Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Jean Charles de Menezes verdict
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 113 (432191)
11-04-2007 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Modulous
11-04-2007 12:19 PM


Just to prevent another "misunderstanding":
No I do not suggest two strangers breaking in do not present an imminent threat. I suggest that two strangers that had broken into your house that are now fleeing from you do not pose an imminent threat.
This is what I meant in my previous post.

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Modulous, posted 11-04-2007 12:19 PM Modulous has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 62 of 113 (432194)
11-04-2007 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Modulous
11-04-2007 12:19 PM


Re: I understood your point the first time
quote:
Well, to be fair, the two young thieves would at best pose a risk to a few lives. A battleship in a time of war poses a greater risk, and it had been heading in a threatening direction until it was chased away.
But we're not talking about who poses the gratest risk to the gteatest number of people, we're talking about what's perceived as a clear and present threat to an individual or an army. In both cases, the aggressors in question did pose a risk to the defending parties and I'm arguing that in Martin's case the risk was even greater as he was in his own house, middle-aged and far from outside assistance, unlike our task force in the Falklands.
quote:
I suggest that two strangers that had broken into your house that are now fleeing from you do not pose an imminent threat.
But Martin didn't know they were fleeing! As far as he was concerned they were looking for cover so that they can shoot back, or going to get a weapon from the car, or call for reinforcements. I've been in a situation myself when my friend and I chased someone off (ahh...those were the days) only for him to come back two minutes later with his mate and a golf club. We ran away like Ben Johnson on speed. Ofcourse if this incident had happened in my house I'd have nowhere to run to. Why are you assuming that the intruders were fleeing and how was the victim supposed to know they were?
quote:
I am not arguing that the police have been adequately punished, I was arguing that the officers on the ground should not be prosecuted.
I'm arguing that if they're not then it smacks of hypocricy , as well as setting a dangerous precedent.
quote:
You cannot prosecute all of them, some of them made no mistakes based on the information they had been given...it was the information that they were given that was erroneous. Maybe there is one person, or group of people who should bare the ultimate responsibility for the mess.
I agree that the executing officer isn't to blame, he was just told to shoot someone, though I'm unimpressed by his lack of composure at having to shoot seven times to the head, even yardie hitmen can do the job with two or three shots. I'd have thought the culpable party would be whoever mis-identified the suspect in the first place.
Alternatively, they can just leave everyone alone but for justice's sake grant the rest of us the same treatment when we have to take action in self-defense.

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Modulous, posted 11-04-2007 12:19 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Modulous, posted 11-04-2007 1:24 PM Legend has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 63 of 113 (432195)
11-04-2007 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Legend
11-04-2007 1:01 PM


Re: I understood your point the first time
I'm arguing that in Martin's case the risk was even greater as he was in his own house, middle-aged and far from outside assistance, unlike our task force in the Falklands.
I don't think a thief presents a greater risk to an armed farmer than an enemy battleship presents to an armed force during wartime.
Why are you assuming that the intruders were fleeing and how was the victim supposed to know they were?
Given that he didn't know what was happening, I don't think a good precedent would be to assume that people running away from you pose such a threat as to warrant lethal force. Of course, if they had firearms themselves, I'd be inclined to agree that lethal force might be justifiable.
I'm arguing that if they're not then it smacks of hypocricy , as well as setting a dangerous precedent.
I'm not sure of hypocrisy, but it does not set a favourable precedent, I agree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Legend, posted 11-04-2007 1:01 PM Legend has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 64 of 113 (432203)
11-04-2007 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Chiroptera
11-04-2007 12:19 PM


Re: right or wrong - who decides?
quote:
I am not aware of any political ideology or social theory that advocates the use of violence whenever anyone anywhere in any situation simply claims she felt threatened.
well, GW Bush used this successfully for the Iraq invasion but that's but a sidenote. I'm not advocating the use of violence whenever someone feels threatened, I'm supporting the use of violence in defense of someone's health and/or property. I also believe that this is a right that should be granted to everyone regardless of mental state, age, sex, colour, race, religion or political convictions
quote:
Rather, in all cases I am aware of, it is considered a part of civilized society to make sure that the threat was real or at least the person had a reasonable belief that she was under threat.
I don't think that there's a rational person out there who does NOT find two intruders breaking into their home in the middle of the night a real and reasonable threat, do you ?
quote:
Therefore, it is legitimate that a person whose behavior is known to be abberant comes under extra scrutiny when she commits an act of violence and then claims it was in self-defence.
Like I said above, it's very reasonable and rational to perceive two intruders as a threat. That being the case, it's totally irrelevant whether the victim has an 'aberrant behaviour' history, is black/white/gay or whatever else. Questioning his right to defend himself and his property on the grounds of his 'aberrant behaviour' is discrimination of the worst kind, IMO.
Tell me, have you ever read 'The Stranger' by Albert Camus?
quote:
How many victims of violent crime in the U.K. became a victim because they allowed a perpetrator to run away, allowing him to maneuver for another attack?
we don't know - they're all dead!
Seriously now, it's very common -and I've witnessed it on a few occasions- for a repelled agressor to run away momentarily only to return shortly after with a weapon or his mates or both.
quote:
In fact, as far as I know, when faced with a gun, potential criminals tend to run away and don't press their attack.
I don't know about that as guns are not prevalent here, but I've certainly seen someone faced with a broken bottle running away only to grab a metal pole and rush straight back at his intended victim.
quote:
Now, juries aren't always correct, but I assume that the criminal justice system in the U.K. is open like it is here in the U.S., so you can get access to the actual court records and provide the facts of the case that would allow one to conclude that this person really did have a reasonable belief that he was under threat.
First, juries are asked to apply the law -not justice. Second, juries are asked to apply the law -not interpret it. There is no question that the intruder was facing away from the victim at the time of the shooting. Therefore, a juror would have to find the defendant guilty, even though the juror might think that this is unjust or that the spirit of the law is outside this case.
Again, I'm not questioning the legality of this particular verdict, I'm questioning the application of justice in our system and the double standards which apply, in view of the De Menezes case.
quote:
I am still trying to understand how shooting a person in the back as he is running away can be excused under any circumstances.
I'm still trying to understand why in the event of acts of agression the onus is always on the victim to assume best intentions on behalf of the aggressor?
Why did Tony Martin have to assume that these two strangers in his house were there to only take away the VCR and not hurt him in the process?
Why did Tony Martin have to assume that this intruder was running to get away, never to return, and not running to get his own gun/mates/etc in order to finish the job ?

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Chiroptera, posted 11-04-2007 12:19 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Modulous, posted 11-04-2007 5:12 PM Legend has replied
 Message 67 by CK, posted 11-04-2007 5:12 PM Legend has replied
 Message 69 by Chiroptera, posted 11-04-2007 5:24 PM Legend has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 65 of 113 (432219)
11-04-2007 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Chiroptera
11-04-2007 12:19 PM


Re: right or wrong - who decides?
quote:
But is this a reasonable assumption? How many victims of violent crime in the U.K. became a victim because they allowed a perpetrator to run away, allowing him to maneuver for another attack?
I don't know - how many? is it common for people when faced with someone firing a gun to run off and then turn round and run straight back at them?
Edited by CK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Chiroptera, posted 11-04-2007 12:19 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 66 of 113 (432221)
11-04-2007 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Legend
11-04-2007 1:59 PM


Re: right or wrong - who decides?
First, juries are asked to apply the law -not justice.
It was the juries job to decide if Tony Martin's actions were reasonable force given the situation, and what Mr Martin believed to be the situation. As the court said:
quote:
# In judging whether the defendant had only used reasonable force, the jury has to take into account all the circumstances, including the situation as the defendant honestly believes it to be at the time, when he was defending himself. It does not matter if the defendant was mistaken in his belief as long as his belief was genuine.
# Accordingly, the jury could only convict Mr Martin if either they did not believe his evidence that he was acting in self-defence or they thought that Mr Martin had used an unreasonable amount of force. These were issues which were ideally suited to a decision of a jury.
# As to the first issue, what Mr Martin believed, the jury heard his evidence and they could only reject that evidence, if they were satisfied it was untrue. As to the second issue, as to what is a reasonable amount of force, obviously opinions can differ. It cannot be left to a defendant to decide what force it is reasonable to use because this would mean that even if a defendant used disproportionate force but he believed he was acting reasonably he would not be guilty of any offence. It is for this reason that it was for the jury, as the representative of the public, to decide the amount of force which it would be reasonable and the amount of force which it would be unreasonable to use in the circumstances in which they found that Mr Martin believed himself to be in. It is only if the jury are sure that the amount of force which was used was unreasonable that they are entitled to find a defendant guilty if he was acting in self-defence.
The facts of the case are recorded here. The essential details being that Tony Martin had said in public that the best way to stop burglary was to shoot the bastards and that if he was burgled he'd shoot the burglars heads off. The thieves entered the house and without warning were shot at. The jury was to decide if Mr Martin had laid in wait and deliberately tried to kill the man, or if he reasonably felt he was in danger. Mr Martin's claim was that he fired his shots whilst stood halfway down the stairs and he saw a light and he decided that the wielder of the light could represent a threat so he opened fire a number of times.
Expert witnesses testified that the shots could not have been fired from halfway up the stairs, but one expert witness said that there was some evidence of a stairway shooting.
It's quite interesting reading actually. I learned quite a lot in a short amount of time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Legend, posted 11-04-2007 1:59 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by CK, posted 11-04-2007 5:15 PM Modulous has not replied
 Message 73 by Legend, posted 11-05-2007 11:18 AM Modulous has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 67 of 113 (432222)
11-04-2007 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Legend
11-04-2007 1:59 PM


Re: right or wrong - who decides?
quote:
I'm still trying to understand why in the event of acts of aggression the onus is always on the victim to assume best intentions on behalf of the aggressor?
How can someone running in the other direction be classed as an aggressor? - you have the right to defend yourself that is preventive, you have no right to take punitive action.
quote:
Why did Tony Martin have to assume that this intruder was running to get away, never to return, and not running to get his own gun/mates/etc in order to finish the job ?
By that logic I can kill anyone who crosses me because in some future situation they may return mob-handed or carrying a gun.
quote:
First, juries are asked to apply the law -not justice. Second, juries are asked to apply the law -not interpret it. There is no question that the intruder was facing away from the victim at the time of the shooting. Therefore, a juror would have to find the defendant guilty, even though the juror might think that this is unjust or that the spirit of the law is outside this case.
The jury were asked to consider if they thought this was manslaughter - they did not, they considered it to be murder. From the court transcript Accordingly, the jury could only convict Mr Martin if either they did not believe his evidence that he was acting in self-defence or they thought that Mr Martin had used an unreasonable amount of force. These were issues which were ideally suited to a decision of a jury.
The jury who had full access to the facts and testimony did not believe he acted in self-defence, so it's a red herring to suggest the jury were left with no choice in the matter. If they believed that Martin could reasonably assume the threat was high, he would have been found not guilty regardless of the fact that he shot him in the back.
and the crux of the case has never been disputed - he wasn't shooting at them to scare them off, he was aware of their presence and was lying in wait with the intention of killing them. He only got his sentence reduced to manslaughter on appeal because he went for diminished capacity defence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Legend, posted 11-04-2007 1:59 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Legend, posted 11-05-2007 11:35 AM CK has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 68 of 113 (432223)
11-04-2007 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Modulous
11-04-2007 5:12 PM


Re: right or wrong - who decides?
however only in a british court could a court transcript finish in the following manner:
quote:
MR WOLKIND: The appeal having substantially succeeded, I ask for costs from central funds. The defence have been privately funded throughout.
THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: Thank you. Any other application?
MR WOLKIND: My Lord, yes. One other matter I raise today, my birthday.
THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: Many happy returns!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Modulous, posted 11-04-2007 5:12 PM Modulous has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 113 (432225)
11-04-2007 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Legend
11-04-2007 1:59 PM


