Discussion:
The Pensioner who killed the burgler.
(too old to reply)
Ophelia
2018-04-06 17:56:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Just heard he has been released without charge!!!

I should jolly well think so too!!!


--
http//www.helpforheroes.org.uk
m***@btopenworld.com
2018-04-06 18:19:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 6:56:33 PM UTC+1, Ophelia wrote:
> Just heard he has been released without charge!!!
>
> I should jolly well think so too!!!

As the facts of the matter have emerged, there could have bee little doubt as to what the eventual outcome would be.

However, people have got to understand that when such events occur there has to be legal procedures to deal with them.

There is no room for poetic justice and we don't condone trial by media.

All's well that ends well.
Svenne
2018-04-06 18:47:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 06 Apr 2018 11:19:00 -0700, mrowing wrote:

> On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 6:56:33 PM UTC+1, Ophelia wrote:
>> Just heard he has been released without charge!!!
>>
>> I should jolly well think so too!!!
>
> As the facts of the matter have emerged, there could have bee little
> doubt as to what the eventual outcome would be.
>
> However, people have got to understand that when such events occur there
> has to be legal procedures to deal with them.

If an intruder is killed by a householder the presumption should be that
no crime has been committed and no arrest made. If subsequent
investigation indicates there are good grounds to believe a crime may
have been committed only then should there be an arrest and legal
proceedings initiated.
Ophelia
2018-04-06 19:07:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Svenne" wrote in message news:pa8fbg$rb7$***@dont-email.me...

On Fri, 06 Apr 2018 11:19:00 -0700, mrowing wrote:

> On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 6:56:33 PM UTC+1, Ophelia wrote:
>> Just heard he has been released without charge!!!
>>
>> I should jolly well think so too!!!
>
> As the facts of the matter have emerged, there could have bee little
> doubt as to what the eventual outcome would be.
>
> However, people have got to understand that when such events occur there
> has to be legal procedures to deal with them.

If an intruder is killed by a householder the presumption should be that
no crime has been committed and no arrest made. If subsequent
investigation indicates there are good grounds to believe a crime may
have been committed only then should there be an arrest and legal
proceedings initiated.

==

He should have been taken to hospital to get checked over, not to the police
station:(
abelard
2018-04-06 20:07:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 18:47:12 -0000 (UTC), Svenne <***@aol.co> wrote:

>On Fri, 06 Apr 2018 11:19:00 -0700, mrowing wrote:
>
>> On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 6:56:33 PM UTC+1, Ophelia wrote:
>>> Just heard he has been released without charge!!!
>>>
>>> I should jolly well think so too!!!
>>
>> As the facts of the matter have emerged, there could have bee little
>> doubt as to what the eventual outcome would be.
>>
>> However, people have got to understand that when such events occur there
>> has to be legal procedures to deal with them.
>
>If an intruder is killed by a householder the presumption should be that
>no crime has been committed and no arrest made. If subsequent
>investigation indicates there are good grounds to believe a crime may
>have been committed only then should there be an arrest and legal
>proceedings initiated.

while unlikely there are other possibilities...

x invites y to his house...murders them and claims they were
burgulators


--
www.abelard.org
m***@btopenworld.com
2018-04-06 21:55:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 7:47:14 PM UTC+1, Svenne wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2018 11:19:00 -0700, mrowing wrote:

> > However, people have got to understand that when such events occur there
> > has to be legal procedures to deal with them.
>
> If an intruder is killed by a householder the presumption should be that
> no crime has been committed and no arrest made. If subsequent
> investigation indicates there are good grounds to believe a crime may
> have been committed only then should there be an arrest and legal
> proceedings initiated.

There is no room for presumption in good law. Legal action should follow the direction led by evidence.
Svenne
2018-04-06 22:26:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 06 Apr 2018 14:55:25 -0700, mrowing wrote:

> On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 7:47:14 PM UTC+1, Svenne wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Apr 2018 11:19:00 -0700, mrowing wrote:
>
>> > However, people have got to understand that when such events occur
>> > there has to be legal procedures to deal with them.
>>
>> If an intruder is killed by a householder the presumption should be
>> that no crime has been committed and no arrest made. If subsequent
>> investigation indicates there are good grounds to believe a crime may
>> have been committed only then should there be an arrest and legal
>> proceedings initiated.
>
> There is no room for presumption in good law. Legal action should follow
> the direction led by evidence.

Of course there is room for presumption in good law. Everyone is presumed
to be innocent until the opposite is proven. The householder should not
have been arrested until investigation indicated a crime had been
committed which he was suspected of committing.
m***@btopenworld.com
2018-04-07 07:38:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 11:26:59 PM UTC+1, Svenne wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2018 14:55:25 -0700, mrowing wrote:
>
> > On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 7:47:14 PM UTC+1, Svenne wrote:
> >> On Fri, 06 Apr 2018 11:19:00 -0700, mrowing wrote:
> >
> >> > However, people have got to understand that when such events occur
> >> > there has to be legal procedures to deal with them.
> >>
> >> If an intruder is killed by a householder the presumption should be
> >> that no crime has been committed and no arrest made. If subsequent
> >> investigation indicates there are good grounds to believe a crime may
> >> have been committed only then should there be an arrest and legal
> >> proceedings initiated.
> >
> > There is no room for presumption in good law. Legal action should follow
> > the direction led by evidence.
>
> Of course there is room for presumption in good law. Everyone is presumed
> to be innocent until the opposite is proven. The householder should not
> have been arrested until investigation indicated a crime had been
> committed which he was suspected of committing.

That is not law but justice. The procedure under which law is applied

In any case, you do not assume anyone's innocence by killing them.
BurfordTJustice
2018-04-07 12:14:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
They are not innocent if they brak into your house...

WTF kind of dope do you dmoke?




<***@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:c6febdcb-a632-4e3c-8fb2-***@googlegroups.com...
: On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 11:26:59 PM UTC+1, Svenne wrote:
: > On Fri, 06 Apr 2018 14:55:25 -0700, mrowing wrote:
: >
: > > On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 7:47:14 PM UTC+1, Svenne wrote:
: > >> On Fri, 06 Apr 2018 11:19:00 -0700, mrowing wrote:
: > >
: > >> > However, people have got to understand that when such events occur
: > >> > there has to be legal procedures to deal with them.
: > >>
: > >> If an intruder is killed by a householder the presumption should be
: > >> that no crime has been committed and no arrest made. If subsequent
: > >> investigation indicates there are good grounds to believe a crime may
: > >> have been committed only then should there be an arrest and legal
: > >> proceedings initiated.
: > >
: > > There is no room for presumption in good law. Legal action should
follow
: > > the direction led by evidence.
: >
: > Of course there is room for presumption in good law. Everyone is
presumed
: > to be innocent until the opposite is proven. The householder should not
: > have been arrested until investigation indicated a crime had been
: > committed which he was suspected of committing.
:
: That is not law but justice. The procedure under which law is applied
:
: In any case, you do not assume anyone's innocence by killing them.
Svenne
2018-04-07 20:27:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 07 Apr 2018 00:38:10 -0700, mrowing wrote:

> On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 11:26:59 PM UTC+1, Svenne wrote:

>> > There is no room for presumption in good law. Legal action should
>> > follow the direction led by evidence.
>>
>> Of course there is room for presumption in good law. Everyone is
>> presumed to be innocent until the opposite is proven. The householder
>> should not have been arrested until investigation indicated a crime had
>> been committed which he was suspected of committing.
>
> That is not law but justice. The procedure under which law is applied

Load of bollox. The police shouldn't arrest anybody unless they have good
reason to believe a crime has been committed

> In any case, you do not assume anyone's innocence by killing them.

If some pile of crap attacks you then you stop him by any means
necessary. If those means involve his death or serious injury then tough
luck for him.
m***@btopenworld.com
2018-04-07 21:48:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 9:27:22 PM UTC+1, Svenne wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Apr 2018 00:38:10 -0700, mrowing wrote:
>
> > On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 11:26:59 PM UTC+1, Svenne wrote:
>
> >> > There is no room for presumption in good law. Legal action should
> >> > follow the direction led by evidence.
> >>
> >> Of course there is room for presumption in good law. Everyone is
> >> presumed to be innocent until the opposite is proven. The householder
> >> should not have been arrested until investigation indicated a crime had
> >> been committed which he was suspected of committing.
> >
> > That is not law but justice. The procedure under which law is applied
>
> Load of bollox. The police shouldn't arrest anybody unless they have good
> reason to believe a crime has been committed

Ultimately it is rightly a court that decides whether or not a crime has been committed and by whom. That's why we have them!

> > In any case, you do not assume anyone's innocence by killing them.
>
> If some pile of crap attacks you then you stop him by any means
> necessary. If those means involve his death or serious injury then tough
> luck for him.

No tough on you when you are spending those years in prison. In any civilised society we simply cannot accept a situation where one person arbitrarily decides that another shall die. There must be a system of due process otherwise anarchy prevails.
Svenne
2018-04-09 16:08:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 07 Apr 2018 14:48:15 -0700, mrowing wrote:

> On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 9:27:22 PM UTC+1, Svenne wrote:

>> Load of bollox. The police shouldn't arrest anybody unless they have
>> good reason to believe a crime has been committed
>
> Ultimately it is rightly a court that decides whether or not a crime has
> been committed and by whom. That's why we have them!

I didn't say the police should decide whether a crime had been committed
and by whom. I said they shouldn't arrest anyone unless they had
reasonable cause to believe a crime had been committed and the person
they arrested was responsible. The police just haul them in and let the
court decide the truth of the matter.

>> > In any case, you do not assume anyone's innocence by killing them.
>>
>> If some pile of crap attacks you then you stop him by any means
>> necessary. If those means involve his death or serious injury then
>> tough luck for him.
>
> No tough on you when you are spending those years in prison. In any
> civilised society we simply cannot accept a situation where one person
> arbitrarily decides that another shall die. There must be a system of
> due process otherwise anarchy prevails.

If somebody attacked me I wouldn't give a rats rear whether they lived or
died or spent the rest of their life in a wheelchair. That would be of no
interest to me at all. All that would be of interest is how to neutralise
the attack as quickly and efficiently as possible with as little risk to
me as possible. That is a perfectly reasonable position to take and I
think any reasonable jury would agree.
m***@btopenworld.com
2018-04-09 18:23:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 5:08:13 PM UTC+1, Svenne wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Apr 2018 14:48:15 -0700, mrowing wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 9:27:22 PM UTC+1, Svenne wrote:

> If somebody attacked me I wouldn't give a rats rear whether they lived or
> died or spent the rest of their life in a wheelchair. That would be of no
> interest to me at all. All that would be of interest is how to neutralise
> the attack as quickly and efficiently as possible with as little risk to
> me as possible. That is a perfectly reasonable position to take and I
> think any reasonable jury would agree.

I think you would be disappointed. A jury is tasked to arrive at a verdict on the basis of the evidence offered in court *according to law* They are not there to arrive at a collective judgement as to whether the law is right or wrong in this respect.

