The Tony Martin case has come up again and though i thought they were having a laugh it was said that the Home Office are putting in ledgislation to protect burglars from being hurt.

Now what i would do if someone broke into my home i would take the law into my own hands to protect my family.
a burglar is hell bent on taking your property whatever the cost and if you get in there way your likely to get hurt or even killed.
They show no mercy when confronted.
I have 3 young Children and if a stranger comes up my stairs he gets the baseball bat, no question about that.
Tony martin was a frightened man and although it was a bit extreme to shoot one of them you can see why he did it.
Anyone who has faced a burglar in there own home knows that you are a great deal more frightened than he is.

What would you do in Tony martins case and also comments about the new law to protect the burglars would be appreciated.
I don,t want to open a topic into the actuall Martin case but the law is already an ass in this country and this makes it even more so. Sorry about putting this in the wrong section, should have been put into GENERAL CHITCHAT.[/siz]

Lickszz- Topic Moved

Originally posted by "The Cycleracer"

The Tony Martin case has come up again and though i thought they were having a laugh it was said that the Home Office are putting in ledgislation to protect burglars from being hurt.

Now what i would do if someone broke into my home i would take the law into my own hands to protect my family.
a burglar is hell bent on taking your property whatever the cost and if you get in there way your likely to get hurt or even killed.
They show no mercy when confronted.
I have 3 young Children and if a stranger comes up my stairs he gets the baseball bat, no question about that.
Tony martin was a frightened man and although it was a bit extreme to shoot one of them you can see why he did it.
Anyone who has faced a burglar in there own home knows that you are a great deal more frightened than he is.

What would you do in Tony martins case and also comments about the new law to protect the burglars would be appreciated.
I don,t want to open a topic into the actuall Martin case but the law is already an ass in this country and this makes it even more so. Sorry about putting this in the wrong section, should have been put into GENERAL CHITCHAT.

I moved it for you.

Any kind of Burglary is one of my pet hates. I don't think the law deals with this type of crime as it should. I'd like to see a minimum of 10 years for this crime. As for taking the law into your own hands, I think you have every right to defend what is yours, and if this results in the intruder getting injured there should be adequate protection from the law for the victim. (the person who was been robbed). It shouldn't come to a scenario where the victim is in the dock for defending his own property. A much stronger deterrent is needed for these crimes.

Anyone remember s story nto so long back?

A robber climbing up the drainpipe to rob a house. Drainpipe moves away from the wall and seriously injures said robber. He apparently sued the owners of the house!!!!!

The law is ass about tit and is a perfect example of political correctness gone mad.

We have been burgled - lucky I guess that they just took what they could and legged it. Idiots tried using our video card to rent videos and games out the same day and the coppers still didn't get em despite an excellent description from the video clerk!!!!
Being what I am, I am hoping that our protection worked and they are under a tram somewhere. Be glad they didn't come face to face with my husband and a the old table leg, safer for my husband I guess with this new law.

Moon Maiden

Well if my two dogs don't get you a Doberman & a German Shepard then its the baseball bat around the head will sowwie but i have worked hard for the stuff i have bought for some lil :twisted: beep bepp beep to take em

Firstly - stop Burglars getting into your house. It's not that hard (speaking as someone who has recently been burgled), or particularly expensive (unless you live in a stately home with lots of Picassos).

Tony Martin had been burgled on several occasions, he had also been charged with several gun offences and had his shotgun licence revoked for firing it at another person

The two lads, Barras and the other one were bad 'uns.

In the process of burgling Martin's house, Barras was shot dead and the other was wounded and a Judge and Jury found Martin guilty of murder.

Where is the political correctness (lefty liberal) in that?

It was a complex case and rested on several factors regarding the exact place and time the shots were fired and where Barras and accomplice where. I'm not privy to those facts, and nor, I suspect, are many other people on this board.

The justice system is not perfect, but to my mind it beats ringing people with car tyres, dousing them in petrol and setting them alight. (which happens in at least one country I have been to). It makes mistakes, and it is an ossified institution in some ways, but the judiciary does a remarkably good job under the circumstances.

A good justice system will not reduce propert crime however. Legalisation of Heroin would certainly help.

As for defence against a burglar who is in your house:
Call the police and then...providing you use reasonable force to remove him from your premises then you won't have any difficulties.

Originally posted by "Phanerothyme"

Firstly - stop Burglars getting into your house. It's not that hard (speaking as someone who has recently been burgled), or particularly expensive (unless you live in a stately home with lots of Picassos).

Tony Martin had been burgled on several occasions, he had also been charged with several gun offences and had his shotgun licence revoked for firing it at another person

The two lads, Barras and the other one were bad 'uns.

In the process of burgling Martin's house, Barras was shot dead and the other was wounded and a Judge and Jury found Martin guilty of murder.

Where is the political correctness (lefty liberal) in that?

It was a complex case and rested on several factors regarding the exact place and time the shots were fired and where Barras and accomplice where. I'm not privy to those facts, and nor, I suspect, are many other people on this board.

The justice system is not perfect, but to my mind it beats ringing people with car tyres, dousing them in petrol and setting them alight. (which happens in at least one country I have been to). It makes mistakes, and it is an ossified institution in some ways, but the judiciary does a remarkably good job under the circumstances.

A good justice system will not reduce propert crime however. Legalisation of Heroin would certainly help.

As for defence against a burglar who is in your house:
Call the police and then...providing you use reasonable force to remove him from your premises then you won't have any difficulties.

It all depends on the situation in which you confront the intruder, they may run but they also may attack you before they run. Reasonable force is a tough one, IMO reasonable force includes survival in which you do anything possible to preserve your own. Calling the police, providing you have the opportunity is probably not going to stop the robber(s) from getting away with your stuff. By the time the police arrive the robber(s) could be long gone, they may get picked up but it's unlikely. For car crime the police don't hurry so much. A couple of years ago someone I know had his car broken into, a neighbour saw a dodgy character with a crowbar walking down this guys drive. The neighbour immediately called the police. The thief broke into this person car took his car stereo and then walked up and down some other drives on the same road. The police eventually turned up 30 minutes later. When asked why they took so long, apparently they had been checking the area for the suspect, If they would have gone straight to the scene they would have picked this thief up. The guy I know rang the Superintendant the next day to get an explanation has to why it took so long and was told that those particular policemen were incitially on their "tea break" but would have interupted it if this thief was entering the house. Are the police this short staffed?

Tony Martin should never have been convicted and I wrote to number ten Downing street and told them so. The reply was that under the present system the law has got to take its course.

No property is safe from the criminal and I mean none, have you read about the breach of security at Highgrove? where millions of pounds have been spent to keep intruders out.

Any burglar can get in anywhere full stop, fences, cameras, barbed wire, lights are a complete waste of time and money, no where and no one is safe from the criminal.

The law is only interested in protecting the bad guy, it couldnt care less about the victim and when and if they are caught it is either a slap on the wrist or a very light sentence.

As regards protecting yourself, your family, and your property, reasonable force is a joke, it is a contradiction in terms. How can one use resonable force to eject a criminal from your home, it has got to be a lot of force or nothing at all.

I keep a stout two inch thick wooden stake behind my bedroom door, lock it and bolt it so they cannot catch me asleep, (I would hear them breaking in) and if I heard them I would be waiting.

The moment that door opened I would leave them with a headache they wouldnt forget for a long time and if I could get hold of a gun I would do what Tony Martin did and take the law into my own hands.

Whilst I think that you should be able to defend yourself in your home, the "reasonable force" rules, although in some cases are applied stupidly, are still necessary imho.

Tony Martin wasn't being attacked by the burglar, and he shot him in the back with an illegally owned shotgun. In my mind that is murder, not self defence. I've been burgled when I've been asleep upstairs and I keep a crowbar in the bedroom in case some nutter turns up, but I would never want to kill somebody because they were stealing some of my possessions.

There was another case recently where Barry-Lee Hastings repeatedly stabbed a burlgar in the back, even after he was on the ground and outside the house.

Is that self-defence? No, it's revenge and Hasting's five year manslaughter sentence is right imho.

I have a problem envisaging a situation where I, a very scared homeowner, would be able to use a gun to defend my possessions. I would be probably shaking like a leaf and unable to hit the proverbial barn door. A burglar, on the other hand, is likely to be either a professional or high and in either case more likely to be able to point a gun and hit somebody.

If more homeowners started keeping guns then I think more accidents would happen and burglars would be more likely to carry guns themselves.

I've been burgled (that looks odd) 3 times and in one of the cases I was at home. I'm just glad that I didn't hear them as all I lost were possessions whereas their freedom was at stake. I don't think I would have come out best in fight.

Being what I am, I am hoping that our protection worked and they are under a tram somewhere.

So what you are basically saying is a death sentence is justifiable revenge for this type of crime?

Originally posted by "Mike"

Tony Martin wasn't being attacked by the burglar, and he shot him in the back with an illegally owned shotgun. In my mind that is murder, not self defence. I've been burgled when I've been asleep upstairs and I keep a crowbar in the bedroom in case some nutter turns up, but I would never want to kill somebody because they were stealing some of my possessions.
This is very true, and I believe Tony Martin had what was coming to him. Nobody should be allowed to murder someone else and get away with it no matter what the circumstances.

Having said that you have to think about what you would have done in the same situation. You're furious that your house has been broken into, you want revenge, you lose your temper and you do something you live to regret. I think it was right to convict Tony Martin, but I think the justice system should focus on locking up people who pose a threat to society, which Tony Martin does not.

Originally posted by "Mike"

Whilst I think that you should be able to defend yourself in your home, the "reasonable force" rules, although in some cases are applied stupidly, are still necessary imho.

Tony Martin wasn't being attacked by the burglar, and he shot him in the back with an illegally owned shotgun. In my mind that is murder, not self defence. I've been burgled when I've been asleep upstairs and I keep a crowbar in the bedroom in case some nutter turns up, but I would never want to kill somebody because they were stealing some of my possessions.

As far as I am concerned it's mitigating circumstances.

But what would have happened if Tony has tried to apprehend this burglar, would the burglar have attacked him then? IN this situation should have have waited until the burglar shot him first? How did he know the burglar didn't have a gun? So, basically what you are saying is if you see them breaking in, you should let them get away with whatever they want? or if you do decide to try to stop them you should wait until the attack you first?

It seems a little ambiguous to me. :?

Originally posted by "Lickszz"

As far as I am concerned it's mitigating circumstances.
To a degree I agree with you - TM didn't go out searching for a victim to carry out a cold blooded murder.
Originally posted by "Lickszz"

But what would have happened if Tony has tried to apprehend this burglar, would the burglar have attacked him then? IN this situation should have have waited until the burglar shot him first? How did he know the burglar didn't have a gun?
Well, we'll never know, will we? But I think it's dangerous to advocate killing burglars just in case they may have a gun, which is pretty unlikely anyway.

Originally posted by "Lickszz"

So, basically what you are saying is if you see them breaking in, you should let them get away with whatever they want? or if you do decide to try to stop them you should wait until the attack you first?

It seems a little ambiguous to me. :?
If the choice is between letting somebody get away with my possessions or killing them, then yes, I'd rather let them have my stuff.

The reasonable force rule is certainly ambiguous, and can seem ridiculous in some situations, but let's not forget that TM had an illegal firearm - he could have just threatened the burglars with it, but instead he just fired indiscriminately killing one and seriously injuring the other. I think that goes way beyond defending your property.

Reasonable force!!!!!!!! dont make me laugh!!!!!!

THE LAW IS AN ASS!!!!!!!

Originally posted by "halevan"

Reasonable force!!!!!!!! dont make me laugh!!!!!!

THE LAW IS AN ASS!!!!!!!

What a well reasoned comment.

So it's ok to own an illegal firearm and kill people just because they've entered your property?

Some years ago I was burgled twice in three months. The second time was while I was away on holiday with my children. I knew who did it ( the same people both times) but the police could or would do nothing as despite there being 2 witnesses. The witnesses would not make statements. The first time they broke down the back door (during the day) it took the council 4 months to fix so it was boarded up. The second time they broke down the front door (again during the day). This was repaired at the same time as the back door. So for 4 weeks I could not leave the house as I could not secure it. I barricaded myself in and closed all the curtains and slept for only a few hours at a time when I could find someone to sit in with me. If I caught a burglar in my home in my home I would not be responsible for my actions. I would do whatever necessary to protect my family. The law is an ass and there is no justice.

