Not Again

[STEED]

The times I see this sort of story.

Police left mother at home with intruders

Listen up folks of the U.K you got a intruder in the house, ring the police up and if they fob you off ring them back and say don't worry about my report I have just killed them. The police will be round before you can count to 50. And when they ask you, "You told us you killed the intruder" your answer "You told me you had no police in the area to help me."

Simple.

[Zip420]

[CB..]

yup that farmer who shot the intruder in his farm house is quietly becoming a national hero..the more the merrier..

[jumpy]

^^
yer Tony Martin.
Quietly becoming a national hero after spending several years inside
An absolute travesty of justice.

More on that here.

[CB..]

Originally Posted by jumpy

^^
yer Tony Martin.
Quietly becoming a national hero after spending several years inside
An absolute travesty of justice.

More on that here.

cheers that's the fella...

the link is a good one too thanks for that..

this is a great comparison...

this story regarding the attitude towards the pscyhos...er sorry the poor unfortunate"morally challenged"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...st/6063746.stm

and the victims who finally get tired of putting up with it..

Martin was imprisoned in Highpoint prison, Suffolk. When he became eligible for parole and early release the Parole Board rejected his application; probation officers on Martin's cases said there was an "unacceptable risk" that Martin might again react with excessive force if other would-be burglars intruded on his Norfolk farm

no holidays for the victim then...
as for the sub human slime he shot....good riddence to bad rubbish

as the old saying goes...it's a plain as the nose on your face

[jumpy]

Just read that article CB... that little tosser looks like a model citizen doesn't he?
mitigating circumstances asside (ie. he was with family on holiday so he probably wouldn't have done a runner) there's no way he should have been allowed to leave the country when bailed pending further action over a murder/homicide charge.
And yet if it had been you or I there'd be a lengthy remand period spent in the slammer.
Forget young offenders institutes, what that little git needs is a public flogging in the stocks at his home town where everyone can villify him for what he's done and give him a few slaps, then pack him off to military borstel where some propper squaddy hardnuts can work him over and teach him some manners and respect, then maybe if he's lucky he can return having earned the privilage to live amongst the rest of civilised society. And if that doesn't work, send him to Afganistan or some other sweatty hairy armpit of the world- you wanna fight and kill? How do you fancy your chances against fanatics who will figh back, Craig?
And if he should happen top get toasted by an IED... well, I'm sure only his family will miss him - kind of like the relatives of the guy he and his mates kicked to death.

/rant.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by STEED

The times I see this sort of story.

Police left mother at home with intruders

Listen up folks of the U.K you got a intruder in the house, ring the police up and if they fob you off ring them back and say don't worry about my report I have just killed them. The police will be round before you can count to 50. And when they ask you, "You told us you killed the intruder" your answer "You told me you had no police in the area to help me."

Simple.

He he..

[Yahoshua]

Not to mention that in the Castle Rock vs. Gonzales case the Supreme Court of the U.S. ruled that LEOs' aren't obligated to protect the general public.

Case documents here:

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...pdf/04-278.pdf

Other incidents and info here:

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/ka...rotection.html

This is why I'm NEVER unarmed at any point and time.

This is a story that even I am appalled by. That's saying a lot since most know me as someone who doesn't believe in war and the taking of other lives.

I view this as a HUGE break down in government policy over there in England. How is this guy guilty? He would not have killed ANYONE had the robbers not invaded his home. He was in bed asleep when they broke in and I think having a torch put to your face in the darkness is grounds for "imminent threat" to life and limb. He obviously couldn't see if the robbers had a knife or gun and were about to hurt or kill him, so what was he suppose to do? Was he suppose to be shot or stabbed first? Remember, these robbers broke into HIS home in the middle of the night.

Laws need to change and that is serious! Laws need to be written like, "Intruders Beware" and "Trespassers will be shot, survivors will be shot again". I am VERY MUCH against people breaking into homes in the middle of the night. I believe that in itself is grounds to lead someone to feel that their life is in danger.

