BRITISH JUSTICE? Gun control law nets life in prison for man protecting family]
Ron Bargoot
people killling criminals who break into their home! Who do these
people think they are?
Ron Bargoot
http://www5.50megs.com/rbargoot
RICHARD RIDER NOTE: The following hypothetical story is of interest,
because in essence it really happened!
========================
From: JSef...@aol.com [mailto:JSef...@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2000 12:08 AM
To: Suppressed address
Subject: Wake Up America
This is not my issue, but it may become all of our issues.
You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your
bedroom door.
Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled
whispers. At least two people have broken into your house
and are moving your way.
With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed
and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the
chamber, then inch toward the door and open it.
In the darkness, you make out two shadows. One holds a
weapon-it looks like a crowbar.
When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the
shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor.
One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to
the front door and lurches outside.
As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're
in trouble. In your country, most guns were outlawed years
before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently
regulated as to make them useless.
Yours was never registered.
Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died.
They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal
Possession of a Firearm.
When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry:
authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.
"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.
"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing.
"Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."
The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local
newspaper. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric
vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choir
boys. Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say
about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities
acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous
times. But the next day's headline says it all:
"Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die." The thieves have
been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type
pranksters.
As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media
picks it up, then the international media.
The surviving burglar has become a folk hero. Your attorney
says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win.
The media publishes reports that your home has been
burglarized several times in the past and that you've been
critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the
suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you
would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to
allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.
A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been
reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When
you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works
against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean,
vengeful man.
It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.
The judge sentences you to life in prison.
__________________________________________
This case really happened!
On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England,
killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was
convicted and is now serving a life term.
How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the
once-great British Empire?
It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly
reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and
established that handgun sales were to be made only to those
who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing
to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns.
Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of
any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of
all shotguns.
Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after
the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a
mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down
the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared,
17 people were dead.
The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun
control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all
privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan
used a rifle.)
Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland, Thomas Hamilton used
a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at
a public school.
For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as
mentally unstable, or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real
kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day,
week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and
demanded a total ban on all handguns.
The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the
few sidearms still owned by private citizens.
During the years in which the British government incrementally
took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right
to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities
refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened,
claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to
own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were
charged while the real criminals were released. Indeed, after the
Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We
cannot have people take the law into their own hands."
All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and
several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young
thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a
collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or
stolen by burglars.
When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns
were given three months to turn them over to local authorities.
Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few
who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year
prison sentences if they didn't comply.
Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns
from private citizens.
How did the authorities know who had handguns?
The guns had been registered and licensed. Kinda like cars.
Sound familiar?
WAKE UP AMERICA, THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING
FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT
IN OUR CONSTITUTION.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Richard Rider, President
Economy Telcom
Voice: 858-530-2634
Fax: 858-530-3030
E-mail: RRi...@san.rr.com
9974 Scripps Ranch Blvd. #358
San Diego, CA 92131
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Derrick J
injustice but I think the man acted on his fear and thats no excuse. What
if these criminals were a visiting family member. There are bunches of
possibilites. Im not taking the british laws side on it. Life! Too harsh.
Ron Bargoot <ronald....@tufts.edu> wrote in message
news:397F09C2...@tufts.edu...
Andrew R
> <Sarcasm mode on> Look at how civilized Britian is! We can't have
> people killling criminals who break into their home! Who do these
> people think they are?
>
<snip>
Referring to the Tony Martin case.
Mr Martin shot an unarmed burglar in the back with an illegally held pump
action shotgun. He had previously had his shotgun license revoked. He
lived on his own, and the incident happened in a barn (if I remember
correctly,) so he was not protecting his family.
He was found guilty of murder by a jury in a court of law, and so
received a life sentence, which is the only option under English law for
the sentencing of a convicted murderer.
Andrew
--
WARNING: Curiosity may be harmful to your cat's health.
http://qbandvb.cjb.net Andrew's QBASIC and Visual BASIC page.
http://qbandvb.cjb.net/ace/ ACE - The Active Clipboard Editor for
Windows.
Email address is spam trapped.
ICQ 53186881
Rev. Don Kool
Andrew R wrote:
> Ron Bargoot wrote:
>
> > <Sarcasm mode on> Look at how civilized Britian is! We can't have
> > people killling criminals who break into their home! Who do these
> > people think they are?
> >
>
> <snip>
> Referring to the Tony Martin case.
> Mr Martin shot an unarmed burglar in the back with an illegally held pump
> action shotgun. He had previously had his shotgun license revoked. He
> lived on his own, and the incident happened in a barn (if I remember
> correctly,) so he was not protecting his family.
> He was found guilty of murder by a jury in a court of law, and so
> received a life sentence, which is the only option under English law for
> the sentencing of a convicted murderer.
And the bumbling brits wonder why no one is rushing to emulate
their system. They sentence a poor farmer to life for protecting
his family and his property against a thug while at the same time
they release a proven six time murderer after only 12 years. The
proven murderer's stated "only regret" was that he "didn't kill more
people". How they love their "ethnic cleansing" in those backward
european countries. Happily here the homeowner would be feted as
the hero, not the proven and admitted murderer. Here the proven and
confessed murderer would be justly executed for his horrid crimes.
Hope this helps,
Don
--
********************** You a bounty hunter?
* Rev. Don McDonald * Man's gotta earn a living.
* Baltimore, MD * Dying ain't much of a living, boy.
********************** "Outlaw Josey Wales"
http://members.home.net/oldno7
blan...@my-deja.com
and...@NOSPAM.andrewr.co.uk wrote:
> Ron Bargoot wrote:
>
> > <Sarcasm mode on> Look at how civilized Britian is! We can't have
> > people killling criminals who break into their home! Who do these
> > people think they are?
> >
>
> Referring to the Tony Martin case.
> Mr Martin shot an unarmed burglar in the back with an illegally held
pump
> action shotgun. He had previously had his shotgun license revoked.
He
> lived on his own, and the incident happened in a barn (if I remember
> correctly,) so he was not protecting his family.
> He was found guilty of murder by a jury in a court of law, and so
> received a life sentence, which is the only option under English law
for
> the sentencing of a convicted murderer.
>
And life does not always mean life in the UK. All it means is an
indeterminate sentence. For this crime, an unjustified use of deadly
force that the jury found to fall short of self defence, he will
probably serve 2 or 3 years, if that.
He'll probably out before the surviving burglar, who was sentenced for
his crime. As for the other burglar, well, he's dead. A couple of
years in prison is a small price to pay for taking another man's life
with an unlicensed firearm.
Much as I feel sorry that the farmer had to go to prison, it serves to
underline the fact that England is governed by the rule of law, not the
law of the gun. I'd rather have that than the law in Texas, where you
can shoot someone dead in defence of your property, let alone your
life, without legal consequences.
As anyone who followed the case knows, the jury came through with the
correct verdict in the face of an unenviable task, as English juries
are known to do. Believe me, they didn't WANT to have to send the guy
to prison, but he murdered someone, for God's sake.
Sincerely,
David.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
John Amero
you have no respect for property and
life.
Have you been robbed twice and nearly
beaten to death? And the the assailants
don't even have a preliminary hearing...
they got off scott free?
I would like to hear you again when you
get your house ransacked and you and/or
your your wife beaten?.
An unjust law is just a legal opinion
and the does not morally make a man a
murder for protecting his property
and/or life... that IS his right!!!!!
Cheers,
John
blan...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <397F712D...@andrewr.co.uk>,
> and...@NOSPAM.andrewr.co.uk wrote:
> > Ron Bargoot wrote:
> >
> > > <Sarcasm mode on> Look at how civilized Britian is! We can't have
> > > people killling criminals who break into their home! Who do these
> > > people think they are?
> > >
> >
--
JOHN AMERO, Parksville, B. C. Canada
E-Mail to:- johnaNO§P...@island.net
**NOTE: REMOVE the_ NO§PAM _in the
email address for reply.**
Check out my Web Site at-
http://www.island.net/~johna/ ICQ UIN
2166985
... or Business- email to- Director of
Business Development,
John...@singaporerental.com
Also see index at above web site or
http://singaporerental.com/
Desmond Coughlan
} <Sarcasm mode on> Look at how civilized Britian is! We can't have
} people killling criminals who break into their home! Who do these
} people think they are?
[snip]
} This is not my issue, but it may become all of our issues.
} You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your
} bedroom door.
Mr Martin was not 'fast asleep'; he was lying in wait with his
(illegal) shotgun loaded.
} Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled
} whispers. At least two people have broken into your house
} and are moving your way.
The deceased was shot in the back, so one could reasonably assume
that he wasn't lurching towards Mr Martin, intending to beat him
to death with his shoulder blades.
} With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed
} and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the
} chamber, then inch toward the door and open it.
No, you don't 'rack a shell into the chamber' (you really do
get hard when you say that, don't you ..?), because the (illegal)
weapon was already loaded.
} In the darkness, you make out two shadows. One holds a
} weapon-it looks like a crowbar.
What a pity that the deceased was unarmed.
[snip]
} As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're
} in trouble.
Yep, you are ... because you only 'pick[ed] up the telephone' hours
after the shooting, after having left a fatally injured and unarmed
teenager to die in agony.
[snip]
} Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died.
} They arrest you for First Degree Murder
No they don't, because there is no such offence in the UK.
[snip]
} The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local
} newspaper. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric
} vigilante
Yes, because that's exactly what you are. You waited, fully dressed
and clutching a (illegal) shotgun, and then shot an unarmed teenager
in the back, and left him to die.
Not only are you a vigilante; you are a murderer, and you deserve
your life sentence.
[snip]
} The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun
} control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all
} privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan
} used a rifle.)
}
} Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland, Thomas Hamilton used
} a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at
} a public school.
Ah ..? I'm sure you mean 'semi-automatic handgun', for Mr Hamilton
used a Beretta 92F, unless I'm mistaken.
You're not only a liar, but you're a stupid one ... in fact, you're
a very stupid one.
Now go and play with your guns, little girl, because this isn't the
newsgroup to be spamming to.
[remaining slavering, NRA propaganda snipped]
--
Desmond Coughlan |Restez Zen ... UNIX peut le faire
des...@coughlan.net
http://www.coughlan.net/desmond
Ron Bargoot
>
> You're not only a liar, but you're a stupid one ... in fact, you're
> a very stupid one.
>
> Now go and play with your guns, little girl, because this isn't the
> newsgroup to be spamming to.
>
> [remaining slavering, NRA propaganda snipped]
>
> --
> Desmond Coughlan |Restez Zen ... UNIX peut le faire
> des...@coughlan.net
> http://www.coughlan.net/desmond
***ROFLOL!!!***
You know Desi, you'd be funny if you weren't so friggin pathetic!
--
Ron Bargoot
http://www5.50megs.com/rbargoot
Rev. Don Kool
blan...@my-deja.com wrote:
> and...@NOSPAM.andrewr.co.uk wrote:
> > Ron Bargoot wrote:
> >
> > > <Sarcasm mode on> Look at how civilized Britian is! We can't have
> > > people killling criminals who break into their home! Who do these
> > > people think they are?
> > >
> >
> > <snip>
> > Referring to the Tony Martin case.
> > Mr Martin shot an unarmed burglar in the back with an illegally held
> pump
> > action shotgun. He had previously had his shotgun license revoked.
> He
> > lived on his own, and the incident happened in a barn (if I remember
> > correctly,) so he was not protecting his family.
> > He was found guilty of murder by a jury in a court of law, and so
> > received a life sentence, which is the only option under English law
> for
> > the sentencing of a convicted murderer.
> >
> > Andrew
>
> And life does not always mean life in the UK. All it means is an
> indeterminate sentence. For this crime, an unjustified use of deadly
> force that the jury found to fall short of self defence, he will
> probably serve 2 or 3 years, if that.
Remind us again why "LWOP" is so certain. LOL!
> He'll probably out before the surviving burglar, who was sentenced for
> his crime. As for the other burglar, well, he's dead. A couple of
> years in prison is a small price to pay for taking another man's life
> with an unlicensed firearm.
He should not have paid any price as he did nothing wrong.
> Much as I feel sorry that the farmer had to go to prison, it serves to
> underline the fact that England is governed by the rule of law, not the
> law of the gun. I'd rather have that than the law in Texas, where you
> can shoot someone dead in defence of your property, let alone your
> life, without legal consequences.
As it should be.
> As anyone who followed the case knows, the jury came through with the
> correct verdict in the face of an unenviable task, as English juries
> are known to do. Believe me, they didn't WANT to have to send the guy
> to prison, but he murdered someone, for God's sake.
Not hardly, my young immigrant friend. He used deadly force in
self defense.
Yours in Christ,
blan...@my-deja.com
John Amero <" =?iso-8859-1?Q?johnaNO=A7PAM?="@island.net> wrote:
> An unjust law is just a legal opinion
> and the does not morally make a man a
> murder for protecting his property
> and/or life... that IS his right!!!!!
> Cheers,
> John
>
In the UK, we have this quaint notion that life is a little more
important than property. The farmer's life was not in danger, and the
jury verdict affirms that we do not believe in vigilante justice. The
sad truth here is that the guy shot first, asked questions later. That
is not acceptable under the laws of England. Deadly force can only be
used in response to the imminent threat of serious bodily injury or
death.
Richard Jackson
have
> > > people killling criminals who break into their home! Who do these
> > > people think they are?
> > >
> >
> > Referring to the Tony Martin case.
> > Mr Martin shot an unarmed burglar in the back with an illegally held
> pump
> > action shotgun. He had previously had his shotgun license revoked.
Would it have made any difference if the weapon had been legally owned?
Given the circumstances and what little I know aboiut English law, it
would still have been murder would it not?
If that is the case, the fact that the weapon was not legally liscensed
is irrelevant.
> He
> > lived on his own, and the incident happened in a barn (if I remember
> > correctly,) so he was not protecting his family.
> > He was found guilty of murder by a jury in a court of law, and so
> > received a life sentence, which is the only option under English law
> for
> > the sentencing of a convicted murderer.
> >
> > Andrew
>
> And life does not always mean life in the UK. All it means is an
> indeterminate sentence. For this crime, an unjustified use of deadly
> force that the jury found to fall short of self defence, he will
> probably serve 2 or 3 years, if that.
>
> He'll probably out before the surviving burglar, who was sentenced for
> his crime. As for the other burglar, well, he's dead. A couple of
> years in prison is a small price to pay for taking another man's life
> with an unlicensed firearm.
>
Again, given the circumstances, does it make that much of a difference
if the firearm was liscensed. I got the idea that just as
abolitionists argued that Gary Graham's other criminal activities was
irrelevant to his guilt or innocence of murder, but just a smoke screen
used by the prosecution to justify the death sentence, so was the fact
that this weapon was illegal in relation to the crime this man was
charged with. Unlike in the Texas court where Graham was found guilty
of murder this other illegal activity was admitted in the guilt phase
of the Martin trial as incriminating evidence.
> Much as I feel sorry that the farmer had to go to prison, it serves to
> underline the fact that England is governed by the rule of law, not
the
> law of the gun. I'd rather have that than the law in Texas, where you
> can shoot someone dead in defence of your property, let alone your
> life, without legal consequences.