When a burglar breaks into your home in the early hours, what is he there for Eh.? to ask you if you would like to go out for a drink with him? dont be stupid man! he is there to steal what you have, harm your children, rape your wife. Is it therefore alright to just let him do what he wants?

So, you try to stop him, how, he is determined to carry out what he has come for, what does it take for you to stop him? reasonable force???????????? there is no such thing, this person is young, strong, full of drugs and nothing will stop him but violence.

Is that a reasoned enough argument for you??????????????????????????

He's usually there to burgle your house. Very few burgaries are "aggravated", ie where the burglar attacks the home owner and most burglars will scarper if they hear the homeowner coming down stairs or whatever, because the penalties for aggravated burglary are much higher than for normal burglary.

Nobody is saying "let him do what he wants" and you are allowed by law to use reasonable force to expel him. So, if a burglar enters your bedroom and you get up and hit him in the face, you are unlikely to be prosecuted for it. That is reasonable force. Shooting him in the back when he's trying to escape is not reasonable, is it?

Would you rather it was like in the states where people have been killed because they were trying to fetch a ball from somebody's garden?

Just to clarify, last year in England and Wales, less than 1% of burglaries were aggravated burglaries.

Originally posted by "halevan"

When a burglar breaks into your home in the early hours, what is he there for Eh.? to ask you if you would like to go out for a drink with him? dont be stupid man! he is there to steal what you have, harm your children, rape your wife. Is it therefore alright to just let him do what he wants?

So, you try to stop him, how, he is determined to carry out what he has come for, what does it take for you to stop him? reasonable force???????????? there is no such thing, this person is young, strong, full of drugs and nothing will stop him but violence.

Is that a reasoned enough argument for you??????????????????????????
No Halevan, it's not a reasoned argument at all, let alone a reasoned argument for killing burglars.

1. Burglary is property crime. most burglars would prefer it if you were out, or asleep. The last thing they want is a confrontation with an armed and angry householder. Many burglars will bolt if disturbed (South Yorkshire Police).

2.If what you say is true (earlier post about gurglars not being stopped by security) then burglars would be smashing in our windows, raping our wives, harming our children and stealing our property all the time.

3. You say that the law exists only to protect the perpetrators of crime. Do you honestly believe that?

4.If they're full of drugs they aren't likely to be burgling your house, they're gonna laid gouching out somewhere, enjoying themselves. The purpose of burgling your house is to steal things to sell for money to buy more smack with, when this lot runs out.

It is not a question of just protecting your property, its more a case of protecting your family.
If a burglar comes up my stairs i am not going to take chances on if he might attack me, my wife and 3 young children, i am gonna persume he will because if he is confronted he will attack.
two cases which have happened on my own doorstep lately.

1.An old woman on my road living on her own and a widow. The intruder ransacks her downstairs then goes in her bed room and physically wakes her up and says to her face to face "You,ve just been burgled" and left the house.

2. A burglary round the corner from me they break in the house and steal his stuff while he was in bed.
Again he hears them and goes down stairs to confront them. When he gets down they have already gone out through the kitchen and left on the chip pan.
When the police arrived he said that they even had cheek to try and make some chips.
The police then told him that they had no plans to make chips and the hot chip fat was for you if you disturbed them.
Lucky they had already left i,d say, but if he had not come down they could have been on a more serious charge of Murder due to the house burning down.

The people who sympaphise with these morons about minimal force want to look at the real situation.
Do you think that a burglar is going to let you grab his arm and say OK mate fair cop i,ll wait here while you phone the police.

The fact is, these burglars are breaking the law. I know it's a childish phrase, but "they started it".

The way I see it is that a normally calm houseowner could be physically and mentally forced to lash out at them out of fear. If they weren't breaking the law in the first place, they wouldn't be on the raw end of the deal!

Fair enough - if a farmer has a firearm without a license, prosecute him for that... but only that.

The law in this country (and many others, I'm sure) is seriously messed up. You can't compare sentences or compensation at all... it's ridiculous!

Doesn't anyone RTFP ?!!?

Nobody is sympathising with burglars, or denying that they "started it", but anyone who thinks that burglars deserve to die for stealing some possessions is far worse than the burglars themselves in the first place.

If you don't believe in the concept of reasonable force, then how about if somebody is stopped for speeding on the motorway, and the traffic police whip out a gun and shoot them? That's ok is it? They committed a crime, they obviously deserve to die.

Originally posted by "Mike"

Doesn't anyone RTFP ?!!?

Nobody is sympathising with burglars, or denying that they "started it", but anyone who thinks that burglars deserve to die for stealing some possessions is far worse than the burglars themselves in the first place.

If you don't believe in the concept of reasonable force, then how about if somebody is stopped for speeding on the motorway, and the traffic police whip out a gun and shoot them? That's ok is it? They committed a crime, they obviously deserve to die.

Nobody is saying the the burglars deserve to die but they are saying that the victims should not be responsible for their actions while trying to defend themselves/property/family. The burglars are in the wrong here. The can't just expect to let people to do nothing while they take their stuff.

I don't understand where you are going with this speeding example, it's totally irrelevant. Speeding is not classed as a criminal offense unlike burgaling. Most people speed, but most people DO NOT break into houses.

Originally posted by "Mike"

As far as I am concerned it's mitigating circumstances.
To a degree I agree with you - TM didn't go out searching for a victim to carry out a cold blooded murder.
Originally posted by "Lickszz"

But what would have happened if Tony has tried to apprehend this burglar, would the burglar have attacked him then? IN this situation should have have waited until the burglar shot him first? How did he know the burglar didn't have a gun?
Well, we'll never know, will we? But I think it's dangerous to advocate killing burglars just in case they may have a gun, which is pretty unlikely anyway.

I am not campaigning for burglars to be killed at all, I am merely saying that a person as a right to defend their property and themselves against anyone entering their home for whatever reason. Reasonable force in my eyes includes survival and as I said you do whatever it takes to preserve your own.

Originally posted by "Mike"

Reasonable force!!!!!!!! dont make me laugh!!!!!!

THE LAW IS AN ASS!!!!!!!

What a well reasoned comment.

So it's ok to own an illegal firearm and kill people just because they've entered your property?

No, it's ok to protect yourself and your family/property because if you don't you could become killed.

Originally posted by "Mike"

He's usually there to burgle your house. Very few burgaries are "aggravated", ie where the burglar attacks the home owner and most burglars will scarper if they hear the homeowner coming down stairs or whatever, because the penalties for aggravated burglary are much higher than for normal burglary.

Nobody is saying "let him do what he wants" and you are allowed by law to use reasonable force to expel him. So, if a burglar enters your bedroom and you get up and hit him in the face, you are unlikely to be prosecuted for it. That is reasonable force. Shooting him in the back when he's trying to escape is not reasonable, is it?

Would you rather it was like in the states where people have been killed because they were trying to fetch a ball from somebody's garden?

So, you now have to wait until the intruder enters your bedroom before you do anything about it? Does reasonable force include survival? Imagine you hit the guy in the face like you said and he pulls out a knife, then what are you going to do? it's probably too late to back down, your probably going to end up dead or seriously injured. All this because you tried to play fair and only using what you call reasonable force which backfired on you. What if there is more than one burglar as there often is? what's reasonable then? It's no good saying most burglars only want your things, you just can't take that chance and why should you have to? Why shouldn't you confront them, it's YOUR house! You can argue that shooting someone when their trying to escape is drastic but burglars don't just do this on a one off basis, they are off to ruin someone else life etc, It's often the case that they return to the same place again. Next time you may not be so lucky. Only recently in the news a womans house was robbed and cleaned out of her possessions, she built them all back up and guess what happened. They came back and cleaned her out again.

Originally posted by "Phanerothyme"

When a burglar breaks into your home in the early hours, what is he there for Eh.? to ask you if you would like to go out for a drink with him? dont be stupid man! he is there to steal what you have, harm your children, rape your wife. Is it therefore alright to just let him do what he wants?

So, you try to stop him, how, he is determined to carry out what he has come for, what does it take for you to stop him? reasonable force???????????? there is no such thing, this person is young, strong, full of drugs and nothing will stop him but violence.

Is that a reasoned enough argument for you??????????????????????????
No Halevan, it's not a reasoned argument at all, let alone a reasoned argument for killing burglars.

1. Burglary is property crime. most burglars would prefer it if you were out, or asleep. The last thing they want is a confrontation with an armed and angry householder. Many burglars will bolt if disturbed (South Yorkshire Police).

2.If what you say is true (earlier post about gurglars not being stopped by security) then burglars would be smashing in our windows, raping our wives, harming our children and stealing our property all the time.

3. You say that the law exists only to protect the perpetrators of crime. Do you honestly believe that?

4.If they're full of drugs they aren't likely to be burgling your house, they're gonna laid gouching out somewhere, enjoying themselves. The purpose of burgling your house is to steal things to sell for money to buy more smack with, when this lot runs out.

If you get robbed while you are out then there isn't alot you can do about that. The point here is what happens if you are in. You have a right to stop anyone from illegally entering your house. I suspect your right most intruders won't want ot be confronted but that doesn't mean they are not prepared to be confronted or shouldn't be. If there is 2 or more of them, can you be sure that if when confronted they will bolt?

Yes, burglary is primarily a property crime, but as you agree with your statement number 2, also can be incorporated are Rape, Assault, Murder etc.

Originally posted by "Lickszz"

I don't understand where you are going with this speeding example, it's totally irrelevant. Speeding is not classed as a criminal offense unlike burgaling.

The example was to illustrate the use of "reasonable force" and actually speeding is a criminal offence.

Originally posted by "Lickszz"

Imagine you hit the guy in the face like you said and he pulls out a knife, then what are you going to do? it's probably too late to back down, your probably going to end up dead or seriously injured.
So, what do you propose then? Shooting somebody first in case they might turn violent? Great solution.

Originally posted by "Lickszz"

You can argue that shooting someone when their trying to escape is drastic but burglars don't just do this on a one off basis, they are off to ruin someone else life etc,
Errr yes, I think that is a bit drastic. Since when does burglary ruin your life? It generally means an insurance claim, and a lot of hassle.

There's a lot of alarmist, macho crap on this thread - aggravated burglary is extremely rare - all this talk of "protecting my property", etc is fine but when faced with that situation, how many of you would actually pull the trigger - get real.

Originally posted by "Mike"

Nobody is sympathising with burglars...
Yes they are. The law is. If a burglar can sue a houseowner because it was "unsafe to break in" (which is essentially what they saying...) then, surely, they are sympathising with burglars...?

Originally posted by "Mike"

If you don't believe in the concept of reasonable force, then how about if somebody is stopped for speeding on the motorway, and the traffic police whip out a gun and shoot them? That's ok is it? They committed a crime, they obviously deserve to die.
Stay calm Mike :wink: I'm sure you realise that's not what I meant...

1) Nobody deserves to die.

2) Your example is completely different, because the death hasn't caused the policeman to be in fear for his family/possessions. Fear can make people act in ways they cannot control.

Yes, shooting someone to death is an extreme, and should be treated as such - but in cases where burglars are suing the owners for having dodgy drainpipes or electric fences, defending the burglar is simply crazy!

I hope that cleared things up... I don't want to upset anyone. :)

I know this is a bit of a ridiculous suggestion, but if you had a big sign saying:

"If you break into my house, I will break your legs!"

Could you be liable if you did break their legs (whether threatened by them or not)? After all, you've warned them what will happen.

Many private business properties have security signs suggesting that if you break in, their dogs will attack - if those dogs killed someone, could they be liable?

Originally posted by "Tony Ruscoe"

Nobody is sympathising with burglars...
Yes they are. The law is. If a burglar can sue a houseowner because it was "unsafe to break in" (which is essentially what they saying...) then, surely, they are sympathising with burglars...?
Sorry, I meant nobody on this topic. Suing an owner for having a dodgy drainpipe is really a bit ridiculous.

Originally posted by "Tony Ruscoe"

2) Your example is completely different, because the death hasn't caused the policeman to be in fear for his family/possessions. Fear can make people act in ways they cannot control.

Ok, suppose you accidentally get into a ruck in a pub - someone lands one on your nose, so you whip out a knife and stab them in the throat - is that ok, just because you were scared?

Originally posted by "Mike"

Ok, suppose you accidentally get into a ruck in a pub - someone lands one on your nose, so you whip out a knife and stab them in the throat - is that ok, just because you were scared?

Better... but still not the same.

"Someone lands one on your nose" accidentally or on purpose? Are you in fear for your life or just for your looks?