They are at all times under the direction of the judge on matters of law. He would direct them very carefully as to their obligations. The summing up would, I believe, go along these lines.

"Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury. You have now heard all the evidence in this case. You alone decide the facts of this matter. I would ask you to focus your considerations only upon the evidence that has been presented here and to set aside and cast out of your mind any feelings you may harbour personally about the rights and wrongs of the law in this respect.

The defendant's case is based upon self defence and indeed self defence is a defence in law to all acts of violence even murder. Now it is for you to decide whether the defendant acted reasonably in this instance. If, you, on the basis of the evidence presented to you, are persuaded that when he took the action he did the defendant behaved reasonably and took justifiable action to defend himself then it is your duty to find him not guilty. Similarly if you come to the view that his actions were reckless, unreasonable unjustifiable or unnecessary, then equally you must find him guilty.

Should you wish the return to this courtroom to receive further advice from me as to matters of law then please do not hesitate to send me a note to that effect. I ask you now to go with the usher to a private room and consider your verdict. Please have me informed when you have reached your verdict."
Farmer Giles
2018-04-09 20:03:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 09-Apr-18 7:23 PM, ***@btopenworld.com wrote:
> On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 5:08:13 PM UTC+1, Svenne wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Apr 2018 14:48:15 -0700, mrowing wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 9:27:22 PM UTC+1, Svenne wrote:
>
>> If somebody attacked me I wouldn't give a rats rear whether they lived or
>> died or spent the rest of their life in a wheelchair. That would be of no
>> interest to me at all. All that would be of interest is how to neutralise
>> the attack as quickly and efficiently as possible with as little risk to
>> me as possible. That is a perfectly reasonable position to take and I
>> think any reasonable jury would agree.
>
> I think you would be disappointed. A jury is tasked to arrive at a verdict on the basis of the evidence offered in court *according to law* They are not there to arrive at a collective judgement as to whether the law is right or wrong in this respect.

Never heard of jury nullification?

>
> They are at all times under the direction of the judge on matters of law. He would direct them very carefully as to their obligations. The summing up would, I believe, go along these lines.
>
> "Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury. You have now heard all the evidence in this case. You alone decide the facts of this matter. I would ask you to focus your considerations only upon the evidence that has been presented here and to set aside and cast out of your mind any feelings you may harbour personally about the rights and wrongs of the law in this respect.
>
> The defendant's case is based upon self defence and indeed self defence is a defence in law to all acts of violence even murder. Now it is for you to decide whether the defendant acted reasonably in this instance. If, you, on the basis of the evidence presented to you, are persuaded that when he took the action he did the defendant behaved reasonably and took justifiable action to defend himself then it is your duty to find him not guilty. Similarly if you come to the view that his actions were reckless, unreasonable unjustifiable or unnecessary, then equally you must find him guilty.
>
> Should you wish the return to this courtroom to receive further advice from me as to matters of law then please do not hesitate to send me a note to that effect. I ask you now to go with the usher to a private room and consider your verdict. Please have me informed when you have reached your verdict."
>
>

A jury is under no obligation to follow a judge's directions. They could
declare someone not guilty even if he clearly was - ref: Clive Ponting.
JNugent
2018-04-10 01:36:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 09/04/2018 21:03, Farmer Giles wrote:
> On 09-Apr-18 7:23 PM, ***@btopenworld.com wrote:
>> On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 5:08:13 PM UTC+1, Svenne wrote:
>>> On Sat, 07 Apr 2018 14:48:15 -0700, mrowing wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 9:27:22 PM UTC+1, Svenne wrote:
>>
>>> If somebody attacked me I wouldn't give a rats rear whether they
>>> lived or
>>> died or spent the rest of their life in a wheelchair. That would be
>>> of no
>>> interest to me at all. All that would be of interest is how to
>>> neutralise
>>> the attack as quickly and efficiently as possible with as little risk to
>>> me as possible. That is a perfectly reasonable position to take and I
>>> think any reasonable jury would agree.
>>
>> I think you would be disappointed. A jury is tasked to arrive at a
>> verdict on the basis of the evidence offered in court *according to
>> law* They are not there to arrive at a collective judgement as to
>> whether the law is right or wrong in this respect.
>
> Never heard of jury nullification?

Indeed.

>> They are at all times under the direction of the judge on matters of
>> law. He would direct them very carefully as to their obligations. The
>> summing up would, I believe, go along these lines.
>>
>> "Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury. You have now heard all the evidence
>> in this case. You alone decide the facts of this matter. I would ask
>> you to focus your considerations only upon the evidence that has been
>> presented here and to set aside and cast out of your mind any feelings
>> you may harbour personally about the rights and wrongs of the law in
>> this respect.
>>
>> The defendant's case is based upon self defence and indeed self
>> defence is a defence in law to all acts of violence even murder. Now
>> it is for you to decide whether the defendant acted reasonably in this
>> instance. If, you, on the basis of the evidence presented to you, are
>> persuaded that when he took the action he did the defendant behaved
>> reasonably and took justifiable action to defend himself then it is
>> your duty to find him not guilty. Similarly if you come to the view
>> that his actions were reckless, unreasonable unjustifiable or
>> unnecessary, then equally you must find him guilty.
>>
>> Should you wish the return to this courtroom to receive further advice
>> from me as to matters of law then please do not hesitate to send me a
>> note to that effect. I ask you now to go with the usher to a private
>> room and consider your verdict. Please have me informed when you have
>> reached your verdict."

> A jury is under no obligation to follow a judge's directions. They could
> declare someone not guilty even if he clearly was - ref: Clive Ponting.

Far more illustrative of justice than the Ponting case was the Stephen
Owen case in Kent.

<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/columnists/alexei-sayle/10484345/Stand-up-for-drive-by-justice.html>

It looks like a long story (by Alexei Sayle), but isn't. It's well worth
reading through to the end, eb=ven if it takes all of 90 seconds (and no
paywall).
Farmer Giles
2018-04-10 09:04:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10-Apr-18 2:36 AM, JNugent wrote:
> On 09/04/2018 21:03, Farmer Giles wrote:
>> On 09-Apr-18 7:23 PM, ***@btopenworld.com wrote:
>>> On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 5:08:13 PM UTC+1, Svenne wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 07 Apr 2018 14:48:15 -0700, mrowing wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 9:27:22 PM UTC+1, Svenne wrote:
>>>
>>>> If somebody attacked me I wouldn't give a rats rear whether they
>>>> lived or
>>>> died or spent the rest of their life in a wheelchair. That would be
>>>> of no
>>>> interest to me at all. All that would be of interest is how to
>>>> neutralise
>>>> the attack as quickly and efficiently as possible with as little
>>>> risk to
>>>> me as possible. That is a perfectly reasonable position to take and I
>>>> think any reasonable jury would agree.
>>>
>>> I think you would be disappointed. A jury is tasked to arrive at a
>>> verdict on the basis of the evidence offered in court *according to
>>> law* They are not there to arrive at a collective judgement as to
>>> whether the law is right or wrong in this respect.
>>
>> Never heard of jury nullification?
>
> Indeed.
>
>>> They are at all times under the direction of the judge on matters of
>>> law. He would direct them very carefully as to their obligations. The
>>> summing up would, I believe, go along these lines.
>>>
>>> "Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury. You have now heard all the
>>> evidence in this case. You alone decide the facts of this matter. I
>>> would ask you to focus your considerations only upon the evidence
>>> that has been presented here and to set aside and cast out of your
>>> mind any feelings you may harbour personally about the rights and
>>> wrongs of the law in this respect.
>>>
>>> The defendant's case is based upon self defence and indeed self
>>> defence is a defence in law to all acts of violence even murder. Now
>>> it is for you to decide whether the defendant acted reasonably in
>>> this instance. If, you, on the basis of the evidence presented to
>>> you, are persuaded that when he took the action he did the defendant
>>> behaved reasonably and took justifiable action to defend himself then
>>> it is your duty to find him not guilty. Similarly if you come to the
>>> view that his actions were reckless, unreasonable unjustifiable or
>>> unnecessary, then equally you must find him guilty.
>>>
>>> Should you wish the return to this courtroom to receive further
>>> advice from me as to matters of law then please do not hesitate to
>>> send me a note to that effect. I ask you now to go with the usher to
>>> a private room and consider your verdict. Please have me informed
>>> when you have reached your verdict."
>
>> A jury is under no obligation to follow a judge's directions. They
>> could declare someone not guilty even if he clearly was - ref: Clive
>> Ponting.
>
> Far more illustrative of justice than the Ponting case was the Stephen
> Owen case in Kent.
>
> <https://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/columnists/alexei-sayle/10484345/Stand-up-for-drive-by-justice.html>
>
>
> It looks like a long story (by Alexei Sayle), but isn't. It's well worth
> reading through to the end, eb=ven if it takes all of 90 seconds (and no
> paywall).

I did read it - thank you. A heart-warming case - except, of course, for
the tragic circumstances that created it in the first place.
m***@btopenworld.com
2018-04-10 08:21:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 9:03:24 PM UTC+1, Farmer Giles wrote:
> On 09-Apr-18 7:23 PM, ***@btopenworld.com wrote:

> A jury is under no obligation to follow a judge's directions. They could
> declare someone not guilty even if he clearly was - ref: Clive Ponting.

indeed they are not but judges are bound by matters of law and part of their function is to guide the jury on the application of that law.

When a jury returns a verdict the judge will accept it without question or comment except to thank the jury for their deliberations. A jury cannot change law that is a matter for the legislature. It can bring in any verdict its has a mind to but the law will remain exactly the same. It may well be that such an action on the part of a jury might induce the government of legislature to look again at the particular piece of legislation in question but of course that is at the discretion of the government of the day.

As I say such events are rare and if I ever believed that by liberty depended upon a jury disregarding both the evidence presented at a trial and/or the summing up and direction of a judge then I would be very despondent indeed.

Just one last thing. No defence counsel or judge may present the possibility of nullification as a defence. If juries are to behave thus then it is a conclusion that they must come to without guidance entirely of their own volition. Defendants in trials are only tried in accordance with the law as it stands.
Farmer Giles
2018-04-10 09:02:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10-Apr-18 9:21 AM, ***@btopenworld.com wrote:
> On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 9:03:24 PM UTC+1, Farmer Giles wrote:
>> On 09-Apr-18 7:23 PM, ***@btopenworld.com wrote:
>
>> A jury is under no obligation to follow a judge's directions. They could
>> declare someone not guilty even if he clearly was - ref: Clive Ponting.
>
> indeed they are not but judges are bound by matters of law and part of their function is to guide the jury on the application of that law.
>
> When a jury returns a verdict the judge will accept it without question or comment except to thank the jury for their deliberations. A jury cannot change law that is a matter for the legislature. It can bring in any verdict its has a mind to but the law will remain exactly the same. It may well be that such an action on the part of a jury might induce the government of legislature to look again at the particular piece of legislation in question but of course that is at the discretion of the government of the day.
>
> As I say such events are rare and if I ever believed that by liberty depended upon a jury disregarding both the evidence presented at a trial and/or the summing up and direction of a judge then I would be very despondent indeed.
>
> Just one last thing. No defence counsel or judge may present the possibility of nullification as a defence. If juries are to behave thus then it is a conclusion that they must come to without guidance entirely of their own volition. Defendants in trials are only tried in accordance with the law as it stands.
>

You said that they are at all times under the direction of the judge on
matters of law. They are not - when they enter the jury room to consider
their verdict they are under the direction of no-one but themselves and
what they believe to be right. To such an extent that if they believe a
law to be unjust they can disregard it.