>
That is true. Here in Texas, i have the right to use deadly force to
protect property. This means that if someone is breaking down the
front door to my home, I do not have to wait until they threaten me or
my family to use a firearm to kill them. (or a bow and arrow, knife,
cannon, etc.)
> As anyone who followed the case knows, the jury came through with the
> correct verdict in the face of an unenviable task, as English juries
> are known to do. Believe me, they didn't WANT to have to send the guy
> to prison, but he murdered someone, for God's sake.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> David.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
Under English law, and indeed perhaps under Texas law, Martin was
guilty of murder. In Texas, he would likely have been charged with
manslaughter rather than capital murder, but the evidence suggest that
he could well have been guilty of capital murder even here. He did
wait for the thieves and shoot without warning. This he did with
pre-meditation.
Of course, here, he would have faced grand jury inditement, and may
well have been no-billed by them. Then he would still have been
liable to federal prosecution for denying them their civil rights.
Had they been a minority, it is nearly a certainty such would have
occurred in a high profile case.
--
Richard Jackson
John Yates
> What if these criminals were a visiting family member. There are bunches of
> possibilites.
What if they were the DEA who had been told by an informant that
the DEA had threatened with 25 years to life unless he gave them
a name? What if the DEA wanted to seize his farm and had busted
the door down at midnight looking for the pot farm the informant
had told them about that wasn't there? What if it was DEA pigs the
guy shot? How many years would he be looking at in the USA?
blan...@my-deja.com
Richard Jackson <ri...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Would it have made any difference if the weapon had been legally
owned?
> Given the circumstances and what little I know aboiut English law, it
> would still have been murder would it not?
Yes, it would. And remember, we have no degrees of murder in England.
Separating murder cases by severity is a job for the punitive element
of the sentence. And this was a case that could not possibly fit under
any of the 5 different types of manslaughter.
> If that is the case, the fact that the weapon was not legally
liscensed
> is irrelevant.
The relevance lies in the reason why the firearm was unlicensed. A
farmer would generally have no difficulty in obtaining a license for a
shotgun. The best that can be said for the defendant was that he had
illustrated by his past actions that he did not have the temperament to
be safely allowed to possess a lethal weapon, as demonstrated by past
actions.
Richard Jackson
In what way? Had he threatened someone with a firearm before? Did he
have a criminal record? Was he a proven mentally unstable person?
As you know, someonme buying a firearm today from a liscensed firearm
dealer in the US also has to undergo a security check. My som, for
example, bought a new hunting rifle last year. Although he was then
taking law enforcement training, he had to have a federal check run
before he could pick it up from the dealer.
Of course, had he been a liscensed peace officer working for some
government agency, the waiting period would have been waved.
--
Richard Jackson
John Amero
with the majority of the UK citizens?
Waiting up or not, when some one is on
your property in the wee hours at might
is for one purpose only and since the
owner of the property is not a mind
reader, then the owner has to expect the
worst.
What happened to respect of private
property and personal privacy?
Cheers,
John
> Sincerely,
>
> David.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
Carman
Derrick J <d...@cmc.net> wrote in message news:8ln4ok$cak$1...@news.cmc.net...
> Thats Great Britains problem not Americas. Although I do see the view of
> injustice but I think the man acted on his fear and thats no excuse. What
> if these criminals were a visiting family member. There are bunches of
> possibilites. Im not taking the british laws side on it. Life! Too harsh.
Carman wrote:
This is a problem for Americans as well. There are people in the US who
would like nothing better than to emulate the entire British System, from a
completely unrestrainable Legislature, to the denial of Self-defense.
You suggest, "...I think the man acted on his fear and thats no excuse".
Then on what should he act? Is it really necessary for a man to wait until he
is actually injured by the housebreakers, before he takes action in his own
defense?
You ask, "What if these criminals were a visiting family member."? Do
"visiting family members", normally smash your windows with crowbars
when they arrive? Mine do not.
There is a great deal of information on the Tony Martin case on the net.
For various points of view check the archives of uk.politics.guns.
Carman
John Yates <j...@bobo.pp.fi> wrote in message news:3980780a...@news.eunet.fi...
> > possibilites.
>
> the DEA had threatened with 25 years to life unless he gave them
> a name? What if the DEA wanted to seize his farm and had busted
> the door down at midnight looking for the pot farm the informant
> had told them about that wasn't there? What if it was DEA pigs the
> guy shot? How many years would he be looking at in the USA?
Carman wrote:
The man would be dead, of course. Even in the US the dead are not
imprisoned.
Carman
Andrew R <and...@andrewr.co.uk> wrote in message news:397F712D...@andrewr.co.uk...
> Ron Bargoot wrote:
>
> > <Sarcasm mode on> Look at how civilized Britian is! We can't have
> > people killling criminals who break into their home! Who do these
> > people think they are?
> >
>
> Referring to the Tony Martin case.
> Mr Martin shot an unarmed burglar in the back with an illegally held pump
> action shotgun.
Carman wrote:
Mr Martin's home was violently entered in the middle of the night subsequent
to other burglaries and violent threats from a number of people. It was NOT
established that he shot a man who was faced away from him, there in the
darkness of the lower story of his home, but rather that the man shot was
bending down to pick up something from his bag on the floor. Any policeman
would have shot the man on the assumption he was reaching for a weapon.
> He had previously had his shotgun license revoked.
Carman wrote:
Following an incident where Mr Martin was threatened and people attempted
to run over his dogs, Mr martin contacted the police who temporarily revoked
the license, because Mr Martin told them he had fires the weapon at the rear
end of the car in an effort to frighten off the assailants. The police never even
came out to get his shotgun.
> He lived on his own, and the incident happened in a barn (if I remember
> correctly,) so he was not protecting his family.
Carman wrote:
An aged man living alone in an old house and repeatedly targeted by thieves.
You find in this some reason he may not defend his life from housebreakers?
He is not his own family?
> He was found guilty of murder by a jury in a court of law, and so
> received a life sentence, which is the only option under English law for
> the sentencing of a convicted murderer.
>
> Andrew
Carman wrote:
Telling a half truth is the same as lying. If you're going to tell the story, tell
the whole story. Tony Martin isn't the first innocent man to be convicted of
behavior that was not, in itself, criminal until a politically motivated Crown
Prosecutor got his hands on it.
It is against the law in the UK to defend yourself with a firearm. The Crown
doesn't care if it sends one man, or a thousand to prison. The message is
clear: The life of the criminal is valued above the life of the victim.
Carman
<blan...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8loe9b$q23$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...(snip)
> And life does not always mean life in the UK. All it means is an
> indeterminate sentence. For this crime, an unjustified use of deadly
> force that the jury found to fall short of self defence, he will
> probably serve 2 or 3 years, if that.
Carman wrote:
Have you written to tell Tony Martin the Good News? Two or three years
of an old man's life stolen by the uncaring State? Nothing to worry about?
> He'll probably out before the surviving burglar, who was sentenced for
> his crime. As for the other burglar, well, he's dead. A couple of
> years in prison is a small price to pay for taking another man's life
> with an unlicensed firearm.
Carman wrote:
I suppose Mr Martin should have just stood there and let these thugs beat
him to death? Would they have killed him rather than let him live to testify
against them? This was a "hot-burglary", a "home-invasion". The thugs knew
he was home. The old man had no place else to be.
> Much as I feel sorry that the farmer had to go to prison, it serves to
> underline the fact that England is governed by the rule of law, not the
> law of the gun.
Carman wrote:
It serves to underline the fact that England has become a nation of sheep.
The Political Shepherds wear wool and dine on lamb and mutton.
> I'd rather have that than the law in Texas, where you can shoot someone
> dead in defence of your property, let alone your life, without legal consequences.
Carman wrote:
Cite please. Cite a case of property defense in Texas, with someone
shot dead, where there were no legal consequences.
> As anyone who followed the case knows, the jury came through with the
> correct verdict in the face of an unenviable task, as English juries
> are known to do. Believe me, they didn't WANT to have to send the guy
> to prison, but he murdered someone, for God's sake.
Carman wrote:
Self-defense is NOT murder, invoking the Deity will not make it so.
AndrewR
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > David.
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
> >
>
> In what way? Had he threatened someone with a firearm before? Did he
> have a criminal record? Was he a proven mentally unstable person?
>
<snip>
See the bottom of the report on
http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_718000/718129.stm for why
he had lost his gun license.
blan...@my-deja.com
Richard Jackson <ri...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In what way? Had he threatened someone with a firearm before? Did he
> have a criminal record? Was he a proven mentally unstable person?
He had his license revoked because he tried to shoot someone's car with
his shotgun, if I recall correctly. He was also known locally as, "a
bit of a nutter". Not the sort of guy to waste too much sympathy on,
even before he shot a 16 year old boy in the back.
blan...@my-deja.com
John Amero <" =?iso-8859-1?Q?johnaNO=A7PAM?="@island.net> wrote:
> "That is not acceptable under the laws
> of England".... BUT is that acceptable
> with the majority of the UK citizens?
The jury was a representative cross section of the community, and had
full possession of the relevant facts. What would you infer from their
verdict?
And in England, unlike the US, there is absolutely no love of guns.
Very few people even own one.
> Waiting up or not, when some one is on
> your property in the wee hours at might
> is for one purpose only and since the
> owner of the property is not a mind
> reader, then the owner has to expect the
> worst.
And then shoot the retreating burglar in the back?
> What happened to respect of private
> property and personal privacy?
It doesn't, and never has, outweighed the prohibition on murder.
Repeat, this is not a case of self defence, but of taking the law into
one's own hands.
Alex Cunningham
> correct verdict in the face of an unenviable task, as English juries
> are known to do. Believe me, they didn't WANT to have to send the guy
> to prison, but he murdered someone, for God's sake.
>
>
> David.
It was not a unanimous decision by the jury to convict,
This is another abomination introduced under British statute law.
Common law requires a unanimous verdict either way by a jury.
--
Cheers.
Alex C.
There are 12.000.000 sheep in Ontario.
Problem is 9,000,000 of them think they are people
Alex Cunningham
<blan...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8lpjhe$ks1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> In the UK, we have this quaint notion that life is a little more
> important than property. The farmer's life was not in danger, and the
> jury verdict affirms that we do not believe in vigilante justice. The
> sad truth here is that the guy shot first, asked questions later. That
> is not acceptable under the laws of England. Deadly force can only be
> used in response to the imminent threat of serious bodily injury or
> death.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> David.
A British Para named Clegg serving in Northern Ireland at the height of the
troubles was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in jail by a judge.
His crime was to shoot at a car that refused to stop and ran at him at a
check point which he was manning.
The car was stolen and was being used by 2 teenagers for joy riding.
Unfortunately one of the teenagers was killed by the gunfire.
The soldier apparently shot four rounds. The judge ruled that the first
three were legal but the fourth was not. It was determined that the fourth
round was the one that killed the kid.
This bizarre convoluted reasoning was because in the eyes of the judge "Once
the car was past the soldier it was no longer a threat to him and therefore
he had no legal right to fire the fourth round"
Fortunately this travesty of justice has been righted by the release and
full exoneration of the soldier.
He still had to endure hell for several years however.
Now this was a soldier on active duty in the midst of a theatre of war.
No wonder the poor bloody farmer, Martin never stood a chance.
Richard Jackson
blan...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8lq9h3$76c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Richard Jackson <ri...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > In what way? Had he threatened someone with a firearm before? Did
he
> > have a criminal record? Was he a proven mentally unstable person?
>
> He had his license revoked because he tried to shoot someone's car
with
> his shotgun, if I recall correctly. He was also known locally as, "a
> bit of a nutter". Not the sort of guy to waste too much sympathy on,
> even before he shot a 16 year old boy in the back.
>
Let's see...... He killed a pigeon with a pistol after getting in an
argument. (Unlawful discharge of a firearm), He broke out his
relative's windows on a house witha shotgun (destruction of private
property), He shot at a car (Assault with a deadly weapon or
attempted murder witha firearm), He was found to have a shortened
shotgun (Illegal sawed-off shotgun).
All of the above are charges which could have (and collectively would
hav) ended in his arrest and stopped his ability to legally buy
firearms in Texas. I wonder if he didn't have a point in believing
the constabulary was ineffective in preventing crime? They didn't do
too good a job in his case, did they? Perhaps if he had lived in
Texas, he would have been arrested and incarcerated long before he
waited in the dark to shoot a burgular and leave him and another boy
wounded, in the dark for an hour or two before calling anyone. But
then..... they D:"ID illegally enter his property to steal, didn't
they?
--
Richard Jackson
blan...@my-deja.com
"Alex Cunningham" <ca...@idirect.com> wrote:
I'll admit that Lee Clegg got a raw deal. The incident should have led
to an Army Board of Inquiry, but I don't believe the facts made even a
prima facie case for murder. I'm glad the criminal justice system
sorted the error out.
The "poor bloody farmer" was a local nut with a history of firearm
abuse (which is why he'd had his license revoked), an expressed
preference for sorting problems out without recourse to the law and a
far too itchy trigger finger who shot a 16 year old burglar IN THE
BACK. He fully deserves the 2 or 3 years he'll probably serve in
prison for his crime.
This was not, for the last time, a matter of self defence. The jury
were quite clear on that.
blan...@my-deja.com
Richard Jackson <ri...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Let's see...... He killed a pigeon with a pistol after getting in an
> argument. (Unlawful discharge of a firearm), He broke out his
> relative's windows on a house witha shotgun (destruction of private
> property), He shot at a car (Assault with a deadly weapon or
> attempted murder witha firearm), He was found to have a shortened
> shotgun (Illegal sawed-off shotgun).
>
> All of the above are charges which could have (and collectively would
> hav) ended in his arrest and stopped his ability to legally buy
> firearms in Texas. I wonder if he didn't have a point in believing
> the constabulary was ineffective in preventing crime? They didn't do
> too good a job in his case, did they?
I gather he was treated by most as the local eccentric, to be generally
avoided but not to be taken too seriously. Rural communities tend to
try and avoid locking people up wherever possible. But you're right,
his behaviour should have been stopped well before this happened.
>Perhaps if he had lived in
> Texas, he would have been arrested and incarcerated long before he
> waited in the dark to shoot a burgular and leave him and another boy
> wounded, in the dark for an hour or two before calling anyone. But
> then..... they D:"ID illegally enter his property to steal, didn't
> they?
And thus forfeit their lives? In Texas, an unreserved yes. In the UK,
a qualified no. If Martin had perceived, correctly (or even
incorrectly so long as the perception was reasonable) that he was in
imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death, he could have used
deadly force in response to the threat. Mistake is allowed, but it
must, as I said, be a reasonable one. Whichever way you cut it, lying
in wait for the burglar you know is coming and then shooting him in the
back with a shotgun is not within the parameters of self defence.
Like I said, you can respond with deadly force if your life is
threatened, but not in defence of your property. This is a law I
believe to be perfectly correct, and justly applied in the Martin case.
blan...@my-deja.com
"Carman" <jof...@istar.ca> wrote:
>
> <blan...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8loe9b$q23
$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > And life does not always mean life in the UK. All it means is an
> > indeterminate sentence. For this crime, an unjustified use of
deadly
> > force that the jury found to fall short of self defence, he will
> > probably serve 2 or 3 years, if that.
