Shooting burglars

BillieTheBot

Shot burglar case sparks debate

Now, most people would probably agree that under this set of particular circumstances the homeowner was rightly in the clear. What pisses me off is that some right-wing tossers are yet again twisting things and demanding the right to murder someone for breaking and entering. Look at the lovely Express front page today:







The "At Last" being a clear reference to murderer Tony Martin, a man who carefully took aim and shot a child in the back as he was trying to escape.

The Daily Torygraph is not falling much behind either, also crying “at last” and mentioning that darling martyr of the right again, Tony Martin.

Typical of certain camps to try to hijack this ruling for their own purposes. What they are advocating basically is the death penalty for burglary, and the 'right' to be judge, jury and executioner on the spot. The fact is that the Martin case could not be more different from this one.

Wankers. :rolleyes:

Former Member

Unless you're stupid I cant understand how the use of 'Reasonable Force' is unclear.

Former Member

Thats disgusting. Lousy rag.

Former Member

I heard the 'newspaper reviewer' on Sky News last night, some darling from the Sunday Telegraph, complain about that very thing bongbudda. She was saying how vague and difficult to understand the concept of 'reasonable force' was.

You have to despair at these people...

Former Member

The major difference is that this burglar didn't die as a result, and that tony martin's weapon was illegal at the time of the incident.

Former Member

Originally posted by lukesh
at the time of the incident, theifing was also illgeal.

Do you want a cookie? Or did you miss the point? Incidentally, it's actually burglary, theft is when you steal from a person.

Former Member

Originally posted by lukesh
What they are actually saying is that they back a law that allows Homeowners to defend them selves when they become attacked in their own home.

No one has a right to tresspass in someone elses home and when they are theifing, its even worse. Action should be taken when things get physical.
For example, if the burgular, punches someone in their face, the homeownder has the right to wack him back in self defense.

Your example is completely fine, you are allowed to use reasonable force.

Former Member

Originally posted by lukesh
Aladdin I would imagine its yourself that has led you to believe that the right wing media is syaing that it is OK to shoot a burgular.
What they are actually saying is that they back a law that allows Homeowners to defend them selves when they become attacked in their own home.

If that were the case, why did papers like the Telegraph, Mail, S*n or Express go apoplectic with rage at Tony Martin's conviction? And let's remind ourselves that Tony Martin was found guilty of murder (though later reduced) because he intended to kill the intruder as a punishment.

What they're basically saying is that if you break into a house the owner has the right to kill you if he so desires.

Former Member

Originally posted by lukesh
So your telling me if you knock out* the guy then its allowed because you have self defense? Sorry i do not believe that for one second.

*Give them a wack and it will knoc them out

It depends on the situation. You do understand the word reasonable I presume.

If the burgler has a knife then you can use more force than if they are un-armed, if you're fighting then you can do everything within your power to stop them.

It really is quite simple!

Former Member

Originally posted by lukesh
Your attitude is shocking seriosuly!

Fiend you know exactly what I mean but you just try and make me the dumb ass yet again!

Instead of trying to cause trouble again can we keep the peace?

Sorry, really, what does the fact that they were burglars have to do with anything? It's obvious.

Former Member

Originally posted by Aladdin
If that were the case, why did papers like the Telegraph, Mail, S*n or Express go apoplectic with rage at Tony Martin's conviction? And let's remind ourselves that Tony Martin was found guilty of murder (though later reduced) because he intended to kill the intruder as a punishment.

What they're basically saying is that if you break into a house the owner has the right to kill you if he so desires.

They felt that because he was being attacked in his own home he should get away, with what was basically, murder. Obviously he shouldn't, regardless of circumstance. If you're goingt o shoot someone, shoot them in the leg.

Former Member

Originally posted by lukesh
It has nothing to do with right wing.

Its about common sense.

Please answer this.... do you want to eb able to look after your family and home when an intruder arrives?

Stop avoiding the issue and derailing Luke.

Tony Martin executed the burglar as he was trying to escape. It had nothing to do with protecting oneself or one's property. Martin was simply 'teaching them a lesson'.

Do you think Martin was right and should have not been prosecuted?

Former Member

Originally posted by lukesh
Please answer this.... do you want to eb able to look after your family and home when an intruder arrives?

Yes I do want that, and I HAVE IT!!!!

Its already there!!

I can useREASONABLE FORCE to defend myself.

Do you want me to run through this for the 5th time?

Former Member

*waiting for luke to make a completly off topic point against aladdin or say 'i said before'*

Former Member

Originally posted by wheresmyplacebo
*waiting for luke to make a completly off topic point against aladdin or say 'i said before'*

*Decides to start taking bets*

Former Member

Originally posted by lukesh
answer my question first yeah?

