The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Mr. Happy wrote:
> God forbid he should
take a telly and then you'd have all the hassle of the insurance companies.
Ok so I go and burgle your house and get away with it and then i decide to do it again because i got away with it - what would you do? Tony martin often had his house broken into and the police did nothing about it and i agree 100% with what he did, if i was him i would have gone after the one that was trying to get away, people like Brendon fearon are scum. He left the 16 year old to die so i think he is as much to blame as Tony Martin.
And he is now claiming £15,000 from Tony Martin for his *lack of earnings*
Now what does this mean? he has never done an honest days work in his life so is this for all the robberys that he couldn't commit whilst he had a dodgy leg?
> God forbid he should
take a telly and then you'd have all the hassle of the insurance companies.
Ok so I go and burgle your house and get away with it and then i decide to do it again because i got away with it - what would you do? Tony martin often had his house broken into and the police did nothing about it and i agree 100% with what he did, if i was him i would have gone after the one that was trying to get away, people like Brendon fearon are scum. He left the 16 year old to die so i think he is as much to blame as Tony Martin.
And he is now claiming £15,000 from Tony Martin for his *lack of earnings*
Now what does this mean? he has never done an honest days work in his life so is this for all the robberys that he couldn't commit whilst he had a dodgy leg?
I'm a little sceptical of Michael Moore at times (He's all for the workers at General Motors (Roger & Me) but when he causes all Walmart gun counter employees to lose their jobs..) but Bowling for Columbine did make one incontravertible point; if guns prevented crime, America would be the safest country in the world. Is it? I don't think so.
Note the pharse "Criminal Justice System". A system has a logic that pervades it, as that is the very essence of a system. If you put property above everytthing else in our system then think what would happen.. Would it have been okay for Tony Martin to rape the burglars who entered his home? Or do sexual offences come above property but below murder? In that case why not rape *and* kill, because if you've already raped you're at the top of the sentencing tree anyway? How would you explain the fact that a "serious" offence against property under your system carried a lesser mens rea of recklessness? Or would you sort things out by making the mental element for murder recklessness to sort things out again? But of course if offences against property were so serious then you would have to make sure that the threshold was quite high; only people who intentionally damaged your property would be found guilty.
There has to be structure or you cease to have a system. And our structure rightly accords less importance to possessions than to our personal health. No-one denies the fact that Martin was let down by the police, no-one denies the fact that the burglars should have gone to prison for their crime. However, shooting someone in cold blood is not and never will be acceptable, under almost any circumstances. You should also note thatwhen Martin attempted to raise the defence of self-defence, it was denied because there had been a)insufficient danger b)his reaction was disproportionate to any danger that did exist. If someone comes at you with a knife and you stab them; that's self defence. If you wait at the top of some stairs and fire off two shotgun cartridges at someone that's murder.
Murder is the most serious crime in our criminal justice system. Surely you agree with that. And Martin would have murdered that burglar but for his nuttiness. And I would suggest to you that perhaps career criminals like Brendan Fearon are ill-served by our current prison system. Clearly prison is no soft touch, but locking someone away and giving them no help is not the best way to stop them reoffending. If you can look beyond your narrow mind then you might just be able to appreciate that even if you want to punish someone for a crime, your ultimate aim *must* be to stop them doing the same thing again. In order to do that you need to make sure that they come out of prison a better person, with a chance of becoming part of society, making them less inclined to offend again. Part of that process is atoning for your crime. martin did commit a crime and hats off to him for not lying but tha doesn't defeat the fact that he should feel remorse for a cold blooded killing - no verbal warning, no warning shot - just two shots at a burglar.
And I'm not taking the burglar's side here. I'm not taking any side. I am simply observing that the crime of each person in that situation should be dealt with appropriately. And of all of them, Martin's was the most serious.
Note the pharse "Criminal Justice System". A system has a logic that pervades it, as that is the very essence of a system. If you put property above everytthing else in our system then think what would happen.. Would it have been okay for Tony Martin to rape the burglars who entered his home? Or do sexual offences come above property but below murder? In that case why not rape *and* kill, because if you've already raped you're at the top of the sentencing tree anyway? How would you explain the fact that a "serious" offence against property under your system carried a lesser mens rea of recklessness? Or would you sort things out by making the mental element for murder recklessness to sort things out again? But of course if offences against property were so serious then you would have to make sure that the threshold was quite high; only people who intentionally damaged your property would be found guilty.
There has to be structure or you cease to have a system. And our structure rightly accords less importance to possessions than to our personal health. No-one denies the fact that Martin was let down by the police, no-one denies the fact that the burglars should have gone to prison for their crime. However, shooting someone in cold blood is not and never will be acceptable, under almost any circumstances. You should also note thatwhen Martin attempted to raise the defence of self-defence, it was denied because there had been a)insufficient danger b)his reaction was disproportionate to any danger that did exist. If someone comes at you with a knife and you stab them; that's self defence. If you wait at the top of some stairs and fire off two shotgun cartridges at someone that's murder.
Murder is the most serious crime in our criminal justice system. Surely you agree with that. And Martin would have murdered that burglar but for his nuttiness. And I would suggest to you that perhaps career criminals like Brendan Fearon are ill-served by our current prison system. Clearly prison is no soft touch, but locking someone away and giving them no help is not the best way to stop them reoffending. If you can look beyond your narrow mind then you might just be able to appreciate that even if you want to punish someone for a crime, your ultimate aim *must* be to stop them doing the same thing again. In order to do that you need to make sure that they come out of prison a better person, with a chance of becoming part of society, making them less inclined to offend again. Part of that process is atoning for your crime. martin did commit a crime and hats off to him for not lying but tha doesn't defeat the fact that he should feel remorse for a cold blooded killing - no verbal warning, no warning shot - just two shots at a burglar.
And I'm not taking the burglar's side here. I'm not taking any side. I am simply observing that the crime of each person in that situation should be dealt with appropriately. And of all of them, Martin's was the most serious.
Sdrawkcab wrote:
> But have you seen Bowling for Columbine?
>
> Guns are bad! But Canadians are good!
Bowling For Columbine is largely one man's (Moore) opinion. Whilst he is entitled to it, under the same freedoms which allow US gun ownership, it doesn't mean he is right, nor it is clever to adopt his mindthink unquestioningly - considering his strangely controversial views are the very source of his livelihood.
> But have you seen Bowling for Columbine?
>
> Guns are bad! But Canadians are good!
Bowling For Columbine is largely one man's (Moore) opinion. Whilst he is entitled to it, under the same freedoms which allow US gun ownership, it doesn't mean he is right, nor it is clever to adopt his mindthink unquestioningly - considering his strangely controversial views are the very source of his livelihood.
But have you seen Bowling for Columbine?
Guns are bad! But Canadians are good!
Guns are bad! But Canadians are good!
I hope he doesn't go away, he exposes the ludicrous creation that is our criminal justice system. Extra jail time for lack of remorse eh ? How many criminals fake it just to get out early ?
Someone invades your home then you should have the right to stop them, up to and including killing them if needs be. It's your home, your property and I won't understand anyone who feels the need to sympathise with the pair who broke into Martin's house, or who feel the need to protect criminals.
In America what he did would have been totally legal, apart from the weapon ownership without licence.
Only thing Martin did wrong was that he didn't aim high enough when shooting the other guy.
How many arguiong you have no right to protect your own property, your own famiy members, from illegal intruders. have ever been burgled themselves eh ? I'd bet zero. Property is property, if I've paid for it then it's mine and no one has the right to steal it.
Idiots who argue Martin was wrong are the very reason the system is the joke it is now. Prisons overflowing ? The answer isn't to release them, but to dump them on ships or make use of some prime real estate in Iraq or similar.
Near where I live is a place called Sherwood, beset by youth crime, youth violence, and just about every crime teenagers and youths can come up with. For a year the police tried what can only be termed as liberal tactics - getting funding for a youth centre, skate park, community police officers, letters to parents etc No effect. A month ago a change in tactic to arrest anyone breaking the law no matter how small or minor. Crime drops to near nothing.
And, whilst I'm on a general rant, it's high time we armed our police officers, and introduced legislation for gun ownership comparable to America. Strangely, states where concealed weapons are legal seem to have a drop in gun related crime and assaults on people. How many of the little s0ds out there today would try to mug, threaten, assault or rape a person if the chances are they're going to be staring down the barrel of a SIG Sauer ?
Rant over, feel free to express your liberal sympathies with the nations criminal elements...
Someone invades your home then you should have the right to stop them, up to and including killing them if needs be. It's your home, your property and I won't understand anyone who feels the need to sympathise with the pair who broke into Martin's house, or who feel the need to protect criminals.
In America what he did would have been totally legal, apart from the weapon ownership without licence.
Only thing Martin did wrong was that he didn't aim high enough when shooting the other guy.
How many arguiong you have no right to protect your own property, your own famiy members, from illegal intruders. have ever been burgled themselves eh ? I'd bet zero. Property is property, if I've paid for it then it's mine and no one has the right to steal it.
Idiots who argue Martin was wrong are the very reason the system is the joke it is now. Prisons overflowing ? The answer isn't to release them, but to dump them on ships or make use of some prime real estate in Iraq or similar.
Near where I live is a place called Sherwood, beset by youth crime, youth violence, and just about every crime teenagers and youths can come up with. For a year the police tried what can only be termed as liberal tactics - getting funding for a youth centre, skate park, community police officers, letters to parents etc No effect. A month ago a change in tactic to arrest anyone breaking the law no matter how small or minor. Crime drops to near nothing.
And, whilst I'm on a general rant, it's high time we armed our police officers, and introduced legislation for gun ownership comparable to America. Strangely, states where concealed weapons are legal seem to have a drop in gun related crime and assaults on people. How many of the little s0ds out there today would try to mug, threaten, assault or rape a person if the chances are they're going to be staring down the barrel of a SIG Sauer ?
Rant over, feel free to express your liberal sympathies with the nations criminal elements...
In my dumbed-down version that makes sense to me-
- They broke in to his dodgy hick farmhouse to burgle him - BAD
- He defended his property - GOOD
- But he did so by shooting them - BAD BAD
So they commited a crime in the first place but he commited a worse crime, but he says it was accidental so they're letting him off. But then again at 3am when two younger fitter blokes are trying to rob you, you dont aim to wound them and thing about logistics, at least I wouldnt have thought not.
- They broke in to his dodgy hick farmhouse to burgle him - BAD
- He defended his property - GOOD
- But he did so by shooting them - BAD BAD
So they commited a crime in the first place but he commited a worse crime, but he says it was accidental so they're letting him off. But then again at 3am when two younger fitter blokes are trying to rob you, you dont aim to wound them and thing about logistics, at least I wouldnt have thought not.
I blame Brasseye.
*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: