sensi
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by sensi on Aug 12, 2012 20:10:38 GMT
i'll make an exception just like you always do - having the last word .. ;D. the law is not at all clear - it does not mention guns or knives. If you had an upstairs balcony and grappled with a burglar and shoved him over it and he died, you may be found guilty of unreasonable force. Cricket bats, baseball bats, chisels are not mentioned...... Just to explain my stance a bit - if you had experience of burglaries that are done by druggies and nutters - you might be aware of the appalling things they sometimes do. I have been told of some by police, who do not openly talk about it for getting the public more alarmed than they might be already. Not too far away one little treasure was so annoyed that there were no simple cash or saleable items that he piled up loads of the lady's beautiful clothes and pissed all over them - worse one guy actually shit on clothes and wiped his ares on them.. Now imagine the effect on the lady coming home.. Yes it was moving time from that day on...she will never be the same - that bastard wants shooting...... The law is clear. Reasonable defence means acting in a way to protect yourself and your family which is proportionate to the situation. So if you are being attacked with a knife, chisel, baseball bat, gun or any other weapon that is likely to cause you to be seriously injured then you are within the law to fight back, even if the assailant dies. The law even states that you do not need to be attacked first if you fear for your safety. But where it does change, and this is the case in point with Tony Martin, is if the intruder is fleeing and you attack, then you are no longer acting in self defence and thus you become the assailant. The law is well balanced in favour of the innocent party and sensible enough to provide limits to excessive force. So that you don't end up with people blowing the heads off of drivers they have got into a road rage incident with. There is more information about the law on reasonable force here: www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/householders.html |
|
|
|
Post by Jayramfootball on Aug 12, 2012 20:43:13 GMT
i'll make an exception just like you always do - having the last word .. ;D. the law is not at all clear - it does not mention guns or knives. If you had an upstairs balcony and grappled with a burglar and shoved him over it and he died, you may be found guilty of unreasonable force. Cricket bats, baseball bats, chisels are not mentioned...... Just to explain my stance a bit - if you had experience of burglaries that are done by druggies and nutters - you might be aware of the appalling things they sometimes do. I have been told of some by police, who do not openly talk about it for getting the public more alarmed than they might be already. Not too far away one little treasure was so annoyed that there were no simple cash or saleable items that he piled up loads of the lady's beautiful clothes and pissed all over them - worse one guy actually shit on clothes and wiped his ares on them.. Now imagine the effect on the lady coming home.. Yes it was moving time from that day on...she will never be the same - that bastard wants shooting...... The law is clear. Reasonable defence means acting in a way to protect yourself and your family which is proportionate to the situation. So if you are being attacked with a knife, chisel, baseball bat, gun or any other weapon that is likely to cause you to be seriously injured then you are within the law to fight back, even if the assailant dies. The law even states that you do not need to be attacked first if you fear for your safety. But where it does change, and this is the case in point with Tony Martin, is if the intruder is fleeing and you attack, then you are no longer acting in self defence and thus you become the assailant. The law is well balanced in favour of the innocent party and sensible enough to provide limits to excessive force. So that you don't end up with people blowing the heads off of drivers they have got into a road rage incident with.
There is more information about the law on reasonable force here: www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/householders.htmlHighlighted your OPINION in bold.  As for reasonable defence - what if someone attacks you with a gun? What will you do? It would be interesting to hear your answer. |
|
sensi
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by sensi on Aug 12, 2012 20:55:01 GMT
Read the CPS guidance on the law pertaining to resonable force, that will give you your answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jayramfootball on Aug 12, 2012 20:57:15 GMT
Read the CPS guidance on the law pertaining to resonable force, that will give you your answer. I asked you a simple question. What would you do if an armed person attacked you and your family with a gun. What reasonable force would YOU use to defend yourself? |
|
sensi
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by sensi on Aug 12, 2012 21:01:15 GMT
Basically in that situation, anything goes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jayramfootball on Aug 12, 2012 21:02:50 GMT
Basically in that situation, anything goes. Perhaps as the assailant pointed his gun at you and your family you could site the law to him/her. Personally I would rather blow their heads clean off their shoulders. |
|
|
|
Post by thehothead on Aug 12, 2012 21:59:23 GMT
I think if someone pointed a gun at me and my family it would be my time to "go".
But I don't think all of us being armed is the answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jayramfootball on Aug 12, 2012 22:29:53 GMT
I think if someone pointed a gun at me and my family it would be my time to "go". But I don't think all of us being armed is the answer. It would be your time to go - but not if you defended yourself! |
|
|
|
Post by Bergkamp a Dutch master on Aug 12, 2012 23:36:00 GMT
the point is Mr Martin could not have known they were 'fleeing'. It was pitch dark - ever been in a farmhouse 10 miles from anywhere? It is just BLACK. He fired because he felt threatened - thats it open and shut. Protecting himself.
|
|
sensi
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by sensi on Aug 13, 2012 9:01:54 GMT
It is not open and shut. You need to read the details of the case.
Forensics showed that two of Martin's shots were made not from upstairs, shooting blindly down the stairs. But from downstairs and aimed directly at the intruders.
This is congruent with the fact that Martin pursued his intruders down the stairs after he'd fired the first shot when they were fleeing. He shot again twice, killing the young boy.
He was no longer defending himself, but was on the attack - and this is why he was found guilty of murder (later reduced to manslaughter)
|
|
|
|
Post by Bergkamp a Dutch master on Aug 13, 2012 9:56:16 GMT
Miscarriage of justice - open and shut - he thought they were a threat so he fired. I'd do the same.
|
|
sensi
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by sensi on Aug 13, 2012 10:11:29 GMT
It wasn't a miscarriage of justice and it wasn't an open and shut case. Like I said, go and read the details of the case.
Once they were fleeing his property, they were no longer a threat, so Martin was no longer acting in self defence, but had become the aggressor and shot with willful intent to cause grievous harm.
Also, there was evidence to suggest that the attack was planned, should anyone enter his property. Martin had spoken previously of "putting gypsies in one of his fields surrounded by barbed wire and machine gunning them".
The jury were given the option to return a verdict of manslaughter on the grounds that Martin "did not intend to kill or cause serious bodily harm" But the evidence pointed towards him deliberately pursuing Barras as he was trying to flee the property and shooting him in the back, thus the jury found him guilty of murder.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bergkamp a Dutch master on Aug 13, 2012 10:13:27 GMT
OK sensi - Piskie whoever you are - that is enough - you've had your say over and over - stop now - FIRST WARNING
|
|
sensi
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by sensi on Aug 13, 2012 10:15:59 GMT
Warning for what exactly ? I'm engaging in the debate.
You can't give me a 'warning' just because you don't like the truth about the details of this case Sorry, but that isn't really a very mature way to deal with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bergkamp a Dutch master on Aug 13, 2012 10:18:23 GMT
this warning is to stop your repeated discussion on the same subject - people have responded if they wanted to.
Don't come back - leave it - subject closed..
|
|
