Glasgow man is jailed after retaliating against knife thug

ethan said:
I know Semi...... I think it was me that was being facetious. Putting the rights and wrongs aside I think the moral of this tale is if he hadn't have engaged for one in the activity he was pursuing-on top of being in a property where he did not belong- he wouldn't have been shot: as sad as the outcome might be? Correct me if I am wrong here, but I do believe the sentencing would have been quite different if the robbery had have been in the States. ;)
Click to expand...

I rather suspect you are right, it would have been different in the US, for a start it would be almost expected for the homeowner to be holding firearms. It is also true to say that if he hadn't broken in his chances of being shot were substantially smaller but that doesn't excuse shooting him - as Monkey Puzzle points out any psycho could use that sort of justification - see Mr Blonde in Reservoir Dogs for the archetype of that argument.

ethan said:
Just reading your previous post- over here it seems to be a matter of proportion whichever the way we look at it. I am left wondering what the outcome could have been if it had been an elderly lady that had shot him?
Click to expand...

Reading between the lines of the case it seems to me that Mr Martin was a few sandwiches short of a picnic, whether that is partially from the break-in(s) or from living on his own for so long I don't know, he probably shouldn't have still had a firearm though.

The outcome might be different as (rightly or wrongly) it is somewhat easier to feel sympathy for an elderly lady who had been menaced, however if the facts were the same - she was in no immediate danger and the intruders were running away then shooting them in the back is still not kosher, nor indeed is going for a cup of tea with the neighbour afterwards and not informing the emergency services straight away.
 
xen_ said:
Really? Most statistics I've seen shows that the US has higher rates then most developed countries, especially in things like homicide.
Click to expand...

Depending on where you get the stats from, that's often because they compare apples with oranges, for example murder with homicide between the UK and US, and they aren't measureing the same thing. (You'd have to include manslaughter as well as murder)

It's also worth noting that crime stats in the US vary massively state by state, as do various gun etc laws. Washington DC used to have the highest homocide rate and the strictest gun controls, for example, whereas florida noticed a massive drop in violent crime when they introduced conceal carry permits.
 
xen_ said:
Erm, where did I say that? Nice and incorrect assumption there, good job pal.

The man he killed wasn't innocent, and he deserved a fair punishment for his crime carried out by someone other than the victim. He didn't deserve to be shot on sight. I don't see why you think death is a fair punishment for robbery. I don't think chavs should run around causing problems, they should be arrested for whatever crimes they commit and have a prison sentence if applicable, we shouldn't arm random people who think they have the birth right of taking other people lives a fair punishment for robbery.
Click to expand...

Anyone who breaks into someone elses house with intent to steal deserves whatever happens to them. He broke into the house, he has to take the consequences. Tony Martin was let down by poor policing and then when he took things into his own hands, got punished for it. Absolutely ridiculous. I wonder if you would still say the same if you had been broken into constantly and had no justice for it.
 
Drukk said:
I wonder if you would still say the same if you had been broken into constantly and had no justice for it.
Click to expand...

Of course I wouldn't say the same thing, I probably would be blinded by my rage and possibly make the wrong decision just the same as that other guy did.
 
Dolph said:
Why would I argue for the right to use disproportionate violence just because you have no respect for the rights of others (which is also the problem criminals have).

We have the right to defend our property using proportionate force already, you want the right to punish people, not the right to defend.
Click to expand...


We should have the right to be waiting behind the door with both barrels loaded and cocked. Nobody knows whether the intruder is armed so I think it's right to attack first. After all, the intruder shouldn't be there at all. Try arguing otherwise.

I DO think that burglars deserve to die. I think that if a crim is found guilty of any three instances of the following: Armed robbery, burglary, car theft; that they have been given sufficient leeway and the third strike should be out. Permanently.
 
ElvisFan said:
We should have the right to be waiting behind the door with both barrels loaded and cocked. Nobody knows whether the intruder is armed so I think it's right to attack first. After all, the intruder shouldn't be there at all. Try arguing otherwise.
Click to expand...

You already do have that right, whats more you have the right to pull the trigger apart from if you've realise they aren't a threat to your life. (such as they are running away). You'd be likely to be asked why you didn't warn them and give them a chance to leave first though, hope you have a good answer.

I DO think that burglars deserve to die. I think that if a crim is found guilty of any three instances of the following: Armed robbery, burglary, car theft; that they have been given sufficient leeway and the third strike should be out. Permanently.
Click to expand...

You place that much more value on property than on life?
 
Dolph said:
You place that much more value on property than on life?
Click to expand...

Yes, because people work hard for their things and not all are replaceable. I do value life a great deal and I would risk my life to save the life of a complete stranger, but as soon as that stranger messes with that which does not belong to him, well, he's asked for it.
 
Inquisitor said:
So you actually believe that life is a privilege that must be earned? That it's OK to kill people if they've done nothing worthwhile? Thank God you're not in power :confused:
Click to expand...

That isn't what I said!

I don't think it is OK to kill people when they have done nothing wrong. The context to which I was referring was that the two people who broke into the house were already known to the police and had lots of priors, not exactly upstanding citizens!

I am for fair and just punishment fitting to the crime and the ability to defend you and yours with reasonable force, if you feared for your life, would you not kill to protect it?
 
markyp23 said:
Yes.

Do you think we should all be allowed to deal our own punishments as we see fit?
Click to expand...

well the courts of this fine country don't. Its a slap on the wrist for most crimes and the more serious ones get a short stay in a holidaycamp called prison
 
Oxy said:
oh and in prison no TV, no Sky no outdoor activities, no socialising, solatery confinment
Click to expand...

you missed out (how to stop prison over crowding) 15 to 20 ppl in a cell

human rights put on hold untill sentence done.

No more different meals/menus. basic rice and not much else. If you don't like it don't eat it who cares.
 
markyp23 said:
Armchair critics know more than the judges who have no expertise and no brains.

Oh wait...

At least the people who post ignorant views without thinking will never be in a position to make any decisions like the ones they give opinions on.
Click to expand...

That is the only bright side of this thread, that people who think it's OK to shoot an unarmed man, who's running away, in the back, without warning, will never actually be in a position to make these decisions...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom