God! And I thought we over here were nuts

[Grojlach]

Please note - once again I am dealing with the abstract notion of home defense, *not* the Tony Martin case, though the two go hand in hand in my country.

And that last part is where I think you're in the wrong. You've spent a lot of time explaining why you don't have any sympathy for thieves intruding into your home (even used the interesting method of playing the "I grew up in da hood yo, so don't U claim to know jack, as U dunno wot it's like"-card; I can already picture the tiny violin playing in the background* [img]tongue.gif[/img] ), which is fair enough and understandable; though I'm still wondering why you'd link a case in which someone obviously used excessive force (and, coincidently, with an weapon he wasn't supposed to have) to one's right to defend his/her home periodly.

But what exactly is it with this case that makes people question the entire law? Having read a number of articles about this case, I see no reason whatsoever why the entire law should be questioned; you're free to defend yourself from criminals, as long as you don't use obviously excessive means. Perhaps there might be a gray area containing a lot of difficult cases under this law, like killing an intruder when it's unclear whether the methods used were reasonable or not (after all, "reasonable" is subjective to a certain point), but I doubt Tony Martin's case is even anywhere close to that gray area.
Or was there just one of those ridiculous rightwing-tinged media circuses to raise sympathy for "poor mister Martin's case", like happened in the Netherlands with those supermarket employees who went all Rambo on an already neutralized thief and cried wolf for not being seen en masse as the heroes they regarded themselves to be?

* and yes, I'm just kidding around.

[ 06-22-2003, 07:08 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[Bardan the Slayer]

Originally posted by Grojlach: Interesting sophism. You're taking this one clear example of using excessive force when dealing with criminals, and blow it up to unrealistic proportions and pretend as if any intruder in your house is protected by law and can't be stopped by the owner of the house in whatever way possible; while the actual problem concerns the use of excessive measures to stop an intruder. I also fullheartedly disagree with the remark that "your side of the matter" is the more civilized; don't even know why you'd mention it, as it basically tolerates excessively violent responses to intruders - not sure what's so civilized about that.

Yes, I *am* taking this one clear example of excessive use of force, but am *not* blowing it up to unreasonable proportions. You say "[you] pretend as if any intruder in your house is protected by law and can't be stopped by the owner of the house in whatever way possible; while the actual problem concerns the use of excessive measures to stop an intruder."

The thing is, that is not unreasonable. That is the way the law actually stands. The police tell us we are *not* allowed to stop an intruder in our homes, and recent court rulings say that criminals *are* protected from being stopped physically should they intrude. The actual problem is not excessive force - the problem is that we are restricted from using *any* force, whatsoever. I have news for you - even if we used one of your magic tranquiliser guns, we would still be arrested and put in jail for assault

If you use a blunt object to knock a thief unconscious, no problems there yet. If you accidently wound the thief badly or even kill him with that blunt object, while you only hit him once with the intention of knocking him unconscious, I still agree with you that you're still in the right (though I may disagree with your choice of weapon).

Wonderful, but the law doesn't. I'll do 10 years for GBH, or assault with a deadly weapon. By your very admission you are stating that you find disabling an intruder in this way acceptable, but you miss the point - we are not allowed even that in this country.

But if you, for example, use the very same blunt object to keep hitting the thief several times while only once should have sufficed (you lose your temper or end up in a frenzy), and the thief then ends up badly wounded or dead, then you're in the wrong and then you've overstepped the boundaries of the law which protected you up to that point; at that point it becomes your responsibility.

Which is a point I never contended. If you reread my posts, I state repeatedly that the aim is to disable, and should death occur, I blame the thief. When someone begins to beat a thief repeatedly while he is unconscious, the aim is no more to disable, but to kill. I repeat, however, we are not even allowed to disable in this country.

Same with Tony Martin's case; just the mere appearance of him with a shotgun probably would have done the trick, perhaps even a warning shot or the intimidating appearance of him and/or his rottweilers. And, heck, if the thieves had really struggled back, then there's always the option of aiming for the kneecaps; and if they attacked him directly, then I can understand the use of a shotgun in self-defense a bit better (even though I still think he shouldn't have had a shotgun in the first place).

Have you ever tried to shoot someone in the kneecaps? Neither have I. However, numerous experienced law enforcement officials in the states who weild guns on a daily basis have expressed how difficult it is to accurately aim for the legs. If the intimidating presence of his rottweilers was so offputting, why is it that he was the repeated target of intrusion? Obviously, the dogs weren't so intimidating as you think.

Anyway, as you say, he shouldn't have had a shotgun. Luckily, in this country, we don't need guns as the criminals generally do not own them. *However*, had Tony Martin used a bat, or his fists, and the intruder had died as a result? Tony Martin would have been in jail serving the same time for the same 'crime'. Even if the burglar hadn't died, he still would have had jail time.

But what he did was more or less assassinate the intruders, shoot to hit directly; turning his fears and paranoia in a triggerhappiness that's easily described as "excessive".

Indeed he did. Nowhere have I stated that his response was reasonable.

Sure, you can't always anticipate how you'll react when you're faced with intruders yourself, but Martin claimed to have been robbed many times and was literally prepared to deal with intruders the hard way; the boobytraps, rottweilers and illegal-shotgun-next-to-his-bed come to mind. I doubt he really intended to merely stop intruders or chase them away, but most likely had worked himself up in a combination of anger, fear, frustration and paranoia to just shoot the very next occasion someone dared to enter his premises and think about the consequences later.

But this is exactly my point. The very reason why burglaries are so frequent in this country, and why Tony Martin had "had worked himself up in a combination of anger, fear, frustration and paranoia", was because the law protects the criminal so completely that they have literally no fear of the law. They *know* that if they get caught, they will not get any punishment worth having, and they also know that if they are so much as scratched while committing their crime, then they have legal recourse against the owner of the house.

It is not the case that Tony Martin shooting the boy started a rash of criminal complaints and requests for protection, but that the over-protection of the criminal leads to people with no respect for the law thinking they can do as they please and break into homes as and when they want, without fear of recrimination. The over-protection of criminals led to Tony Martin's reaction. Not the other way around.

If I've understood you correctly, you're basically saying that any intruder in your house loses *all* of his/her rights, including the one to live; turning you into a judge who decides whether the thief will see another day or not (and yes, there's a sophism, an unfair exaggeration hidden in there somewhere as well, I'm aware of that ).

Hmm ... well you obviously *didn't* understand me correctly. What I am saying (and have all along) is that you should have the right to take pre-emptive physical action against an intruder, with the intention of disabling him. *However*, should he die as a result, then there should be no legal action taken against you. He made the choice to intrude, so if something goes wrong with my attemps to disable him and he dies, that's his problem.

An extreme example: if you notice there are a few kids stealing apples from your orchard, does that automatically mean you've got the right to shoot to kill or wound, just because they've intruded on your land and are stealing what is rightfully yours? No, of course not. The law doesn't give you a license to kill - imagine the implications a law would have if it actually allows you to kill people whom you don't want on your property! Simply lure the person to your premises, kill him/her and then claim it was an intruder; the perfect murder - , but it does protect you legally from intruders as long as the means of defense are reasonable and not excessive.

Again, Groj, you are stating a fallacy. The law does *not* protect you legally from intruders as long as the means of defense are reasonable and not excessive. The law specifically states, and the police back this up, that you are *not* allowed to take *any* action against an intruder, unless he attacks you first. The only thing you are allowed to do is call the police. Should the intruder pull out a knife and stab you while you do so, tough luck.

That matter aside, I'm not sure if the British law fails somewhere along the line (considering the from my perspective rather far-fetched claims as "The verdict gives criminals the licence to rape, murder and mug householders in their own homes", like chocolate tycoon Peter Cadbury said )

That's your whole problem, Groj. You refuse to admit that a so-called civilised country could have such ridiculous laws. British law *does* fail everywhere along the line, and the claim by Mr Cadbury is not far-fetched. Criminals are not given a license to kill you. What they *are* given is a license to *attempt* to kill you before you are allowed to fight back. Oh, with the added bonus that you are guaranteed to be completely unarmed when they take that first shot at killing you.

but I doubt there are many (civilized) courts in the world who actually *would* have considered Tony Martin completely innocent and without responsibility in this matter, especially considering the fact that the guy used a means during the killing that he wasn't even supposed to have.

Again, nowhere in my posts have I stated that Tony Martin was innocent.

[ 06-22-2003, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: Bardan the Slayer ]

[Grendal]

Originally posted by mouse:
I don't say that there is an easy solution to striking the balance between an individuals right to take steps to ensure self-protection and the duty not to use unreasonable methods to enforce that right

The entire topic here is "What IS excessive force?" A guy I worked with went to the Dominican Republic just less than a year ago now on his honeymoon (and yes this is a true story) On his very first night there he had some sort of an altrication with a local and he wound up in a fight with the guy. The guy went down so my buddy started to walk away...the guy got back up, pulled a knife and came at him again. My buddy managed to knock him down again and the guy lost the knife...my buddy said to the guy stay down and tried again to walk away. The guy got up again and came after him again. This is where things came to an end. My buddy put the guy down once more and boot stomped him in the head. By this time the police were showing up and they hauled him off to a Dominican jail where he was told 3 days later that the guy died of a brain hemorrage. The only reason hes not still in the cell right now is that there were witnesses saying that my buddy tried to walk away on more than one occasion but the other guy just kept coming back for more.
When do you draw the line on whats excessive?

