It's natural to put up a fight....

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Aug 09, 2012 10:31 am

Judge backs businessman who stabbed burglar to death during brawl to protect his home | Mail Online

How do you feel about this.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Aug 09, 2012 11:41 am

Typical American response:

Too bad he didn't have a gun.

He coulda got both of 'em.

Seriously,

as the judge said:

'It was a sad loss of life but at the same time if you embark upon unlawful enterprise with all the risks that are attached, serious injuries can occur.'

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Aug 09, 2012 1:29 pm

Not surprised at all. In most cases a jury will not convict anyone of murder if they kill in self defence and even more often cases don't come to court if someone happens to hospitalise someone in self defence, those ones you don't hear about. - This one had to go to trial since someone died. The daily mail likes to pretend people are not allowed to defend themselves and make an issue of it, the reality is actually very different.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Aug 09, 2012 1:35 pm

gmc;1400054 wrote: Not surprised at all. In most cases a jury will not convict anyone of murder if they kill in self defence and even more often cases don't come to court if someone happens to hospitalise someone in self defence, those ones you don't hear about. - This one had to go to trial since someone died. The daily mail likes to pretend people are not allowed to defend themselves and make an issue of it, the reality is actually very different.

Tony Martin ?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Aug 09, 2012 2:09 pm

oscar;1400055 wrote: Tony Martin ?

The daily mail-likes to ignore the fact that it is a jury that decides guilt or innocence. A JURY OF HIS PEERS decided him shooting someone in the back was a bit excessive not some lefty liberal judge as they like to pretend.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Aug 09, 2012 2:12 pm

gmc;1400062 wrote: The daily mail-likes to ignore the fact that it is a jury that decides guilt or innocence. A JURY OF HIS PEERS decided him shooting someone in the back was a bit excessive not some lefty liberal judge as they like to pretend.

He shot him In the back because the house was In darkness and he couldn't see a thing at the time.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Aug 09, 2012 2:22 pm

oscar;1400064 wrote: He shot him In the back because the house was In darkness and he couldn't see a thing at the time.

The jury decided, having weighed up all the evidence, that he was guilty. What is it you don't like about the jury system?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Aug 09, 2012 2:26 pm

gmc;1400065 wrote: The jury decided, having weighed up all the evidence, that he was guilty. What is it you don't like about the jury system? Nothing at all. Just wish I had elected for Jury Instead of Judge.... I digress.....

I do believe that times are changing In this country and now Judges are accepting self defence as a plea. I think though that the Tony Martin case may have been viewed differently today that's all.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Aug 09, 2012 2:36 pm

oscar;1400066 wrote: Nothing at all. Just wish I had elected for Jury Instead of Judge.... I digress.....

I do believe that times are changing In this country and now Judges are accepting self defence as a plea. I think though that the Tony Martin case may have been viewed differently today that's all.

They always have it's just papers like the daily mail to pretend otherwise. Our attitudes to violence have changed - as in the attitude in issues like women who kill an abusive partner in self defence after years of abuse, used to be they would go straight to jail with rags like the mail cheering the punishment and they still think it OK to hit children

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Aug 09, 2012 2:42 pm

oscar;1400066 wrote: Nothing at all. Just wish I had elected for Jury Instead of Judge.... I digress.....

I do believe that times are changing In this country and now Judges are accepting self defence as a plea. I think though that the Tony Martin case may have been viewed differently today that's all.

Shooting in the dark is stupid.

Shooting in the back is murder.

Plain and simple.

Billy Ray Smith: But, ..., you shot him in the back!!!

Van Leek: His back was to me.

- El Diablo (1990)

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Aug 09, 2012 2:52 pm

I seem to recall that in Tony Martin's case the men had been in the house but were escaping into the darkness when he opened fire, a shot in the air might have been better.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Aug 09, 2012 2:58 pm

Yup. When the attackers are fleeing, you are not in imminent danger, therefore, shooting is no longer in self defense.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Aug 09, 2012 3:01 pm

Bruv;1400074 wrote: I seem to recall that in Tony Martin's case the men had been in the house but were escaping into the darkness when he opened fire, a shot in the air might have been better.

Burglars need to feel our fear - Telegraph

Regardless , It was reduced to Manslaughter on appeal.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Aug 09, 2012 3:10 pm

I would say that the burglars need to feel their own fear, and feel our wrath.

There is a law on the books here that says (and I paraphrase) anyone committing a crime where a person is killed can be found guilty of murder.

So if three people are burglarizing a house, and the owner shoots one of them, the other two can legally be held responsible for the death of their fallen partner.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Aug 09, 2012 3:13 pm

LarsMac;1400077 wrote: I would say that the burglars need to feel their own fear, and feel our wrath.

There is a law on the books here that says (and I paraphrase) anyone committing a crime where a person is killed can be found guilty of murder.

So if three people are burglarizing a house, and the owner shoots one of them, the other two can legally be held responsible for the death of their fallen partner. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. After all, why should the onus fall on the home-owner?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Aug 09, 2012 3:13 pm

A paper victory, he still spent time inside.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Aug 14, 2012 3:55 pm

oscar;1400064 wrote: He shot him In the back because the house was In darkness and he couldn't see a thing at the time.

it was dark because he'd killed the lights, he shot them in the back because he'd planned it that way - that's why it was murder rather than self-defense.

The fact that it was a repeat attack did not mean that he could plan his defense and deliberately kill the attackers - that's what the police are for.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Aug 14, 2012 4:16 pm

Bryn Mawr;1400825 wrote: it was dark because he'd killed the lights, he shot them in the back because he'd planned it that way - that's why it was murder rather than self-defense.

The fact that it was a repeat attack did not mean that he could plan his defense and deliberately kill the attackers - that's what the police are for. :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

Naughty Naughty Bryn.... Go to the naughty step Immediately.