open All Channels
seplocked Out of Pod Experience
blankseplocked Self defense law: Joe Horn (Texas) vs Tony Martin (UK)
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7

Author Topic

Bart Starr
Posted - 2011.08.10 06:15:00 - [1]
 

"Chavs" are running rampant in the UK, stealing, looting, even killing. British "Health and Safety" has gone out the window. Baseball bats are selling like hotcakes as Brits are arming themselves as well as their nanny-state government permits. These violent clashes have caused me to read up on the differences in what the US and the UK consider to be 'justifiable self-defense'.

Interesting comparison in how each society handles the use of firearms in defense of life and property. Exclamation

First, in the UK.

Tony Martin, elderly Norfolk farmer.

-His house having been repeatedly broken into, he arms himself. When his house is broken into for a 10th time, he confronts them and kills one, wounding the other with a shotgun.

-Surviving criminal sentenced to 3 years, while the farmer initially got LIFE imprisonment.

-Martin eventually was able to get his imprisonment reduced to five years, but was required to employ a humiliating 'personality disorder' defense.

-BBC media accounts I have seen clearly treated Martin as a highly dangerous individual (glowering, unflattering photos), while the 16-year old burglar was portrayed in a sympathetic manner (+smiling photos childhood), despite having a lengthy criminal record.

-Wounded thief had the nerve to pursue financial damages from the farmer for being injured while attempting to rob his home, and had some success until The Sun exposed that he wasn't as badly hurt as he his lawsuit claimed.

Joe Horn: Texas, 2008.
Older man, typing on his computer when he hears breaking glass next door.
Seeing 'two black men' breaking into his neighbor's house, he calls 911.
Police take too long to arrive, so when the thieves attempt to escape the house, Joe Horn confronts them in the yard with a shotgun, telling the police dispatcher that "I am going to kill them." Three shotgun blasts and two dead thieves later, Joe Horn becomes a folk hero.

-The entire confrontation took place while Joe was on the phone with the police dispatcher. (Its funny to hear the dispatcher doing everything he can to stop Joe from blowing away the crooks, I was laughing my ass off.)

-The dead criminals were identified as worthless Columbian illegal immigrants who had been previously deported for drug dealing. Fortunately, this misadventure rendered them incapable of further mischief.

-Joe Horn was not defending his own house or his person - but his neighbors unoccupied home and property.

-Grand Jury refused to indict, as no crime was committed under Texas law.

-Liberals and the NAACP were scandalized. Black Panthers attempted to protest the shootings at Joe's home, but the slick beret-wearing Negros are promptly driven off by Hells Angels and a throng of patriotic supporters, all on video. God, I love Texas. Very Happy

What sort of society do YOU prefer? A place like England, where innocent victims are criminalized and punished for defending themselves? Or a society like Texas that respects private property and gun ownership rights, while championing those who refuse to be bullied the scum that creep amongst us?

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.08.10 06:20:00 - [2]
 

Quite frankly, neither sounds very appealing.
But if I'd have to choose, I'd probably be ever so slightly more inclined to go with the USA version.

Bart Starr
Posted - 2011.08.10 06:58:00 - [3]
 

Interesting - reading more about the Tony Martin case. Guardian insisted on framing the issue as 'Gun Violence in the UK', as if Martin was the aggressor.

The dead burglar (Fred Barras) seemed to be the spawn of a particularly nasty group of people. Mother, father, parents, grandparents - Criminal records all of them. Gypsies, euphemistically referred to a 'clan of travelers' by the press.

Father - serving 14 years for armed robbery in 2001.

Mother - living on state benefits, used state assistance to sue Tony Martin. (and Tony Martin had to sell his home to raise money to pay for his defense)

Uncle - who took the kid along on the burglary, sued for damages, should have served hard time for reckless endangerment of a minor.

Grandmother - criminal record and stated ""It's not fair that the farmer has got all the money and he is the one that took Fred away"

What a loathsome bunch. You raise a kid to be a criminal, shouldn't be surprised when he gets ventilated. Apparently the teen died in pain, calling for his mother. Too bad his mother didn't care enough about him to raise him right. And then having the gall to actually seek 50K pounds in damages from the old man. Disgraceful.

Iggy Stooge
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
Posted - 2011.08.10 08:15:00 - [4]
 

If you live in Texas, no question, I prefer England.

Myfanwy Heimdal
Caldari
Posted - 2011.08.10 08:17:00 - [5]
 

The Tony Martin case did change a lot of attitudes towards crime and order in the UK. I don' know if you are aware but the burglars actually crossed the country to raid the farmhouse so it was certainly planned in aforethought.