[Bardan the Slayer]

Originally posted by Grojlach: And that last part is where I think you're in the wrong. You've spent a lot of time explaining why you don't have any sympathy for thieves intruding into your home (even used the interesting method of playing the "I grew up in da hood yo, so don't U claim to know jack, as U dunno wot it's like"-card; I can already picture the tiny violin playing in the background

Which I realise is a joke, but still bears replying. Nowhere have I ever asked for sympathy for my upbringing. What I was attempting to demonstrate is that it is possible to grow up on the wrong end of the poverty line, and not be forced to break the law to survive. Poeple who break the law do so out of choice, and should realise that their choice may lead to them being hurt, or killed. Nobody forces anyone to steal. Poverty forces nobody to steal. I merely used my own upbringing as a concrete example. I'm sorry if this offends you in some way Groj. I will keep any future arguments to ones that only include my fluffy, fictitious upbringing, if that is more to your taste [img]smile.gif[/img]

which is fair enough and understandable; though I'm still wondering why you'd link a case in which someone obviously used excessive force (and, coincidently, with an weapon he wasn't supposed to have) to one's right to defend his/her home periodly.

Because the very definition of "excessive force" is what is wrong with British Law. Yes, Tony Martin *did* use excessive force. However, would you agree that ounching a burglar to knock him unconscious was excessive force? If the burglar didn't punch you first, thenm British Law says "yes". My whole point is that Tony Msrtin is an extreme example of people jailed for defending their homes. Whereas Tony Martin deserves to be in jail, there are a great many people who have used bats instead of guns, and who have fought to disable instead of kill, who are all languishing in jail, having been charged with the same offense as Mr Martin.

But what exactly is it with this case that makes people question the entire law? Having read a number of articles about this case, I see no reason whatsoever why the entire law should be questioned; you're free to defend yourself from criminals, as long as you don't use obviously excessive means.

No, you're not. You are allowed to take a solely retaliatory stance against a criminal. You must *not* use any weapon unless he first attacks you with one. You may not go downstairs armed, 'just in case'.

Let me explain. Had Tony Martin confronted the intruders with a baseball bat that he kept by his bedside, and the intruders had run away, then Tony would have been ok, right? Wrong. The very act of arming himself just in case would have been counted as threatening behaviour, and he would have faced fines and a jail sentence, without a punch being thrown or a bat being swung. Justice?

Perhaps there might be a gray area containing a lot of difficult cases under this law, like killing an intruder when it's unclear whether the methods used were reasonable or not (after all, "reasonable" is subjective to a certain point), but I doubt Tony Martin's case is even anywhere close to that gray area.

Well, Groj, there *is* no gray area. The law is simple. You are not allowed to attack the intruder in any way unless he attacks you first. You are not allowed to use a weapon of greater lethality than one the intruder possesses. If you arm yourself before the conflict begins, you go to jail. If the intruder *is* armed, then you are only allowed to use a weapon against him that you stumble upon during the conflict. The law is very clear. It is simply ridiculous.

Oh, one thing that is not law, but that is police advise - "Confont the intruder and find out what his intentions are before taking action."

Remember - you must be totally unarmed when you do this, and if the intruder is willing to kill you, then you don't have much of a chance, do you?

Or was there just one of those ridiculous rightwing-tinged media circuses to raise sympathy for "poor mister Martin's case", like happened in the Netherlands with those supermarket employees who went all Rambo on an already neutralized thief and cried wolf for not being seen en masse as the heroes they regarded themselves to be?

Yes, there was a right-wing media backlash pleading his case. However, just because extremists thought that he was totally blameless in all that occurred, does not mean that there was a message in there that made sense. We *should* be allowed to defend ourselves and our homes, but we are *not*.

[Mouse]

Originally posted by Bardan the Slayer: quote: If you use a blunt object to knock a thief unconscious, no problems there yet. If you accidently wound the thief badly or even kill him with that blunt object, while you only hit him once with the intention of knocking him unconscious, I still agree with you that you're still in the right (though I may disagree with your choice of weapon).

Wonderful, but the law doesn't. I'll do 10 years for GBH, or assault with a deadly weapon. By your very admission you are stating that you find disabling an intruder in this way acceptable, but you miss the point - we are not allowed even that in this country.
[/QUOTE]Possibly not. Here is a case where there was no prosecution of the property owners faced with just such a situation.

[Bardan the Slayer]

A Conservative party spokesman said of the Peterborough case yesterday: "In this case the law appears to have operated in a commonsense and reasonable way. "Our concern has been that one can't always be confident that in cases of this kind the law is on the side of householders using reasonable force in defence of themselves and their property."

