Seven-times burglar spared jail by new ruling
Papa Legba
Tony Martin and Barry Hastings go free. After all, they didn't commit
any crimes to begin with.
If the govt would stop putting innocent citizens in prison, there
would be room for real criminals.
-----
© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2003.
Seven-times burglar spared jail by new ruling
By David Sapsted
A burglar who admitted stealing from seven homes
has been told he will not be imprisoned because of
new Court of Appeal guidelines aimed partially at
reducing prison overcrowding.
It is one of the first non-custodial sentences since a
ruling last month by Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief
Justice.
This said that most first-time domestic burglars who
would previously have been jailed for up to 18
months should be given community sentences.
At Norwich Crown Court, Judge Alasdair Darroch
made it clear that, previously, he would have jailed
Gary Callaby, a 29-year-old painter and decorator
who used information from customers to plan
burglaries.
Callaby, a drug addict, admitted three burglaries and
asked for four to be taken into consideration. The
judge told him: "If the latest decision [by Lord
Woolf] had not come out, it would have been a
prison sentence.
"These were very serious offences with two
particularly aggravating features: they occurred over
a period of time and you misused the information
obtained from customers. On the other hand, I had
to take into account the recent decision and you are
very fortunate in the timing."
Callaby, of West Raynham, near Fakenham, Norfolk,
was given a 12-month drug treatment order and
told by the judge that he could expect to go to
prison for 18 months if he breached its terms.
The court was told on Thursday that Callaby had
burgled the homes of people he either worked for or
knew.
Guy Ayres, defending, accepted that the case was
"extremely topical" but described Callaby as a classic
example where an offender could best be dealt with
in the community.
"Realising he had a problem, he sought help from
the Bure Centre in Norwich a few months ago. He
was successful in getting on a course and has done
extremely well. This is classic offending: a drug
addict feeding his habit."
The call for non-custodial sentences has disturbed
many police officers. Sir David Phillips, chief
constable of Kent and president of the Association of
Chief Police Officers, has said the guidelines sent "a
strange message to the would-be burglar".
He added: "For those who live alone and those who
have been burgled before, the announcement that
prison is no longer to be an automatic deterrent for
burglary will come as a shock and, in some cases,
strike fear.
"We are conscious, dealing with victims, that no
offence, except the most serious assaults, so
trouble and disturb people as an invasion of their
homes."
However, Andy Hayman, the chief constable of
Norfolk, told the Eastern Daily Press yesterday that
he regarded sentencing as a matter for the courts.
"Norfolk is already using drug treatment and drug
referral effectively and it should not be considered a
soft option.
"It works by taking people out of the cycle of
addiction and acquisitive crime."
In his Appeal Court ruling, Lord Woolf said: "We
accept that there are some cases where the clang of
the cell door for the first time may have a deterrent
effect."
But the evidence of sending burglars to prison
increased, rather than decreased, the risk of their
re-offending.
• A judge at Luton Crown Court yesterday reduced a
repeat burglar's jail sentence from three years to 18
months because of the ruling.
But in rejecting an appeal for a community sentence,
Judge Ronald Moss said Lord Woolf's guidance had
been misunderstood. Burglars should expect
custodial sentences "except in limited
circumstances".
Pedro Gomez-Sosa, a 37-year-old Spaniard,
admitted burgling a flat in Bedford in October, three
months after a community punishment for a previous
burglary.
Jailing the heroin addict, the judge said: "I want to
send out the message that people who burgle other
people's houses, except in limited circumstances, will
go to prison, in case anybody misunderstands.
"There has been much misunderstanding about
what the Lord Chief Justice said. But he has issued a
clarification and one thing he says is that where a
person has demonstrated by his behaviour that
punishment in the community is not appropriate,
there must be a custodial sentence."
Papa Legba
Socrates
> If the govt would stop putting innocent citizens in prison, there
would be room for real criminals.
Non payment of TV licence offenders are taking up quite a bit of room.
Yours faithfully,
JOHN AIDINIANTZ
Add music to your website with just one click!
WWW.REAL-AUDIO-JUKEBOX.COM
"Papa Legba" <papa...@legbaspam.com> wrote in message
news:3e16ddac....@news-server.houston.rr.com...
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
"Papa Legba" <papa...@legbaspam.com> wrote in message
news:3e16ddac....@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> Tony Martin and Barry Hastings go free. After all, they didn't commit
> any crimes to begin with.
>
> If the govt would stop putting innocent citizens in prison, there
> would be room for real criminals.
Half of the prison space is filled with criminals whose crimes are drug
related.
Legalise drugs, tax them and clear out half the prison population to make
room for the really deserving cases.
Dirk
Binky Dawkins
"Papa Legba" <papa...@legbaspam.com> wrote in message
news:3e16ddac....@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> A burglar who admitted stealing from seven homes
> has been told he will not be imprisoned because of
> new Court of Appeal guidelines aimed partially at
> reducing prison overcrowding.
Does anyone doubt that this sends a signal to young men that burglary
could be a good career move?
You know that you will get several chances, and if you go for secluded
,large houses in the country,you could make a decent profit. Mmmm where's
that balaclava ?
AW Barton
news:3e16ddac....@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> Tony Martin and Barry Hastings go free. After all, they didn't commit
> any crimes to begin with.
>
> If the govt would stop putting innocent citizens in prison, there
> would be room for real criminals.
>
Tony Martin's only "crime" was that he shot someone while defending his own life
& property.
I'm sorry I haven't heard of Barry Hastings.
Under New Labour it is a crime to defend yourself and your property from attack.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.435 / Virus Database: 244 - Release Date: 30-Dec-02
Papa Legba
<bdaw...@thedrones.net> wrote:
>> A burglar who admitted stealing from seven homes
>> has been told he will not be imprisoned because of
>> new Court of Appeal guidelines aimed partially at
>> reducing prison overcrowding.
> Does anyone doubt that this sends a signal to young men that burglary
>could be a good career move?
This is the Blair govt's answer to rising unemployment, called the
"Clockwork Orange Employment Program".
And you are supposed to cooperate by not harming these aspiring young
lads in their first attempt at gainful employment.
Next time you are unemployed, consider becoming a criminal. Just ask
your MP how to get started. He ought to know, being a criminal
himself.
Papa Legba
Papa Legba
<di...@neopax.com> wrote:
>Legalise drugs, tax them...
Won't happen. The clandestine agencies need the money they make off of
artificially high-priced drugs.
You certainly don't expect the spooks to come to Parliament for
funding, do you? That would expose their operations.
Papa Legba
Papa Legba
>Tony Martin's only "crime" was that he shot someone while defending his own life
>& property.
>I'm sorry I haven't heard of Barry Hastings.
He's the latest victim of "majority verdicts".
"Burglar's killer jailed for five years"
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2002%2F10%2F18%2Fnburg18.xml
>Under New Labour it is a crime to defend yourself and your property from attack.
Only if you talk too much, like both Martin and Hastings did. They
were their own worst enemies.
Keep your mouth shut until a qualified lawyer is present who will
represent your interests. If pestered by the cops before he arrives,
just say that you were in fear for your life and that you are too
upset to make any statements but that you will make a statement after
your lawyer arrives.
Papa Legba
Papa Legba
Boothroyd) wrote:
>> If the prisons are so overcrowded, then why don't the authorities let
>> Tony Martin and Barry Hastings go free. After all, they didn't commit
>> any crimes to begin with.
>Yes they did. They both killed people who weren't actually threatening
>them.
You were there? Or are you getting this from the media?
Both men claimed that they were in fear for their lives. How do you
know that they were not?
Anyway, you are ignoring that the jury in both cases failed to return
unanimous verdicts, which means there was reasonable doubt.
Isn't a person innocent until proven guilty beyond any reasonable
doubt?
Are you in favor of convicting innocent people?
Papa Legba
Papa Legba
Boothroyd) wrote:
>> Tony Martin's only "crime" was that he shot someone while defending his
>> own life & property.
>The burglar was trying to leave when Tony Martin shot him in the back. How
>can that be defensive?
You were there? Or are you getting this from the media?
>In fact English law is extremely generous. You can use reasonable force
>to defend yourself as long as you genuinely feel you are under attack -
Actually the law reads "honestly believe".
>even if that belief is manifestly stupid.
Not true. I am told that the requirement for an "honest belief"
implies that there were no other possibilities that were better. In
that regard is appears more stringent than the American "reasonable
belief".
>If you want a change you must
>believe that people have the right to use unreasonable force. This is
>surely unacceptable.
The law does not dictate how you can or cannot use deadly force. If
you honestly believe that the use of deadly force is immediately
necessary, then it makes no difference whether you shoot the criminal
coming or going.
In the case of Martin, the criminal was going for his sack and in the
case of Hastings the criminal was coming at him with a crowbar. With
both those situations it is quite reasonable to conclude under the
circumstances that there is a very real threat of harm or death.
If you do not heed the obvious signs of imminent danger, you take a
very significant risk that you will be harmed instead. As tragic as
the Martin and Hastings cases are in terms of injustice, at least they
are still alive.
And now they are in school learning how to become efficient criminals.
I hope they both knock your house off, along with you and your loves
ones just because you are too much of a politically correct wimp to
defend yourself.
That would lead to an immediate improvement in the British gene pool.
Papa Legba
Steve Walker
> On Sat, 04 Jan 2003 14:11:05 +0000, da...@election.demon.co.uk (David
> Boothroyd) wrote:
>
>>> Tony Martin's only "crime" was that he shot someone while defending his
>>> own life & property.
>
>> The burglar was trying to leave when Tony Martin shot him in the back.
How
>> can that be defensive?
>
> You were there? Or are you getting this from the media?
How else would the shot have entered his *back* then?
Steve Walker
> Both men claimed that they were in fear for their lives. How do you
> know that they were not?
So if I murder you and tell the Police that I was in fear for my life, this
explanation must be accepted without question? Sounds like a recipe for
lawlessness & violence to me.
In the UK, a *jury* of ordinary citizens decides whether force was reaonably
used, and in the cases you cite those ordinary citizens decided the
defendants had gone too far. In other cases (at least two recently where
the subject was stabbed to death) juries accepted that the defendant had
acted reasonably.
Papa Legba
Boothroyd) wrote:
>> >Yes they did. They both killed people who weren't actually threatening
>> >them.
>> You were there? Or are you getting this from the media?
>The Appeal Judgment in the case of Tony Martin is on the web. See
>http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j528/MARTIN.htm.
That is the opinion of the appeals court. And the fact that the appeal
judges did lessen the offense to manslaughter shows that they believed
Martin acted in a manner consistent with an honest belief he was under
threat.
However, I am open to your take on this and I will accept the written
transcript you have cited as a valid document for the sake of
discussion only.
