On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:36:43 -0800 (PST), "Boedicia@isp.com"
 wrote:

>Now tell us what *you* would have done if they had invaded your home.
>Let me guess.

Well, I wouldn't have left the doors and windows unlocked and
encouraged them to get in in the first place.  And I *certainly* would
not have laid in wait in the dark, hoping that they would arrive so I
could shoot them.

-- 
Cynic

Cynic wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:36:43 -0800 (PST), "Boedicia@isp.com"
>  wrote:
>
>> Now tell us what *you* would have done if they had invaded your home.
>> Let me guess.
>
> Well, I wouldn't have left the doors and windows unlocked and
> encouraged them to get in in the first place.  And I *certainly* would
> not have laid in wait in the dark, hoping that they would arrive so I
> could shoot them.

Exactly. It became abundantly clear, once the full details came out, that 
Martin deliberately made it appear that his house was empty, deliberately 
made it easy for them to get in, and then lay in wait for them and shot them 
with an illegally held shotgun when they were trying to flee.
I hold no truck with travellers or burglars - but acting in this fashion was 
wholly illegal and it was quite right that Martin was prosecuted. In effect 
he lured them to an execution.

Ret.

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 13:33:15 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:

>>> Now tell us what *you* would have done if they had invaded your home.
>>> Let me guess.

>> Well, I wouldn't have left the doors and windows unlocked and
>> encouraged them to get in in the first place.  And I *certainly* would
>> not have laid in wait in the dark, hoping that they would arrive so I
>> could shoot them.

>Exactly. It became abundantly clear, once the full details came out, that 
>Martin deliberately made it appear that his house was empty, deliberately 
>made it easy for them to get in, and then lay in wait for them and shot them 
>with an illegally held shotgun when they were trying to flee.
>I hold no truck with travellers or burglars - but acting in this fashion was 
>wholly illegal and it was quite right that Martin was prosecuted. In effect 
>he lured them to an execution.

Whilst Martin behaved criminally and was extremely lucky to have had
his murder conviction downgraded to manslaughter, one of the
contributing factors was that he had been burgled several times
before, and the police had failed to turn up.  It really doesn't
matter what reasons you come out with to excuse the inaction of the
police, the fact remains that Martin saw no other alternative than to
take the law into his own hands as a result of that inaction.

-- 
Cynic

Cynic wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 13:33:15 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>
>>>> Now tell us what *you* would have done if they had invaded your
>>>> home. Let me guess.
>
>>> Well, I wouldn't have left the doors and windows unlocked and
>>> encouraged them to get in in the first place.  And I *certainly*
>>> would not have laid in wait in the dark, hoping that they would
>>> arrive so I could shoot them.
>
>> Exactly. It became abundantly clear, once the full details came out,
>> that Martin deliberately made it appear that his house was empty,
>> deliberately made it easy for them to get in, and then lay in wait
>> for them and shot them with an illegally held shotgun when they were
>> trying to flee.
>> I hold no truck with travellers or burglars - but acting in this
>> fashion was wholly illegal and it was quite right that Martin was
>> prosecuted. In effect he lured them to an execution.
>
> Whilst Martin behaved criminally and was extremely lucky to have had
> his murder conviction downgraded to manslaughter, one of the
> contributing factors was that he had been burgled several times
> before, and the police had failed to turn up.  It really doesn't
> matter what reasons you come out with to excuse the inaction of the
> police, the fact remains that Martin saw no other alternative than to
> take the law into his own hands as a result of that inaction.

I have never come up with any reasons to excuse what the Norfolk police 
failed to do.

Ret.

Boedicia@isp.com wrote:
> On Feb 13, 4:52 am, Cynic  wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:36:43 -0800 (PST), "Boedi...@isp.com"
>>
>>  wrote:
>>> Now tell us what *you* would have done if they had invaded your
>>> home. Let me guess.
>>
>> Well, I wouldn't have left the doors and windows unlocked and
>> encouraged them to get in in the first place.
>
> Why not. It's *your* home, if you want to leave the doors and windows
> unlocked, it's
> your choice.

Indeed it is - it is also your choice to leave a laptop on open display on 
the back seat of your parked car. Just don't expect the police to come 
rushing round when it's nicked.

How is that "encouraging them"?  They had robbed him
> before, more than
> once.  How many times was he supposed to ignore them?

He only had to switch on a light to let them know he was in the house and 
they would have gone away. He didn't do that - he deliberately lured them 
into his house where he was lying in wait with an illegally held shotgun.

>
>
>   And I *certainly* would
>> not have laid in wait in the dark, hoping that they would arrive so I
>> could shoot them.
>
> I would.  Since the police did nothing, although I have no doubt they
> knew who the criminals
> were but never questioned them,  then it's up to the vicitim to handle
> the situation and from
> what I read about the case, Tony Martin did the right thing.  I hope
> they never returned to the scene of the crime:)

Well, it's your choice of course - but if you *did* decide to do a similar 
thing - then the chances are that *you* would also find yourself up on a 
murder/manslaughter charge. No matter what *you* might think about what is 
right and wrong - the law says otherwise.

Ret.

"Ret." <xxx> wrote:

>He only had to switch on a light to let them know he was in the house and 
>they would have gone away. He didn't do that - he deliberately lured them 
>into his house where he was lying in wait with an illegally held shotgun.

He didn't "lure" them by leaving the lights off..  I've gone past
thousands of unlit houses in my lifetime and I've never been tempted
to nip in and see what I can pinch...  They were a pair of feral
scrotes who shouldn't have been there.

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 16:33:51 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:

>> Whilst Martin behaved criminally and was extremely lucky to have had
>> his murder conviction downgraded to manslaughter, one of the
>> contributing factors was that he had been burgled several times
>> before, and the police had failed to turn up.  It really doesn't
>> matter what reasons you come out with to excuse the inaction of the
>> police, the fact remains that Martin saw no other alternative than to
>> take the law into his own hands as a result of that inaction.
>
>I have never come up with any reasons to excuse what the Norfolk police 
>failed to do.

I don't recal;l that you have ever had cause to do so.  The policing
of remote rural areas, as you well know, has many unique problems and
I do not necessarily criticise the Norfolk police at all.

-- 
Cynic

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 21:30:49 -0800 (PST), "Boedicia@isp.com"
 wrote:

>> Well, I wouldn't have left the doors and windows unlocked and
>> encouraged them to get in in the first place.
>
>Why not. It's *your* home, if you want to leave the doors and windows
>unlocked, it's
>your choice.  How is that "encouraging them"?  They had robbed him
>before, more than
>once.  How many times was he supposed to ignore them?
>
>
>  And I *certainly* would
>> not have laid in wait in the dark, hoping that they would arrive so I
>> could shoot them.
>
>I would.  Since the police did nothing, although I have no doubt they
>knew who the criminals

I see.  In that case you would also be perfectly happy if a person
deliberately set up his house to attract children to enter and commit
crimes, and laid in wait for them so that he could rape them as
punishment?

After all, rape is less serious than murder.  The criminal children
would deserve all they got, right?

-- 
Cynic

On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 14:38:17 +0000, Jeff York 
wrote:

>>He only had to switch on a light to let them know he was in the house and 
>>they would have gone away. He didn't do that - he deliberately lured them 
>>into his house where he was lying in wait with an illegally held shotgun.

>He didn't "lure" them by leaving the lights off..  I've gone past
>thousands of unlit houses in my lifetime and I've never been tempted
>to nip in and see what I can pinch...  They were a pair of feral
>scrotes who shouldn't have been there.

I quite agree that they were a pair of criminals who were doing
something very wrong.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

If a paedophile were to catch a child smashing up a phone box or
stealing his apples, do you believe it gives him the right to rape
them?