There was a massive outcry over this even by those who don't read The Daily Mail (for those fortunate not to read this vile rag; this is basically a safe conservative hang-'em high publication) which was noted by the powers that be.

The other week there was a case of someone killing an intruder in their house. No charges are being sought against the householder.

Louis deGuerre
Gallente
Malevolence.
Posted - 2011.08.10 08:19:00 - [6]
 

Gleefully written post about people being killed make me sad.
Right or wrong, the happiness you seem to find in the death of others is pretty disgusting.

Kara Books
Posted - 2011.08.10 11:21:00 - [7]
 

DO WHAT FRANCE DID:

Deport every one regardless of race color or nationality.

Watch those immigrants come back to France GOLDEN perfect citizens after they live in Africa for a year.



If they don't agree, do what Stalin did, Execute Troublemakers on the spot and send the whole family to Slave labor camps.

Alpheias
Euphoria Released
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2011.08.10 11:38:00 - [8]
 

Bigotry, racial slurs and some kind of supremacist attitude in the wording.

Alright, Cowboy, the fact that you conveniently seemed to have missed is that you will not be prosecuted with manslaughter or murder if your own life is in danger thus making it a case of self-defense. Burglars in Europe generally isn't after your life, just your stuff.

But I can see why burglars would want to murder, scum like you especially.

Bart Starr
Posted - 2011.08.10 12:13:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: Bart Starr on 10/08/2011 12:15:54
Edited by: Bart Starr on 10/08/2011 12:15:11
There is a huge difference between 'illegal but not prosecuted in some cases' vs 'legal'.

The former puts you at the mercy of a prosecutor/legal system that is subject to personal bias, fashionable political trends, and sensational media coverage.

The latter is not.

In an increasingly PC and media crazy world, a blind application of the law in these cases is more important than ever. Due to unavoidable demographics in both the US and the UK, there will invariably be a racial angle to exploit in many self-defense cases.

Anybody remember the Duke lacrosse team 'ra.pe' trial? The left wanted to hang those boys without a trial simply because they liked the storyline of, 'privileged white boys viciously **** the poor black working woman.' When Crystal Mangums story turned out to be a load of horse****, the prosecutor went ahead to please local racial pressure groups. The press wouldn't even print her NAME, until long after it was clear to anybody with a brain that she made it all up to extort money from the white 'rapists'. Even after the case fell apart, she was NEVER prosecuted, not even for filing a false police report - yet now she rots in jail for an unrelated murder. Yeah, we didn't see that coming. Rolling Eyes

Only good thing to come out of that was it completely demolished the obnoxious feminist claim, 'Women don't lie about ra.pe', in a very high profile way. Also, it was lucky that the 'rapists' could afford good lawyers and afford bail.

Edit: Really CCP? 'r.ape' is NOT profanity. Fix your damn filter. Evil or Very Mad

Chaos Incarnate
Faceless Logistics
Posted - 2011.08.10 12:17:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Quite frankly, neither sounds very appealing.
But if I'd have to choose, I'd probably be ever so slightly more inclined to go with the USA version.



yeah, pretty much this

I don't feel that most state laws about castle doctrine stuff extend nearly as far as the Texas laws, tbh, so the 'US version' in the OP is really the worst of the worst possible situations

Bart Starr
Posted - 2011.08.10 12:33:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Louis deGuerre
Gleefully written post about people being killed make me sad.
Right or wrong, the happiness you seem to find in the death of others is pretty disgusting.


I've never understood the attitude that one can't be happy when someone meets a well-deserved end. There is a saying down in the South - "He needed killin' is a valid defense."

I weep for children aborted in our crazy value system. Hell, I see red when DOGS are mistreated.

But when human scum seek to enrich themselves by terrorizing others by breaking into our homes, their 'non-violent intentions' be damned. I'll cheer when responsible citizens finally say "enough is enough" and pull the trigger. In fact, I find it somewhat offensive when I am told by pacifistic idiots that I have to actually 'feel bad' for dead criminals and their families.

Chaos Incarnate
Faceless Logistics
Posted - 2011.08.10 13:12:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Bart Starr
There is a saying down in the South - "He needed killin' is a valid defense."


the South: a bastion of human rights and due process of the law since...uhm...yeah...

...I'm sure they'll get around to it eventually. Rolling Eyes

Marwood Ford
Posted - 2011.08.10 13:17:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Bart Starr
What sort of society do YOU prefer? A place like England, where innocent victims are criminalized and punished for defending themselves? Or a society like Texas that respects private property and gun ownership rights, while championing those who refuse to be bullied the scum that creep amongst us?


If I ever had to choose between your simplistic rhetoric and British law, you'd find me wrapped in the Union Flag singing God Save The Queen until they took me away.

RAW23
Posted - 2011.08.10 13:23:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Bart Starr

What sort of society do YOU prefer? A place like England, where innocent victims are criminalized and punished for defending themselves? Or a society like Texas that respects private property and gun ownership rights, while championing those who refuse to be bullied the scum that creep amongst us?


I much prefer the society in the UK but the Texan approach to guns. Don't try to conflate the whole society with its attitude to firearms.

Didn't Texas' governor recently veto a law that would have banned executions of the mentally handicapped?

stoicfaux
Gallente
Posted - 2011.08.10 14:01:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: stoicfaux on 10/08/2011 14:29:27
Originally by: Bart Starr
I've never understood the attitude that one can't be happy when someone meets a well-deserved end.


Trouble is, an assertion of "well-deserved" can't be made until afterwards. In the heat of the moment, you don't have all the facts, which means you're killing someone using snap judgement as an untrained individual serving as judge, jury, and executioner. Society tends to frown on that.

It's one thing to kill in self-defense, it's quite another to make an on the spot value judgement that your neighbor's TV is worth more than a human life. Last I heard, Texas was a bit of a contradiction in that regard, on one hand can defend your property with lethal force, on the other hand, the court system doesn't hand out the death penalty for theft.

Personally, as tempted as I would be to shoot the thieves, you have to think that there's always the possibility that one of the thieves could be an undercover cop or an informant with information that could bust a gang or theft ring. Plus, the US/Texas is predominantly Christian so there's the whole annoying Christian morality thing about not killing those who offend you.

Taking matters into your own hands would also imply a complete lack of faith in the Police and judicial system, which is indicative of a bigger problem.

Finally, there's the issue of training. If you expand the parameters of when it's okay to use lethal force, you're going to have a lot of un-trained people shooting repo men, meter readers, etc..

In short, it's easy to justify shooting someone when you know their criminal history a few days later. It's quite another to do so on the spur of the moment. Personally, I prefer to err on the side of caution when practical. Shooting a fleeing thief is probably not worth it, but putting an extra round into a wounded intruder to make sure he stays down because you don't know if there's more than one intruder and you don't want a wounded murderer/rapist/kidnapper behind you as you search the house to verify that your family and home is secure is also ok, IMO.



Wilhelm Riley
Posted - 2011.08.10 14:11:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Quite frankly, neither sounds very appealing.
But if I'd have to choose, I'd probably be ever so slightly more inclined to go with the USA version.



Same here. I'd rather not see guns as available as in the US but if I want to take a baseball bat or a sword to some jerk who wont stop harassing me I'd like to think I could do that without being jailed for life.

Jhagiti Tyran
Muppet Ninja's
Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
Posted - 2011.08.10 14:19:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Bart Starr
Originally by: Louis deGuerre
Gleefully written post about people being killed make me sad.
Right or wrong, the happiness you seem to find in the death of others is pretty disgusting.


I've never understood the attitude that one can't be happy when someone meets a well-deserved end. There is a saying down in the South - "He needed killin' is a valid defense."

I weep for children aborted in our crazy value system. Hell, I see red when DOGS are mistreated.

But when human scum seek to enrich themselves by terrorizing others by breaking into our homes, their 'non-violent intentions' be damned. I'll cheer when responsible citizens finally say "enough is enough" and pull the trigger. In fact, I find it somewhat offensive when I am told by pacifistic idiots that I have to actually 'feel bad' for dead criminals and their families.


Exactly what gives anybody the right to judge whether somebody "needs killing" the kind of social anarchy you propose is no different to the rioting and looting, the threat of being shot certainly hasn't done anything to reduce crime, nor has the inhumane penal system that creates more problems than it solves.

Just grabbing guns and deciding who needs to be shot isn't something that people in civilized countries should be doing, regardless your analogy is flawed.

The Tony Martin case was more akin to the case of the pharmacist in Oklahoma, basically somebody killing a criminal who no longer posed a threat in cold blood and claiming it was "self defense"

PS.

You wont convince most people in Britain you are a right, most find the idea of everybody running around with guns as appalling as this rioting.

stoicfaux
Gallente
Posted - 2011.08.10 14:28:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Wilhelm Riley

Same here. I'd rather not see guns as available as in the US but if I want to take a baseball bat or a sword to some jerk who wont stop harassing me I'd like to think I could do that without being jailed for life.


I think Grandma would be better able to defend herself with a handgun instead of a baseball bat...

IMHO, guns work best when either everyone has one, or no one has one. And since no one having guns isn't practical, I'd have to go with everyone owning a gun.

Everyone can defend themselves. People would be more polite. Oppression (government or civilian) would be difficult since a slave with a gun isn't a slave. Of course, the down side to universal gun ownership is that you can't just ignore that growing underclass of poor/immigrant/minority/second-class-citizens that's become so disenfranchised that they revolt. People would be encouraged to find common ground. Twisted Evil


Holy One
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2011.08.10 14:29:00 - [19]
 

Edited by: Holy One on 10/08/2011 14:29:20
Texas example is homicide pure and simple. He had no just cause to shoot dead anyone who was not on his property endangering his life. There was no precedent of antagonism and no use or threat of violence from the victims.

Texas is ****ed up.

Tony Martin case was interesting in a few key areas you omitted to mention.

1. The victim was fleeing from the house and was shot in the back AFTER pleading not to be.
2. Mr. Martin had a long history of 'eccentric' behaviour which more than jutsified his defense.

Also yes, it did change perceptions a lot here. Seeing the recent riots and police literally standing by watching rioters destroy private property leaves me wondering how much ..

FWIW you might find this interesting: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8607203/You-can-pick-up-a-knife-and-stab-a-burglar-says-Ken-Clarke.html

TBH personally I'd kill anyone I found in my home if they represented a threat to me or my family. Irrespective of the law. Sadly most sheeple actually think about the law before they act in their own defense. If more people did what they had to do there'd be less need to refer to extreme examples with tenous underpinning justification ..

Kel'Taran
Posted - 2011.08.10 14:39:00 - [20]
 

TBH law enforcements mandate of "protect and serve" has long ago changed to "serve and protect". Their primary purpose now seem to be to generate reports and investigate after the fact instead of actively protecting the public.

Also, to rely on the government to provide for the individuals safety and needs is akin to the Sheep, Shepard, Wolf analogy. The people are the sheep, government and law enforcement the shepard, and criminals are the wolves. Society and the people in it have become so complacent and entitled they are no better than sheep which is exactly what the shepards want. They dont want the sheep to think or fend for themselves, they want the sheep to depend on them for their entire existence from food to protection. Basically minus all the colorful slurs and such in the OP what it boils down to is the first story the shepard is punishing and vilifying the sheep for standing up to the wolves and in the second the shepard is telling the sheep good job.

Being a military veteran, avid sport and recreational shooter, soon to be concealed carry license holder and one who is independent and takes care of myself I prefer the option of having the firearm incase there is a need. I will use it if necessary, ie my life is in danger.

Blacksquirrel
Posted - 2011.08.10 15:00:00 - [21]
 

Thats texas though. In Massachusetts last I heard deadly force is only authorized in your own home after you dont have the ability to flee.

It varies state by state. I know once concealed weapons laws were relaxed in Arizona everyone thought! Yeah gonna be like the movies when a herd of "Brown people" attempt every crime known to man on me while minding my own business at the grocery store. However once it came to light that it's not as simple as shooting someone in self defense, and that you will be arrested no matter what (And probably sued by a multitude of people or businesses for shooting someone in their store) the grandiose ideas of the old west went away.

I can honestly say that i've never been in a situation (In the USA) where I've needed a gun. Having said that if someone breaks into your house and they get what's coming to them... Eh... I wont be shedding a tear in most cases.

Louis deGuerre
Gallente
Malevolence.
Posted - 2011.08.10 15:05:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Bart Starr
I've never understood the attitude that one can't be happy when someone meets a well-deserved end. There is a saying down in the South - "He needed killin' is a valid defense."


I'm sure Anders Breivik feels exactly like you do. Those kids 'needed killing' too.

Ayieka
Caldari
Posted - 2011.08.10 15:31:00 - [23]
 

Edited by: Ayieka on 10/08/2011 16:00:57
Edited by: Ayieka on 10/08/2011 15:31:09
breaking and entering doesn't warrent being allowed to kill someone over it.

ALSO: Tony Martin had an illegally owned weapon, that kinda makes a difference.

Kel'Taran
Posted - 2011.08.10 15:41:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Ayieka
Edited by: Ayieka on 10/08/2011 15:31:09
breaking and entering doesn't warrent being allowed to kill someone over it.


It does when the person breaking and entering has a weapon and you are in fear of your life. To begin with if the person is not in my house by means other than me letting them in they have already declared their hostile intent. Secondly the have already shown that they have no respect for the law else they would not have broken in.

To be honest though before i get to them with my firearm, my dogs will have already made the degenerate crap his pants.

