egafd.com

It's even illegal to booby-trap your own house, so burglars can have ease of mind regarding safe access.

In Texas, Tony Martin would have received a $2000 reward. I like that system better.

Attacking a burglar in your house is not vigilantism, it's responding to a direct threat. Forming a posse and stringing him up, whilst probably deserved, would be vigilantism.

It always tickles me that whenever a cop shoots an innocent person he never gets done for it - the justification is always that really thought the victim was a threat to him. But if you bash some scumbag who's in your house at night, there's every chance that you'll be charged. One law for them, one for us.

Tony Martin shoots two real burglars - gets five years for manslaughter.

PC "X" shoots Jean Charles Menezes dead - he thought he was a terrorist, so that's OK.

[quote]Why mentioned guns and why do you assume that a burglar is just after a VCR?[/quote]

I mentioned guns due to Mike's original posting, whereby he implied that shooting a burglar is acceptable because the burglar should have 'no rights whatsoever.' You replied with, Quote: 'Mike is 100% correct.' I don't assume that burglars are just after VCRs either, it was just an example. It seems that you assumed that I assume, that burglars are just after VCRs! lol!
My point stands that nobody deserves to die for stealing only, regardless of whats being stolen.

[quote]Hand guns are illegal in the UK - though that doesn't stop the criminal element using them.[/quote]

But the 'criminal element' don't feel the need to use guns in most cases because the people they steal from don't have guns either. Thats what I was trying to put across to people. Once people get guns to stop burglars, burglars will get guns to give them a better chance of surviving.

[quote]You can do as much damage with a baseball bat, a hammer or other weapon as you can with a gun, i.e. you can kill or permanently maim.[/quote]

True, but as I've already said, 'it's easier to run away from a guy with a bat'. From the burglars point of view, his defence from a baseball bat is to run..........fast. His best defence from a man with a gun, is a gun himself. (a bad situation for all concerned).

[quote]Having been trained to use firearms, I can assure you that many untrained people, if they had a handgun, would probably miss the target in the heat of the moment.[/quote]

Agreed, but the burglar won't take the chance that his victim is a bad shot, and not bother arming himself!

[quote]Let's get real. A burglar has no business on your property and has no business trying to relieve you of what is rightfully yours.[/quote]

I totally agree, but the victim has no bussiness killing the burglar, unless the act of killing him is to save his own -or family's- life. Killing someone just because you're angry is worse than stealing.

[quote]If someone wants to be a burglar they should be given no protection in law unless they are prepared to leave empty handed after a victim has confronted them.[/quote]

They should be given protection because he's a human being. He may 'give up' his rights to freedom, but not his rights to live. From that point of view, a victim is then 'promoted' in society and given temporary rights to decide 'to kill, or not to kill'. That law will be used and abused by people who want to be rid of a bussiness rival, or a wife's lover very easily!

Stealing someone's possessions is wrong, can cause frustration, anger, and heartache, but most importantly possessions can be replaced. A life cannot. Though the burglar may be a 'sick, scrounging bastard' he may have kids, a wife, a mother who aren't 'sick scrounging bastards' and don't want him to be killed because he broke the law.

Only under exceptional circumstances should someone have the right to kill another. Having your house burgled isn't exceptional enough for me.

[quote]Tony Martin shoots two real burglars - gets five years for manslaughter.

PC "X" shoots Jean Charles Menezes dead - he thought he was a terrorist, so that's OK.[/quote]

Tony Martin was protecting his property. PC X was protecting his life, his comrades lives, the publics lives, and our freedom.

A big, big difference.

PC X acted in precisely the same way as you are so worried that people would act if burglar's rights were taken away.

PC X was badly briefed, the information before his eyes was not analysed but was acted on in the heat of the moment and the outcome was that a family was bereaved and the man wasn't even a terrorist, or someone doing harm.

There is no difference at all - except the authorities justify one as "pro bono" and the other as murder.

Nah, Tony Martin was in no where near as much danger, and the concequences were no where near as high, as the Menezes killing. Tony Martin killed through frustration & anger. The police should have done something about his situation, and Tony's actions were understandable, but wrong.

There's nothing about the 2 killings that are comparable. The crimes are different, the circumstances are different, and the dangers of 'not doing anything' are totally different.

>Nah, Tony Martin was in no where near as much danger, and the concequences were no where near as high, as the Menezes killing.

How do you work that out? Tony Martin was in real danger from two real burglars. PC X was in no danger, but thought he was. But the law imprisons the man who was in danger, and lets off the man who wasn't. Why? Because one was a cop, and one wasn't. That may count as justice in bizarro world, which is where our lawmakers seem to live.

There's a whole thread about the Menezes shooting where I have stated my points. It's easy with hindsight to say that PC X wasn't in danger, but at the time he believed he was as he was dealing with a suspected bomber.

Can anyone tell me what danger Tony Martin was in? I just thought they were thieves/burglars? Were they going to kill him & roast his buttocks on a pikey campfire?

The law is completely cock-eyed. At the moment a burglar knows that he can break into someones house and if the occupant uses "excessive force" then the occupant will be for the high jump. This means that people are more likely to commit burglaries, as they know people are unlikely to confront them as they will be leaving themselves open to prosecution, so the burglar be more likely to get away with it.
On the flip side of the coin, an occupant of a house might not be willing to run the risk of prosecution, so may very well attempt to kill the burglar outright and then dispose of the evidence.
Either way, the law as it is only promotes criminality.

Sam Slater wrote:

> Can anyone tell me what danger Tony Martin was in? I just
> thought they were thieves/burglars? Were they going to kill him
> & roast his buttocks on a pikey campfire?

Two guys breaking into his house, in the country, in the middle of the night. He doesn't know if there's more than 2 guys, if they're armed, who they were or their intentions. All he knew at the time was that there were people in his house who shouldn't have been there. They could have planned to do anything, and since they were already there illegally, its a fair bet that they weren't going to be leaving chocolates.