burglers' rights

[KoolCat]

sorry if this has been done before but have just been arguing about this with some people in the pub and the only response i could get from them was "c'est la vie"

if someone breaks into your home and hurts themself is it your fault? is it right that a burlger has the right to sue you for tripping over your stairs?

in my view, anyone who walks onto another persons property without permission should lose all their rights. but the current system here doesn't agree with that. why?

[monocrat]

A person who violates the property rights of others should not expect their rights to be upheld. Ultimately the property owner should use any means at their disposal to protect their property.

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by monocrat
A person who violates the property rights of others should not expect their rights to be upheld. Ultimately the property owner should use any means at their disposal to protect their property. but mono ...last week you didn't believe in the right to own property, so what if the burglar has similar beliefs to you?

[byny]

If a burgler trips and hurts himself and then gets caught then so be it but if the homeowner shoots the burgler or beats him/her to a pulp then the homeowner is guilty of a crime too. Its just a shame that so far the farmer who shot and killed a person has shown no remorse for taking a life.

[monocrat]

Originally posted by morrocan roll
but mono ...last week you didn't believe in the right to own property, so what if the burglar has similar beliefs to you?

I never stated that.

We don't live in an anarchist or Marxist society, so private property exists. A person then has the right to defend it as s/he chooses.

[KoolCat]

Originally posted by byny
If a burgler trips and hurts himself and then gets caught then so be it but if the homeowner shoots the burgler or beats him/her to a pulp then the homeowner is guilty of a crime too. Its just a shame that so far the farmer who shot and killed a person has shown no remorse for taking a life.

yes he was a bit of a nutter and he committed a crime, but would he have committed that crime if the laws had been less lenient?

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by byny
If a burgler trips and hurts himself and then gets caught then so be it but if the homeowner shoots the burgler or beats him/her to a pulp then the homeowner is guilty of a crime too. Its just a shame that so far the farmer who shot and killed a person has shown no remorse for taking a life. byby most burglaries are comitted whie the ocupier is in. if anyone enters my house ilegaly then they are hopefuly going to get seriously hurt and not my wife and daughter, or myself come to it. if a guy comes in when he knows your home the chances are he is going to hurt you, probably come prepared to hurt you as he is desperate, he has to escape and preferably with some loot.
i will not be interveiwing the guy as to what he's carrying and if his intentions are to hurt anyone. i will attack. no good standing there threatening them while you walk backwards in abject terror.
you will loose. i'll attack first as i believe that gives me the best chance of survival, the best chance of protecting my family.
if it is clearly a young helpless looking kid i might hesitate and demand he leaves but ...

[Shogun]

Its just a shame that so far the farmer who shot and killed a person has shown no remorse for taking a life.

that burgular broke into his house, he felt threatened, he had a gun at hand, he shot...im pretty sure in prison he felt terrible about it at one point but has come to accept it now.

As for the question, if a burgular breaks into your house then all his rights are left at the door, i believe a person has the right to attack the burgular at all means neccessary, why shouldn't they? don't give any of that bullshit that they are humans and deserve their respect for their life, no they don't, i might not go with the intent of ending their life there and then but would intend to seriously hurt them.

[KoolCat]

Originally posted by Shogun
that burgular broke into his house, he felt threatened, he had a gun at hand, he shot...im pretty sure in prison he felt terrible about it at one point but has come to accept it now.

As for the question, if a burgular breaks into your house then all his rights are left at the door, i believe a person has the right to attack the burgular at all means neccessary, why shouldn't they? don't give any of that bullshit that they are humans and deserve their respect for their life, no they don't, i might not go with the intent of ending their life there and then but would intend to seriously hurt them.

exactly. if the burgler loses all his rights as soon as s/he steps onto your property then questions about his/her motives and intentions don't come into play.

[morrocan roll]

i've been to jail and met burglars who do houses while the occupants are in. it's known as 'creeping'. most creepers are prepared to hurt you.
farmer martin went over the top by shooting someone who was fleeing. thats wrong becuase your safety is no longer an issue, though i'm sure he didn't measn to kill the guy.
getting tough on crime and criminals should mean tough. the burglar should know beyond any doubt whatsoever that he loses any rights whatsoever the moment he even starts trying to break in to a house. what can possibly be wrong with that being enshrined in law?

[Shogun]

My house was 'creeped' and so was my friends house, if that night i had have caught someone in my house i would have attacked the person since i found out the person who done it was 18, coming 19.

what can possibly be wrong with that being enshrined in law?

nothing.

[KoolCat]

Originally posted by Shogun
nothing.

so why isn't it? that's what i don't understand :confused:

[Shogun]

Originally posted by KoolCat
so why isn't it? that's what i don't understand :confused:

because we live in the Uk, a stupid corrupt government with no sense around it, just look at the laws of today, even the burgular who robbed that farmer's house got out before the farmer did, i wonder what it will be like in 10 years here?

People know that burgulars should have no rights whenever they enter another persons home, my friend who is very against people breaking into his house said he was going to go up and ask a policeman ' would it be a crime if i decided to kill a man in my home' :lol: that wouldn't be a smart idea, would it?nope, the police would probably think he was planning a murder and follow and check up on him.

[KoolCat]

sigh

you wait till i get in government :lol:

[Shogun]

if i was in government this country would be different...very very different, no wars, money for schools, nhs, world hunger would be sorted out, cannabis made legal of course ;) more jobs for the public among many other things.

[Clandestine]

Promised like a true politician Shogun! ;)

[monocrat]

Originally posted by Shogun
if i was in government this country would be different...very very different, no wars, money for schools, nhs, world hunger would be sorted out, cannabis made legal of course ;) more jobs for the public among many other things.

Idealist, huh? ;)

[Aladdin]

I like your new avatar and sig Clan!

I don't think burglars should have any right to sue for compensation. That you cannot put barbed wire on top of your garden fence because burglars could cut themselves is ludicrous.

However no-one has the right to take another person's life unless they are defending themselves. In the case of Tony Martin, he shot a kid who was running away in the back with a shotgun. That wasn't self-defence, that was murder. That he got his conviction changed to manslaughter and was freed after 3-odd years is a fucking disgrace.

Funnily enough the ultra right wing press, usually quick to complain about murderers and robbers being let free after serving short sentences, doesn't have much of a problem about this particular child murderer being freed after serving only 3 years. I'm sure the fact that the intruders were gypsies and Martin is a good old-fashioned Tory-voting white British farmer has nothing to do with it.

[dantheman]

even if Tony Martin shot Fred Barras in the back I still say he shouldn't have been their in the first place & Martin has a right to defend himself and his property. If Barras's pikey parents would have known how to raise children maybe he wouldn't have been going around breaking into people's houses.

[Aladdin]

He has a right to defend himself and his property, but the jury found that he wasn't doing that- he killed purposely and unnecessarily, and that is murder.

Let me put it another way. If he had gone out and shot again the burglar who survived as he lay on the grass injured, would you still say he was within his right to do so?

[Shogun]

Originally posted by Clandestine
Promised like a true politician Shogun! ;)

:rolleyes:

[KoolCat]

Originally posted by Aladdin
However no-one has the right to take another person's life unless they are defending themselves. In the case of Tony Martin, he shot a kid who was running away in the back with a shotgun. That wasn't self-defence, that was murder. That he got his conviction changed to manslaughter and was freed after 3-odd years is a fucking disgrace.

thing is though, in a case like that, how can you be sure the intruder is running away. you don't know what their intentions are. he could have been running to the kitchen to get a knife. i just don't think it's as clear cut and simple as murder.

[Aladdin]

I agree that not everything can be in black and white and that there might be room for confusion, especially in a tense situation such as a break-in.

What I find disturbing is that many people, including much of our righteous press, are not questioning the circumstances of the killing but simply saying it's okay to murder someone if he breaks into your house.

There is a possibility that Martin did not know the kid was running away. But the jury found without doubt that he was fully aware the kid was running away trying to escape, and he still went and shot him in the back. Under those circumstances the killing qualifies as a murder. The jury could be wrong, but chances are it isn't. I am not aware of Martin claiming otherwise during the trial and stay in prison. If anything, he refused to apologise or show remorse for the killing (until his £100,000 interview with the Mirror today), which reinforces the view that he did intend to kill the burglar, probably thinking he got what he deserved.

[KoolCat]

Originally posted by Aladdin
What I find disturbing is that many people, including much of our righteous press, are not questioning the circumstances of the killing but simply saying it's okay to murder someone if he breaks into your house.

i don't read that kind of newspaper :no:

anyway, sorry to harp on, but another point. if the daily mirror (or whoever it was) didn't put so much pressure (and pay loads of money presumably) for Martin to plead not guilty, would he have pleaded guilty and accepted the consequences? if he had done that, there wouldn't have been any story in it for the papers and the whole thing would have blown over ages ago.

too much press interference, it sickens me. it's why nothing ever gets sorted out!

