Exactly my thoughts, Grolojach ( :D ), that this whole thread is from the DORD*.

* DORD: The Department of Redundancy Department

Sorry about that...When I scanned it I didn't get the publication. It was the American Rifleman. </font>[/QUOTE]The American Rifleman? Wow! And there I thought for a minute you were using a biased source, since some of the most important specifics were missing and all. Silly me for having second thoughts the source. ;)

[ 06-20-2003, 06:09 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

Sorry folks but there is a difference between shooting the guy dead and shooting him in the gut and letting him bleed to death on the door step after you draged him out there.

Mind you the reall twisted thing is the guy he injured, well blasted his knee to hell forceing the guy to use a cane to walk for life. Is sueing him for loss of earnings.

Timber Loftis, Grojlach what so we can't post about something someone already post before........

However, if someone breaks into my house, they have comitted an illegal act, and are obviously intending to commit other illegal acts. I, as an innocent man, do not know whether this illegal act includes theft, or deliberate murder. When it is a choice between leaving the criminal alone and hoping he is not intending to kill everyone in the house, and twatting him on the back of the head with the heaviest thing I can find, then it's goodbye Mr Intruder.

Yes, shoot first ask questions later. It does not matter that the person was just looking for a phone because is car broke down in the middle of nowhere, it was -40C outside, and you didn't bloody wake up when he knocked on the door.

One possibility of many.

I guess it was OK to shoot at kids for raiding apple trees as well.

Thank you, Arvon. [img]smile.gif[/img]

And why am I not surprised?

Bardan, you do have a point though, that the right to self-defense should not be limited so far that the self-defender is forced to take an unacceptable degree of risk for his own personal safety before s/he can be absolutely sure what the intruder's intentions are, especially since nobody can be expected to perform a perfectly error-free "risk assessment" in such a tense and frightening situation.

However, in this particular case, taking into account the extra information about it provided by other posters and which was "somehow" missing in the account posted at the beginning, a fact which just "might" be explainable by the nature of the source it was taken from, the big question is of course if this qualifies as a case of self-defense in the first place.

Oh, sure you can. Of course, the previous topic was only from about a month ago, but who cares, right? ;) It's just that I'm getting a certain feeling of déjà-vu when I saw this topic; it starts off with an American article written from a right-wing perspective, which is conveniently leaving out most of the details which wouldn't suit the magazine's/newspaper's (?) agenda (good chance Arvon and MagiK read the exact same article btw, there are similarities between their respective openingsposts) and focus on the "outrage" of the situation. Then the topic is followed by people pointing out that there's more to the case, and eventually it ends up in a debate about Minority Report and Timber having a bad day at the office. Or something like that, anyways. ;)

[ 06-20-2003, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

A MONTH, that like 10 pages back then!

Okay i get your point but some people might of missed one and might enjoy the latest.
Let them talk in due time they may reach a better answers and have a interesting talk about better movies.

It's a difficult case, no doubt about it, and the treatment of Tony Martin still splits UK opinion. However, what it's not is a "black and white" situation. Remember that the jury at his trial, who heard all the evidence, had to decide on shades of grey.

Like it or not, they came to a verdict after sitting throught the whole trial. If that decision does not sit well with your particular beliefs, then so be it. You are entitled to your opinion.

Just remember that the justice system in the UK (with all it's flaws) gives us one of the safest countries to live in in the world. If you really want to change it all to let "justice" be determined on the basis of "popular" acclaimation, be prepared for the return of public executions, the admisability of confessions extracted under duress etc. After all, nothing should be overlooked or excluded in the search for the "truth".

For the record, I never said that it shouldn't be discussed a second time; that's how you interpreted it. ;)
I merely pointed out it was discussed before recently (in a similar manner, even), and provided Arvon with a link to that particular topic with for him a most likely new perspective on the case, which also happens to explain the strange situation a bit better and fairer than his American Rifleman-thingy did. Just some additional clarification before someone uninformed barges in and yells things he/she might regret later, just because the openingspost was a bit incomplete in the facts-department and made an unfair impression of the actual situation.

But if you want to discuss it again, then by all means, feel free to do so; don't let me stop you. [img]smile.gif[/img] Just keep in mind that the topic has been discussed only recently, and people may still be tired of the subject from the last time around and might just refer back to the original topic.

[ 06-20-2003, 07:13 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

If I missintereted you then it my mistake, but to me it sounded if you were. Maybe it's your posting style and I'm not used to it but your post sounded a bit harsh and commanding but like I said I probably missunderstood.
But at least we agree the if poeple want to talk about it again, then let them. If people don't they probably won't get involded but not everyone has here for last month talk, me and Avon for example. But I some one to say somethng uninformed let them how else will they learn? Or is some choose to use last month post or the the one from when this case when to trial to reforce their statement fine.