If you really believe that someone may actually kill you, killing them first is the only real defense. If you just hurt them they may still kill you, so it's either them or you - and if they started it, I believe you have the right to kill them in defense.

However, if you believe that someone may just harm you, killing them is totally unnecessary. "An eye for an eye" and all that...

A burglar entering your house is not something you would expect... although we're all aware it might happen, most people won't be prepared for this and may well believe that the burglar is going to kill them... so they should defend themselves as they see appropriate.

Why would you think that an intruder is there to kill you? A person breaking into your house is many more times likely to be a burglar than a murderer.

How many people are ever killed by burglars? Very very few indeed.

I personally wouldn't think that... but some people might.

I doubt Tony Martin thought the burglar was going to kill him... he probably just wanted to "teach him a lesson" by killing him. (A bit of an extreme lesson though, eh?) So he probably got what he deserved by being convicted. If he did anything else to the burglar (except for things like serious torture, etc...) then I would probably fully support his actions.

There is no excuse for killing someone just because you're mad, unless you truly believe they are going to kill you no matter what you do. (I think.)

Ruining your life: I reckon a burglary can wreck people's lives. It can leave people reeling from the fact that someone has been in their house, touching their things, invading their own private life. It is hard ever to feel completely secure in your own home ever again after something like that. Plenty of people are vulnerable enough for that to cause them a great deal of longterm harm

Reasonable force: I was recently wondering to myself about this. My partner is a great big rugby-build martial arts type guy :twisted: . Surely the definition of reasonable force would be different for him - pushing down and standing over a burglar until the police turned up (i know, could take days or even weeks) would prob'ly be as much as he'd be allowed. He'd prob'ly get done for anything else. But I'm five foot nothing and don't look very scary (except first thing in the morning :lol: ). IF I felt threatened or angry (you can't discount people's instinct in a corner) enough to do something other than run screaming into the street (more of a possibility), surely reasonable force for me would involve making sure they don't regain consciousness/ get up again until the police turn up. That way protecting myself (prob'ly much smaller than the burglar) against further threat. :?:

It's all theory anyway, cos I'd most likely be running out of the house screaming blue murder (in the hopes that my neighbours came out and did something to the git.) :D :D

But you can't blame people for getting angry. It's built into our very genes to protect ourselves, our families and our belongings. Murdering people is so not an option. But I can very much see how you would want to grab hold of a toe rag creeping about your house and give him a very good shoeing indeed. I can also see how you might not want to stop and ask if he intended to damage your family before rendering him incapable of such with a well aimed kick or seven. I don't like violence, but I don't have a problem with that.
I reckon I'm prob'ly a fan of 'unreasonable force' as long as the damage caused is not lifethreatening or permanently disabling. I know all the logical arguments, etc, but this goes beyond logic to primal instinct.
IMO

Originally posted by "Mike"

I don't understand where you are going with this speeding example, it's totally irrelevant. Speeding is not classed as a criminal offense unlike burgaling.

The example was to illustrate the use of "reasonable force" and actually speeding is a criminal offence.

Please, I wasn't aware that you went to prison for a speeding offense?

Infact I got a convicted of a speeding offense last week. It was just a letter through the post. Hardly in the same catergory is it?

Originally posted by "Mike"

Imagine you hit the guy in the face like you said and he pulls out a knife, then what are you going to do? it's probably too late to back down, your probably going to end up dead or seriously injured.
So, what do you propose then? Shooting somebody first in case they might turn violent? Great solution.

Originally posted by "Lickszz"

You can argue that shooting someone when their trying to escape is drastic but burglars don't just do this on a one off basis, they are off to ruin someone else life etc,
Errr yes, I think that is a bit drastic. Since when does burglary ruin your life? It generally means an insurance claim, and a lot of hassle.

No it's not shooting someone because they might turn violent, it's doing what's necessary to make sure you preserve your survival. Lets here your solutions then? oh let me guess, close your eyes and count to ten and hope they disapear?

Just an insurance claim? Have you not every heard of the stress that people suffer after something like this? some are forced to move house because they can't live in the same house, some are never the same again and can't get to sleep at nights and never feel safe. I think this mental torture is a bit more than a insurance claim.

Originally posted by "Mike"

Why would you think that an intruder is there to kill you? A person breaking into your house is many more times likely to be a burglar than a murderer.

How many people are ever killed by burglars? Very very few indeed.

But Mike some actually have been, so this means that it does happen. So it can't be dismissed that you could end up been killed.

Originally posted by "Tony Ruscoe"

I personally wouldn't think that... but some people might.

I doubt Tony Martin thought the burglar was going to kill him... he probably just wanted to "teach him a lesson" by killing him. (A bit of an extreme lesson though, eh?) So he probably got what he deserved by being convicted. If he did anything else to the burglar (except for things like serious torture, etc...) then I would probably fully support his actions.

There is no excuse for killing someone just because you're mad, unless you truly believe they are going to kill you no matter what you do. (I think.)

How many times did Martin shoot the Burglar? If he only shot them once then perhaps he didn't intend to kill his victim, but if for example he shot his victim and then shot him again to execute him then this is obviously a different matter.

Originally posted by "Lickszz"

Please, I wasn't aware that you went to prison for a speeding offense?

Infact I got a convicted of a speeding offense last week. It was just a letter through the post. Hardly in the same catergory is it?

There have been several people imprisoned for speeding. Check the news sites.

Originally posted by "The Cycleracer"

The Tony Martin case has come up again and though i thought they were having a laugh it was said that the Home Office are putting in ledgislation to protect burglars from being hurt.

Now what i would do if someone broke into my home i would take the law into my own hands to protect my family.
a burglar is hell bent on taking your property whatever the cost and if you get in there way your likely to get hurt or even killed.
They show no mercy when confronted.
I have 3 young Children and if a stranger comes up my stairs he gets the baseball bat, no question about that.
Tony martin was a frightened man and although it was a bit extreme to shoot one of them you can see why he did it.
Anyone who has faced a burglar in there own home knows that you are a great deal more frightened than he is.

What would you do in Tony martins case and also comments about the new law to protect the burglars would be appreciated.
I don,t want to open a topic into the actuall Martin case but the law is already an ass in this country and this makes it even more so. Sorry about putting this in the wrong section, should have been put into GENERAL CHITCHAT.[/siz]
Lickszz- Topic Moved
Sorry to say this, but any Burgler breaking into my house would feel a very strong blow from my B-bat followed by some knee's, elbows, feet, fists, head... ... ... i'm generally NOT a violent guy and have a live and let live approach to life. But if someone was to put my fiancee, me or my property at risk... as well as to invade my personal living space... then god help them. :twisted:

Originally posted by "Lickszz"

No it's not shooting someone because they might turn violent, it's doing what's necessary to make sure you preserve your survival. Lets here your solutions then? oh let me guess, close your eyes and count to ten and hope they disapear?

Just an insurance claim? Have you not every heard of the stress that people suffer after something like this? some are forced to move house because they can't live in the same house, some are never the same again and can't get to sleep at nights and never feel safe. I think this mental torture is a bit more than a insurance claim.

I give up, you obviously don't read my posts before replying - fine, you've got your opinion but try reading what I've said - when did I ever say anything along the lines of "close your eyes and count to ten?"

Mental torture my arse - I've been burgled when I was asleep upstairs; no it's not nice but it's hardly the end of the world.

Originally posted by "Mike"

Mental torture my arse - I've been burgled when I was asleep upstairs; no it's not nice but it's hardly the end of the world.


Maybe not for you. But for others. Not everyone has the luxury of feeling safe and strong. A great many people out there are vulnerable in more ways than one. A burglary really can screw them up. I'm glad you weren't adversely affected, but that just makes you lucky.

Laura

Oops, messed that quote box thingy up... :oops:

Originally posted by "Mike"

Mental torture my arse - I've been burgled when I was asleep upstairs; no it's not nice but it's hardly the end of the world.


Maybe not for you. But for others. Not everyone has the luxury of feeling safe and strong. A great many people out there are vulnerable in more ways than one. A burglary really can screw them up. I'm glad you weren't adversely affected, but that just makes you lucky.

Laura

Oops, messed that quote box thingy up... :oops:

I agree Laura... being burgled can seriously screw some poeple up whereby they dont feel safe anymore in there own homes and move. They end up going to counselling and all sorts. Burglery should be given a lot harsher punihments IMHO.... and even for first offences. Minimum 5yrs for first offences and with the time they don't serve out of that five susspended and added on to another five years if they get caught again!

(i.e. If they serve 2.5 out of five fir offence 1, then they'd serve 7.5 for the second offence)

Yeah, ok, granted - for some folk it could be a very frightening experience, especially the elderly.

Don't get me wrong, I think burglars are scum, I just don't think it's ok to kill 'em, that's all, unless they are trying to kill you in the first place. In the heat of the moment people make mistakes, but at the end of the day, we're all responsible for our actions, mitigating circumstances or not.

I don't think the fact that the government are proposing that first time burglars won't ever get a custodial sentence is really going to help, but then does prison really help anyway - it's like sending criminals off to "criminal school" where they can learn from each other in some ways. I guess that's a different issue entirely though.

This may be controversial but when has that stopped me?

Why is there so much concern about being burgled when the overwhelming majority of burglaries are not life threatening? Surely an issue about which we should be more concerned is speeding which does actually kill 3 people every day and injures many more? And yet, as soon as something is done to try to curb speed, viz. speed humps and cameras, we jump and down and complain about civil liberties being infringed.

As a person who has been burgled 3 times and been involved in several accidents I am far more wary/concerned when I am driving than when I am wrapped up in my 'ickle truckle bed.

(Before anyone comments on the 'several accidents' bit I was a PO driver for 7 years and was exposed to more than my fair share of dodgy drivers)

On the Tony Martin issue, as I understand it he was waiting in the dark with a loaded shotgun which IMHO smacks of premeditation. Perhaps if he had sold his, illegally held, shotgun and invested in better security we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Originally posted by "maxt"

This may be controversial but when has that stopped me?

Why is there so much concern about being burgled when the overwhelming majority of burglaries are not life threatening? Surely an issue about which we should be more concerned is speeding which does actually kill 3 people every day and injures many more? And yet, as soon as something is done to try to curb speed, viz. speed humps and cameras, we jump and down and complain about civil liberties being infringed.

As a person who has been burgled 3 times and been involved in several accidents I am far more wary/concerned when I am driving than when I am wrapped up in my 'ickle truckle bed.

(Before anyone comments on the 'several accidents' bit I was a PO driver for 7 years and was exposed to more than my fair share of dodgy drivers)

On the Tony Martin issue, as I understand it he was waiting in the dark with a loaded shotgun which IMHO smacks of premeditation. Perhaps if he had sold his, illegally held, shotgun and invested in better security we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Because the thread began in connection with Burglery :P
But in all seriousness both agendas should be addressed and I personally feel strongly about both.
A speeding driver killed my older brother when I was just 10! Ok it was a mix of 2 accidents... my brothers car skidded in black icy roads one winter and was covering the on coming traffic side. A van came flying over the hill and due to the icy conditions... ploughed into the drivers side of my brothers car... causing him to have fatal internal injuries.

Originally posted by "Mike"

Please, I wasn't aware that you went to prison for a speeding offense?

Infact I got a convicted of a speeding offense last week. It was just a letter through the post. Hardly in the same catergory is it?

There have been several people imprisoned for speeding. Check the news sites.

"several people" have you any idea how many people are convicted for speeding? Come on Mike, You are mostly NOT likely to get imprisioned for speeding. Except maybe if your travelling at speeds beyond belief, in which case is very very rare. Are you sure you not getting this mixed up with dangerous driving/drunken driving?

Originally posted by "maxt"

This may be controversial but when has that stopped me?

Why is there so much concern about being burgled when the overwhelming majority of burglaries are not life threatening? Surely an issue about which we should be more concerned is speeding which does actually kill 3 people every day and injures many more? And yet, as soon as something is done to try to curb speed, viz. speed humps and cameras, we jump and down and complain about civil liberties being infringed.
How many people break the speed limit every day? I would imagine the answer to that would be a figure in the millions, or vastly aproaching that mark. Yet how many people go around breaking into houses? Very few. Not that speeding's right, it's totally wrong, but it's hardly as socially unacceptable as burglary. You could also speed accidentally, but you couldn't really burgle someone accidentally.

Originally posted by "senseofplace"

Oops, messed that quote box thingy up... :oops:
Fixed :wink:

Please, let's not get hung up on the speeding thing - I was just using something to illustrate the use of reasonable force and speeding was the first thing that popped into my head, I'm not saying speeding is the same sort of crime as burglary.

