished Responsibility then just maybe the verdict would have been different?
Who knows?
I intentionally spelt it wrong to prevent 'armchair Father Dowlings' lecturing me on something that I have known for years but they have only known since doing a recent 5 minute google search.
SandTiger
07-Feb-05, 15:33
I intentionally spelt it wrong to prevent 'armchair Father Dowlings' lecturing me on something that I have known for years but they have only known since doing a recent 5 minute google search.
Yes, it's almost like relying on The Custody Officers Companion for an understanding of Law.
Look
whatever we think about martin and his case and the boy - whatever we think - it is unacceptable for people to have in their house llegal pump action shotguns that is against the law in the same way as burglary is against the law.
Whether you think i am a "bleeding heart" i dont care. There are two crimes here lets not forget - reasaonable force means exactly that, it does not mean buying illegally a pump action shotgun to shoot someone with. this seems like a premeditated act and it appears Mrtin had already used it to shoot through the window of someone else who annoyed him.
The pics are scary and unpleasant rheghead but having been mugged and pushed in to the boot of my own car i am well aware of how terrifying that experince can be whether you are left with bruises or not. It still does not excuse me buying an illegal weapon and shooting someone in the back
~~Tides~~
07-Feb-05, 18:53
it is unacceptable for people to have in their house llegal pump action shotguns that is against the law in the same way as burglary is against the law.
Yes, when you live in the centre of Manchester but living all alone out in the country on a farm it is a deffernt story. I bet theres not one farm in Caithness without a shotgun. And most houses in rural areas have a gun. I know quite a few people that live in rural caithness and a lot of them have guns.
SandTiger
07-Feb-05, 19:24
it is unacceptable for people to have in their house llegal pump action shotguns that is against the law in the same way as burglary is against the law.
Yes, when you live in the centre of Manchester....
I take it that you have never lived in the center of Manchester then ~~Tides~~ :lol: :lol:
I bet theres not one farm in Caithness without a shotgun. And most houses in rural areas have a gun. I know quite a few people that live in rural caithness and a lot of them have guns.
Dont patronise me tides
My house in rural caithness never had a gun and my house in manchester never had a gun. I know lots of people that have legal weapons both here and in manchester tides.They treat them with respect and dont have them lying around to grab and shoot someone with. The important difference is that they are legally held weapons. This gun was not simply a gun for shooting rats or tin cans with it was a pump action illegally held shotgun. Shall i say that again "A pump action illegally held shotgun" .
Now........ all you "holier than thou people" who have never made a mistake, never stolen anything, never got on the wrong side of the law when they were young even though they knew better - it seems almost like some of you dont even press that foot too hard on the accelerator!!! You need to look around you and look at people you were at school with or other peoples children who got in trouble and think about people who do stupid irresponsible even wicked things when they are young and sometimes even when they are older and hope that this world YOU lot favour, where people can shoot 16 year old boys in the back and walk free to the cheers of those who's halos make the rest of us feel faintly nauseous , never has to deal with YOUR child whos mates are leading them astray or your grandchild who has lost their way and made a mistake. Ill tell you why - cos for every single BAD child who lies, steal, beats up old ladies there are others who MAKE MISTAKES.
Im not arguing this boy was a "good soul really" or just "misunderstood" or that he gets let off with a slapped wrist or a sharp word. He should have been caught and punished properly by the law. What shouldnt happen is that someone uses an illegal weapon to shoot him in the back because if we start to allow this then some of those kids who ARE making mistakes willl never ever ever get the chance to put them right because they will be DEAD!!! Are you all so caught up in your perfect lives that you cant see that?
Look whatever we think about martin and his case and the boy - whatever we think - it is unacceptable for people to have in their house llegal pump action shotguns that is against the law in the same way as burglary is against the law.
I just want to tidy up this discussion about the Martin case. Lets get rid of this illegally held pump action shotgun out of the equation, by asking one question. "Would it make any difference to the case if the shotgun was legally owned?" If not then lets move on and stop quoting that it may or may not have been illegal.
Whether you think i am a "bleeding heart" i dont care. There are two crimes here lets not forget - reasaonable force means exactly that, it does not mean buying illegally a pump action shotgun to shoot someone with. this seems like a premeditated act and it appears Mrtin had already used it to shoot through the window of someone else who annoyed him.
Another point here, up until the late 1980s, pumpaction shotguns were legal in Britain. Buying one does not make the Barras death a malicious and premeditated act.
The pics are scary and unpleasant rheghead but having been mugged and pushed in to the boot of my own car i am well aware of how terrifying that experince can be whether you are left with bruises or not. It still does not excuse me buying an illegal weapon and shooting someone in the back
I am glad you think they are scary, any decent person would think so. But Martin did not show any intention to shoot in anyones back.
Im not arguing this boy was a "good soul really" or just "misunderstood" or that he gets let off with a slapped wrist or a sharp word. He should have been caught and punished properly by the law. What shouldnt happen is that someone uses an illegal weapon to shoot him in the back because if we start to allow this then some of those kids who ARE making mistakes willl never ever ever get the chance to put them right because they will be DEAD!!! Are you all so caught up in your perfect lives that you cant see that?
That is the whole point of the Martin case!!!!! The police weren't there to catch Barras and Fearon, they were contacted on umpteen occasions, sometimes they would turn up well after the burglars left the scene, sometimes they never turned up at all. Now come now? What are we going to do when we haven't got the protection of the Law? Honestly, if I am sat at home in my front room under the same circumstances what am I going to do next when I hear the backdoor get kicked in and I hear shouts to the effect of 'We are going to get you!'. I have a poker by the fire and a shotgun in the cupboard.
Which weapon would any normal, sane and proud person immediately reach for first?
I will let you decide...
Honestly, if I am sat at home in my front room under the same circumstances what am I going to do next when I hear the backdoor get kicked in and I hear shouts to the effect of 'We are going to get you!'. I have a poker by the fire and a shotgun in the cupboard.
Which weapon would any normal, sane and proud person immediately reach for first?
So you wanted to ‘tidy up’ the issue of the illegal shotgun but you think that this emotive nonsense is acceptable??? :roll:
You seem to be a reasonably intelligent person so I can only assume that you know that the little image you are attempting to conjure up of Martin grabbing a shotgun that just happened to be to hand is quite some distance from the truth… as is your suggestion that the burglars shouted “We’re going to get you!”.
It’s amazing how the truth needs to bend in order to make him out to be an innocent victim, isn’t it?
jjc, do you think it would make any difference to the case if Martin's gun was legally owned?
And can we safely assume that all burglars who attempt to break in are after the odd valuable? I assume that you know that the offence of burglary covers a whole range of intentions than just entering to steal?
mysophales
10-Feb-05, 18:28
Any 16 year olds and under, caught breaking the law in any way, should be dealt with by a bare assed birching in the market square on a busy saturday afternoon,
and posters around the town advertising the event at least a week before.
just to make sure we get a good crowd for the show.
but then you'd have the bleeding hearts screaming about his rights.
makes you want to shoot somebody (joke)
jjc, do you think it would make any difference to the case if Martin's gun was legally owned?
It would have made no difference to the outcome of the case - he still shot somebody in the back in an act of vengeance.
HOWEVER... the mere fact that he was in possession of an illegal firearm does give an insight into his character – as do his earlier promise to shoot the burglars if he caught them and the fact that his shotgun license was revoked after he fired upon a car.
And can we safely assume that all burglars who attempt to break in are after the odd valuble?
Indeed we can’t – which is why current legislation allows us to defend ourselves against intruders… but it does not allow us to shoot people as they are running away.
So far in this thread we’ve had the suggestion that the burglars were “regrouping for a more concerted assault with lethal weapons”, we’ve been told that “the law upheld Martin’s case”, that he simply fired warning shots (yes, three warning shots that, unfortunately, all struck body parts!), that he “thought they were going to kill him”, the suggestion that he didn’t know he was doing wrong (despite his previous firearms offences and his threat to kill these people), that Martin’s actions were not premeditated (despite his having had to load the shotgun before going down the stairs and his previous threat to kill these people) and that the burglars shouted “We are going to get you!”
Some of these are simple conjecture, some are downright lies…
Once again, it’s amazing how the truth needs to bend to make him out to be an innocent victim, isn’t it?
As more than 50% of the voters think that the law isn't fair and only most of the sensible of us think it is(your word) then you will agree that the law does not represent the views of the majority of the people? Since we live in a democracy, do you think the law should be changed?
Current results:
44% YES
44% NO
12% Unsure
You should have closed your poll whilst you were ahead… :p
jjc, do you think it would make any difference to the case if Martin's gun was legally owned?
It would have made no difference to the outcome of the case - he still shot somebody in the back in an act of vengeance.
There is no evidence to suggest vengeance at all. Warning shots yes.
