Farmer Murdered over botched burglary

[[TW]Fox]

thats not burglary is it, thats trespassing on my land.

So? You agreed with my original statement, and then confirmed what you agreed when I asked you about it. I said 'walks onto your property'. You said you'd kill them.

do you understand the difference?

Perhaps a tad more than you. You worry me.

 

[Danthus]

You actually think that if somebody simply walks onto your property, you should be able to kill them. Wow.

yeah, why something wrong with that.

or acts of violence.

its not stereotyping, its being logical about who should and should not be in my house doing bad things.

I suppose you would just invite them in, give them everything they wanted, put the kettle on for them?

Why would anyone invite them in?

My point is that you initially replied to Fox saying it was justifiable to use violence against a person who was ON your property.

 

[stulid]

Ambulance called to property as the owner is having a heart attack, someone on either end of the phone gets the number wrong, they go down the street, to 28 instead of 82, are worried someone is unconcious and dying, they break in to try to help, you blow them away JUST because they are on your property.

Theres a reason why in the law property and location doesn't matter, danger to your own, or someone elses life allows reasonable force to be used and thats how it should be.

Said ambulance driver shouldn't be instantly shot upon walking into your house, you should realise he is no threat, explain its the wrong house and they find the right house and save a life.

In your world, you can kill them, and the guy down the road dies as a consequence on top of that.

INTENT, the same act can be commited for 50 different reasons, and intent is key in the way you handle situations.

Flat out being okay to kill anyone for entering your property in any circumstance ignoring intent would be ridiculous. Being able to kill someone in defending your life not proven but with a reasonable assumption someone is there to hurt you IS already fine.

Frankly if he'd shot them IN the house, he'd have no problem, but chasing guys outside, as they flee, he is no longer in danger. If they were running at him, the assumption they intended to hurt him is safe enough to make and blowing them away WITH A LEGAL WEAPON, he wouldn't have been in trouble.

authority figure?

someone I don't know, not an authority figure(policeman/fireman etc),

so no in your case.

 

[Gerard]

So I'm a bit of a lazy **** and I take a shortcut by cutting across your garden. Selfish and frankly out of order, yet you think you'd be within your rights to murder me for it?

If it was you?

Can we get a poll on this?

 

[stulid]

Why would anyone invite them in?

My point is that you initially replied to Fox saying it was justifiable to use violence against a person who was ON your property.

on, in, didnt read it fully.

I explained that trespassing on my land and burglary will be different, so stop nit pickin.

it pretty obvious from my posts that im talking about scum inside my house, this whole thread is about burglary, not trespassing, try reading the title.

the definition of burglary for you - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burglary

 

[Danthus]

I am fully aware of the definition of Burglary.

 

[stulid]

I am fully aware of the definition of Burglary.

you sure?

 

[Gornall]

It annoys me how those that heavily impact others human rights still have theirs protected.

 

[Tute]

To be fair, I would have done the same in Martin's position back in 1999 and I would still now. The law is a fickle and pathetic creature, which neither punishes or rehabilitates those who break it (unless you do 31 in a 30, god help you).

It's not really about protecting just yourself, it's about protecting your possessions as well, especially when the law is incapable of doing it for you.

[Edit] I expect a right flaming for this, but it's my opinion.

 

[franco_22]

If we had that law I would invite Jeremy Kyle over for tea.

 

[ElvisFan]

If I catch anyone trying to nick my bike they're getting their legs broken. No ifs or buts about it.

 

[Danthus]

To be fair, I would have done the same in Martin's position back in 1999 and I would still now. The law is a fickle and pathetic creature, which neither punishes or rehabilitates those who break it (unless you do 31 in a 30, god help you).

It's not really about protecting just yourself, it's about protecting your possessions as well, especially when the law is incapable of doing it for you.

[Edit] I expect a right flaming for this, but it's my opinion.

I don't think anyone has any issue protecting your family or possessions, the problem with the Tony Martin case was that he shot a man who was running away, I can not see how anyone can see he was protecting his possessions.

 

[Danthus]

If I catch anyone trying to nick my bike they're getting their legs broken. No ifs or buts about it.

Do you think that would constitute reasonable force?

 

[steve-h]

wait...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)

Shooting in the dark, with an illegally held pump-action Winchester shotgun

 

[Tute]

I don't think anyone has any issue protecting your family or possessions, the problem with the Tony Martin case was that he shot a man who was running away, I can not see how anyone can see he was protecting his possessions.

He claimed to have been burgled a total of ten times, losing £6,000 worth of furniture. Martin also complained about police inaction over the burglaries. The police reports state that multiple items and furniture were stolen such as dinner ware and a grandfather clock. The neighbours also had police reports of robbers, some believing they were the ones Martin later shot at.

He was shooting at people out to deprive him of said possessions.

 

[Danthus]

He was shooting at people out to deprive him of said possessions.

How do you deprive someone of their possessions while they are running away?

 

[Tute]

Why were the two people inside his house in the first place?

 

[Danthus]

Why were the two people inside his house in the first place?

They shouldn't have been, nobody will dispute that, however shooting someone in the back while they run away contentious to say the least.

 

[^TANK^]

No they shouldnt.

I dont see peoples random interest in changing laws, if you want to kill them or not kill them thats your choice, if you want to tie them up in your basement and torture them for the next 10 years, or if you are a scientist and want someone to experiment on. Well i couldnt care less.

 

[Tute]

They shouldn't have been, nobody will dispute that, however shooting someone in the back while they run away contentious to say the least.

It's still protecting your possessions. They were burglars whether they were breaking in, stealing items, or running away.

I see 100% where you're coming from, but it wouldn't stop me in the same position.

And given that the burglar who lived went on to commit heroin related crimes, I think Martin totally did the right thing. It's just a shame he didn't get them both.