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
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
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
i have experience with the police, my car was broken into, i reported it, haded them the CCTV from my house, which clearly showed what happend, it take them 3 days to come to my house to get finger prints from my car, by which time the rain had washed it away and didnt ever hear from them again.
great job there
Bollocks.
Considering a jury of his peers thought that he had murdered someone, how can you say that?
Again, you know that Martin was a criminal even before he killed the boy, don't you?
He had little option but to shoot someone running away from his house? Balls.
Some nasty little fucks on this site.
he wasnt running away from the house, he was still inside it
Well that wasn't my experience. It's annoying, sure. But does it matter? You had insurance, right?
The bullet wounds would suggest that he most certainly wasn't defending himself from violence. But ignoring that for a second, it he was running away with your £2k watch, would you feel justified in shooting him, because that's certainly the impression you're giving?
They were trying to escape. He shot them, they weren't posing a danger to him yet he still shot them. That's murder in my book.
Thought you didn't like criminals?
i had insurance which covered the radio and the window(which i had to wait 3days to get one with the right tint) but what the insurance didn’t cover was my written notes from a course i was doing, or the fact i had to missed 2 days of a course that i was paying £125 a day to attend that i then couldnt get to
On 12 February 2004, Tony Martin was arrested on suspicion of stealing number plates.
Well, looks like a habitual criminal then. Should he have been killed for doing that. It's theft after all...?
Unless the car was parked in someone's garage in which case you'd be happy for them to be shot and murdered.
I'm rather more concerned you've imagined so many crimes that someone should be executed for that it be such a chore to write...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/3952727.stm
Mr Faulkner, 73, will not be prosecuted despite firing a shotgun at Rae, leaving him with a leg wound.
A judge who sentenced Rae for break-ins said Mr Faulkner "could not be criticised" and was defending his home.
Hmm, a numberplate recently sold on Ebay for over £100k. That's a lot more than anything in your house is likely to be worth. You think he was stealing (allegedly, since I don't know whether he was convicted) random number plates worth nothing?
Absolutely right, I don't think there's a person here who doesn't think you should defend yourself with reasonable force. It's being allowed to murder someone in cold blood that's the question.
that would have been ownership of the number, not just a single numberplate
That isn't what you've been saying. You haven't been saying that someone just has the right to defend themselves. In your own words -
You aren't saying that someone should defend themselves - you're saying a burglar should have no rights and no legal protection from anything. Perhaps you should re-read what you've actually said, because that's all I'm basing my judgements on.
ok, if he had hit a major vein running in the leg and the man had died before help could get there would his actions still be ok? what makes this case any diffrent?
Firstly, the previous burglary involved the theft of various weapons, so there was a reasonable expectation that the burglar may be armed, and I don't have a problem with him bringing the gun as a precaution. Secondly, the evidence stated that Mr. Faulkner fired a shot in an attempt to frighten the man away, accidentally hitting the man in the leg (not in an attempt to kill the man, like the other case). Finally, I presume since it doesn't say otherwise, that Mr. Faulkner imformed the emergency services at the first available opportunity.
Intent.
Good point.
How much clearer can I be?
Mate, would you please spend a couple of minutes to actually look into what happened with Tony Martin, there's a million miles between the two cases as you'd realise if you did a quick google search of Tony Martin's case. If it's something that matters you could at least read the background to it before using it to justify people being allowed to commit murder.
they both shoot a thiev at there homes, same thing really
Was was an accident in the heat of the moment, the other was premeditated and deliberate (if it wasn't, he would've called the ambulance straight away - incidentally, if he had any brain cells, he would've realised that would help his defence in the inevitable court case). Quite a clear difference, unless you believe running someone over on purpose and accidentally killing someone who runs out in front of your car are essentially the same.