>
> Carman wrote:
> Have you written to tell Tony Martin the Good News? Two or three
years
> of an old man's life stolen by the uncaring State? Nothing to worry
about?
He should think himself lucky. He committed murder, after all. Oh,
and after the punitive part of his sentence he will need to show a bit
of remorse, because it will be up to a parole board to decide whether
he is safe to releas or not.
> > He'll probably out before the surviving burglar, who was sentenced
for
> > his crime. As for the other burglar, well, he's dead. A couple of
> > years in prison is a small price to pay for taking another man's
life
> > with an unlicensed firearm.
>
> Carman wrote:
> I suppose Mr Martin should have just stood there and let these
thugs beat
> him to death? Would they have killed him rather than let him live to
testify
> against them? This was a "hot-burglary", a "home-invasion". The thugs
knew
> he was home. The old man had no place else to be.
The jury heard the facts, and decided that there was no reasonable
evidence of self defence. There are many things that Mr Martin could
have done with or without his shotgun that fall short of shooting a
teenage burglar in the back after lying in wait for him.
> > Much as I feel sorry that the farmer had to go to prison, it serves
to
> > underline the fact that England is governed by the rule of law, not
the
> > law of the gun.
>
> Carman wrote:
> It serves to underline the fact that England has become a nation of
sheep.
> The Political Shepherds wear wool and dine on lamb and mutton.
Crap. We just don't worship the gun like they do on the other side of
the Atlantic. And England is a much safer place for it.
> > I'd rather have that than the law in Texas, where you can shoot
someone
> > dead in defence of your property, let alone your life, without
legal consequences.
>
> Carman wrote:
> Cite please. Cite a case of property defense in Texas, with someone
> shot dead, where there were no legal consequences.
Do your own damn research, or at least ask nicely.
> > As anyone who followed the case knows, the jury came through with
the
> > correct verdict in the face of an unenviable task, as English juries
> > are known to do. Believe me, they didn't WANT to have to send the
guy
> > to prison, but he murdered someone, for God's sake.
>
> Carman wrote:
> Self-defense is NOT murder, invoking the Deity will not make it so.
Self defence is not murder, I quite agree, and this case did not
involve self defence, as the jury rightly found.
blan...@my-deja.com
"Alex Cunningham" <ca...@idirect.com> wrote:
>
> It was not a unanimous decision by the jury to convict,
So at least 10 voted to convict. I have no problems with that.
> This is another abomination introduced under British statute law.
> Common law requires a unanimous verdict either way by a jury.
And what, pray, is common law? It is law created by judges, rather
than the directly elected legislature. Common law changes as the
judges change, reigned in only by the imperfect threads of stare
decisis. Statute law is infinitely more democratic, and in modern
England, as in most western countries, primacy is accorded to statute
law, with common law merely filling in the gaps. It would be
absolutely unheard of for the courts to construct an entirely new
common law crime now, a dreadful usurpation of the authority of the
legislature.
And what is so special about jury anonimity? Under current English
rules, the jury must try to reach a unanimous verdict. Only if
expressly allowed by the judge are they allowed to return a majority
verdict, which must be by 11-1 or 10-2. This is enough of a margin to
protect the innocent from the injustice of a verdict lacking the
support of anything other than an overwhelming majority of jurors. It
is perfectly fair, and prevents the injustice of a lone juror, or even
two acting in tandem, wrecking a verdict and holding out for a mistrial.
There is nothing, repeat, nothing sacrosanct about unanamity. You
don't see it at the court of appeals, you don't see it at the US
Supreme Court, and you don't see it at the House of Lords. Why should
juries be any different?
blan...@my-deja.com
"Carman" <jof...@istar.ca> wrote:
<snip>
> Carman wrote:
> Telling a half truth is the same as lying. If you're going to tell
the story, tell
> the whole story. Tony Martin isn't the first innocent man to be
convicted of
> behavior that was not, in itself, criminal until a politically
motivated Crown
> Prosecutor got his hands on it.
Crown Prosecutors are not politically motivated. They are civil
servants and career lawyers with absolutely no political incentives to
act in one way or another. They do not run for election, do not have
to justify their conviction rates (their first duty being to justice
rather than the god of winning) and are completely impartial, neutral
and fair. You slur them with your base, unfounded, and completely
untrue allegation.
> It is against the law in the UK to defend yourself with a firearm.
Utter crap. If a burglar were coming at you with a knife, you could
shoot him stone dead and it would still be self defence. You just
can't sneak around shooting people in the back.
>The Crown
doesn't care if it sends one man, or a thousand to prison. The message
is
> clear: The life of the criminal is valued above the life of the
victim.
And to you, the life of a burglar is forfeit at the whim of a
householder. Well that may be the way you do things wherever you're
from, but in England we prefer to avoid justice from the barrel of a
gun.
Desmond Coughlan
[snip]
} >The Crown
} doesn't care if it sends one man, or a thousand to prison. The message
} is
} > clear: The life of the criminal is valued above the life of the
} victim.
} And to you, the life of a burglar is forfeit at the whim of a
} householder. Well that may be the way you do things wherever you're
} from, but in England we prefer to avoid justice from the barrel of a
} gun.
I applaud your words, David, and would add: in Scotland, Mr Martin
would have also been (rightly) sentenced to life imprisonment for the
murder of an unarmed teenager.
--
**********************************************************************
Desmond Coughlan Network Manager Forum des Images Paris *
dcou...@vdp.fr http://www.forumdesimages.net (01) 44.76.62.29 *
**********************************************************************
Dan from Quebec
"Carman" <jof...@istar.ca> wrote in message
news:sk5g5.5403$Lg1....@cac1.rdr.news.psi.ca...
>
> <blan...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8loe9b$q23$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <397F712D...@andrewr.co.uk>,
> > and...@NOSPAM.andrewr.co.uk wrote:
> > > Ron Bargoot wrote:
> (snip)
> > indeterminate sentence. For this crime, an unjustified use of deadly
> > force that the jury found to fall short of self defence, he will
> > probably serve 2 or 3 years, if that.
>
> Carman wrote:
> Have you written to tell Tony Martin the Good News? Two or three years
> of an old man's life stolen by the uncaring State? Nothing to worry about?
>
> > his crime. As for the other burglar, well, he's dead. A couple of
> > years in prison is a small price to pay for taking another man's life
> > with an unlicensed firearm.
>
> Carman wrote:
> I suppose Mr Martin should have just stood there and let these thugs
beat
> him to death? Would they have killed him rather than let him live to
testify
> against them? This was a "hot-burglary", a "home-invasion". The thugs knew
> he was home. The old man had no place else to be.
>
>
> > underline the fact that England is governed by the rule of law, not the
> > law of the gun.
>
> Carman wrote:
> It serves to underline the fact that England has become a nation of
sheep.
> The Political Shepherds wear wool and dine on lamb and mutton.
>
> > dead in defence of your property, let alone your life, without legal
consequences.
>
> Carman wrote:
> Cite please. Cite a case of property defense in Texas, with someone
> shot dead, where there were no legal consequences.
>
>
> > correct verdict in the face of an unenviable task, as English juries
> > are known to do. Believe me, they didn't WANT to have to send the guy
> > to prison, but he murdered someone, for God's sake.
>
> Carman wrote:
> Self-defense is NOT murder, invoking the Deity will not make it so.
I am a Canadian. I have read your postings and I read the articles on
the internet site. I would say the frightened old man in the dark house in
the middle of the night should have been found innocent of murder. He was
found guilty by the jurors because he was unsympathetic. If he had been a
pretty young girl with a winning personality, or a little old church going
biddy, he would not have been found guilty.
There was an almost identical event in Texas where an old eccentric shot
some young men who entered his home during the night. He was not charged
with any crime. I am pretty sure that in Texas, you are allowed to defend
yourself and defend your property. I would like to know statistics on house
breaking in the U.K. and in Texas.
Here in Canada, if I heard someone breaking into my house in the middle
of the night, in the dark, I would quickly run downstairs, unlock my gun
cabinet, take out a firearm, then unlock the trigger lock, unlock my
ammunition cabinet which is in another part of the house, grope for the
right calibre or gauge, load my firearm in the dark, yell out to the
intruder that he better go away before I shoot him, but by that time it
would be daylight or I would be "lights out".
Dan in Quebec
Carman
<blan...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8lr23k$odc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...(snip)
> > > I'd rather have that than the law in Texas, where you can shoot
> > > someone dead in defence of your property, let alone your life,
> > > without legal consequences.
> >
> > Carman wrote:
> > Cite please. Cite a case of property defense in Texas, with someone
> > shot dead, where there were no legal consequences.
>
Carman wrote:
The poster finds my request for a cite improperly phrased? More likely he
has no cite because this statement is ill-considered, inaccurate, and quite
properly reflective of his brutal prejudice.
Interesting how some people become angry when their inability to support
their statements is revealed. This kind of ill-mannered behavior neatly places
the rest of the poster's comments in context.
(snip)
Richard Jackson
Under English law, this does appear to be a correct application. Even
in Texas, given the vital evidence of this case, there is a good
possibility this man woiuld have been tried. The big difference between
the two locations is that we do have the right to use deadly force to
protect property as well as life. This allows a person to use deadly
force on burglars prior to their putting someone at perceived risk.
Even today, however, police will tell you it is better to allow a
burgular to actually enter the home prior to shooting him.
--
Richard Jackson
Marek Staněk
gun cabinet and the other things upstairs? Is that forbidden?
Mark
Dan from Quebec <da...@bigfoot.com> píąe v diskusním
příspěvku:IYag5.2945$RZ4....@wagner.videotron.net...
(...)
> Here in Canada, if I heard someone breaking into my house in the
middle
> of the night, in the dark, I would quickly run downstairs, unlock my gun
> cabinet, take out a firearm, then unlock the trigger lock, unlock my
(...)
Mitchell Holman
}>
}
}Under English law, this does appear to be a correct application. Even
}in Texas, given the vital evidence of this case, there is a good
}possibility this man woiuld have been tried. The big difference between
}the two locations is that we do have the right to use deadly force to
}protect property as well as life. This allows a person to use deadly
}force on burglars prior to their putting someone at perceived risk.
}Even today, however, police will tell you it is better to allow a
}burgular to actually enter the home prior to shooting him.
}
It must take a pretty twisted mind to "allow" a burglar
to enter your home just so you can shoot him. What ever
happened to just running him off *before* he gets inside?
blan...@my-deja.com
"Carman" <jof...@istar.ca> wrote:
>
> <blan...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8lr23k$odc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <sk5g5.5403$Lg1....@cac1.rdr.news.psi.ca>,
> > "Carman" <jof...@istar.ca> wrote:
> > > <blan...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8loe9b$q23
> > $1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> (snip)
> > > > I'd rather have that than the law in Texas, where you can shoot
> > > > someone dead in defence of your property, let alone your life,
> > > > without legal consequences.
> > >
> > > Carman wrote:
> > > Cite please. Cite a case of property defense in Texas, with
someone
> > > shot dead, where there were no legal consequences.
> >
> > Do your own damn research, or at least ask nicely.
>
> Carman wrote:
> The poster finds my request for a cite improperly phrased? More
likely he
> has no cite because this statement is ill-considered, inaccurate, and
quite
> properly reflective of his brutal prejudice.
More likely he is tired of whiny posters unable to do their own legal
research. I shouldn't, but I've found the relevant sections of the
Texas Penal Code governing the use of force in protecting property.
9.41. Protection of one's own property.
(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, moveable
property is justified in using force against another when and to the
degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary
to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable
property by another is justified in using force against the other when
and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is
immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if
the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the
dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right
when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force,
threat, or fraud against the actor. (Chgd. by L.1993, chap. 900(1.01),
eff.9/1/94.)
9.42. Deadly force to protect property.
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect
land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under
Section 9.41; and (Chgd. by L.1993, chap. 900(1.01), eff.9/1/94.)
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is
immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary,
robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal
mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after
committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the
nighttime form escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any
other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover
the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial
risk of death or serious bodily injury.
> Interesting how some people become angry when their inability to
support
> their statements is revealed. This kind of ill-mannered behavior
neatly places
> the rest of the poster's comments in context.
Ill mannered? Your demand was ill mannered, bud. If you'd asked
nicely, and said that you didn't know how to look up the Texas Penal
Code and could I please help, I'd have been more than happy.
Well, there it is. Incontrovertible, I'm sure you agree. Let me know
if any of the words are too hard for you to understand.
Sincerely,
David.
> (snip)
Chas
> Crown Prosecutors are not politically motivated. They are civil
> servants and career lawyers with absolutely no political incentives to
> act in one way or another. They do not run for election, do not have
> to justify their conviction rates (their first duty being to justice
> rather than the god of winning) and are completely impartial, neutral
> and fair. You slur them with your base, unfounded, and completely
> untrue allegation.
What utter cark.
They are carefully chosen and well paid to advance the Crown Agenda-
Had the dear old thing been of a higher caste, nothing would have
happened to him. The Crown is concerned, as always, that it's subjects
be unable to resist the King's Men. The Crown Prosecutors will advance
that agenda with no regard for 'justice' or 'human rights' or 'equality
before the law'; just like they have for the past thousand stinking
years.
> > It is against the law in the UK to defend yourself with a firearm.
> Utter crap. If a burglar were coming at you with a knife, you could
> shoot him stone dead and it would still be self defence. You just
> can't sneak around shooting people in the back.
Sure you can- if you're the groundskeeper for one of the big estates,
you can pop a trespasser in little or no hazard of being tried, and if
tried, not convicted. Security forces for the nobility can do just about
anything they want to without fear of your Crown Prosecutors worrying
about 'justice'.
> And to you, the life of a burglar is forfeit at the whim of a
> householder. Well that may be the way you do things wherever you're
> from, but in England we prefer to avoid justice from the barrel of a
> gun.
no, you just restrict guns to the wealthy and privileged- one of your
chinless, gormless, slope browed, slack jawed, flap eared, inbred Peers
can own a firearm with no demur. Once he, quite properly, gives it over
to an employee, he can shoot the lower class with little hazard from
your 'Crown Prosecutors'.
Chas
http://members.xoom.com/kilap/Keepsafe.htm
http://members.xoom.com/kilap/cane.html
http://members.xoom.com/kilap/monkey.html http://www.kuntaosilat.com/
http://members.tripod.lycos.com/coloradojail/index.htm
Michael Zarlenga
:> > Cite please. Cite a case of property defense in Texas, with someone
:> > shot dead, where there were no legal consequences.
There's at least one famous case I recall ... where
a repo man was shot in the back while taking a car in
the middle of the night with a tow truck with all its
lights off.
The car's "owner" heard the truck, went outside and
plugged the driver through the back of the tow cab.
The shooter was (IIRC) acquitted.
I personally have no problem with that. When repo men
choose to perform their duties in a way indistinguishable
from car thieves, they will, sometimes, be mistaken for
abd treated like car thieves.
The repo dude could've taken the car in broad daylight
and called the cops to restrain the car's "owner" if he
interferred.