You also said the jury is not there 'to make a collective judgement as
to whether the law is right or wrong'. They are not there for that
purpose, that is true, but they are perfectly entitled to reach that
conclusion - and act accordingly - if they wish to.

So, to get back to the point made by Svenne, he could have a perfectly
justifiable expectation that his belief in the justification of his
actions would be supported by a 'reasonable' jury - irrespective of any
laid-down legal rigidity.
m***@btopenworld.com
2018-04-10 10:02:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 10:02:23 AM UTC+1, Farmer Giles wrote:
> On 10-Apr-18 9:21 AM, ***@btopenworld.com wrote:

> So, to get back to the point made by Svenne, he could have a perfectly
> justifiable expectation that his belief in the justification of his
> actions would be supported by a 'reasonable' jury - irrespective of any
> laid-down legal rigidity.

I already have answered Svenne. Just look as the penultimate paragraph in my last post.

Nullification of the law relating to the charge is no defence against anything. A defendant is charged with an offence *contrary to law* and as a result will be tried *according to law* In any trial, the trial judge is the final arbiter of law as far as that court is concerned.

Should Svenne instruct his counsel to act in this way then the chances are that he would refuse to take the case since such instructions would require him/her not to present any defence at all except in mitigation which would require a guilty plea or a guilty verdict from the jury beforehand.

As I say, such events are rare and can only come about through a collective decision of the jury without any advice, or direction from anybody. The jury is there to decide upon matters of fact and matters of fact only. They are not there to deliberate upon the rightness or wrongness of any law.

To do so would be outside their remit.
Farmer Giles
2018-04-10 10:42:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10-Apr-18 11:02 AM, ***@btopenworld.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 10:02:23 AM UTC+1, Farmer Giles wrote:
>> On 10-Apr-18 9:21 AM, ***@btopenworld.com wrote:
>
>> So, to get back to the point made by Svenne, he could have a perfectly
>> justifiable expectation that his belief in the justification of his
>> actions would be supported by a 'reasonable' jury - irrespective of any
>> laid-down legal rigidity.
>
> I already have answered Svenne. Just look as the penultimate paragraph in my last post.
>
> Nullification of the law relating to the charge is no defence against anything. A defendant is charged with an offence *contrary to law* and as a result will be tried *according to law* In any trial, the trial judge is the final arbiter of law as far as that court is concerned.
>
> Should Svenne instruct his counsel to act in this way then the chances are that he would refuse to take the case since such instructions would require him/her not to present any defence at all except in mitigation which would require a guilty plea or a guilty verdict from the jury beforehand.
>
> As I say, such events are rare and can only come about through a collective decision of the jury without any advice, or direction from anybody. The jury is there to decide upon matters of fact and matters of fact only. They are not there to deliberate upon the rightness or wrongness of any law.
>
> To do so would be outside their remit.
>

No-one said that 'nullification of the law' was a 'defence', and lord
know what you mean about anyone instructing their barrister to 'act in
this way' - whatever that is supposed to mean.

Nullification simply relates to the right of a jury to make whatever
decision it chooses in spite of what the law lays down. It is not a
defence, and it's hard to imagine how a defence could be constructed
around such a possibility.

I'm afraid you were wrong to assert that juries are under the direction
of judges 'at all times', and that they must arrive at their verdict
'according to law'.
Svenne
2018-04-10 14:22:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 09 Apr 2018 11:23:39 -0700, mrowing wrote:

> On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 5:08:13 PM UTC+1, Svenne wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Apr 2018 14:48:15 -0700, mrowing wrote:
>>
>> > On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 9:27:22 PM UTC+1, Svenne wrote:
>
>> If somebody attacked me I wouldn't give a rats rear whether they lived
>> or died or spent the rest of their life in a wheelchair. That would be
>> of no interest to me at all. All that would be of interest is how to
>> neutralise the attack as quickly and efficiently as possible with as
>> little risk to me as possible. That is a perfectly reasonable position
>> to take and I think any reasonable jury would agree.
>
> I think you would be disappointed. A jury is tasked to arrive at a
> verdict on the basis of the evidence offered in court *according to law*
> They are not there to arrive at a collective judgement as to whether the
> law is right or wrong in this respect.
>
> They are at all times under the direction of the judge on matters of
> law. He would direct them very carefully as to their obligations. The
> summing up would, I believe, go along these lines.
>
> "Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury. You have now heard all the evidence
> in this case. You alone decide the facts of this matter. I would ask you
> to focus your considerations only upon the evidence that has been
> presented here and to set aside and cast out of your mind any feelings
> you may harbour personally about the rights and wrongs of the law in
> this respect.
>
> The defendant's case is based upon self defence and indeed self defence
> is a defence in law to all acts of violence even murder. Now it is for
> you to decide whether the defendant acted reasonably in this instance.
> If, you, on the basis of the evidence presented to you, are persuaded
> that when he took the action he did the defendant behaved reasonably and
> took justifiable action to defend himself then it is your duty to find
> him not guilty. Similarly if you come to the view that his actions were
> reckless, unreasonable unjustifiable or unnecessary, then equally you
> must find him guilty.
>
> Should you wish the return to this courtroom to receive further advice
> from me as to matters of law then please do not hesitate to send me a
> note to that effect. I ask you now to go with the usher to a private
> room and consider your verdict. Please have me informed when you have
> reached your verdict."

Exactly. I would have been under attack and in danger of grievous injury
or death and in those circumstances employed the most efficient means
available to render that situation safe for me. Result: a quick "Not
Guilty" verdict and the perp either six feet under or in a wheelchair.
But that last bit is completely uninteresting and irrelevant.
johnny-knowall
2018-04-10 14:31:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10 Apr 2018, Svenne wrote
(in article <paihas$rop$***@dont-email.me>):

> On Mon, 09 Apr 2018 11:23:39 -0700, mrowing wrote:
>
> > On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 5:08:13 PM UTC+1, Svenne wrote:
> > > On Sat, 07 Apr 2018 14:48:15 -0700, mrowing wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 9:27:22 PM UTC+1, Svenne wrote:
> >
> > > If somebody attacked me I wouldn't give a rats rear whether they lived
> > > or died or spent the rest of their life in a wheelchair. That would be
> > > of no interest to me at all. All that would be of interest is how to
> > > neutralise the attack as quickly and efficiently as possible with as
> > > little risk to me as possible. That is a perfectly reasonable position
> > > to take and I think any reasonable jury would agree.
> >
> > I think you would be disappointed. A jury is tasked to arrive at a
> > verdict on the basis of the evidence offered in court *according to law*
> > They are not there to arrive at a collective judgement as to whether the
> > law is right or wrong in this respect.
> >
> > They are at all times under the direction of the judge on matters of
> > law. He would direct them very carefully as to their obligations. The
> > summing up would, I believe, go along these lines.
> >
> > "Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury.

I see that the megalomania has kicked in big time now.

What might be next?

His acceptance speech when he is appointed King, after the royal family are
incapacitated by a stray missile from Putin?

Or possibly his first prayers to the world after being appointed Pope?

I suppose we will have to humour him until the medics arrive.

> > You have now heard all the evidence
> > in this case. You alone decide the facts of this matter. I would ask you
> > to focus your considerations only upon the evidence that has been
> > presented here and to set aside and cast out of your mind any feelings
> > you may harbour personally about the rights and wrongs of the law in
> > this respect.
> >
> > The defendant's case is based upon self defence and indeed self defence
> > is a defence in law to all acts of violence even murder. Now it is for
> > you to decide whether the defendant acted reasonably in this instance.
> > If, you, on the basis of the evidence presented to you, are persuaded
> > that when he took the action he did the defendant behaved reasonably and
> > took justifiable action to defend himself then it is your duty to find
> > him not guilty. Similarly if you come to the view that his actions were
> > reckless, unreasonable unjustifiable or unnecessary, then equally you
> > must find him guilty.
> >
> > Should you wish the return to this courtroom to receive further advice
> > from me as to matters of law then please do not hesitate to send me a
> > note to that effect. I ask you now to go with the usher to a private
> > room and consider your verdict. Please have me informed when you have
> > reached your verdict."
>
> Exactly. I would have been under attack and in danger of grievous injury
> or death and in those circumstances employed the most efficient means
> available to render that situation safe for me. Result: a quick "Not
> Guilty" verdict and the perp either six feet under or in a wheelchair.
> But that last bit is completely uninteresting and irrelevant.
johnny-knowall
2018-04-07 09:05:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 6 Apr 2018, ***@btopenworld.com wrote
(in article<45da9ea3-3691-4afe-a5a9-***@googlegroups.com>):

> On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 7:47:14 PM UTC+1, Svenne wrote:
> > On Fri, 06 Apr 2018 11:19:00 -0700, mrowing wrote:
>
> > > However, people have got to understand that when such events occur there
> > > has to be legal procedures to deal with them.
> >
> > If an intruder is killed by a householder the presumption should be that
> > no crime has been committed and no arrest made. If subsequent
> > investigation indicates there are good grounds to believe a crime may
> > have been committed only then should there be an arrest and legal
> > proceedings initiated.
>
> There is no room for presumption in good law.

Except of course when the crime is nerve poisoning and the Russians are
presumed guilty.

> Legal action should follow the
> direction led by evidence.
Omega
2018-04-07 07:30:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 06/04/2018 19:47, Svenne wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2018 11:19:00 -0700, mrowing wrote:
>
>> On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 6:56:33 PM UTC+1, Ophelia wrote:
>>> Just heard he has been released without charge!!!
>>>
>>> I should jolly well think so too!!!
>>
>> As the facts of the matter have emerged, there could have bee little
>> doubt as to what the eventual outcome would be.
>>
>> However, people have got to understand that when such events occur there
>> has to be legal procedures to deal with them.
>
> If an intruder is killed by a householder the presumption should be that
> no crime has been committed and no arrest made. If subsequent
> investigation indicates there are good grounds to believe a crime may
> have been committed only then should there be an arrest and legal
> proceedings initiated.
>


Protective custody?

omega
Farmer Giles
2018-04-06 18:49:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 06-Apr-18 7:19 PM, ***@btopenworld.com wrote:
> On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 6:56:33 PM UTC+1, Ophelia wrote:
>> Just heard he has been released without charge!!!
>>
>> I should jolly well think so too!!!
>
> As the facts of the matter have emerged, there could have bee little doubt as to what the eventual outcome would be.

Try telling that to Tony Martin.
m***@btopenworld.com
2018-04-06 22:10:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 7:50:00 PM UTC+1, Farmer Giles wrote:
> On 06-Apr-18 7:19 PM, ***@btopenworld.com wrote:
> > On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 6:56:33 PM UTC+1, Ophelia wrote:
> >> Just heard he has been released without charge!!!
> >>
> >> I should jolly well think so too!!!
> >
> > As the facts of the matter have emerged, there could have bee little doubt as to what the eventual outcome would be.
>
> Try telling that to Tony Martin.

There is no parallel between the two cases. On the one hand the victim became embroiled in a struggle with a burglar over possession of a weapon (the screw driver) which any reasonable person would accept placed the former in danger of serious harm. On the other a disturbed burglar in possession of no weapon was in fact fleeing the scene of his crime and so constituted no threat to anybody.

There is a right in law to protect yourself and your property using reasonable means to do so. This right does not extend to unnecessarily taking of life or deliberately inflicting needless injury.

Justice is mine sayeth the Lord and the law says something similar.
Farmer Giles
2018-04-07 09:08:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 06-Apr-18 11:10 PM, ***@btopenworld.com wrote:
> On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 7:50:00 PM UTC+1, Farmer Giles wrote:
>> On 06-Apr-18 7:19 PM, ***@btopenworld.com wrote:
>>> On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 6:56:33 PM UTC+1, Ophelia wrote:
>>>> Just heard he has been released without charge!!!
>>>>
>>>> I should jolly well think so too!!!
>>>
>>> As the facts of the matter have emerged, there could have bee little doubt as to what the eventual outcome would be.
>>
>> Try telling that to Tony Martin.
>
> There is no parallel between the two cases. On the one hand the victim became embroiled in a struggle with a burglar over possession of a weapon (the screw driver) which any reasonable person would accept placed the former in danger of serious harm. On the other a disturbed burglar in possession of no weapon was in fact fleeing the scene of his crime and so constituted no threat to anybody.
>
> There is a right in law to protect yourself and your property using reasonable means to do so. This right does not extend to unnecessarily taking of life or deliberately inflicting needless injury.

All very well in the light of a safe day. Tony Martin was alone in a
remote farmhouse, and he had no idea whether the intruders had weapons
or not. It was also very dark at the time and he would have been unable
to see exactly where they were.

I cannot see how anyone can argue the case for Mr Osborn-Brooks without
doing the same for Tony Martin.
johnny-knowall
2018-04-07 09:12:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 7 Apr 2018, Farmer Giles wrote
(in article<***@brightview.co.uk>):

> On 06-Apr-18 11:10 PM, ***@btopenworld.com wrote:
> > On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 7:50:00 PM UTC+1, Farmer Giles wrote:
> > > On 06-Apr-18 7:19 PM, ***@btopenworld.com wrote:
> > > > On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 6:56:33 PM UTC+1, Ophelia wrote:
> > > > > Just heard he has been released without charge!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > I should jolly well think so too!!!
> > > >
> > > > As the facts of the matter have emerged, there could have bee little
> > > > doubt as to what the eventual outcome would be.
> > >
> > > Try telling that to Tony Martin.
> >
> > There is no parallel between the two cases. On the one hand the victim
> > became embroiled in a struggle with a burglar over possession of a weapon
> > (the screw driver) which any reasonable person would accept placed the
> > former in danger of serious harm. On the other a disturbed burglar in
> > possession of no weapon was in fact fleeing the scene of his crime and so
> > constituted no threat to anybody.
> >
> > There is a right in law to protect yourself and your property using
> > reasonable means to do so. This right does not extend to unnecessarily
> > taking of life or deliberately inflicting needless injury.
>
> All very well in the light of a safe day. Tony Martin was alone in a
> remote farmhouse, and he had no idea whether the intruders had weapons
> or not. It was also very dark at the time and he would have been unable
> to see exactly where they were.

So "unable to see them", that he shot directly at one and killed him.

Yeah right.

>
>
> I cannot see how anyone can argue the case for Mr Osborn-Brooks without
> doing the same for Tony Martin.

You are unable to see as well?

Blind leading the blind, in that case.
Farmer Giles
2018-04-07 09:47:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 07-Apr-18 10:12 AM, johnny-knowall wrote:
> On 7 Apr 2018, Farmer Giles wrote
> (in article<***@brightview.co.uk>):
>
>> On 06-Apr-18 11:10 PM, ***@btopenworld.com wrote:
>>> On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 7:50:00 PM UTC+1, Farmer Giles wrote:
>>>> On 06-Apr-18 7:19 PM, ***@btopenworld.com wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 6:56:33 PM UTC+1, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>>> Just heard he has been released without charge!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I should jolly well think so too!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> As the facts of the matter have emerged, there could have bee little
>>>>> doubt as to what the eventual outcome would be.
>>>>
>>>> Try telling that to Tony Martin.
>>>
>>> There is no parallel between the two cases. On the one hand the victim
>>> became embroiled in a struggle with a burglar over possession of a weapon
>>> (the screw driver) which any reasonable person would accept placed the
>>> former in danger of serious harm. On the other a disturbed burglar in
>>> possession of no weapon was in fact fleeing the scene of his crime and so
>>> constituted no threat to anybody.
>>>
>>> There is a right in law to protect yourself and your property using
>>> reasonable means to do so. This right does not extend to unnecessarily
>>> taking of life or deliberately inflicting needless injury.
>>
>> All very well in the light of a safe day. Tony Martin was alone in a
>> remote farmhouse, and he had no idea whether the intruders had weapons
>> or not. It was also very dark at the time and he would have been unable
>> to see exactly where they were.
>
> So "unable to see them", that he shot directly at one and killed him.
>
> Yeah right.

Did he, were you there?

He was in his house alone when they broke in. It was dark and he was
terrified. There is no proof that he fired 'directly' at them - but even
if he did it was no more than they deserved, they were the authors of
their own fate. His house had been broken into several times.

>>
>>
>> I cannot see how anyone can argue the case for Mr Osborn-Brooks without
>> doing the same for Tony Martin.
>
> You are unable to see as well?

You clearly can't, or read properly it seems.
johnny-knowall
2018-04-07 10:35:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 7 Apr 2018, Farmer Giles wrote
(in article<***@brightview.co.uk>):

> On 07-Apr-18 10:12 AM, johnny-knowall wrote:
> > On 7 Apr 2018, Farmer Giles wrote
> > (in article<***@brightview.co.uk>):
> >
> > > On 06-Apr-18 11:10 PM, ***@btopenworld.com wrote:
> > > > On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 7:50:00 PM UTC+1, Farmer Giles wrote:
> > > > > On 06-Apr-18 7:19 PM, ***@btopenworld.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 6:56:33 PM UTC+1, Ophelia wrote:
> > > > > > > Just heard he has been released without charge!!!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I should jolly well think so too!!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As the facts of the matter have emerged, there could have bee little
> > > > > > doubt as to what the eventual outcome would be.
> > > > >
> > > > > Try telling that to Tony Martin.
> > > >
> > > > There is no parallel between the two cases. On the one hand the victim
> > > > became embroiled in a struggle with a burglar over possession of a weapon
> > > > (the screw driver) which any reasonable person would accept placed the
> > > > former in danger of serious harm. On the other a disturbed burglar in
> > > > possession of no weapon was in fact fleeing the scene of his crime and so
> > > > constituted no threat to anybody.
> > > >
> > > > There is a right in law to protect yourself and your property using
> > > > reasonable means to do so. This right does not extend to unnecessarily
> > > > taking of life or deliberately inflicting needless injury.
> > >
> > > All very well in the light of a safe day. Tony Martin was alone in a
> > > remote farmhouse, and he had no idea whether the intruders had weapons
> > > or not. It was also very dark at the time and he would have been unable
> > > to see exactly where they were.
> >
> > So "unable to see them", that he shot directly at one and killed him.
> >
> > Yeah right.
>
> Did he, were you there?

No, but Wikipedia was....

"Martin shot three times towards the intruders (once when they were in the
stairwell and twice more when they were trying to flee through the window of
an adjacent ground floor room). Barras was hit in the back and both sustained
gunshot injuries to their legs. Both escaped through the window but Barras
died at the scene.”

Pretty accurate shots for someone ‘unable to see exactly where they were’
(your phrase).

>
>
> He was in his house alone when they broke in.

Yes, so you keep repeating.

> It was dark and he was
> terrified.

Was he? Were you there?

> There is no proof that he fired 'directly' at them - but even
> if he did it was no more than they deserved,

Why are you introducing your violentpersonal opinions?

Are you trying to appear ‘hard’?

> they were the authors of
> their own fate. His house had been broken into several times.

He had also shot at people on his property before.Mr Osborn-Brooks has no
previous history of stabbing people with screwdrivers before, at least to my
knowledge.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > I cannot see how anyone can argue the case for Mr Osborn-Brooks without
> > > doing the same for Tony Martin.
> >
> > You are unable to see as well?
>
> You clearly can't, or read properly it seems.

Maybe not, but I can make grown-up judgements based on unbiased logic.

You ought to try it sometime.
Farmer Giles
2018-04-07 11:30:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 07-Apr-18 11:35 AM, johnny-knowall wrote:
> On 7 Apr 2018, Farmer Giles wrote
> (in article<***@brightview.co.uk>):
>
>> On 07-Apr-18 10:12 AM, johnny-knowall wrote:
>>> On 7 Apr 2018, Farmer Giles wrote
>>> (in article<***@brightview.co.uk>):
>>>
>>>> On 06-Apr-18 11:10 PM, ***@btopenworld.com wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 7:50:00 PM UTC+1, Farmer Giles wrote:
>>>>>> On 06-Apr-18 7:19 PM, ***@btopenworld.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 6:56:33 PM UTC+1, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>>>>> Just heard he has been released without charge!!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I should jolly well think so too!!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As the facts of the matter have emerged, there could have bee little
>>>>>>> doubt as to what the eventual outcome would be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try telling that to Tony Martin.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no parallel between the two cases. On the one hand the victim
>>>>> became embroiled in a struggle with a burglar over possession of a weapon
>>>>> (the screw driver) which any reasonable person would accept placed the
>>>>> former in danger of serious harm. On the other a disturbed burglar in
>>>>> possession of no weapon was in fact fleeing the scene of his crime and so
>>>>> constituted no threat to anybody.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a right in law to protect yourself and your property using
>>>>> reasonable means to do so. This right does not extend to unnecessarily
>>>>> taking of life or deliberately inflicting needless injury.
>>>>
>>>> All very well in the light of a safe day. Tony Martin was alone in a
>>>> remote farmhouse, and he had no idea whether the intruders had weapons
>>>> or not. It was also very dark at the time and he would have been unable
>>>> to see exactly where they were.
>>>
>>> So "unable to see them", that he shot directly at one and killed him.
>>>
>>> Yeah right.
>>
>> Did he, were you there?
>
> No, but Wikipedia was....
>
> "Martin shot three times towards the intruders (once when they were in the
> stairwell and twice more when they were trying to flee through the window of
> an adjacent ground floor room). Barras was hit in the back and both sustained
> gunshot injuries to their legs. Both escaped through the window but Barras
> died at the scene.”
>
> Pretty accurate shots for someone ‘unable to see exactly where they were’
> (your phrase).

Ah, Wikipedia is it, must be right then. Perhaps we shouldn't bother
with trials and just consult Wikipedia.



>
>>
>>
>> He was in his house alone when they broke in.
>
> Yes, so you keep repeating.

I've said it was dark once before and that he was alone. Is that your
idea of 'keep repeating'? No wonder you have trouble with facts.

>
>> It was dark and he was
>> terrified.
>
> Was he? Were you there?

No, but no-one disputes that. He was so terrified that he's not gone
back to live in the house since.

>
>> There is no proof that he fired 'directly' at them - but even
>> if he did it was no more than they deserved,
>
> Why are you introducing your violentpersonal opinions?
>
> Are you trying to appear ‘hard’?

Do stop being silly.


>
>> they were the authors of
>> their own fate. His house had been broken into several times.
>
> He had also shot at people on his property before.Mr Osborn-Brooks has no
> previous history of stabbing people with screwdrivers before, at least to my
> knowledge.

I understand that he shot at a vehicle once before, and that was being
driven by someone also stealing things from his property. If the facts
are as reported then he was wrong to do that, but it is irrelevant to
the factual details of this incident.

No doubt he was extremely fed-up with people committing crimes against
him, and it seems that he had every right to be.

>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I cannot see how anyone can argue the case for Mr Osborn-Brooks without
>>>> doing the same for Tony Martin.
>>>
>>> You are unable to see as well?
>>
>> You clearly can't, or read properly it seems.
>
> Maybe not, but I can make grown-up judgements based on unbiased logic.
>
> You ought to try it sometime.

The only evidence we have about what led up to the shooting that night
is from two sources. Firstly from the career criminals who were
committing another of a long string of crimes - and, secondly, from the
innocent victim of their illegal activity. I know which one I choose to
believe. You can believe the former if you want, but don't try to
pretend that it's 'grown-up judgement based of unbiased logic'.
johnny-knowall
2018-04-07 14:46:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 7 Apr 2018, Farmer Giles wrote
(in article<***@brightview.co.uk>):

> On 07-Apr-18 11:35 AM, johnny-knowall wrote:
> > On 7 Apr 2018, Farmer Giles wrote
> > (in article<***@brightview.co.uk>):
> >
> > > On 07-Apr-18 10:12 AM, johnny-knowall wrote:
> > > > On 7 Apr 2018, Farmer Giles wrote
> > > > (in article<***@brightview.co.uk>):
> > > >
> > > > > On 06-Apr-18 11:10 PM, ***@btopenworld.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 7:50:00 PM UTC+1, Farmer Giles wrote:
> > > > > > > On 06-Apr-18 7:19 PM, ***@btopenworld.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 6:56:33 PM UTC+1, Ophelia wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Just heard he has been released without charge!!!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I should jolly well think so too!!!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As the facts of the matter have emerged, there could have bee little
> > > > > > > > doubt as to what the eventual outcome would be.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Try telling that to Tony Martin.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is no parallel between the two cases. On the one hand the victim
> > > > > > became embroiled in a struggle with a burglar over possession of a
> > > > > > weapon
> > > > > > (the screw driver) which any reasonable person would accept placed the
> > > > > > former in danger of serious harm. On the other a disturbed burglar in
> > > > > > possession of no weapon was in fact fleeing the scene of his crime and
> > > > > > so
> > > > > > constituted no threat to anybody.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is a right in law to protect yourself and your property using
> > > > > > reasonable means to do so. This right does not extend to unnecessarily
> > > > > > taking of life or deliberately inflicting needless injury.
> > > > >
> > > > > All very well in the light of a safe day. Tony Martin was alone in a
> > > > > remote farmhouse, and he had no idea whether the intruders had weapons
> > > > > or not. It was also very dark at the time and he would have been unable
> > > > > to see exactly where they were.
> > > >
> > > > So "unable to see them", that he shot directly at one and killed him.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah right.
> > >
> > > Did he, were you there?
> >
> > No, but Wikipedia was....
> >
> > "Martin shot three times towards the intruders (once when they were in the
> > stairwell and twice more when they were trying to flee through the window of
> > an adjacent ground floor room). Barras was hit in the back and both
> > sustained
> > gunshot injuries to their legs. Both escaped through the window but Barras
> > died at the scene.”
> >
> > Pretty accurate shots for someone ‘unable to see exactly where they
> > were’
> > (your phrase).
>
> Ah, Wikipedia is it, must be right then. Perhaps we shouldn't bother
> with trials and just consult Wikipedia.
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > He was in his house alone when they broke in.
> >
> > Yes, so you keep repeating.
>
> I've said it was dark once before and that he was alone. Is that your
> idea of 'keep repeating'? No wonder you have trouble with facts.

I only have trouble with your ability to make assumptions and call them
facts.

>
>
> >
> > > It was dark and he was
> > > terrified.
> >
> > Was he? Were you there?
>
> No, but no-one disputes that.

I do, because you can’t prove it.

> He was so terrified that he's not gone
> back to live in the house since.
>
> >
> > > There is no proof that he fired 'directly' at them - but even
> > > if he did it was no more than they deserved,
> >
> > Why are you introducing your violentpersonal opinions?
> >
> > Are you trying to appear ‘hard’?
>
> Do stop being silly.
>
> >
> > > they were the authors of
> > > their own fate. His house had been broken into several times.
> >
> > He had also shot at people on his property before.Mr Osborn-Brooks has no
> > previous history of stabbing people with screwdrivers before, at least to my
> > knowledge.
>
> I understand that he shot at a vehicle once before, and that was being
> driven by someone also stealing things from his property.

Apples.

> If the facts
> are as reported then he was wrong to do that, but it is irrelevant to
> the factual details of this incident.

No. It is very relevant - because not everyone will fire shots at folk
stealing soft fruit from an orchard.

>
>
> No doubt he was extremely fed-up with people committing crimes against
> him, and it seems that he had every right to be.

He seems to have been targeted by a bunch of Irish ‘travellers’ (the sort
who avoid paying any tax whatsoever and steal anything that is not nailed
down - i.e. 99% of those people).

However, he took the law into his own hands - something our screwdriver
stabbing friend obviously did not.

>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I cannot see how anyone can argue the case for Mr Osborn-Brooks without
> > > > > doing the same for Tony Martin.
> > > >
> > > > You are unable to see as well?
> > >
> > > You clearly can't, or read properly it seems.
> >
> > Maybe not, but I can make grown-up judgements based on unbiased logic.
> >
> > You ought to try it sometime.
>
> The only evidence we have about what led up to the shooting that night
> is from two sources. Firstly from the career criminals who were
> committing another of a long string of crimes - and, secondly, from the
> innocent victim of their illegal activity. I know which one I choose to
> believe. You can believe the former if you want, but don't try to
> pretend that it's 'grown-up judgement based of unbiased logic'.

You can blather as much as you like, but it was you who insisted that the
Tony Martin case could be discussed as an almost identical one to
Osborn-Brooks thus - “

I cannot see how anyone can argue the case for Mr Osborn-Brooks without doing
the same for Tony Martin."

As you have probably realised hours ago, your statement was rubbish - but as
you would never ever admit to being wrong, you resort to personal abuse and
childish pedantry in your efforts to close down arguments you have well and
truly lost.
Farmer Giles
2018-04-07 16:07:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 07-Apr-18 3:46 PM, johnny-knowall wrote:
> On 7 Apr 2018, Farmer Giles wrote
> (in article<***@brightview.co.uk>):
>
>> On 07-Apr-18 11:35 AM, johnny-knowall wrote:
>>> On 7 Apr 2018, Farmer Giles wrote
>>> (in article<***@brightview.co.uk>):
>>>
>>>> On 07-Apr-18 10:12 AM, johnny-knowall wrote:
>>>>> On 7 Apr 2018, Farmer Giles wrote
>>>>> (in article<***@brightview.co.uk>):
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 06-Apr-18 11:10 PM, ***@btopenworld.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 7:50:00 PM UTC+1, Farmer Giles wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 06-Apr-18 7:19 PM, ***@btopenworld.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 6:56:33 PM UTC+1, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Just heard he has been released without charge!!!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I should jolly well think so too!!!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As the facts of the matter have emerged, there could have bee little
>>>>>>>>> doubt as to what the eventual outcome would be.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Try telling that to Tony Martin.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no parallel between the two cases. On the one hand the victim
>>>>>>> became embroiled in a struggle with a burglar over possession of a
>>>>>>> weapon
>>>>>>> (the screw driver) which any reasonable person would accept placed the
>>>>>>> former in danger of serious harm. On the other a disturbed burglar in
>>>>>>> possession of no weapon was in fact fleeing the scene of his crime and
>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>> constituted no threat to anybody.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is a right in law to protect yourself and your property using
>>>>>>> reasonable means to do so. This right does not extend to unnecessarily
>>>>>>> taking of life or deliberately inflicting needless injury.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All very well in the light of a safe day. Tony Martin was alone in a
>>>>>> remote farmhouse, and he had no idea whether the intruders had weapons
>>>>>> or not. It was also very dark at the time and he would have been unable
>>>>>> to see exactly where they were.
>>>>>
>>>>> So "unable to see them", that he shot directly at one and killed him.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah right.
>>>>
>>>> Did he, were you there?
>>>
>>> No, but Wikipedia was....
>>>
>>> "Martin shot three times towards the intruders (once when they were in the
>>> stairwell and twice more when they were trying to flee through the window of
>>> an adjacent ground floor room). Barras was hit in the back and both
>>> sustained
>>> gunshot injuries to their legs. Both escaped through the window but Barras
>>> died at the scene.”
>>>
>>> Pretty accurate shots for someone ‘unable to see exactly where they
>>> were’
>>> (your phrase).
>>
>> Ah, Wikipedia is it, must be right then. Perhaps we shouldn't bother
>> with trials and just consult Wikipedia.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He was in his house alone when they broke in.
>>>
>>> Yes, so you keep repeating.
>>
>> I've said it was dark once before and that he was alone. Is that your
>> idea of 'keep repeating'? No wonder you have trouble with facts.
>
> I only have trouble with your ability to make assumptions and call them
> facts.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> It was dark and he was
>>>> terrified.
>>>
>>> Was he? Were you there?
>>
>> No, but no-one disputes that.
>
> I do, because you can’t prove it.
>
>> He was so terrified that he's not gone
>> back to live in the house since.
>>
>>>
>>>> There is no proof that he fired 'directly' at them - but even
>>>> if he did it was no more than they deserved,
>>>
>>> Why are you introducing your violentpersonal opinions?
>>>
>>> Are you trying to appear ‘hard’?
>>
>> Do stop being silly.
>>
>>>
>>>> they were the authors of
>>>> their own fate. His house had been broken into several times.
>>>
>>> He had also shot at people on his property before.Mr Osborn-Brooks has no
>>> previous history of stabbing people with screwdrivers before, at least to my
>>> knowledge.
>>
>> I understand that he shot at a vehicle once before, and that was being
>> driven by someone also stealing things from his property.
>
> Apples.
>
>> If the facts
>> are as reported then he was wrong to do that, but it is irrelevant to
>> the factual details of this incident.
>
> No. It is very relevant - because not everyone will fire shots at folk
> stealing soft fruit from an orchard.
>
>>
>>
>> No doubt he was extremely fed-up with people committing crimes against
>> him, and it seems that he had every right to be.
>
> He seems to have been targeted by a bunch of Irish ‘travellers’ (the sort
> who avoid paying any tax whatsoever and steal anything that is not nailed
> down - i.e. 99% of those people).
>
> However, he took the law into his own hands - something our screwdriver
> stabbing friend obviously did not.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I cannot see how anyone can argue the case for Mr Osborn-Brooks without
>>>>>> doing the same for Tony Martin.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are unable to see as well?
>>>>
>>>> You clearly can't, or read properly it seems.
>>>
>>> Maybe not, but I can make grown-up judgements based on unbiased logic.
>>>
>>> You ought to try it sometime.
>>
>> The only evidence we have about what led up to the shooting that night
>> is from two sources. Firstly from the career criminals who were
>> committing another of a long string of crimes - and, secondly, from the
>> innocent victim of their illegal activity. I know which one I choose to
>> believe. You can believe the former if you want, but don't try to
>> pretend that it's 'grown-up judgement based of unbiased logic'.
>
> You can blather as much as you like, but it was you who insisted that the
> Tony Martin case could be discussed as an almost identical one to
> Osborn-Brooks thus - “
>
> I cannot see how anyone can argue the case for Mr Osborn-Brooks without doing
> the same for Tony Martin."
>
> As you have probably realised hours ago, your statement was rubbish - but as
> you would never ever admit to being wrong, you resort to personal abuse and
> childish pedantry in your efforts to close down arguments you have well and
> truly lost.
>