[pnjsurferpoet]

No. This is such an example of liberalism gone mad it isn't funny.

For one thing, if it's dark and someone has broken into your house, how long do you give that person to prove he/she doesn't have a weapon...or buddies in your house too?

The homeowner has the right to defend him/herself...and a defense of "I felt threatened" should be enough.

If the laws were on the homeowner's side...there would be less burgleries in the first place.

[byny]

Originally posted by morrocan roll
byby most burglaries are comitted whie the ocupier is in. if anyone enters my house ilegaly then they are hopefuly going to get seriously hurt and not my wife and daughter, or myself come to it. if a guy comes in when he knows your home the chances are he is going to hurt you, probably come prepared to hurt you as he is desperate, he has to escape and preferably with some loot.
i will not be interveiwing the guy as to what he's carrying and if his intentions are to hurt anyone. i will attack. no good standing there threatening them while you walk backwards in abject terror.
you will loose. i'll attack first as i believe that gives me the best chance of survival, the best chance of protecting my family.
if it is clearly a young helpless looking kid i might hesitate and demand he leaves but ...

Ah yes..but do you and would you have a gun?

[kevlar85]

Has anyone considered the possibility that if it was put into law that we could defend our property by whatever means we deem fit the likelihood of burglars being armed would skyrocket? In fact comparatively few burglars in the UK carry a weapon on them - not say they wouldn't use force if you disturbed them but they don't carry weapons - if we say to people that they can use knives or whatever they deem necessary to protect their homes wouldn't the burglars just go to their contacts and pick up a gun instead? Think about all the reports you read of the elderly who get battered because they disturb a burglar, in most cases they'll live through that horrible experience - how many elderly people would live after confronting a burglar with a gun?

[monocrat]

Originally posted by byny
Ah yes..but do you and would you have a gun?

I'd like a gun.

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by monocrat
I'd like a gun.

To use on yourself I assume? Seeing as how to use it on another would go against their personal rights.

[monocrat]

Originally posted by kevlar85
To use on yourself I assume? Seeing as how to use it on another would go against their personal rights.

Nope. Not if it is NOT used on a person.

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by byny
Ah yes..but do you and would you have a gun? no i don't have a gun and don't want one.
farmers always have guns. i understand why he reached for his gun in yet another frustrating and frightening attack on his home.
when your sat at home watching telly or having a bath, a nap or whatever ...the system we live in suddenly doesn't just label you as a criminal but a murderer ...martin had no intention of going out killing anyone that night. no intention of breaking the law ...he had said if those bastards come again i'll shoot the fuckers ...manslaughter for a man sat at home minding his own bizz is a more fitting charge than murder.
i'm not suggesting having the right to kill an intruder but i am saying you shouild not only have the right to attack an intruder in your house before they attack you ...but that it should be deemed the 'normal' thing to do. it is a reaction of survival and protection. they shouldn't be there! most 'creepers' are armed with a knife or razor ...be nice and liberal about it until you experience the terror of it. then you will forever be changed and ready ...for the next time.
if you think that sitting down and making the guy a cup of tea is best then you live with it when your daughter is raped or slashed etc ...in my book you will have failed your family in the most basic of human ways.
is the big menacing figure in front of you after property or flesh? you ask ...i'll attack ...and the law should be firmly on my side seeing as i was at home with no evil intent whatsoever on my mind that day. the world is becoming ever more violent ...yet you still want to stick up for the bastard perpetrator and threat to your family ...if the guy dies ...the law should still be on the side of the man who was sitting at home planning no evil that night.
sticking up for the burglar is very sad and misguided ...start a vburglars union? recognise it as a trade with expected pay and conditions? don't make me fucking cry!
spend a yeart in strangeways jail in manchester ...north of england, listen to these guys and then tell me you understand.

[pnjsurferpoet]

This is such a good example of how twisted the UK has become to the left that even a theif is given the benefit of the doubt over a farm with no criminal history.

And what a great message it sends to other criminals. Break into homes because now people will be afraid to defend themselves at all.

[Kurt]

I really wouldn't give a toss about the law. If someone broke into my home I wouldn't take any chances, like Roll said there's no time to interview them about their intentions, no way to tell if they're a psycho or not. To protect my family I'd go ape with the frying pan, no doubt.

My view is that burglers immediately lose their vaunted 'rights' as soon as they illegally gain entry into another persons home. The notion of the burgler sueing the victim is prepostrous :no:

[budda]

First of all the gun that the farmer in question was illegal, it was a pump action shotgun which even with a licence would have been illegal.
He couldnt even get a licence for an ordinary shotgun because the police thought he was a danger to himself and others.

Whatever you think of this case he is a child killer.

I'm shocked at how many of you believe that as soon as someone comes on your land you can do "anything" to protect your property.
So if someone cuts accross your farm land on their way home you can tie them up in your basment and torture them for years on end?
Thats crazy. I aggree that people who break into your house give up some rights but I really dont see how you can justify cold blooded murder, your basicly saying that the death penalty is justified for breaking and entering.

Perhaps insted of turning the public into violent vigalanties we should try and solve some of the social problems that lead young adults to enter a life of crime. This kind of talk is a very small step from mob justice.
He mugged someone! Lets linch him! Get your pitch forks!

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by bongbudda
First of all the gun that the farmer in question was illegal, it was a pump action shotgun which even with a licence would have been illegal.
He couldnt even get a licence for an ordinary shotgun because the police thought he was a danger to himself and others.

Whatever you think of this case he is a child killer.

I'm shocked at how many of you believe that as soon as someone comes on your land you can do "anything" to protect your property.
So if someone cuts accross your farm land on their way home you can tie them up in your basment and torture them for years on end?
Thats crazy. I aggree that people who break into your house give up some rights but I really dont see how you can justify cold blooded murder, your basicly saying that the death penalty is justified for breaking and entering.

Perhaps insted of turning the public into violent vigalanties we should try and solve some of the social problems that lead young adults to enter a life of crime. This kind of talk is a very small step from mob justice.
He mugged someone! Lets linch him! Get your pitch forks! what a pile of fucking poop bong! we're not talking about people walking across your land and we are not condoning murder. martins crime was reduced to manslaughter and rightly so ...he is not a murderer by choice. we are saying that we should have the RIGHT to attack someone who has broken into our house while we are sleeping in our beds or having dinner. if the guy gets hurt tough shit ...better than a law abiding inocent member of the public being hurt. if the **** dies becuase in your panic you went a little to far ...in fear and confusion and surviving ...then tough shit again. society and the law should be on the householders side ...the burglar shouldn't have rights once he has broken into your house.
what realy gets up my nose is none of you have a fucking clue how shit scared and irrational you'll bne if it happens to you. have you met any creepers ...they'd be laughing their fucking heads off at you 'nice' folk. you soft targets. get fucking real and lets FIGHT crime and criminals.

[monocrat]

Originally posted by bongbudda


Perhaps insted of turning the public into violent vigalanties we should try and solve some of the social problems that lead young adults to enter a life of crime. This kind of talk is a very small step from mob justice.
He mugged someone! Lets linch him! Get your pitch forks!

So you feel people should not be punished for breaking the law?

[budda]

I wasnt saying that people dont have a right to protect themselves but lets perhaps distance that debate from Tony Martin who shot a child in the back with an illegal firearm.

Of course I dont believe criminals shouldnt be punished, but I was just suggesting that the criminal justice system is the best option rather than mob justice.

[byny]

Originally posted by pnjsurferpoet
This is such a good example of how twisted the UK has become to the left that even a theif is given the benefit of the doubt over a farm with no criminal history.

And what a great message it sends to other criminals. Break into homes because now people will be afraid to defend themselves at all.

Ahem...He had an unlicenced gun..he killed a CHILD for gods sake. A CHILD!

from what I've read about Mr Martin he has no feelings of remorse about taking the life of another person! I think that is a bit odd. Infact he was more worried about himself and being in prison than he was about the death of another person.

He claims he had an un-loaded gun, this means he took the time to find the gun (Which he says he wasn't sure where it was) find the bullets, load the gun, move to the top of a staircase and shoot someone in the back.

Whatever your feelings about people who comit a crime, surely you can see that what this man did was not only wrong but to some extent he did it with precision and thought...ie he has time to stop and think about what he was doing and yet he still carried on loading that gun and KILLED A CHILD.

yes the child was commiting a crime, but he did not need to shoot the CHILD!!

[monocrat]

Originally posted by bongbudda
I wasnt saying that people dont have a right to protect themselves but lets perhaps distance that debate from Tony Martin who shot a child in the back with an illegal firearm.