In this case, stupidity was terminal.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
blan...@my-deja.com
Chas <gryp...@home.com> wrote:
> blan...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Crown Prosecutors are not politically motivated. They are civil
> > servants and career lawyers with absolutely no political incentives
to
> > act in one way or another. They do not run for election, do not
have
> > to justify their conviction rates (their first duty being to justice
> > rather than the god of winning) and are completely impartial,
neutral
> > and fair. You slur them with your base, unfounded, and completely
> > untrue allegation.
>
> What utter cark.
> They are carefully chosen and well paid to advance the Crown Agenda-
> Had the dear old thing been of a higher caste, nothing would have
> happened to him. The Crown is concerned, as always, that it's subjects
> be unable to resist the King's Men. The Crown Prosecutors will advance
> that agenda with no regard for 'justice' or 'human rights'
or 'equality
> before the law'; just like they have for the past thousand stinking
> years.
What a load of ill-informed drivel. You obviously have no knowledge of
how the prosecution works in the English legal system.
> > > It is against the law in the UK to defend yourself with a
firearm.
> > Utter crap. If a burglar were coming at you with a knife, you could
> > shoot him stone dead and it would still be self defence. You just
> > can't sneak around shooting people in the back.
>
> Sure you can- if you're the groundskeeper for one of the big estates,
> you can pop a trespasser in little or no hazard of being tried, and if
> tried, not convicted. Security forces for the nobility can do just
about
> anything they want to without fear of your Crown Prosecutors worrying
> about 'justice'.
Hardly.
> > And to you, the life of a burglar is forfeit at the whim of a
> > householder. Well that may be the way you do things wherever you're
> > from, but in England we prefer to avoid justice from the barrel of a
> > gun.
>
> no, you just restrict guns to the wealthy and privileged- one of your
> chinless, gormless, slope browed, slack jawed, flap eared, inbred
Peers
> can own a firearm with no demur. Once he, quite properly, gives it
over
> to an employee, he can shoot the lower class with little hazard from
> your 'Crown Prosecutors'.
Utter rubbish. Murder is murder whoever pulls the trigger. We don't
kowtow at the sacred altar of the firearm, and the CPS will pursue
anyone who violates the law.
Sincerely,
David.
Chas
> The repo dude could've taken the car in broad daylight
> and called the cops to restrain the car's "owner" if he
> interferred.
Nah- most of the time, the cops don't want anything to do with it. When
they do come, it's often at the call of the owner because of taking the
vehicle off of private land.
If you're going to be a 'street thief' (a term of art for certain kinds
of repo guys), you just live with the fact that people pull guns on you;
sometimes they shoot them off.
Generally, you inform the police dept. that you're going to take the
vehicle- sometimes, if it is just a good opportunity to snag the
vehicle, you go ahead without them.
Chas
> Chas <gryp...@home.com> wrote:
> > What utter cark.
> > They are carefully chosen and well paid to advance the Crown Agenda-
> how the prosecution works in the English legal system.
Actually, I took four years of my education there. For some of that time
I lived at Holkum Hall. I saw first hand the permissiveness and class
consciousness of the legal system (not as a criminal, as an observer).
> > Sure you can- if you're the groundskeeper for one of the big estates,
> > you can pop a trespasser in little or no hazard of being tried, and if
> > tried, not convicted. Security forces for the nobility can do just
> about
> > anything they want to without fear of your Crown Prosecutors worrying
> > about 'justice'.
> Hardly.
Happened to me.
The groundskeeper didn't shoot me, he just slapped me around with the
shotgun. On other occasions, I was roughed up by police for being on
private grounds- didn't quite understand the privilege of class at
first.
> > no, you just restrict guns to the wealthy and privileged- one of your
> > chinless, gormless, slope browed, slack jawed, flap eared, inbred
> Peers
> > can own a firearm with no demur. Once he, quite properly, gives it
> over
> > to an employee, he can shoot the lower class with little hazard from
> > your 'Crown Prosecutors'.
> Utter rubbish. Murder is murder whoever pulls the trigger. We don't
> kowtow at the sacred altar of the firearm, and the CPS will pursue
> anyone who violates the law.
The wealthy have quite large collections of firearms; they keep them for
shooting commoners and the odd bird or a hundred.
Servants to the wealthy and privileged often have access to firearms and
the willingness to use them as ordered by their betters.
There isn't much place for the elite in an egalitarian society where
each man is capable of defending himself against the gang.
You people deserve what you have, as do we.
Alex Cunningham
<blan...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8lr2nh$ora$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
It
> is perfectly fair, and prevents the injustice of a lone juror, or even
> two acting in tandem, wrecking a verdict and holding out for a mistrial.
>
This is only your opinion. Mine differs. I consider it to be palpably
unfair.
Common Law afforded a free man far better protection from the state than all
the contrived statute laws enacted since Magna Carta.
Alex Cunningham
<blan...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8lr35h$p7p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <%75g5.5402$Lg1....@cac1.rdr.news.psi.ca>,
>
> Crown Prosecutors are not politically motivated. They are civil
> servants and career lawyers with absolutely no political incentives to
> act in one way or another. They do not run for election, do not have
> to justify their conviction rates (their first duty being to justice
> rather than the god of winning) and are completely impartial, neutral
> and fair. You slur them with your base, unfounded, and completely
> untrue allegation.
>
> David.
Try telling the 3 Ms (Morin, Milgard. and Marshall) in Canada, that crown
prosecutors are unbiased and fair.
These Crowns were aided and abetted by overzealous forensic experts who
lied by omission on the stand, and a bent crime scene investigator who
provided a cigarette butt of his own when he lost the original found at the
crime scene.
All three were convicted of 1st degree murder and sentenced to life in
prison with no chance of parole until they had served 25 years.
Thank god in this instance we had no death penalty in force. They were all
subsequently exonerated by DNA and other evidence that came to light when
the police finally did some serious investigating of themselves.
None of the above is a slur. It happened There were three public enquiries
held and the malfeasance of the police, crown attorneys, and forensic
scientists was brought out into the open.
Milgard did almost his full sentence of 25 years. Morin and Marshall did
about ten years. Morin was acquitted at his first trial but because of a
unique Canadian law (The crown can appeal a jury verdict) was convicted at
his second trial.
Travesties of justice everyone of them. There has also been a recent case in
Winnipeg that constitutes similar circumstances.
Similar things have happened in Britain with suspected IRA bombers.
I treat the legal system in both countries with a great deal of suspicion.
We in Canada do not have a justice system. We have a legal system and you
only get the justice you can afford.
Richard Jackson
<B5A1D7D03230DE79.BEC66FDC...@lp.airnews.net>,
In the event that shouted and other types of warnings do not deter a
burgular from entering, you are still much better off only using deadly
force only after the person has actually forced entrance as opposed to
shooting them while they are attempting to get in. Once they have
entered, there is little doubt about that their intentions might include
bodily harm to the inhabitants.
Come on, Mitchell! Any reasonable and prudent person would, of course,
warn someone who was attempting to break in if there was time to do so.
If after being warned, they actually enter, their lives are forfet as
far as I am concerned. In that situation, the act of entering despite
being warned is sufficient cause to use deadly force for defense. It
should not be necessary to ask them their intentions and wait for a
reply.
--
Richard Jackson
blan...@my-deja.com
> >
> It
> > is perfectly fair, and prevents the injustice of a lone juror, or
even
> > two acting in tandem, wrecking a verdict and holding out for a
mistrial.
> >
>
> This is only your opinion. Mine differs. I consider it to be palpably
> unfair.
> Common Law afforded a free man far better protection from the state
than all
> the contrived statute laws enacted since Magna Carta.
Agin, you illustrate your ignorance of what common law actually is. It
is law made by an unelected body (the judges) without all the benefits
a legislature has - the freedom to reflect the needs and desires of the
community, the opportunity to listen to a wide range of views, consult
experts and diverse interest groups, and to make a decision on
appropriate law divorced from the needs of a particular case or
controversy. Please explain exactly why common law is better, in your
opinion, and what exactly you have against statutes passed by
democratically elected legislatures.
Sincerely,
David.
Carman
<blan...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8lr35h$p7p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <%75g5.5402$Lg1....@cac1.rdr.news.psi.ca>,
>
> <snip>
>
> > Carman wrote:
> > Telling a half truth is the same as lying. If you're going to tell
> > the story, tell the whole story. Tony Martin isn't the first innocent
> > man to be convicted of behavior that was not, in itself, criminal
> > until a politically motivated Crown Prosecutor got his hands on it.
>
> servants and career lawyers with absolutely no political incentives to
> act in one way or another. They do not run for election, do not have
> to justify their conviction rates (their first duty being to justice
> rather than the god of winning) and are completely impartial, neutral
> and fair. You slur them with your base, unfounded, and completely
> untrue allegation.
Carman wrote:
Your cheque is in the mail my good and gullible fellow. Don't you worry,
"I'm from the Government and I'm here to help you". Now just bend over,
this won't hurt, much...
Where do good Crown Prosecutors go when they move up in the world?
If they've been very good indeed, they get to become Judges.Are you really
so ignorant of your own system as the above suggests?
> > It is against the law in the UK to defend yourself with a firearm.
>
> Utter crap. If a burglar were coming at you with a knife, you could
> shoot him stone dead and it would still be self defence. You just
> can't sneak around shooting people in the back.
Carman wrote:
You mean when the ax waving maniac comes bursting in, and you
shoot him dead, there aren't going to be some pointed questions
about where you got that gun?
"Oh, and would you mind telling us how you got it out of the safe so
fast? You did have the weapon in the safe didn't you?And you did have
the weapon properly trigger-locked, didn't you? And of course you did
have the ammunition stored separately from the weapon in it's own
locked case didn't you? You didn't?"
Cite please. Justifiable homicides, (burglar shot by homeowner) in the
UK, with a firearm, since 1995. Can you find any where the homeowner
was not charged?
Tony Martin is who you suggest was one to "sneak around shooting
people in the back"? He was in his own home, confronting housebreakers
in the night. Interesting definition of the verb "to sneak".
> > The Crown doesn't care if it sends one man, or a thousand to prison.
> > The message is clear: The life of the criminal is valued above the life
> > of the victim.
>
> And to you, the life of a burglar is forfeit at the whim of a householder.
> Well that may be the way you do things wherever you're from, but in
> England we prefer to avoid justice from the barrel of a gun.
Carman wrote:
The criminal assailant has a clear choice regarding whether he will initiate
the aggression or not. His is the act that begins the chain of consequences.
The armed criminals that broke into Tony Martin's house were not forced to
their actions, they chose to violate the law and break into a home where they
knew the owner would be present.
What were their intentions toward Tony Martin? This is unknowable. Would
they have left him alive, a witness to their crime? Would it matter to you, to
those others who have vilified him, or to the Crown, if the two thugs had
promptly beaten the lonely old man to death? Did the life of Tony Martin
matter at all when compared to the life of the stalwart young criminal?
You have the proper order of civilized relationships exactly backward. Place
the controls on the transgressor, on the one who does the harm! You want to
"reduce the violence"? Begin with the violent criminal.
Of course, violence reduction is not the point. The point is control piled on
control, until the entire top-heavy edifice collapses into yet another dreary
police state. It isn't "justice" that emerges from the barrels of guns, it is that
altogether more elusive quality, Power. You have, naturally, abandoned any
pretense of possessing Power. Thus you can only wait to see what your
Betters have chosen for you.
Carman
<blan...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8ls5t1$hlo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...> > <blan...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8lr23k$odc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > In article <sk5g5.5403$Lg1....@cac1.rdr.news.psi.ca>,
> > > "Carman" <jof...@istar.ca> wrote:
> > > > <blan...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8loe9b$q23
> > > $1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > >
> > (snip)
> > > > > I'd rather have that than the law in Texas, where you can shoot
> > > > > someone dead in defence of your property, let alone your life,
> > > > > without legal consequences.
> > > >
> > > > Cite please. Cite a case of property defense in Texas, with
> > > > someone shot dead, where there were no legal consequences.
> > >
Carman wrote:
Have you suffered with this reading comprehension problem long?
There is help for that sort of thing, but first you must admit the fact you
have the problem. Ask your friends. If they are really your friends they
won't spare your feelings and you won't have to suffer quite as much
public humiliation
I clearly asked you for some specific information.
"Cite please. Cite a case of property defense in Texas, with someone
shot dead, where there were no legal consequences".
Now, what have you done? You have reproduced part of the Texas
Penal Code. Did I ask you about the relevant Texas statutes? No, in
fact, I did not. In short, you have answered a question I did not ask at
all.
"Cite please. Cite a case of property defense in Texas, with someone
shot dead, where there were no legal consequences".
Did you cite a case? No, clearly, you did not.There is a massive
difference between citing the Penal Code and citing an actual case.
What part of this are you having difficulty understanding? Though you are
pointlessly rude, I'll try and help you anyway. I reiterate though, your angry
reaction to a polite request for a cite, (I even said "please"), is indicative
you are aware your statement is indefensible, and angry because you see
you have made an error.
Carman
Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote in message
news:so3dt6q...@corp.supernews.com...
> :> > Carman wrote:
> :> > Cite please. Cite a case of property defense in Texas, with someone
> :> > shot dead, where there were no legal consequences.
>
> a repo man was shot in the back while taking a car in
> the middle of the night with a tow truck with all its
> lights off.
>
> The car's "owner" heard the truck, went outside and
> plugged the driver through the back of the tow cab.
>
> The shooter was (IIRC) acquitted.
>
> I personally have no problem with that. When repo men
> choose to perform their duties in a way indistinguishable
> from car thieves, they will, sometimes, be mistaken for
> abd treated like car thieves.
>
> and called the cops to restrain the car's "owner" if he
> interferred.
>
>
> --
> -- Mike Zarlenga
Carman wrote:
Thank you for the information. If, as you say, the repo man
was "acquitted", it indicates that there were rather serious
"legal consequences", for the shooter. To wit, being placed
on trial for the shooting. I wonder if it bankrupted him as it has
some others?
John Rennie
> It is against the law in the UK to defend yourself with a firearm. The
Crown
> doesn't care if it sends one man, or a thousand to prison. The message is
> clear: The life of the criminal is valued above the life of the victim.
Its clear that you dont read posts that are against your
point of view.
The life of the criminal is valued above the PROPERTY
of the so called victim.
John Rennie
"Chas" <gryp...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3981A900...@home.com...
> blan...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Crown Prosecutors are not politically motivated. They are civil
> > servants and career lawyers with absolutely no political incentives to
> > act in one way or another. They do not run for election, do not have
> > to justify their conviction rates (their first duty being to justice
> > rather than the god of winning) and are completely impartial, neutral
> > and fair. You slur them with your base, unfounded, and completely
> > untrue allegation.
>
> They are carefully chosen and well paid to advance the Crown Agenda-
> happened to him. The Crown is concerned, as always, that it's subjects
> be unable to resist the King's Men. The Crown Prosecutors will advance
> that agenda with no regard for 'justice' or 'human rights' or 'equality
> before the law'; just like they have for the past thousand stinking
> years.
>
> > shoot him stone dead and it would still be self defence. You just
> > can't sneak around shooting people in the back.
>
> you can pop a trespasser in little or no hazard of being tried, and if
> tried, not convicted. Security forces for the nobility can do just about
> anything they want to without fear of your Crown Prosecutors worrying
> about 'justice'.
>
> > householder. Well that may be the way you do things wherever you're
> > from, but in England we prefer to avoid justice from the barrel of a
> > gun.
>
> chinless, gormless, slope browed, slack jawed, flap eared, inbred Peers
> can own a firearm with no demur. Once he, quite properly, gives it over
> to an employee, he can shoot the lower class with little hazard from
> your 'Crown Prosecutors'.
>
Wowee! When does the revolution start Chas?
Never mind I know the answer . "Just as soon as this pub closes".
David Lentz
Richard Jackson wrote:
<snip>
> In the event that shouted and other types of warnings do not deter a
> burgular from entering, you are still much better off only using deadly
> force only after the person has actually forced entrance as opposed to
> shooting them while they are attempting to get in. Once they have
> entered, there is little doubt about that their intentions might include
> bodily harm to the inhabitants.
>
> Come on, Mitchell! Any reasonable and prudent person would, of course,
> warn someone who was attempting to break in if there was time to do so.
> If after being warned, they actually enter, their lives are forfet as
> far as I am concerned. In that situation, the act of entering despite
> being warned is sufficient cause to use deadly force for defense. It
> should not be necessary to ask them their intentions and wait for a
> reply.
If Tony Martin had been tried in an American court, he would be a
free man today. Martin was convicted by a majority, not
unanimous, verdict. You will not find twelve American who would
convict a man for defending his home.
David
--
qyra...@ebpurfgre.ee.pbz
Richard Jackson
In this case you might well find twelve who would vote for murder,
Dave. I don't think you would be able to make much of a case for
capital murder, but surely felony murder would be a distinct
possibility.
I don't think it was necessarily the act of defending his home which
caused the conviction, but rather a combination of things including
shooting the youthful intruders in the back and then waiting for a
considerable time listening to the pleas of them while one died. I
believe the time was well over an hour before he called for
assistance. Had he immediately called the police, he might have met
with a little more sympathy from the jury. As it was, it appears he
rather cold bloodedly let them suffer.
I have little or no sympathy for thieves and would shoot someone who
entered my home after I warned them not to do so. I HAVE taken up
arms to defend myself against burglars in the past, and am well trained
in the use of deadly force as well as the legal implications of its
use. What this guy did was not a simple case of self defense or even
defense of property (an act where deadly force may be used in Texas)
In law, the term "reasonable and prudent" is often applied to personal
acts, including self-defense. What this man did was not, in my
opinion, either reasonable or prudent. He could have used lesser
force, called out to warn the intruders pr9ior to their entry, or at
least called the police immediately upon shooting them and hearing
their pleas for help. The evidence is that he did none of these things.
Just as the abolitionists' cause is not helped by some of the "poster
boys" they choose to champion like Gary Graham, neither is the
retentionist case helped by championing this person. He is, by all
descripions rather a sad character. A bit looney and quite paranoid,
he had a record of misbehaving. If anything, he should have been
arrested for one of his weapons violations at an earlier date.
--
Richard Jackson
Mitchell Holman
}
}
}Richard Jackson wrote:
}
}<snip>
}
}
}> In the event that shouted and other types of warnings do not deter a
}> burgular from entering, you are still much better off only using deadly
}> force only after the person has actually forced entrance as opposed to
}> shooting them while they are attempting to get in. Once they have
}> entered, there is little doubt about that their intentions might include
}> bodily harm to the inhabitants.
}>
}> Come on, Mitchell! Any reasonable and prudent person would, of course,
}> warn someone who was attempting to break in if there was time to do so.
}> If after being warned, they actually enter, their lives are forfet as
}> far as I am concerned. In that situation, the act of entering despite
}> being warned is sufficient cause to use deadly force for defense. It
}> should not be necessary to ask them their intentions and wait for a
}> reply.
}
}If Tony Martin had been tried in an American court, he would be a
}free man today. Martin was convicted by a majority, not
}unanimous, verdict. You will not find twelve American who would
}convict a man for defending his home.
Horsehockey. Tony Martin shot two teenagers, one fatally,
and went back to bed. He never once called the cops before or
after the shooting. He was only caught when one of the boys
(whom Martin thought he had killed and never bother to check
up on) dragged himself to a nearby farm and reported the incident.
Martin was arrested the next day in a pub, still having never told
a soul what he did. That sort of callous indifference to life would
have gotten him convicted in any court, UK or US.
Mitchell Holman
}
}The car's "owner" heard the truck, went outside and
}plugged the driver through the back of the tow cab.
}
}The shooter was (IIRC) acquitted.
}
}I personally have no problem with that. When repo men
}choose to perform their duties in a way indistinguishable
}from car thieves, they will, sometimes, be mistaken for
}abd treated like car thieves.
}
You have no problem with shooting unarmed
people who pose no threat to you?
Seriously, I mean?
Mitchell Holman
}In article
}<B5A1D7D03230DE79.BEC66FDC...@lp.airnews.net>,
} ta2...@airmail.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
}> In article <8ls1k2$e9n$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Richard Jackson
}<ri...@my-deja.com> wrote:
}> }>
}> }
}> }Under English law, this does appear to be a correct application.
}Even
}> }in Texas, given the vital evidence of this case, there is a good
}> }possibility this man woiuld have been tried. The big difference
}between
}> }the two locations is that we do have the right to use deadly force to
}> }protect property as well as life. This allows a person to use deadly
}> }force on burglars prior to their putting someone at perceived risk.
}> }Even today, however, police will tell you it is better to allow a
}> }burgular to actually enter the home prior to shooting him.
}> }
}>
}> It must take a pretty twisted mind to "allow" a burglar
}> to enter your home just so you can shoot him. What ever
}> happened to just running him off *before* he gets inside?
}>
}>
}
}burgular from entering, you are still much better off only using deadly
}force only after the person has actually forced entrance as opposed to
}shooting them while they are attempting to get in. Once they have
}entered, there is little doubt about that their intentions might include
}bodily harm to the inhabitants.
}
}Come on, Mitchell! Any reasonable and prudent person would, of course,
}warn someone who was attempting to break in if there was time to do so.
} If after being warned, they actually enter, their lives are forfet as
}far as I am concerned. In that situation, the act of entering despite
}being warned is sufficient cause to use deadly force for defense. It
}should not be necessary to ask them their intentions and wait for a
}reply.
Your words: "it better to ALLOW a burgular to actually enter
the home prior to shooting him".
To "allow" someone to enter your home implies consent, so
don't muddy the waters with hypo's involving burglars forcing
entry despite objections and warnings.
The very idea of ALLOWING someone to break into your
home just so you can shoot them is repugnant and you ought
label it as such.
Carman
John Rennie <Jo...@rennie.2000.greatxscape.net> wrote in message
news:8lt7cv$sgr$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
Carman wrote:
There is a small logical problem here. If I don't read posts that are against
my point of view, then how do I know they are against my point of view so as
to not to read them?
*******************************SARCASM ON*************************************
I'm glad you have pointed out my error in understanding the British System.
I guess I got it all wrong. I was under the impression the government forbade
people to possess firearms for the purpose of Self-defense.
Thus it is that Mr Martin wasn't supposed to have a gun to protect his
PROPERTY, but it was perfectly all right for him to have a gun to protect his
LIFE.
So Mr Martin is safe at home now, because everyone recognized he wasn't
trying to protect PROPERTY, but was in fear for his life when the young thugs
broke into his home to beat him to death.
*******************************SARCASM OFF***************************************
The same laws exist in Canada. It is against the law to possess a firearm for
the purpose of self-defense. As a result the criminal element has a better income
and more fun.
blan...@my-deja.com
"Carman" <jof...@istar.ca> wrote:
>
> Have you suffered with this reading comprehension problem long?
> There is help for that sort of thing, but first you must admit the
fact you
> have the problem. Ask your friends. If they are really your friends
they
> won't spare your feelings and you won't have to suffer quite as much
> public humiliation
More rudeness. How unpleasant.
> I clearly asked you for some specific information.
You demanded.
> "Cite please. Cite a case of property defense in Texas, with someone
> shot dead, where there were no legal consequences".
>
> Now, what have you done? You have reproduced part of the Texas
> Penal Code. Did I ask you about the relevant Texas statutes? No, in
> fact, I did not. In short, you have answered a question I did not ask
at
> all.
Why would one need to produce a case? The law is there in black and
white. If it is too hard for you to read, you could try getting
someone to explain it to you.
> "Cite please. Cite a case of property defense in Texas, with someone
> shot dead, where there were no legal consequences".
>
> Did you cite a case? No, clearly, you did not.There is a massive
> difference between citing the Penal Code and citing an actual case.
Yes, the penal code section is the law, a case would merely apply the
law. I am not prepared to spend a couple of hours sifting through the
Texas law reports for your benefit. Why don't you have a go yourself.
> What part of this are you having difficulty understanding? Though
you are
> pointlessly rude, I'll try and help you anyway. I reiterate though,
your angry
> reaction to a polite request for a cite, (I even said "please"), is
indicative
> you are aware your statement is indefensible, and angry because you
see
> you have made an error.
Even an idiot of your magnitude can see that my statement is amply
defended by the law of the state of Texas. If that is not good enough
for you, then it is not my problem.
Sincerely,
David.
blan...@my-deja.com
"Carman" <jof...@istar.ca> wrote:
> Thank you for the information. If, as you say, the repo man
> was "acquitted", it indicates that there were rather serious
> "legal consequences", for the shooter. To wit, being placed
> on trial for the shooting. I wonder if it bankrupted him as it has
> some others?
You know, that's the thing about self defense - it is a *defense* to a
charge of murder. If the facts in any way point to a murder, there
will be a trial. That is for the purpose of deciding whit it is, self
defense or murder. Would you have us dispense with the trial and move
straight to the acquittal?
blan...@my-deja.com
"Carman" <jof...@istar.ca> wrote:
> Where do good Crown Prosecutors go when they move up in the world?
> If they've been very good indeed, they get to become Judges.Are you
really
> so ignorant of your own system as the above suggests?
No, they don't. Judges are selected from members of the bar with
rights of audience in the court the judge will sit, and no Crown
Prosecutor has rights of audience. As you're so fond of collecting
authority, perhaps you could find the name of one Crown Prosecutor
elevated to the bench. Actually, I'd be impressed if you could find
the name of one Crown Prosecutor.
<snip>
> Cite please. Justifiable homicides, (burglar shot by homeowner) in
the
> UK, with a firearm, since 1995. Can you find any where the homeowner
> was not charged?
Well, this is an easy one. You're obviously not a lawyer, or even
vaguely well informed, because if there were no criminal charges filed,
there will be no case to cite. Betcha feel a bit of a doofus now.
> Tony Martin is who you suggest was one to "sneak around shooting
> people in the back"? He was in his own home, confronting housebreakers
> in the night. Interesting definition of the verb "to sneak".
The key part of that was shot in the back. One could also add - left
to bleed to death without calling for emergency services.
> The criminal assailant has a clear choice regarding whether he will
initiate
> the aggression or not. His is the act that begins the chain of
consequences.
> The armed criminals that broke into Tony Martin's house were not
forced to
> their actions, they chose to violate the law and break into a home
where they
> knew the owner would be present.
And so their lives are forfeit - at the whim of some nutter with an
illegal gun? Not in England, mate, as has been amply demonstrated in
this case. We tend to value life a little more than property.
<snip>
> You have the proper order of civilized relationships exactly
backward. Place
> the controls on the transgressor, on the one who does the harm!
The legal system did. The murderer *is* in jail, isn't he?
>You want to
> "reduce the violence"? Begin with the violent criminal.
Murder is a crime of violence. Burglary is a crime of theft.
> Of course, violence reduction is not the point. The point is
control piled on
> control, until the entire top-heavy edifice collapses into yet
another dreary
> police state. It isn't "justice" that emerges from the barrels of
guns, it is that
> altogether more elusive quality, Power. You have, naturally,
abandoned any
> pretense of possessing Power. Thus you can only wait to see what your
> Betters have chosen for you.
You really are a nutter, aren't you? Take my advice, don't move to
England, and certainly don't buy a shotgun. If I were you, a nice hut
somewhere in Montana sounds like it would be heaven. You could have
little chats about what type of ammo cuts burglars in half better.
Really, you make me laugh, and feel slightly nauseous at the same time.
blan...@my-deja.com
"Carman" <jof...@istar.ca> wrote:
> The same laws exist in Canada. It is against the law to possess a
firearm for
> the purpose of self-defense. As a result the criminal element has a
better income
> and more fun.
Ah, Canada. That explains a lot.
blan...@my-deja.com
John Rennie
"Richard Jackson" <ri...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8ltfb1$hno$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <39823387...@signfile.net>,
> David Lentz <Ro...@signfile.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Richard Jackson wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > burgular from entering, you are still much better off only using
> deadly
> > > force only after the person has actually forced entrance as opposed
> to
> > > shooting them while they are attempting to get in. Once they have
> > > entered, there is little doubt about that their intentions might
> include
> > > bodily harm to the inhabitants.
> > >
> > > Come on, Mitchell! Any reasonable and prudent person would, of
> course,
> > > warn someone who was attempting to break in if there was time to do
> so.
> > > If after being warned, they actually enter, their lives are forfet
> as
> > > far as I am concerned. In that situation, the act of entering
> despite
> > > being warned is sufficient cause to use deadly force for defense.
> It
> > > should not be necessary to ask them their intentions and wait for a
> > > reply.
> >
> > free man today. Martin was convicted by a majority, not
> > unanimous, verdict. You will not find twelve American who would
> > convict a man for defending his home.
> >
to this thread plus a few facts that needed airing. Nevertheless, the
charge of murder was incorrect; it should have been manslaughter.
I also agree with earlier posters who think that his earlier
misdemeanors should have been treated more seriously.
Richard Jackson
<9C74F66151798C66.2F958899...@lp.airnews.net>,
ta2...@airmail.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
> In article <8lsvdr$6n8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Richard Jackson
<ri...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> }In article
> }<B5A1D7D03230DE79.BEC66FDC...@lp.airnews.net>,
> } ta2...@airmail.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
> }> In article <8ls1k2$e9n$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Richard Jackson
> }<ri...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> }> }>
> }> }
> }> }Under English law, this does appear to be a correct application.
> }Even
> }> }in Texas, given the vital evidence of this case, there is a good
> }> }possibility this man woiuld have been tried. The big difference
> }between
> }> }the two locations is that we do have the right to use deadly force
to
> }> }protect property as well as life. This allows a person to use
deadly
> }> }force on burglars prior to their putting someone at perceived
risk.
> }> }Even today, however, police will tell you it is better to allow a
> }> }burgular to actually enter the home prior to shooting him.
> }> }
> }>
> }> It must take a pretty twisted mind to "allow" a burglar
> }> to enter your home just so you can shoot him. What ever
> }> happened to just running him off *before* he gets inside?
> }>
> }>
> }
> }burgular from entering, you are still much better off only using
deadly
> }force only after the person has actually forced entrance as opposed
to
> }shooting them while they are attempting to get in. Once they have
> }entered, there is little doubt about that their intentions might
include
> }bodily harm to the inhabitants.
