Crime and its victims.

[Kumnaa]

Originally posted by Tzencath
has anyone realised the whole deal with tony martin is the courts trying to be pollitically correct?

you mean legally correct

[Jammers]

Originally posted by Kumnaa
the point is that he shouldnt even have the right to sue

So there shouldn't be any laws on whether burglars can or can't sue?

[W]

Originally posted by bobble
it's quite obvious you have
1) have never been in a high stress situation where your life was in danger because of another person's malicious intent
2) have never held, much less fired a gun at all (yes i say this with confidence, firing a gun, even at a simple paper target, is an adrenalin-feeding experience)
3) have never tried to aim a gun at a moving target and hit with a high degree of accuracy. contrary to popular belief, shooting accurately under the best of conditions is hard.
4) have never had your home broken into, and your property stolen
5) have never been in the house when this has occurred.
6) have not thought anything through even remotely, or you might know the burglar could've decided to turn back around and harm Mr. Martin or anyone else in the house.
7) have never actually had to closely guard anything, with any kind of force, from any intrusion. you would know what a terrifying, frustrating, sickening, and vulnerable feeling it is otherwise.

Someone breaks into a house, possibly with the intent of harming/killing the family members if they get in his way, and he should be WARNED before someone defends their home against him? Do you not, in some remote way, see how this is ludicrous? Does this not ring a HUGE alarm of betraying basic common sense with you?

People like you make me sick. You apologize for and sympathize with those that would hurt, maim, kill, etc., in the name of their own selfish laziness. You victimize the perpetrators of society and the people that are willing to disregard the law and other human's rights for their own selfish gains. You're a fool. A petty perfect-world idealist living in a fantasy. You offend basic common sense with your gross ignorance. Grow up. Get out in the real world. Get out from behind your computer and take a look outside.

Or get yourself a wooden mallet and follow my previous instructions.

It matters little to us with more than 3 working brain cells.

You too dumb to take advice from real smart soldier? You dumb troll. Go away.

[Tzencath]

Originally posted by Jammers
So there shouldn't be any laws on whether burglars can or can't sue?

no, a burglar broke the law, and the consiquences he brought down upon himself because of that are his own fault and responsability. getting compensation for someone he tried to rob is the same as robbing them in the first place...

[lokken]

Originally posted by Forest
Tony Martin sh0t a burglar who broke into his home. He si a farmer, and was jailed for it.

Now it appears, the judge has agreed that the burglars, have rights to sue the farmer.

It was disproportionate to the action required in the situation. I quote: "It is NOT safe to assume that unless you shoot to kill, they'll murder you and your family, then rape them. " Any other such rule on what action was to be taken would just allow inconsistency, irresponsibility and unnecessary death (even a burglar has a right to life - there is no death sentence for a burglar).

Morally right or wrong, that's what I think the law bases its thinking upon.

I think it's wrong for the burglar to sue myself, why should anyone committing an illegal act be allowed to benefit from it? It makes no sense. Should Tony Martin be jailed for shooting an intruder? I'd err that he should, but for a reduced period when compared to normal murder on the basis that he took excessive action in the circumstances. If someone was pointing a gun at him, then he probably did have the right to the shoot in self defence - that wasn't exactly the case here.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Kumnaa
the point is that he shouldnt even have the right to sue

If Tony Martin was in the wrong for shooting the first one, then the second has the right to sue. Im not sure how anyone could claim otherwise.

[Tzencath]

oh c'mon, why the hell should any criminals be allowed to sue after doing their crimes?

it doesn't matter what their circumstances is, it's their own fault that anything happend, they broke the law to begin with, and if they'd be nice law abiding people, it wouldn't have happened.

i dare someone to tell me thats not right AND give a sensible answer

[Jammers]

Originally posted by Tzencath
no, a burglar broke the law, and the consiquences he brought down upon himself because of that are his own fault and responsability. getting compensation for someone he tried to rob is the same as robbing them in the first place...

There is a legal principle called Contributory Negligence, which may or may not apply in this case(Civil Law isn't my strong point). Basically what it says is if you're actions lead to you being injured, then the damages will be reduced. Presumably for making such a contribution towards your injury such as breaking into someones home, there will be a significant amount of the damages deducted(you get 25% deducted for not wearing a seatbelt). Of course, this assumes that the burglar wins, which isn't very likely.
As I said earlier, chances are he'll lose, and then no other burglar will be able to sue. Incidently, would you have a problem if a Parliament decided to pass a law saying that burglars cannot claim damages? Because it's essentially the same as what is happening now. A law has to be made, and there probably isn't enough time to do it through Parliament, so it might as well be done through the courts.

[bobble]

Originally posted by W
You too dumb to take advice from real smart soldier? You dumb troll. Go away.

nice response, didn't address a single thing I said.

WAY TO GO CORKEY< GOLD STAR FOR YOU!!

Get out in the real world and buy yourself a clue, monkey.

[W]

Originally posted by bobble
nice response, didn't address a single thing I said.

WAY TO GO CORKEY< GOLD STAR FOR YOU!!

Get out in the real world and buy yourself a clue, monkey.

BUSTED!

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by W
BUSTED!

how many of his seven things you have never done list have you done... I recall you doing some time in the military...

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by CCSD
Ah, well that explains it then. If he had been in the Marines, he probably would not be espousing such utter and complete drivel.

the differences between the Army and Marines where you are are not nescessarily the same everywhere else.

[W]

Originally posted by Radical Edward
how many of his seven things you have never done list have you done... I recall you doing some time in the military...

Lets just say that our main duty, in anything but open war against our country, is guard duty. I have my own H&K G3 assault rifle and 100 rounds at home.

[bobble]

Originally posted by W
Lets just say that our main duty, in anything but open war against our country, is guard duty. I have my own H&K G3 assault rifle and 100 rounds at home.

So you could say yes to point #2

there were 6 others.

I'm still laughing.

[W]

Originally posted by bobble
So you could say yes to point #2

there were 6 others.

I'm still laughing.

You're still a twat with zero qualifications for saying anything about what is and isn't possible in a situation involving firearms. I've actually gotten education and training in this ****, and regularilly get to practice it. Mr "shooting is so hard", you should simply give up. You might consider it ludicrous to warn a possibly unarmed civilian intruder with unknown intentions, and would rather just shoot them dead. But you got no case that it's rational to do so other than on a moral stand.

[bobble]

Originally posted by W
You're still a twat with zero qualifications for saying anything about what is and isn't possible in a situation involving firearms. I've actually gotten education and training in this ****, and regularilly get to practice it. Mr "shooting is so hard", you should simply give up. You might consider it ludicrous to warn a possibly unarmed civilian intruder with unknown intentions, and would rather just shoot them dead. But you got no case that it's rational to do so other than on a moral stand.

aww..resorting to the typical GD "you're a twat" argument. 'clever'. Did the truth hurt too much tardo?

so you regularily get to train with people that are actually unexpectedly threatening you? you get to train on unknown intrusions into yor home in the middle of the night?

or is it that you get to sit in a truck eating donuts while your rifle rusts next to you?

how many human beings have you fired at?
how many times has someone broken into your home, scaringt he crap out of you?
in the dark, how are you going to know they are unarmed? do you wear your night vision goggles to bed?
unknown intentions is the POINT, thank you for supporting it.

rational people understand what happened. rational people know it was a $hitty situation but rational people know Mr. Martin was not at fault.

someone broke into HIS home
someone took what WASN'T theirs
someone COULD'VE very well hurt HIM or HIS FAMILY

rational? i doubt you know the meaning. you believe rational means 'fantasy-born utopia'.

get a clue before speaking.

you're looking awful silly, and still havent addressed more than one point of mine.

im done with you. you're dreadfully boring.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by W
But you got no case that it's rational to do so other than on a moral stand.

What's rational to do really depends on the individual in question. If I was in a jury considering the case (ignoring my automatic bias) I would take into account someone's personality when considering what's rational for them.

It might be that it's rational for you to be have in a certain way when someone breaks into your home because you are a trained soldier. For someone else, this might be different. Rationality doesn't seem to be an objective thing.

For people who are highly depressed suicide seems fairly rational, but objectively it's almost always a stupid decision since you might as well go round robbing, raping and incurring masses of consumer credit before you.

[W]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
What's rational to do really depends on the individual in question. If I was in a jury considering the case (ignoring my automatic bias) I would take into account someone's personality when considering what's rational for them.

It might be that it's rational for you to be have in a certain way when someone breaks into your home because you are a trained soldier. For someone else, this might be different. Rationality doesn't seem to be an objective thing.

For people who are highly depressed suicide seems fairly rational, but objectively it's almost always a stupid decision since you might as well go round robbing, raping and incurring masses of consumer credit before you.

Ok, so rational was perhaps the wrong word. What he lacks is a convincing logical argument that shouting a warning from safe cover instead of aproaching and fireing a gun will put you and those you protect in MORE and not LESS danger.

Originally posted by bobble
aww..resorting to the typical GD "you're a twat" argument. 'clever'. Did the truth hurt too much tardo?

so you regularily get to train with people that are actually unexpectedly threatening you? you get to train on unknown intrusions into yor home in the middle of the night?

or is it that you get to sit in a truck eating donuts while your rifle rusts next to you?

how many human beings have you fired at?
how many times has someone broken into your home, scaringt he crap out of you?
in the dark, how are you going to know they are unarmed? do you wear your night vision goggles to bed?
unknown intentions is the POINT, thank you for supporting it.

rational people understand what happened. rational people know it was a $hitty situation but rational people know Mr. Martin was not at fault.

someone broke into HIS home
someone took what WASN'T theirs
someone COULD'VE very well hurt HIM or HIS FAMILY

rational? i doubt you know the meaning. you believe rational means 'fantasy-born utopia'.

get a clue before speaking.

you're looking awful silly, and still havent addressed more than one point of mine.

im done with you. you're dreadfully boring.

I'm still waiting for your qualifications.
Unlike you, I'm not ready to assume I know anything about those I discuss with, but I must say, it APPEARS as if you're purely bluffing here, the way you avoid giving anything concrete.

[bobble]

Originally posted by W
Ok, so rational was perhaps the wrong word. What he lacks is a convincing logical argument that shouting a warning from safe cover instead of aproaching and fireing a gun will put you and those you protect in MORE and not LESS danger.

I'm still waiting for your qualifications.
Unlike you, I'm not ready to assume I know anything about those I discuss with, but I must say, it APPEARS as if you're purely bluffing here, the way you avoid giving anything concrete.

I never said that it didn't have the possibility to put you and your family in more danger. Don't put words in my mouth to fuel your idiotic argument.

What exactly would I be bluffing here, turbo? What exact qualifications are you searching for? Is this REALLY the best argument you've got? Do you want to know if I've been robbed? Do you want to know if I've fired a gun at a moving target, or have been professionally trained to do so?? Do you want a list of all the firearms I have used in the past? Have I ever been the target of someone's malicious intent in my own home, including bodily harm?

Is this REALLY what you're going on, the only thing you have to cling to? Because it's pretty pathetic.

I can say yes to all of the above (well, except the list, that's not a yes or no answer). Can you?

I doubt that even once in your RIGOROUS ]i]guard[/i] duty did you have to face a threat where you feared for your life.

Now please, tell me you have something better to go on. This isn't improving.

[W]

Originally posted by bobble
Someone breaks into a house, possibly with the intent of harming/killing the family members if they get in his way, and he should be WARNED before someone defends their home against him? Do you not, in some remote way, see how this is ludicrous? Does this not ring a HUGE alarm of betraying basic common sense with you?

I do not see how this is ludicrous. Please explain to me why you think it is. I see nothing wrong with saying that calling out a warning is common sense. May I further suggest that your experiences (if any) have blinded you from a certain tolerance, and that your main motive, if you should ever shoot an intruder, would be revenge, and not selfdefence. While I would not apologize for the intruder, I would have zero sympathy for any legal punishment you in turn recieved for the murder. Owning a weapon is a responsibility. If you do own one, and haven't lied too much troughout this threat, then I don't see how you live up to that responsibility.

And yes, I really want to know exactly what qualifications you have, and the details of the experiences you've alluded to. If you're unable to put to text your reasoning behind your bombastic conclusions, perhaps enough knowledge of you might show how you think.