Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Government lawyers say burglars 'need protection' [in UK] (Your Country Is Fucked)

im positive the same laws exist in the US....

i think its crap....the court was told he shot the dude in the back after he ran away, but the police had done nothing over his repeated complaints of theft until finally out of fear he went down and sho the dude. while i dont approve of it, when you;re in that situation your not gonna wait for the burglar to attack....either way it shouldnt; have been murder the first time, i think a lesser manslaughter with parole/appeal would have been more appropriate. over here criminals seem to enjoy themselves, and the publiuc isnt een allowed to carry self defence weapons


you know there was a woman in the US who successfully sued the person who gave her CPR because when he struck her chest/cleaned airways etc he did her damage. the exact same type of case was thrown out of the british courts
 
Seeing as you asked.......

Somebody is seriously taking the piss here. That farmer was defending his home.....and he is the one considered to be a risk to the community? The burglar got what he deserved.....and the farmer behaved the way I would have behaved.

This is the problem with our judicial system......we are too damn soft. People who break the law need to know that they are wel and truly fucked f they get caught. Instead, what do we do? We try to reward them!!! And people wander why many kids see smking dope, stealing cars and mugging as legitimate past times.

p0ink said:
im curious to see how danielson and imnotdutch feel about this.
 
p0ink said:
Government lawyers say burglars 'need protection' [in Britain]

The Independent (UK) | 05 May 2003 | By Robert Verkaik, Legal Affairs Correspondent

Government lawyers trying to keep the Norfolk farmer Tony Martin behind bars will tell a High Court judge tomorrow that burglars are members of the public who must be protected from violent householders.

The case could help hundreds of criminals bring claims for damages for injury suffered while committing offences.

In legal papers seen by The Independent, Home Office lawyers dispute Mr Martin's contention that he poses no risk to the public because he only represents a threat to burglars and other criminals who trespass on his property.

They say: "The suggestion ... that the Parole Board was not required to assess the risk posed by Mr Martin to future burglars or intruders (on the grounds that they do not form part of the public at large) is remarkable."

"It cannot possibly be suggested that members of the public cease to be so whilst committing criminal offences, and whilst society naturally condemns, and punishes such persons judicially, it can not possibly condone their (unlawful) murder or injury."

A recent report by the Law Commission, which advises ministers on proposed changes to the law, argued that judges had been too willing to reject criminals' claims for damages. The commission insisted that "even a criminal who has committed a serious offence" must be allowed to exercise their civil rights. In recent years, the courts have accepted a number of arguments to defeat actions brought by criminals on the basis of the principle that "crime should not pay".

Legal experts say the case for treating criminals as ordinary litigants will have been boosted by the arguments raised by the Home Office lawyers in Martin's case.

But Oliver Letwin, the shadow Home Secretary, said the rights of the victim needed to be addressed. "There certainly seems to be an imbalance [between the householder and burglar] made clear by the fact that burglars can sue for damage done to them in the course of committing a crime. We've put forward an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill which would rebalance the law in the appropriate way."

Norman Brennan, a serving police officer and the director of the Victims of Crime Trust, said that, by committing crime, burglars gave up "any rights". He added: "The public in this country are sick and tired of all these organisations pandering to the offender. Burglary is a despicable offence." He said: "sensible and reasonable" members of the public knew that, when criminal committed crime, they were putting themselves at risk.

Martin, 59, wants the court to order the Parole Board to reconsider its decision that he is not a suitable prisoner for early release. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for murdering 16-year-old Fred Barras at his Norfolk farmhouse, Bleak House, in August 1999 but his conviction was later reduced to manslaughter by the Court of Appeal when he was given a five-year prison sentence.

A second burglar shot by Martin, Brendan Fearon, was granted legal aid to sue him for damages. Fearon's claim was thrown out by Nottingham County Court last month.

Martin's barristers, Bitu Bhalla and Tony Baldry, of One Essex Court chambers in London, will tell the judge tomorrow that their client's application "concerns the liberty of the citizen which is a matter of paramount concern in English law". They will tell Mr Justice Kay that the Parole Board failed to acknowledge the true extent of Martin's remorse or properly consider the risk he posed to the public.

In Martin's application for judicial review, his lawyers argue: "The risk that has to be assessed in Mr Martin's case is any risk of the use of excessive force when he is either burgled or attacked in his home."

Martin's solicitor, James Saunders, says that this risk is significantly diminished since he no longer owns a gun and has agreed to fit an air-raid siren to his home that "could be heard all over the Fens".

The court will decide tomorrow whether to grant Martin a full review hearing. He is due for release at the end of July.

We should invade the UK immediately before this nonsense spreads to North America like SARS.

WTF? Hasn't the UK ever heard of the right of citizens to defend their home and property against trespassers, vandal and burglars? Or is that just an American freedom (one that is being eroded as we speak). Even in America, we still (cross your fingers) have the right to defend our homes by way of force, even if it means using a gun(registered, of course).
 
Re: Re: Government lawyers say burglars 'need protection' [in UK] (Your Country Is Fucked)

Fucking bring it.......:)

I hope that you dont serously think that all brits support the idea of not being able to defend your home without fear of recriminations.

HULKSTER said:


We should invade the UK immediately before this nonsense spreads to North America like SARS.

WTF? Hasn't the UK ever heard of the right of citizen's to defend their house and home against trespassers, vandal and burglars? Or is that just an American freedom (one that is being eroded as we speak). Even in America, we still (cross your fingers) have the right to defend our homes by way of force, even if it means using a gun(registered, of course).
 
Re: Re: Re: Government lawyers say burglars 'need protection' [in UK] (Your Country Is Fucked)

Imnotdutch said:
Fucking bring it.......:)

I hope that you dont serously think that all brits support the idea of not being able to defend your home without fear of recriminations.


I know, but I think that people like you need to seriously "do something" about these assholes, both the criminals and their apologists.
 
Re: Re: Government lawyers say burglars 'need protection' [in UK] (Your Country Is Fucked)

HULKSTER said:


We should invade the UK immediately before this nonsense spreads to North America like SARS.

WTF? Hasn't the UK ever heard of the right of citizens to defend their home and property against trespassers, vandal and burglars? Or is that just an American freedom (one that is being eroded as we speak). Even in America, we still (cross your fingers) have the right to defend our homes by way of force, even if it means using a gun(registered, of course).
WTF!!!??? This from a country - America , where a woman chopped off her husbands dick , fucked it into a field and walked free in a court of law. What about his fuckin property?
 
Re: Re: Re: Government lawyers say burglars 'need protection' [in UK] (Your Country Is Fucked)

Mandinka2 said:

WTF!!!??? This from a country - America , where a woman chopped off her husbands dick , fucked it into a field and walked free in a court of law. What about his fuckin property?

She got sent to jail, and the husband had his cock reattached. He went on to do several porno movies, where he became a millionaire between the up-front fees and royalties.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Government lawyers say burglars 'need protection' [in UK] (Your Country Is Fucked)

Like what?

HULKSTER said:


I know, but I think that people like you need to seriously "do something" about these assholes, both the criminals and their apologists.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Government lawyers say burglars 'need protection' [in UK] (Your Country Is Fucked)

HULKSTER said:


She got sent to jail, and the husband had his cock reattached. He went on to do several porno movies, where he became a millionaire between the up-front fees and royalties.
You are wrong:
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/1994/129/129p11.htm
She was found not guilty on grounds of "temporary insanity" and was held in a mental institute for 45 DAYS for observation.
 
danielson said:
im positive the same laws exist in the US....

im pretty positive we don't have any laws that aimed at protecting burglars. however, we do have activist judges and some really stupid people serving jury duty, so anything can happen.

i'm aware of your example about some woman suing over CPR, but we now have 'the good samaritan' laws that protect people, who try to help in case of an emergency.

in america, when someone breaks in your house, you shoot to kill. it will be your word versus a dead man's.
 
Top Bottom