> }
> }Come on, Mitchell! Any reasonable and prudent person would, of
course,
> }warn someone who was attempting to break in if there was time to do
so.
> } If after being warned, they actually enter, their lives are forfet
as
> }far as I am concerned. In that situation, the act of entering despite
> }being warned is sufficient cause to use deadly force for defense. It
> }should not be necessary to ask them their intentions and wait for a
> }reply.
>
> the home prior to shooting him".
>
> To "allow" someone to enter your home implies consent, so
> don't muddy the waters with hypo's involving burglars forcing
> entry despite objections and warnings.
>
> The very idea of ALLOWING someone to break into your
> home just so you can shoot them is repugnant and you ought
> label it as such.
>
>
The idea of having to kill someone does not much appeal to ME, Mitchell.
However, I will attempt to explain this so even you can not nit pick it
to death.
If someone is attempting to break into your house and you yell a warning
not to attempt to do so, and if they continue to attempt to break in,
you have options:
1. You can shoot them before they actually break into your home,
probably through a closed door. In this event, unless you are actually
on the phone to police and they can hear what is occuring, you have only
your word that the attempted burgulary occurred. Therer may or omay not
be physical evidence to support your story.
2. You can shoot them after they force entry, thus *ALLOWING* them to
enter prior to using deadly force rather than shooting them through a
closed door, etc.
3. You can wait until they have forced entry, warn them again, wait to
see what their intentions are and then attempt to defend yourself and
loved ones.
4. You can wait for the police to arrive to protect you and your loved
ones so you will not have to use deadly force.
Option #3 and #4 often result in adding to the murder statistics as
criminals tend not to announce their intent or wait for someone else to
arrive to save your or your familie's lives.
Option #1 has legal implications which coiuld result in the homeowner
being charged with various criminal acts in some states.
Option #2 has implications also, but is much easier to prove self
defense with than option #1.
All I was saying was that all things being equal and a determined
criminal attempting to enter your home, a homeowner is better off using
deadly force only after the criminal has entered. In other words, wait
for the perp to get inside the door or window before pulling the
trigger. Personally, I keep a 12 guage riot gun with seven rounds in
the mag just for such cases. After my shouted warning, the last warning
a burgular will hear is the sound of the first round of #4 buckshot
being cycled into the chamber. I figure anyone who doesn't understand
that language upon entering a stranger's home is too stupid to live
anyway!
I hope this has now been explained to your satisfaction. If it
isn't........too bad.
--
Richard Jackson
Richard Jackson
> >
> > <blan...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8loe9b$q23$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > In article <397F712D...@andrewr.co.uk>,
> > > and...@NOSPAM.andrewr.co.uk wrote:
> > > > Ron Bargoot wrote:
> > (snip)
> > > And life does not always mean life in the UK. All it means is an
> > > indeterminate sentence. For this crime, an unjustified use of
deadly
> > > force that the jury found to fall short of self defence, he will
> > > probably serve 2 or 3 years, if that.
> >
> > Carman wrote:
> > Have you written to tell Tony Martin the Good News? Two or three
years
> > of an old man's life stolen by the uncaring State? Nothing to worry
about?
> >
> > > He'll probably out before the surviving burglar, who was sentenced
for
> > > his crime. As for the other burglar, well, he's dead. A couple
of
> > > years in prison is a small price to pay for taking another man's
life
> > > with an unlicensed firearm.
> >
> > Carman wrote:
> > I suppose Mr Martin should have just stood there and let these
thugs
> beat
> > him to death? Would they have killed him rather than let him live to
> testify
> > against them? This was a "hot-burglary", a "home-invasion". The
thugs knew
> > he was home. The old man had no place else to be.
> >
> >
> > > Much as I feel sorry that the farmer had to go to prison, it
serves to
> > > underline the fact that England is governed by the rule of law,
not the
> > > law of the gun.
> >
> > Carman wrote:
> > It serves to underline the fact that England has become a nation
of
> sheep.
> > The Political Shepherds wear wool and dine on lamb and mutton.
> >
> > > I'd rather have that than the law in Texas, where you can shoot
someone
> > > dead in defence of your property, let alone your life, without
legal
> consequences.
> >
> > Carman wrote:
someone
> > shot dead, where there were no legal consequences.
> >
> >
the
> > > correct verdict in the face of an unenviable task, as English
juries
> > > are known to do. Believe me, they didn't WANT to have to send the
guy
> > > to prison, but he murdered someone, for God's sake.
> >
> > Carman wrote:
> > Self-defense is NOT murder, invoking the Deity will not make it
so.
>
> I am a Canadian. I have read your postings and I read the articles
on
> the internet site. I would say the frightened old man in the dark
house in
> the middle of the night should have been found innocent of murder. He
was
> found guilty by the jurors because he was unsympathetic. If he had
been a
> pretty young girl with a winning personality, or a little old church
going
> biddy, he would not have been found guilty.
> There was an almost identical event in Texas where an old
eccentric shot
> some young men who entered his home during the night. He was not
charged
> with any crime. I am pretty sure that in Texas, you are allowed to
defend
> yourself and defend your property. I would like to know statistics on
house
> breaking in the U.K. and in Texas.
> Here in Canada, if I heard someone breaking into my house in the
middle
> of the night, in the dark, I would quickly run downstairs, unlock my
gun
> cabinet, take out a firearm, then unlock the trigger lock, unlock my
> ammunition cabinet which is in another part of the house, grope for
the
> right calibre or gauge, load my firearm in the dark, yell out to the
> intruder that he better go away before I shoot him, but by that time
it
> would be daylight or I would be "lights out".
> Dan in Quebec
>
>
Dan,
here in Texas, I would reach over and grab the loaded riot gun beside my
bed and defend myself. This same weapon is kept unloaded and locked in
a safe during the day,
You are correct. In Texas, deadly force may be used to protect
property as well as person. I suspect that goes clear back to the old
days of cattle rustlers and horse thieves.
Warnock
>It must take a pretty twisted mind to "allow" a burglar
> to enter your home just so you can shoot him. What ever
> happened to just running him off *before* he gets inside?
Now that's not healthy, the closer he gets the more the risk, and how do you
know there is not a pack of them.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Warnock
> To "allow" someone to enter your home implies consent, so
> don't muddy the waters with hypo's involving burglars forcing
> entry despite objections and warnings.
I don't think it does imply consent - you see a burglar approaching your
home, you tell him through the window to go to hell, he then considers you
are a weakling and breaks and enters, he deserves a twelve bore shotgun -
full on.
> The very idea of ALLOWING someone to break into your
> home just so you can shoot them is repugnant and you ought
> label it as such.
Can't shoot everyone on the pavement just in case, so a burglar must show
his intentions before getting shot.
Rev. Don Kool
Warnock wrote:
> Little Mitchie Holman wrote:
> > To "allow" someone to enter your home implies consent, so
> > don't muddy the waters with hypo's involving burglars forcing
> > entry despite objections and warnings.
>
> I don't think it does imply consent - you see a burglar approaching your
> home, you tell him through the window to go to hell, he then
blows your head off.
Hope this helps,
Don
--
********************** You a bounty hunter?
* Rev. Don McDonald * Man's gotta earn a living.
* Baltimore, MD * Dying ain't much of a living, boy.
********************** "Outlaw Josey Wales"
http://members.home.net/oldno7
Just Wondering
property. the person shot is to blame for being there in the first place.
It would never have happened if he had been at home in bed or at work, you
know, at a real job.
no sympathy for criminals (real ones, not ones created by the government)
JW
<blan...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8loe9b$q23$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <397F712D...@andrewr.co.uk>,
> and...@NOSPAM.andrewr.co.uk wrote:
> > Ron Bargoot wrote:
> >
> > > <Sarcasm mode on> Look at how civilized Britian is! We can't have
> > > people killling criminals who break into their home! Who do these
> > > people think they are?
> > >
> >
> > <snip>
> > Referring to the Tony Martin case.
> > Mr Martin shot an unarmed burglar in the back with an illegally held
> pump
> > action shotgun. He had previously had his shotgun license revoked.
> He
> > lived on his own, and the incident happened in a barn (if I remember
> > correctly,) so he was not protecting his family.
> > He was found guilty of murder by a jury in a court of law, and so
> > received a life sentence, which is the only option under English law
> for
> > the sentencing of a convicted murderer.
> >
> > Andrew
>
> And life does not always mean life in the UK. All it means is an
> indeterminate sentence. For this crime, an unjustified use of deadly
> force that the jury found to fall short of self defence, he will
> probably serve 2 or 3 years, if that.
>
> He'll probably out before the surviving burglar, who was sentenced for
> his crime. As for the other burglar, well, he's dead. A couple of
> years in prison is a small price to pay for taking another man's life
> with an unlicensed firearm.
>
> Much as I feel sorry that the farmer had to go to prison, it serves to
> underline the fact that England is governed by the rule of law, not the
> law of the gun. I'd rather have that than the law in Texas, where you
> can shoot someone dead in defence of your property, let alone your
> life, without legal consequences.
>
> As anyone who followed the case knows, the jury came through with the
> correct verdict in the face of an unenviable task, as English juries
> are known to do. Believe me, they didn't WANT to have to send the guy
> to prison, but he murdered someone, for God's sake.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> David.
Just Wondering
<blan...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8lqol4$htc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <3980CC3E...@island.net>,
> John Amero <" =?iso-8859-1?Q?johnaNO=A7PAM?="@island.net> wrote:
> > "That is not acceptable under the laws
> > of England".... BUT is that acceptable
> > with the majority of the UK citizens?
>
> The jury was a representative cross section of the community, and had
> full possession of the relevant facts. What would you infer from their
> verdict?
>
> And in England, unlike the US, there is absolutely no love of guns.
> Very few people even own one.
then where those thousands of confiscated handguns come from.
BTW, I always thought the British loved hunting and shooting.
>
> > Waiting up or not, when some one is on
> > your property in the wee hours at might
> > is for one purpose only and since the
> > owner of the property is not a mind
> > reader, then the owner has to expect the
> > worst.
>
> And then shoot the retreating burglar in the back?
>
> > What happened to respect of private
> > property and personal privacy?
>
> It doesn't, and never has, outweighed the prohibition on murder.
> Repeat, this is not a case of self defence, but of taking the law into
> one's own hands.
Do tell then, what should he have done?
crow bars are deadly weapons too.
JW
david
>All I was saying was that all things being equal and a determined
>criminal attempting to enter your home, a homeowner is better off using
>deadly force only after the criminal has entered. In other words, wait
>for the perp to get inside the door or window before pulling the
>trigger. Personally, I keep a 12 guage riot gun with seven rounds in
>the mag just for such cases. After my shouted warning, the last warning
>a burgular will hear is the sound of the first round of #4 buckshot
>being cycled into the chamber. I figure anyone who doesn't understand
>that language upon entering a stranger's home is too stupid to live
>anyway!
I don't really disagree with much of the above, but there's a big
difference between one's property and one's home. If somebody has
entered your home, then I don't see the use of force as being used to
protect property, you're protecting life in that case.
When the police officer warned about "allowing" the intruder to enter
the home, I wonder how much of that was really about legal liability
and how much was designed to keep the nutcases at bay. Shooting
somebody through a window with no warning is more likely to result in
the deaths of a lot more meter readers than burglars. It's not just
that after entering the house you can more easily *prove* their
intention, it's that until that point in time you don't really *know*
their intention.
And, of course, if they enter after you've warned them, then their
intentions are probably a lot worse than burglary (either that or
they're simply crazy).
>I hope this has now been explained to your satisfaction.
What's interesting though is that the line you've drawn is the line
between threat to property and threat to life. Only after an intruder
enters is life actually threatened. Would you agree that using deadly
force (such as shooting somebody) to protect property is wrong (if not
legally, then morally)?
Warnock
>Nah- most of the time, the cops don't want anything to do with it. When
>they do come, it's often at the call of the owner because of taking the
>vehicle off of private land.
>If you're going to be a 'street thief' (a term of art for certain kinds
>of repo guys), you just live with the fact that people pull guns on you;
>sometimes they shoot them off.
>Generally, you inform the police dept. that you're going to take the
>vehicle- sometimes, if it is just a good opportunity to snag the
>vehicle, you go ahead without them.
What happened to the good old court order, with a bailiff comming to write
up your property.
Warnock
>You know, that's the thing about self defense - it is a *defense* to a
>charge of murder. If the facts in any way point to a murder, there
>will be a trial. That is for the purpose of deciding whit it is, self
>defense or murder. Would you have us dispense with the trial and move
>straight to the acquittal?
Only fair way to do it is to compensate the accused with adequate money to
get properly represented. This should come from the state, especially as, if
the accused loses the case, he will spend , many years repaying the state
with his slave labour. A wrongly accused person is entitled to walk free,
but not just walk free - he must have his life and finances restored to what
they were before the incident.
Otherwise we need compulsory legal insurance!
Warnock
>}The car's "owner" heard the truck, went outside and
>}plugged the driver through the back of the tow cab.
>}
>}The shooter was (IIRC) acquitted.
>}
>}I personally have no problem with that. When repo men
>}choose to perform their duties in a way indistinguishable
>}from car thieves, they will, sometimes, be mistaken for
>}abd treated like car thieves.
>}
>
> You have no problem with shooting unarmed
>people who pose no threat to you?
>
> Seriously, I mean?
Well, if the repo agent doesn't come to the house and say what he wants, he
could well be mistaken as a car thief.
If you are raised with a law that allows you to shoot to defend property, as
is the case in Texas, then the repo agent could expect no better.
Warnock
>> It is against the law in the UK to defend yourself with a firearm.
>
>Utter crap. If a burglar were coming at you with a knife, you could
>shoot him stone dead and it would still be self defence. You just
>can't sneak around shooting people in the back.
The question is, where do you get a handgun from. I understood handguns were
illegal in Britain, except to security companies.
Warnock
>Winnipeg that constitutes similar circumstances.
>Similar things have happened in Britain with suspected IRA bombers.
>I treat the legal system in both countries with a great deal of suspicion.
>We in Canada do not have a justice system. We have a legal system and you
>only get the justice you can afford.
Thanks for being honest, ' you only get the justice you can afford '. It
would be nice if we could level the playing fields and have everyone
properly defended.
Dan from Quebec
"Michael Zarlenga" <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote in message
news:so3dt6q...@corp.supernews.com...
> :> > Carman wrote:
> :> > Cite please. Cite a case of property defense in Texas, with someone
> :> > shot dead, where there were no legal consequences.
>
> a repo man was shot in the back while taking a car in
> the middle of the night with a tow truck with all its
> lights off.
>
> The car's "owner" heard the truck, went outside and
> plugged the driver through the back of the tow cab.
>
> The shooter was (IIRC) acquitted.
>
> I personally have no problem with that. When repo men
> choose to perform their duties in a way indistinguishable
> from car thieves, they will, sometimes, be mistaken for
> abd treated like car thieves.
>
> and called the cops to restrain the car's "owner" if he
> interferred.
>
> In this case, stupidity was terminal.
>
> --
> -- Mike Zarlenga
I like the "stupidity was terminal". Good way of eliminating the
dummies. Nature use to do this her way but now the governments wants to
protect us from ourselves.
Dan in Quebec
blan...@my-deja.com
For a serious criminal charge in the UK, every defendant gets a top-
rate legal defense free of charge. This, in a murder trial, would
consist of an instructing solicitor, a Queen's Counsel (senior
barrister) and a junior barrister. In Texas, you'd be lucky to get an
old, drunk lawyer.
blan...@my-deja.com
A handgun would be difficult to get and almost impossible to justify,
as they are, quite correctly, banned. A shotgun can be owned quite
legally, though Martin's was not.
Dan from Quebec
"Marek Staněk" <sta...@atlas.cz> wrote in message
news:8ls1db$2ae1$1...@ns.felk.cvut.cz...
> I apologize for asking such a stupid question, but why don't you place
your
> gun cabinet and the other things upstairs? Is that forbidden?
> Mark
>
> Dan from Quebec <da...@bigfoot.com> píąe v diskusním
> příspěvku:IYag5.2945$RZ4....@wagner.videotron.net...
>
> (...)
> > Here in Canada, if I heard someone breaking into my house in the
> middle
> > of the night, in the dark, I would quickly run downstairs, unlock my gun
> > cabinet, take out a firearm, then unlock the trigger lock, unlock my
I guess I could put the ugly metal gun cabinet upstairs
somewhere....??? And the ammo must be stored away from the firearms....? I
think the best solution would be to have an unloaded firearm close by and
use it like a club but even that is not allowed. A baseball bat or a knife
is an illegal weapon in Canada. I do have a PR24 and I did take the course
and I do have the certificate but I am allowed to use it only when working
as a security agent (which I no longer do). Pepper spray is also illegal in
Canada. Only the police may have it. Lots of people cheat and have much
milder concoctions sold god knows where.
I'm stuck...I'm at the mercy of anyone. I am now old and small and sick
in a violent world. I am not allowed to defend myself or my wife.
One night, a guy broke slipped into the house. He went into the bedroom
where my wife was sleeping. I was at work. He whacked himself off in the
hallway. You could see his footprint in the carpet where he pivoted around
about 2 feet from the bed. My wife woke up and she quickly went to see if my
daughter was ok in the basement. When she went back upstairs.....the back
door which was previously closed was now open.
People like this are not afraid of invading your home. They know we are
defenceless. Lots of older people are attacked this way in Quebec.
I guess I could move away. But I have to work. It's too late for me to
find another job in another free-er or more civilised country. I'm 53 with
no special skills.
Dan in Quebec
Desmond Coughlan
[snip]
} > Just as the abolitionists' cause is not helped by some of the "poster
} > boys" they choose to champion like Gary Graham, neither is the
} > retentionist case helped by championing this person. He is, by all
} > descripions rather a sad character. A bit looney and quite paranoid,
} > he had a record of misbehaving. If anything, he should have been
} > arrested for one of his weapons violations at an earlier date.
} As usual, you (and Mitchell) have brought both compassion and common sense
} to this thread plus a few facts that needed airing. Nevertheless, the
} charge of murder was incorrect; it should have been manslaughter.
} I also agree with earlier posters who think that his earlier
} misdemeanors should have been treated more seriously.
Just what extenuating circumstances existed in this case, John, for the
guilt to be less than that of murder (as the crime of manslaughter in
England and Wales was defined last time I looked, subject to correction,
of course) ?
The fact that Mr Martin had been burgled several times in the past (even
though I have seen no suggestion that the burglaries were carried out by
the same persons shot that night) ? Does this mean that deadly force
against unarmed intruders, is justified in your eyes ?
That Mr Martin was supposedly 'frightened' ? Despite the fact that he
was caught lying about where he fired the shot from, showing that he
hadn't fired 'in fright' ?
Let's be clear : Mr Martin lay in wait with an illegal shotgun, and
blasted a hole in an unarmed child's back, and then calmly went back
to bed, not even bothering to tell anyone about what had happened until
he was arrested the next day in the pub.
Mr Martin is guilty of murder, and his sentence is just, and should be
served to its end.
--
**********************************************************************
Desmond Coughlan Network Engineer Forum des Images Paris *
dcou...@vdp.fr http://www.forumdesimages.net (01) 44.76.62.29 *
**********************************************************************
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <des...@lievre.voute.net> wrote in message
news:slrn8o6ntq....@lievre.voute.net...
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 11:23:33 +0100, John Rennie
<Jo...@rennie.2000.greatxscape.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> blasted a hole in an unarmed child's back, and then calmly went back
> to bed, not even bothering to tell anyone about what had happened
until
> he was arrested the next day in the pub.
>
> Mr Martin is guilty of murder, and his sentence is just, and should be
> served to its end.
>
>
Trust Desi, to put an unbiased, objective slant on the subject. What
a total arse hole (as the Brits would spell it).
John Amero
If a person is wrongfully accused and
found not guilty, He/She walks in
finical ruin and often has lost their
job too. So in a sense that person IS
sentenced to some form of punishment
even when innocent. And the country
calls THAT JUSTICE!!??
Warnock wrote:
>
> blan...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8lts37$ps3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>
> Only fair way to do it is to compensate the accused with adequate money to
> get properly represented. This should come from the state, especially as, if
> the accused loses the case, he will spend , many years repaying the state
> with his slave labour. A wrongly accused person is entitled to walk free,
> but not just walk free - he must have his life and finances restored to what
> they were before the incident.
> Otherwise we need compulsory legal insurance!
--
JOHN AMERO, Parksville, B. C. Canada
E-Mail to:- johnaNO§P...@island.net
**NOTE: REMOVE the_ NO§PAM _in the
email address for reply.**
Check out my Web Site at-
http://www.island.net/~johna/ ICQ UIN
2166985
... or Business- email to- Director of
Business Development,
John...@singaporerental.com
Also see index at above web site or
http://singaporerental.com/
Osmo Ronkanen
Richard Jackson <ri...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>Just as the abolitionists' cause is not helped by some of the "poster
>boys" they choose to champion like Gary Graham, neither is the
>retentionist case helped by championing this person. He is, by all
>descripions rather a sad character. A bit looney and quite paranoid,
>he had a record of misbehaving. If anything, he should have been
>arrested for one of his weapons violations at an earlier date.
Retentionist? You associate retentionist with someone who
supports using firearms to protect property?
In fact had Britain had death penalty, Tony Martin could have been dead
already.
Osmo
John Rennie
"Desmond Coughlan" <des...@lievre.voute.net> wrote in message
news:slrn8o6ntq....@lievre.voute.net...
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 11:23:33 +0100, John Rennie
<Jo...@rennie.2000.greatxscape.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> } > boys" they choose to champion like Gary Graham, neither is the
> } > retentionist case helped by championing this person. He is, by all
> } > descripions rather a sad character. A bit looney and quite paranoid,
> } > he had a record of misbehaving. If anything, he should have been
> } > arrested for one of his weapons violations at an earlier date.
>
sense
> } to this thread plus a few facts that needed airing. Nevertheless, the
> } charge of murder was incorrect; it should have been manslaughter.
> } I also agree with earlier posters who think that his earlier
> } misdemeanors should have been treated more seriously.
>
> Just what extenuating circumstances existed in this case, John, for the
> guilt to be less than that of murder (as the crime of manslaughter in
> England and Wales was defined last time I looked, subject to correction,
> of course) ?
>
> The fact that Mr Martin had been burgled several times in the past (even
> though I have seen no suggestion that the burglaries were carried out by
> the same persons shot that night) ? Does this mean that deadly force
> against unarmed intruders, is justified in your eyes ?
>
> That Mr Martin was supposedly 'frightened' ? Despite the fact that he
> was caught lying about where he fired the shot from, showing that he
> hadn't fired 'in fright' ?
>
> blasted a hole in an unarmed child's back, and then calmly went back
> to bed, not even bothering to tell anyone about what had happened until
> he was arrested the next day in the pub.
>
> Mr Martin is guilty of murder, and his sentence is just, and should be
> served to its end.
>
>
Perhaps. However, I dont think that it was in anyway a planned murder.
Granted he left the lad to die but did he know the body was there? The
only witness to these events was the other young intruder whose evidence
should be treated with the utmost caution. In other words
he 'might' have fired warning shots (as he has on other occasions). His
actions after the event tend to confirm that. Not reporting a death or a
serious wounding on your own property is an act of lunacy if you know you
are the perpertrator. But then perhaps he is lunatic which means he is
innocent of murder anyway. (Jigsaw will love this).
As I have written recently Desmond, you are the other side of the mirror to
our Kooli. Everything to you is black and white, no shades of grey.
You are innocent or you are guilty, its murder or its not murder. If life
and/or death was as precise as you would have it, it would all be so much
easier to make judgements on the behaviour of our fellow human beings. It
is because life is not like that, that I am anti-dp.
Chas
> What happened to the good old court order, with a bailiff comming to write
> up your property.
A repossession doesn't require a court order; same as a bail bond
recovery. When you buy an automobile, you sign permission to recover the
vehicle if the note isn't paid in full, on time. You agree to a charge
for repossession, permission to store the vehicle at costs and a waiver
about anything that might have been in the car when it was repossessed.
they don't even have to notify you that you're in arrears. And, if
you're dealing with some sorts of lots, the car will have a broken
window and a pulled ignition when you recover it.
Fixed property is what you'd want a court order and a bailiff/sheriff to
recover for you.
Chas
http://members.xoom.com/kilap/Keepsafe.htm
http://members.xoom.com/kilap/cane.html
http://members.xoom.com/kilap/monkey.html http://www.kuntaosilat.com/
http://members.tripod.lycos.com/coloradojail/index.htm
Warnock
>What's interesting though is that the line you've drawn is the line
>between threat to property and threat to life. Only after an intruder
>enters is life actually threatened. Would you agree that using deadly
>force (such as shooting somebody) to protect property is wrong (if not
>legally, then morally)?
The thing is that if you don't protect your property, you may lose your
life's work! This might be your death knoll, so it gets back to defend your
property to defend your life.
Marek Staněk
use of deadly force was not neccessary, because they did NOT pose an
immediate threat to his life at the time of shooting.
If he ordered them to put their hands up and kneel facing the wall and then
called the police, it would be OK. If they would turn away and run and he
did NOT shoot them, it would be OK.
If they would turn towards him and shown violent intentions, he would have
an indisputable reason and duty to shoot. But leaving them heavily wounded
and not calling police and ambulance even after their threat was diminished
is inexcusable and unjustifiable.
That is the difference between Texas and most european laws. The value of
life (even criminal's) is superior to value of property. Of course there are
cases in which I'd prefer shooting the criminals without a trial, but not in
this one.
Have a productive and very safe day
Mark
Just Wondering <as...@rnc.net> píąe v diskusním
příspěvku:3982fecf$0$8303$5b21...@news.rnc.net...
> No he didn't. He killed an intruder, someone who didn't belong on his
> property. the person shot is to blame for being there in the first place.
>
> It would never have happened if he had been at home in bed or at work, you
> know, at a real job.
>
> no sympathy for criminals (real ones, not ones created by the government)
>
> JW
>
> <blan...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
Marek Staněk
Carman <jof...@istar.ca> píąe v diskusním
příspěvku:K8og5.5676$Lg1.1...@cac1.rdr.news.psi.ca...
>
> <blan...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8lr35h$p7p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <%75g5.5402$Lg1....@cac1.rdr.news.psi.ca>,
> > "Carman" <jof...@istar.ca> wrote:
> Carman wrote:
> You mean when the ax waving maniac comes bursting in, and you
> shoot him dead, there aren't going to be some pointed questions
> about where you got that gun?
>
> "Oh, and would you mind telling us how you got it out of the safe so
> fast? You did have the weapon in the safe didn't you?And you did have
> the weapon properly trigger-locked, didn't you? And of course you did
> have the ammunition stored separately from the weapon in it's own
> locked case didn't you? You didn't?"
----<cut>----
Simple explanation...
"I've just been calibrating the ammunition for my next competition. It's
best done by loading a magazine and cycling the rounds through the chamber.
But suddenly I heard the sound of cracking wood from my front door and
decided to check that out. I replaced the half-empty magazine I was just
checking with a full one and moved to the front door. There I saw that
burglar with axe and red painted teeth, yelled "put down your weapons, put
up your hands and kneel or I will shoot !!!", but he jumped through the door
and I had to empty the whole hi-cap magazine of LCC-TF rounds to stop him.
If I didn't, you'd find me on the floor instead of him, constable."
Of course there shall be some cartridges on a rag and an open box of ammo on
the table.
Have a productive and very safe day.
Mark
Carman
<blan...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8lttj1$qt9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <__sg5.5727$Lg1.1...@cac1.rdr.news.psi.ca>,
> "Carman" <jof...@istar.ca> wrote:
>
> > The same laws exist in Canada. It is against the law to possess
> > a firearm for the purpose of self-defense. As a result the criminal
> > element has a better income and more fun.
>
> Ah, Canada. That explains a lot.
Carman wrote:
I wonder what this is supposed to explain? Something beyond the
poster's inability to read headers?
buc...@nbnet.nbc.a
<jof...@istar.ca> wrote (in part):
> It is against the law in the UK to defend yourself with a firearm. The Crown
>doesn't care if it sends one man, or a thousand to prison. The message is
>clear: The life of the criminal is valued above the life of the victim.
Having read the news items about this matter and
reading all the posts, I must agree with Carman. An
old man living alone, poor as most farmers are in that
land, who has been victimized before, made a stand. I
don't blame him. I was morally correct but legally
wrong.
Even now the Government of Canada is continuing to make
bogeymen of gun owners by making the killing of animals
a crime. Recently in Nova Scotia a man shot a dog who
had killed several of his chickens. Who is the
culprit? Not the dog it was just doing what dogs do,
not the dog owner the true culprit, it was that evil
person with the gun of course, who was charged. Last
year a man in New Brunswick accosted some young people
who where in the process of robbing his store which had
been broken into and robbed several times before. He
shot a load of bird shot at the rear of their fleeing
car - to mark it and no doubt to scare them. Any bird
hunter like him could do that and not endanger the
occupants, but to society and to big "brudder"
(pronounced best through the side of your mouth) this
guy is a criminal. Some people were sympathetic, but
he was charged with reckless use of a firearm. He did
not do time, but a criminal record is the equivalent of
a very large fine.
No matter what it is, if you as a gun owner use you gun
for any purpose tinged with emotion, you are a
bogeyman, period. Big Brudder is convinced that a
common person is intrinsically dumb and is a menace in
such circumstances never mind that he might be a very
capable person, a successful hunter with an acute
awareness of gun safety as the vast majority of hunters
are.
H.L. Mencken said it best: "It is the invariable habit
of bureaucracies, at all times and everywhere, to
assume that every citizen is a criminal. Their one
apparent purpose, pursued with a relentless and furious
diligence, is to convert the assumption into a fact.
They hunt endlessly for proofs, and, when proofs are
lacking, for mere suspicions. The moment they become
aware of a definite citizen, John Doe, seeking what is
his right under the law, they begin searching
feverishly for an excuse for withholding it from him."
