|
|
Post Reply 
|
Page <12345> |
| Author | ||||
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 |
||||
 |
||||
| Sponsored Links | ||||
|
||||
|
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 |
||||
|
||||
|
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
|
||||
|
||||
|
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 |
||||
|
||||
|
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 |
||||
|
||||
|
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 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 |
||||
|
||||
|
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. |
||||
|
||||
|
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
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
|
||||
|
||||
|
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 |
||||
|
||||
|
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
|
||||
|
||||
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005 Status: Offline Points: 745 |
Posted: 19-November-2005 at 13:11 |
|||
The laws on self defence & protection of property are very clear & despite what the government said recently, when they publicised about use of force in protecting your home, they had changed nothing & merely highlighted legislation that has been in force since 1967 & in some cases much earlier than that. Your best defence is to know what those laws say so that you know exactly what you can & can't do. The case of Tony Martin was not one of self defence. He shot a 16 year old boy in the back fatally injuring him. A boy fleeing from not approaching Tony Martin & therefore no immeadiate threat to warrant such action. The circumstances were taken fully into account & he was convicted of manslaughter not murder, being released after serving 2/3rds of a 5 year sentence. You can use such force as is reasonable & necessary in the circumstances (& only such force as is reasonable & necessary) to protect yourself & your property. Where you use force you have to have a honestly held belief that you are in immeadiate danger & only such force as necessary to remove that threat. Tony Martin overstepped that line & therefore was rightly prosecuted. I do have some sympathy for him, but I don't support what he did in the circumstances. Edited by livvy |
||||
|
||||
|
AndyS
Really Senior Member II
The Last of the Few Joined: 21-August-2003 Location: 55 � North Status: Offline Points: 1365 |
Posted: 19-November-2005 at 13:09 |
|||
40 years? Another senile old codger well past retirement age who still thinks he knows whats going on in the world. Time to put out to pasture so he can spend more time crumbling away in his club. |
||||
|
AndyS
Live each day as if it's your last - one day it will be. 
|
||||
|
||||
|
Robmw
Really Senior Member I
Joined: 29-August-2005 Location: Epping Status: Offline Points: 311 |
Posted: 19-November-2005 at 12:50 |
|||
|
For one I did not vote them back in.
The government of the day are not capable of joined up thought, just look at the drinking laws. When the government set Targets it is normally as a result of a knee jerk reaction. The book that accompanies the Channel 4 series Bremner, Bird and Fortune gives a fantastic insight into the changing of minds in the Cabinet Office. As I said before the government of the day were first elected with an incredible majority, an opposition in total disarray. If the opportunity had been used correctly, this country would have been sorted out. You only need to look at the achievements of the Labour Government, which defeated Churchill to see a government that worked for the country. I believe a Police Force should be feared, the same as the CPS and the Judicial system. This then becomes a deterrent. The jails are over crowded , new ones are not being built, the courts are no longer taking peoples previous convictions into account, therefore the sentences being given are less severe, the cps just do seem to be up to the task and the police are wrongly directed by both the government and the senior police officers. I want a police force that is able to enforce every law not just the easy few. Just one example Why do we still not have clear guidelines on protecting your home? The farmer shooting two burglars highlighted this. This happened years ago and still nothing but open rhetoric. Even now, the judges have taken it upon their selves to be lenient to those people who protect their homes. 
|
||||
|
Robert Born
|
||||
|
||||
|
Rhys
Moderator Group
Coffee addict... Joined: 02-February-2003 Location: from the Latin locātiō Status: Offline Points: 10053 |
Posted: 19-November-2005 at 10:02 |
|||
I agree (unfortunatly) too many do-gooders and human rights. The human rights of the victims don't seam to be mentioned. As for the death penalty in relation to the police, if I'm not mistaken tv interviews shown at the time had officers all for it. Don't take this as fact as I may be wrong.  Edited by Rhys |
||||
|
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... |
||||
|
||||
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005 Status: Offline Points: 745 |
Posted: 19-November-2005 at 09:54 |
|||
The chances of re-instating the death penalty I would imagine now lay in Brussels & I doubt they will be giving it back. |
||||
|
||||
|
Nigel
Moderator Group
Joined: 09-November-2002 Status: Offline Points: 6941 |
Posted: 19-November-2005 at 09:52 |
|||
|
A view I subscribe to is the death penalty should be in place for anyone that kills a member of our security forces, this would include, but not be exclusive to the police. I think this is because we have no chance of getting it back generally, sort of like getting it back through the back door....then we can extend it to include child killers etc. Not that I'm overly hopeful of it ever being reinstated. |
||||
|
Best Wishes
Nigel |
||||
|
||||
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005 Status: Offline Points: 745 |
Posted: 19-November-2005 at 09:47 |
|||
Mr Winner is one of the groups/individuals I was talking about. Of course he is not a spokesman for police policies or wishes. He is merely a private individual who has set up a charitable trust appointing himself as it's chairman. It only provides memorials through charitable funds for Police officer's who have died on duty. His view can't be taken to be the Police's view. Edited by livvy |
||||
|
||||
|
Rhys
Moderator Group
Coffee addict... Joined: 02-February-2003 Location: from the Latin locātiō Status: Offline Points: 10053 |
Posted: 19-November-2005 at 09:41 |
|||
|
Livvy, all I rememeber is that it was on the radio news a few years ago - and that I remember discussing it at work with others that had heard it.
just had a google.. link. I'm sure more searching would bring up other stories. |
||||
|
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... |
||||
|
||||
|
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
Nigel wrote: