If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Wow, you really are fucked up. Thankfully the law is a bit more reasonable that that, and so people who shoot someone and leave them to die, they get sent down.
I won't even start on the irony of your first post, seeing as it is the very government that you pay for, that grant you the "right" to property in the first place. But we'll just sweep that little fact under the carpet should we?
If someone entered a property of mine with clear intent to do damage or to commit crime, I would want to get them out of my property as quickly as possible. I would defend myself and my property. If they were injured in the process, tough. They shouldn't have been there in the first place. If they were killed, it would be unfortunate, but I wouldn't shed any tears.
:banghead:
Its nothing to do with liberalism - its value that murder should be against the law...
The people who broke in were thieves who should have been jailed, not shot in the back and left to bleed to death. And that's what tipped the jury that it was murder. The average person who got someone dying in the front room calls the police and ambulance. They don't just leave them their...
Tony Martin was found guilty of murder - the jury rejected the option to find him guilty of manslaughter. They were given this option if they believed he had not intended to kill the victim. They rejected this and he recieved a life sentence as they clearly believed beyond any reasonable doubt that he had deliberately ended another's life, being fully aware that was what he was doing.
He initally appealed on the basis of self-defence, which was considered then rejected by three judges. However the defence also submitted evidence that Martin is a person with a paranoid personality disorder that was directed towards the idea of people intruding into his home. Based on this he conviction for murder was altered to manslaughter due to diminished responsibility. As a result his sentence of life was changed to five years.
No, he's relaying the facts of the case. Martin had turned his house into a series of traps. The shot someone in the back as they were leaving.
You know that Martin was a criminal before[/i he shot they boy, don't you?
Who's defender burgulars? No-one seems to be saying that. Several people are defending murder though...
Still no answer to the question I asked, so I'll try again. If a burglar breaks into your property, what would you do?
And I suppose the kid "breaking into" his garden to get his ball back deserves a lead sandwich as well, does he? Hypothetically, of course.
Hang on though, you are suggesting that it's okay to kill someone. So is it at any point after they have entered your house without permission, or do they have to have stolen something? If it's after the theft then to what sort of value, anything?
Depends on the state - some have even tougher laws than the UK (ie its not self defence if you had a chance to run and didn't take it)
how the fuck is walking into a garden to get a ball the shame as braking a window, climing into the house and stelling or coursing arm to the poeple within the house?
lol
Depends. If I'm there then I would want to make sure that I protect my family - but that's hardly relevant because that isn't what happened in the OP or in the Martin case.
Possessions can be replaced.
No, that's what Martin did and you are defending him.
Besides, they might be coffee drinkers and we all know how all those thieving immigrants only eat swans...
What you are saying is that you can do anything you want to someone who has broken into your house, and the police should never look into it.
Presumably you'd be happy for someone to be allowed to just rape a burgler to teach them a lesson, rather than end their life, if they felt like it at the time? Maybe just cut their hands off if they have run out of bullets?
Not when you're spouting bullshit like this it isn't. That's the same security services that grant you the right to property in the first place is it? Maybe you'd prefer to get rid of them and defend everything yourself? Fine, but don't expect to own much more than a room full of small possessions.
Well since I'm not a fucking nutjob, I don't own a gun. But based on this 16 year old kid, I would grab the nearest bat-like object and use it to threaten them, but obviously not actually use it unless they became violent towards me (99% of burglars are cowards who will run at the slightest noise). If they did have weapons, and I could tell I would most likely be injured if I tried to use force against them, I'd do what any reasonable person would do, and sit it out, remember as much as I can, call the police, and claim on the insurance. Not fucking rocket science, is it?
Just seeing where you're willing to draw the line. How about if the kid was going to steal your garden gnome?
Which one of those views represents your opinion SG?
Martin's first response was inflicting death, you defend him. Yet in your second comment you seem to say that it's wrong to do that?
But not a distortion of the actions you're defending and praising.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/04/18/nnazi18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/04/18/ixhome.html
One did legally kill an undercover surveillance officer...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Noye
Ever actually had any experience of reporting a burglary SG, or are you going off what you've read again?