And I would add that now in Kanada gun ownership is
excuse enough.
We gun owners must understand the mind set here because
this is what is driving all of the antis (excluding
those with ulterior motives such as the PETA):
Antis think that guns are evil -
people who own guns are
intrinsically dumb, dangerous and careless.
Accordingly all guns should be banned.
We must ask ourselves where did this insanity come
from? Don't they remember that people with guns saved
civilization in wars? The point is: Never
underestimate the potential of stupid people in large
groups. We know of course. The press and the media
have been drumming it into the heads of urbanites for
two generations. It is a mental sickness, an
irrational fear driven into these gullible people who
look at a red clad hunter as some goofy guy of the
Red-Green Show genre who has a gun and it gives them
the shivers.
Make no mistake: Their fear, albeit irrational, is
nonetheless, very real. Sigmund Freud said: A fear of
weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional
maturity."
This is what we as gun owners must understand. These
are a large and politically active group. We must mount
an OFFENSIVE or in the long run, we will LOOSE.
For seven years now, as long as I have been on the
internet, I have tried to convey the message that we
are sinking in our fox-holes and losing the battle
simply because we are on the defensive, we must become
active, promoting the virtues of gun ownership and
changing social perceptions. But all I see is a bunch
of whining commiseration or the ultra-right wing
reactions of unrequited weapons lovers who never see
any action.
Hunters, the majority owners by far, should make it
their task to recruit new people. Most importantly,
gun organizations must obtain sufficient revenues to
launch a promotional campaign extolling the virtues of
the sport. I for one will be the first to lend my time
to such an effort.
Carman
<blan...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8ltri0$pg9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <dTog5.5684$Lg1.1...@cac1.rdr.news.psi.ca>,
> "Carman" <jof...@istar.ca> wrote:
> > Have you suffered with this reading comprehension problem long?
> > There is help for that sort of thing, but first you must admit the fact you
> > have the problem. Ask your friends. If they are really your friends they
> > won't spare your feelings and you won't have to suffer quite as much
> > public humiliation
>
> More rudeness. How unpleasant.
>
> > I clearly asked you for some specific information.
>
> You demanded.
>
> > "Cite please. Cite a case of property defense in Texas, with someone
> > shot dead, where there were no legal consequences".
> >
> > Penal Code. Did I ask you about the relevant Texas statutes? No, in
> > fact, I did not. In short, you have answered a question I did not ask
> > at all.
>
> Why would one need to produce a case? The law is there in black and
> white. If it is too hard for you to read, you could try getting someone to
> explain it to you.
Carman wrote:
"More rudeness. How unpleasant". It is unpleasant, isn't it? So why not
apply some temper control and refrain?
> > "Cite please. Cite a case of property defense in Texas, with someone
> > shot dead, where there were no legal consequences".
> > Did you cite a case? No, clearly, you did not.There is a massive
> > difference between citing the Penal Code and citing an actual case.
>
> Yes, the penal code section is the law, a case would merely apply the
> law. I am not prepared to spend a couple of hours sifting through the
> Texas law reports for your benefit. Why don't you have a go yourself.
Carman wrote:
So you have no CASE, no actual application of the law, (which is what
I asked you for), of "...property defense in Texas, with someone shot dead,
where there were no legal consequences". Thank you for the admission.
The section of the Texas Penal Code you reproduced clearly shows
that there exist circumstances where a homicide can be ruled "Justified",
and the person who performed the act is ruled to be blameless.
Perhaps you equate this circumstance with, "...no legal consequences"?
The "legal consequences", for homicide frequently involve arrest and
detention, hearings and being placed on trial for criminal homicide. These
are "legal consequences", whether or not the killing is ultimately ruled
"justified".
Perhaps you argue people should be punished for the actions of
others? When a homicide is ruled "justifiable" it means the individual
who performed the act has done nothing "wrong" under the law. The
one who was "in the wrong", is the person who was killed. That
individual is, of course, beyond the reach of law. Are you unable to
grasp this fine distinction?
> > What part of this are you having difficulty understanding? Though
> > you are pointlessly rude, I'll try and help you anyway. I reiterate though,
> > your angry reaction to a polite request for a cite, (I even said "please"),
> > is indicative you are aware your statement is indefensible, and angry
> > because you see you have made an error.
>
> Even an idiot of your magnitude can see that my statement is amply
> defended by the law of the state of Texas. If that is not good enough
> for you, then it is not my problem.
Carman wrote.
No. What you describe is not your problem. You obviously have a problem,
but that's not it. What you have posted above is quite good enough for me.
You have failed to provide the cite requested, and admitted that do not
have the evidence to prove your preposterous claim. You do so with curious
Ill-grace. Perhaps no one else has troubled to expose your errors recently?
Insults and invective from people such as yourself are meaningless to me.
Carman
<blan...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8lts37$ps3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <l%og5.5685$Lg1.1...@cac1.rdr.news.psi.ca>,> > Thank you for the information. If, as you say, the repo man
> > was "acquitted", it indicates that there were rather serious
> > "legal consequences", for the shooter. To wit, being placed
> > on trial for the shooting. I wonder if it bankrupted him as it has
> > some others?
> Blantoto wrote
> You know, that's the thing about self defense - it is a *defense* to a
> charge of murder. If the facts in any way point to a murder, there
> will be a trial. That is for the purpose of deciding whit it is, self
> defense or murder. Would you have us dispense with the trial and move
> straight to the acquittal?
Carman wrote:
"Self defense", is defense of self, nothing else unless you include a
modifier. A "plea" of self defense, entered in legal proceedings, is a
legal motion. Please note how "plea", modifies "self defense".
Blantoto wrote
"If the facts in any way point to a murder, there will be a trial".
Actually, no. If any of the ascertained "facts" point to culpability on the
part of the individual who performed the act, there will be further official
investigation that may result in the laying of some charge.
It sounds as you write of your own legal system, not that of the US.
In the US there are several points in the investigation where a homicide
can be ruled "justified". It varies depending on the jurisdiction.
In most cases the police perform the initial investigation. The person
who committed the act can be provisionally exonerated on the spot or
arrested and taken into custody. Either decision can be reversed by
higher police authority, the coroner, the District Attorney, or a magistrate.
The decision to go to trial need not include a charge of murder. Again
the available alternatives vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but usually
include degrees of murder and manslaughter relating to various degrees
of culpability.
Blantoto wrote
"Would you have us dispense with the trial and move straight to the
acquittal"?
Carman wrote:
Nothing I have written could give you the impression I might prefer
such a bizarre and foolish procedure. I presume this is some sort of
clumsy hyperbole attempted to further whatever your point may be.
In point of fact, the convoluted procedure has harmed many people
who have killed in authentic and legally adjudicated self defense. The
expense is often ruinous, and in the tremendous majority of instances
grossly favors the wealthy defendant over the defendant of modest
means.
Even given the systemic unfairness, it is still difficult to suggest any
streamlining of procedure. It would seem that the cause of Justice is
best served by rigorous, and rigorously fair investigations of every
case of homicide.
Those who refer to every case of self defensive homicide as "murder",
not only do violence to language, and to the law, but further impede the
cause of Justice by introducing irrelevancies into the public concept of
the meaning of the words.
murder, noun
1. The unlawful killing of one human being by another, especially with
premeditated malice.
homicide, noun
1. The killing of one person by another.
self-defense, noun
1. Defense of oneself when physically attacked.
2. Defense of what belongs to oneself, as one's works or reputation.
3. Law. The right to protect oneself against violence or threatened violence
with whatever force or means are reasonably necessary.
Excerpted from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language,
Third Edition Copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic
version licensed from Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V., further
reproduction and distribution restricted in accordance with the Copyright Law
of the United States. All rights reserved.
Carman
Warnock <war...@pop.co.za> wrote in message news:8lv8ml$2st$2...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> >charge of murder. If the facts in any way point to a murder, there
> >will be a trial. That is for the purpose of deciding whit it is, self
> >defense or murder. Would you have us dispense with the trial and move
> >straight to the acquittal?
>
>
> get properly represented. This should come from the state, especially as, if
> the accused loses the case, he will spend , many years repaying the state
> with his slave labour. A wrongly accused person is entitled to walk free, but
> not just walk free - he must have his life and finances restored to what
> they were before the incident. Otherwise we need compulsory legal insurance!
Carman wrote:
Interesting idea, but I wonder if it wouldn't give The State a financial stake in
obtaining a verdict of "guilty". This is what has happened in many cases that
include asset-forfeiture as one of the consequences of conviction.
As far as "compulsory legal insurance", is concerned, this could be a good
idea. Worth thinking about, provided it never becomes "judicare", or some
analogue of Socialized Medicine.
Carman
<blan...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8lvf1k$r9e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> > >You know, that's the thing about self defense - it is a *defense* to
> > >will be a trial. That is for the purpose of deciding whit it is, self
> > >defense or murder. Would you have us dispense with the trial and
> > >move straight to the acquittal?
> >
> > Only fair way to do it is to compensate the accused with adequate
> > money to get properly represented. This should come from the state,
> > especially as, if the accused loses the case, he will spend , many
> > years repaying the state with his slave labour. A wrongly accused
> > person is entitled to walk free, but not just walk free - he must have his
> > life and finances restored to what they were before the incident.
> > Otherwise we need compulsory legal insurance!
>
> rate legal defense free of charge. This, in a murder trial, would
> consist of an instructing solicitor, a Queen's Counsel (senior
> barrister) and a junior barrister. In Texas, you'd be lucky to get an
> old, drunk lawyer.
Carman wrote:
Now we know why Tony Martin was convicted and sentenced to Life.
He got, "...a top-rate legal defense free of charge. This, in a murder trial,
would consist of an instructing solicitor, a Queen's Counsel (senior
barrister) and a junior barrister"!
Since none of these people work for free, I suppose they were paid by
The State. Once again we observe proof of the ancient adage, "You get
what you pay for", The State paid for the finest, (according to Blantoto
here), and bought a conviction.
Given the circumstances, "an old, drunk lawyer", would have been more
than sufficient to see that Tony Martin walked had the case taken place in
Texas.
I say "more than sufficient", because this sort of "home invasion" happens
very infrequently where people are permitted to keep firearms for home
defense. Breaking into houses where people are home is a good way to
get shot, especially at night.
Bert Hyman
wrote:
> ... Would you agree that
>using deadly force (such as shooting somebody) to protect property is
>wrong (if not legally, then morally)?
>
How much property, of what sort and how often, can somebody take
from you before your life is threatened?
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@visi.com
D. Staples
grand jury, and the grand jury decides if it is a bill able offense. That's
civilian or law enforcement involved in the shooting. We have had 5 or 6 concealed
carry shootings in Texas, all went to the grand jury, a couple were tried, and all
were found not guilty by law.
The cost of defending ones self is considerable, average around $50,000.00 for a
determined defense.
There is a little law in Texas that one may use deadly force at night to defend
property. It is based on old frontier law, but is still appropro. I have heard
some compare it to the Old Testament law about an attack at night. However, it is
based on the fact that some one coming at you at night is unidentified, and their
actions are unknown. The same shot in day time hours could lead to prosecution.
Either way, your still going to the grand jury.
--
The door to my web page: http://www.livingston.net/dstaples/
For forestry commentary see bionet.agroforestry and alt.forestry news groups, as
well as http://www.delphi.com/ab-forestry/ for a continuing conversation on
forestry.
Warnock
>Warnock wrote:
>> What happened to the good old court order, with a bailiff comming to
write
>> up your property.
>
>A repossession doesn't require a court order; same as a bail bond
>recovery. When you buy an automobile, you sign permission to recover the
>vehicle if the note isn't paid in full, on time. You agree to a charge
>for repossession, permission to store the vehicle at costs and a waiver
>about anything that might have been in the car when it was repossessed.
>they don't even have to notify you that you're in arrears. And, if
>you're dealing with some sorts of lots, the car will have a broken
>window and a pulled ignition when you recover it.
>Fixed property is what you'd want a court order and a bailiff/sheriff to
>recover for you.
>
>Chas
Thanks, we have not quite got down to that where I am. Here the banks do 90%
of the vehicle finance market, and until recently they needed a court order
to repossess - not that it was hard to get. Now days it is very hard to
collect debt in South Africa.
David Lentz
Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
> In article <39823387...@signfile.net>, David Lentz <Ro...@signfile.net> wrote:
> }
> }
> }Richard Jackson wrote:
> }
> }<snip>
> }
> }
> }> In the event that shouted and other types of warnings do not deter a
> }> burgular from entering, you are still much better off only using deadly
> }> force only after the person has actually forced entrance as opposed to
> }> shooting them while they are attempting to get in. Once they have
> }> entered, there is little doubt about that their intentions might include
> }> bodily harm to the inhabitants.
> }>
> }> Come on, Mitchell! Any reasonable and prudent person would, of course,
> }> warn someone who was attempting to break in if there was time to do so.
> }> If after being warned, they actually enter, their lives are forfet as
> }> far as I am concerned. In that situation, the act of entering despite
> }> being warned is sufficient cause to use deadly force for defense. It
> }> should not be necessary to ask them their intentions and wait for a
> }> reply.
> }
> }If Tony Martin had been tried in an American court, he would be a
> }free man today. Martin was convicted by a majority, not
> }unanimous, verdict. You will not find twelve American who would
> }convict a man for defending his home.
>
> Horsehockey. Tony Martin shot two teenagers, one fatally,
> and went back to bed. He never once called the cops before or
> after the shooting. He was only caught when one of the boys
> (whom Martin thought he had killed and never bother to check
> up on) dragged himself to a nearby farm and reported the incident.
> Martin was arrested the next day in a pub, still having never told
> a soul what he did. That sort of callous indifference to life would
> have gotten him convicted in any court, UK or US.
Tony Martin was convicted by a majority jury. Three jurors did
not want to convict Martin of anything. In the UK the three
simply got outvoted. They could not have been shut out in a US
court room.
David
--
qyra...@ebpurfgre.ee.pbz
Shane in UK....
says...
> >
> >shoot him stone dead and it would still be self defence. You just
> >can't sneak around shooting people in the back.
>
>
> The question is, where do you get a handgun from. I understood handguns were
> illegal in Britain, except to security companies.
>
>
>
are unarmed. They are not even allowed to carry ASP's or Batons.
Handcuffs however are in a "Grey" area of the law. Some Police
counties don't have a problem with carrying them but others do. Like I
said, it depends where you are. Lincolnshire where I live have don't
have a problem with either, However, the adjoining counties of
Cambridgeshire and Norfolk do.
The only persons that may carry hand guns are specifically trained
police officers and the military.
I personally think that the law of self defence, in cases such as the
Tony Martin and others needs to be changed and reevaluated and I also
think that the law as far as the handgun ban needs to be lifted as
soon as possible after the ECHR has looked at it in the early part of
2001.
Not, However, that either will affect me as I will be back in the US
by then :-)
--
Shane.
If they outlaw handguns (which they did.)
Then only the outlaws will have handguns (Which they have)
Leading to a 16% increase in SERIOUS CRIME in the UK.
Now admitted by the British Government on the 18th July 2000
When will these fuckwits ever get it right?