Re: right or wrong - who decides?
I'm not advocating the use of violence whenever someone feels threatened, I'm supporting the use of violence in defense of someone's health and/or property.
No, you are talking about the use of violence whenever someone feels threatened. The person was running away, therefore his death was not in defense of anyone's health or property. You keep imagining some scenario where the guy is going to go some place where he's hypothetically stashed a theoretical weapon so he can come back and whack a guy who scared him away with a gun. You are advocating the use of violence because someone felt threatened.
-
I don't think that there's a rational person out there who does NOT find two intruders breaking into their home in the middle of the night a real and reasonable threat, do you ?
We've been around this. We are not talking about simply someone breaking into someone else's house. We are talking about shooting someone in the back when they are running away, and therefore after they've ceased to be a threat.
-
Questioning his right to defend himself and his property on the grounds of his 'aberrant behaviour' is discrimination of the worst kind, IMO.
Huh? I've already explained that I'm not questioning anyone's right to anything. Are you having trouble comprehending what I'm saying? Is the American spelling confusing you?
-
I don't know about that as guns are not prevalent here, but I've certainly seen someone faced with a broken bottle running away only to grab a metal pole and rush straight back at his intended victim.
Huh? What does this have to do with this situation? We're talking about a case where the guy did have a gun. How is the prevalence of gun ownership an issue here? So some people don't see a broken bottle as a credible deterrent -- what does that have to do with whether someone who actually does have a gun should be allowed to shoot someone in the back?
-
First, juries are asked to apply the law -not justice. Second, juries are asked to apply the law -not interpret it.
And what's the problem in this case? I'm assuming that British law does allow the use of violence and the use of deadly force when someone has a legitimate reason to feel that her safety is in danger. Am I wrong in this? I'm assuming that British law does hold people criminally liable in cases where the use of force was inappropriate in the particular situation. Am I wrong about this? And so the jury made a decision as to whether, according to the law, the use of deadly force in this instance was appropriate. Am I wrong? Unless there are facts that I haven't yet been told, I don't see where the law and justice have parted in this case -- except under some idea of justice that there are situations that unarmed people fleeing should be shot in the back.
-
I'm still trying to understand why in the event of acts of agression the onus is always on the victim to assume best intentions on behalf of the aggressor?
I don't know, you should bring that up with someone who holds that position. In the meantime, if you are going to hold an imaginary conversation with yourself you should click the "Gen Reply" button at the very bottom of the page. Use the "Reply" button at the bottom of my post when you are going to address the actual points that I've actually made.
-
Why did Tony Martin have to assume that these two strangers in his house were there to only take away the VCR and not hurt him in the process?
He didn't have to assume anything. The guy was running away. That pretty much establishes the fact that there was no immediate threat to his safety. I mean, the whole conversation seems to be revolving around whether a person who is running away poses a credible threat. Why do you keep leaving out this this piece of the situation?
-
Why did Tony Martin have to assume that this intruder was running to get away, never to return, and not running to get his own gun/mates/etc in order to finish the job ?
Because if we allow fantasy scenarios as an excuse to whack people, then there would be no murder charges since every killing would be claimed to be the result of some fantasy threat.

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Legend, posted 11-04-2007 1:59 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by CK, posted 11-04-2007 5:34 PM Chiroptera has not replied
 Message 79 by Legend, posted 11-05-2007 3:56 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 70 of 113 (432227)
11-04-2007 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Chiroptera
11-04-2007 5:24 PM


Re: right or wrong - who decides?
quote:
I'm assuming that British law does allow the use of violence and the use of deadly force when someone has a legitimate reason to feel that her safety is in danger. Am I wrong in this? I'm assuming that British law does hold people criminally liable in cases where the use of force was inappropriate in the particular situation. Am I wrong about this? And so the jury made a decision as to whether, according to the law, the use of deadly force in this instance was appropriate. Am I wrong? Unless there are facts that I haven't yet been told, I don't see where the law and justice have parted in this case -- except under some idea of justice that there are situations that unarmed people fleeing should be shot in the back.
That's broadly right - the level of force you can use is entirely to be "reasonable" (reasonable being determined by a jury if it gets that far) to the level of threat you felt - it doesn't even have to be a real threat.
Let's say you were working in a shop and a man came in and push a blanket in your face and it had too long barrels under it - he claims it's a shotgun and he's going to kill you if you don't open the till. In a panic, you stab a knife in his throat and he dies. The barrels turn out to be two bits of pipe - all the law would be considered with is that it would be reasonable for you to assume that he really did have a shotgun and respond accordingly.
Edited by CK, : typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Chiroptera, posted 11-04-2007 5:24 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 71 of 113 (432268)
11-05-2007 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Legend
11-03-2007 3:24 PM