-- 
Cynic

Cynic wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 16:33:51 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>
>>> Whilst Martin behaved criminally and was extremely lucky to have had
>>> his murder conviction downgraded to manslaughter, one of the
>>> contributing factors was that he had been burgled several times
>>> before, and the police had failed to turn up.  It really doesn't
>>> matter what reasons you come out with to excuse the inaction of the
>>> police, the fact remains that Martin saw no other alternative than
>>> to take the law into his own hands as a result of that inaction.
>>
>> I have never come up with any reasons to excuse what the Norfolk
>> police failed to do.
>
> I don't recal;l that you have ever had cause to do so.  The policing
> of remote rural areas, as you well know, has many unique problems and
> I do not necessarily criticise the Norfolk police at all.

It does have unique problems - not least the massive increase in anti-social 
behaviour in urban areas which draws manpower away from the rural areas.

Ret.

Boedicia@isp.com wrote:
> On Feb 14, 12:33 pm, Cynic  wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 21:30:49 -0800 (PST), "Boedi...@isp.com"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  wrote:
>>>> Well, I wouldn't have left the doors and windows unlocked and
>>>> encouraged them to get in in the first place.
>>
>>> Why not. It's *your* home, if you want to leave the doors and
>>> windows unlocked, it's
>>> your choice. How is that "encouraging them"? They had robbed him
>>> before, more than
>>> once. How many times was he supposed to ignore them?
>>
>>> And I *certainly* would
>>>> not have laid in wait in the dark, hoping that they would arrive
>>>> so I could shoot them.
>>
>>> I would. Since the police did nothing, although I have no doubt they
>>> knew who the criminals
>>
>> I see. In that case you would also be perfectly happy if a person
>> deliberately set up his house to attract children to enter and commit
>> crimes, and laid in wait for them so that he could rape them as
>> punishment?
>
> That's rubbish and you know it.
>>
>> After all, rape is less serious than murder. The criminal children
>> would deserve all they got, right?
>
> More rubbish. How does one "set up their houses to attract children"
> and since when
> is leaving the light out attract burglars?  Should everyone who goes
> out in the evening leave
> their lights on in the hopes that they won't be robbed? These gypos
> had robbed him before
> and they got everything they deserved.   If they were immigrants the
> survivors should have
> been deported immediately and I hope that if they ever do the same
> thing, some homeowner
> shoots them also.

Tony Martin was interviewed after his release and did his case more harm by 
doing so. He admitted that he intended to lure these scrotes into his home. 
He kept his home dark. He saw their vehicle arrive and park some distance 
from his house. He could, if he had wanted, have deterred the burglary by 
turning on his lights and making it clear he was at home. He did not do 
that. He kept his home in darkness and made his home easy to enter. He lay 
in wait with a shotgun he was not legally entitled to hold and then 
confronted the burglars after they had entered. He fired at them when the 
were trying to get away. He did not fire at them in self defence - he was 
intending to execute them.
However much, in your vigilante mind, you feel that they got what they 
deserved, English law does not permit instance justice of this nature.

Ret.

On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 22:42:44 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:

>> I don't recal;l that you have ever had cause to do so.  The policing
>> of remote rural areas, as you well know, has many unique problems and
>> I do not necessarily criticise the Norfolk police at all.
>
>It does have unique problems - not least the massive increase in anti-social 
>behaviour in urban areas which draws manpower away from the rural areas.

There is no way that you could justify putting sufficient manpower
into rural areas in order to provide a fast response to the very few
crimes that occur over such a large geographical area.

If you did, those police officers would have a *very* cushy job.

-- 
Cynic

On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 15:00:14 -0800 (PST), "Boedicia@isp.com"
 wrote:

>> I see.  In that case you would also be perfectly happy if a person
>> deliberately set up his house to attract children to enter and commit
>> crimes, and laid in wait for them so that he could rape them as
>> punishment?

>That's rubbish and you know it.

>> After all, rape is less serious than murder.  The criminal children
>> would deserve all they got, right?

>More rubbish. How does one "set up their houses to attract children"

Fairly easily.  Nice apple trees on the other side of a climbable
fence, for exampole.

>and since when
>is leaving the light out attract burglars?

It is the combination of giving the appearance that nobody is awake in
the house along with leaving the doors and windows obviously unlocked.

> Should everyone who goes
>out in the evening leave
>their lights on in the hopes that they won't be robbed?

A great many people do exactly that.  Along with setting timers to
produce a noremal pattern of lights when they are away on holiday.
Not that I am arguing that such things should be *mandatory*.

>These gypos
>had robbed him before
>and they got everything they deserved.

We have no idea whether those particular criminals had robbed him
before or not.  And Tony Martin certainly did not know at the time he
shot them.

-- 
Cynic

On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 22:33:48 -0800 (PST), "Boedicia@isp.com"
 wrote:

>On Feb 14, 4:19 pm, Cynic  wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 15:00:14 -0800 (PST), "Boedi...@isp.com"
>>
>>  wrote:
>> >> I see.  In that case you would also be perfectly happy if a person
>> >> deliberately set up his house to attract children to enter and commit
>> >> crimes, and laid in wait for them so that he could rape them as
>> >> punishment?
>> >That's rubbish and you know it.
>> >> After all, rape is less serious than murder.  The criminal children
>> >> would deserve all they got, right?
>> >More rubbish. How does one "set up their houses to attract children"
>>
>> Fairly easily.  Nice apple trees on the other side of a climbable
>> fence, for exampole.
>
>What!!  Hold on, my garden is full of fruit trees.  I better chop them
>down tomorrow in
>case some kid decides to steal the fruit.  "Climbable fence"?   Are
>you trying to tell
>people that they should all have high fences on the chance that some
>kid might steal
>their apples.  Duh.

I have said nothing of the sort.  Please try to follow the discussion
properly!

What I have said is that *if* a child climbs your fence and commits a
criminal act by stealing your fruit, that does *not* give you the
right to mete out to the child whatever form of "justice" will satisfy
you.

Yes, you have every right to make your property an easy target for
burglars if you so wish.  You do *not* however have the right to treat
any burglars you attract in any way you want to if you catch them.
You most certainly do not have the right to kill them, any more than
you have the right to rape the apple-scrumping child.

-- 
Cynic

"Oppressed Subject"  wrote in message 
news:f6b98f18-9bfa-490f-99dd-03a57ee0119f@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com...

Everyone is entitled to do as they please unless it infringes on
another's rights. He was morally entitled to have the shotgun,
although perhaps not legally so.

----------------------------

Well no.

He'd had a legally held shotgun but lost it,  and his certificate,  when he 
threatened a policeman with it.

As for 'morally entitled',  what's that exactly?

You have no 'moral rights' to material objects.

You have to buy them.

Some objects need government permission before you're allowed to own or 
operate.

What's your problem with this?

-- 
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

William Black wrote:
> 
> "Oppressed Subject"  wrote in message 
> news:f6b98f18-9bfa-490f-99dd-03a57ee0119f@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com...
> 
> Everyone is entitled to do as they please unless it infringes on
> another's rights. He was morally entitled to have the shotgun,
> although perhaps not legally so.
> 
> ----------------------------
> 
> Well no.
> 
> He'd had a legally held shotgun but lost it,  and his certificate,  when 
> he threatened a policeman with it.
> 
> As for 'morally entitled',  what's that exactly?
> 
> You have no 'moral rights' to material objects.
> 
> You have to buy them.
> 
> Some objects need government permission before you're allowed to own or 
> operate.
> 
> What's your problem with this?
> 

Like everyone has a moral right to drive a car, even when they have been 
banned from doing so.

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

Cynic  wrote:

>On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 14:38:17 +0000, Jeff York 
>wrote:
>
>>>He only had to switch on a light to let them know he was in the house and 
>>>they would have gone away. He didn't do that - he deliberately lured them 
>>>into his house where he was lying in wait with an illegally held shotgun.
>
>>He didn't "lure" them by leaving the lights off..  I've gone past
>>thousands of unlit houses in my lifetime and I've never been tempted
>>to nip in and see what I can pinch...  They were a pair of feral
>>scrotes who shouldn't have been there.
>
>I quite agree that they were a pair of criminals who were doing
>something very wrong.
>
>Two wrongs do not make a right.

That's true. I wasn't condoning Mr Martin's actions, I was taking
exception to Kev's contention that they were "lured in".

>If a paedophile were to catch a child smashing up a phone box or
>stealing his apples, do you believe it gives him the right to rape
>them?

Only if he bought them a few drinks and some dinner first - as I say
to my oncologist when he's gleefully snapping on the Marigolds. :-)

Jeff York wrote:
> Cynic  wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 14:38:17 +0000, Jeff York 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> He only had to switch on a light to let them know he was in the
>>>> house and they would have gone away. He didn't do that - he
>>>> deliberately lured them into his house where he was lying in wait
>>>> with an illegally held shotgun.
>>
>>> He didn't "lure" them by leaving the lights off..  I've gone past
>>> thousands of unlit houses in my lifetime and I've never been tempted
>>> to nip in and see what I can pinch...  They were a pair of feral
>>> scrotes who shouldn't have been there.
>>
>> I quite agree that they were a pair of criminals who were doing
>> something very wrong.
>>
>> Two wrongs do not make a right.
>
> That's true. I wasn't condoning Mr Martin's actions, I was taking
> exception to Kev's contention that they were "lured in".


Martin admitted during his interview that that was his intention! He wanted 
them to enter his house so that he could teach them a lesson.

Ret.

"Ret." <xxx> wrote:

>Jeff York wrote:
>> Cynic  wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 14:38:17 +0000, Jeff York 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> He only had to switch on a light to let them know he was in the
>>>>> house and they would have gone away. He didn't do that - he
>>>>> deliberately lured them into his house where he was lying in wait
>>>>> with an illegally held shotgun.
>>>
>>>> He didn't "lure" them by leaving the lights off..  I've gone past
>>>> thousands of unlit houses in my lifetime and I've never been tempted
>>>> to nip in and see what I can pinch...  They were a pair of feral
>>>> scrotes who shouldn't have been there.
>>>
>>> I quite agree that they were a pair of criminals who were doing
>>> something very wrong.
>>>
>>> Two wrongs do not make a right.
>>
>> That's true. I wasn't condoning Mr Martin's actions, I was taking
>> exception to Kev's contention that they were "lured in".
>
>
>Martin admitted during his interview that that was his intention! He wanted 
>them to enter his house so that he could teach them a lesson.

If that is indeed the case, I withdraw my objection. However, they
didn't have to allow themselves to be lured, it's not as if he invited
them in for a drink...

Jeff York wrote:

> >> That's true. I wasn't condoning Mr Martin's
> actions, I was taking >> exception to Kev's
> contention that they were "lured in".
> > 
> > 
> > Martin admitted during his interview that
> > that was his intention! He wanted them to
> > enter his house so that he could teach them a
> > lesson.
> 
> If that is indeed the case, I withdraw my
> objection. However, they didn't have to allow
> themselves to be lured, it's not as if he
> invited them in for a drink...

In the same way as women lure men to rape them
because they wear short skirts.
He turned the light off, how is that luring?

--

On 17 Feb 2009 20:59:11 GMT, "joe" 
wrote:

>> If that is indeed the case, I withdraw my
>> objection. However, they didn't have to allow
>> themselves to be lured, it's not as if he
>> invited them in for a drink...
>
>In the same way as women lure men to rape them
>because they wear short skirts.
>He turned the light off, how is that luring?

Whether something is or is not "luring" depends on the intent of the
person doing it.  Tony Martin admitted his intent.

-- 
Cynic