Originally posted by "Mike"

Yeah, ok, granted - for some folk it could be a very frightening experience, especially the elderly.

Don't get me wrong, I think burglars are scum, I just don't think it's ok to kill 'em, that's all, unless they are trying to kill you in the first place. In the heat of the moment people make mistakes, but at the end of the day, we're all responsible for our actions, mitigating circumstances or not.

I don't think the fact that the government are proposing that first time burglars won't ever get a custodial sentence is really going to help, but then does prison really help anyway - it's like sending criminals off to "criminal school" where they can learn from each other in some ways. I guess that's a different issue entirely though.

Of course prision is better than no prison IMO. At least its some form of punishment.

I was pleased to see this thread on the site because I have had strong views on this for ages and nowhere to talk about them or discuss them

I think it was Bank Holiday Monday when they had a phone in on Radio Two about it, but I was driving to my pal's house in Liverpool so didnt get the chance to phone in and be a lone voice

I hope now I can get it all off my chest, even if nobody notices

LOL

I have been burgled twice and I am single woman with no big butch burly man at hand to wield a baseball bat on my behalf

It is important that I tell you that I think, so you know where I am coming from

Both of my burglaries happened in the same house, a big town house (a big terrace) on a main road.

Because it was a big house and because I was struggling to pay the mortgage, I had two lodgers staying with me, both also women.

The first time we were burgled they must have thought all their Christmases had come at once. Because of our set-up, we had a TV each, a stereo each, a microwave each, alarm clock radios each...(my lodgers had them in their rooms and I had them about the house)...you get the picture.

They took the lot

Fortunately we were out and fortunately they were crap burglars and left finger-prints (and my mate was a Scenes of Crime Officer who spent a lot of time searching for said prints for me!)

So they were caught and we got some but not all of our stuff back.

A few months later, as is a burglar's want, they came back again and took a lot of the replacement stuff...

Yes it was horrible, yes we hated it, mainly we hated the paperwork and the rows with the insurance people. We werent traumatised, any of the three of us, either time, but I give respect to people who ARE, some people are not able to deal with the idea of having strangers poking about in their private stuff, and we can understand that I think.

The only mildly amusing part was the first burglary, I got home after my lodgers who had already called the police. One police officer was upstairs in my bedroom and called down to me that I should prepare for a shock, that my room was practically trashed. Actually when I got in there, I couldnt see that anything had been moved, I just was a messy sod. I felt a bit like that guy on the Yellow Pages ad, but I digress.

Anyway, I know all about burglary (oh and car theft, I had three taken from that address, now you know why I moved!)

So, do I think Tony Martin was a hero to shoot dead and seriously wound two very young men? teenagers in fact?

No I dont

We dont have the death penalty in this country, thankfully, and even if we did, we wouldnt, I assume, want it for 16 year-old opportunist thieves.

Tony Martin shot dead a 16 year old boy in the back, because he was full of rage. They didnt threaten him, they started to run away as soon as they sussed him. He wasnt defending himself and he wasnt defending his property, he was giving way to his rage and his temper.

And the reason they havent let him out yet, incidentally, is because he has said that he would do it again in an instant.

Now the law states that people who tell the parole board that they are not sorry and will do it again, cannot get parole. Whether they are rapists, or murderers (like him) or shop-lifters, or anything you like.

Bear with me...

There have been some cases of serious serious burglaries that have involved rape and murder and all sorts of awful things. I do think that if you have been beaten and tied up and attacked etc during the course of a burglary and if you can get free, and if you can find a weapon to defend yourself, then you do have every right to use it.

I would certainly concede that if you had been seriously and hideously attacked and could only safely escape your own death by killing your attacker then that is your unassailable right of self-defence and I would stand by you in court and give testimony if that was in any way useful.

Tony Martin was not attacked, he was not threatened, nobody did anything to him short of breaking a window or knocking a door in, or whatever way entrance was effected.

He was defending his hurt pride and his TV and maybe some silver or some pictures, or whatever else he had in the house, and I have no idea what those things were, but farmers are supposedly suffering from poverty just now (I am sure many many of them are) so I doubt if he had a wealth of riches in the farmhouse.

Now I cannot accept that it is okay to kill someone who breaks into your house to nick your TV or your microwave.

I will not accept it

I have heard hundreds, literally hundreds, of otherwise sensible people say that because an Englishman's home is his castle, it is okay to shoot dead anyone that comes inside with nefarious purpose.

How strange is that? Would you want to shoot dead (or maybe "take them from this place and hang them by the neck until they are dead") someone who pinched your car, or stole your tools from your shed?

Surely you wouldnt

A lot of people are saying that they think it is okay if you are yourself in fear of your life. Now I agree that if you really ARE in fear of your life, for legitimate reason, it is okay to fight back however you can.

But Tony Martin was not in fear of his life

His two burglars, one now dead and the other seriously wounded, were not armed and were in fact merely opportunist burglars looking for a few quid, presumably to feed a habit. I must confess to not knowing all of the detail, but I dont know many 16 year old lads that are professional and organised criminals as opposed to opportunists.

I have it on good authority from a burglar (now deceased so dont let's worry about him personally too much) that he was always petrified when commiting burglaries that he might be discovered. He went to some lengths to secure an escape route before going about his pilfering. He was frightened and his heart was beating hard, hoping that nobody would hear him, nobody would challenge him, and that he could be in and out as quick as possible with some stuff that he could carry away and flog in the pub the following night.

He was not any threat to anyone's life, quite the reverse.

Oh, I am going on here arent I, what fun!

Which brings me briefly on to a side-issue, let him who is without blame case the first stone as someone once said.
If you buy knock-off gear from a man in a pub, then you are as much a burglar as they are, and presumably also deserve shooting dead by an over-enthusiastic, trigger-happy, rage-filled farmer.

Tony Martin should not have had a gun, he was not allowed to have that gun, it was against the law for him to have that gun. If he had not had that gun and had run downstairs shouting "OY!" he could have protected his house and home and precious electrical goods just as well, because they would have had it away over those fields as fast as their 16-year old legs could carry them.

But instead he murdered one and wounded the other, for having the temerity to be in his house

And that is a serious criminal offence, much worse than burglary.

This debate should NOT be about burglars having rights, that is just semantics, and silly, it is about a matched response, an appropriate measure to tackle a crime.

Why didnt he hold them up with his gun, and then with the other hand call the police, so that they could arrive and arrest the two cowering young burglars? Because he thought he was above the law

And that is why he cannot have parole, because no-one is above the law

Here endeth the long and probably boring post from a woman who has been burgled and has lived to tell the tale, and STILL doesnt think her burglars deserved to be shot in cold blood

Ooooh I enjoyed that, hope someone reads it

*S*

Thanks for your comments for my thread and i can see sense in all your motives wether to use force or not .
Though i did,nt want to go to heavily into the Tony Martin case i have not seen many comments about the proposed new laws to protect burglars.
My view is they should not be entitled to protection ( apart from killing them ) as they should not be in your property in the first place.
Final word on the martin case though, if the two criminals had not been there in the first place it would not have happened and both would still be alive today instead of one.
I rest my case.

Good post Louise, I agree entirely.

I would definatly shoot someone if they were in my house.

Those scummers should not have been in Tony Martin's home, they deserve everything they got, it's only a shame the other one managed to get away.

They both had criminal records as long as my arm, the one who escaped has since been in prison for heroin dealing! They were nothing but a blight on society.

Tony Martin is not a cold blooded killer, he didn't have a criminal record, he'd never hurt anyone before and would never have if those two hadn't broken into his home.

Louise I'm suprised you feel that Tony Martin wasn't threatened. Of course he was threatened, his safety was threatened by having two young men break into his home.

I often wonder, had Tony Martin been female, would the outcome of the court case be the same? I am a female who lives alone and god forbid anyone would break into my home but if they did and I had a weapon I would certainly use it. I wouldn't think twice.

As far as I'm concerned, once you decide that you are going to break into someone elses home and take things that don't belong to you, you give up any human right you may have had.

As for Louise's point about Tony Martin shooting in rage not fear, it is human nature to feel rage that some scummy little tw@t thinks he can come along and take things that you have worked hard for while they live a life of dole scrounging. I don't blame the man for being angry!!!

Also the reason the parole board wont free him has nothing to do with him not showing remorse, why the hell should he?, it is all to do with politics.

He deserves a real welcome home party when he's freed and I'm sure he will have one. Many people are on his side.

Hmmmmmmmm, But Steelblade the government are going to bring in laws to protect these scum bags. Whats your opinion on that.
Pleaseeee no more about Mr martin. :) :)

I don't really know a great deal about these new laws but just the idea of burglars being "protected" makes me feel ill.

I have no sympathy for them whatsoever, they are lower than low and if they come to harm whilst on the rob then good, it serves them right. I believe everyone should have the right to protect their home. It is the only thing you have in this life which is yours and which should be a safe haven.

The way I see it is if you're not robbing someone's house then you wont get hurt, if you are then you should expect to come to harm and rightly so.

Originally posted by "steelblade"

I would definatly shoot someone if they were in my house.

Those scummers should not have been in Tony Martin's home, they deserve everything they got, it's only a shame the other one managed to get away.

They both had criminal records as long as my arm, the one who escaped has since been in prison for heroin dealing! They were nothing but a blight on society.

Tony Martin is not a cold blooded killer, he didn't have a criminal record, he'd never hurt anyone before and would never have if those two hadn't broken into his home.

Louise I'm suprised you feel that Tony Martin wasn't threatened. Of course he was threatened, his safety was threatened by having two young men break into his home.

I often wonder, had Tony Martin been female, would the outcome of the court case be the same? I am a female who lives alone and god forbid anyone would break into my home but if they did and I had a weapon I would certainly use it. I wouldn't think twice.

As far as I'm concerned, once you decide that you are going to break into someone elses home and take things that don't belong to you, you give up any human right you may have had.

As for Louise's point about Tony Martin shooting in rage not fear, it is human nature to feel rage that some scummy little tw@t thinks he can come along and take things that you have worked hard for while they live a life of dole scrounging. I don't blame the man for being angry!!!

Also the reason the parole board wont free him has nothing to do with him not showing remorse, why the hell should he?, it is all to do with politics.

He deserves a real welcome home party when he's freed and I'm sure he will have one. Many people are on his side.
I feel that the law is WAY TOO SOFT on burglers, but I'd rather try and get to the route of the problem and find out why they are doing it.
Is it just for money? Money for what? To live, to pay for drugs, to support a family?

If it was my house they broke into, being the person I am, they would be getting fed froma drip or leave the house with broken legs... just because, if I'm in there and/or my fiancee is in there then that is just plain disrespect and they dont care who they are trying to hurt.

If they planned and waited till we were not there, then thats different.
Do I agree with Tony Martin? My honest answer is... I don't know. If I were him I may have done the same, i may not have. Without being in that situation, who knows.

By the way LouiseB.... nefarious = evil..... just say evil... it's less letters to type! :lol:

Originally posted by "steelblade"

I would definatly shoot someone if they were in my house.

Those scummers should not have been in Tony Martin's home, they deserve everything they got, it's only a shame the other one managed to get away.
Nobody, nobody has the right to murder another human being no matter what they've done.

Have you ever thought in depth about the expression "May he who is without sin cast the first stone"? I suggest you do.

Spouting religious rubbish to me is a waste of time, I don't believe in any of it.

You don't have to be religious to think about what something means.

For example read into that expression and you find that you are not without fault yourself so who are you to condemn other people?

I agree with Steelblade! Only last year we had our house broken into. They opened a conservatory window which opens at the top outwards (quite a fire hazard actually) about 6 inches. They turned a key what was in the conservatory door, came in and pinched our car keys and the car. Nothing else, just the car.

I'm sorry but I agree that if I (or my parents) had had a weapon, they would have used it!! Course people are going to feel threatened when someone's on their property. People work hard for the things they have in their home, yet people (who more than likely don't work!) have the audacity to come in and take it!!

The lady who posted the long post quite annoyed me in the way that she completely took the burglars side and didn't seem too bothered that someone had just ransacked her home!

On another note, we recently got a letter saying that they'd found someone guilty of the burglary at our home. He got a few years for that and other offences. Is it true that offenders are given a list, and they pick from that list what they've done?
Chloé

"2 wrongs don't make a right" is another cliche to consider.

Originally posted by "Sidla"


Nobody, nobody has the right to murder another human being no matter what they've done.