Martin should NOT be prosecuted as NO one has the right to be in his house.

most of you don't seem to understand the rest of us on this issue......

Its really simple and easy to understand..... the kid would be alive today if he wasn't a theif so he got what he deserved. Simple as that.

Martin commited murder, why does the location make any difference?

Former Member

Originally posted by lukesh
answer my question first yeah?

Martin should NOT be prosecuted as NO one has the right to be in his house.

most of you don't seem to understand the rest of us on this issue......

Its really simple and easy to understand..... the kid would be alive today if he wasn't a theif so he got what he deserved. Simple as that.

So the answer is a yes then.

Okay everyone... it's official: Luke believes in the death penalty for burglary.

Don't complain if people make comparisons between you and certain moustached dictators, if you are happy to entertain such barbaric views.

Former Member

The idea of someone 'loosing all rights' as soon as they cross your land is a slightly scary one though isnt it.

Is there to be no defined limit to the punishment.

A kid trespasses on my land to get his/her ball back and I can chain them in the basement for the rest of their life torturing them? They obviously deserve it, they wouldnt be there if they didnt trespass.

Former Member

so if someone got convinced into breking into my house, i can do with them what they want, lets get a leggy blonde from a tv show to suprise me, but she broken in so i can do what i want

Former Member

I've said it before and I'll say it here.

I'll do whatever I can to protect my home and family. And if that means killing someone breaking into my home then I'll take the consequences.

Former Member

Originally posted by lukesh
why nto look at is from Martins point of view? You never look at the victims point of view.

The location made the difference yeah... the burgular was in Martins home!
he has NO right to be in there. So he got what was coming to him. he knwos that burgularly is wrong.

He shot a minor in the back. How can you possibly condone it? More to the point, someone died because of what Martin did, normally people are charged with a crime when that happens.

Former Member

Originally posted by lukesh
why nto look at is from Martins point of view? You never look at the victims point of view.

The location made the difference yeah... the burgular was in Martins home!
he has NO right to be in there. So he got what was coming to him. he knwos that burgularly is wrong.

yeh he knew, but he was getting away from the house, martin decided to issue justice himself, of which us as citizens dont have that right, what happen to trial by judge and jury luke?

Former Member

Originally posted by lukesh
I am far from syaing that shotting was the right thing to do but again look at martins point of view..... he was scared stiff, he was thinking of his fmaily, he had a gun.... next minute shoot..... he was scared and frightened. no one doesn't seem to care though about his point of view.

Sorry i don't mean noone, i mean you guys.

He was of course holding that gun illegally, but shall we over look that issue?

Former Member

Originally posted by lukesh
now that is being inmature. if someone came into your house and hit you for example, you have the god for given right to take action.

No, we have the state given right, this has got nothing to do with God.

Former Member

Originally posted by bongbudda
He was of course holding that gun illegally, but shall we over look that issue?

What if the gun was legal? Would that have made things OK?

Former Member

Originally posted by lukesh
why nto look at is from Martins point of view? You never look at the victims point of view.

The location made the difference yeah... the burgular was in Martins home!
he has NO right to be in there. So he got what was coming to him. he knwos that burgularly is wrong.

So you do advocate the death penatly for burglary then?

Presumably if a member of your family got into an argument in a pub with me and they insulted me (which is verbal assault and constitutes a crime), it would be okay for me to kill them? At the end of the day, they had no right to insult me. I'm the victim and if I choose to kill them for it they only 'had it coming' right?

Former Member

Originally posted by bongbudda
He was of course holding that gun illegally, but shall we over look that issue?

and i thought u said u didnt like criminal rights, or is it pick and choose, or first to it?

Former Member

Originally posted by lukesh
because of the burgualr entering someone elses house, he got him self killed. he broke the law! He suffered the consequences the hard way. Sorry but thats how it was.

Doesn't mean that Martin should ever get away with it.

Former Member

Originally posted by lukesh
because of the burgualr entering someone elses house, he got him self killed. he broke the law! He suffered the consequences the hard way. Sorry but thats how it was.

Martin broke the law. Martin murdered someone. Martin went to jail for it. So what's your fucking problem?

Former Member

Originally posted by wheresmyplacebo
and i thought u said u didnt like criminal rights, or is it pick and choose, or first to it?

Bong's never said that.

Former Member

Originally posted by wheresmyplacebo
and i thought u said u didnt like criminal rights, or is it pick and choose, or first to it?

I'm sorry, I'm not following you.