Why is the fact that it was a 'child' relevant?

[squat_tom]

Originally posted by pnjsurferpoet
This is such a good example of how twisted the UK has become to the left that even a theif is given the benefit of the doubt over a farm with no criminal history.

And what a great message it sends to other criminals. Break into homes because now people will be afraid to defend themselves at all.

What about the numerous cases in the US, where burglars have injured themselves and then successfully sued the homeowner?

There was one major case where a burglar fell through a sky-light and landed on a large knife. He won significant damages.

[morrocan roll]

if you wake up in the night becuase something has disturbed you and you see a figure dressed in dark clothing ...wearing gloves and a mask ...ski mask most likely ...in your bedroom ...you are going to feel so vulnerable. you may close your eyes and hope he hasn't noticed you waking up ...you might even find yourself quietly praying ...maybe for the first time in your life. you'll lay quitely ...possibly pissing the bed ...hoping he'll just move on to the next room to nick some belongings ...but he doesn't ...he suddenly pulls back the bed clothes and screams at you to get the fuck out of the bed ...then you see the knife ...'wheres the fucking money' ....'give me fucking money or i'll cut you so bad ...


this is terrorism of a sort ...your naked ...vulnerable like never before ...the guy punches you in the face and hurls you physicaly across the room ...

and your thinking ...of course this guys got rights ...like the right to be doing this to me in my home in the middle of the night ...it's his trade his job ...

more like you'll be wishing you had some way out of the hell you have suddenly been thrust into ...if only you had a gun ...

blood is dripping from the corner of your mouth and he hits you again and starts threatening with the blade ...

get fucking real ...no one has any right to behave like this toward you ...they have no fucking rights at all ...they gave up civilised rights the moment they entered your home ...16 or fucking 60 they do not have the right to be violating you like this.


the modern world aye ...for the first time in history people are saying that this kind of behaviour should be understood more and of course these people shouldn't loose their rights ....
i find that very very sad ...

[KoolCat]

Did anyone watch the interview with Tony Martin tonight on ITV? I thought his answers were quite strange, like he didn't quite know what to say for the best. I suppose that's understandable really.

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by KoolCat
Did anyone watch the interview with Tony Martin tonight on ITV? I thought his answers were quite strange, like he didn't quite know what to say for the best. I suppose that's understandable really. martin was strange before all this happened. he's a wierdo ...but theres no law against being strange. we should forget martin and remember those who didn't have any way of defending themselves. i'll tell you two horror stories that have happened in north wales in the last year ...one could have been prevented.
i've got to go but i'll try and post the accounts later.

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by bongbudda
I'm shocked at how many of you believe that as soon as someone comes on your land you can do "anything" to protect your property.


So im in my house, its late on a night and I hear someone in my house may I ask what you want me to do?
I dont know who it is, what they want or what they will do to me if i dont let them have what they have come for. They may want to rape me, burgle my house, murder me............I dont know !!!!
Bear in mind im shitting myself being startled in my own house by a stranger, im more afraid than the person whose broke in.
So you expect me to just say *hi* having a nice day are we :rolleyes:


Your having a laugh mate if you think im gonna welcome an uninvited guest on my property, especially on a night :rolleyes:

[Young and sexy]

Seeing as the burglar has no right to be on your property, i see no reason why s/he should have the right to complain if they hurt themselves. To me it seems ridiculous.

[byny]

So would you illegally keep a gun in the house? or would you protect yourself some other way...with a baseball bat or something.
The fact is that he defended himself against a child with an illegal weapon despite having ample time to think about the consequences of firing a bullet that could potentially kill another human being. so surely he did something wrong and he should have been punished and he should at least show some remorse for taking a life.

I think the fact that the victim (And dying from a gunshot wound makes you a victim regardless of the fact that you are a burglar) was a child, is relevant because so many times on these boards people have stressed the difference between acts of violence against children and adults.

Killing someone is a very extreme reaction and the statements mr martin has made since do nothing to convince me otherwise.

My dad lived in a rural area and was very worried about potential threats to his safety as a lone resident in a remote farm, particularly as there were many cases of elderly people being attacked in their homes, but he would not have kept a killing weapon illegally in his house - because there would always be the possibility that someone may be fatally wounded.

The point is that if you kill someone defending yourself you have to be dealt with by the courts for your crime and accept the consequences of your actions. Mr Martin seems unable to accept the fact that he did kill someones child. Its almost as if he finds it disgraceful that the legal system didn't just pat him on the back and tell him not to do it again!

[BeckyBoo]

So Byny lets set the scene :
Its late on a night, I hear a noise in my property and I dont know who it is apart from its an unwanted visitor I ask again what would you want me to do?
At this time I dont know its a kid, I dont know anything apart from im shit scared. If I was in the same situation as he was id do the same myself and protect myself and my property (although I dont own a gun). Which means if I grabbed a walking stick and clobbered him with it and he sustained head injuries and later died then id be up for the same crime. The thought of killing someone would never enter my mind, all I would be thinking about at that time was im not going to let anyone mug or rape me !!!

[monocrat]

I think the fact that the victim (And dying from a gunshot wound makes you a victim regardless of the fact that you are a burglar) was a child, is relevant because so many times on these boards people have stressed the difference between acts of violence against children and adults.


Why? Because children are more 'innocent'...:rolleyes:

[byny]

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
So Byny lets set the scene :
Its late on a night, I hear a noise in my property and I dont know who it is apart from its an unwanted visitor I ask again what would you want me to do?
At this time I dont know its a kid, I dont know anything apart from im shit scared. If I was in the same situation as he was id do the same myself and protect myself and my property (although I dont own a gun). Which means if I grabbed a walking stick and clobbered him with it and he sustained head injuries and later died then id be up for the same crime. The thought of killing someone would never enter my mind, all I would be thinking about at that time was im not going to let anyone mug or rape me !!!

So...you don't own a gun? Is that because you don't want a gun in the house or because you legally cannot get a gun?

The fact is that Mr Martin should not have had that gun...yes?

If you clobbered an intruder with a walking stick you would still have to prove in a court of law that you were acting in self defence and that you reacted to the situation. Mr Martins conviction was certainly based upon the fact that he used an illegal weapon and that his use of the weapon was inappropriate...he shot a child in the back from the top of the stairs as the burgler was running from the property!!!!!

Unfortunately for him (I guess) there was not enough evidence to prove that he was reacting to a personal attack. he told the police that he would shoot the next robber that came onto his property.

Some of the posts on this thread seem to be suggesting that we should all be allowed to keep a gun by our beds just incase someone breaks in...the law in this country does not allow that. And...all the arguments about farmers having guns don't hold water in this particular case because mr martin did not have a licence for the gun he shot the intruder with! Thats the law, ...if you want one law for 'good' people and another law for 'bad' people then we will be living in a facist state!

[morrocan roll]

lets get back to the thread ...burglars rights. we can argue forever about martin and his ilegal gun ...if it had been a farmer down the road with a legal gun ...
burglars rights? how the fuck can a shadowy figure at the end of your bed have any fucking rights? he didn't have 'ANY RIGHT' ...TO BE ENTERING YOUR PROPERTY ...SO THE LAW SHOULD STATE THAT YOU HAVE VOLUNTARILY GIVEN UP 'ANY RIGHT'. oops caps.


my rural and peaceful area in north wales in the last twelve months.
a 'child' ...child of 17 ...broke into an old ladies house on the island of anglesey. he raped and battered an old lady ...didn't steal anything ...didn't go with the intention of stealing anything.
he did manage to accomplish what he went for though.
he cut her heart out and left it on the rug by the fire with two crossed knives. he was interested first ...in buffy the vampire slayer ...his interest in vampires and stuff just grew from there.
horror movies are never a p[atch on reality. the reality is we have vampires etc on our streets ...at least in their own heads ...but in our streets and ...in our houses.
what made it close to home for me more than anything was the fact that i had met his father about a hundred tyimes. his dad was a very gentle and talented man who suffered from severe depression. i knew him as the very talented stone mason and builder that he was. he comitted suicide a couple of years before his son did this awful dead. i had the privaledge of haVING his dad do some work for me and of being taken on a tour of the fantastic house he had built for his family ...very artistic.

the second story is of an old lady who lived about three miles from me. knew nothing of her but ...her killer used to regularly stagger past my home pissed out of his mind at the weekends.her killer had no previous apart from drunkeness. good worker etc. lots of being drunk charges though.
in court it was stated that in our local night club ...he had been turned down to many times by the girls and he snapped.
he broke into this old ladies house ...in the centre of a village with houses all around, and repeatedly raped and battered her through a long night. as the alcohol started to wear off he panicked and set fire to her .................
she was found naked in the street charred but still alive muttering for jesus to help her. she died before they got her to hospital.
the sad thing was her grandson had been staying with her and had only returned to duty with the marines a few days before ......
had this fucking animal broken into her house when the grandson had been there, the old lady would have still been alive but ...theres every chance the burglar could have been fataly injured and ...you lot would be calling HIM a murderer.
the burglar was a skinny wimp of a nineteen year old.




the law should state that you have no fucking right to break into my grandmas house. the fact that you don't have that right means ...if you do ...you no longer have any rights whilst committing your crime. its simple realy.
no vigilantes. no fascism. you just don't have the fucking right.