Since this case happened since the Tony Martin case, then I would expect the CPS to be more aware of the potential backlas if they charged someone.

Still, Mouse - doesn't the very fact that something as commonsense as "[homeowner allowed to defend home]" as a headline is newsworthy? This shouldn't be on a national news website. This should be an everyday occurrence. It should be in the news when someone *is* charged with using a weapon to defend their home, not when they are *not*.

At first, all I could see was the shadow of this man, but as he turned to face me he lifted his arms above his head and I saw he had a spanner in his hand.

The fact that the intruder had a spanner is probably what saved the homeowner, since this could have been construed as the intruder threatening him with a weapon.

Summers was arrested minutes after fleeing the house and complained to police that his potential burglary victims had assaulted him.

Again, doesn't this show you what the situation is? The burglar goes to the police, expecting them to take action against the homeowner. What kind of screwed up country are we in where the expectation is so great that a man will be charged for defending his home, that criminals are going to the police and admitting their crime as part of getting the homeowner charged?

Even worse, what kind of country is it where it is a shock and surprise when the man isn't charged?

I salute Judge Hugh Mayor QC for actually making a reasonable, in-touch decision. If only more judges would accept his viewpoint.

[ 06-22-2003, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: Bardan the Slayer ]

[Mouse]

Bardan, the above case puts my arguement in context. In the Tony Martin Case, where the arguements and circumstances of the events were examined in detail, the jury decided that the methods Mr.Martin employed went beyond what the jury considered reasonable.

In the other case (and I don't know whether it was a jury trial or not), it was decided that the force used was reasonable in the circumstances.

Each case was decided on it's own merits, but both show that in UK law you can take action to defend your property from intruders. In both cases the actual methods used were examined. Tony Martin's conviction stemmed from the fact that what he did was to mete out a personal punishment to intruders which went far beyond what the jury could accept as reasonable.

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Mouse: Bardan, the above case puts my arguement in context. In the Tony Martin Case, where the arguements and circumstances of the events were examined in detail, the jury decided that the methods Mr.Martin employed went beyond what the jury considered reasonable. In the other case (and I don't know whether it was a jury trial or not), it was decided that the force used was reasonable in the circumstances. Each case was decided on it's own merits, but both show that in UK law you can take action to defend your property from intruders. In both cases the actual methods used were examined. Tony Martin's conviction stemmed from the fact that what he did was to mete out a personal punishment to intruders which went far beyond what the jury could accept as reasonable.

Yes! Thanks, Mouse, that's exactly what I was getting at. [img]smile.gif[/img] I can reply to all of the broken down bits Bardan responded to, but this is actually the essence of my entire point; and frankly, most of it is a repetition of the same point over and over, anyways; both my previous posts and his. Bardan seems to use this

"You are not allowed to attack the intruder in any way unless he attacks you first. You are not allowed to use a weapon of greater lethality than one the intruder possesses. If you arm yourself before the conflict begins, you go to jail. If the intruder *is* armed, then you are only allowed to use a weapon against him that you stumble upon during the conflict. The law is very clear."

at the basis of his points; but if the law is actually enforced the way Mouse pointed out - used as a guideline and not in the black and white manner which Bardan seems to object to so vehemently - I've got nothing more to add, really; as that was basically the impression I got from reading the articles on this case as well. [img]smile.gif[/img]


Maybe I'll get to responding some of the other bits of Bardan's posts later on (about to go to bed, though; and I've got some exams in the following days which may take up most of my time), but I'll respond to this bit first, before I forget it.

Which I realise is a joke, but still bears replying. Nowhere have I ever asked for sympathy for my upbringing. What I was attempting to demonstrate is that it is possible to grow up on the wrong end of the poverty line, and not be forced to break the law to survive. Poeple who break the law do so out of choice, and should realise that their choice may lead to them being hurt, or killed. Nobody forces anyone to steal. Poverty forces nobody to steal. I merely used my own upbringing as a concrete example. I'm sorry if this offends you in some way Groj. I will keep any future arguments to ones that only include my fluffy, fictitious upbringing, if that is more to your taste [img]smile.gif[/img]

I'll admit I had the impression that there was a certain cheesiness to that particular part of the discussion, which left a bit of a sour taste in my mouth... Often enough I've seen people using personal experiences in debates, which is okay on itself; but when they somehow manage to turn those personal experiences into facts or even Laws of Nature Which Make The World Go Round just to make a point, I'm having some difficulties retaining my food. Glad to know that wasn't really your intention, and I apologize for my somewhat harsh response. [img]smile.gif[/img]