Can you point to an explicit statement in that document you cited
which conclusively shows that Martin did not "honestly believe that
the use of deadly force was immediately necessary" (statement of law).
>In the
>other case Hastings admitted that he had not himself been threatened
>by the man he killed before he attacked him.
I would be willing to review a court document like the one you
provided for Martin. Until then, I find your comment incredulous. The
law states clearly that there must be "an honest belief that the use
of deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent serious harm or
death." If that was not the case then Hastings was guilty at the
outset and did not have justification for pleading not guilty. The
fact that he did plead not guilty tells me he did have a defense based
on "an honest belief that the use of deadly force was immediately
necessary".
But I am open to discussion if you can provide the court document and
the relevant passages showing that Hastings was not under the threat
of serious harm or death.
>> Both men claimed that they were in fear for their lives. How do you
>> know that they were not?
>How can someone be in fear for their life because of someone else
>trying desperately to get out of a building and get away from them.
How can you know that the criminals were really trying to get away?
Anyway, the law does not require that you be clairvoyant. If at the
time you "honestly believe that the use of deadly force was
immediately necessary to prevent serious harm or death to your
person", then you are justified.
>> Anyway, you are ignoring that the jury in both cases failed to return
>> unanimous verdicts, which means there was reasonable doubt.
>No it doesn't. If there was reasonable doubt they would have been
>acquitted. You are confusing two completely different concepts here.
If two jurors failed in both the Martin and the hastings cases to
return a guilty verdict, then that constitutes prima facie evidence
that there was a reasonable doubt in their minds. It was the judge who
convicted the defendants because they juries returned a 10:2 majority
verdict. But that does not change the substantial fact that there was
reasonable doubt present.
>> Are you in favor of convicting innocent people?
>Tony Martin and Barry-Lee Hastings were found guilty.
Then you go along with convicting innocent people who are found guilty
by a judge unwilling to declare a hung hury when that jury fails to
return a unanimous verdict. No wonder Britain is so fucked up.
If you really have something substantial to back up your claims we
will certainly like to see them. But these pontifical pronouncements
of yours which onlt demonstrates the abominable condition of British
jurisprudence is a matter for another thread.
Just present the fact from official published court documents that
these men did not "honestly believe that the use of deadly force was
immediately necessary to protect themselves".
Papa Legba
Diogenes The Tramp
> Under New Labour it is a crime to defend yourself and your property from
attack.
>
>
"Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" was the spin that got them
elected wasn't it? :-(
Steven X Brown
Yep. Along with 'education, education, education'. And like fools, the
British public believed them!
--
Steven X Brown
Papa Legba
wrote:
>>> The burglar was trying to leave when Tony Martin shot him in the back.
>>> How can that be defensive?
>> You were there? Or are you getting this from the media?
>How else would the shot have entered his *back* then?
Two points:
1) The law does not specify how deadly force is to be applied in a
life-threating situation. Martin could have shoved the barrel up their
arse and it would not have changed his self defense one bit.
2) I can think of several reasonable scenarios where the criminal ends
up getting shot in the back and each one would satisfy the
requirements of the law regarding the justification of the use of
deadly force.
The primary objective for using deadly force for self protection is
not marksmanship or sporting play.
A) Two criminals broke into Martin's house at night and began making
noises in the dark.
B) Martin has phoned the police for help in the past but they would
not respond, therefore that was no longer a reasonable option.
C) Martin was alone upstairs, so he grabbed his shotgun and went down
the stairs to investigate.
D) Someone shined a torch in his eyes and he fired his gun, once on
the landing and twice on the ground floor. One shot went into one
criminal and one shot went into the other criminal.
E) Those were the only shots. Martin had a 5 shot pump and still had 2
shots left. If he wanted to kill the criminals he would have used
those 2 other shots. But he did not.
F) The jury exonerated Martin by failing to return a unanimous guilty
verdict. That meant there was a hung jury. But because British
jurisprudence has been hijacked by the criminal ruling class, the
judge is allowed to convict Martin instead of declaring a mistrial
like he should have. But he did not want to offend the survivors of
the gyp cretin criminal so he caved in to Political Correctness.
G) The appeals court overturned the murder conviction but also caved
in to PC and changed it to manslaughter. The HOL would not take the
case on appeal because they did not want to get stuck looking unPC.
H) Martin is a political prisoner - a fatality of PC.
Is it any wonder why Britain is so fucked up?
Papa Legba
Papa Legba
wrote:
>> Both men claimed that they were in fear for their lives. How do you
>> know that they were not?
>So if I murder you and tell the Police that I was in fear for my life, this
>explanation must be accepted without question?
It can be, but first let's understand that you will have to answer
questions before homicide examiners at the police department and if
any part of your story is out of place, you are instantly a suspect
for the crime of murder. Then you must face a Grand Jury refardless of
the police investigation. You will have to convince the GJ that you
did not murder the person. Finally, if indicted you will have to face
a criminal trial and its jury.
>Sounds like a recipe for lawlessness & violence to me.
It can be. But our system of justice allows that it is better to let a
guilty person go free than put an innocent person in prison.
>In the UK, a *jury* of ordinary citizens decides whether force was reaonably
>used, and in the cases you cite those ordinary citizens decided the
>defendants had gone too far.
In the Martin case and in the Hastings case, the jury failed to return
unanimous verdicts, so these "ordinary citizens" expressed reasonable
doubt. You cannot convict someone of a crime unless there is no
reasonable doubt evidenced by a unanimous jury verdict.
If you don't do it that, then you are presuming that a person is
guilty and has therefore failed to get 3 people to agree that he is
not. I much prefer the American system where the defendant is presumed
innocent until all 12 jurors decide he is guilty. That way far fewer
innocent people end up in prison.
>In other cases (at least two recently where
>the subject was stabbed to death) juries accepted that the defendant had
>acted reasonably.
That's because the criminals in those cases were not from poltically
correct minorities.
Papa Legba
Papa Legba
Little did you all realize that it would be you, the law-abiding
citizen, who they planned on being tough with.
Papa Legba
Papa Legba
<steven...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>>Under New Labour it is a crime to defend yourself and your property from
>>>attack.
>> "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" was the spin that got them
>> elected wasn't it? :-(
>Yep. Along with 'education, education, education'. And like fools, the
>British public believed them!
That's because people are constantly being brainwashed.
And the reason for that is Britain has no true Right Wing. Anyone who
speaks out from a position on the political spectrum who is the
slightest bit to the Right of LeftCenter is immediately demonized as
an "extremist right-wing racist terrorist".
Papa Legba
Peter H. Proctor
>From: papa...@legbaspam.com (Papa Legba)
>Subject: Re: Seven-times burglar spared jail by new ruling
>Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 14:34:45 GMT
>Actually the law reads "honestly believe".
>>even if that belief is manifestly stupid.
>Not true. I am told that the requirement for an "honest belief"
>implies that there were no other possibilities that were better. In
>that regard is appears more stringent than the American "reasonable
>belief".
It varies somewhat by state, but the general US standard is that a
"reasonable man" would have believed he was in danger of death or serious
bodily harm and that deadly force was "necessary". Both "reasonable and
necessary" to be decided by a jury. On paper, this is more stringent than
the UK standard, which is only that you "honestly" believed this, even if a
"reasonable man" might not.
Dr P
Peter H. Proctor
>From: da...@election.demon.co.uk (David Boothroyd)
>Subject: Re: Seven-times burglar spared jail by new ruling
>How can someone be in fear for their life because of someone else
>trying desperately to get out of a building and get away from them.
If a thief is legitimately trying to escape and is not carrying away
the fruits of his crime, deadly force is not legal under Texas law. But
a jury will put itself in the place of the crime victim and decide that they
( reasonable men ) might have been in fear of their lives too.
>> Anyway, you
are ignoring that the jury in both cases failed to return>> unanimous
verdicts, which means there was reasonable doubt.
>No it doesn't. If there was reasonable doubt they would have been
>acquitted. You are confusing two completely different concepts here.
In the US, conviction of a felony generally requires a unanimous jury
verdict. There are reasons for this...
PHP
ikke
"AW Barton" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:av6oir$cn0vm$1...@ID-152947.news.dfncis.de...
> "Papa Legba" <papa...@legbaspam.com> wrote in message
> news:3e16ddac....@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> > If the prisons are so overcrowded, then why don't the authorities let
> > Tony Martin and Barry Hastings go free. After all, they didn't commit
> > any crimes to begin with.
> >
> > If the govt would stop putting innocent citizens in prison, there
> > would be room for real criminals.
> >
>
> Tony Martin's only "crime" was that he shot someone while defending his
own life
> & property.
> I'm sorry I haven't heard of Barry Hastings.
> Under New Labour it is a crime to defend yourself and your property from
attack.
>
Tony Martin was, IMHO, rightly convicted of murder and is, from what I can
gather, lucky to have had his sentence reduced on appeal (with psychiatrists
unclear as to his state of mind). He used an illegally held shotgun to shoot
a burglar in the back when that burglar was scrambling out of the house. He
then left the body for a good while before it was found.
IIRC, Barry Hastings was convicted of murder after getting hold of a burglar
who was clearly on his way out of the house and stabbing him several times.
Of the two cases I would say that the latter is the more questionable as
regards whether or not justice was done.
If Martin believed his life was being threatened when he shot Barrass in the
back (which is at best doubtful), then it's unfortunate for him that he
owned a shotgun. If he'd just clobbered him with a cricket bat he may have
had a stronger defence in court.
Cheers
John
Papa Legba
Proctor) wrote:
> It varies somewhat by state, but the general US standard is that a
>"reasonable man" would have believed he was in danger of death or serious
>bodily harm and that deadly force was "necessary". Both "reasonable and
>necessary" to be decided by a jury. On paper, this is more stringent than
>the UK standard, which is only that you "honestly" believed this, even if a
>"reasonable man" might not.
I was told by someone who claimed to know British law that the
requirement for an "honest belief" implied that there was no other
choice available but the use of deadly force. That in turn implies
that if the state can show that there were other choices available,
then the defense is lost.
IOW, the person who claimed this was saying that the phrase should be:
"I honestly believed that this was the only possible choice".
That is far more stringent than America's "reasonable belief".
Papa Legba
Peter H. Proctor
>From: papa...@legbaspam.com (Papa Legba)
Law-abiding citizens are more likely to obey any new "crime-control" laws that
get passed. So they bear the brunt..
PHP
Papa Legba
>Tony Martin was, IMHO, rightly convicted of murder
I give you a classic example of Mob Rule.
No wonder Britain is so fucked up. It's because the British people are
so fucked up.
Papa Legba
Papa Legba
Proctor) wrote:
>>How can someone be in fear for their life because of someone else
>>trying desperately to get out of a building and get away from them.
> If a thief is legitimately trying to escape and is not carrying away
>the fruits of his crime, deadly force is not legal under Texas law.
That is incorrect as stated.
The mere presence of the criminal inside your home constitutes a very
serious deadly threat to you and your family. You do not have the
luxury to pick and choose among a variety of plausible scenarios. You
don't even have to retreat if you think it is unreasonable to do so.
If you reasonably believe that the use of deadly force is immediately
necessary to eliminate that threat, then you are justified.
You are under no obligation to let the criminal escape because he
could easily turn on you the moment he thinks he had an advantage. In
fact, your reluctance to shoot him could be taken as a form of
encouragement of further criminal activity, which would then increase
the level of threat.
The only way to make certain that he won't harm you is for him to
stand down immediately. You yell "Freeze" and if he doesn't freeze
immediately, you have no choice but to give serious consideration to
the use of deadly force, even if it appears that he might be trying to
escape. It is reasonable to imagine that he could pretend to be
running away, run to the nearest obstacle to hide behind, pull a gun
and kill you.
Just ask the police what they are taught to do. They will never tell
you that they "let the criminal run away" and that is not because
their job is apprehension. Their primary job is survival and making a
criminal freeze (stand down) is their first line of defense against
getting killed. If that means the use of deadly force, then it is
perfectly justified under Texas law.
Just ask Pedro Oregon.
>But
>a jury will put itself in the place of the crime victim and decide that they
>( reasonable men ) might have been in fear of their lives too.
That was the outcome of the incident where a homeowner killed that
Scotsman who climbed over his fence at 3:00 am and beat on the back
door. The Scotsman would not stand down, so the homeowner shot him
thru the door. The Scotsman was not even inside the home. The GJ
rightly no-billed the homeowner.
Papa Legba
Steve Walker
> F) The jury exonerated Martin by failing to return a unanimous guilty
> verdict. That meant there was a hung jury. But because British
> jurisprudence has been hijacked by the criminal ruling class, the
> judge is allowed to convict Martin instead of declaring a mistrial
> like he should have. But he did not want to offend the survivors of
> the gyp cretin criminal so he caved in to Political Correctness.
You must be Moja the moron, trying out a new nom de guerre? Either that,
or else there really are two people in the world who believe this shite....
Majority verdicts are a normal and fair part of our justice system, and work
perfectly well. They weren't invented just to catch Tony Martin. Without
majority verdicts Tony Martin wouldn't be the only person to get away with
murder in the UK, and that's not acceptable to our population. In the US
you're comfortable with very high rates of murder, but we don't want to go
down that road. Judges in the UK are typically very conservative &
'establishment' in their attitudes. PC (of the left or right-wing sort)
doesn't really impact upon them imho.
> Is it any wonder why Britain is so fucked up?
Compared to the US, you mean? Because if we're fucked up, you guys are
round the u-bend and heading for the sewage plant, big-time. Let me cite
the words of Michael Moore, one of the few Americans who is exercising any
critical judgment at present. He's referring to the achievements of your
unelected "President" since taking office :
1. The number of people unemployed since he "took" office has risen by 35%.
2. We had a federal SURPLUS of $281 billion when he was inaugurated; today
we have a DEFICIT of $157 billion.
3. TWO MILLION jobs have been eliminated since Bush began his occupation of
the Oval Office.
4. The stock market is down 34% since January of 2001.
5. Another 1.4 million people now have NO health insurance, making it a
total of over 41 million Americans who can't afford to get sick.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2002-10-01
Steve Walker
> In article <3e171c1f....@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
> evidence of a 'fucked up' country?
Yep Moja doesn't believe in juries - too much like democracy for his
liking...
Steve Walker
> On Sat, 4 Jan 2003 15:27:02 -0000, "Steve Walker" <spam...@beeb.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> Both men claimed that they were in fear for their lives. How do you
>>> know that they were not?
>
>> So if I murder you and tell the Police that I was in fear for my life,
this
>> explanation must be accepted without question?
>
> It can be, but first let's understand that you will have to answer
> questions before homicide examiners at the police department and if
> any part of your story is out of place, you are instantly a suspect
> for the crime of murder. Then you must face a Grand Jury refardless of
> the police investigation. You will have to convince the GJ that you
> did not murder the person. Finally, if indicted you will have to face
> a criminal trial and its jury.
Which is pretty analogous to what happened to Tony Martin - there was an
investigation which concluded that he'd acted with some planning & intent,
and that he'd unreasonably used lethal force. That allegation was put to a
jury, who found it to be proven. So now he's in jail, where he belongs.
Frank
"Papa Legba" <papa...@legbaspam.com> wrote in message
news:3e16ddac....@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> If the prisons are so overcrowded, then why don't the authorities let
> Tony Martin and Barry Hastings go free. After all, they didn't commit
> any crimes to begin with.
>
> If the govt would stop putting innocent citizens in prison, there
> would be room for real criminals.
>
>
> © Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2003.
>
> Seven-times burglar spared jail by new ruling
>
> A burglar who admitted stealing from seven homes
> has been told he will not be imprisoned because of
> new Court of Appeal guidelines aimed partially at
> reducing prison overcrowding.
>
> ruling last month by Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief
> Justice.
>
> This said that most first-time domestic burglars who
> would previously have been jailed for up to 18
> months should be given community sentences.
>
> At Norwich Crown Court, Judge Alasdair Darroch
> made it clear that, previously, he would have jailed
> Gary Callaby, a 29-year-old painter and decorator
> who used information from customers to plan
> burglaries.
>
> Callaby, a drug addict, admitted three burglaries and
> asked for four to be taken into consideration. The
> judge told him: "If the latest decision [by Lord
> Woolf] had not come out, it would have been a
> prison sentence.
>
> "These were very serious offences with two
> particularly aggravating features: they occurred over
> a period of time and you misused the information
> obtained from customers. On the other hand, I had
> to take into account the recent decision and you are
> very fortunate in the timing."
>
> Callaby, of West Raynham, near Fakenham, Norfolk,
> was given a 12-month drug treatment order and
> told by the judge that he could expect to go to
> prison for 18 months if he breached its terms.
>
> The court was told on Thursday that Callaby had
> burgled the homes of people he either worked for or
> knew.
>
> Guy Ayres, defending, accepted that the case was
> "extremely topical" but described Callaby as a classic
> example where an offender could best be dealt with
> in the community.
>
> "Realising he had a problem, he sought help from
> the Bure Centre in Norwich a few months ago. He
> was successful in getting on a course and has done
> extremely well. This is classic offending: a drug
> addict feeding his habit."
>
> The call for non-custodial sentences has disturbed
> many police officers. Sir David Phillips, chief
> constable of Kent and president of the Association of
> Chief Police Officers, has said the guidelines sent "a
> strange message to the would-be burglar".
>
> He added: "For those who live alone and those who
> have been burgled before, the announcement that
> prison is no longer to be an automatic deterrent for
> burglary will come as a shock and, in some cases,
> strike fear.
>
> "We are conscious, dealing with victims, that no
> offence, except the most serious assaults, so
> trouble and disturb people as an invasion of their
> homes."
>
The above is of course true but the government don't seem to be worried
about the trauma inflicted on the law abiding.
AH#49
>
> In article <3e171d95....@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
> papa...@legbaspam.com (Papa Legba) wrote:
> >
> > The mere presence of the criminal inside your home constitutes a very
> > serious deadly threat to you and your family.
>
How many times have you been home while a person broke into your home?
> Most burglars are counting on getting in and out unobserved
> and if caught, their first priority will be to get out as soon as possible.
Cite please, why I should be forced to even accept those odds.
> They certainly won't be looking for a confrontation with the homeowner.
Especially if he knows I am armed.
Regardless, you did say "most times."
Anyway, that's why many people prefer to have that option.
>
> I do not believe that deadly force is reasonable to deal with a threat
> to property where life is not threatened.
You are of course entitled to your beliefs.
Unfortunately for the burglar, and good for me, that I disagree.
I don't "believe" that I should have to wait and find out what the
criminals intentions are or could be, if they don't comply to my
demands exactly and without hestitation....IF I have the upper hand.
And that will always, disarm and empty pockets S L O W L Y, get on
their back, S L O W L Y, and then disrobe totally so as to provide:
1) More humiliation to him and
2) More incentive for him not to run away especially now that's rather
chilly outside.
Again, s l o w l y and carefully on his part while I keep my finger ON
the trigger with the muzzle pointed at their head.
THEN I call the police.
Any deviation on there part means I have to repaint the walls and get
new throw rugs or carpets.
Then I plant a one off mismatched kitchen knife or other bludgeoning
"tool" in his hands, if I do terminate there pathetic, useless, nobody
ever loved or cared about them anyway's life.
Papa Legba
Boothroyd) wrote:
>So if a jury comes to a verdict you disagree with it's mob rule and
>evidence of a 'fucked up' country?
If that verdict is not unanimous, then there is a hung jury.
If you fail to accept that, then it is indeed evidence that Britain is
fucked up.
Don't you believe in the precept that a person is innocent until
proven guily beyond any and all reasonable doubt by a unanimous guilty
verdict from the jury?
Or would you rather see innocent men go to prison because the
presumption is guilt and they failed to convince 3 people of their
innocence?
You are all going to make a really nice slave state of the EU.
Papa Legba
Daniel
"David Boothroyd" <da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:david-04010...@election.demon.co.uk...
> In article
> <120F2D60F747740A.90F918C0...@lp.airnews.net>,
> da...@election.demon.co.uk (David Boothroyd) writes:
> > >How can someone be in fear for their life because of someone else
> > >trying desperately to get out of a building and get away from them.
> >
> > If a thief is legitimately trying to escape and is not carrying away
> > the fruits of his crime, deadly force is not legal under Texas law.
> > But a jury will put itself in the place of the crime victim and decide
> > that they ( reasonable men ) might have been in fear of their lives too.
>
>
We also have women on Texas juries. There is also a popular saying here in
Texas. It's better to be judged by twelve than to be carried by six.
Mark
> So if I murder you and tell the Police that I was in fear for my life, this
> explanation must be accepted without question?
No, but even if you deliberately murder a career criminal and his mate
who've just broken into your house I think a nod and a wink should be
more than enough explanation for the police. We're all better off with
less thieving scumbags out there on the streets.
Mark
Papa Legba
Boothroyd) wrote:
>> The mere presence of the criminal inside your home constitutes a very
>> serious deadly threat to you and your family.
>No it isn't. Most burglars are counting on getting in and out unobserved
>and if caught, their first priority will be to get out as soon as possible.
>They certainly won't be looking for a confrontation with the homeowner.
Can you assure us that you are 100% correct in this assessment,
because unless you are 100% correct, my original statement holds.
>I do not believe that deadly force is reasonable to deal with a threat
>to property where life is not threatened.
It isn't in Britain but it is in most parts of America.