HOWEVER... the mere fact that he was in possession of an illegal firearm does give an insight into his character
Oh does it? There are plenty of illegal firearms in people's possession including old Lugers from the WW2
as do his earlier promise to shoot the burglars if he caught them and the fact that his shotgun license was revoked after he fired upon a car.
Again you are pointing out the failures of the police here, threats to kill and firearms offences hold custodial sentences, where were the police to enforce these laws?
And can we safely assume that all burglars who attempt to break in are after the odd valuble?
Indeed we can’t – which is why current legislation allows us to defend ourselves against intruders… but it does not allow us to shoot people as they are running away.
I have already pointed out in earlier posts that shooting in the back can be justified, Re stopping someone from getting a weapon.
So far in this thread we’ve had the suggestion that the burglars were “regrouping for a more concerted assault with lethal weapons”,
See above
we’ve been told that “the law upheld Martin’s case”,
They did in a kind of way, they reduced the conviction to manslaughter from murder, but in my opinion and others, not far enough.
that he simply fired warning shots (yes, three warning shots that, unfortunately, all struck body parts!),
Really could a jury really beyond all reasonable doubt claim that he deliberately fired at Barras to maim or even kill him? You already accept that it was dark.
that he “thought they were going to kill him”,
I never suggested that Barras and Fearon intended to kill Martin, I only wanted to point out that Martin may have justified grounds to think that and rightly so.
the suggestion that he didn’t know he was doing wrong (despite his previous firearms offences and his threat to kill these people),
Again you point out the failings of the police. If the police had done something about his threats to kill and illegal firearm offences or the breakins then Barras may be still alive today.
that Martin’s actions were not premeditated (despite his having had to load the shotgun before going down the stairs and his previous threat to kill
Martin's actions were not premeditated otherwise his conviction would stand as murder.
and that the burglars shouted “We are going to get you!”
Again you are misquoting me, I never said that at all, I only said that in an example to demonstrate what a normal sane person would do.
Some of these are simple conjecture, some are downright lies…
You're not kidding, so don't misrepresent or twist my postings!!
Warning shots yes.
What ‘evidence’ is there to support warning shots? Martin’s own testimony in court doesn’t mention ‘warning shots’. Conjecture, pure and simple.
Oh does it? There are plenty of illegal firearms in people's possession including old Lugers from the WW2
A ‘souvenir’ taken whilst fighting in a war and kept in a drawer since is a very different thing from a pump-action shotgun kept beside the bed with a box of cartridges… as you very well know…
Again you are pointing out the failures of the police here, threats to kill and firearms offences hold custodial sentences, where were the police to enforce these laws?
I imagine that they were enforcing the law as you would like to see them do so – compassionately and gently. And who can blame them? Look how much grief they are getting from you now for dealing with somebody who broke the law!
I have already pointed out in earlier posts that shooting in the back can be justified, Re stopping someone from getting a weapon.
Uh-huh… and I’ve already pointed out that your suggestion that they were ‘getting a weapon’ is mere conjecture to support your case that Martin is an innocent man.
we’ve been told that “the law upheld Martin’s case”, They did in a kind of way, they reduced the conviction to manslaughter from murder, but in my opinion and others, not far enough.
No – they really didn’t. They reduced his conviction to manslaughter on the grounds of his mental state – not his innocence.
Really could a jury really beyond all reasonable doubt claim that he deliberately fired at Barras to maim or even kill him?
Ummm.. yes. How do I know that? Because they did.
I never suggested that Barras and Fearon intended to kill Martin, I only wanted to point out that Martin may have justified grounds to think that and rightly so.
Sorry, but you’ve just contradicted yourself. If it isn’t your intention to say that Barras and Fearon were intent on killing him then what is ‘and rightly so’ supposed to mean?
and that the burglars shouted “We are going to get you!”
Again you are misquoting me, I never said that at all, I only said that in an example to demonstrate what a normal sane person would do.
No, I’m not. You said:
” if I am sat at home in my front room under the same circumstances what am I going to do next when I hear the backdoor get kicked in and I hear shouts to the effect of 'We are going to get you!'”
Under the same circumstances clearly links your little story with Tony Martin’s situation – despite there being very few similarities.
so don't misrepresent or twist my postings!!
I haven’t. That you don’t like having your conjectures and mistruths pointed out to you is hardly my fault. :roll:
Again you have misquoted me.
Current results:
44% YES
44% NO
12% Unsure
You should have closed your poll whilst you were ahead…
Me ahead? I voted for 'Yes' the law is fair and clear. :p
'Misquoted'? I see no quote... ;)
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.