The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
So a judge has decided to keep a norfolk farmer in jail. To me he has done nothing wrong. he shot someone who was in his house illegally and was a threat to his life. How he can be done for murder I dont know. Then the other guy The accomplice is going to sue him for being wounded umm excuse me if I'm wrong but it's his own fault. If he wasn't there by his choice he wouldn't have been wounded.
It further infuriates me how an Everton footballer is being sued by a burgalar because he restrained him whilst he called the police.
So the government wants to lessen the sentences for burgalars, but if we try to stop them we face a hefty prison sentence and the burgalar may sue us.
Thats fair isn't it
Rant over
It further infuriates me how an Everton footballer is being sued by a burgalar because he restrained him whilst he called the police.
So the government wants to lessen the sentences for burgalars, but if we try to stop them we face a hefty prison sentence and the burgalar may sue us.
Thats fair isn't it
Rant over
From a law student view, these pikey claims tend to have one of two legal justifications (maybe read as 'justifications'...):
1. People on your property.
You have a responsibility to see that they don't come to any harm, and as Snuggly stated, most would accept that this extends to not shooting people in the back as they're running away with minor stolen possessions.
Opening it up to include stuff like the burglar getting locked in the garage, the idea is that if it's a foreseeable risk, you should take measures to prevent it.
The criticism for the legal basis would be that people coming onto someone's property, especially illegally, can be seen to accept the risk of certain things happening to them, through them not knowing the area, or through the possibility of the property owner interveining in their illegal acts.
2. (While we're at it) People suing businesses (eg, McDonalds, for the woman who tipped coffee over herself), councils (for tripping over pavements and stuff), basically anyone providing a public service.
While when dealing with one individual you're legally entitled to expect a certain degree of 'reasonableness' in their actions, when providing a public service etc. you know (statistically) you'll deal with people lesser able to conduct themselves with reasonable ability not to mess themselves up, and so the degree of reasonableness you can expect should be lower.
Here, the criticisms are i) that the balance is wrong, at too low a level, and ii) that complete muppets should recognise, to a degree, that they're so incompetent and take precautions to protect themselves and everyone else.
I'm not saying this is a particularly thorough thing, but it's based on my semi-completed law degree and personal opinion, and is my understanding of the situation.
Thus to cover myself from my own incompetence, nobody rely on this in any way whatsoever :^)
And nobody copy this, if worst comes to worst I'll have to hand it in as my dissertation
:^D
1. People on your property.
You have a responsibility to see that they don't come to any harm, and as Snuggly stated, most would accept that this extends to not shooting people in the back as they're running away with minor stolen possessions.
Opening it up to include stuff like the burglar getting locked in the garage, the idea is that if it's a foreseeable risk, you should take measures to prevent it.
The criticism for the legal basis would be that people coming onto someone's property, especially illegally, can be seen to accept the risk of certain things happening to them, through them not knowing the area, or through the possibility of the property owner interveining in their illegal acts.
2. (While we're at it) People suing businesses (eg, McDonalds, for the woman who tipped coffee over herself), councils (for tripping over pavements and stuff), basically anyone providing a public service.
While when dealing with one individual you're legally entitled to expect a certain degree of 'reasonableness' in their actions, when providing a public service etc. you know (statistically) you'll deal with people lesser able to conduct themselves with reasonable ability not to mess themselves up, and so the degree of reasonableness you can expect should be lower.
Here, the criticisms are i) that the balance is wrong, at too low a level, and ii) that complete muppets should recognise, to a degree, that they're so incompetent and take precautions to protect themselves and everyone else.
I'm not saying this is a particularly thorough thing, but it's based on my semi-completed law degree and personal opinion, and is my understanding of the situation.
Thus to cover myself from my own incompetence, nobody rely on this in any way whatsoever :^)
And nobody copy this, if worst comes to worst I'll have to hand it in as my dissertation
:^D
*remembers Gareth from The Office and laughs*
Mr Snuggly wrote:
> It's also been discovered recently that Martin now apparently has the
> mental age of a 10 year old boy, which also begs the question why was
> he allowed to have a shotgun?
--
Perhaps *because* he has the mental age of a 10yr old boy?
Now call me demonspawn, but the notion of simpletons armed with shootahs is very, very funny.
Works for the TA
> It's also been discovered recently that Martin now apparently has the
> mental age of a 10 year old boy, which also begs the question why was
> he allowed to have a shotgun?
--
Perhaps *because* he has the mental age of a 10yr old boy?
Now call me demonspawn, but the notion of simpletons armed with shootahs is very, very funny.
Works for the TA
Personally, I think tony Martin should have said he did have a regrets, then told the parole board he regretted not getting the other guy in the head.
Yet another example of our justice system that, in all but the worst cases, defends the criminal and punishes victims...
~~Belldandy~~
Yet another example of our justice system that, in all but the worst cases, defends the criminal and punishes victims...
~~Belldandy~~
This is a grey area. Yes, he was in his house and by all rights you should be able to do what you want to someone who's entered your house illegally - after all, you don't know what they want.
However, in this case, Tony Martin shot a 15 year old boy in the back with a shotgun, as he was climbing out of his window in terror - quite a different case, I think you'll agree.
It's also been discovered recently that Martin now apparently has the mental age of a 10 year old boy, which also begs the question why was he allowed to have a shotgun?
However, in this case, Tony Martin shot a 15 year old boy in the back with a shotgun, as he was climbing out of his window in terror - quite a different case, I think you'll agree.
It's also been discovered recently that Martin now apparently has the mental age of a 10 year old boy, which also begs the question why was he allowed to have a shotgun?
That's like that guy who broke into another guys garage while they were on holiday, got locked in and diddn't have any food for 10 days, sued the owner of the garage.
this world is to sheet!
this world is to sheet!
:D
Well, this is an example to show that we, as a country, are becoming a moccery of what we have lived for. I hate to say it, but we could become like *shudders* America. Well, we probably will do with Blair up Bush's butt.
Well, this is an example to show that we, as a country, are becoming a moccery of what we have lived for. I hate to say it, but we could become like *shudders* America. Well, we probably will do with Blair up Bush's butt.
So a judge has decided to keep a norfolk farmer in jail. To me he has done nothing wrong. he shot someone who was in his house illegally and was a threat to his life. How he can be done for murder I dont know. Then the other guy The accomplice is going to sue him for being wounded umm excuse me if I'm wrong but it's his own fault. If he wasn't there by his choice he wouldn't have been wounded.
It further infuriates me how an Everton footballer is being sued by a burgalar because he restrained him whilst he called the police.
So the government wants to lessen the sentences for burgalars, but if we try to stop them we face a hefty prison sentence and the burgalar may sue us.
Thats fair isn't it
Rant over
It further infuriates me how an Everton footballer is being sued by a burgalar because he restrained him whilst he called the police.
So the government wants to lessen the sentences for burgalars, but if we try to stop them we face a hefty prison sentence and the burgalar may sue us.
Thats fair isn't it
Rant over