Legend writes:
Not true. We live in a republic, not a democracy in the true sense of the word.
Yes, and nitpicking my use of words instead of ideas really help this conversation forward
If that was the case, Britain would never have participated in the Iraq invasion, for one.
What are you talking about? Tony Blair won the election long after he supposedly lost favor with mose British citizens about the war.
Today we have the technology that allows us to practice democracy, as it was meant to be, i.e. the public voting on all public matters. I somehow doubt that I'll live to see it, though.
Well... if you didn't know this before, I don't believe in democracy, or even republic.

Sugar baby love, sugar baby love
I didn't mean to make you blue
Sugar baby love, sugar baby love
I didn't mean to hurt you.
All lovers make
Make the same mistakes
Yes they do
Yes, all lovers make
Make the same mistakes
As me and you
Sugar baby love, sugar baby love
I didn't mean to make you blue
Sugar baby love, sugar baby love
I didn't mean to hurt you.
People take my advice
If you love somebody
Don't think twice.
Love you baby love, sugar baby love
Love him anyway, love him everyday

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Legend, posted 11-03-2007 3:24 PM Legend has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 72 of 113 (432277)
11-05-2007 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Hyroglyphx
11-04-2007 12:14 PM


Re: Using the innocent
It wasn't for no good reason. There was a reason. Unfortunately, it was a very bad mistake.
So, no good reason, like I said.
It's not clear what you're objecting to, here, NJ. "No good reason" doesn't mean "no reason", it means "none of the reasons were good." They shot that guy on the subway because they thought he was a threat. Unfortunately, they had no good reason to believe that.
But why no mention of other things too of similar importance?
Well, look up there at the top, NJ, where it says "Jean Charles de Menezes verdict". That's the topic of this thread. When other injustices are the topics of other threads, I comment on them in that situation when I feel like I have something meaningful to say.
Would you agree that you have an aversion towards figures of authority?
I'm distrustful of human beings in authority, as any reasonable person should be. The fact that you're not, NJ, is indicative of a recognized personality condition called "right-wing authoritarian follower" as first identified by Altemeyer, and as corroborated by about 40 years of research on the subject.
Remember when conservativism was about how natural it is to be distrustful when human beings are in positions of authority? Remember things like checks and balances, which are predicated on the idea that we can't simply trust those in power to always do what is right without some oversight? It's funny how people like you completely forgot about all of that.
Do you find yourself romanticizing terrorists as "freedom fighters" in the same fight against oppression?
I don't romanticize murderers, no, and I don't consider the agenda of organizations like Al-Queda to be one of freedom, but rather the institution of religious totalitarianism throughout their small sphere of influence.
You see any acquiescence to authority as a bad character flaw.
It's not me that sees it that way, NJ. It's the entire psychological community. You have a personality abnormality that leads you to support authority and the status-quo wherever you perceive it. Whenever you recognize a situation as one where some persons are resisting authority, you come down on the side of the authority.
That's what it means to be a right-wing authoritarian follower.
You have to find it ironic that what you support is historically the most oppressive system under the sun.
You've lost me, again. It's abundantly obvious that the liberal nations are the most free, and the conservative nations are the least free. Nobody's ever been oppressed by accessible health care, reproductive choice, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and protection against business exploitation. On the other hand, "limited government" has always been a transparent cover for government intrusion into the lives of marginalized groups.
You're a communist/socialist sympathizer; at least that's what you portray. Am I incorrect in this assessment?
Um, yes, abundantly incorrect.
Seriously, where on Earth did you get the idea that I'm some kind of "communist sympathizer"?
And who the fuck even talks like that anymore? "Communist sypmathizer"? Who are you supposed to be, J. Edgar Hoover?
You constructively protest with a loud enough voice to reach the ears of people that have the authority and ability to re-examine the case.
And when they ignore the protests, because it's just a bunch of dirty hippies, then what? What hope can there be for justice when there's an endless supply of right-wing followers like yourself, taking the side of authority at every turn in every situation?
The government is not responsible for police
What? No, NJ, I assure you, the police are a branch of the government. Part of the executive branch, in fact. That's why it's meaningless to complain that a police incident has become "politicized"; setting police procedure and investigating/prosecuting violations of that procedure is, by it's nature, part of politics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-04-2007 12:14 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 73 of 113 (432324)
11-05-2007 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Modulous
11-04-2007 5:12 PM


Re: right or wrong - who decides?
Modulous writes:
The essential details being that Tony Martin had said in public that the best way to stop burglary was to shoot the bastards and that if he was burgled he'd shoot the burglars heads off.
So, the defendant was judged on his deviation from social norms, extreme views and quirky behaviour, instead of whether or not he was faced with a real and present threat.
Modulous writes:
The jury was to decide if Mr Martin had laid in wait and deliberately tried to kill the man, or if he reasonably felt he was in danger.
There where two (or more, as far as he knew) intruders in his remote farmhouse in the middle of the night!! Ofcourse he felt he was in danger!!
Where is the criminal case jury questioning whether the police killing De Menezes thought they reasonably felt they were in danger ?!
Modulous writes:
Mr Martin's claim was that he fired his shots whilst stood halfway down the stairs and he saw a light and he decided that the wielder of the light could represent a threat so he opened fire a number of times.
And this was questioned and deemed unacceptable because Martin was an eccentric old man with non-conformist views. Had he been a police marksman he could have held the burglar down and pulverised his face without any fear of prosecution. As long as he claimed that he thought the burglar was a suicide bomber.
This is the message we get from the De Menezes debacle. One standard for us, one for them.

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Modulous, posted 11-04-2007 5:12 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by CK, posted 11-05-2007 11:25 AM Legend has not replied
 Message 76 by Modulous, posted 11-05-2007 12:54 PM Legend has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 74 of 113 (432325)
11-05-2007 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Legend
11-05-2007 11:18 AM


Re: right or wrong - who decides?
quote:
And this was questioned and deemed unacceptable because Martin was an eccentric old man with non-conformist views.
No it was deemed unacceptable because the forensic evidence proved it was a pack of lies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Legend, posted 11-05-2007 11:18 AM Legend has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 75 of 113 (432326)
11-05-2007 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by CK
11-04-2007 5:12 PM


Re: right or wrong - who decides?
CK writes:
How can someone running in the other direction be classed as an aggressor? .
err...if he was running running in the other direction *in your house, in the middle of the night, having just broken into it ?! *
CK writes:
By that logic I can kill anyone who crosses me because in some future situation they may return mob-handed or carrying a gun.
No, we're not talking generically, we're talking about very specific circumstances. If someone breaks into your house at night, you -the victim- shouldn't have to question his intentions. You should have the right to assume the worst and react accordingly.
Why is the burden of proof always placed on the victim and never on the aggressor ?
CK writes:
The jury who had full access to the facts and testimony did not believe he acted in self-defence..
The jury should have never been put in this position, because juries are not there to question the fairness of the law, they're there to determine if the defendant's actions fall within the law or without and Martin's actions undeniably fell outside it, noone's disputing that.
The Martin case should never have gone to criminal court, once the initial investigation had established that he was indeed broken into, just like the De Menezes case won't go to criminal court now that we know it was a 'tragic mistake'.

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by CK, posted 11-04-2007 5:12 PM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Modulous, posted 11-05-2007 1:19 PM Legend has replied
 Message 78 by crashfrog, posted 11-05-2007 1:47 PM Legend has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024