CingularDuality

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Switchcraft

And here is the official court record.

Wulfyn

In order to divert this thread from the cyclical death of debating this court case (see I said it was controversial) I think we have to accept that no matter what our interpretation of the situation might be ultimately 2 things are culpable for the result: the law, and the judge.

Now assuming that the judge correctly interpreted the law (and I have seen no debate from anyone here to imply that he got it wrong) we have to say that in fact that it is the law that is in some sort of error. The law stems from the introduction of the Human Rights Act 2000. It has been brought to light this week by the declaration of the Conservative (Tory) leader David Cameron to scrap it in favour of a new Bill of Rights *1. He argues that the Human Rights act that Labour introduced six years ago is causing the very same problems that Tony Blair mentioned in his recent speech.

That is the backdrop however, and I don't want to go into that argument (which is essentially one of political point scoring). The item I wanted to discuss is that the Human Rights Act 2000 is in fact not a British law, but the introduction of a European Law. Cing might recall he and I talking in a thread (about a USA vs China deathmatch) some months ago about the European Union, and it being more than just a financial arrangement but in fact a political one too. In that thread I replied to Cing's surprise on this issue that the member states are often hamstrun by European Laws. For example if your dog bit me whilst I was taking a piss in your gold-fish pond the UK courts might tell me it was my own stupid fault, but the European Court of Human Rights would award me a load of cash.

So whether you agree to Europe or not it is interesting I think that this particular example is not so much a representation of the current state of Britain, but more of Europe as a whole. After 2000+ years of warfare maybe we're getting a bit soft?


*1 - I'm a litle puzzled as to what happened to our old Bill of Rights - anyone care to enlighten me?

__________________

JimmyTwoHand

The argument about the Martin case seems to be as polarizing here as it was in the UK at the time. One must bear in mind that high profile cases like this are subject to heavy political influences. Im not saying Tony Blair phoned up the judge and told him to bang up Martin but when a case receives so much media attention the judge is bound to be thinking about the impact on society as a whole and the message it sends. This case was an extreme example and there are many more cases where people use violence to defend themselves and their households and do not receive any reprimand. It is judged reasonable.

There are many variables for each case and i believe that most of the time the police act very sensibly and with a good degree of common sense. For example to give you the mindset that the law is trying to put across:

If im in my home, sleeping with wife and kids, and i hear a noise from downstairs, and i investigate and find what appears to be a burglar, that advances on me once he realizes I've seen him, what are my options?

Well in my case being a 6ft2 old rugby player if i beat the crap out of him there is very little chance i will be prosecuted unless i spend five minutes kicking him in the crotch while he is unconcscious. I was attacked and threatened in my own home and protected myself, i could quite reasonably also grab a lamp, table leg or anything else lying about to defend myself if i didnt think i could handle it without a blunt object. I personally know of a case just like this and the police said his reactions were entirely reasonable with self defence despite the burglar being a broken, bloody mess.

If i take a cricket bat downstairs with me not knowing what i will find and the guy advances on me i can use that to defend myself. The adrenaline is pumping, its dark and you are being menaced. Sounds reasonable. If the burglar is trying to get away and i go and fetch my bat and bludgeon him while he is trying to climb out of a window that is unacceptable. It is not defence or an attempt to detain them. I will have questions to answer for that one. If there were several blokes advancing on me and i then went to fetch my bat that would be ok.

What you must bear in mind is that any time you use deadly force you are going to be subject to rigorous investigation. I keep a mean looking bowie knife next to my bed for just such an eventuality as those being described above but i am fully aware that if i tear downstairs and start hacking away at someone who then turns out to be a 4ft 12 year old nicking playstation games i will be in trouble and thats fair enough in my mind.

On the other hand if i hear footsteps coming up the stairs rush out and see a flash of metallic light, scream "F off or ill do you" and then stab the person on the steps ill be in a much better position even if it turns out to be the same 12year old with a cd in his hand.

What im trying to show is that the law is not as cut and dried as high profile cases such as these often show it to be. Many groups used the Martin case as a flagship case to further their views. I believe the vast majority of the time the law here is remarkably sane. If you kill someone youd better have a good reason for doing it. I think that is entirely right and proper. You dont have to be in an extreme situation, just show that there was a cause behind your actions beyond bloodlust and vengeance.

It all comes down to what is judged reasonable, which is why i included the examples above. It seems the "reasonable" standards for deadly action are wildly different between here and the US and seemingly from state to state over there. Im sure this is just as much a product of circumstance as mindset but as such any sort of consensus on the matter is going to be hard to reach.

The situation here is not as ludicrous as you would think from the legion cuttings one can find from the newspapers, they too have their axe to grind.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ribbons The tactical and strategic application of textile accoutrements is a constantly underrated part of battle.

DudeMan

no i wont, because the court agrees with me... you may not agree i do, they were unarmed, he shot them and hit him in the back....he could have chosen to shoot them with a video camera, instead he chose to use a shotgun... which he is only allowed to own for nimal control being a farmer, not self defense.... and yes, why you love texas is why i am glad i dont live there. guess we picked the right side of the pond to live then hey., from what i have read, he didnt even shout out to announce his presence.....


switch thanks for that link... i did not see it before if it were posted... thanks... interesting read however, that he had his shotgun license revoked for shooting at a man stealing some apples from his farm... reading this has only enforced my opinion the man should havbeen sent to prison

__________________


The Queen
"Those who perpetrate these brutal acts against innocent people should know that they will not change our way of life,"
Atrocities such as these simply reinforce our sense of community

TheFeniX
"Guns don't kill people: effeminate men in green tunics do"

DudeMan

excelent post, i whole heartedly agree... + rep....

__________________


The Queen
"Those who perpetrate these brutal acts against innocent people should know that they will not change our way of life,"
Atrocities such as these simply reinforce our sense of community

TheFeniX
"Guns don't kill people: effeminate men in green tunics do"