Thursday 21st January the Times Newspaper reported a [COMMON SENSE] victory for the man who defended his house. Jack Straw says there is no need for New legislation, the Conservation would change the rules to promise greater protection for those who intervene to stop criminals. I think both the Labour AND Conservative Parties are correct as for it would not making new legislation but simply Changing EXISTING legislation.
Commandment Number 8 says [YOU MUST NOT STEAL]. People usually only break in to another person's house to Steal. The Burglar as far as I am concerned got what he deserved. Okay, so we let people take the Law into their own hands, then Civilised Society would collapse. If you knowingly commit {Trespass} then you must do so at your own risk. Breaking in Entry to someone Else's property without a Good Reason must surely carry the same consequences. When Tony Martin shot a burglar, the burglar was old enough to know the difference between right and wrong so therefore had it coming. Personally I would prefer to have only scared him, possibly still by using the gun especially if I was in Mr Martin's Position and wanted to defend my Crops or Animals.
I will acknowledge at this point that I could have all the correct intentions e.g., to only scare the burglar rather than kill, (Commandment Number 6) but things could still go wrong. I could think he going to go the right so therefore shoot to the left for instance, but I only have a 67% chance that he lives unhurt. There is a 33% chance that he moves to the right, a 33% chance that he moves to the Left as well as a 34% chance that he maintains a straight line. In total, I have a 67% that the boy lives and remains unhurt. I would act on the 67% rather than the 33%. I would suggest that Mr Martin, most likely did the same as I would have done.
On a walk between Hemel Hempstead and St Albans I saw a sign mentioning the risk of being shot, particularly at dusk. The sign also mentioned High Visibility Garments. I can not remember the exact Contents of what the sign said, but if I do the walk again will report on it, assuming I see the same sign again
Commandment Number 8 says [YOU MUST NOT STEAL]. People usually only break in to another person's house to Steal. The Burglar as far as I am concerned got what he deserved. Okay, so we let people take the Law into their own hands, then Civilised Society would collapse. If you knowingly commit {Trespass} then you must do so at your own risk. Breaking in Entry to someone Else's property without a Good Reason must surely carry the same consequences. When Tony Martin shot a burglar, the burglar was old enough to know the difference between right and wrong so therefore had it coming. Personally I would prefer to have only scared him, possibly still by using the gun especially if I was in Mr Martin's Position and wanted to defend my Crops or Animals.
I will acknowledge at this point that I could have all the correct intentions e.g., to only scare the burglar rather than kill, (Commandment Number 6) but things could still go wrong. I could think he going to go the right so therefore shoot to the left for instance, but I only have a 67% chance that he lives unhurt. There is a 33% chance that he moves to the right, a 33% chance that he moves to the Left as well as a 34% chance that he maintains a straight line. In total, I have a 67% that the boy lives and remains unhurt. I would act on the 67% rather than the 33%. I would suggest that Mr Martin, most likely did the same as I would have done.
On a walk between Hemel Hempstead and St Albans I saw a sign mentioning the risk of being shot, particularly at dusk. The sign also mentioned High Visibility Garments. I can not remember the exact Contents of what the sign said, but if I do the walk again will report on it, assuming I see the same sign again
I'd say it's right to protect your property and belongings and even use force to do so, as long as no serious harm is done to the offender (no matter how much they deserve it)
ReplyDeleteShooting someone is however a little extreme in my opinion, and it would have been better to fire blanks or aim at the floor near his feet.
Hi Ti,
ReplyDeleteThanks for you comment.
Certainly I would never have thought about shooting at the offenders feet, but thinking about it, I agree that it make sense as he is very Unlikely to start moving Backwards. That gives it a 99% Non Harm Rate.
Usually when I talk about Shooting People, There are no Bullets involved, but if successful there is Printable Proof
Ah, I see what you are getting at there Anthony, and I agree with your "correct" definition of shooting; the non-violent type which produces an image.
ReplyDeleteTo assert where I stand on the issue however, I don't believe it is sensible for anyone to be allowed to keep any form of firearm in their home as it provides an opportunity for someone to come to harm.
Tony martin had been targetted by thieves for a long period of time it was not suprised he was pushed to his limit.
ReplyDeleteAlso there were two thieves that night that broke in to Tonys property. One ran away but did nothing to find out about his friend that he left behind even though he must have heard the gun shot. He could have alerted the emergency services and maybe have saved his friend!!!! great friend he had there!
Hi Anon,
ReplyDeleteYes, I certainly agree that even the best behaved people can only take so much before they do something which they should not do.
Yes, absolutely agree about the friend who got away, even if he was scared of being shot him self, he still should have dialed 112 or 999 and got to a road.