Oh the irony!! 'Personal abuse' is your normal method of discussion, as
it was here.

Mark your own homework if you like, and award yourself all the brownie
points you want. Your 'views' are of little interest to me. As I said a
while back, you are unstable and best avoided. I should have stuck to
that, as I will from now on.

The space below is all yours for a further and free rant:
johnny-knowall
2018-04-07 16:18:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 7 Apr 2018, Farmer Giles wrote
(in article<1P-***@brightview.co.uk>):

> On 07-Apr-18 3:46 PM, johnny-knowall wrote:
> > On 7 Apr 2018, Farmer Giles wrote
> > (in article<***@brightview.co.uk>):
> >
> > > On 07-Apr-18 11:35 AM, johnny-knowall wrote:
> > > > On 7 Apr 2018, Farmer Giles wrote
> > > > (in article<***@brightview.co.uk>):
> > > >
> > > > > On 07-Apr-18 10:12 AM, johnny-knowall wrote:
> > > > > > On 7 Apr 2018, Farmer Giles wrote
> > > > > > (in article<***@brightview.co.uk>):
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 06-Apr-18 11:10 PM, ***@btopenworld.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 7:50:00 PM UTC+1, Farmer Giles wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 06-Apr-18 7:19 PM, ***@btopenworld.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 6:56:33 PM UTC+1, Ophelia wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Just heard he has been released without charge!!!
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I should jolly well think so too!!!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > As the facts of the matter have emerged, there could have bee little
> > > > > > > > > > doubt as to what the eventual outcome would be.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Try telling that to Tony Martin.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There is no parallel between the two cases. On the one hand the victim
> > > > > > > > became embroiled in a struggle with a burglar over possession of a
> > > > > > > > weapon
> > > > > > > > (the screw driver) which any reasonable person would accept placed the
> > > > > > > > former in danger of serious harm. On the other a disturbed burglar in
> > > > > > > > possession of no weapon was in fact fleeing the scene of his crime and
> > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > constituted no threat to anybody.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There is a right in law to protect yourself and your property using
> > > > > > > > reasonable means to do so. This right does not extend to unnecessarily
> > > > > > > > taking of life or deliberately inflicting needless injury.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > All very well in the light of a safe day. Tony Martin was alone in a
> > > > > > > remote farmhouse, and he had no idea whether the intruders had weapons
> > > > > > > or not. It was also very dark at the time and he would have been unable
> > > > > > > to see exactly where they were.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So "unable to see them", that he shot directly at one and killed him.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yeah right.
> > > > >
> > > > > Did he, were you there?
> > > >
> > > > No, but Wikipedia was....
> > > >
> > > > "Martin shot three times towards the intruders (once when they were in the
> > > > stairwell and twice more when they were trying to flee through the window
> > > > of
> > > > an adjacent ground floor room). Barras was hit in the back and both
> > > > sustained
> > > > gunshot injuries to their legs. Both escaped through the window but Barras
> > > > died at the scene.”
> > > >
> > > > Pretty accurate shots for someone ‘unable to see exactly where they
> > > > were’
> > > > (your phrase).
> > >
> > > Ah, Wikipedia is it, must be right then. Perhaps we shouldn't bother
> > > with trials and just consult Wikipedia.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > He was in his house alone when they broke in.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, so you keep repeating.
> > >
> > > I've said it was dark once before and that he was alone. Is that your
> > > idea of 'keep repeating'? No wonder you have trouble with facts.
> >
> > I only have trouble with your ability to make assumptions and call them
> > facts.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > It was dark and he was
> > > > > terrified.
> > > >
> > > > Was he? Were you there?
> > >
> > > No, but no-one disputes that.
> >
> > I do, because you can’t prove it.
> >
> > > He was so terrified that he's not gone
> > > back to live in the house since.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > There is no proof that he fired 'directly' at them - but even
> > > > > if he did it was no more than they deserved,
> > > >
> > > > Why are you introducing your violentpersonal opinions?
> > > >
> > > > Are you trying to appear ‘hard’?
> > >
> > > Do stop being silly.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > they were the authors of
> > > > > their own fate. His house had been broken into several times.
> > > >
> > > > He had also shot at people on his property before.Mr Osborn-Brooks has no
> > > > previous history of stabbing people with screwdrivers before, at least to
> > > > my
> > > > knowledge.
> > >
> > > I understand that he shot at a vehicle once before, and that was being
> > > driven by someone also stealing things from his property.
> >
> > Apples.
> >
> > > If the facts
> > > are as reported then he was wrong to do that, but it is irrelevant to
> > > the factual details of this incident.
> >
> > No. It is very relevant - because not everyone will fire shots at folk
> > stealing soft fruit from an orchard.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > No doubt he was extremely fed-up with people committing crimes against
> > > him, and it seems that he had every right to be.
> >
> > He seems to have been targeted by a bunch of Irish ‘travellers’ (the
> > sort
> > who avoid paying any tax whatsoever and steal anything that is not nailed
> > down - i.e. 99% of those people).
> >
> > However, he took the law into his own hands - something our screwdriver
> > stabbing friend obviously did not.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I cannot see how anyone can argue the case for Mr Osborn-Brooks without
> > > > > > > doing the same for Tony Martin.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You are unable to see as well?
> > > > >
> > > > > You clearly can't, or read properly it seems.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe not, but I can make grown-up judgements based on unbiased logic.
> > > >
> > > > You ought to try it sometime.
> > >
> > > The only evidence we have about what led up to the shooting that night
> > > is from two sources. Firstly from the career criminals who were
> > > committing another of a long string of crimes - and, secondly, from the
> > > innocent victim of their illegal activity. I know which one I choose to
> > > believe. You can believe the former if you want, but don't try to
> > > pretend that it's 'grown-up judgement based of unbiased logic'.
> >
> > You can blather as much as you like, but it was you who insisted that the
> > Tony Martin case could be discussed as an almost identical one to
> > Osborn-Brooks thus - “
> >
> > I cannot see how anyone can argue the case for Mr Osborn-Brooks without
> > doing
> > the same for Tony Martin."
> >
> > As you have probably realised hours ago, your statement was rubbish - but as
> > you would never ever admit to being wrong, you resort to personal abuse and
> > childish pedantry in your efforts to close down arguments you have well and
> > truly lost.
>
> Oh the irony!! 'Personal abuse' is your normal method of discussion, as
> it was here.

Cite please...

>
>
> Mark your own homework if you like, and award yourself all the brownie
> points you want. Your 'views' are of little interest to me. As I said a
> while back, you are unstable and best avoided.

Great. Another one in self imposed silence.

> I should have stuck to
> that, as I will from now on.

That is convenient for you. Now you don’t have to show me where my personal
abuse on this thread was situated.

>
>
> The space below is all yours for a further and free rant:
m***@btopenworld.com
2018-04-07 11:26:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 10:47:59 AM UTC+1, Farmer Giles wrote:
> On 07-Apr-18 10:12 AM, johnny-knowall wrote:

> > So "unable to see them", that he shot directly at one and killed him.
> >
> > Yeah right.
>
> Did he, were you there?
>
> He was in his house alone when they broke in. It was dark and he was
> terrified. There is no proof that he fired 'directly' at them - but even
> if he did it was no more than they deserved, they were the authors of
> their own fate. His house had been broken into several times.

My last house was broken into numerous times. On half of these occasions, the whole family was in bed. Nobody was hurt. On one occasion I caught the perpetrator myself. He was a 14 year old youth. I got hold of him, pushed him down into an armchair and stood over him until the police arrived. After the police took him away, he apparently 'grassed up' two more who had previously boasted to him that they had previously broken in. So we got 3 for the price of one!

All three were subsequently appeared in the juvenile court and apparently were given supervision orders.
Farmer Giles
2018-04-07 11:35:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 07-Apr-18 12:26 PM, ***@btopenworld.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 10:47:59 AM UTC+1, Farmer Giles wrote:
>> On 07-Apr-18 10:12 AM, johnny-knowall wrote:
>
>>> So "unable to see them", that he shot directly at one and killed him.
>>>
>>> Yeah right.
>>
>> Did he, were you there?
>>
>> He was in his house alone when they broke in. It was dark and he was
>> terrified. There is no proof that he fired 'directly' at them - but even
>> if he did it was no more than they deserved, they were the authors of
>> their own fate. His house had been broken into several times.
>
> My last house was broken into numerous times. On half of these occasions, the whole family was in bed. Nobody was hurt. On one occasion I caught the perpetrator myself. He was a 14 year old youth. I got hold of him, pushed him down into an armchair and stood over him until the police arrived. After the police took him away, he apparently 'grassed up' two more who had previously boasted to him that they had previously broken in. So we got 3 for the price of one!
>
> All three were subsequently appeared in the juvenile court and apparently were given supervision orders.
>

Bully for you, but what is that supposed to prove?
m***@btopenworld.com
2018-04-07 10:55:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 10:08:29 AM UTC+1, Farmer Giles wrote:
> On 06-Apr-18 11:10 PM, ***@btopenworld.com wrote:

> > There is a right in law to protect yourself and your property using reasonable means to do so. This right does not extend to unnecessarily taking of life or deliberately inflicting needless injury.
>
> All very well in the light of a safe day. Tony Martin was alone in a
> remote farmhouse, and he had no idea whether the intruders had weapons
> or not. It was also very dark at the time and he would have been unable
> to see exactly where they were.
>
> I cannot see how anyone can argue the case for Mr Osborn-Brooks without
> doing the same for Tony Martin.

I just have!

To elaborate, The victim possessed no weapon. He was shot in the back confirming the fact that he was attempting to escape when killed. Under these circumstances, no reasonable person could doubt that Martin's life was in any danger and that the victim's life could have been spared.

We do not do lynch law. Where it prevailed in the US frontier (the old *Wild* West during the 19th century it was never good law. Lawmen were essentially hired guns. Banditry and gun feuds prevailed, Range wars, over 600 people were victims to lynchings. The so called posses were usually no more than lynch mobs
Farmer Giles
2018-04-07 11:39:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 07-Apr-18 11:55 AM, ***@btopenworld.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 10:08:29 AM UTC+1, Farmer Giles wrote:
>> On 06-Apr-18 11:10 PM, ***@btopenworld.com wrote:
>
>>> There is a right in law to protect yourself and your property using reasonable means to do so. This right does not extend to unnecessarily taking of life or deliberately inflicting needless injury.
>>
>> All very well in the light of a safe day. Tony Martin was alone in a
>> remote farmhouse, and he had no idea whether the intruders had weapons
>> or not. It was also very dark at the time and he would have been unable
>> to see exactly where they were.
>>
>> I cannot see how anyone can argue the case for Mr Osborn-Brooks without
>> doing the same for Tony Martin.
>
> I just have!
>
> To elaborate, The victim possessed no weapon. He was shot in the back confirming the fact that he was attempting to escape when killed. Under these circumstances, no reasonable person could doubt that Martin's life was in any danger and that the victim's life could have been spared.

We now know that they had no weapons, but Tony Martin couldn't have
known it at the time.
m***@btopenworld.com
2018-04-07 12:48:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 12:39:56 PM UTC+1, Farmer Giles wrote:
> On 07-Apr-18 11:55 AM, ***@btopenworld.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 10:08:29 AM UTC+1, Farmer Giles wrote:
> >> On 06-Apr-18 11:10 PM, ***@btopenworld.com wrote:
> >
> >>> There is a right in law to protect yourself and your property using reasonable means to do so. This right does not extend to unnecessarily taking of life or deliberately inflicting needless injury.
> >>
> >> All very well in the light of a safe day. Tony Martin was alone in a
> >> remote farmhouse, and he had no idea whether the intruders had weapons
> >> or not. It was also very dark at the time and he would have been unable
> >> to see exactly where they were.
> >>
> >> I cannot see how anyone can argue the case for Mr Osborn-Brooks without
> >> doing the same for Tony Martin.
> >
> > I just have!
> >
> > To elaborate, The victim possessed no weapon. He was shot in the back confirming the fact that he was attempting to escape when killed. Under these circumstances, no reasonable person could doubt that Martin's life was [not] in any danger and that the victim's life could have been spared.

[additional insertion]

> We now know that they had no weapons, but Tony Martin couldn't have
> known it at the time.

Perhaps but 12 jurors did not concur.
Farmer Giles
2018-04-07 13:03:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 07-Apr-18 1:48 PM, ***@btopenworld.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 12:39:56 PM UTC+1, Farmer Giles wrote:
>> On 07-Apr-18 11:55 AM, ***@btopenworld.com wrote:
>>> On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 10:08:29 AM UTC+1, Farmer Giles wrote:
>>>> On 06-Apr-18 11:10 PM, ***@btopenworld.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>> There is a right in law to protect yourself and your property using reasonable means to do so. This right does not extend to unnecessarily taking of life or deliberately inflicting needless injury.
>>>>
>>>> All very well in the light of a safe day. Tony Martin was alone in a
>>>> remote farmhouse, and he had no idea whether the intruders had weapons
>>>> or not. It was also very dark at the time and he would have been unable
>>>> to see exactly where they were.
>>>>
>>>> I cannot see how anyone can argue the case for Mr Osborn-Brooks without
>>>> doing the same for Tony Martin.
>>>
>>> I just have!
>>>
>>> To elaborate, The victim possessed no weapon. He was shot in the back confirming the fact that he was attempting to escape when killed. Under these circumstances, no reasonable person could doubt that Martin's life was [not] in any danger and that the victim's life could have been spared.
>
> [additional insertion]
>
>> We now know that they had no weapons, but Tony Martin couldn't have
>> known it at the time.
>
> Perhaps but 12 jurors did not concur.

Ten actually, it was a majority verdict. They found him guilty of
murder, but this was changed to manslaughter by the Court of Appeal.

Juries have got things wrong on many occasions, and anyone who has had
much to do with them will only be surprised that it doesn't happen more
often - not that we would always know.
Incubus
2018-04-09 08:47:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-04-06, Farmer Giles <***@nospam.com> wrote:
> On 06-Apr-18 7:19 PM, ***@btopenworld.com wrote:
>> On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 6:56:33 PM UTC+1, Ophelia wrote:
>>> Just heard he has been released without charge!!!
>>>
>>> I should jolly well think so too!!!
>>
>> As the facts of the matter have emerged, there could have bee little doubt
>> as to what the eventual outcome would be.
>
> Try telling that to Tony Martin.

I believe he shot a burglar in the back, which is a bit different. I don't
remember whether he was charged with murder or manslaughter; there is no
mitigation for murder but in his circumstances, having been repeatedly
burgled, I can understand him being ticked off.
Farmer Giles
2018-04-09 11:30:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 09-Apr-18 9:47 AM, Incubus wrote:
> On 2018-04-06, Farmer Giles <***@nospam.com> wrote:
>> On 06-Apr-18 7:19 PM, ***@btopenworld.com wrote:
>>> On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 6:56:33 PM UTC+1, Ophelia wrote:
>>>> Just heard he has been released without charge!!!
>>>>
>>>> I should jolly well think so too!!!
>>>
>>> As the facts of the matter have emerged, there could have bee little doubt
>>> as to what the eventual outcome would be.
>>
>> Try telling that to Tony Martin.
>
> I believe he shot a burglar in the back, which is a bit different. I don't
> remember whether he was charged with murder or manslaughter; there is no
> mitigation for murder but in his circumstances, having been repeatedly
> burgled, I can understand him being ticked off.
>


He was charged, and convicted, of murder and sentenced to
life-imprisonment. His conviction was later reduced to one of
manslaughter by the Court of Appeal and his sentence (IIRC) reduced to
five years.

Furthermore, he was refused early release by the Parole Board because he
wouldn't accept that he was anything other than innocent - and,
therefore, had to serve the maximum two-thirds of his sentence in
custody and the rest on licence.

An outrage in my opinion, but others are completely entitled to take the
opposite view.
Incubus
2018-04-09 13:23:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-04-09, Farmer Giles <***@nospam.com> wrote:
> On 09-Apr-18 9:47 AM, Incubus wrote:
>> On 2018-04-06, Farmer Giles <***@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> On 06-Apr-18 7:19 PM, ***@btopenworld.com wrote:
>>>> On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 6:56:33 PM UTC+1, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>> Just heard he has been released without charge!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> I should jolly well think so too!!!
>>>>
>>>> As the facts of the matter have emerged, there could have bee little doubt
>>>> as to what the eventual outcome would be.
>>>
>>> Try telling that to Tony Martin.
>>
>> I believe he shot a burglar in the back, which is a bit different. I don't
>> remember whether he was charged with murder or manslaughter; there is no
>> mitigation for murder but in his circumstances, having been repeatedly
>> burgled, I can understand him being ticked off.
>>
>
>
> He was charged, and convicted, of murder and sentenced to life-imprisonment.
> His conviction was later reduced to one of manslaughter by the Court of
> Appeal and his sentence (IIRC) reduced to five years.
>
> Furthermore, he was refused early release by the Parole Board because he
> wouldn't accept that he was anything other than innocent - and, therefore,
> had to serve the maximum two-thirds of his sentence in custody and the rest
> on licence.
>
> An outrage in my opinion, but others are completely entitled to take the
> opposite view.

It is outrageous. Not many would stand their ground and refuse to make a false
show of penitance in order to satisfy the parole board. Effectively, he was
imprisoned for a longer period of time for thinking the wrong thing!
Phi
2018-04-06 19:20:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<***@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:a4cbd26f-41b9-445c-a0bb-***@googlegroups.com...
> On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 6:56:33 PM UTC, Ophelia wrote:
>> Just heard he has been released without charge!!!
>>
>> I should jolly well think so too!!!
>
> As the facts of the matter have emerged, there could have bee little doubt
> as to what the eventual outcome would be.
>
> However, people have got to understand that when such events occur there
> has to be legal procedures to deal with them.
>
> There is no room for poetic justice and we don't condone trial by media.
>
> All's well that ends well.
>

Perhaps it was accidental as he was struggling with an assailent holding a
screwdriver.
saracene
2018-04-07 09:22:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 6:56:33 PM UTC+1, Ophelia wrote:
> Just heard he has been released without charge!!!
>
> I should jolly well think so too!!!
>
>
Police abandoning burglary victims as two thirds of cases closed ...
Telegraph.co.uk-12 hours ago
Police are failing to properly investigate two thirds of burglaries as forces struggle to cope with the rising tide of crime on Britain's streets. In the last two years the number of unsolved domestic burglaries has risen from 47 per cent to 64 per cent - while in some areas nine out of ten cases are written off

They say they concneterate on more serious crimes like sexual ones. What sexual ones? Bottom pinching on the Underground?
m***@btopenworld.com
2018-04-07 12:38:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 10:22:36 AM UTC+1, saracene wrote:
> On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 6:56:33 PM UTC+1, Ophelia wrote:
> > Just heard he has been released without charge!!!
> >
> > I should jolly well think so too!!!
> >
> >
> Police abandoning burglary victims as two thirds of cases closed ...
> Telegraph.co.uk-12 hours ago
> Police are failing to properly investigate two thirds of burglaries as forces struggle to cope with the rising tide of crime on Britain's streets. In the last two years the number of unsolved domestic burglaries has risen from 47 per cent to 64 per cent - while in some areas nine out of ten cases are written off
>
> They say they concneterate on more serious crimes like sexual ones. What sexual ones? Bottom pinching on the Underground?

If your house were burgled, would you expect a full scale police enquiry involving thousands of man hours?

If you did you wouldn't get it! It all boils down to efficient use of resources. I know this is a constant beef of the public services but that doesn't make it any the less true.

It might help if you knew how most burglars are caught as many are. They are caught not as the result of extensive police enquiries but rather because someone who knows them has seen them or they have been caught in the possession of stolen goods or they have been arrested for something else and a search of their accommodation has turned up stolen goods or they have fallen out with somebody who has grassed them up or They've fenced the goods badly or tried selling them on the internet or they are known and have left fingerprints or other forensic evidence or CCTV images not necessarily from a camera on the premises they burgled.

Any police officer will tell you that a copper in a traffic car chasing ANPR hits has many times the probability of catching a burglar red handed rather than a man on the beat.

Burglars in the main are extremely stupid. The only reason they get away with anything is that they arrive unseen onto the scene and leave it just as invisibly. Because they are incredibly stupid sooner or later they get caught. However, they are creatures of habit. They have their own territories. Every successful offence committed encourages a new attempt making detection more likely. So if a known prolific burglar has not been pulled for a while he will more than likely be given a 'tug' to see what turns up.

The biggest problem is not particularly finding them but identifying that goods found in their possession were illegitimately obtained. If through cynicism born often out of reports in the media victims fail to report these crimes then this compounds the difficulties of tracing stolen goods back to their legitimate owners. Without that essential link prosecution is impossible.

Beware also of fraud. Some alleged victims are not victims at all. They have neither been burgled nor robbed. They have already disposed of their property and are really interested in carrying out an insurance fraud.
Vidcapper
2018-04-07 14:21:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 07/04/2018 13:38, ***@btopenworld.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 10:22:36 AM UTC+1, saracene wrote:
>> On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 6:56:33 PM UTC+1, Ophelia wrote:
>>> Just heard he has been released without charge!!!
>>>
>>> I should jolly well think so too!!!
>>>
>>>
>> Police abandoning burglary victims as two thirds of cases closed
>> ... Telegraph.co.uk-12 hours ago Police are failing to properly
>> investigate two thirds of burglaries as forces struggle to cope
>> with the rising tide of crime on Britain's streets. In the last two
>> years the number of unsolved domestic burglaries has risen from 47
>> per cent to 64 per cent - while in some areas nine out of ten cases
>> are written off
>>
>> They say they concneterate on more serious crimes like sexual ones.
>> What sexual ones? Bottom pinching on the Underground?
>
> If your house were burgled, would you expect a full scale police
> enquiry involving thousands of man hours?
>
> If you did you wouldn't get it! It all boils down to efficient use of
> resources. I know this is a constant beef of the public services but
> that doesn't make it any the less true.

It reminds me of the old story of the guy phoning the police to say his
house is being burgled, then being told the police cannot spare anyone
to visit. So he phones back a few minutes later to say 'don't worry, I
shot the burglar'.

Two minutes later the Armed Response Unit turn up, incidentally catching
the burglar red-handed, but unharmed. They question the homeowner,
saying 'you said you shot him'. He replies 'I thought *you* said you had
no-one to spare!'




--

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
johnny-knowall
2018-04-07 15:03:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 7 Apr 2018, Vidcapper wrote
(in article <ku4yC.316422$***@fx33.am4>):

> On 07/04/2018 13:38, ***@btopenworld.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 10:22:36 AM UTC+1, saracene wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 6:56:33 PM UTC+1, Ophelia wrote:
> > > > Just heard he has been released without charge!!!
> > > >
> > > > I should jolly well think so too!!!
> > > Police abandoning burglary victims as two thirds of cases closed
> > > ... Telegraph.co.uk-12 hours ago Police are failing to properly
> > > investigate two thirds of burglaries as forces struggle to cope
> > > with the rising tide of crime on Britain's streets. In the last two
> > > years the number of unsolved domestic burglaries has risen from 47
> > > per cent to 64 per cent - while in some areas nine out of ten cases
> > > are written off
> > >
> > > They say they concneterate on more serious crimes like sexual ones.
> > > What sexual ones? Bottom pinching on the Underground?
> >
> > If your house were burgled, would you expect a full scale police
> > enquiry involving thousands of man hours?
> >
> > If you did you wouldn't get it! It all boils down to efficient use of
> > resources. I know this is a constant beef of the public services but
> > that doesn't make it any the less true.
>
> It reminds me of the old story of the guy phoning the police to say his
> house is being burgled, then being told the police cannot spare anyone
> to visit. So he phones back a few minutes later to say 'don't worry, I
> shot the burglar'.
>
> Two minutes later the Armed Response Unit turn up, incidentally catching
> the burglar red-handed, but unharmed. They question the homeowner,
> saying 'you said you shot him'. He replies 'I thought *you* said you had
> no-one to spare!'

When I worked nights in an office block near the centre of a large British
city, one of our pastimes on quiet nights was to count how many police
vehicles would turn up when a drunken punch-up happened outside a night club.

I think the most we counted was eleven, and that was just for two pissed-up
blokes wearing rival football shirts who were performing some “handbags”
in the middle of the street.

We always used to remark, that if someone really wanted to commit a serious
crime they would only need to pay a couple of drunks to start a fight a mile
away and they could guarantee police-free streets for half an hour where they
needed them.
Dan S. MacAbre
2018-04-07 16:02:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
johnny-knowall wrote:
> On 7 Apr 2018, Vidcapper wrote
> (in article <ku4yC.316422$***@fx33.am4>):
>
>> On 07/04/2018 13:38, ***@btopenworld.com wrote:
>>> On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 10:22:36 AM UTC+1, saracene wrote:
>>>> On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 6:56:33 PM UTC+1, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>> Just heard he has been released without charge!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> I should jolly well think so too!!!
>>>> Police abandoning burglary victims as two thirds of cases closed
>>>> ... Telegraph.co.uk-12 hours ago Police are failing to properly
>>>> investigate two thirds of burglaries as forces struggle to cope
>>>> with the rising tide of crime on Britain's streets. In the last two
>>>> years the number of unsolved domestic burglaries has risen from 47
>>>> per cent to 64 per cent - while in some areas nine out of ten cases
>>>> are written off
>>>>
>>>> They say they concneterate on more serious crimes like sexual ones.
>>>> What sexual ones? Bottom pinching on the Underground?
>>>
>>> If your house were burgled, would you expect a full scale police
>>> enquiry involving thousands of man hours?
>>>
>>> If you did you wouldn't get it! It all boils down to efficient use of
>>> resources. I know this is a constant beef of the public services but
>>> that doesn't make it any the less true.
>>
>> It reminds me of the old story of the guy phoning the police to say his
>> house is being burgled, then being told the police cannot spare anyone
>> to visit. So he phones back a few minutes later to say 'don't worry, I
>> shot the burglar'.
>>
>> Two minutes later the Armed Response Unit turn up, incidentally catching
>> the burglar red-handed, but unharmed. They question the homeowner,
>> saying 'you said you shot him'. He replies 'I thought *you* said you had
>> no-one to spare!'
>
> When I worked nights in an office block near the centre of a large British
> city, one of our pastimes on quiet nights was to count how many police
> vehicles would turn up when a drunken punch-up happened outside a night club.
>
> I think the most we counted was eleven, and that was just for two pissed-up
> blokes wearing rival football shirts who were performing some “handbags”
> in the middle of the street.
>
> We always used to remark, that if someone really wanted to commit a serious
> crime they would only need to pay a couple of drunks to start a fight a mile
> away and they could guarantee police-free streets for half an hour where they
> needed them.
>

I don't know if you ever watched Montalbano? I used to think that the
'educationally-challenged' Catarella character was not really credible,
but the missus insists that in some parts of Italy (and Montalbano is in
Sicily), joining the police force is something you do when you can't do
anything else. Seeing them congregate in the cities with sunglasses and
guns in holsters, I can quite believe it. No matter the Italians turn
to the mafia if they want their disputes properly sorted out :-) Even
those immigrants landing in Lampedusa have to go via the mafia if they
want citizenship (this is according to my brother-in-law, who is rather
fed up of them), although most just keep going north.
Byker
2018-04-11 15:01:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"JNugent" wrote in message news:***@mid.individual.net...

On 09/04/2018 21:03, Farmer Giles wrote:
> On 09-Apr-18 7:23 PM, ***@btopenworld.com wrote:
>>>
>>> I think you would be disappointed. A jury is tasked to arrive at a
>>> verdict on the basis of the evidence offered in court *according to
>>> law* They are not there to arrive at a collective judgement as to
>>> whether the law is right or wrong in this respect.
>>
>> Never heard of jury nullification?
>
> Indeed.

We have FIJA on this side of the pond: http://fija.org

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fully_Informed_Jury_Association
JNugent
2018-04-11 17:18:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 11/04/2018 16:01, Byker wrote:
> "JNugent"  wrote in message news:***@mid.individual.net...
> On 09/04/2018 21:03, Farmer Giles wrote:
>> On 09-Apr-18 7:23 PM, ***@btopenworld.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I think you would be disappointed. A jury is tasked to arrive at a
>>>> verdict on the basis of the evidence offered in court *according to
>>>> law* They are not there to arrive at a collective judgement as to
>>>> whether the law is right or wrong in this respect.
>>>
>>> Never heard of jury nullification?
>>
>> Indeed.
>
> We have FIJA on this side of the pond: http://fija.org
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fully_Informed_Jury_Association

???

None of the above was written by me. I'm not even quoted.
JNugent
2018-04-11 17:25:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 11/04/2018 18:18, JNugent wrote:
> On 11/04/2018 16:01, Byker wrote:
>> "JNugent"  wrote in message news:***@mid.individual.net...
>> On 09/04/2018 21:03, Farmer Giles wrote:
>>> On 09-Apr-18 7:23 PM, ***@btopenworld.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you would be disappointed. A jury is tasked to arrive at a
>>>>> verdict on the basis of the evidence offered in court *according to
>>>>> law* They are not there to arrive at a collective judgement as to
>>>>> whether the law is right or wrong in this respect.
>>>>
>>>> Never heard of jury nullification?
>>>
>>> Indeed.
>>
>> We have FIJA on this side of the pond: http://fija.org
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fully_Informed_Jury_Association
>
> ???
>
> None of the above was written by me. I'm not even quoted.

Amendment: Well, maybe one word, snipped out of the rest of a post.
Mike Flannigan
2018-04-11 21:31:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
JNugent wrote

> On 11/04/2018 16:01, Byker wrote:
>> "JNugent"  wrote in message news:***@mid.individual.net...
>> On 09/04/2018 21:03, Farmer Giles wrote:
>>> On 09-Apr-18 7:23 PM, ***@btopenworld.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you would be disappointed. A jury is tasked to arrive at a
>>>>> verdict on the basis of the evidence offered in court *according to
>>>>> law* They are not there to arrive at a collective judgement as to
>>>>> whether the law is right or wrong in this respect.
>>>>
>>>> Never heard of jury nullification?
>>>
>>> Indeed.
>>
>> We have FIJA on this side of the pond: http://fija.org
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fully_Informed_Jury_Association
>
> ???
>
> None of the above was written by me. I'm not even quoted.
>
>

Evyerybody agrees that guns have always been good for shooting Americans.
Loading...