[byny]

Yeah - I know those cases, but in both (And particularly the first) the motivation was murder or rape not burglary, and just because some break-ins result in murder of the homeowner this doesn't mean all homeowners have a right to kill.

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by byny
Yeah - I know those cases, but in both (And particularly the first) the motivation was murder or rape not burglary, and just because some break-ins result in murder of the homeowner this doesn't mean all homeowners have a right to kill. i'm not sying anyone has the right to kill ...but if in the confusion and fear the crook dies ...then the law should be 100% on the side of the householder.
and 16yr old burglars can't hide behind being 'children' when they are hardened experienced criminals living in a tough mans world.

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by byny
and just because some break-ins result in murder of the homeowner this doesn't mean all homeowners have a right to kill. [/B]

the fact is that if it was my house like many other people we would not want to kill, that would be the last thing on our mind. If I hit someone for coming into my property it would be because of fear not to kill.

you havent answered my question put to you earlier. What are you going to do if an uninvited guest decides to come into your house at lets say 2 am ?

I wouldnt own a gun end of story.

[budda]

The law already allows for reasonable force, and this takes into account that you may well feel scared and do something that isnt rational, but it has to be reasonable.

So for example if a old lady is confronted by two huge burly men then she would be able to take more drastic measures than Tony Martin, a large man against a small teenager.

This country really isnt the crime hot spot with a murderer on every street you seem to think it is, the fear of crime is WAY higher than any statistics.

[Skeeter Thompson]

If you dont break into people's houses you won't get killed, its that simple.

Like so many people on here have said, i would do anything i could to protect my property and if i had a family id do everything in my power to stop that person. If that meant i killed someone well so be it. Im selfish when it comes to my property and family. Isthat so wrong? the person in the wrong is the intruder lets not forget that.
Ok it sucked that the kid got killed but it was his fault and Fearons for taking Barras along with him.
I have no sympathy for either of them. I always thought Fred Barass got shot while he was in the house while Martin was on the stairs but then he managed to get out of the house and died a bit later.
In the eyes of the law what martin did was wrong, its wrong to kill people but i would have done the same as would many others.
Why should he show any remorse? why do some of the people on here fells that he has a duty to say sorry. I bet he's sorry he didnt kill the other one too. I would be.
Maybe i'm hard hearted but burglars are scum, its a heinous crime. One of the worst.

[byny]

Originally posted by morrocan roll
i'm not sying anyone has the right to kill ...but if in the confusion and fear the crook dies ...then the law should be 100% on the side of the householder.
and 16yr old burglars can't hide behind being 'children' when they are hardened experienced criminals living in a tough mans world.

YUP...IF in the confusion and fear, that's why the law is as it is...because they have to prove that someone was killed in the confusion and fear...and that the killer had little choice!

This does not translate as everyone who is a homeowner has the right to kill someone they find on their property.

At least we agree on something :)

[budda]

Morrocan roll;
but if in the confusion and fear the crook dies ...then the law should be 100% on the side of the householder.

Thats exactly what I said, 'reasonable force' but the farmer in question did not use reasonable force, thus it was murder.

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by bongbudda
Morrocan roll;


Thats exactly what I said, 'reasonable force' but the farmer in question did not use reasonable force, thus it was murder. the jury saw fit to reduce it to manslaughter ...it can't be right that the criminal behaviour of someone else turns you into the victim where you end up getting life. martin could have carried on being an unknown oddball if the guy wasn't burgling. the guy could still be alive as well. who's fault was it all? not the man sat at home having a cup of tea ...
i cannot bring myself to support the burghlar.

[hobbs]

Originally posted by morrocan roll
.it can't be right that the criminal behaviour of someone else turns you into the victim where you end up getting life.

but if a criminal behaviour of someone turns you into a criminal where does that leave you and who is the victim?

[Aladdin]

The first jury saw it fit to give him a murder conviction. It was only after a vicious campaign by the ultra right wing press that he got his sentenced commuted to manslaughter. I'm sure whoever took the decision to reduce the sentence was not influenced in any way by the campaign. :rolleyes:

The bottom line is: Martin was convicted of murder because the jury found him guilty of murdering, i.e. killing the burglar purposely and without reason. He was aware the burglar was running away, he was aware he was not in danger from the burglar at that point in time, and yet he took aim and shot him in the back as he was trying to leg it.

I hear what people are saying about the law being on the side of the home owner in situations when an accidental death could have been caused. This was not the case.

What disturbs me is that some people seem to suggest anyone who breaks and enters deserves to be murdered, and the murderer should not be punished for it.

Hell, even the Saudis draw the line at chopping their fucking hand off!

[budda]

Are we conviently forgeting he was holding an illegal firearm?! He was not a normal law abiding citizen, he was a criminal and dangerous one at that.

[Shogun]

He had the gun for protection, he broke the law, i'm sure most people have broken the law at some point in their life, he shot a burgular who broke into his home with an illegal fire arm, that dosen't look good at all, but he is out now and should never have went into jail in the first place, whenever someone breaks into a house their rights should be left at the window/door.

[Aladdin]

Not the right to life. No one has the right to murder someone.

For the millionth time, the case of Tony Martin was not self defence. It wasn't an accidental death either. It was murder. Rather than not being sent to jail at all, the only disgrace here is that he served little over 3 years for the senseless and brutal murder of a 16 year old man, and all thanks to the limitless power of the fascist press.

[hobbs]

Originally posted by Shogun
whenever someone breaks into a house their rights should be left at the window/door.
is just while they are inside the house or forever.
do you mean that as soon as someone breaks the law they lose their rights? and does that include the right to justice.

[budda]

Plus as I said earlier, saying that the leave thier rights at the door is justifying any action what so ever on the part of the home owner, where does this stop?

He should have gone to jail for the illegal firearm alone, if I knew my nieghboor had a pump action shot gun I know I'd want them locked up. Would you be happy knowing some one on your street who the police classed as too dangerous to own a gun of any sort had a pump action shot gun?

[Man Of Kent]

He was banned from having a gun because the police thought he was a danger. Clearly they were right.

[morrocan roll]

... and what are your views on the original question ...considering your well thought out responses to do with one nutcase farmer?

[Doofay]

A lot of people seem to think that rights should be levelled out - you can only do what the burglar does. Why should s\he have the right to set the standard?

[monocrat]

Originally posted by bongbudda


He should have gone to jail for the illegal firearm alone, if I knew my nieghboor had a pump action shot gun I know I'd want them locked up. Would you be happy knowing some one on your street who the police classed as too dangerous to own a gun of any sort had a pump action shot gun?


Why?

Gun ownership should be legal.

[Aladdin]

That's what you would like. Unfortunately for you 99.999999999999999999999% of the public disagrees.

[Skeeter Thompson]

Originally posted by Aladdin
Not the right to life. No one has the right to murder someone.


In some instances people have the right to murder someone.

Did you know 50% of all statisics are made up on the spot. ;)

I think its funny that in the past 50 years ago people have had less and less general respect for each other. This conincides with the campaign for more and more ridiculous human rights, coincedence i think not.

Cleary he wasn't a danger to people who went about normal lives. He was a danger to criminals, criminals who some of you are defending.
If he didn't have a shotgun and the burglars ended up killing him you'd probably be saying ohh they dont deserve to be put in prison for 25 years for killing a mad, lonely farmer. Dont blame them blame their upbringing their tough lifes anything but them.
Its so simple, if he wasn't there he wouldn't be dead. He was there he is dead, thats one more scum off the streets. Martin served his time, i think 3 years is probably right, in a ideal world he wouldn't have served a sentence at all, maybe given a medal. But i recognise that killing people shouldn't go unpunished but the law is totally screwed regarding reasonable force.

Why don't some of you invite burglars to come and take your stuff, put a sign on your door 'burglars welcome'

[byny]

Originally posted by monocrat
Why?

Gun ownership should be legal.

It doesn't matter one bit if YOU think it should be...bottom line is its NOT!! And anyone who decides to break the law should accept the consequences if they are caught!!

[monocrat]

Originally posted by Aladdin
That's what you would like. Unfortunately for you 99.999999999999999999999% of the public disagrees.

It's their loss.

[Aladdin]

Originally posted by Skeeter Thompson
In some instances people have the right to murder someone.

