The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
*Entering the Daily Mail zone*
I know it's not nice to have your house burglarised senseless by young tearaways (who are probably asylum seekers) because there aren't enough straight, white Bobbies on the beat and the rest of the kids have been influenced by the flesh baring antics of corrupting pop stars. But it still doesn't give you the right to kill someone. And Tony Martin, thanks to our wonderfully thick populace, does not regret a single thing he did and seems to think that he was right to do it.
Let's have a quick look at the facts. Career criminal and young protege enter run down farmhouse, try to climb stairs, two shots are fired, protege goes down and career criminal valiantly leaves him to die and runs off, is later caught. Tony Martin goes to court. Now this goes out to all the Martin sympathisers -"oh it was only manslaughter!"- not quite. There are two types of manslaughter - involuntary, where it's unfortunate and down to recklessness, and voluntary manslaughter where the accused committed murder but there is a mitigating circumstance (usually provocation or diminished responsibility). This distinction is important because it confirms that Martin did not just fire off a shot and happen to kill a burglar. A Jury decided that Martin specifically intended to kill or cause grevious bodily harm to that burglar, in other words they decided that Tony Martin meant to kill the burglar. Only then did they take into account his deluded state of mind and paranoia, which they regarded as impairing his mental responsibility for the crime.
Now in the Mirror Martin has been assuring us that he is quite sane and a model citizen. Well, if that is the case then he should be serving the mandatory life sentence for murder because that's the crime he committed. Some people will still suggest that he acted justifiably. Do you really think that property should count more than human life? Look at the most consumerist, and some would argue morally bankrupt, country in the world and you see a blanket acceptance that if there's an intruder one should shoot to kill. God forbid he should take a telly and then you'd have all the hassle of the insurance companies and you'd miss the season finale of Friends, far better to administer some gunishment and just hope the stains come out the carpet. Shrewd home owners will of course carefully way up the cost of dry cleaning a shag pile carpet and letting the intruder steal stuff.
That's clearly stupid. Property is replaceable and ultimately worthless anyway. Is it really worth dying for? That's what the law supposes too; it treats crimes resulting in physical injury far more seriously than those against property.
So whatever those two burglars did, Martin's crime was worse. And he should now quietly return to his life and shut up, because he got off very lightly indeed.
I know it's not nice to have your house burglarised senseless by young tearaways (who are probably asylum seekers) because there aren't enough straight, white Bobbies on the beat and the rest of the kids have been influenced by the flesh baring antics of corrupting pop stars. But it still doesn't give you the right to kill someone. And Tony Martin, thanks to our wonderfully thick populace, does not regret a single thing he did and seems to think that he was right to do it.
Let's have a quick look at the facts. Career criminal and young protege enter run down farmhouse, try to climb stairs, two shots are fired, protege goes down and career criminal valiantly leaves him to die and runs off, is later caught. Tony Martin goes to court. Now this goes out to all the Martin sympathisers -"oh it was only manslaughter!"- not quite. There are two types of manslaughter - involuntary, where it's unfortunate and down to recklessness, and voluntary manslaughter where the accused committed murder but there is a mitigating circumstance (usually provocation or diminished responsibility). This distinction is important because it confirms that Martin did not just fire off a shot and happen to kill a burglar. A Jury decided that Martin specifically intended to kill or cause grevious bodily harm to that burglar, in other words they decided that Tony Martin meant to kill the burglar. Only then did they take into account his deluded state of mind and paranoia, which they regarded as impairing his mental responsibility for the crime.
Now in the Mirror Martin has been assuring us that he is quite sane and a model citizen. Well, if that is the case then he should be serving the mandatory life sentence for murder because that's the crime he committed. Some people will still suggest that he acted justifiably. Do you really think that property should count more than human life? Look at the most consumerist, and some would argue morally bankrupt, country in the world and you see a blanket acceptance that if there's an intruder one should shoot to kill. God forbid he should take a telly and then you'd have all the hassle of the insurance companies and you'd miss the season finale of Friends, far better to administer some gunishment and just hope the stains come out the carpet. Shrewd home owners will of course carefully way up the cost of dry cleaning a shag pile carpet and letting the intruder steal stuff.
That's clearly stupid. Property is replaceable and ultimately worthless anyway. Is it really worth dying for? That's what the law supposes too; it treats crimes resulting in physical injury far more seriously than those against property.
So whatever those two burglars did, Martin's crime was worse. And he should now quietly return to his life and shut up, because he got off very lightly indeed.
Page:
Why can't we have a word for somebody who simply detests a company?
Whitestripes DX wrote:
> Hey Bell, why don't you trundle off and live in America, and get
> yourself a gun.
>
>
> You'll be safe then, won't you?
Why don't you trundle off to Japan so you can stalk Miyamato....fanboy
> Hey Bell, why don't you trundle off and live in America, and get
> yourself a gun.
>
>
> You'll be safe then, won't you?
Why don't you trundle off to Japan so you can stalk Miyamato....fanboy
The two burglars travelled from Nottinghamshire to Norfolk specifically to rob an old farmer thats quite a journey it was obviously planned long in advance.
As for Tony Martin I think he should have gone to jail but not for as long as he did he was defending his property I dont think he should have killed them but what was he supposed to do stand there and let them rob his house. it was a no-win situation. If Tony Martin had stopped but not killed the burglars he still would have been done for assault and the burglars would probably sue him anyway. Its like the everton footballer whose house was burgalled he held down the burglar until the police arrived, Last I heard the burglar was suing him for assault.
that really gets on my nerves burglars suing the people they just robbed its like the judges saying "I'll hold him while you hit him some more" burglars should not be allowed to do this.
as for what I would have done if I was holding the gun hit the theiving rats with it then called the police and told them there was a speeding motorist going past my house. they seem to care more about this than stopping real crines happening.
As for Tony Martin I think he should have gone to jail but not for as long as he did he was defending his property I dont think he should have killed them but what was he supposed to do stand there and let them rob his house. it was a no-win situation. If Tony Martin had stopped but not killed the burglars he still would have been done for assault and the burglars would probably sue him anyway. Its like the everton footballer whose house was burgalled he held down the burglar until the police arrived, Last I heard the burglar was suing him for assault.
that really gets on my nerves burglars suing the people they just robbed its like the judges saying "I'll hold him while you hit him some more" burglars should not be allowed to do this.
as for what I would have done if I was holding the gun hit the theiving rats with it then called the police and told them there was a speeding motorist going past my house. they seem to care more about this than stopping real crines happening.
Practical Magic wrote:
> But I'm not saying people should murder intruders, I'm saying they use
> force necessary. Dr Duck , you say intruders like those two only place
> a person att "risk of very minor injury for that matter"
The point is that there are scenarios, such as the one I gave, where there is no risk of physical injury to the property owner. EG, when the burglars are leaving the property, having finished their 'work'.
You can't *always* claim that because they're on your property you are in personal danger so whatever you do is legitimate self-defence.
Thus the only arguable validation for a blanket right to kill any theif on your property was that 'they have no rights' (ie, no right not to be shot dead).
As you argue on a number of occassions.
> Even so, like
> Snuggly you're suggesting criminals have rights. They shouldn't, other
> than the right to be locked up.
And if you accept that rape is a 'lesser' infringement on someone than killing them, Snuggly's point must stand, that if you are allowed to kill theif on your property, you must also be allowed to rape/whatever them too.
Which is the point I was trying to get across.
> But I'm not saying people should murder intruders, I'm saying they use
> force necessary. Dr Duck , you say intruders like those two only place
> a person att "risk of very minor injury for that matter"
The point is that there are scenarios, such as the one I gave, where there is no risk of physical injury to the property owner. EG, when the burglars are leaving the property, having finished their 'work'.
You can't *always* claim that because they're on your property you are in personal danger so whatever you do is legitimate self-defence.
Thus the only arguable validation for a blanket right to kill any theif on your property was that 'they have no rights' (ie, no right not to be shot dead).
As you argue on a number of occassions.
> Even so, like
> Snuggly you're suggesting criminals have rights. They shouldn't, other
> than the right to be locked up.
And if you accept that rape is a 'lesser' infringement on someone than killing them, Snuggly's point must stand, that if you are allowed to kill theif on your property, you must also be allowed to rape/whatever them too.
Which is the point I was trying to get across.
It's the absolute polaristation of opinions that makes me laugh.
How about taking each case individually on it's own merits instead of blanket "all criminals should be bumraped and eaten" or "all homeowners can kill at will"?
Just a suggestion.
Or go outside, it's sunny y'know
How about taking each case individually on it's own merits instead of blanket "all criminals should be bumraped and eaten" or "all homeowners can kill at will"?
Just a suggestion.
Or go outside, it's sunny y'know
Hey Bell, why don't you trundle off and live in America, and get yourself a gun.
You'll be safe then, won't you?
You'll be safe then, won't you?
Practical Magic wrote:
> Shoot the lot of them for all I care, it'd be a better
> country.
It's Richard Littlejohn, everybody!
> Shoot the lot of them for all I care, it'd be a better
> country.
It's Richard Littlejohn, everybody!
VenomByte wrote:
> "You two get the hell out of here right now, or I'll blow your
> kneecaps off. And if I ever see you on my property again, I'll aim for
> your heads instead!"
More than likely they come back the next night tooled up or return with more mates .
> I suspect they'd have left quickly, and thought twice about ever
> trying to steal from him again.
Err, Venombyte, that knocking on your door ? That's reality, it's like to be let in...
> Not good enough? How about he orders them at gunpoint to lie on the
> floor with their hand behind their backs, ties them up, and then takes
> them down to the police station the next day.
1 man, gets two to surrender ? Fully trained armed police deploy en masse and they can't always get suspects to do this, yet Martin could ? oookay.
I'll tell you whose a danger to socierty, anyone who thinks its okay to break into others property and steal. I don't care about them, or their excuses. Shoot the lot of them for all I care, it'd be a better country.
> "You two get the hell out of here right now, or I'll blow your
> kneecaps off. And if I ever see you on my property again, I'll aim for
> your heads instead!"
More than likely they come back the next night tooled up or return with more mates .
> I suspect they'd have left quickly, and thought twice about ever
> trying to steal from him again.
Err, Venombyte, that knocking on your door ? That's reality, it's like to be let in...
> Not good enough? How about he orders them at gunpoint to lie on the
> floor with their hand behind their backs, ties them up, and then takes
> them down to the police station the next day.
1 man, gets two to surrender ? Fully trained armed police deploy en masse and they can't always get suspects to do this, yet Martin could ? oookay.
I'll tell you whose a danger to socierty, anyone who thinks its okay to break into others property and steal. I don't care about them, or their excuses. Shoot the lot of them for all I care, it'd be a better country.
Practical Magic wrote:
> . Even so, like Snuggly you're suggesting criminals have rights. They shouldn't, other than the right to be locked up.
What gives Burglers the right to steal from your property? As far as i am concerned the moment they step onto someones property all their rights should be taken away. Its not as if Fearon and Barras just wandered around and decided to burgle on the spur of the moment, they proberbly planned it for a few days (or even weeks) before hand.
> . Even so, like Snuggly you're suggesting criminals have rights. They shouldn't, other than the right to be locked up.
What gives Burglers the right to steal from your property? As far as i am concerned the moment they step onto someones property all their rights should be taken away. Its not as if Fearon and Barras just wandered around and decided to burgle on the spur of the moment, they proberbly planned it for a few days (or even weeks) before hand.
Practical Magic wrote:
> Even so, like
> Snuggly you're suggesting criminals have rights. They shouldn't, other
> than the right to be locked up.
Criminals, believe it or not, are human beings, and human beings have the right to live. I'm not particularly taking sides here, just saying that I don't believe in when people say "once they're on your property, you can do what you want to them" because it doesn't work like that. I've said before, I couldn't possibly say what I'd do in that situation seeing as it's impossible to put yourself in that position, but I'd like to think that, being a rational person, there would be a number of things I would consider before firing a gun in someone's back.
What scares me is the way people are going around holding up Martin's case as something to be championed, suggesting that he was in the right and we should all have the right to 'defend our castles' and so forth. It's almost like Richard Littlejohn and his weasely little friends are actively encouraging people to defend their homes with force - I could honestly see a point where people think it reasonable to keep firearms in the house 'just in case'. This, of course, is how it is in America.
> Even so, like
> Snuggly you're suggesting criminals have rights. They shouldn't, other
> than the right to be locked up.
Criminals, believe it or not, are human beings, and human beings have the right to live. I'm not particularly taking sides here, just saying that I don't believe in when people say "once they're on your property, you can do what you want to them" because it doesn't work like that. I've said before, I couldn't possibly say what I'd do in that situation seeing as it's impossible to put yourself in that position, but I'd like to think that, being a rational person, there would be a number of things I would consider before firing a gun in someone's back.
What scares me is the way people are going around holding up Martin's case as something to be championed, suggesting that he was in the right and we should all have the right to 'defend our castles' and so forth. It's almost like Richard Littlejohn and his weasely little friends are actively encouraging people to defend their homes with force - I could honestly see a point where people think it reasonable to keep firearms in the house 'just in case'. This, of course, is how it is in America.
Page: