|
|
Post Reply 
|
Page <12345> |
| Author | ||||
B 7 VP 
Really Senior Member II 
Joined: 04-November-2003 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 1115 |
 Posted: 19-November-2005 at 13:46 |
|||
|
[QUOTE=livvy] Utter Rubbish---if the law is so clear why are So Many people UNCLEAR of their rights to defend their OWN property. You Again omitted to state a most Important FACT---Tony had been Burglarised 40 -- FORTY times--without ANY arrests OR positive action by the local Force--yet the so called Justice was Non existant when without lights inside the property, he fired a shotgun---ME too.The Courts PERVERTED the Course of So called Justice--and Continue to do this on a daily basis. RobMW Excellent post= Facts that the so called experts do not understand . Edited by B 7 VP |
||||
|
SAFETYFAST
|
||||
 |
||||
| Sponsored Links | ||||
|
||||
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005 Status: Offline Points: 745 |
Posted: 19-November-2005 at 13:53 |
|||
|
If you take the time to read them then the laws on the use of force are
quite clear, the trouble is people don't by & large look at what
the law says.
Are you clear on the law regards pecuniary advantage as well ? You will only be clear on the laws that you look at & understand. The laws on use of force are not complex. The fcat people don't look at them doesn't mean that they aren't clear. I said I feel sympathy for him over the burglaries he suffered etc & more should have been done to help him with that. My understanding is that help was offered to him with prevention measures etc but he refused it. I however stand by my assertion that what he did was not acceptable behaviour & went outside the boundaries of our laws. You can't shoot an unarmed fleeing person in the back & expect to be supported. Even if he had been burgled 100 times it doesn't excuse that. What he did had more to do with revenge than self defence. The leniency of the sentence reflected somewhat what he had been through upto that point, but he was still convicted of manslaughter & sent to prison, that is a clear enough sign that he shouldn't have done what he did. Edited by livvy |
||||
|
||||
|
Peter Fenwick
Bavarian-Board Contributor 
Joined: 27-August-2003 Location: Lost somewhere in time... Status: Offline Points: 6484 |
Posted: 19-November-2005 at 13:53 |
|||
It isn't utter rubbish. The only reason why people are unclear is because the tories and the right wing media have been using the issue as a political football. I have always been clear on this, simply because I don't believe everything I read in the Daily Mail and everything the shadow cabinet say. Tony martin shot a man in the back who was running away. Also you seem to forget that he was found guilty by a jury made up of the general public. So are you saying that you know better than them despite the fact they saw all the evidence and you almost certainly haven't? I have to say that on this thread most of what Livvy is saying makes a lot more sense than some of the other views.
Edited by Peter Fenwick |
||||
|
Entering an age of Austerity and now driving a Focus Diesel.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Robmw
Really Senior Member I 
Joined: 29-August-2005 Location: Epping Status: Offline Points: 311 |
Posted: 19-November-2005 at 15:09 |
|||
|
I totally agree Tony Martin over did it but it is not up to home owners to read the laws. It is the way they are enforced.
Blair may spout that their are laws in place but I know from Personal experience that there are not and those that do cover are NOT sufficient and are wrongly interpreted You only have to look at the Labour Party Conference 1 shout of ridiculous an OAP is ejected from the debating hall, when he attempts to go back in he is arrested as a Terrorist !!!!! Just this morning a story broke about a London Police Station where an imposter gained access to a pre shift briefing, when it was discovered that he was a fake he was arrested as a terrorist !!!not for Impersonating a Policeman. His initial arrest was as a Terrorist which then was later changed to this Impersonation of a Police Officer. |
||||
|
Robert Born
|
||||
|
||||
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005 Status: Offline Points: 745 |
Posted: 19-November-2005 at 15:10 |
|||
Exactly. Armchair lawyers fed by a politicised press trying to score points & sell papers. Never let the law, the evidence & the considered opinions of people who had a chance to listen to all the the evidence, get in the way of that eh. |
||||
|
||||
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005 Status: Offline Points: 745 |
Posted: 19-November-2005 at 15:22 |
|||
I'm not sure what you are saying, Tony Martin over did it, but it was the way in which the law was enforced ??? What were they supposed to do in the circumstances ? It is an irrebuttable presumption of law that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Now there are many many laws in our country, but ignorance of them is not a defence. Any that could affect your life you need to know about. There will be no night schools supplied for you to do this for free. It is up to you to protect your interests on this. Knowledge is power. If you want me to clear up the laws on the use of force for you, then fire away with your questions. I would hope though that any right minded individual would know that shooting an unarmed 16 year old boy in the back while he is running away, when you had no reason to suspect he was armed, is not reasonable & necessary for your immeadiate safety.
I disagree. I think the laws are perfectly adequate & that is why after the public furore the government didn't propose any changes, instead deciding to just publicise & reaffirm what they were & that they were adequate. In sentencing on conviction where an offence has been committed, the court have the power to vary sentence greatly dependent on the mitigation of each individual case. The fact that they give a light sentence does not mean that an offence has not been committed, but just in light of the full circumstances that sentence is the most appropraite. What do you think is inadequate about our current self defence laws & leaves you vulnerable ?
A real own goal by the government. They were perfectly entitled in law to eject him as a trespasser & then bar his re-entry. But it was handled so appalingly & was such a huge gaff for a government that is alleged by so many to ride rough over other people's opinion & be so out of touch. Way to go Tony 
What you are arrested for is irrelevant provided there is sufficient grounds to arrest. That is all that matters nothing else. What you are charged with is the pertinent issue. Edited by livvy |
||||
|
||||
|
B 7 VP
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 04-November-2003 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 1115 |
Posted: 19-November-2005 at 17:12 |
|||
|
[QUOTE=livvy] "After All the lack of protection and promises which were Never kept --who is surprised"?? """ You can't shoot an unarmed fleeing person in the back & expect to be supported.""" "Treading on Very thin ice here dont You think,??? Brazilian in Tube station Killed by multi bullets fired by Police without clear justification and a series of errors come to mind---but excused by regulations , so this is oK---but Burglers in your house are accepted-- the owner is the guilty person--dont think so!!! Yet the very people who demand respect for the Law, ARE the one,s who devalue it.Pathetic perversion of justice.
|
||||
|
SAFETYFAST
|
||||
|
||||
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005 Status: Offline Points: 745 |
Posted: 19-November-2005 at 17:26 |
|||
I don't think so. You are not comparing like with like & it's not something you can just play flippant with here & mean anything. The tragic death of Jean Charles de Menezes was horrific. But were the officers correct to do what they did ? There is a full public enquiry & inquest that will decide if the actions of the officers who shot him were lawful or not. The circumstances are entirely different to Tony Martin's case. Each case will be judged on it's merits. As far as the actions of the officers who shot him are concerned the matter will revolve around, "were they entitled to believe there was an immeadiate threat to their lives & others given the information they had received ?" (whether that information was flawed or not doesn't matter for that belief, as they weren't to know that at that time, when they had to make a split second decision & were entitled to believe it's accuracy) & "was the action they took necessary to remove that perceived immeadiate threat & proportional to that threat ?" That is what will be looked at for the officers who shot him. The questions over the quality of the information they received & how it was handled are a totally different issue as to whether they were right to do what they did believing what they did at that time & acting on that information in good faith. These matters will be discussed on points & matters of law, not what you think (thankfully) which is just the way it should be. "Was it lawful ?" is the first question, if not it was then criminal. "Were mistakes made ?" is the second question & we can answer that one already can't we as an innocent man lost his life & that is truely tragic & something that pains me. Edited by livvy |
||||
|
||||
|
Nigel
Moderator Group
Joined: 09-November-2002 Status: Offline Points: 6941 |
Posted: 19-November-2005 at 17:30 |
|||
|
John How can you compare the two cases ? We have an illegal immigrant who runs from armed police when challeneged, and runs onto a tube train, just after some terrorist attacks, if I'd have been the officer, I'd have fired too, probably before he did. I believe from what I have read that Tony Martin could have had several defences, but he shot them to pieces by insisting he was going to shoot the chap regardless. What happened to Tony Martin beforehand was not good, but he got himself jailed, he had a lot of sympathy in the right places. You critise the authorities for knee jerk reactions....got a mirror ? [Tin hat] = ON |
||||
|
Best Wishes
Nigel |
||||
|
||||
|
B 7 VP
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 04-November-2003 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 1115 |
Posted: 19-November-2005 at 17:38 |
|||
|
[QUOTE=Peter Fenwick
It isn't utter rubbish. The only reason why people are unclear is because the tories and the right wing media have been using the issue as a political football. I have always been clear on this, simply because I don't believe everything I read in the Daily Mail and everything the shadow cabinet say. " But YOU accept everything the Daily Mirror and The Sun sickup each day " and accept Phony Bliars Gospel of St Bush". >Tony martin shot a man in the back who was running away. Also you seem to forget that he was found guilty by a jury made up of the general public<. " yes--its worrying isnt it--SO many Appeals after the Courts verdicts--So many Reviews--so many miscarrage,s of so called justice, it really does give one confidence in --you ARE innocent untill proven guilty--what a fine old tradition of the wigs and gowns of yesteryear- unlike Now, when you are Guilty untill you can prove your innocence----youre joking-of course" !!!!!!!!!!
|
||||
|
SAFETYFAST
|
||||
|
||||
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005 Status: Offline Points: 745 |
Posted: 19-November-2005 at 17:41 |
|||
As said already, of course you are the best placed authority to question the correctness of it all with the information & evidence you have seen for yourself aren't you.  No our justice system isn't perfect & I don't know one that is. That is why the death penalty is not viable in a civilised society IMHO. But given ours over some kangaroo court that I think you might hold (based on some of your posts), I'll take ours everytime thank you, with all it's imperfections. Edited by livvy |
||||
|
||||
|
stephenperry
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Joined: 20-April-2004 Location: Elgin Status: Offline Points: 7213 |
Posted: 19-November-2005 at 18:05 |
|||
has that been proved yet? let's wait for the result of the inquest, shall we? |
||||
|
2007 Ford Mondeo 2.0 TDCI Titanium X Auto 1983 Ford Sierra XR4i 2000 Alpina B10 3.3 #118 1999 BMW 323Ci 1995 BMW 318i SE 1994 Vauxhall Omega 2.0 GLS 1995 Ford Mondeo 1.8 LX 1990 Honda Concerto 1.6 EX 1986 Ford Orion 1.6 GL 1989 Ford Fiesta 1.1 Firefly |
||||
|
||||
|
spokey
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Offensive and obnoxious tub of lard Joined: 02-March-2004 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 1948 |
Posted: 19-November-2005 at 18:13 |
|||
|
It's funny how when people out of Westminster feel like their way of
life is threatened, they get told that the law is sufficient. However,
when the people in
Westminster feel like their way of life is threatened, they can
introduce all sorts of draconian b*ll*cks, often without understanding
the capabilities of existing laws.
Sneaky, too: introduce an outrageously draconian violation of our civil liberties, so that when it gets cut from 90 to 28 days, everyone feels like their rights have been defended, yet the police still have the right to arrest Labour Party members who dare to heckle a speaker and hold them in jail for 28 days without charge. Or arrest people who happen to look a bit foreign because they are carrying a rucksack, fingerprint them, record their DNA and screw up their lives forever with a criminal record, utterly without reason.  Let's hear it for a great, modern, liberal democracy!  |
||||
|
Ciao,
Spokey 
|
||||
|
||||
|
Rhys
Moderator Group
Coffee addict... Joined: 02-February-2003 Location: from the Latin locātiō Status: Offline Points: 10053 |
Posted: 19-November-2005 at 18:37 |
|||
This illegal immigrant happend to be Brazilian did he not? A country where gun crime is prolific. What about his understanding of English, could he understand what was said to him? A load of blokes with guns are running towards you, shouting.. what would you do? I'd peg it as well - I wouldn't want to hang around to see what they wanted, just like he'd probably do in Brazil. |
||||
|
V reg Rustbucket Merc C220 Cdi estate
J Reg Saab 900i 16v '63 Ford Anglia 105e deluxe R reg Honda PC50 moped.. No BMW as yet... |
||||
|
||||
|
Nigel
Moderator Group
Joined: 09-November-2002 Status: Offline Points: 6941 |
Posted: 19-November-2005 at 20:14 |
|||
|
HIs visa to stay in this country had expired, so he is an illegal immigrant ! If he doesn't understand the words " armed police stop", then tough , harsh but true. Lets not get too easy on this, he was in England, the language is English, and according to his family, he was fluent anyway. Spend some time in Countries where the police carry guns as a way of life, carry weapons yourself, things start to look different. |
||||
|
Best Wishes
Nigel |
||||
|
||||
|
Peter Fenwick
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Joined: 27-August-2003 Location: Lost somewhere in time... Status: Offline Points: 6484 |
Posted: 20-November-2005 at 03:59 |
|||
No I don't. Unfortunately in this day and age everything we see and here has to be considered carefully. There is so much political spin put on everything that it is hard to know what is true and what is lies. BTW I don't read any newspapers because most of them a re full of propaganda for one party or another. Sorry, I do read one paper, the Darlington & Stockton times, because my Wife writes for them I find the TV news a bit more reliable, although I accept it is also not without it's political agenda. To balance it out I watch Sky news and the BBC news
I don't worry about it. There are some miscarridges of justice sure but how many cases a put through the courts without any problems? You only here about the ones where it has gone wrong because they're the ones that get reported on. I've only ever had one direct experience of the court system and it work for me. |
||||
|
Entering an age of Austerity and now driving a Focus Diesel.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Peter Fenwick
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Joined: 27-August-2003 Location: Lost somewhere in time... Status: Offline Points: 6484 |
Posted: 20-November-2005 at 04:05 |
|||
|
I think maybe you and B7VP should go and live in a country where they genuinely don't have any freedom. Then maybe you might be less quick to make jibes about this country. Oh and Spokey, i thought you were right wing, not liberal! |
||||
|
Entering an age of Austerity and now driving a Focus Diesel.
|
||||
|
||||
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005 Status: Offline Points: 745 |
Posted: 20-November-2005 at 04:39 |
|||
Yes, any casual impartial observer of our system could see that B 7 VP is talking complete tosh. The burden of proof is clearly on the prosecution & if there are a lot of miscarriages of justice, they are that a lot of guilty people get off. Still that is part of the safeguards of the system, to try & ensure that an innocent is not wrongly convicted. It does of course still happen, but rarely. For everyone of those wrongly convicted, probably thousands of guilty walk free, in attempt to limit those other miscarriages. But if we put the blinkers on & stare at one thing, we of course lose sight of the bigger picture. Edited by livvy |
||||
|
||||
|
scarface
Really Senior Member I
Joined: 16-June-2004 Location: Surrey, UK Status: Offline Points: 414 |
Posted: 20-November-2005 at 13:42 |
|||
|
Jean Charles de Menezes was an illegal, granted. I have no time
for illegals. But he could have easily not been. Let us
not forget it was said that he was followed because he lived in a flat
near where one of the bombers was thought to have lived, and he looked
a bit foreign. It also emerged that he was actually not wearing
heavy clothing and didn't have a bag, so where was the bomb
conceiled? It was also found that he used a ticket to get through
the barrier, instead of the initial report that he ran, vaulting the
barrier. I take the terrorist threat very seriously being someone
that spends a lot of time on the tube, but we have to be careful.
Let's just hope that the public enquiry can come to a definite conclusion given the evidence that they have been given, it's a shame so much evidence goes missing immediately after a mistake. - Not a Daily Mail reader btw |
||||
|
||||
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005 Status: Offline Points: 745 |
Posted: 20-November-2005 at 14:05 |
|||
|
What are you alleging ?
Evidence going missing, what evidence has gone missing ? Him being an illegal immigrant has little to do with this to my mind. The terrorists in the July bombings weren't after all & he wasn't approached because of his immigration status. Edited by livvy |
||||
|
||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <12345> |
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
What type of Police service????
Topic Options
B 7 VP wrote: