Shot Burglar to Sue

[GSB]

Nice hit piece, agricola. Can anyone count the number of "loaded" sentences in that article? The number of ways the writer tries to make every character trait or behavior out to be something sinsiter? And none of which is actually germane to whether a man should be put in prison for doing something that ought to be done with far greater frequency.

Nice example of hit and run journalism by the Guardian. Kudos! Almost makes American journalism look respectable.

 

[rrader]

Nice example of hit and run journalism by the Guardian. Kudos! Almost makes American journalism look respectable

Even Randy Weaver got better press than Martin.

 

[agricola]

yep, the way they reported the prosecution case as well as the defence (and even the Guardian didnt report the main plank of the prosecution case - that Martin had been stood downstairs and ambushed the two burglars - which has resulted in the wholly disproved defence that he was stood upstairs becoming "fact") shows their clear bias.

as an aside, how do you put a positive spin on putting someones windows out with a shotgun over an argument?

edit: and to say that Martin got a bad press shows a deep ignorance of the media campaign surrounding his case.

 

[CZ-75]

Though he is a reformer, there is one change that would be a step too far for Hatch. While he recognises the need for greater transparency in the board's work, he is opposed to allowing the public access to hearings.
"I have seen a video of an open parole hearing in the United States, and I would hope it would not be introduced here," he declares

Big Brother knows best.

 

[Mr. Bombastic]

Agricola is right.

If disabled people have no right to protect themselves, why should homeowners be able to protect themselves or their property?

How dare he be downstairs, with his own gun, in his own house, and have the audacity to shoot two possibly armed intruders in the middle of the night?

 

[agricola]

ah, misrepresentation of an argument - surely only a Godwins Law violation can top that

 

[CZ-75]

Nazi fascists.

 

[HK_UMP.45]

Not to fight anyone's battles for them, but what arguement was misrepresented? Mr. Bombastic's? Mr. Martin?

Seems to me the comparison between disabled (sorry, 'differently abled') self-defense and this case is both apt and timely

What if Martin had 'come clean'? Maybe testified that he heard sounds of a break-in, armed himself and waited downstairs? Where would he be then? Probably in worse trouble than he's in right now. Weapons violations, some sort of trumped up 'premeditated' charge and probably poaching in the king's forest.

And in keeping with Godwin's law...
How would the nazis handle this situation?




edit: CZ beat me to the nazi reference by 6 minutes... dang

 

[agricola]

mr bombastic misrepresented my argument on the disabled-man-with-CS thread

 

[capt_happypants]

UMP_45, I presume that the Nazis would keep with their Teutonic Overlord (tm) tradition and invade France.

As for Martin, I say that we set up a trade with England. We take in Martin, England gets their choice of American bliss-ninnies. I nominate Chucky Schumer.

 

[Mr. Bombastic]

I'm sorry. Disabled people DO have a right to protect themselves.

Just not with anything other than their disabled bodies.

Is that a correct representation Agricola?

 

[agricola]

no, try again.

 

[HK_UMP.45]

No, disabled people don't have the right to defend themselves?
No, using anything other than bare hands is illegal?
No, the farmer should have let the robbers take anything they wanted?

What gives? Could your answer have been any more cryptic?

edited because I apparently I can't spell

 

[Orthonym]

Didn't the Queen have a little trespassing problem a few years back?

I hope I don't offend any of you loyal subjects over there, but I think she set a bad example for everyone by what she said at the time. It was something about being happy that the security people arrived before Prince Philip did, and that she was able to prevent the corgis from chewing on the fellow.(That's my recollection and I'm sticking to it ) Thinks: What if the Prince HAD charged right in there, pausing only long enough to grab an antique mace off the wall somewhere?

 

[rrader]

Agricola:

yep, the way they reported the prosecution case as well as the defence (and even the Guardian didnt report the main plank of the prosecution case - that Martin had been stood downstairs and ambushed the two burglars - which has resulted in the wholly disproved defence that he was stood upstairs becoming "fact") shows their clear bias.

Only a committed anti could possibly look at your linked Guardian piece and see anything other than that rags usual strident leftist drivel. A parade of every possible dark innuendo that could be raised.

A basic principle of common law, now sadly absent from the low and retrograde legal system of the UK, is that a criminal takes his victims as he finds them. The bastards were shot while robbing another persons home in the middle of the night. Only a committed anti could construe Martin's laying in wait as an unfair "ambush." A basic principle of home defense is to first ascertain who it is you're going to shoot. Would the Crowns Prosecutor rather Martin have shot wildly into the darkness?

Only someone deeply ignorant of the basic concepts of freedom and the basic human right to self-defense could possibly offer up these weak justifications for Martin's incarceration.

edit: and to say that Martin got a bad press shows a deep ignorance of the media campaign surrounding his case.

Like the British Armed Forces in the Iraqi theater, I stopped following the BBC, Guardian, etc... long ago. Somehow I don't feel as if I am missing anything.

 

[another okie]

Based on the link he have me agricola is correct about jury trials still "occasionally" occurring in civil matters. I've never heard of one. Here's a quote from that site:

"Sometimes jurors are needed in a civil case such as libel. This does not happen often. When it does, the trial will take place in the High Court or a county court."

As I said, it is true that Blair suggested doing away with jury trials in criminal cases.

 

[agricola]

no, he (and in reality it was David Blunkett, the Home Secretary who is more usually linked with this) suggested doing away with jury trials for criminal trials linked to complex frauds and where there was a likelyhood of jury intimidation.

a separate proposal suggested that the option for a jury trial be removed from some offences, removing them from the "each-way" bracket to the "summary only" bracket; meaning that the Court appointed to deal with those offences will be that of a Magistrate, rather than the Crown Court.

rrader,

You've managed to miss the point. That article from the Guardian is the only one I have ever read that contained even a portion of the prosecution case, and even then it didnt contain the bulk of it. The press were overwhelmingly on the side of Martin, to the extent that the facts of the case were misrepresented so that the decision of the jury - which, unfortunately for Martin was based on the actual facts and not the newspaper coverage, appears ludicrous.

As pointed out before, this has lead to the press accepting the disproven defence case as fact with confusion for those poor souls who read and believe it. Your statement below contains much of this nonsense:

A basic principle of common law, now sadly absent from the low and retrograde legal system of the UK, is that a criminal takes his victims as he finds them.

this remains in Common Law, but is more correctly applied to the sphere of an assault - ie: where a man punches another man, who because of an inherited weak skull collapses and dies, he is liable for the death of that man (which, of course, does not mean necessarily that he is liable for murder because of a possible lack of malice aforethought). This does not mean that the criminal loses his rights as a human being because of his actions - a legal principle that has existed since the Roman Republic, if not before.

The bastards were shot while robbing another persons home in the middle of the night.

they were shot while running away from burgling another persons home. Robbery involves the application, or threat of, force to steal property. There was no robbery involved -Fearon was convicted of burglary.

Only a committed anti could construe Martin's laying in wait as an unfair "ambush." A basic principle of home defense is to first ascertain who it is you're going to shoot. Would the Crowns Prosecutor rather Martin have shot wildly into the darkness?

If Martin lies in wait for them inside his house, makes no attempt to scare them off, and shoots them in the back as they flee having come across him, then he is guilty of murder. Those were the facts of the case, and those were the reasons why he was rightfully convicted of murder by a jury of his peers.

Only someone deeply ignorant of the basic concepts of freedom and the basic human right to self-defense could possibly offer up these weak justifications for Martin's incarceration.

it isnt self defence, any more than the chap in Texas has found. oh yes, and Martin is a political prisoner, held in by the evil Queen and her pinko minions blah blah blah great empire fallen by socialism blah

 

[rrader]

Agricola:

Speaking of nonsense... you seem to be having a great deal of trouble deciding whether you want to portray yourself as knowing very little about the Martin case or pontificating about it from the standpoint of having perfect knowledge:

Here you are as Agricola the ignorant:

That article from the Guardian is the only one I have ever read that contained even a portion of the prosecution case, and even then it didnt contain the bulk of it.

And now, Agricola the all-knowing (LMAO)

they were shot while running away from burgling another persons home. Robbery involves the application, or threat of, force to steal property. There was no robbery involved -Fearon was convicted of burglary.

And so you have only read of the prosecution's case to the extent of what is in the Guardian, yet have poured over the forensic evidence, including the blood-splatter analysis, in order to determine that the deceased burgler / robber was "running away" and you can somehow devine whether any verbal or physical threat was conveyed to Martin by the burglers / robbers.

If Martin lies in wait for them inside his house, makes no attempt to scare them off, and shoots them in the back as they flee having come across him, then he is guilty of murder. Those were the facts of the case, and those were the reasons why he was rightfully convicted of murder by a jury of his peers.

Insofar as the concept of "the glass-jawed plaintiff" goes, it isn't a concept strictly limited to a determination of liability in tort as you imply, it serves equally in criminal law (although exclusive of the low and retrograde British legal system). Simply put, if a criminal has put themself into a position of threatening the life of a victim or causing that apprehension then that victim should not be held wholly liable for any overaction.

The fact that the British legal system failed to take this into account in Martin's case is a damning indictment, as is your weak apologia for that failure. Physical evidence can't detail the nature of Martin's "lying in wait" or detail the nature of any verbal threats made by the burgler's / robbers. The fact that only two people now alive could offer eyewitness testimony to the events at Bleak house and that the word of the burglar / robber was taken over that of the homeowner is damning as well.

Your proposition that Martin had an affirmative obligation to somehow attempt to "scare off" the burglers is patent absurdity. But then again we are discussing the absurd and retrograde British legal system.

You don't seem to like the fact that legal system of the UK is considered an arcane laughingstock by the vast majority of members of this board. One question then, why do you stay?

I notice you haven't denied being an "anti"

Do you even own a firearm?

Bottom line: The British legal system denies honest law-abiding citizens the ability to defend themselves with a weapon and places an undue burden on the victims of crime to justify an act of self defense.

It's sad that so many Britons such as yourself seem to prefer this, very sad.