shooting the burglars

[dg123]

anyone watch the programme where mr Martin shot the buglars at Bleak house?
I didnt know which side to believe though mr Martin seemed distictly odd.

I firmly believe that if some one gets hurt breaking into your house, say on glass on your garden wall (which apparently you arent allowed to have) or if your dog bites them, then it is tough luck and they should not be able to sue.

I believe you should be able to defend yourself and your property too (as you are allowed to do)
I have felt the fear of knowing someone is there and being absolutely terrifed for my children and me.
I dont know what I would have done if they had attacked me.

I never ever want to feel powerless like that again.

I would not have shot them though.

I think the real issue is why were these burglars at large anyway. The three involved in the attempted robbery had over 100 previous convictions. They should have been in a cosy cell somewhere kept from humans. The failure here is with the judiciary. Sentences for committing crimes should realistically designed to discourage further crimes.

 

[dg123]

You're right, Tony Martin is a lying scumbag, as well as being a murderer.

But I don't think there is any dispute that he used an illegally held gun, and he shot the dead person again after he was wounded and lying on the floor; and the other one in the back as he was running away.

Not much self-defence there.

Nicely twisting the words. The burglar that died was shot in the back, the survivor was shot in the legs. There is nothing to prove whether either were running away or they were in a dark room - I would not belive on word from Brendon Fearon.

Either way, they should not have been there.

 

[Brightness]

They should have been in a cosy cell somewhere kept from humans. The failure here is with the judiciary. Sentences for committing crimes should realistically designed to discourage further crimes.

Isn't that the case 99% of the time? The amount of times I've known hard working Police friends work on a case until all hours only for the CPS to either mess it all up or the judge to either 'let them off' with fines etc or to throw it out altogether

 

[Slogger]

theres only one form of justice the criminals are afraid of and its ROUGH JUSTICE

None of this namby pamby stuff about rehabilitation ferk that snap something on the lil toe rags but always always say to the police the exact words of the criminal and these are the words

i am going to kill you you barstweard

thats all he kept saying officer till i hit him with my shovel

ps the farmer really should not have been locked up shame on our justice system its a shame he didnt get all of them

 

[JohnD]

Certainty of being caught, and certainty of being locked up, is much more effective than a severe punishment if the offender thinks he won't be caught.

The maximum penalty for drunken driving is death, but some people think it won't happen to them.

 

[dg123]

Certainty of being caught, and certainty of being locked up, is much more effective than a severe punishment if the offender thinks he won't be caught.

The maximum penalty for drunken driving is death, but some people think it won't happen to them.

It is a fair point about certainty of being caught as the police seem very thin on the ground these days. However, the burglars in this case had been caught many times before, even the 16 year-old had 29 convictions. There seems to be a good likelihood of being caught but not of custodial sentences or reasonable ones when they are administered.

In our local paper there was a report of a case last week where an offender had been given a 'last chance' six months ago but was again in court for another crime of the same offence - was he jailed? No, even though it was the same judge who had given him the last chance! What message does this send to current and aspiring criminals?