Papa Legba
Wotan
Papa Legba <papa...@legbaspam.com> wrote in message
news:3e16ddac....@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> If the prisons are so overcrowded, then why don't the authorities let
> Tony Martin and Barry Hastings go free. After all, they didn't commit
> any crimes to begin with.
>
> If the govt would stop putting innocent citizens in prison, there
> would be room for real criminals.
>
You are missing the point, Papa.
Burglars and other criminals hurt society. And that's what the
Brit hating Marxist Bliar wants.
It is all part of his self proclaimed "project" to "dismantle the
British nation state" and persuade the gullible sheeplings who
voted for the little weasel that we would be better off ruled by
Brussels.
If he survives long enough to get to court, he will do life for
it.
Wotan
> On Sat, 4 Jan 2003 13:41:48 -0000, "Dirk Bruere at Neopax"
> <di...@neopax.com> wrote:
>
> >Legalise drugs, tax them...
>
> Won't happen. The clandestine agencies need the money they make off of
> artificially high-priced drugs.
>
> You certainly don't expect the spooks to come to Parliament for
> funding, do you? That would expose their operations.
>
>
> Papa Legba
Very true. There are powerful vested interests who have
a strong desire to see that the drug trade continues. The
spooks could find alternatives - but the organised crime gangs
behind the "EU" and who own their multi-national backers
would find life much more difficult.
How many red pigs in wigs depend on drug money, do you
think.
Wotan
Peter H. Proctor <ppro...@neosoft.com> wrote in message
>
> It varies somewhat by state, but the general US standard is that
a
> "reasonable man" would have believed he was in danger of death or serious
> bodily harm and that deadly force was "necessary". Both "reasonable and
> necessary" to be decided by a jury. On paper, this is more stringent
than
> the UK standard, which is only that you "honestly" believed this, even
if a
> "reasonable man" might not.
>
> Dr P
What the law says and what happens do not always concur.
But I "honestly believe" that putting a bullet through Blair's
head is "manifestly" in the national interest.
And half of his "red pigs in a wigs" cronies as well.
Wotan
David Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:david-04010...@election.demon.co.uk...
> papa...@legbaspam.com (Papa Legba) wrote:
> >
> > serious deadly threat to you and your family.
>
Now why am I not surprised to find a notorious Marxist "EU"
quisling, such as yourself, on the side of the criminal and eager
to deny the law abiding British citizen any protection or
justice ?
Because you hate the British people as much as Blair and wish
them nothing but harm inside your criminal run little police state.
It is all part of your criminal intimidation of the British people
as you attempt to train them to put up with your "EU" gestapo
in British police uniforms, isn't it ?
Unfortunately for you and your "EU" quislings, the public is
not composed entirely of malleable sheeple - which is why
your treacherious Marxist project to annex Britain is
doomed.
And then your quislings have the unpleasant prospect of
explaining themselves in front of a court that you have not
subverted - and is not presided over by one of your "red pigs
in a wig".
Wotan
>
> Which is pretty analogous to what happened to Tony Martin - there was an
> investigation which concluded that he'd acted with some planning & intent,
> and that he'd unreasonably used lethal force. That allegation was put to
a
> jury, who found it to be proven. So now he's in jail, where he
belongs.
>
So anybody who takes resonable precuations to protect themselves
and their property from a planned attack belongs in jail, do they ?
The insurance companies would violently disagree with you - as
would 90% of the public.
Tony Martin is a political prisoner. He has been incarcerated as
part of the campaign of public intimidation being used to train the
people that "resistence is usless" and that they must bow down to
the diktats of a corrupt and rotten to the core "EU" police state.
Well, we'll see about that, shall we ?
Wotan
> Papa Legba wrote:
>
> > Both men claimed that they were in fear for their lives. How do you
> > know that they were not?
>
this
> lawlessness & violence to me.
>
If you have entered his house illegally and with criminal intent -
which can be nothing other than a premeditated and planned
attack - then he would have every right to defend yourself.
Up to an including blowing your fucking brains out so far as
I am concerned - and so far as any reasonable man is concerned.
Blair's red pig in a wig conned the jury and told the public that
their right of self defence had been suspended.
Steve Walker
> Don't you believe in the precept that a person is innocent until
> proven guily beyond any and all reasonable doubt by a unanimous guilty
> verdict from the jury?
No, we don't. We're happy with a majority verdict most of the time.
That's why in the UK OJ Simpson would probably serving time now, whereas
your corrupted and ineffective system exonerated him.
PS - Don't you believe that judicial electrocution of innocent defendants is
a "cruel & unusual punishment"?
Steve Walker
If they were dead on your floor, who would know whether they'd broken in or
not? Perhaps you invited them round for a beer, and then flipped out
because they wouldn't fellate you? So you kill them in a rage (with your
illegal firearm) and tell the Police that they broke in / attacked you.
And then the police are meant to just say "Oh, that's OK - the victims had
criminal records so they are outside the protection of the law."
Needs a bit more work......
Frank Ney
da...@election.demon.co.uk (David Boothroyd) to write:
>In fact English law is extremely generous. You can use reasonable force
>to defend yourself as long as you genuinely feel you are under attack -
>even if that belief is manifestly stupid.
Yeah, right, and if you "prepare" to defend yourself you get fucked by the
Crown Courts anyway.
Granting a right to defense while denying the means is a totally useless
gesture.
Frank Ney N4ZHG WV/EMT-B NRA(L) GOA CCRKBA JPFO ProvNRA LPWV
--
"Representative Republic: A form of government based on the assumption
that three drooling idiots ... er, _Congressmen_ are smarter than one
free man willing to think for himself."
- Carl Bussjaeger 13 Oct 2002
Just Say No to Gestapo Tactics http://reduce.to/justsayno/
Abuses by the BATF http://www.elfie.org/~croaker/batfabus.html
Frank Ney
caused "Diogenes The Tramp" <cardbo...@streetcorner.com> to write:
>
>
>> Under New Labour it is a crime to defend yourself and your property from
>attack.
>>
>>
>
>"Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" was the spin that got them
>elected wasn't it? :-(
How can you tell when a politician's lying?
His lips move.
Frank Ney
da...@election.demon.co.uk (David Boothroyd) to write:
>> >Tony Martin was, IMHO, rightly convicted of murder
>>
>> I give you a classic example of Mob Rule.
>>
>> No wonder Britain is so fucked up. It's because the British people are
>> so fucked up.
>
>So if a jury comes to a verdict you disagree with it's mob rule and
>evidence of a 'fucked up' country?
10-2 isn't a valid jury verdict in my book. It's a rubber stamp.
Frank Ney
Steven X Brown <steven...@tiscali.co.uk> to write:
>Yep. Along with 'education, education, education'. And like fools, the
>British public believed them!
You have to remember that the British best and brightest died at Dunkirk
and on the beaches of Normandy and along the roads to Berlin.
What has replaced them over time handed the reigns of power over to Tony,
the Bastard King of England.
Gareth Attrill
wrote:
>On Sat, 4 Jan 2003 15:21:30 -0000, "Steve Walker" <spam...@beeb.net>
>wrote:
>
>>>> The burglar was trying to leave when Tony Martin shot him in the back.
>>>> How can that be defensive?
>
>>> You were there? Or are you getting this from the media?
>
>>How else would the shot have entered his *back* then?
[snip]
>E) Those were the only shots. Martin had a 5 shot pump and still had 2
>shots left. If he wanted to kill the criminals he would have used
>those 2 other shots. But he did not.
F*ck me - I thought he had a regular double-barreled gun, you can't
hold a pump-action shotgun on a shotgun licence - you need a firearms
certificate, and you need a pretty good reason to get one of those.
Gareth
Demon
then bury them in his garden........
Dead men don't tell tails - as it were. Martin lives way out in the
country, nobody would have known any better.
:-)
There - sane policies for a safer Britain.
Oh - and somewhere in this posting somebody said that this country was
f*cked up. You're not wrong, whoever you are. Time to buy yourself a
crossbow for a bit of 'legal' self protection. Oh - and some quicklime and
a dig a 10 x 4 foot pit in your backgarden.
Richard Miller
<bdaw...@thedrones.net> writes>news:3e16ddac....@news-server.houston.rr.com...
>
>
>> A burglar who admitted stealing from seven homes
>> has been told he will not be imprisoned because of
>> new Court of Appeal guidelines aimed partially at
>> reducing prison overcrowding.
>
>could be a good career move?
Yes. I very much doubt it.
>You know that you will get several chances, and if you go for secluded
>,large houses in the country,you could make a decent profit. Mmmm where's
>that balaclava ?
The problem is that the prospects of getting caught are minimal. So the
issue of what sentence you would get *if* you were caught is irrelevant.
If you thought you would get caught every time, I am sure few people
would conclude that they would commit one burglary because that was
"effectively free".
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
<papa...@legbaspam.com> writes
>
>This is the Blair govt's answer to rising unemployment, called the
>"Clockwork Orange Employment Program".
>
>And you are supposed to cooperate by not harming these aspiring young
>lads in their first attempt at gainful employment.
>
>Next time you are unemployed, consider becoming a criminal. Just ask
>your MP how to get started. He ought to know, being a criminal
>himself.
What are the prospects of jail for overclaiming expenses from your
employer? Understating your income for tax purposes? Adding a couple of
items to an insurance claim? Exaggerating your symptoms for a personal
injury case?
All crimes of dishonesty. Most probably make more money than the average
burglary for the criminal. All have an impact on all of us. Yet who
among you would claim that prison should be the automatic sentence for
first time offenders committing any of these crimes?
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
<m...@privacy.net> writes
>"Papa Legba" <papa...@legbaspam.com> wrote in message
>news:3e16ddac....@news-server.houston.rr.com...
>> Tony Martin and Barry Hastings go free. After all, they didn't commit
>> any crimes to begin with.
>>
>> If the govt would stop putting innocent citizens in prison, there
>> would be room for real criminals.
>>
>
>own life
>& property.
Nope. He killed a trespasser without lawful excuse.
>I'm sorry I haven't heard of Barry Hastings.
I'm sure Barry is mortified. :-}
>Under New Labour it is a crime to defend yourself and your property
>from attack.
How many more morons are going to post this bollocks? The right to
self-defence is a) still there including the right to use lethal force,
provided (at the absolute worst) at least three out of twelve randomly
selected ordinary people agree that it was reasonable in the
circumstances and b) not one iota different under this government from
under its predecessors.
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
<papa...@legbaspam.com> writes
>On Sat, 04 Jan 2003 14:11:05 +0000, da...@election.demon.co.uk (David
>Boothroyd) wrote:
>
>
>>In fact English law is extremely generous. You can use reasonable force
>>to defend yourself as long as you genuinely feel you are under attack -
>
I don't think that means anything very different from "genuinely feel".
>
>>even if that belief is manifestly stupid.
>
>Not true. I am told that the requirement for an "honest belief"
>implies that there were no other possibilities that were better.
Then you are told (by whom?) wrongly.
Provided your actions were within a reasonable range of responses based
on the threat you honestly thought in the heat of the moment that you
were facing, you will face no penalty in law.
> In
>that regard is appears more stringent than the American "reasonable
>belief".
It may appear that way to you, but it isn't. On the other hand, if your
actions were manifestly unreasonable, you may have a job persuading the
jury that you honestly believed the threat you faced was greater.
>
>>If you want a change you must
>>believe that people have the right to use unreasonable force. This is
>>surely unacceptable.
>
>The law does not dictate how you can or cannot use deadly force. If
>you honestly believe that the use of deadly force is immediately
>necessary, then it makes no difference whether you shoot the criminal
>coming or going.
Wrong. You must honestly believe you faced a particular threat; and the
response must be objectively reasonable (in the eyes of a jury,
ultimately) in reaction to the threat you subjectively believed you were
facing.
Normally in the case of a burglar or robber, it won't go to a jury even
if you kill them. The Tony Martin and Barry Hastings cases were
exceptional situations where a jury did *not* believe that the response
was reasonable. No matter what you say, you cannot get away from the
fact that a jury made up of ordinary people like you and me, with the
same inclination to allow a man to defend his home against intruders,
concluded that they were sure beyond reasonable doubt that these men's
actions exceeded acceptable limits.
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
<papa...@legbaspam.com> writes
>On Sat, 04 Jan 2003 13:55:45 +0000, da...@election.demon.co.uk (David
>Boothroyd) wrote:
>
>>> If the prisons are so overcrowded, then why don't the authorities let
>>> Tony Martin and Barry Hastings go free. After all, they didn't commit
>>> any crimes to begin with.
>
>>them.
>
>You were there? Or are you getting this from the media?
>
>know that they were not?
Even if they were (and I do not accept that they were), the juries in
both cases decided that their actions were not reasonable in response to
the threat they believed they were facing.
>
>Anyway, you are ignoring that the jury in both cases failed to return
>unanimous verdicts, which means there was reasonable doubt.
Tough, like it or not the conviction was valid under English law.
>
>Isn't a person innocent until proven guilty beyond any reasonable
>doubt?
Yes.
As decided by a jury or at least ten of them if they cannot all agree.
You can disagree with it all you like, but in English law, *that is what
beyond reasonable doubt means*.
--
Richard Miller
Papa Legba
wrote:
>Which is pretty analogous to what happened to Tony Martin - there was an
>investigation which concluded that he'd acted with some planning & intent,
>and that he'd unreasonably used lethal force. That allegation was put to a
>jury, who found it to be proven. So now he's in jail, where he belongs.
You belong chained to the back of a pickup.
Papa Legba
Sherilyn
Binky Dawkins
"Richard Miller" <ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vywjDqP8tvF+Ew$8...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
> In message <av6nv3$cdln1$1...@ID-58803.news.dfncis.de>, Binky Dawkins
> <bdaw...@thedrones.net> writes
> >
> >"Papa Legba" <papa...@legbaspam.com> wrote in message
> >news:3e16ddac....@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> >
> >
> >> A burglar who admitted stealing from seven homes
> >> has been told he will not be imprisoned because of
> >> new Court of Appeal guidelines aimed partially at
> >> reducing prison overcrowding.
> >
> > Does anyone doubt that this sends a signal to young men that burglary
> >could be a good career move?
>
> Yes. I very much doubt it.
There's always one isn't there ?
> >You know that you will get several chances, and if you go for secluded
> >,large houses in the country,you could make a decent profit. Mmmm where's
> >that balaclava ?
>
> The problem is that the prospects of getting caught are minimal. So the
> issue of what sentence you would get *if* you were caught is irrelevant.
So you know that your chances of being caught are minimal, but you are
still undecided because if you do get caught it means prison, then you read
in the papers that you get a free shot at it, you might think I'm up for
that !
Papa Legba
<ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>What are the prospects of jail for overclaiming expenses from your
>employer? Understating your income for tax purposes? Adding a couple of
>items to an insurance claim? Exaggerating your symptoms for a personal
>injury case?
>All crimes of dishonesty. Most probably make more money than the average
>burglary for the criminal. All have an impact on all of us. Yet who
>among you would claim that prison should be the automatic sentence for
>first time offenders committing any of these crimes?
You fail to distinguish between a violent crime and a white collar
crime.
But that is not the point. It is one thing for the court to take
mitigating circumstances into account, including crimes of burglary,
and just announcing that all burglars won't go to prison because of
overcrowding.
Papa Legba
Papa Legba
<ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Nope. He killed a trespasser without lawful excuse.
I hate to tell you, but once those gyp cretins entered his home they
went from trespassers to burglars.
>>Under New Labour it is a crime to defend yourself and your property
>>from attack.
>How many more morons are going to post this bollocks? The right to
>self-defence is a) still there including the right to use lethal force,
>provided (at the absolute worst) at least three out of twelve randomly
>selected ordinary people agree that it was reasonable in the
>circumstances and b) not one iota different under this government from
>under its predecessors.
Not good enough. Under Old English law a person was presumed innocent
until proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt by a unanimous guilty
verdict of the jury.
Why do you think 2 jurors failed to convict him?
Papa Legba
Papa Legba
wrote:
>> You belong chained to the back of a pickup.
>Ah, an American jurist speaks.
You do not believe in tyrannicide?
No wonder Britain is so fucked up.
Papa Legba
Papa Legba
>> So if I murder you and tell the Police that I was in fear for my life, this
>> explanation must be accepted without question?
>No, but even if you deliberately murder a career criminal and his mate
>who've just broken into your house I think a nod and a wink should be
>more than enough explanation for the police. We're all better off with
>less thieving scumbags out there on the streets.
The criminal is lucky to be killed by an armed citizen in many cases.
If the police in Houston had gotten hold of him they would have
dragged him into a dark alley and pistol whipped him to death.
Papa Legba
Papa Legba
wrote:
>If they were dead on your floor, who would know whether they'd broken in or
>not?
That's for the police to determine by a complete homicide
investigation.
As Gus Grissom says on CSI, "Why do they think they can fool us? Well,
they can't."
If ever you are so unfortunate to have to shoot someone in self
defense, then whatever you do, do not tamper with anything that
constitutes evidence. You will destroy any hopes you have of
establishing self defense as the justification for the homicide.
And keep your mouth shut until your lawyer is there to advise you.
Papa Legba
Helen
> On Sat, 4 Jan 2003 15:26:58 +0000, Richard Miller
> <ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Nope. He killed a trespasser without lawful excuse.
>
> I hate to tell you, but once those gyp cretins entered his home they
> went from trespassers to burglars.
>
into your home without causing damage (i.e. through an open door or window),
they are a trespasser, until they commit another crime.
Papa Legba
<ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In fact English law is extremely generous. You can use reasonable force
>>>to defend yourself as long as you genuinely feel you are under attack -
>>Actually the law reads "honestly believe".
>I don't think that means anything very different from "genuinely feel".
That is not what a British lawyer claimed on another thread.
>Provided your actions were within a reasonable range of responses based
>on the threat you honestly thought in the heat of the moment that you
>were facing, you will face no penalty in law.
That's the American standard.
>It may appear that way to you, but it isn't. On the other hand, if your
>actions were manifestly unreasonable, you may have a job persuading the
>jury that you honestly believed the threat you faced was greater.
Reasonable is based on the circumstances.
>>The law does not dictate how you can or cannot use deadly force. If
>>you honestly believe that the use of deadly force is immediately
>>necessary, then it makes no difference whether you shoot the criminal
>>coming or going.
>Wrong. You must honestly believe you faced a particular threat; and the
>response must be objectively reasonable (in the eyes of a jury,
>ultimately) in reaction to the threat you subjectively believed you were
>facing.
OK, let's go with that.
You are sleeping upstairs in you home at night and you are alone. You
hear noises downstairs so you grab your gun and begin to descend the
stairs to investigate. You get halfway down and someone shines a torch
in your eyes.
What is a Reasonable Person going to do under that specific set of
circumstances?
>Normally in the case of a burglar or robber, it won't go to a jury even
>if you kill them. The Tony Martin and Barry Hastings cases were
>exceptional situations where a jury did *not* believe that the response
>was reasonable.
The jury of 12 people did not believe the case that the state made
against either Martin or Hastings. In each case 2 jurors failed to
return guily verdicts. That means there remains reasonable doubt in
the mind of the jury. A person cannot be convicted of a crime when
there is any reasonable doubt. At the least the judge must instruct
the jury to go back to the jury room and attempt to return an
unanimous verdict. If the jury returns without a unanimous verdict
then there is a hung jury and the judge must declare a mistrial. If
the state is convinced that they can convict the defendant with a new
trial then they have the power to call a new trial.
>No matter what you say, you cannot get away from the
>fact that a jury made up of ordinary people like you and me, with the
>same inclination to allow a man to defend his home against intruders,
>concluded that they were sure beyond reasonable doubt that these men's
>actions exceeded acceptable limits.
No matter what you say, the presumption of innocence prevails until a
unanimous verdict is returned, because without a unanimous verdict
there is a reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury.
If the state had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, then the
jury would have returned a unanimous verdict, in which case Martin
then would have been convicted.
Papa Legba
Papa Legba
<ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Both men claimed that they were in fear for their lives. How do you
>>know that they were not?
>Even if they were (and I do not accept that they were), the juries in
>both cases decided that their actions were not reasonable in response to
>the threat they believed they were facing.
In both cases the jury did not decide that the defendants' actions
were not reasonable. It takes a unanimous verdict from the jury for
that to be the case.
>>Anyway, you are ignoring that the jury in both cases failed to return
>>unanimous verdicts, which means there was reasonable doubt.
>Tough, like it or not the conviction was valid under English law.
Who was the traitor who destroyed the century's-long traditions of
Common Law?
>>Isn't a person innocent until proven guilty beyond any reasonable
>>doubt?
>Yes.
>As decided by a jury or at least ten of them if they cannot all agree.
>You can disagree with it all you like, but in English law, *that is what
>beyond reasonable doubt means*.
That's why Britain is so fucked up.
Papa Legba
Papa Legba
>What the law says and what happens do not always concur.
>But I "honestly believe" that putting a bullet through Blair's
>head is "manifestly" in the national interest.
>And half of his "red pigs in a wigs" cronies as well.
Only half? What are you saving them for - drawing and quartering?
Maybe the next time the CA marches on London, they could have a few of
these commie traitors chained to the back of their trucks. It would
help with Highway Beautification too.
Papa Legba
Papa Legba
wrote:
>How can you tell when a politician's lying?
>His lips move.
Nowadays, the fact that he is breathing has to be taken as prima facie
evidence that he is lying.
Papa Legba
Papa Legba
wrote:
>>So if a jury comes to a verdict you disagree with it's mob rule and
>>evidence of a 'fucked up' country?
>10-2 isn't a valid jury verdict in my book. It's a rubber stamp.
It's a court full of kangaroos shitting all over Common Law.
I tell ya, sports fans - Blair is the Anti-Christ and he is practicing
for the day he gets to unveil the Abomination of Desolation in the
Temple.
Papa Legba
Papa Legba
wrote:
>> Don't you believe in the precept that a person is innocent until
>> proven guily beyond any and all reasonable doubt by a unanimous guilty
>> verdict from the jury?
>No, we don't. We're happy with a majority verdict most of the time.
>That's why in the UK OJ Simpson would probably serving time now, whereas
>your corrupted and ineffective system exonerated him.
>PS - Don't you believe that judicial electrocution of innocent defendants is
>a "cruel & unusual punishment"?
That is a heavily loaded statement. No I do not support capital
execution if the state is unwilling to extend every possible appeal.
In all the executions in Texas since the death penalty was reinstated,
there has not been one case of an innocent person being put to death.
That's because Texas allows up to 18 years of appeals. And Texas uses
lethal injection.
The sole criterion for capital execution is that the crime was so
heinous that there is no reasonable chance of rehabilitation. By
having committed a crime that justifies the death penalty, the person
has demonstrated that they are subhuman.
Even then they are afforded the presumption that the state was wrong.
18 years is a long time to show that you are not subhuman.
Papa Legba
Papa Legba
<gar...@nospamplease-attrill.co.uk> wrote:
>>E) Those were the only shots. Martin had a 5 shot pump and still had 2
>>shots left. If he wanted to kill the criminals he would have used
>>those 2 other shots. But he did not.
>F*ck me - I thought he had a regular double-barreled gun, you can't
>hold a pump-action shotgun on a shotgun licence - you need a firearms
>certificate, and you need a pretty good reason to get one of those.
He held it without a license.
Papa Legba
Papa Legba
<dun...@warrior.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Arguably, the only thing Martin did wrong was to not finish them off
There's more than one country sheriff who will tell you that. But you
can't use excessive force, unless you are a member of the Houston
Police Department.
Gun Control: The ability to hit your target accurately.
>and then bury them in his garden........
Don't do that. It will poison the plants.
Papa Legba
hognoxious
news:av79io$oc6$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Which is pretty analogous to what happened to Tony Martin - there was an
> investigation which concluded that he'd acted with some planning & intent,
> and that he'd unreasonably used lethal force. That allegation was put to
a
> jury, who found it to be proven. So now he's in jail, where he
belongs.
I hope the surviving pikey bastard chooses your house next.
Except that Fearon is 'unable to work now', according to his compensation
claim. We can all sleep a bit more soundly, if that's true (which it
probably isn't).
hognoxious
"Mark" <mma...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:69e61443.03010...@posting.google.com...news:<av6tqa$8b6$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> > So if I murder you and tell the Police that I was in fear for my life,
this
> > explanation must be accepted without question?
>
> No, but even if you deliberately murder a career criminal and his mate
> who've just broken into your house I think a nod and a wink should be
> more than enough explanation for the police. We're all better off with
> less thieving scumbags out there on the streets.
...and fewer PC wankers like Steve Walker encouraging them.
...and fewer parasite lawyers encouraging them to claim compensation, all
paid for by the taxpayer.
Papa Legba
>> I hate to tell you, but once those gyp cretins entered his home they
>> went from trespassers to burglars.
>As a general point - not necessarily under UK law. If someone simply gets
>into your home without causing damage (i.e. through an open door or window),
>they are a trespasser, until they commit another crime.
You left out intent to commit a crime, which is also included in
burglary.
Fearon tried to bullshit the court that they were attempting to escape
a dog, but no one bought it. It was clear that they intended to commit
a crime. For all we know they intended to kill Martin.
Papa Legba
ikke
> On Sat, 4 Jan 2003 17:23:58 -0000, "ikke" <ik...@who.net> wrote:
>
>
> >Tony Martin was, IMHO, rightly convicted of murder
>
> I give you a classic example of Mob Rule.
>
> No wonder Britain is so fucked up. It's because the British people are
> so fucked up.
>
>
> Papa Legba
>
A well worded and sound argument. Let's just go over that once more, shall
we?
I think Tony Martin is a crook who belongs in the slammer or at least in a
mental institution...
...by your rather obscure thought process this equates to "Mob Rule" and
show Britain to be "fucked up".
How can I counter such insight?
Cheers
John
Tom Woodley
Spoken like a true lawyer!
Shaun
wrote:
>On Sat, 4 Jan 2003 20:04:40 -0000, "Steve Walker" <spam...@beeb.net>
>wrote:
>
>>> Don't you believe in the precept that a person is innocent until
>>> proven guily beyond any and all reasonable doubt by a unanimous guilty
>>> verdict from the jury?
>
>>No, we don't. We're happy with a majority verdict most of the time.
>>That's why in the UK OJ Simpson would probably serving time now, whereas
>>your corrupted and ineffective system exonerated him.
>
>>PS - Don't you believe that judicial electrocution of innocent defendants is
>>a "cruel & unusual punishment"?
>
>That is a heavily loaded statement. No I do not support capital
>execution if the state is unwilling to extend every possible appeal.
>
>In all the executions in Texas since the death penalty was reinstated,
>there has not been one case of an innocent person being put to death.
>That's because Texas allows up to 18 years of appeals. And Texas uses
>lethal injection.
>
Justice in Texas -- Two pictures tell the truth about Gary Graham
by JACK B. ZIMMERMANN, RICHARD H. BURR
In less than one month, a man who was mistakenly identified by a
single eyewitness will be executed in our state. One woman, who saw a
stranger's face at night through an automobile windshield from a
distance of 30-40 feet for two seconds, was the only evidence that
linked 17-year-old Gary Graham to the killing of a man in a grocery
store parking lot in 1981.
There was no evidence that Gary knew the victim, Bobby Lambert. He had
none of Lambert's property. None of Graham 's fingerprints, blood, DNA
or hair was found on Lambert or at the scene. No physical evidence
whatsoever proved that Gary was at the crime scene.
Whether one supports or opposes the death penalty, no person of reason
advocates executing an innocent person. Gary Graham is an innocent
person.
The evidence of Gary's innocence is rooted in the investigation by the
Houston Police Department. Six witnesses were identified as having
seen the shooter. All agreed on the accuracy of the composite drawing
made by a police artist. The shooter was a young, black male, aged 18
to 25, with a thin face, dark complexion, short Afro haircut and no
facial hair, who was wearing a white sport coat. Three of the
eyewitnesses were called to testify at Graham 's trial. One identified
him as the shooter. The second testified about what she saw, but was
never asked by either side if Gary was the shooter. Nor was the third,
who had been in a car only a few feet from the shooting. If either of
these witnesses had identified Graham , the prosecutor would have
asked them whether Gary was the shooter.
Of more significance is what the jury did not hear - and what no judge
has heard in a courtroom under oath, and then evaluated after
cross-examination. A male employee of the grocery store told the
police he had seen the shooter as he was fleeing from the parking lot
after the shooting. At the same exact line-up where the single
eyewitness picked out Gary , this man told the police the shooter was
not in the line-up. The prosecutor let the trial defense lawyer see
the report about this witness. However, the lawyer never interviewed
this witness, and he has never testified in court.
One of the most compelling eyewitnesses, a female checker at the
store, saw the shooter just outside the store before he walked into
the parking lot. She also told the police that the composite drawing
looked like the man she saw that night. She told Gary 's lawyers in
1993 that the shooter was short about the height of her husband, who
was 5 feet 3 inches tall. Gary was 5 feet 9 inches at the time of the
shooting. This witness has never testified in court.
When shown a photo of Gary at age 17, both of these store employees
said Gary was not the shooter. These witnesses did not know and have
never known Gary . They are neutral witnesses - who willingly gave
statements to the police and participated in the investigation.
One recent opinion writer argued that because these and other
eyewitnesses "could not identify Gary as the killer in 1981 how, then,
18 years later, could they know it wasn't him?" The answer to this
question is simple. In 1993, when they were first interviewed by the
defense, the eyewitnesses remembered that the killer was 5 feet 3
inches to 5 feet 5 inches tall. This categorically excluded Graham .
When shown pictures of Gary , which showed facial features and body
build, they confirmed that he was not the killer.
One eyewitness did positively identify Graham , but this
identification was the mistaken result of suggestive procedures. When
shown an array of five photos, the witness saw only one in which the
man had a short Afro haircut and no mustache or beard, a photo of Gary
. His was the only photo even close to the description of the shooter.
She said his photo looked like the shooter, but the shooter's face was
thinner and his complexion was darker, and she was not sure it was
him. The jury never heard this.
This witness, along with the male store employee, was taken to view a
live line-up the next day. The only man in the live line-up whose
photograph was in the photo array was Gary . Not surprisingly, she
picked him out. Experts say that the likelihood of a false
identification under these circumstances is greatly increased, because
it is likely that she picked out the man familiar to her because of
the photograph she saw the day before, not because she had seen the
man commit the crime. The identifying eyewitness was never
cross-examined before the jury about these suggestive line-up
procedures.
The composite drawing that all witnesses said was accurate confirms
that the identifying witness was mistaken. Compared to the booking
photograph taken when Gary was arrested for an unrelated offense one
week after the shooting, the person depicted in the composite is
clearly not Gary . Two different men are depicted. Again, the jury was
not given the opportunity to compare the composite drawing and the
booking photo.
Also, the police report indicated that Lambert was killed by a .22
caliber bullet. Gary had a .22 caliber pistol when he was arrested.
However, when deciding if Gary killed Lambert, the jury did not hear
the undisputed conclusion of the Houston Police Department's firearms
expert: The fatal bullet could not have been fired from Gary 's
pistol.
Finally, there was just no motive for Gary to kill Lambert. They did
not know each other. The state claimed it was a robbery gone bad. But
Lambert had $6,000 in cash still stuck in his back pocket when the
police searched his pants. Does that sound like a robbery?
There are some common misconceptions about Gary Graham's case which
need correction:
"Graham 's case has been reviewed over 30 times and no errors were
found to prove the state wrongfully convicted him." Flat wrong. Gary
went through the initial appeal and writ of habeas corpus process in
1988 with new court-appointed counsel, who had not seen the police
report. In 1993, different counsel obtained a copy of the offense
report and they and Gary learned for the first time about the crime
scene witnesses and other exculpatory evidence that none of the
previous appeal lawyers had known. But once the first writ of habeas
corpus is denied, one must jump hurdles that are almost impossible to
clear on "subsequent writs." When it is stated that the case was
"reviewed over 30 times," in reality the last seven years have been
consumed with trying to get a court to listen for the first time to
the evidence outlined above. The "reviews" for the past seven years
all have dealt with whether Gary could present the evidence he did not
know about on his initial appeals. The state and federal courts have
repeatedly said this evidence was discovered too late, not that it is
insufficient to show that Graham is innocent.