Did you know 50% of all statisics are made up on the spot. ;)

I think its funny that in the past 50 years ago people have had less and less general respect for each other. This conincides with the campaign for more and more ridiculous human rights, coincedence i think not.

Cleary he wasn't a danger to people who went about normal lives. He was a danger to criminals, criminals who some of you are defending.
If he didn't have a shotgun and the burglars ended up killing him you'd probably be saying ohh they dont deserve to be put in prison for 25 years for killing a mad, lonely farmer. Dont blame them blame their upbringing their tough lifes anything but them.
Its so simple, if he wasn't there he wouldn't be dead. He was there he is dead, thats one more scum off the streets. Martin served his time, i think 3 years is probably right, in a ideal world he wouldn't have served a sentence at all, maybe given a medal. But i recognise that killing people shouldn't go unpunished but the law is totally screwed regarding reasonable force.

Why don't some of you invite burglars to come and take your stuff, put a sign on your door 'burglars welcome'

I am defending their right to life, which fortunately in civilised countries is granted to everybody.

You are wrong that in some instances is okay to murder someone; it isn't. In some instances it's acceptable to kill someone. A killing and a murder are two different things. Martin murdered that boy; he didn't kill him in self-defence or in an accidental death. He was aware the boy was running away, he was aware his own life was not in danger, and yet he took aim and shot him in the back like a rabid dog, probably yelling "take that you c*nt!" as he shot.

That some people see nothing wrong with that is a fucking disgrace. I would recommend them to emigrate to less civilised countries that allow such practices where they will be happy living amongst their own. In here fortunately we do not believe in the death penalty for any crimes- least of all for burglary- nor in the right of anybody to become judge, jury and executioner and dispatch ‘sentences’ at will.

[SuzyCreamcheese]

I read a quote somewhere, it said
``It said " Over the centuries there evolved an implicit contract: in return for our renouncing our right to defend ourselves, the state undertook to do it for us. Now the authorities cannot defend us adequately - but are reluctant to redress the balance``

As far as the law is concerned, Someone else breaking the law doesnt give you the right to break the law in response, although they should take into account that most people would react similarly in similar circumstances.

[monocrat]

Originally posted by byny
It doesn't matter one bit if YOU think it should be...bottom line is its NOT!! And anyone who decides to break the law should accept the consequences if they are caught!!

Of course not. Why is that an issue?

[byny]

eh!! You say gun ownership should be legal...I'm saying its not so therefore anyone who owns a pump action shot gun illegally and then uses it should be dealt with by the courts.

thats all

[budda]

monocrat; would wide gun ownership make us a safer people? Or perhaps would we end up like the US where everyone carrys a gun and the murder rate is much higher.

[monocrat]

Gun ownership is also about individual freedom.

[SuzyCreamcheese]

Originally posted by monocrat
Gun ownership is also about individual freedom.
was that an answer to bongbuddas question or justa random statement.

[budda]

I can understand the reason for hunting guns (although I'm not a great fan of hunting) but what possible reason is there for anyone to hold a gun of this nature, let alone something like a automatic pistol?

I'd aggree with you about it being a personal freedom issue, but in this case I think the rights of society clearly out wiegh that of the individual.

[monocrat]

The rights of society should never supercede the rights of the individual.

[KoolCat]

Originally posted by monocrat
The rights of society should never supercede the rights of the individual.

what do you mean by that?

[monocrat]

Exactly as I stated. There's no hidden meaning.

[KoolCat]

Originally posted by monocrat
Exactly as I stated. There's no hidden meaning.

well i wouldn't have asked the question if i understood. could you provide an example?

[monocrat]

An 'example' would be a person owning a gun.

The simple ownership of the gun does not harm anyone or infringe on their rights.

People are too pussified these days.

[Aladdin]

Yes, indeed, and the same applies to nuclear weapons right?

I mean, what a bunch of pussies and control freaks they all are for not allowing you to own a nuclear warhead or two eh monocrat?

Can we give the issue a rest? Or at least create its own thread for it...

[monocrat]

Why not?

[byny]

What about this then....everyone is allowed a gun but bullets are banned???

[monocrat]

How are you supposed to operate a gun without bullets?

OK I get it...with bulles it ain't safe.....:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Aladdin]

Originally posted by monocrat
Why not?

Because.

[Man Of Kent]

Originally posted by monocrat
How are you supposed to operate a gun without bullets?

Why would you want to use it anyway?

[Shogun]

Originally posted by Man Of Kent
Why would you want to use it anyway?

Maybe to go hunting...

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by Shogun
Maybe to go hunting... foxes?

[monocrat]

People only oppose gun ownership because it scares them. Wimps. :lol:

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by monocrat
People only oppose gun ownership because it scares them. Wimps. :lol:

Yeah and if you had gun pressed up against your chest by someone willing to shoot you you'd shit yourself just as much as anyone else would. Or would you be going "Come on punk, show me what you're made of." because that wouldn't be a wimpy thing to do - bloody stupid but not wimpy.

In fact it's usually the people who are most pro guns and violence who can't handle the consequences. The Nazis who ordered their men to create mass graves for the Jews by shooting them before the concentration camps went down there to give their soldiers a bollocking for being wimpy at having nervous breakdowns from shooting people - they ended up retching at the sight of those mass graves. Mono, I sincerely doubt you grasp the full impact of shooting another person or being shot yourself whether that be physical, mental or emotional.

[monocrat]

Excuse me? Pointing a gun to one's chest would cause harm.

But the simple ownership of a gun DOES NOT.

I reckon a person can own anything, provided they don't harm others or infringe the rights of others whilst using it.

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by monocrat
Excuse me? Pointing a gun to one's chest would cause harm.

But the simple ownership of a gun DOES NOT.

I reckon a person can own anything, provided they don't harm others or infringe the rights of others whilst using it.

If I just pointed a gun at your chest that wouldn't cause you any harm.
If I fired a gun at your chest without any bullets in it that wouldn't cause you any harm.
If I said I was going to kill you and pointed an empty gun at you that wouldn't cause you any harm.

But it would scare the shit out of you wouldn't it? That is because the sole purpose of a gun is to harm people. Therefore by owning a gun and doing what I said in the examples above you are illustrating that you are prepared to harm someone. Therefore it infringes the rights of others by being used as a weapon of intimidation whether it can do physical harm or not. Or would you just stand there if I fired a gun at you and take a chance it was empty?

[monocrat]

Originally posted by kevlar85
If I just pointed a gun at your chest that wouldn't cause you any harm.

It caused emotional harm.

If I fired a gun at your chest without any bullets in it that wouldn't cause you any harm.
If I said I was going to kill you and pointed an empty gun at you that wouldn't cause you any harm.

But it would scare the shit out of you wouldn't it? That is because the sole purpose of a gun is to harm people. Therefore by owning a gun and doing what I said in the examples above you are illustrating that you are prepared to harm someone. Therefore it infringes the rights of others by being used as a weapon of intimidation whether it can do physical harm or not. Or would you just stand there if I fired a gun at you and take a chance it was empty? [/B]

Idiot.

When have I EVER stated here that guns should be used to fire at others??

When?

I was right. Too many pussies here......

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by monocrat
It caused emotional harm.
Therefore all guns are weapons that infringe peoples rights and so shouldn't be allowed.


Idiot.

When have I EVER stated here that guns should be used to fire at others??

When?

I was right. Too many pussies here......

Now, now Mono don't take it out on me because your argument is total bullshit. What else would you use a gun for? Clearing the drains perhaps? Or as some sort of alternative to a staple gun? The whole purpose of a gun is to be fired on others and preferable do them as much harm as possible.

You were wrong (yet again) just admit it. You would shit yourself if I pulled a gun on you, that's totally normal - now try using a little thing called logic to see that even if a gun is not used it causes harm and infringes your rights therefore it should be banned. A little more thought in your beliefs wouldn't go amiss before you started mouthing off on things you don't understand. :rolleyes:

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by monocrat

I was right.

Even though your wrong :rolleyes:

[monocrat]

I'm not wrong here.

[Aladdin]

Yes you are.

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by monocrat



Idiot.

When have I EVER stated here that guns should be used to fire at others??

When?

I was right. Too many pussies here...... pmsl!

[Kurt]

Originally posted by byny
Yeah - I know those cases, but in both (And particularly the first) the motivation was murder or rape not burglary, and just because some break-ins result in murder of the homeowner this doesn't mean all homeowners have a right to kill.

But you wouldn't know what their intentions were until it was too late. Life isn't a movie, you don't have time to run up a wall and flying kick them if they turn nasty so why would you want to wait to see if it's one of those 'nice wouldn't-hurt-a-fly burglers' when there's just as much chance of them being the total opposite and you ending up dead. 50-50 choice, live or die. What do you choose?