I've seen horror stories of situations like this misfire on the innocent WAY TOO OFTEN. There was a story of an old woman who shot a criminal in his back (killing him) as he tried to steal her TV and jump out of a window. She was charged with 1st degree murder and was locked up forever. There was a story about a father who walked in on a man raping his teen aged daughter on her bed. The father hit the man over the head with a bat and was also charge for 1st degree murder. There was a case of a man who came into a home one night and shot a man's wife in the bed right next to him. The man jumped out of bed, grabbed his own gun and fired at the intruder, hitting him in the back. The intruder died and the man was charged with 2nd degree murder.


All of the above are true stories of real life people and I find it very appalling how any one of them were found guilty of anything! Maybe the old woman who shot a thief as he was going out the window might have gone a bit overboard since her life was in no danger, but still a 1st degree murder charge is a bit much on her as well. The only reason why she was charged with that was because she stood her ground in court and stated that she would shoot the man again if she had a chance. This led the jury to believe she was not fit in the mind and thus she ended up with the maximum sentence. However, I like to look at it this way. Would she be in prison right now had the thief NOT broke into her home? Probably not. Would the thief still be alive today had he not broke into her home? Most likely. This has led me to conclude that the thief brought his fate unto himself by breaking into the old woman's home. Therefore I don't believe she should have ever been found guilty of any crime at all, regardless that she shot him or would shoot him again if that situation ever happened again.

[CB..]

there is a golden rule...:hmm:
the law is usually more severe towards those who respect it than those who do not...this is IMO a primitive human response towards those who have agreed to submit their will to the benifit of the whole...which subconciously is viewed as weakness..this allso explains the attraction of crime...which conversely subconciously is seen as strength...
un fortunately this tends to mean that when a normally law abiding citizen
finds him/herself in court the law has an orgasm and can't resist indulging in a very basic unsightly and entirely unjust power trip...
it is this basic inversion of principles that needs investigating and setting right...

[Yahoshua]

Here's what you need Subserpent:

http://www.gunlaws.com/FloridaCastleDoctrine.htm

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=5685

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine

While firearms may not be legal in England anymore, perhaps there are some schools on swordsmanship? (That'd make a REALLY interesting legal situation right there). I don't think there's much chance of it passing though.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Yahoshua

Not to mention that in the Castle Rock vs. Gonzales case the Supreme Court of the U.S. ruled that LEOs' aren't obligated to protect the general public.

Case documents here:

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...pdf/04-278.pdf

Other incidents and info here:

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/ka...rotection.html

This is why I'm NEVER unarmed at any point and time.

This is along similar lines as what happened in England:

Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect. [5]

[jumpy]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect. [5]

Talk about licking balls, hairy ones at that
Yet I bet they'd have soon 'acted' if the women had refused to pay their taxes or something.
The way they say it, it makes out like the women were demanding that the fuzz sit outside their house 'just incase' somebody tries to be bad to them, as opposed to comming to the rescue of a person/persons who are actually being attacked right there and then.
How do some of these public officials sleep at night... and especially the solicitors who fight these sorts of cases; there's a special place in whatever hell you believe in for them and their ilk.

[CB..]

"it is a fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen."

might want to remember that...next time your saluting the flag..

[Bort]

Ahh yes, the Florida Castle Doctrine, probably the single dumbest piece of legislation ever to pass in that state- no wait, Florida lawmakers are the same geniuses who passed "Terri's law" perhaps the only law ever written to effect only one person! Anyway, they really hit a home run of stupidity with the self defense law, which allows use of deadly force, without requirement for attempted retreat (and therefore not requiring needless bloodshed) based upon perceived threat of severe bodily harm. I suppose that means that if I am walking down the street and somebody appears to be preparing to punch me in the face, if I'm in Florida, I can blow him away with my firearm of choice. It makes me proud to be a citizen of the Great State of Illinois, where it illegal to carry concealed weapons, and you can only shoot someone if they have entered your dwelling and there is no other choice.