Who should pay the price for the blunder of Gary Graham's lawyer?
Should Gary pay with his life?
Responsible citizens, including death penalty advocates, should
shudder at the thought of an execution based solely on a two-second
view of a stranger's face in the dark - especially when there exists
compelling evidence that the identification resulting from that
glimpse was wrong.
Tom Woodley
"Wotan" <wo...@valhalla.net> wrote in message
news:3e1733fc$0$29908$fa0f...@lovejoy.zen.co.uk...> news:3e16ebed....@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> > On Sat, 4 Jan 2003 13:41:48 -0000, "Dirk Bruere at Neopax"
> > <di...@neopax.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Legalise drugs, tax them...
> >
> > Won't happen. The clandestine agencies need the money they make off of
> > artificially high-priced drugs.
> >
> > You certainly don't expect the spooks to come to Parliament for
> > funding, do you? That would expose their operations.
> >
> >
> > Papa Legba
>
> Very true. There are powerful vested interests who have
> a strong desire to see that the drug trade continues. The
> spooks could find alternatives - but the organised crime gangs
> behind the "EU" and who own their multi-national backers
> would find life much more difficult.
>
> How many red pigs in wigs depend on drug money, do you
> think.
How many pollies owe their superannuation to it?
Tom Woodley
"David Boothroyd" <da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:david-04010...@election.demon.co.uk...
> In article <av6oir$cn0vm$1...@ID-152947.news.dfncis.de>, "AW Barton"
> <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >
> > Tony Martin's only "crime" was that he shot someone while defending his
> > own life & property.
>
> The burglar was trying to leave when Tony Martin shot him in the back. How
> can that be defensive?
>
> > Under New Labour it is a crime to defend yourself and your property
> > from attack.
>
political
> spin from that little rant.
>
> In fact English law is extremely generous. You can use reasonable force
> to defend yourself as long as you genuinely feel you are under attack -
> believe that people have the right to use unreasonable force. This is
> surely unacceptable.
>
> --
> http://www.election.demon.co.uk
NO!!! ANY force used to defend yourself when a stranger is in your house for
no good reason ought to be permissable - Why?? Because you don't know what
their real intentions are, you bloody twerp and no one in their right mind
ought to be required to wait around to find out.
If they don't want to get killed, then they should stay out of other
people's homes
As far as I am concerned if you are in my house uninvited at 2am in the
morning or whenever, you've lost your right to any so called "reasonable"
reaction from me.
You stupid bloody Poms. Soon, a person won't have any rights in his own
home - and you'll all think that it's reasonable for this to happen. Wallow
in it then!
William Black
> C) Martin was alone upstairs, so he grabbed his shotgun and went down
> the stairs to investigate.
Wonder where he got that.
Not only was his certificate revoked (for threatening people) but the gun he
had (a pump action) wasn't at that time available on a shotgun certificate,
he'd need a full FAC for it, and he didn't have one.
So he's committed a crime deserving of 14 years imprisonment before he fires
a shot.
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
Tom Woodley
"David Boothroyd" <da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:david-04010...@election.demon.co.uk...
> papa...@legbaspam.com (Papa Legba) wrote:
> > On Sat, 4 Jan 2003 17:23:58 -0000, "ikke" <ik...@who.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Tony Martin was, IMHO, rightly convicted of murder
> >
> > I give you a classic example of Mob Rule.
> >
> > No wonder Britain is so fucked up. It's because the British people are
> > so fucked up.
>
> evidence of a 'fucked up' country?
Nah! Just the fact that it exists in its present from is prima facie
evidence of that.
Tom Woodley
> On Sat, 04 Jan 2003 14:57:17 -0500, Frank Ney <n4...@icqmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >>So if a jury comes to a verdict you disagree with it's mob rule and
> >>evidence of a 'fucked up' country?
>
> >10-2 isn't a valid jury verdict in my book. It's a rubber stamp.
>
> It's a court full of kangaroos shitting all over Common Law.
>
Tom Woodley
"David Boothroyd" <da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:david-04010...@election.demon.co.uk...
> papa...@legbaspam.com (Papa Legba) wrote:
> >
> > If the prisons are so overcrowded, then why don't the authorities let
> > Tony Martin and Barry Hastings go free. After all, they didn't commit
> > any crimes to begin with.
>
> Yes they did. They both killed people who weren't actually threatening
> them.
>
> If you take the view that someone who is going outside the law should
> have no legal protection themselves, then you couldn't object if (say)
> a car that was illegally parked could be vandalised or crushed.
I'm fairly certain that illegal parking is not a "crime" under the meaning
of that term. Still we are talking about the UK and anything is possible
Tom Woodley
"David Boothroyd" <da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:david-04010...@election.demon.co.uk...
> papa...@legbaspam.com (Papa Legba) wrote:
> > On Sat, 04 Jan 2003 13:55:45 +0000, da...@election.demon.co.uk (David
> > Boothroyd) wrote:
> >
> > >> If the prisons are so overcrowded, then why don't the authorities let
> > >> Tony Martin and Barry Hastings go free. After all, they didn't commit
> > >> any crimes to begin with.
> >
> > >Yes they did. They both killed people who weren't actually threatening
> > >them.
> >
>
> The Appeal Judgment in the case of Tony Martin is on the web. See
> http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j528/MARTIN.htm. In the
> other case Hastings admitted that he had not himself been threatened
> by the man he killed before he attacked him.
>
> > Both men claimed that they were in fear for their lives. How do you
> > know that they were not?
>
> trying desperately to get out of a building and get away from them.
>
> > Anyway, you are ignoring that the jury in both cases failed to return
> > unanimous verdicts, which means there was reasonable doubt.
>
> acquitted. You are confusing two completely different concepts here.
>
> > Isn't a person innocent until proven guilty beyond any reasonable
> > doubt?
> >
>
> Tony Martin and Barry-Lee Hastings were found guilty.
>
So was Sir Thomas Moore. But that didn't make his execution for treason
"just"
Tom Woodley
"David Boothroyd" <da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:david-04010...@election.demon.co.uk...
> In article
> ppro...@neosoft.com (Peter H. Proctor) wrote:
> > In article <david-04010...@election.demon.co.uk>
> da...@election.demon.co.uk (David Boothroyd) writes:
> > >How can someone be in fear for their life because of someone else
> > >trying desperately to get out of a building and get away from them.
> >
> > the fruits of his crime, deadly force is not legal under Texas law.
> > But a jury will put itself in the place of the crime victim and decide
> > that they ( reasonable men ) might have been in fear of their lives too.
>
> We have women on some English juries now.
>
> > >> Anyway, you are ignoring that the jury in both cases failed to return
> > >> unanimous verdicts, which means there was reasonable doubt.
> >
> > >No it doesn't. If there was reasonable doubt they would have been
> > >acquitted. You are confusing two completely different concepts here.
> >
> > verdict.
>
> Not in England, where a Judge may allow a majority of 10 to 2 to bring in
> a verdict, and in Scotland, a majority verdict can be accepted from only
> eight of the fifteen jurors. In the case of Oscar Slater, one of the
> most hideous miscarriages of justice, the voting was Guilty 9, Not Proven
> 5, Not Guilty 1.
And you think this is good law?????
Tom Woodley
"David Boothroyd" <da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:david-04010...@election.demon.co.uk...
> papa...@legbaspam.com (Papa Legba) wrote:
> >
> > The mere presence of the criminal inside your home constitutes a very
> > serious deadly threat to you and your family.
>
> No it isn't. Most burglars are counting on getting in and out unobserved
> and if caught, their first priority will be to get out as soon as
possible.
> They certainly won't be looking for a confrontation with the homeowner.
>
> I do not believe that deadly force is reasonable to deal with a threat
> to property where life is not threatened.
>
So you are going to rely on the assurance of a criminal that he isn't going
to harm you?? You people have really lost it and you don't realise it.
Alan
wrote:
>Mark wrote:
>> "Steve Walker" <spam...@beeb.net> wrote in message
>> news:<av6tqa$8b6$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>>> So if I murder you and tell the Police that I was in fear for my life,
>this
>>> explanation must be accepted without question?
>>
>> No, but even if you deliberately murder a career criminal and his mate
>> who've just broken into your house I think a nod and a wink should be
>> more than enough explanation for the police. We're all better off with
>> less thieving scumbags out there on the streets.
>
>If they were dead on your floor, who would know whether they'd broken in or
>not? Perhaps you invited them round for a beer, and then flipped out
>because they wouldn't fellate you? So you kill them in a rage (with your
>illegal firearm) and tell the Police that they broke in / attacked you.
>And then the police are meant to just say "Oh, that's OK - the victims had
>criminal records so they are outside the protection of the law."
>
>Needs a bit more work......
>
Why?
That's what the police said when they killed Harry Stanley.
Seemed to work for them.
>
--
Alan G
"The corporate life [of society] must be
subservient to the lives of the parts instead
of the lives of the parts being subservient to
the corporate life."
(Herbert Spencer)
Alan
Boothroyd) wrote:
>In article <3e171d95....@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
>papa...@legbaspam.com (Papa Legba) wrote:
>>
>> The mere presence of the criminal inside your home constitutes a very
>> serious deadly threat to you and your family.
>
>No it isn't.
Yes it is.
> Most burglars are counting on getting in and out unobserved
>and if caught, their first priority will be to get out as soon as possible.
Unless they can beat the homeowner to death with the implement they
used to gain entry
>They certainly won't be looking for a confrontation with the homeowner.
But if interrupted or identified they pose a risk to the life of the
inhabitants
>
>I do not believe that deadly force is reasonable to deal with a threat
>to property where life is not threatened.
Alan
Boothroyd) wrote:
>In article <3e171c1f....@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
>papa...@legbaspam.com (Papa Legba) wrote:
>> On Sat, 4 Jan 2003 17:23:58 -0000, "ikke" <ik...@who.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Tony Martin was, IMHO, rightly convicted of murder
>>
>> I give you a classic example of Mob Rule.
>>
>> No wonder Britain is so fucked up. It's because the British people are
>> so fucked up.
>
>So if a jury comes to a verdict you disagree with it's mob rule and
>evidence of a 'fucked up' country?
When I was younger we needed unanimous verdicts. Now There are persons
convicted in circumstances that once would have led to an acquittal.
It apears we do indeed have a fucked up country.
Sherilyn
> On 04 Jan 2003 21:24:53 +0000, Sherilyn <sher...@suespammers.org>
> wrote:
>
> >> You belong chained to the back of a pickup.