You keep saying how it was a child. Why does it make a difference? I doubt this kid would have gone on to cure cancer. If he was doing things like this already then further down the line the chance that he would be doing far worse things is very high. We pay taxes, we pay for our homes, these people do not. They want to take what we have away from us and I for one would not let them.

The gun matter is sketchy. On the one hand, being a farmer in a secluded area where you are an easy target would make you want to feel you had protection. On the other the law is the law and it was an illegal weapon. The fact that he shot him isn't the issue though. He could have thrown a knife at his head and achieved the same result. In similar circumstances I'd certainly reach for the most potent weapon avaliable to me at the time, be it my baseball bat or my candlestand or even a knife. He had a gun so he used it to protect himself. Possibly with the adrenaline pumping from fear he got carried away but still, it sends a clear message to other scum:

Infringe on my rights and I will defend myself by any means necessary. Don't fuck with me for you will come off worse.

Bet you a million quid he won't get burgled ever again

[Aladdin]

What you keep ignoring Kurt, is that the jury found that Martin did have the time to assert the burglar's intentions, was fully aware the burglar was trying to escape and his own life was not in danger, and yet took aim and shot him in the back as he was fleeing.

That is murder. There is no "it was dark, it was confusing, he didn't know what the burglar was doing, he thought the burglar was about to attack him" excuses. He knew the burglar was running away, and yet he shot him, murdered him on the spot like a rabid dog.

Are you saying you support the death penalty for burglary?

[monocrat]

You were wrong (yet again) just admit it. You would shit yourself if I pulled a gun on you, that's totally normal - now try using a little thing called logic to see that even if a gun is not used it causes harm and infringes your rights therefore it should be banned. A little more thought in your beliefs wouldn't go amiss before you started mouthing off on things you don't understand.

Well duh.

If you use that gun to cause harm, then yes it should be clamped down on. If you don't then no one should bother you. Understand?:rolleyes:

[budda]

I understand what you are getting at Monocrat, in that gun ownership in of itself doesnt harm anyone, and that this principle extends to everything else too.
But, dont you think that you are putting slightly too much trust in the hands of people who cant make rational descisions.

The A-bomb for example, do you trust every single person responsible enough to own one of these?

[monocrat]

Yes.

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by monocrat
Well duh.

If you use that gun to cause harm, then yes it should be clamped down on. If you don't then no one should bother you. Understand?:rolleyes:

We established that even if you don't use the gun to fire on someone the mere fact that you point it at someone causes emotional harm and so infringes on their rights. Therefore you should not own a gun because it infringes on others rights because however you use it, a gun is solely an instrument of harm be it mental or physical. Why should you own a gun in those circumstances when whenever you use it you infringe someone's rights? Or do you just want a gun because it would look pretty? :rolleyes:

[monocrat]

Why are you jumping to conclusions?

Who here has said that guns should be used to shoot others? Can you answer that?

I state that a gun should be used in any way that does not harm another person.

THAT is not so difficult to understand.

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by monocrat

I state that a gun should be used in any way that does not harm another person.

Well for gawds sake tell us why you want a gun, what would you do with a gun, keep it in your bottom drawer :rolleyes:

[KoolCat]

Originally posted by monocrat
Why are you jumping to conclusions?

Who here has said that guns should be used to shoot others? Can you answer that?

I state that a gun should be used in any way that does not harm another person.

THAT is not so difficult to understand.

did you even read Kevlar's post. he wasn't talking about shooting anyone. he was talking about pointing the gun at someone.

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by monocrat
Why are you jumping to conclusions?

Who here has said that guns should be used to shoot others? Can you answer that?

I state that a gun should be used in any way that does not harm another person.

THAT is not so difficult to understand.

Yes, how silly of me to assume that you'd actually use the object you so desperately want to possess. :rolleyes:

You use a car to drive;
You use an oven to cook;
You use a gun to harm people.

That is the sole purpose of a gun or the gun has no purpose because it isn't being used therefore you don't need it and shouldn't own one.

The whole point is that any way that a gun is used it does harm other people, be it intimidation or actual physical harm. It is difficult to understand because it is complete bollocks, it is a contradiction in terms because the whole reason for a gun is to harm people in one way or another.

I wouldn't give you access to a water pistol let alone something that could actually harm someone.

[monocrat]

The fact that it can 'harm someone' is not wholly relevant. Why can't people own guns to protect themselves or their property?

In Canada gun ownership is more common yet violent crimes are of similar levels to here.

[Namaste]

I think people should be allowed hand grenedes and missiles too. Just because we have the right to own them :p

[Aladdin]

And nukes. And intercontinental ballistic missiles. And anthax. And sarin. And VX gas. Isn't that right mono?

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by MoonRat
I think people should be allowed hand grenedes and missiles too. Just because we have the right to own them :p
why would anyone think it should be 'allowed' then ...why bother ...the people who want guns and grenades have got them.
by all accounts it's easy to buy these weapons and more already. so what would be the point in 'allowing' it?

[Namaste]

Originally posted by morrocan roll
why would anyone think it should be 'allowed' then ...why bother ...the people who want guns and grenades have got them.
by all accounts it's easy to buy these weapons and more already. so what would be the point in 'allowing' it?

Aye man, had a gun pointed at me when I was with me mates in Wrexham last week 'cause we wouldn't get in a car. It was only a replica mind, but damn mancunions think they're above the law in Wales and the police thought we were racist 'cause we said they were Asian.... But they were really Asian! :lol:

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by MoonRat
Aye man, had a gun pointed at me when I was with me mates in Wrexham last week 'cause we wouldn't get in a car. It was only a replica mind, but damn mancunions think they're above the law in Wales and the police thought we were racist 'cause we said they were Asian.... But they were really Asian! :lol: those pesky injuns have got their hands on guns again!
it'll be liqour next ...

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by MoonRat
Aye man, had a gun pointed at me when I was with me mates in Wrexham right ! hello C ...whats with the disguise then?

[Kurt]

EVERYONE should have guns. What are the chances of someone committing armed robbery of a bank where everyone there is also carrying a firearm?

Yet there's the whole children with them accidentally killing themselves issue.

[Aladdin]

Judging by the number of armed robberies in the States, where everyone is armed to the teeth, I'd say the chances of armed robberies in countries where arms are legal are the same if not greater.

An armed population is no deterrent. You will only force robbers, muggers and burglars to equip themselves with a mini-arsenal.

The whole thing is a bit like trying to put out a fire with gasoline.

[monocrat]

Originally posted by Kurt
EVERYONE should have guns. What are the chances of someone committing armed robbery of a bank where everyone there is also carrying a firearm?

Yet there's the whole children with them accidentally killing themselves issue.

So? That's the parents fault.

[Aladdin]

Much easier not allowing guns, which are not needed for anything whatsoever, and everyone is happy.

Everyone apart than monocrat, that is. :lol:

[ElysiumUnknown]

Originally posted by Aladdin
Much easier not allowing guns, which are not needed for anything whatsoever, and everyone is happy.

Everyone apart than monocrat, that is. :lol:

Nevermind, he'll have to live with it. :)

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by monocrat
The fact that it can 'harm someone' is not wholly relevant. Why can't people own guns to protect themselves or their property?

In Canada gun ownership is more common yet violent crimes are of similar levels to here.

The fact is can harm someone is wholly relevant according to your own logic. You state frequently that you believe that a person should do what they like unless it infringes the rights of others - well you admit yourself a gun harms someone else thus infringing their rights so it shouldn't be allowed.

That's because the Canadians don't use their guns to defend themselves, Canadians own guns for hunting purposes and are mainly locked in cupboards most of the time. If you want to see a country where people are allowed guns for the reason of defending themselves you need to look to Canada's southern neighbour...

[monocrat]

Originally posted by kevlar85
The fact is can harm someone is wholly relevant according to your own logic. You state frequently that you believe that a person should do what they like unless it infringes the rights of others - well you admit yourself a gun harms someone else thus infringing their rights so it shouldn't be allowed.

The ownership of a gun does not infringe on anyone's rights. There's a difference between being harmed (which everyone here says is wrong) and a person having their rights infringed.

Seeing people in goth clothing harms and offends me but it doesn't infringe on my rights.



That's because the Canadians don't use their guns to defend themselves, Canadians own guns for hunting purposes and are mainly locked in cupboards most of the time. If you want to see a country where people are allowed guns for the reason of defending themselves you need to look to Canada's southern neighbour...

People in the US hunt too.

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by monocrat
The ownership of a gun does not infringe on anyone's rights.
[quote
Using that gun in anyway does though therefore making it pretty pointless because under your own logic you could have a gun locked in a cupboard but you couldn't use it because it would infringe on the burglar's rights - hence owning a gun in the first place is completely pointless.

People in the US hunt too.
In New York? Los Angeles? These are the places where most gun crime takes place - last time I heard they weren't heards of antelope going down Wall Street or buffalo grazing in Beverly Hills. In America the main reason for owning a gun is for self-defence (be it property or personal) and you see the results in their huge gun crime statistics.

[monocrat]

Originally posted by kevlar85
Using that gun in anyway does though therefore making it pretty pointless because under your own logic you could have a gun locked in a cupboard but you couldn't use it because it would infringe on the burglar's rights - hence owning a gun in the first place is completely pointless.

Not in all cases. A burglar violates one's right to property. If you violate the rights of others you should get punished.


In New York? Los Angeles? These are the places where most gun crime takes place - last time I heard they weren't heards of antelope going down Wall Street or buffalo grazing in Beverly Hills. In America the main reason for owning a gun is for self-defence (be it property or personal) and you see the results in their huge gun crime statistics.

:rolleyes: More fear again......

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by monocrat
Not in all cases. A burglar violates one's right to property. If you violate the rights of others you should get punished.
I thought you believed that anything that infringes someone else's rights is wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right.

:rolleyes: More fear again......
I'm sorry if the truth frightens you Mono.... welcome to the real world.

[monocrat]

Originally posted by kevlar85
I thought you believed that anything that infringes someone else's rights is wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right.


I do. I don't need that pointed out to me. :lol: If you violate someone's rights you get punished. Sorry but that's the way rights theory works......

[b]
I'm sorry if the truth frightens you Mono.... welcome to the real world.


No, I'm saying YOU are scared. The reason why people oppose gun ownership is because they fear being shot!!
:lol:

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by monocrat
I do. I don't need that pointed out to me. :lol: If you violate someone's rights you get punished. Sorry but that's the way rights theory works......
Surely the punishment is for the judiciary to decide - if a homeowner defends their property by infringing the rights of the burglar they too face punishment for infringing the burglars rights by the judiciary as the Tony Martin case demonstrated.

No, I'm saying YOU are scared. The reason why people oppose gun ownership is because they fear being shot!!
:lol:
Yes, silly me for being scared at the thought of everyone in the country including nutcases like you being armed. How silly of people opposing gun ownership on silly technicalities such as the risk to life obviously the property rights of someone's video player are far more important eh Mono? :rolleyes:

[morrocan roll]

in the days when crime level was low ...robbers used to be thrown in the slammer ...mean slammer. not sent mowing fucking lawns!
make me laugh with all this make believe that has somehow become a human rights bleedin' issue.
we'll be teaching burglars how to be polite when on the job ...you mark my words, on billboards near you soon;
if you must rob ...be polite. remember ...these people are your victim ...be kind to your victims and we will be kind to you ... gordon bennet what the fuck is happening to my world!!!!!!!!

[Hellfire]

Originally posted by morrocan roll
gordon bennet what the fuck is happening to my world!!!!!!!!

mp's and the goverment are fucking it up thats what

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by Rude_boyz
mp's and the goverment are fucking it up thats what who do i blame? the chattering bleedin' classes thats who! oh for fucks sake they can debate. and they can debate again and ...the art of talking ...no problem solving skills needed ...

[budda]

Have you writen to your MP about the issue? S/he is there to represent you, same as the government, theres no point in just bitching about it if your not going to do anything.

To be honest I think if everyone who went on the march in London against the war had writen to their MP about the issue it may well have made more impact.

The government wont listen unless you vote!

[monocrat]

Surely the punishment is for the judiciary to decide - if a homeowner defends their property by infringing the rights of the burglar they too face punishment for infringing the burglars rights by the judiciary as the Tony Martin case demonstrated.

The burglar first infringed one's rights!!! So he received a punishment for doing so. The moral is simple; don't violate others property. :cool:

[Aladdin]

No, the moral is rather different: in civilised societies we don't believe in individuals becoming judge, jury and executioners; nor do we believe that burglary should carry the death penalty.

Anyone who believes it's okay to murder a burglar and acts upon that thought will rot in jail, just like Martin has (albeit not nearly long enough for a murderer).

[morrocan roll]

as an ex criminal i think i can speak not only for myself but many others ...when you commit a crime you know the risks and penalties. fellow ex crooks are laughing at the stupidity of todays ideas regarding the fight against crime. air conditioned police cells in many areas. tv and telephones in many jails. good food, good gym good service from the screws.
what happened to punishment and retribution then?
the fact that robbers have rights seems fucking ludicrous to robbers! there will be an official job description and union for burglars the way were going. when a burglar falls off your roof and breaks his leg he''ll not only claim on your house insurance but also get a sick note off the doc entitling him to claim benefit until he can get back to ...'work'.
ok ...who's for drawing up a criminals work and benefits paper for the government to look at? what are a burglars pension entitlements? etc etc.
some of you people may be inteligent in some ways but when it comes to ordering 'reality' ...you make me laugh! ...and a lot of other villains.

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by monocrat
The burglar first infringed one's rights!!! So he received a punishment for doing so. The moral is simple; don't violate others property. :cool:

So two wrongs make a right then? So you would value a video recorder above the human life of the burglar?

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by morrocan roll
as an ex criminal i think i can speak not only for myself but many others ...when you commit a crime you know the risks and penalties. fellow ex crooks are laughing at the stupidity of todays ideas regarding the fight against crime. air conditioned police cells in many areas. tv and telephones in many jails. good food, good gym good service from the screws.
what happened to punishment and retribution then?
the fact that robbers have rights seems fucking ludicrous to robbers! there will be an official job description and union for burglars the way were going. when a burglar falls off your roof and breaks his leg he''ll not only claim on your house insurance but also get a sick note off the doc entitling him to claim benefit until he can get back to ...'work'.
ok ...who's for drawing up a criminals work and benefits paper for the government to look at? what are a burglars pension entitlements? etc etc.
some of you people may be inteligent in some ways but when it comes to ordering 'reality' ...you make me laugh! ...and a lot of other villains.

MR I agree with you that the judges are too soft on criminals and that liberal Guardian readers have had too much of a say on our justice system. However, that doesn't mean that I want everyone armed which would increase the likelihood of burglars being armed with a gun. That would just be going from one extreme to another.

[morrocan roll]

i've just seen todays daily mirror ...an old lady of 85 finds a guy in her living room. she lives on the ground floor of sheltered housing. the guy who broke in knew there could only be a frail and defrnceless person in there. he punched her so hard she landed in the kitchen. now he could have forced her to sit down and shut up but no ...thats not how it's done is it.
he'd have had a shock if i'd been staying over the night as i would have completely lost it seeing cowardly scum like that punching my granny. i would probably have disabled him for life ...
you lot stick up for shite like this!
and i don't think many of us want a gun or want to kill ...but this guy could well have died at my hands ...i'd expect you all to back me and my gran ...not lock me up for being a murderer.

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by morrocan roll
i would probably have disabled him for life ...


But you would be called all the bad bastards for that, wouldnt you :rolleyes:

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
But you would be called all the bad bastards for that, wouldnt you :rolleyes: sticks and stones may break my bones but a burglar could easily kill me ...

[monocrat]

Originally posted by kevlar85
So two wrongs make a right then? So you would value a video recorder above the human life of the burglar?

Yes.

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by monocrat
Yes.

Yeah ok then http://messenger.msn.co.uk/Resource/Emoticons/49_49.gif

[Preciosa]

In my opinion, this is just a small segment of the big screwed up mess that Britain is. One of the big powers of the world? Wake up Blair! We're falling apart at the seams!

We have a soft prison system where criminals can get away with whatever they want. Oh yeah, and few police to even catch you in the first place.

We have a soft benefit system where anyone can easily cheat money out of the system.

We have poor immigrants that can't speak English flooding into the country and skilled rich Brits emmigrating out.

We have an education system that is failing most of our children.

We have a mockery of an NHS where superbugs are thriving and waiting lists are far too long.

And what do you get if you keep on the straight and narrow and put up with all of this?

Taxes! Lots and lots of taxes!

Council tax, recently increased national insurance, 17.5% VAT on everything you buy, income tax, the huge amounts of extra tax on petrol and cigarettes. You even get half of your belongings taken away from you as tax when you die!

Wow, in a society like this, I wonder why I don't feel very patriotic.

Rant over.

[budda]

I might point out that waiting lists are actualy down since labour came to power and a report out by the Lord Chief Justice came to the conclusion that we're not going 'soft'. But then none of you would listen anyway.

If you dont like the tax system or government here, either move or talk to you MP and do something about it!

[Man Of Kent]

Originally posted by Preciosa
We have a mockery of an NHS where superbugs are thriving and waiting lists are far too long.

Off Topic:

a) We actually look for these bugs now, and have systematic checks in place. eg Every patient having an Orthopaedic operation is checked. This never used to happen and the simple rule is if you start looking harder you will find more.

It's not that these bugs a thriving, it's more that we now know that they are there and probably always have been.

Oh, and they are very hard to treat, so I wouldn't blame the NHS for not being able to prevent them completely. After all we still haven't found a cure for death yet and we don't blame the NHS for all of those. DO we?

b) Waiting Lists. Yes I agree, they are too long. They are only half as long as they were in 1996 though.

Best not to take what the tabloid print on face value.


On topic:

Vigilantism is not the answer, and shouldn't be seen as the answer. Once we do that we accept that violence is the solution and that it's okay to inflict bodily harm. We also accept that we cannot police society and that would be a mistake too. It would be a slippery slope towards total anarchy.

I agree that if faced with an intruder I would resort to violence if necessary to protect my family, but the bigger can have my TV and Video. They are materiel things and can be replaced.

Oh, and I would expect to be charged. I wouldn't expect to get off scot-free.

[Aladdin]

Originally posted by Preciosa
In my opinion, this is just a small segment of the big screwed up mess that Britain is. One of the big powers of the world? Wake up Blair! We're falling apart at the seams!

We have a soft prison system where criminals can get away with whatever they want. Oh yeah, and few police to even catch you in the first place.

We have a soft benefit system where anyone can easily cheat money out of the system.

We have poor immigrants that can't speak English flooding into the country and skilled rich Brits emmigrating out.

We have an education system that is failing most of our children.

We have a mockery of an NHS where superbugs are thriving and waiting lists are far too long.

And what do you get if you keep on the straight and narrow and put up with all of this?

Taxes! Lots and lots of taxes!

Council tax, recently increased national insurance, 17.5% VAT on everything you buy, income tax, the huge amounts of extra tax on petrol and cigarettes. You even get half of your belongings taken away from you as tax when you die!

Wow, in a society like this, I wonder why I don't feel very patriotic.

Rant over.

Is your name Rebekah Wade by any chance? ;)

[ShyBoy]

i think a new government is in rder. i wouldnt mind paying private health insurance (tho many people would get it with work) and I wouldn't mind that much erm.. (what other benefits do we get :confused: ) if we paid the tax rates of some other countries. WTF is Britain spending the money on though?

And burglars should lose all their rights. But that said - it's just an incentive to bury them in your back yard once you're finished with them. It's not like they told anyone they were going to your house is it?

[budda]

I'm still shocked by the statement that burglers 'loose all rights', where does this stop? Is there no end to the punishment that they deserve?

Do they loose every shred of humanity as soon as they enter the door, can you not see how alarmist you sound?

Are you really justifying ANY action on them? I dispare.

[Aladdin]

You're not the only one who despairs.

Why don't we just execute every single person who has a criminal record? At the end of the day, those who commit crimes, be burglary, pickpocketing or common assault forfeit all their rights, correct? :rolleyes:

Come to Britain Taliban, your true home is here.

[budda]

It just seems so savage, your talking of these people as though they are the lowest of the low, as though they are totaly inhuman.

I'm not defending burglers, its a horrid crime, but please the punishment should fit the crime.

[Man Of Kent]

Originally posted by Aladdin
Why don't we just execute every single person who has a criminal record? At the end of the day, those who commit crimes, be burglary, pickpocketing or common assault forfeit all their rights, correct? :rolleyes:

The ironic thing is that the "no rights for criminals" believe that breaking into a house is unacceptable, but that killing someone is okay... :confused:

[morrocan roll]

i certainly dont agree with vigilantis. i don't see all crooks as deserving death ...those of you saying these things are loosing the plot. we don't need the amature dramatics.
i agree with MOK that yes, it's only material things that can usualy be replaced. the thing i think most of you are missing out on is the REALITY ...of being confronted by a very determined and scary individual in the last place on this earth he should be ...at the foot of your bed willing to win ...
in a way i kind of hope it happens to some of you. then come back here and tell me how many rights the guy was infringing. tell me when if ever you have gotten over the ordeal.
i consider myself to be a fairly tough man. i can handle myself. i can handle most things. but i have met the people, know the attitude and instinct that drives them ...so that they survive ...they win ...they get away.......meaning your going to loose sucker!
if someone bursts into your house while your chopping onions with a cleaver and the guy goes to grab your wife or child are you going to seriously think of the burglars rights to be treated kindly ...are you going to pause to see if he's realy mean or he's just bluffing? or are you going to sink that cleaver into his arm ...save your child from god knows what happening?
most of you will pause ...then you'll miss his arm and accidently sink it in his head ...from law abiding citezen to murderous scum ...all becuase you were chopping onions ...

[Aladdin]

I don't dispute what you're saying Roll. But in the case of Martin in particular the jury found there was no room for confusion or any doubts about possible danger. The jury found that Martin shot to kill, to murder someone as they were escaping even though Martin was aware he was not in danger and that the kid was fleeing.

And what I find very disturbing is that some people seem to imply that there is nothing wrong with murdering someone in such circumstances.

Imagine that Martin had managed to knock one of them unconscious and tie him up securely. In is hypothetical scenario, I get the impression that if Martin then had chosen to grab a chainsaw and cut the man in pieces instead of calling the police some people here would not object to that.

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by Aladdin

And what I find very disturbing is that some people seem to imply that there is nothing wrong with murdering someone in such circumstances.

Imagine that Martin had managed to knock one of them unconscious and tie him up securely. In is hypothetical scenario, I get the impression that if Martin then had chosen to grab a chainsaw and cut the man in pieces instead of calling the police some people here would not object to that. this is where i agree with you and MOK ... it's only material things that can be mostly replaced. maybe sentimental things that will be lost ...wave goodbye to them and be thankful your unharmed. i've been in two minds about farmer martin all along.
but ...what happens in the house ...in the fear and confusion and with adrenalin pumping as a natural survival mechanism ...the inocent householder has to be supported ...if the burglar were to have his fingers cuaght in the cleaver ...no way can compensation be claimed or criminal damages be sought. it's just not on. and ...if the bastard bleeds to death ...not my fault, i was at home chopping onions your honour ...the dead guy was commiting an act of terrorism. for terror is what it is.

[BeckyBoo]

What most people fail to see is that the majority of people would not want to kill anyone. If people break into someones home then they are going to give that person a very big shock, the majority of people would probably shout and hope the burglars would leave quickly. The only time violence would be used to the burglar would be if they came towards the person whose house they had broke into.
for gawds sake we aint all murdering bastards, we dont want to kill but if I hit someone over the head with the nearest heavy object I found and knocked him unconcious should I be sent to prison? bear in mind i would have done this because i was scared shitless.
Its about time some of you thought about the victim here, its always the innocent victim who gets picked on :rolleyes:

[monocrat]

Originally posted by bongbudda
I'm still shocked by the statement that burglers 'loose all rights', where does this stop? Is there no end to the punishment that they deserve?

Do they loose every shred of humanity as soon as they enter the door, can you not see how alarmist you sound?

Are you really justifying ANY action on them? I dispare.


I don't think that a homeowner has the right to do ANYTHING to a burglar.

Still a homeowner should have the right to defend their property. If this includes wounding someone, then so be it.

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by monocrat
I don't think that a homeowner has the right to do ANYTHING to a burglar.

Still a homeowner should have the right to defend their property. If this includes wounding someone, then so be it.

Whats up cant you make your mind up ?

You dont think a homeowner has the right to do anything to a burglar but they have the right to defent their property even if it includes wounding someone :confused:

I cant work that one out :rolleyes:

[morrocan roll]

and though i agree with aladin ...only so far. he was out of order ...he shot a guy who was running. but ...manslaughter was the right result. he had not gone out to commit an offence when the other guy had. it WAS provoked. if the other guy hadn't robbed him ...

[monocrat]

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
Whats up cant you make your mind up ?

You dont think a homeowner has the right to do anything to a burglar but they have the right to defent their property even if it includes wounding someone :confused:

I cant work that one out :rolleyes:

I can 'work it out'. :cool:

A homeowner should do what is prudent to defend his/her property. This does not mean literally anything imaginable.

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by monocrat
I can 'work it out'. :cool:



Go on admit you were wrong.............go on DO IT.............DO IT NOW :hyper: :hyper:

Yay you just made my night :hyper:

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
Go on admit you were wrong.............go on DO IT.............DO IT NOW :hyper: :hyper:

Yay you just made my night :hyper:

Come on monocrat you know you are dying to reply :lol:

I got ya well and truly there didnt I :p

[monocrat]

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I wasn't wrong...:p :cool: :D :lol:

[mocha_1977]

Burgulars scare, terrorise, frighten and upset people, so therefore although they are human I personally do not think they have any rights.