Ayieka
Caldari
Posted - 2011.08.10 15:52:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Kel'Taran
Originally by: Ayieka
Edited by: Ayieka on 10/08/2011 15:31:09
breaking and entering doesn't warrent being allowed to kill someone over it.


It does when the person breaking and entering has a weapon and you are in fear of your life. To begin with if the person is not in my house by means other than me letting them in they have already declared their hostile intent. Secondly the have already shown that they have no respect for the law else they would not have broken in.

To be honest though before i get to them with my firearm, my dogs will have already made the degenerate crap his pants.


yeah but the only people breaking in were dumb kids, probably armed with nothing more than a bat. all he had to do was fire the gun in the air and they'd be gone. instead he chose to just kill the kid outright. i can see if the kids also had guns, or were attempting to hurt the guy, but they were just being idiots and looting.

Wendat Huron
Stellar Solutions
Posted - 2011.08.10 15:58:00 - [26]
 

Anything even Russia over Texas.

Blacksquirrel
Posted - 2011.08.10 16:00:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Ayieka
Originally by: Kel'Taran
Originally by: Ayieka
Edited by: Ayieka on 10/08/2011 15:31:09
breaking and entering doesn't warrent being allowed to kill someone over it.


It does when the person breaking and entering has a weapon and you are in fear of your life. To begin with if the person is not in my house by means other than me letting them in they have already declared their hostile intent. Secondly the have already shown that they have no respect for the law else they would not have broken in.

To be honest though before i get to them with my firearm, my dogs will have already made the degenerate crap his pants.


yeah but the only people breaking in were dumb kids, probably armed with nothing more than a bat. all he had to do was fire the gun in the air and they'd be gone. instead he chose to just kill the kid outright. i can see if the kids also had guns, or were attempting to hurt the guy, but they were just being idiots and looting.


The problem is you dont know peoples intent, if they're blitzed outta their mind on PCP or if they are carrying something. Yeah if it's some kids under the age 16 they probably only need a severe beating (Stupidity should hurt) but even the simplest weapon thats not a gun can kill or maim, and not all kids are ****ing harmless after all. Also in those situations people in their homes are scared ****less, and in more of a reactionary state than a analytical one.

stoicfaux
Gallente
Posted - 2011.08.10 16:05:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Ayieka

yeah but the only people breaking in were dumb kids, probably armed with nothing more than a bat.


/facepalm

Ok. If you want to risk your life on "probably .. a bat" then that's fine. Your life is your own. But once have a wife and kids that you're responsible for protecting, you'll need to find a balance between "erring on the side of caution" and "needlessly risking your family's lives."

If someone breaks into your home, you don't know:
a) what, if any weapons they have,
b) how many intruders there are,
c) are they there to steal, hurt, ****, murder, torture, kidnap, and/or commit arson?
d) are they drugged out of their minds and behaving unpredictably,
e) how long will it take the police to get to your place?
f) did they disable the alarm system (cutting the phone line is popular if you don't have a wireless system) and/or cut the power to your house?


Quote:
they were just being idiots and looting.


Even idiots can change their mind. Hey, why stop at looting, especially if they suddenly take a fancy to your daughter?


Ayieka
Caldari
Posted - 2011.08.10 16:06:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Blacksquirrel

The problem is you dont know peoples intent, if they're blitzed outta their mind on PCP or if they are carrying something. Yeah if it's some kids under the age 16 they probably only need a severe beating (Stupidity should hurt) but even the simplest weapon thats not a gun can kill or maim, and not all kids are ****ing harmless after all. Also in those situations people in their homes are scared ****less, and in more of a reactionary state than a analytical one.


if you're unable to make a rational decision in a situation like that, theres no point in owning a deadly weapon for self defense.

Alpheias
Euphoria Released
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2011.08.10 16:08:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: stoicfaux
Originally by: Ayieka

yeah but the only people breaking in were dumb kids, probably armed with nothing more than a bat.


/facepalm

Ok. If you want to risk your life on "probably .. a bat" then that's fine. Your life is your own. But once have a wife and kids that you're responsible for protecting, you'll need to find a balance between "erring on the side of caution" and "needlessly risking your family's lives."

If someone breaks into your home, you don't know:
a) what, if any weapons they have,
b) how many intruders there are,
c) are they there to steal, hurt, ****, murder, torture, kidnap, and/or commit arson?
d) are they drugged out of their minds and behaving unpredictably,
e) how long will it take the police to get to your place?
f) did they disable the alarm system (cutting the phone line is popular if you don't have a wireless system) and/or cut the power to your house?




LOL. You really got sensationalism down, ever considered working for a tabloid?


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only