Listeners to BBC Radio 4's Today programme voted for a so-called "Martin's Law" which would allow homeowners to use whatever force necessary to defend their property from intruders.
would you support a "Martins law" if it was brought in.
Listeners to BBC Radio 4's Today programme voted for a so-called "Martin's Law" which would allow homeowners to use whatever force necessary to defend their property from intruders.
would you support a "Martins law" if it was brought in.
ive been burgled before when noone was at home, if i caught the theif redhanded id batter the shit out of him
oh yes, enter at your own risk! but saying that smackheads would still risk it so you would probably have loads of murders if it got passed. It never will.
but it wouldnt be murder, it would be a case of using your legitimate right to defend your property and family (and helping to control the smackhead problem)
yeah i'd support that - good that we agree on something abcman!
would be super pissed off if i got burgled or something
wouldn't this make man traps etc. legal again?
personally i think that if some tw@ who breaks into anyones house gets caught, he should have no rights whatsoever. Its discraceful that people get sued for "loss of earnings" by a burglar.
WTF kind of job does he have....is there a thief's trade union these days???
It should be every mans god given right to personally and viciously beat the living sh*t out of anybody who invades the privacy of their home.
They have rights? what about the rights of a child who comes downstairs for a glass of water in the middle of the night...bet he/she'll be pleased with the masked man in the living room...
the thing is Martin is a bad example - he probably would have got away with it if he had been at all reasonable about it. He shot a guy as he was leaving AND didn't even go and check whether he was still alive or not until the next day.
We are currently allowed to use reasonable force - and it's up to the courts - and that's the way it should stay - as soon as homeowners tool up, then the robbers will too and then there's a vicious circle.
Although i do reckon that as soon as they attempt to break into someone's property then they should lose all rights they previously had.
If you dont have a right to protect your family, home and possessions.... you have no rights at all.....
- Plan for Tomorrow - Live for today - Hail to the King Baby -
only echoing whats already been said, but as soon as someone comes into your house illegally then you should in my opinion be allowed to do whatever you can in order to prevent crimes being committed against your person. as im writing this 12 people have voted, all in favour, i think most of britain would be in favour but the 'civil rights' groups would probably try and get in there to ensure that the criminal has more rights than the victim.
weve also been burgaled here they stole alot of things from the tv, video money and many valuables if i ever caught one i think he would get more than broken legs... maybee a knife in his chest
I would support it BUT......
If someone wanted to murder someone else would this not just give them an excuse?
Invite the 'victim' into your house, kill em, go round back, break a window and say they broke into your house. It would surely make a big loophole in the law.
The law already states that you are allowed to use 'maximum force required' to defend yourself.Originally Posted by ABCMan
I would not support an Americanised system where you can shoot entruders.
the fooker is burgling your house are u supposed to just stand their and take no notice?
Last edited by Keva; 8th February 2004 at 05:59 PM.
the phrase is "minimum required force" and that is very subjective even if a court finds that you did use minimum force the toerag can still take out a private prosicution against you.
most people dont have gun licences so it couldnt get like the american way of doing it, soulassasin, thats a very good point, however as markass says this law is already in place in the usa and its not something you hear about over there
the case of martins law was the man clearly acted irresponsibly. He shot a man who posed no threat to him. It was not classed the same as murder in court.
Most courts would overlook an intruder who ended up with a black eye but actaully killing someone is unacceptable if they pose no threat to you.
Markass, i have to disagree. If killing is unacceptable, but a black eye is not..where is the line, and where does it get crossed?
I reckon anybody who illegally enters my property is a major threat to myself, my family and my property. I dont know if you have kids etc, but i reckon you would change your mind if you woke up to find a smackhead in ur kids room stealing the tv.
I doubt a black eye would be enough punishment
Certain about that are you?...The scumbag had a list of convictions as long as your arm, oh, and lets not forget his older side-kick, with an equally impressive criminal record, i wonder what would have happened if Tony Martin HAD NOT been in possession of a gun on that fateful night?Originally Posted by Markass
A middle aged man living in isolation, dead of night, against two scumbags, doesn't need too much imagination to work out the possible consequences if Martin didn't have that gun.
The Texans have got it just about right, over there you can use lethal force to defend your home, and what is the result of this law, a pile of bodies lying in the street every week? no, just not that many break-ins.......
"Windows has been unable to detect a keyboard, press enter to continue"
although i agree with the idea of allowing home-owners more rights in protecting their home, the potential consequence of more heavily-armed burglars is what worries me the most.
if home-owners are, rightly, allowed to use more force to eradicate the threat of burglars it could set the prescedent of burglars entering houses fully-armed with the intention of harming people more severely since they now know that the owner is able to batter them. it could create a lot more violent robberies, but i do still support the idea of householders being given greater leeway to protect their homes.
passing any law to allow a human to kill another human is wrong.
If you catch someone in your house batter the **** out of them then let the law handle it is what should be allowed
Taking anothers life cannot be decided outside of the circumstance, a broken leg will fix, a bullet to the head won't
Well the laws around self-defence allow one to kill another human being if that was appropriate and 'reasonable force'. Is that law wrong as well? Should the citizen wait to see how far the criminal will take it?!?
If you dont disagree FULLY with the law above then you must appreciate also that within the context of this potential new Martin's law certain killings of other humans would be acceptable.
Social Networking Bookmarks