>
> >Ah, an American jurist speaks.
>
> You do not believe in tyrannicide?
>
I do not believe in chaining a person to a truck under any
circumstances, least of all for expressing his point of view. That
the expressed point of view was that a paranoid who kills should be
imprisoned for manslaughter, well that only makes your 'tyrannicide'
outburst seem more deranged than it would otherwise seem.
--
Sherilyn
Larry L. Taylor
"David Boothroyd" <> wrote in message
news:david-04010...@election.demon.co.uk...
> In article <3e171d95....@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
> papa...@legbaspam.com (Papa Legba) wrote:
> >
> > The mere presence of the criminal inside your home constitutes a very
> > serious deadly threat to you and your family.
>
> and if caught, their first priority will be to get out as soon as
possible.
Most of the recounts I hear of home intruders that get shot is either they
are there
to agrieve themselves of some estranged spouse or significant other, want to
sexually
assault any females (after dealing with male inhabitants), don't want to
leave any witnesses after
a failed robbery, or are just drunk/drugged up
and don't care what happens to anybody (including themselves).
>
> I do not believe that deadly force is reasonable to deal with a threat
> to property where life is not threatened.
>
You can have your beliefs.
However, if someone 'invades' my home then he's on my turf and
he's got to be prepared to play by the 'rules' in my house. In a darkened
hallway, I have no
knowledge about his intentions, nor he mine. But he gets one chance to
follow very plain and
brief instructions given in English, otherwise he's dead meat. And if he
doesn't understand English,
then he's also guilty of being in the wrong country too.
Morton Davis
"Shaun" <shaun....@spaajnvlcfjymngdomtmmmam.ntlworld.com> wrote in
message news:3e17636c...@newscache.cable.ntlworld.com...
> On Sat, 04 Jan 2003 23:54:41 GMT, papa...@legbaspam.com (Papa Legba)
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 4 Jan 2003 20:04:40 -0000, "Steve Walker" <spam...@beeb.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>> Don't you believe in the precept that a person is innocent until
> >>> proven guily beyond any and all reasonable doubt by a unanimous guilty
> >>> verdict from the jury?
> >
> >>No, we don't. We're happy with a majority verdict most of the time.
> >>That's why in the UK OJ Simpson would probably serving time now, whereas
> >>your corrupted and ineffective system exonerated him.
> >
> >>PS - Don't you believe that judicial electrocution of innocent
defendants is
> >>a "cruel & unusual punishment"?
> >
> >That is a heavily loaded statement. No I do not support capital
> >execution if the state is unwilling to extend every possible appeal.
> >
> >In all the executions in Texas since the death penalty was reinstated,
> >there has not been one case of an innocent person being put to death.
> >That's because Texas allows up to 18 years of appeals. And Texas uses
> >lethal injection.
> >
> Justice in Texas
Is no business of a known LIAr and TROLL, shasun. You have no credibilty.
-*MORT*-
Roger Dewhurst
> In message <av6nv3$cdln1$1...@ID-58803.news.dfncis.de>, Binky
Dawkins
> <bdaw...@thedrones.net> writes> >news:3e16ddac....@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> >
> >
> >> A burglar who admitted stealing from seven homes
> >> has been told he will not be imprisoned because of
> >> new Court of Appeal guidelines aimed partially at
> >> reducing prison overcrowding.
> >
> > Does anyone doubt that this sends a signal to young men that
burglary
> >could be a good career move?
>
> Yes. I very much doubt it.
>
> >You know that you will get several chances, and if you go for
secluded
> >,large houses in the country,you could make a decent profit.
Mmmm where's
> >that balaclava ?
>
> The problem is that the prospects of getting caught are
minimal. So the
> issue of what sentence you would get *if* you were caught is
irrelevant.
It would not be if the nominal sentence for the crime was always
multiplied by the inverse of the probability of conviction. Thus
if the probability of being convicted is 1 in 10 the penalty is
automatically 10 times the nominal penalty. When the
detection/conviction rate goes down the penalty automatically
goes up!!!!!
R
David Lentz
David Boothroyd wrote:
>
> In article <av6oir$cn0vm$1...@ID-152947.news.dfncis.de>, "AW Barton"
> <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >
> > Tony Martin's only "crime" was that he shot someone while defending his
> > own life & property.
>
> The burglar was trying to leave when Tony Martin shot him in the back. How
> can that be defensive?
If the burglar was leaving with Mr. Martin's property, the
shooting was defensive, and legal is some more civilized
jurisdictions, outside the United Kingdom that is.
David
David Lentz
The late Mr. Gary Graham shot about ten persons. Well he is
going to shot anybody else.
David
David Lentz
Papa Legba wrote:
>
> On Sat, 04 Jan 2003 13:55:45 +0000, da...@election.demon.co.uk (David
> Boothroyd) wrote:
>
> >> If the prisons are so overcrowded, then why don't the authorities let
> >> Tony Martin and Barry Hastings go free. After all, they didn't commit
> >> any crimes to begin with.
>
> >Yes they did. They both killed people who weren't actually threatening
> >them.
>
> You were there? Or are you getting this from the media?
>
> Both men claimed that they were in fear for their lives. How do you
> know that they were not?
>
> Anyway, you are ignoring that the jury in both cases failed to return
> unanimous verdicts, which means there was reasonable doubt.
>
> Isn't a person innocent until proven guilty beyond any reasonable
> doubt?
>
> Are you in favor of convicting innocent people?
>
> Papa Legba
The jury can not know what the defendant felt or thought. All
the jury can do is to understand the events the best she can and
determine what a reasonable man would have felt and done. That
all jury is capable of doing and all that one is expected to do.
David
David Lentz
David Boothroyd wrote:
>
> In article <3e171d95....@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
> papa...@legbaspam.com (Papa Legba) wrote:
> >
> > The mere presence of the criminal inside your home constitutes a very
> > serious deadly threat to you and your family.
>
> No it isn't. Most burglars are counting on getting in and out unobserved
> and if caught, their first priority will be to get out as soon as possible.
> They certainly won't be looking for a confrontation with the homeowner.
>
> I do not believe that deadly force is reasonable to deal with a threat
> to property where life is not threatened.
How is the home owner to know that the perp breaking into his
house at four in the morning meets the profile of most burglars.
How is the home owner supposed to determine the perp's
intention? Please be specific.
David
Morton Davis
"David Lentz" <dlentz10@/*NOSPAM*/rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:qtMR9.79854$eq2.19...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
> The late Mr. Gary Graham shot about ten persons. Well he is
> going to shot anybody else.
>
Pity we could not have bought him a shiny new gun and had him paroled to
Shaun's care.
-*MORT*-
Peter H. Proctor
>From: papa...@legbaspam.com (Papa Legba)
>Subject: Re: Seven-times burglar spared jail by new ruling
>Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 18:08:28 GMT
>On Sat, 4 Jan 2003 11:38:51 UNDEFINED, ppro...@neosoft.com (Peter H.
>Proctor) wrote:
>> If a thief is legitimately trying to escape and is not carrying away
>>the fruits of his crime, deadly force is not legal under Texas law.
>That is incorrect as stated.
>The mere presence of the criminal inside your home constitutes a very
>serious deadly threat to you and your family.
Doubtless, your lawyer will bring up this point. But Texas law
does not say this. If a thief puts down the fruits of his crime and flees,
you cannot legally use deadly force to stop him. Trust me on this,
it is made quite a point of in the Texas concealed carry class.
E.g., say you come across a burgler in front of wittneses, he
says "its all right man" and bugs out in a way the wittnesses agree was not
threatening, You cannot use deadly force to stop him...
You do not have the
>luxury to pick and choose among a variety of plausible scenarios. You
>don't even have to retreat if you think it is unreasonable to do so.
All of which the jury will likely believe, but it is not Texas law.
>If you reasonably believe that the use of deadly force is immediately
>necessary to eliminate that threat, then you are justified.
"The threat" is what is required. No threat, no legal use of
deadly force. And yes, it is your word, which the DA and/or the jury will
likely accept. But in Texas you better not shoot somebody after they have
gone out your door. Unless they are carrying your TV, naturally. Deadly
force to prevent a thief from fleeing with the fruits of his crime is legal,
but only "after dark".
>You are under no obligation to let the criminal escape because he
>could easily turn on you the moment he thinks he had an advantage.
"Could" is not in the law. The threat must be articulable. I.e.,
" I was letting him run out the door when he suddenly turned with something in
his hand ".
>The only way to make certain that he won't harm you is for him to
>stand down immediately. You yell "Freeze" and if he doesn't freeze
>immediately, you have no choice but to give serious consideration to
>the use of deadly force, even if it appears that he might be trying to
>escape. It is reasonable to imagine that he could pretend to be
>running away, run to the nearest obstacle to hide behind, pull a gun
>and kill you.
Again, the threat must be articulable. What "could" happen is not enough.
>Just ask the police what they are taught to do. They will never tell
>you that they "let the criminal run away" and that is not because
>their job is apprehension. Their primary job is survival and making a
>criminal freeze (stand down) is their first line of defense against
>getting killed. If that means the use of deadly force, then it is
>perfectly justified under Texas law.
True enough, In Texas, you can use deadly force to prevent all sorts of
criminals from fleeing, but not thieves who have abandoned the fruits of
their crime.
>>But
>>a jury will put itself in the place of the crime victim and decide that they
>>( reasonable men ) might have been in fear of their lives too.
>That was the outcome of the incident where a homeowner killed that
>Scotsman who climbed over his fence at 3:00 am and beat on the back
>door. The Scotsman would not stand down, so the homeowner shot him
>thru the door. The Scotsman was not even inside the home. The GJ
>rightly no-billed the homeowner.
By chance, I was a forensic expert on this very case. Again,
this was not the case of a thief fleeing without the fruits of his crime, and
there had been several home invasions recently. so the homeowner was
no-billed. However, his insurance company had to pay out an awful lot in a
civil settlement. Trust me, you don't wnat to shoot somebody in Texas,
even if it is pretty well justified.
Dr P
Peter H. Proctor
>From: papa...@legbaspam.com (Papa Legba)
>Subject: Re: Seven-times burglar spared jail by new ruling
>On Sat, 04 Jan 2003 18:13:04 +0000, da...@election.demon.co.uk (David
>Boothroyd) wrote:
>>I do not believe that deadly force is reasonable to deal with a threat
>>to property where life is not threatened.
>It isn't in Britain but it is in most parts of America.
Not exactly. Believe it or not, we do value person more than
property. Texas is probably as harsh to criminals as any American state.
But here, absent an articulable threat, you can't use deadly force against a
thief fleeing without the fruits of his crime. Nor can you use deadly force
against a fleeing thief in daylight. OTOH, you can shoot a thief (say )
attempting to break into your house because this is reasonably a threat of
death or serious bodily inury.
Dr P