I believe in 'An eye for an eye'

So, Steelblade and Chloe are another two who feel that it's ok to kill somebody because they're burgling your house.

How depressing.

So Mike is another one who thinks it's ok for workshy scum to come into your home and take your hard earned belongings.

How depressing.

The guy who killed the teenage burgler had a history of mental illness and an illegal shotgun. Those factors alone raise enough questions.

No right to defend property in this way EXISTS in English law. No use bleating about it, he was guilty of manslaughter, as recognised by our legal system. That might not seem fair or equitable in your eyes, but he WAS guilty of a crime.

My own personal opinion? Anyone using a shotgun to kill an intruder in his own home is damaged goods. His most recent appeal failed because the court felt there was a high risk of reoffending. That pretty much says it all.

I like to think there is a happy medium somewhere between giving burglars a free hand and killing them

I dont believe in leaving my front door open with a note on the table saying "Take whatever you like love"

I personally would like to see more cases of burglars being made to meet their victims and see what harm they have done. And I do believe in custodial sentences for repeat offenders

I dont think Mike and my's line is drawn where Steelblade thinks it is drawn, but it is drawn rather a long way to the left of "instant and painful death to all who step over my threshold"

Originally posted by "steelblade"

So Mike is another one who thinks it's ok for workshy scum to come into your home and take your hard earned belongings.

How depressing.

Have you actually read this topic?

When did I say I thought that?

Oh yes, that's right, I didn't.

Originally posted by "LouiseB"

I dont think Mike and my's line is drawn where Steelblade thinks it is drawn, but it is drawn rather a long way to the left of "instant and painful death to all who step over my threshold"

Exactly.

>I personally would like to see more cases of burglars being made to meet their victims and see what harm they have done<

Do you in all honestly think they would give a damn? If you do then I'm sorry but you are extremely deluded.

The fact is that some people really do not care about anyone else, they don't care if they take things which mean a great deal to you, they don't care if you are upset or frightened etc..The only thing they care about is selling the stuff they have nicked and making a quick buck, usually to buy drugs with.

I certainly would not like to meet anyone who broke into my house or knicked my car apart from in the Courts where the scrounging scumbags belong.

Originally posted by "steelblade"

Do you in all honestly think they would give a damn? If you do then I'm sorry but you are extremely deluded.
Actually, there is much evidence that this is very effective.

http://homepage.tinet.ie/~calypso/prison/rest2.html

http://www.restorativejustice.org/

Originally posted by "steelblade"

>I personally would like to see more cases of burglars being made to meet their victims and see what harm they have done<

Do you in all honestly think they would give a damn? If you do then I'm sorry but you are extremely deluded.

The fact is that some people really do not care about anyone else, they don't care if they take things which mean a great deal to you, they don't care if you are upset or frightened etc..The only thing they care about is selling the stuff they have nicked and making a quick buck, usually to buy drugs with.

Strangely enough, mediation between victim and offender is quite a successful scheme. Sheffield has a Mediation Service that is becoming widely used as part of sentencing.

I ask for whomes benefit are these victims/offender meetings set up for.
To hope that the offender can see an error of his ways or to help council the poor victim.
I say its for the benefit of the offender rather than the victim, who just so happens to be there as calming bait.

The links I gave above give a huge amount of information, but this page will perhaps explain it in a nutshell.

http://www.restorativejustice.org/rj3/Introduction-Definition/Tutorial/Victim_offender_mediation.htm

And this (PDF) details some UK studies:

http://ssw.che.umn.edu/rjp/Resources/Documents/UmbRob96.PDF


What exactly is "calming bait"?

Ah, no fair, you're cluttering up this thread with facts. How can we over-react and call for public floggings when you do that?

Originally posted by "steelblade"

So Mike is another one who thinks it's ok for workshy scum to come into your home and take your hard earned belongings.

How depressing.
That is the most idiotic comment I've ever heard. No-one is saying it's ok to go around commiting burglary, they're saying it's wrong to murder people. That is something you can never justify. And if you believe you can justify it please go ahead.

Originally posted by "DaBouncer"


Nobody, nobody has the right to murder another human being no matter what they've done.

I believe in 'An eye for an eye'
The two beliefs are not inconsistent. An Eye for an Eye, etc is Old Testament retaliatory strike. Someone has to have your eye out befroe you an have his.

I someone murders you, you can't murder them back

Originally posted by "Phanerothyme"


Nobody, nobody has the right to murder another human being no matter what they've done.

I believe in 'An eye for an eye'
The two beliefs are not inconsistent. An Eye for an Eye, etc is Old Testament retaliatory strike. Someone has to have your eye out befroe you an have his.

I someone murders you, you can't murder them back
Someone Murders I member of my family, I murder them! :twisted:

Would you track them down and murder them for knicking your TV, though?

Originally posted by "maxt"

Would you track them down and murder them for knicking your TV, though?
Erm.... NO.

I might track em down and nick it back and give em a slap for their troubles. :wink:

Originally posted by "Mike"

The links I gave above give a huge amount of information, but this page will perhaps explain it in a nutshell.

http://www.restorativejustice.org/rj3/Introduction-Definition/Tutorial/Victim_offender_mediation.htm

And this (PDF) details some UK studies
http://ssw.che.umn.edu/rjp/Resources/Documents/UmbRob96.PDF


What exactly is "calming bait"?Calming bait, what i mean by that is if a burglar is to meet his victim then the victim will ask the burglar why he did what he did and talk about all the pain he has caused in hope that the burglar will be ashamed and go all lawfull.
That may be usefull therapy for the crook rather than the victim who has been used to try and calm his ways.....Hense calming bait.

Whilst I think shooting an intruder to death to defend ones property is a bit extreme, I do think that a proprietor has the right to defend their belongings from a low life thief. If I had a shot gun handy and was being burgled, a shot in the leg would be enough to do the trick. The problem with todays society is that it is not tough enough on criminals so there is little deterrant. First time burglars don't go to jail, so what have they got to lose in trying their luck a few times until they get caught? They'll probably get a lot of valuables out of it, and they have no dignity or self respect to lose from doing it, so until they get caught they know nothing can come of it. When they get caught for the first time, a few hours community service is hardly suitable punishment for their crimes. I think burglars should be forced to work until they earn enough to pay back the people they have stolen from, whether they're caught for the first time or not. In all cases, a few months in jail wouldn't go amiss either. Labour - tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime....hmm, i.e. attempting to manipulate crime figures by near legalising petty theft and cannabis use.

Hmm, to practise your method of home defence, it would be necessary to have both good knowledge of anatomy and ballistics.

Guns are for killing. If you want to disable someone, I would suggest hitting their knee with a heavy instrument.

If you use a gun to kill someone outside of a miltary context, you should be required to account for your actions and be judged by your peers.

By all means keep a loaded shotgun ready at all times, but don't complain when
a) your 3 year old blows his head off by accident.
b)you kill a burglar and end up in prison - where you will have to work off the dead burglars loss of earnings in a labour camp.
c)it falls over and discharges both barrels into the ceiling as you make love to your wife.

Phanerothyme, I don't keep a shotgun in my house thanks. I'm saying if i was Tony Martin and I did want to stop the burglar and had a gun nearby, then I would shoot him in his leg, not shoot him dead. No one should keep guns for any reason though.

Haha i can just imagine going up to a burglar and telling him to stand still while i tap his knee with a heavy object....like a dictionary. They all want shooting in the legs though, theyre leaches of society. Its not just cos everyones so bothered about material goods, its just the principal that they think theyve got the right to do what they want and take what they want when everyone else has to work hard for it. Theyre bloody annoying.

Originally posted by "t020"

Phanerothyme, I don't keep a shotgun in my house thanks. I'm saying if i was Tony Martin and I did want to stop the burglar and had a gun nearby, then I would shoot him in his leg, not shoot him dead. No one should keep guns for any reason though.

I guess all I am saying is that simply shooting someone in the leg, especially with a shotgun could very easily kill them. My extremely limited knowledge of anatomy tells me that a bullet, or a hail of small bullets could open up the femoral artery and the victim would bleed to death in minutes.

I just don't think that use of a gun is either required or advisable when dealing with a burglar.

Originally posted by "kittykat"


Haha i can just imagine going up to a burglar and telling him to stand still while i tap his knee with a heavy object....like a dictionary.
Please note I said instrument as in instrument for hitting things with, although I can't deny that knocking someone out with a bass guitar would qualify.

In your scenario the burglar has to stand still so you can hit him with your weapon of choice (although I would recommend a baseball bat over a dictionary any day - unless you were planning to drop the full umpteen volume OED on him).

With a shotgun, you'd want him to stand still as a statue so you could carefully draw a bead on his lower leg. If he's moving about you could easily blow his head off.

They all want shooting in the legs though, theyre leaches of society. Its not just cos everyones so bothered about material goods, its just the principal that they think theyve got the right to do what they want and take what they want when everyone else has to work hard for it. Theyre bloody annoying

Vitriol is fine, it is bloody annoying to be burgled. Some people take it badly, burglars are criminals and deserve to be punished.

The trouble with shooting them in the legs is that you then turn them into legitimate leeches as they will be unable to burgle, certainly, but will also be unlikely to get a job, let alone a full time position that will pay them a living wage. Result - disability benefit, income support, social drag as others give up time for them to assist...you get the idea.

Burglars are interested in property that can be converted into cash and car keys. Having spoken to one smack addict and burglar (he was reformed at the time we spoke) getting away without being noticed was the priority because going to a police cell and then spending days or longer on remand there means no fix.

If you disturbed him he would scarper asap, and simply try another house nearby. That's why you call the police immediately.

I think all this talk of shooting people for trespass and theft is a bit much and I hope it's more a case of anger surfacing than a rationally held belief.

Of course you could defend yourself with a shotgun and accidentally kill the burglar and be acquitted of any unlawful conduct. There is nothing in the law that forbids that at all. But you should not be surprised if you are accused of murder, manslaughter or unlawful killing and that you have to defend yourself in court.

What Tony Martin should have done is:
a) owned a licenced shotgun and stored it properly.
b) only used cartidges filled with rock salt
c) fired warning shots
d) shot barras in the front, not in the back
e) not held previous convictions for firearms offences leading to the withdrawal of his shotgun licence.
f)not filled his house with booby traps

and if he wanted to get out early he should not have said that he would vow to do the same thing again given the same circumstances; which is beyond 'not showing remorse' and out into 'gleeful admission he would readily repeat the crime'.

Ok ok.. perhaps shooting them isnt really the answer and hitting them with my oxford dictionary definitely isnt. Inflicting pain on them wont get your stuff back, itll just result in the same desperate criminal, only theyll be sat in hospital for a few weeks. Perhaps some kind of humane trap... like a mouse trap but on a bigger scale. They could fall in and set some kind of alarm off and then we could call the police and keep them there til they come. Of course, if we were all rational the best thing to do would be to look at WHY they burgle and come up with rehabilitation for them to stop them doing it - only thing is, we're all too bloody angry with them to waste time and money coming up with something large scale enough to make a difference.

Originally posted by "kittykat"

Ok ok.. perhaps shooting them isnt really the answer and hitting them with my oxford dictionary definitely isnt. Inflicting pain on them wont get your stuff back, itll just result in the same desperate criminal, only theyll be sat in hospital for a few weeks. Perhaps some kind of humane trap... like a mouse trap but on a bigger scale. They could fall in and set some kind of alarm off and then we could call the police and keep them there til they come. Of course, if we were all rational the best thing to do would be to look at WHY they burgle and come up with rehabilitation for them to stop them doing it - only thing is, we're all too bloody angry with them to waste time and money coming up with something large scale enough to make a difference.

Its because they're badly brought up losers that think they shouldn't have to work and have the right to anyone elses property. The most effective way of stopping them is putting them behind bars, and this is also a very good deterrent. The only problem is that these days going to prison is often only after 2 - 3 offences and when the criminal is there they know full well that they can be out in half of the already short sentence they received. Also, they will be able to enjoy nice games of pool and table tennis with like minded people. :roll: When they come out again they'll soon re-offend knowing prison isn't that bad afterall. The answer? Stricter sentences and harsher prison conditions. Keep them away from society for long enough and then when they get out they will never want to go back. They should then be helped/forced to find employment and pay back any debts they owe, and after that they should be OK to get on with their life again.

Originally posted by "t020"

Its because they're badly brought up losers that think they shouldn't have to work and have the right to anyone elses property.
Ah, t020 off on another fascist rant :wink:
How many burglars do you know? Do you know how they were brought up? A huge proportion of burglaries are committed by heroin addicts, who come from a wide range of backgrounds and upbringings.

