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
Stop persisting with this rubbish. That is not what anyone is suggesting or advocating.
Its exactly what is being advocated .........
A racist, crazy man shot a 16 year old burglar dead while he was running away and people are trying to justify that.
When you take all the circumstances into account, there is no way that the action amounted to "reasonable force" - it was pre-meditated murder.
And to be honest, the right wing papers that complained and still complain today that Martin should have not been found guilty after the Court veredict, are exactly advocating that.
In fact, how could you possibly see it any other way?
The most anyone is arguing for is the right to defend yourself and your property with deadly force. That is not the same as the death penalty for burglary. It is a defensive reaction not an act of justice or vengeance.
Tony Martin is not a good example.
Tony Martin is the perfect example.
There is no difference between "defending yourself and your property with deadly force" and a "death penalty for burglary"
So, you suspect that your wife is having an affair with a colleague, you invite him onto your property and then kill him....
Are we all happy with that?
(especially when we find that your suspicions were wrong?)
BTW, does property include apples?
I'll take it that you can't actually refute the argument.
I already said that I lived in a country where you could kill people on your property with virtual impunity, didn't I?
That scenario was repeated more than once.......
If you are saying that Tony Martin was not defending his home from burglars because they were running away, then his case is not a good example.
It would be better to discuss the case of Nick Baungartner.
Why?
Nope.
What do you think about that?
you have to sperate the burglary and subsequent events, and shotting someone in the back as they escaping, thats no reason to let them off, othe than possible tempory loss of sanity
He was defending his person, not his property at that stage.
Which is a crucial factor.
Are apples property, that should be defended with "deadly force"?
I do not defend what Tony Martin did, and he is not a good example of defending your home from burglars, but his perception of attack and our opinion in hindsight and the cold light of day are clearly different.
Which is why it is right to legislate for "reasonable force" and to examine all the evidence ...........
"Deadly force" is reasonable if your life is at risk, not if you think someone might take something as they run away.
Why won't you answer the "apple question?"
no cause the guy was fucking running away, how the hell do you interpret that as a threat!?
If someone is stealing from your property then they are subject to law. Just because apples are worthless in your eyes doesn't make it a non-crime. No, he didn't have the right to shoot the apple-scrumper, but the apple-scrumper didn't have the right to steal the apples.
I understand why people take the law into their own hands if the police take no interest. That doesn't make it right, but when the police cannot protect you, there is little choice.
there was no risk, if you actually confronted by one, then defend yourself, but not beyond your means
and he did get a reduded sentence too, cause of the fear involved, but no matter what it was murder and unnecessery force was used
But moving on from Tony Martin, does a person have a right to defend his home from attack?
in what sense? booby traps?
if someones threatening you or your life sure defned yourself, but if your house is being burgled, if you take up arms, then next time burgulars will jsut go more armed than you
and its easy to disregards someones life cause they took your property, youre saying, he broke the law, he didnt threaten you, he was running away in fact, plain and simple, if you kill them as theyre running away, its murder, plain as, even if ti was a criminal, its the laws job to deal with criminals and punish them, not yours
Who mentioned booby traps?
no he's not JUST a burglar as you put it so nicely, hes a burglar and a murderer at that too
noone has the right to shoot anyone, even if theyve broken into your home, otherwise wed all be going round killing eachother
and to sum up previous post, its the polices job to deal with criminals directly not you. you dont deal justice out
your saying its right to shoot someone cause theyve broken the law and are running away, if so - move to america please
But he started off as a burglar, and only became a murderer when confronted. Why, because we all go round burgling each other now?
Who would you rather died: Robert Symons or the burglar?
I agree. When have I ever said that?
Don't put words in my mouth.
ps Does everyone who disagrees with you have to move to America?
yes because it wasnt a pre-meditated killing, you only become a murderer once youve done it
erm cause if u run away from the law in america they shoot u,
So, the "but" suggests you'd be prepared to justify someone being shot dead for scrumping apples?
Indeed, if he hadn't been confronted, he wouldn't have become a murderer.
Which is a good reason why most people should think twice before physically confronting a burglar........
Essentially, your argument is the same as Luke's
No?
I don't know what I'd do - calling the police would be first on my mind, but if they are minutes or hours away, I'd pick up something heavy and investigate. No, because I don't think burglars deserve to die. I don't think anyone deserves to be killed, least of all innocent homeowners.