Originally posted by "t020"

The most effective way of stopping them is putting them behind bars, and this is also a very good deterrent
So, why, with our prisons bursting at the seams hasn't burglary been stamped out? Look at the re-offending rates by ex prisoners. Yeah, prison works doesn't it?

Originally posted by "t020"

Keep them away from society for long enough and then when they get out they will never want to go back.
Again, have a look at re-offending rates.

ahh yet another soft lefty tree hugging rant by mike. :wink:
the re-offending rates are high because at the moment we're too soft on burglars. they're out in a month or 2 with "good behaviour". but no, we should instead reward our burglars shouldn't we? lets send them all on exotic holidays and give them a month or 2 in a well equipped youth club, sorry, i mean, 'prison'.

How about answering my questions? How many burglars do you/have you known and do you really know how they were brought up?

Rubbish - check the re-offending rates for those leaving long-term sentences. 60% of *all* prisoners re-offend.

yeah and about 80% of all prisoners have cushy terms too. you have ur view, i have mine, and its clear we have views from complete opposite ends of the social and political spectrums.

what do you mean by "cushy terms" - do you really think prison is a laugh?

well you don't need to tell me we have different views, but isn't that why we're here, on a *discussion* forum.

Originally posted by "t020"

Ok ok.. perhaps shooting them isnt really the answer and hitting them with my oxford dictionary definitely isnt. Inflicting pain on them wont get your stuff back, itll just result in the same desperate criminal, only theyll be sat in hospital for a few weeks. Perhaps some kind of humane trap... like a mouse trap but on a bigger scale. They could fall in and set some kind of alarm off and then we could call the police and keep them there til they come. Of course, if we were all rational the best thing to do would be to look at WHY they burgle and come up with rehabilitation for them to stop them doing it - only thing is, we're all too bloody angry with them to waste time and money coming up with something large scale enough to make a difference.

Its because they're badly brought up losers that think they shouldn't have to work and have the right to anyone elses property. The most effective way of stopping them is putting them behind bars, and this is also a very good deterrent. The only problem is that these days going to prison is often only after 2 - 3 offences and when the criminal is there they know full well that they can be out in half of the already short sentence they received. Also, they will be able to enjoy nice games of pool and table tennis with like minded people. :roll: When they come out again they'll soon re-offend knowing prison isn't that bad afterall. The answer? Stricter sentences and harsher prison conditions. Keep them away from society for long enough and then when they get out they will never want to go back. They should then be helped/forced to find employment and pay back any debts they owe, and after that they should be OK to get on with their life again.

Well I think that prison is an antiquated, unwieldy and ultimately ineffective way of dealing with criminals.

If the objective of prison is to restrict movement, this can be done much more effectively and more cheaply using existing technology.

If the objective of prison is to punish through degrading and humiliating treatment, then this too can be achieved much more cheaply and visibly.

If the objective of prison is to rehabilitate criminals into productive members of society, then this can also be achieved at less cost and more effectively elsewhere.

I think electronic tagging, combined with tazer (cattle prod) electronics could prove a very effective method of ensuring that 'gated' criminals could not venture farther then the end of their garden without being sent into convulsions by their tag. The radius of free movement could be gradually expanded for compliance, and reduced for infractions. The tag would indicate their location at all times.

To humiliate and degrade people, it should be done in front of their peers, and to me, there isn't anything much more humiliating than being put in the stocks for a couple of hours, whilst scally kids pelt you with eggs.

To rehabilitate people it seems key to really understand why criminals commit crimes. And the motives for each crime are different so it's a very labour intensive operation whith lots of 1 to 1 time between criminals and professionals.

In addition to all of this there should be a well organised and well funded programme of victim support that can assist victims of crime, from Vandalism to Murder, in coping with their ordeal and how to avoid/prevent occurences. Also trained emotional support should be made easily available.

This would all cost money. The question is would it cost more money than the current system, which I expect we agree is less than satisfactory.

As for Burglary...You could cut 30-40% of burglaries at a stroke by legalising heroin and freebase (crack) cocaïne. There would be knock on effects certainly, but you could be confident that burglaries in many regions over the UK would drop suddenly when addicts could get a free or cheap state fix with no adulterants or dirty needles. You would also cut the income of regional organised crime by up to £10,000 per year per addicts on state supplied drugs.(£10k is an average estimate of what one heroin addict will have to steal/con/earn per year to support a habit)

Yeah but sometimes I just CAN NOT be arsed, since both our views are so strong a debate is just unproductive and wastes precious time.

Originally posted by "Phanerothyme"

As for Burglary...You could cut 30-40% of burglaries at a stroke by legalising heroin and freebase (crack) cocaïne. ....

The voice of reason - this is the only thing that is going to work, but it's never going to be a vote winner so I guess it'll never happen. When you get very senior members of the police force also saying this, perhaps it's time that somebody took the plunge and acted upon i.

Originally posted by "Mike"

As for Burglary...You could cut 30-40% of burglaries at a stroke by legalising heroin and freebase (crack) cocaïne. ....

The voice of reason - this is the only thing that is going to work, but it's never going to be a vote winner so I guess it'll never happen. When you get very senior members of the police force also saying this, perhaps it's time that somebody took the plunge and acted upon i.

yeah what a GREAT idea! While we're at it, lets legalise burglaries too. Why stop there? Legalise violence, murder, everything! Then our crime stats would look very rosey indeed, and our prisons would be empty! Great thinking. The police will be able to spend yet even more of there time on those REAL criminals, you know the ones, the ones doing 45mph in a 40mph zone. They're the scum of the earth. Drug users though? They're great!

Ok, let's put it in simple terms:

If heroin is legalised, then addicts no longer need to steal/beg/etc to fund their addiction. Since they now have a reliable supply of the drug they need, they can carry on with living a normal life.

Or, we could have it the other way. Heroin remains illegal so that an addict's whole life becomes dominated by finding their next supply of the drug. They are forced to feed the black market with cash which is often raised from the selling of stolen goods.

Which is preferable?

t020
I wasnt going to say this, but now I have decided I will
If you think debate is a waste of precious time and if you accept that you will never agree with lots of your fellow contributors, then I am fairly confident that lots of people will not mind if you find other ways to occupy yourself.

Perhaps you could ask Simon Heffer, Michael Howard, Ann Widdecombe and the delightful Nick Griffin if they have any vacancies for speech writers or journalists etc.

There are lots of other things you could be doing on this lovely summer day, right? so do please feel totally free to engage in them.

Originally posted by "LouiseB"

t020
I wasnt going to say this, but now I have decided I will
If you think debate is a waste of precious time and if you accept that you will never agree with lots of your fellow contributors, then I am fairly confident that lots of people will not mind if you find other ways to occupy yourself.

Perhaps you could ask Simon Heffer, Michael Howard, Ann Widdecombe and the delightful Nick Griffin if they have any vacancies for speech writers or journalists etc.

There are lots of other things you could be doing on this lovely summer day, right? so do please feel totally free to engage in them.
I think I'll keep mi nose outta this one! :headbang:

Originally posted by "Mike"

Ok, let's put it in simple terms:

If heroin is legalised, then addicts no longer need to steal/beg/etc to fund their addiction. Since they now have a reliable supply of the drug they need, they can carry on with living a normal life.

Or, we could have it the other way. Heroin remains illegal so that an addict's whole life becomes dominated by finding their next supply of the drug. They are forced to feed the black market with cash which is often raised from the selling of stolen goods.

Which is preferable?

I might have missed the point here, but how is legalising heroin going to cut crime :?: The dregs of society who rob other people of their hard earned cash or rob old ladies of their pensions to fund their addiction will still have to find the money from somewhere to buy it OR (and I hope that I'm wrong) you are not suggesting that we tax payers provide it for all the druggies are you :?:

I see enough when I take my children to the GP's and we have to sit next to the twitching, dirty addicts whe are waiting for their methadone prescription.

Come to think of it gov't funded heroin might not be such a bad idea after all. Give em all they want for free and perhaps they'll OD. This debate makes me so angry. They choose for whatever reason to take the filth then they expect the struggling NHS to bail them out. Namby pamby policies have got us where we are today. :evil: :evil:

you don't really understand do you t020?

All the bad effects that stem from heroin addiction are largely caused by the fact that it is illegal.

If heroin was not illegal, then the negative effects of its use would be greatly diminished.

If murder was not illegal, the negative effects of murder would not be diminished.

Do you see the difference? You murder someone else, but you inject heroin into yourself.

Burglary is illegal because it is trespassing and theft from another person. Likewise, killing, endangering life through reckless driving, assault and battery, rape are all crimes against a person.

Burgling yourself, or raping yourself are not crimes.

An illegal habit forming drug is a cash cow to anyone who is willing to take the risk of selling it to addicts or dealers to sell to addicts.

I think crimes that impact negatively upon others should be punished. People should be held accountable for their actions.

Heroin impacts negatively on society in many ways:

-property theft to pay for habit
-gun crime between rival distribution organizations
-swells the coffers of organised crime and provides funding for new ventures (eastern european child prostitutes, gun running
-people's children die from injecting heroin too pure or too dirty
-addicts spread disease through infected works

Give addicts a state fix and:
-burglary drops by 30%
-organised crime loses £10k per year per addict registered
-aids and hep b & c transmission rates are reduced
-fewer deaths of addicts due to reliable strength pure heroin
-we know where all the heroin addicts are and we can keep an eye on them.

I'm saying, legalize heroin because nearly all the crap that results from heroin abuse is down to it being illegal.

The thing is we despise heroin addicts for what they do: lie steal and cheat to get money to feed their habit. To stop them lying, stealing and cheating to get money to buy smack, give them the smack and let everyone else keep their DVD players.

With proper supprt and encouragement, addicts can be taught to manage their addiction, and can easily hold down stable and responsible jobs.

It's been done, very successfully once already in a long forgotten pilot project in Runcorn/Liverpool area. Hardcore smack addicts were given heroin injected into cigarettes, which provide a very quick ingestion of the drug (almost as quick as intravenous). They were then helped into either voluntary work or basic jobs. The local burglary rate dropped through the floor (in some areas up to 80% of burglary is heroin/crack related), the addicts got a sense of self worth, and thus needed fewer painkillers (heroin), and Margaret Thatcher, bless her wisdom and clarity of thought, closed it down personally after a 'Addicts Treated to Free Drugs in Junkie Paradise' type headline in the Mail or somesuch.

As much as it pains me, I have to agree that heroin should be legalised AND provided on the NHS.

The cost to the tax payer will be FAR LESS than paying as we are now, to imprison these addicts for stealing etc..

Heroin is actually extremely cheap to produce, the only reason it is so costly now is because it's on the black market.

i would much prefer addicts to be able to go and get free, clean and controlled heroin, rather than have them robbing me and the rest of us, to pay for their addiction.

Originally posted by "Mo"

Ok, let's put it in simple terms:

If heroin is legalised, then addicts no longer need to steal/beg/etc to fund their addiction. Since they now have a reliable supply of the drug they need, they can carry on with living a normal life.

Or, we could have it the other way. Heroin remains illegal so that an addict's whole life becomes dominated by finding their next supply of the drug. They are forced to feed the black market with cash which is often raised from the selling of stolen goods.

Which is preferable?

I might have missed the point here, but how is legalising heroin going to cut crime :?: The dregs of society who rob other people of their hard earned cash or rob old ladies of their pensions to fund their addiction will still have to find the money from somewhere to buy it OR (and I hope that I'm wrong) you are not suggesting that we tax payers provide it for all the druggies are you :?:

I see enough when I take my children to the GP's and we have to sit next to the twitching, dirty addicts whe are waiting for their methadone prescription.

Come to think of it gov't funded heroin might not be such a bad idea after all. Give em all they want for free and perhaps they'll OD. This debate makes me so angry. They choose for whatever reason to take the filth then they expect the struggling NHS to bail them out. Namby pamby policies have got us where we are today. :evil: :evil:


At last! the voice of reason. If it wasn't for 30 - 40 years of liberal lefty policies towards criminals there'd be a lot less crime about. We are soft on criminals, sentencing them for short periods of which they actually stay for half. I agree with you about the legalisation Mo. How would heroin being legalised help the addicts? They would still have to buy it, and wouldn't be able to hold down jobs in their state of addiction. Where would the money come from? The taxpayer?! No thanks! This country is turning into a joke.

Originally posted by "Mo"

Ok, let's put it in simple terms:

If heroin is legalised, then addicts no longer need to steal/beg/etc to fund their addiction. Since they now have a reliable supply of the drug they need, they can carry on with living a normal life.

Or, we could have it the other way. Heroin remains illegal so that an addict's whole life becomes dominated by finding their next supply of the drug. They are forced to feed the black market with cash which is often raised from the selling of stolen goods.

Which is preferable?

I might have missed the point here, but how is legalising heroin going to cut crime :?: The dregs of society who rob other people of their hard earned cash or rob old ladies of their pensions to fund their addiction will still have to find the money from somewhere to buy it OR (and I hope that I'm wrong) you are not suggesting that we tax payers provide it for all the druggies are you :?:

I see enough when I take my children to the GP's and we have to sit next to the twitching, dirty addicts whe are waiting for their methadone prescription.

Another great National Dug Policy at work. They shouldn't be in GPs waiting for prescriptions, they should be at their center collecting their free heroin. Heroin is not expensive, only black market heroin is expensive (about £10k a year it seems). As a taxpayer you can take your choice - pay tax for heroin for addicts and a treatment programme, or pay tax for increased policing, increased prison population (£40-50k per year per prisoner at least), as well as rising insurance premiums, increased risk of burglary, robbery.


They precsribed methadone as a heroin substitute in some ill conceived notion that you can wean heroin addicts off with a stronger drug that is much less pleasant to take.

Heroin was originally touted as a cure for morphine addiction, which in trun was used to treat opium addiction...

do you detect a pattern?

Come to think of it gov't funded heroin might not be such a bad idea after all. Give em all they want for free and perhaps they'll OD.

Very few people OD deliberately, this comes as a result of using a drug that is a great deal more pure than the user is accustomed to.
[qoute]
This debate makes me so angry. They choose for whatever reason to take the filth [/quote]
Its not filth, it's just a drug. It's a very useful drug indeed. Heroin in and of itself doesn't make you do anything more than sit and drift of into a space where everything is really good, and just right and couldn't be improved. When it wears off reality will seem a bit nasty and unpleasant by comparison. Of course the more squalid and deprived you are, the more heroin will appeal. It's no coincidence that heroin use and average family income are almost inevrsely proportional

then they expect the struggling NHS to bail them out. Namby pamby policies have got us where we are today. :evil: :evil:

Namby Pamby Policies. Which Namby Pamby Policies would they be then?

[edited quote tags]

Originally posted by "t020"


At last! the voice of reason. If it wasn't for 30 - 40 years of liberal lefty policies towards criminals there'd be a lot less crime about. We are soft on criminals, sentencing them for short periods of which they actually stay for half. I agree with you about the legalisation Mo. How would heroin being legalised help the addicts? They would still have to buy it, and wouldn't be able to hold down jobs in their state of addiction. Where would the money come from? The taxpayer?! No thanks! This country is turning into a joke.
I hate to sound rude, but did you understand anything of what people have writen on this topic regarding how heroin and crime are related.

If you do understand, then I think you could make a far more valuable contribution to what i think kis a very interesting debate if you actually engage with other people's arguments and try to put a case together for an alternative.

We're not going to change the world, but i am trying to get insight into the 'other side' and frankly it's all pretty much an opaque screen consisting of Namby Pamby Policies, Loony Left, The Dregs of Society and Right Thinking People.

Why won't burglary rates drop if heroin/crack is legalised and supplied at production cost (i.e no profit or loss for the govt)?

Why won't organised crime suffer a cut in income?

Why won't robbery and gun crime figures be positively affected?

Put your case (if you can "be arsed").

but equally, why should the scum of society be rewarded with free heroine? how is that ever going to put people off taking it/ getting off it? they choose to become scum, they should not be rewarded for it.

I can see where you're going Phanerothyme but while it may be interesting to most of us, and I must admit I agree with most of what you are saying, there are those to whom no amount of balanced argument will make the blind bit of difference. I can almost hear the shutters coming down when I read some of the posts on this thread.

I read a report from a high ranking prison officer, he may even have been a governor, who was in favour of decriminalising drugs. One of the planks of his argument being that the cost of every person held in prison for 1 year could pay pay for 4 policemen or 4 teachers or 4 nurses.

Senior police officers are advocating decriminalisation as are judges and even tory politicians, are they all wrong?

PS Louise, wondered how long you could hold out, how's the kitchen?

I have to go out now but I will come backto you Phanerathyme. A personal question here but are you a user yourself? Feel free not to answer if you prefer but with a name like yours and the almost promotional way you talk about drugs makes me wonder if you have avested interest. :wink:

but equally, why should the scum of society be rewarded with free heroine? how is that ever going to put people off taking it/ getting off it? they choose to become scum, they should not be rewarded for it.
Look may of us wouldn't mind a free heroine,

wonderwoman springs to mind,

I'm just trying to further a debate, and you simply reply with a Daily Mail Leader. I guess you can't be arsed after all.

Pity, cos hoped that your strongly held beliefs would have a basis in reason and fact rather than regurgitated polemic.

[edit - added t020's quote at the top for clarity]

with typo's like that you're probably high at the moment, right? :lol:

Originally posted by "t020"

but equally, why should the scum of society be rewarded with free heroine? how is that ever going to put people off taking it/ getting off it? they choose to become scum, they should not be rewarded for it.

Do you actually read what anyone else posts on here ? You seem to find it really hard to put forward a coherent argument, but just come out with strings of cliches.

Why is a drug user scum?

Originally posted by "Phanerothyme"

Look may of us wouldn't mind a free heroine,

wonderwoman springs to mind,

I'm just trying to further a debate, and you simply reply with a Daily Mail Leader. I guess you can't be arsed after all.

Pity, cos hoped that your strongly held beliefs would have a basis in reason and fact rather than regurgitated polemic.
Any chance using words 'bouncers' can understand? :D

Originally posted by "Mike"

but equally, why should the scum of society be rewarded with free heroine? how is that ever going to put people off taking it/ getting off it? they choose to become scum, they should not be rewarded for it.

Do you actually read what anyone else posts on here ? You seem to find it really hard to put forward a coherent argument, but just come out with strings of cliches.

Why is a drug user scum?

Because for a start they are law breakers, i.e. criminals. They often rob other people to fund their habits. They often leave needles lying around near childrens playing areas. They are often unemployed due to the state of their addiction. If it was legalised and they were provided free heroine, they'd then be leeches as well.

Originally posted by "t020"

Because for a start they are law breakers, i.e. criminals.
I don't think that automatically makes anybody "scum".

Originally posted by "t020"

They often rob other people to fund their habits.
Which would be solved by legalisation

Originally posted by "t020"

They often leave needles lying around near childrens playing areas.
Which would be solved by legalisation

Originally posted by "t020"

They are often unemployed due to the state of their addiction.
Which would be solved by legalisation

Originally posted by "t020"

If it was legalised and they were provided free heroine, they'd then be leeches as well.
Oh no, so despite the benefits to the rest of society, you just don't want to see anybody getting something for nothing - how do you feel about the tax-free earnings of dealers?

Originally posted by "Mike"

Because for a start they are law breakers, i.e. criminals.
I don't think that automatically makes anybody "scum".

Does in my book.

Originally posted by "Mike"

They often rob other people to fund their habits.
Which would be solved by legalisation

No it wouldn't, they'd be robbing people through state funding instead.

Originally posted by "Mike"

They often leave needles lying around near childrens playing areas.
Which would be solved by legalisation

No it wouldn't, they'd still litter their needles whether they were provided by dealers or the NHS.

Originally posted by "Mike"

They are often unemployed due to the state of their addiction.
Which would be solved by legalisation

No it wouldn't, they'd be too engrossed in their addiction to focus on any job, constantly seeking their next fix and being on a near constant high, in no fit state to work or hold down a job.

Originally posted by "t020"

Does in my book.
Yet you imply that doing 45mph in a 40 is ok?

Originally posted by "t020"

No it wouldn't, they'd be robbing people through state funding instead.
What, even taking into account the huge savings in healthcare that they will no doubt need otherwise? Heroin isn't expensive to manufacture.

Originally posted by "t020"

No it wouldn't, they'd still litter their needles whether they were provided by dealers or the NHS.
Or is it perhaps people who are homeless or who are desperate so need to do it on the spot. Of course, if you had your heroin at home, then I'm sure you'd go to kiddy play areas to do it, wouldn't you?

Originally posted by "t020"

No it wouldn't, they'd be too engrossed in their addiction to focus on any job, constantly seeking their next fix and being on a near constant high, in no fit state to work or hold down a job.
Absolute rubbish - heroin users can leave almost normal lives and hold down full time jobs if they are supplied correctly - do your research before talking in tabloid cliches.

Originally posted by "Mike"

No it wouldn't, they'd still litter their needles whether they were provided by dealers or the NHS.
Or is it perhaps people who are homeless or who are desperate so need to do it on the spot. Of course, if you had your heroin at home, then I'm sure you'd go to kiddy play areas to do it, wouldn't you?

Heroine users would take it socially. They'd still be the same type of people that hang around parks on Friday and Saturday nights. They'd not suddenly have consideration for others if their drugs were legal. They'd still litter needles quite freely.

Originally posted by "Mike"

No it wouldn't, they'd be too engrossed in their addiction to focus on any job, constantly seeking their next fix and being on a near constant high, in no fit state to work or hold down a job.
Absolute rubbish - heroin users can leave almost normal lives and hold down full time jobs if they are supplied correctly - do your research before talking in tabloid cliches.

Why bother taking it if it has no effect then? If someone is addicted to heroin, they'd need to keep injecting themselves, and they'd often be 'high'. What kind of job could they have? Driving and operating machinery is instantly ruled out. Any job that involved being able to think straight or being required to use co-ordination would also be ruled out.

Originally posted by "Mike"

Does in my book.
Yet you imply that doing 45mph in a 40 is ok?

The police should spend more time chasing druggies than people driving a few miles per hour over the limit.

Originally posted by "Mike"

No it wouldn't, they'd be robbing people through state funding instead.
What, even taking into account the huge savings in healthcare that they will no doubt need otherwise? Heroin isn't expensive to manufacture.

What savings would they be? Legalisation would probably result in greater uptake and thus more people suffering long term health effects, which of course would have to be treated by the NHS, funded by, guess who, the tax payer.

Originally posted by "t020"

They'd still be the same type of people that hang around parks on Friday and Saturday nights. They'd not suddenly have consideration for others if their drugs were legal. They'd still litter needles quite freely.
How on earth have you arrived at that sort of conclusion? Please, use some sort of logic or reason.

Originally posted by "t020"

Why bother taking it if it has no effect then? If someone is addicted to heroin, they'd need to keep injecting themselves, and they'd often be 'high'.
Do you drink alcohol? Does that mean that you are constantly drunk and that you couldn't hold down a job?

To be honest t020 I have to agree with Mike on this one.
Legalisation and correct control of Heroin is the only answer to this problem. Until then, dealers will still make a fortune off the stuff and people buying and using it will still need to rob to get the money.

With correct control an eventual cure could be found for those addicted.

Originally posted by "t020"

The police should spend more time chasing druggies than people driving a few miles per hour over the limit.
But according to you all lawbreakers are scum.

Originally posted by "t020"

What savings would they be? Legalisation would probably result in greater uptake and thus more people suffering long term health effects, which of course would have to be treated by the NHS, funded by, guess who, the tax payer.
This has already been stated above - try reading the thread. The long term effects on health using a proper supply of heroin are actually not that bad at all.

Originally posted by "DaBouncer"

Look may of us wouldn't mind a free heroine,

wonderwoman springs to mind,

I'm just trying to further a debate, and you simply reply with a Daily Mail Leader. I guess you can't be arsed after all.

Pity, cos hoped that your strongly held beliefs would have a basis in reason and fact rather than regurgitated polemic.
Any chance using words 'bouncers' can understand? :D

sorry, swallowed a dictionary as a child, never got over it.

Regurgitate = vomit back up again
Polemic = aggressive arguing against a point or position, has come to mean a baseless and overemotional attack.

Mike, how on earth would the type of people that take heroine now, ones that hang around parks and get high, suddenly change if they got their drugs from the NHS? They'd still hang around and many haven't even got homes to go to to take their drugs in. Your idealistic scenario is that somehow these drug addicts will go from layabouts that hang around all day taking drugs to upstanding citizens that work all day and take their legal heroine strictly out of work hours and only in their own home, whilst suddenly finding a new conscience and consideration to others so as to safely dispose of any used needles. The words cloud, cuckoo, and land spring to mind....

Originally posted by "t020"

Mike, how on earth would the type of people that take heroine now, ones that hang around parks and get high, suddenly change if they got their drugs from the NHS? They'd still hang around and many haven't even got homes to go to to take their drugs in. Your idealistic scenario is that somehow these drug addicts will go from layabouts that hang around all day taking drugs to upstanding citizens that work all day and take their legal heroine strictly out of work hours and only in their own home, whilst suddenly finding a new conscience and consideration to others so as to safely dispose of any used needles. The words cloud, cuckoo, and land spring to mind....
What of the drugs were administered at a central clinic? Or if Herion was redesigned in a tablet or liquid formatt? no needles and safe to take home!

Originally posted by "t020"

and many haven't even got homes to go to to take their drugs in.
Becuase their addiction forces them into such a lifestyle - contrary to what you probably think, most homeless people don't want to be homeless.

Originally posted by "t020"

Your idealistic scenario is that somehow these drug addicts will go from layabouts that hang around all day <etc>....
Most addicts don't want to be addicts - they're not taking drugs recreationally - they are *addicted*. I think you will find many of them would like nothing better than to live a normal life, freed of the rigours of the junkie lifestyle that our society forces them into.

Originally posted by "Mo"

I have to go out now but I will come backto you Phanerathyme. A personal question here but are you a user yourself? Feel free not to answer if you prefer but with a name like yours and the almost promotional way you talk about drugs makes me wonder if you have avested interest. :wink:

There's no denying that I find the topic of drugs and the law fascinating because I come from the position that no-one but no-one has the right to govern what goes on inside my head, and if I want to change the state of my head without harming others, then no-one has any rights whatsoever to impinge on my sovereignty over my body.

For the record I have never injected heroin or smoked crack cocaine, although I have sampled both in their less potent forms (morphine and cocaine hydrochloride (coke)) and concluded that they don't offer much more than an escape from the self, which is not something i am personally interested in.

But as for a vested interest in legalising heroin and crack cocaïne, I do have one.

I believe that the drain on the public purse and the negative impact of the addicts stealing for their habit and the income of organised crime would be greatly reduced by legalization.

Originally posted by "DaBouncer"

Mike, how on earth would the type of people that take heroine now, ones that hang around parks and get high, suddenly change if they got their drugs from the NHS? They'd still hang around and many haven't even got homes to go to to take their drugs in. Your idealistic scenario is that somehow these drug addicts will go from layabouts that hang around all day taking drugs to upstanding citizens that work all day and take their legal heroine strictly out of work hours and only in their own home, whilst suddenly finding a new conscience and consideration to others so as to safely dispose of any used needles. The words cloud, cuckoo, and land spring to mind....
What of the drugs were administered at a central clinic? Or if Herion was redesigned in a tablet or liquid formatt? no needles and safe to take home!
Indeed, or injected into cigarettes as a tincture as was done in the Runcorn Pilot Project. The Injected Cigarette is a very good subsitute for intravenous injection because it delivers the heroin to the brain in a very similar timescale; and that is quite important to users, "the rush".

I have heard from various sources (especially during my studies in English Literature) that many illustrious names from the past were hooked on opium-based drugs. They led 'normal' lives and gifted us with outstanding poetry, politics, fiction, and ideals.
Some councils in Britain are trialling a return to NHS-provided prescriptions of these drugs, as they are less addictive than methadone and less harmful than heroine. Clients taking them have been able to return to part or full time work, and find and maintain housing and social relationships.
What we need is some thorough and truthful investigation, held away from all the hype and misinformation that we have been fed for so long. Away from pro and anti drugs lobbys, away from financial consideration. Likely, eh?
Anyone feeling growly about my lack of names, dates, references and URLs should go look into it for themselves. Maybe you'll find something I didn't. :wink:

Originally posted by "Mike"

and many haven't even got homes to go to to take their drugs in.
Becuase their addiction forces them into such a lifestyle - contrary to what you probably think, most homeless people don't want to be homeless.

Originally posted by "t020"

Your idealistic scenario is that somehow these drug addicts will go from layabouts that hang around all day <etc>....
Most addicts don't want to be addicts - they're not taking drugs recreationally - they are *addicted*. I think you will find many of them would like nothing better than to live a normal life, freed of the rigours of the junkie lifestyle that our society forces them into.

Sorry Mike but nobody forced them to use drugs, it was a conscious decision made by them and nobody else and as such they have to take complete responsibility for that. I used to be a smoker and if I die with a smoking related illness then that is my fault. I knew the risks, I took the chance.My fault completely. Though using your arguments maybe we ought to provide free ciggies on the NHS or free booze for alcoholics with rotting livers.

I'm afraid the only effect that ideas put by yourself and phanerathyme would have would be a huge increase in users. You would be openly condoning heroin use and attracting kids who would steer clear if they thought the law was involved.

I agree with tO20 the addicts would not suddenly become upstanding members of the community. They would continue to rob because it's far easier to take from somebody else than earn it yourself.

Mike, if addicts don't want to be addicts, maybe they shouldn't take drugs in the first place? Its a tough world but at the end of the day they're who they are through choice and I refuse any of my money to be used to fund their habit. Also, as if a heroine addict, legal or illegal, would be able to hold down a job.

Why should be bloody legalise it? Have you heard the news today? Children of drug addicts are being psychologically and physically harmed by their parents habits (although i think i could have figured that out for myself.) If we legalised them its just encouraging them and other non-users to start doing it, meaning more children are being brought up by people who are psychologically unstable. These chiildren will then go on to grow up psychologically harmed and this will not be out of their own choice. Mike, your arguments are ludicrous. Legalising herion or whatever other drugs you want to legalise will cut crime figures - people wont have to steal to pay for them, so what else are they going to do with their time. Dont bother saying theyll get jobs. Anyone knows employers are not going to hand out jobs to drugs addicts, whether theyre suddenly not criminals or not - plus all the time theyve spend burgling people wont have been a sideline to them studying for any qualifications. Plus - you say most addicts dont want to be addicts, legalising it wouldnt exactly be encouragement for them to quit would it?

Originally posted by "Mo"

Sorry Mike but nobody forced them to use drugs, it was a conscious decision made by them and nobody else and as such they have to take complete responsibility for that. I used to be a smoker and if I die with a smoking related illness then that is my fault. I knew the risks, I took the chance.My fault completely. Though using your arguments maybe we ought to provide free ciggies on the NHS or free booze for alcoholics with rotting livers.
I don't really think there's any use comparing alcohol and cigarettes to heroin. For a start, they are already legal so it's a completely different issue.
No, in the majority of cases, nobody forced users to take drugs. You are of course discounting those who have become addicted to opiates after having them prescribed as painkillers in hospitals.
My partner works with many young heroin users, a lot of them are the people who live on the streets as well. Most of them started using heroin as an escape to sexual abuse, violence, to escape the cold of the street or through peer pressure. Many of them were not aware of the risks before they took it. Without fail, *all* of them have one bit of advice, which is "don't start taking heroin". They are addicts, and they cannot escape. It's all very well saying "well you shouldn't have took it in the first place" but if you look at it objectively that's not a helpful viewpoint. We either leave addicts to do what they do now, or we help them to break the cycle of crime and destitute living by supplying them with the drug to allow them to get back on their feet. Then their addiction can start to be addressed, though the failure rates for the addicts who do try to give up are enormous.
Of course you can just leave them to do what they do, many of them stealing, funding dealers, and becoming a massive burden on the NHS at a later date.

Originally posted by "Mo"

I'm afraid the only effect that ideas put by yourself and phanerathyme would have would be a huge increase in users. You would be openly condoning heroin use and attracting kids who would steer clear if they thought the law was involved.
Well, if there was any evidence to suggest this then I might believe you, but in many countries that have legalised or decriminalised drugs, this isn't the case at all, so what you are suggesting has no evidence to back it up.

Originally posted by "Mo"

They would continue to rob because it's far easier to take from somebody else than earn it yourself.
No it's not - it's easier to get a mindless job somewhere and work 9 to 5 than it is to step outside the law and burgle houses every night. If I had the choice of career, I would choose the job, not burglary, irrespective of the moral implications.

Originally posted by "t020"

Mike, if addicts don't want to be addicts, maybe they shouldn't take drugs in the first place? Its a tough world but at the end of the day they're who they are through choice and I refuse any of my money to be used to fund their habit. Also, as if a heroine addict, legal or illegal, would be able to hold down a job.
I've just addressed this in the previous post.

Ok, fine, so you don't want your money going to fund their habit, but you don't mind far more of your money going to their long term healthcare, enforcing of the drugs laws, high insurance premiums due to burglary, etc, etc. And at the end of the day, if you are burgled by a heroin user, the money that you have earned to buy possessions is passed straight onto a dealer, tax free.

Do you think there's any logic to your argument, because it's hard to see.

Originally posted by "Mike"

Mike, if addicts don't want to be addicts, maybe they shouldn't take drugs in the first place? Its a tough world but at the end of the day they're who they are through choice and I refuse any of my money to be used to fund their habit. Also, as if a heroine addict, legal or illegal, would be able to hold down a job.
I've just addressed this in the previous post.

Ok, fine, so you don't want your money going to fund their habit, but you don't mind far more of your money going to their long term healthcare, enforcing of the drugs laws, high insurance premiums due to burglary, etc, etc. And at the end of the day, if you are burgled by a heroin user, the money that you have earned to buy possessions is passed straight onto a dealer, tax free.

Do you think there's any logic to your argument, because it's hard to see.


Addicts will still require long term healthcare even if their drugs are obtained legally. The NHS is already burdened by smoking related illnesses, why add to this burden with more drug users, which will surely be created through legalising drugs as you sugggest.

Originally posted by "kittykat"

Why should be bloody legalise it?
For all the logical arguments posted by various people on this topic.

Originally posted by "kittykat"

Have you heard the news today? Children of drug addicts are being psychologically and physically harmed by their parents habits (although i think i could have figured that out for myself.)
Just as they are by pregnant mothers who smoke and drink - why aren't you eagre to ban those as well?

Originally posted by "kittykat"

If we legalised them its just encouraging them and other non-users to start doing it
As I've said in reply to Mo above, there is no evidence to suggest this. In fact, when heroin used to be prescribed by GPs in the UK there were very few addicts, it was only after heroin was made illegal that the number of addicts rocketed.

Originally posted by "kittykat"

Mike, your arguments are ludicrous.
Well, my arguments are based on facts whereas yours are just based upon your prejudiced opinions. Perhaps, if you do the research into the history of heroin use, and of the legalisation of drugs you'd think differently.

Originally posted by "t020"

Addicts will still require long term healthcare even if their drugs are obtained legally. The NHS is already burdened by smoking related illnesses, why add to this burden with more drug users, which will surely be created through legalising drugs as you sugggest.

Ok, enlighten me - exactly what long term healthcare do heroin addicts with a ready supply of heroin need?

Incidentally, the government is looking to start prescribing heroin to heavy users once again, but unfortunately I don't think this will be on a large enough scale to make a large difference.

Mike said
Originally posted by "kittykat"

Mike, your arguments are ludicrous.
Well, my arguments are based on facts whereas yours are just based upon your prejudiced opinions. Perhaps, if you do the research into the history of heroin use, and of the legalisation of drugs you'd think differently.[/quote]

I didn't realise we had to be experts on everything to chat here. I thought that having a general opinion was sufficient enough.

Mo, didn't you know? When Mikes involved you have to be an expert in any subject in order to have an opinion on it. On top of this, Mike knows EVERYTHING and all of his opinions are far, far superior.

Shame that, thankfully, to the vast majority of the UK population, legalising Heroin would be completely objectionable. I tried a poll to demonstrate this but one of the moderators deleted it. At the time it was deleted, those in favour of legalisation were very much in the minority.

Originally posted by "t020"

Mo, didn't you know? When Mikes involved you have to be an expert in any subject in order to have an opinion on it. On top of this, Mike knows EVERYTHING and all of his opinions are far, far superior.

Shame that, thankfully, to the vast majority of the UK population, legalising Heroin would be completely objectionable. I tried a poll to demonstrate this but one of the moderators deleted it. At the time it was deleted, those in favour of legalisation were very much in the minority.

Yes t020 I was begining to realise that was the case hee hee :lol:

Of course everyone can have an opinion, this is a discussion forum, but if someone says my arguments are ludicrous I'm allowed to defend myself.

Also, don't you think it's important to look at the facts behind the myths?