A slow descent into Hell...

[Otto]

I'm just posting this to see if we can get the O'club past the GD forum.



"On Aug. 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England, killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/incremental_20000928.html



The Tony Martin case sparked an excrement storm that is still swirling. The accomplice of the killed burglar, who was also shot by Martin (and who had more than 30 criminal convictions), is trying to sue Martin for damages as a result of being shot. Go figure … I supposed American burglars injured 'on the job' would apply for and receive workman's compensation?

In October 2001 Martin's offense was begrudgingly downgraded to manslaughter and his sentence reduced to five years. But the controversy continues.

The surviving burglar is trying to sue Martin for damages as a result of being shot. He has asked for a reported £15,000 for loss of earnings, claiming he can no longer enjoy sex or bear to see shootings on television. The plaintiff is currently in jail (which raises an interesting question about his alleged sexual dysfunction).

Martin has struggled with the parole board for early release from prison. He is due for automatic release on 28 July, but could have been released as early as September last year. However, the parole board has continually refused him early release, saying – now pay attention to this – he has shown no remorse and would continue to pose a danger to any other burglars. "

[Tarmac]

I ran into this attitude in many a pub discussion while I was in England.  I thought they were nuts for it, they thought I was nuts for believing that I (a private citizen, gasp) should have the right to use deadly force against a threatening intruder in my home.  

At best, the discussions ended with us agreeing to disagree.  At worst, they ended with the other person running out of arguments and being reduced to a stammering "well then you're a murderer."  
"Fine by me, if that's what it takes to protect me and my family."
"... but... but... you're a murderer."

Maybe it was just the demographic - I was dealing with a lot of lefty college students at the University of London.  The discussions with the hard-core socialists were a riot.  

Good memories, though.  I loved that little university watering hole on Malet Street.

[rpm]

Originally posted by Otto
However, the parole board has continually refused him early release, saying – now pay attention to this – he has shown no remorse and would continue to pose a danger to any other burglars. "

That man is a Hero.

[john9001]

the late, great empire...rule bratania, or something like that.


every day i thank god i live in USA

[Fishu]

If someone would break into my house at night and not run away when threatened, I'd blame them if they would choose not to run.
Someone whos able to break in, surely will be capable of running away too..

I just don't understand it why they don't just nicely run away and even more when someone kills the burglar, the shooter is suddenly a murderer.. as if hes invited the burglars at his home and shot them without a warning.

If you're not invited...
1. ...you shouldn't break in the house
2. ...you shouldn't be looting in the house
3. ...but you still insist to do 1 and/or 2, you should run damn fast when told to get lost
4. ...and you get hurt when not done as advised on 3, thats your fault.

damn those criminals, the laws seems to protect them better than the victims.

[Seraphim]

Simple
Keep shootin till they cant sue you =)

[Godzilla]

I'm moving my home invasion business to the UK. Anyone from the UK know of any well-to-do people that have some neat stuff I could take ?

What's next in the UK, criminals asking the robbery victim to gift wrap the loot for them and see them to the door?

Maybe if you leave milk and cookies out for the crooks, they won't hurt you while they clean you out.

[Ossie]

I supposed American burglars injured 'on the job' would apply for and receive workman's compensation?

I seem to recall a story in government class (covering lawsuits that appear frivolous but still managed to reward the plaintiffs) about a burglar who was injured by something lying on the floor of the house that he was burglarizing. IIRC, he did manage to sue the homeowners for punitive damages.

[moot]

sue the burglar for any damages made by the burglar's suit.

[Toad]

Cripes, he oughta pick up a ST. James bible, claim he saw the light, get paroled and come to the USA.

He'd never buy another drink and somebody would probably buy him a house, car and a new shotgun.

[lord dolf vader]

or a well placed bullet.

[Dowding]

Practically hilarious that Americans have the gall to criticize any other legal system after the OJ Simpson Laughter Show.

[Tarmac]

Originally posted by Dowding
Practically hilarious that Americans have the gall to criticize any other legal system after the OJ Simpson Laughter Show.

How does that quote go?  The one about 10 guilty men going free over one innocent man being found guilty?

[Dowding]

How does that other quote go? That one about the rich superstar going free on a technicality in a criminal court, but having to pay millions in compensation to the families of the victims in a civil action?

[Tarmac]

He didn't go free on a technicality, he went free because the jury didn't convict him.  

And the settlement is due to the difference in the burden of proof in American civil vs criminal courts.  In criminal courts, the prosecution has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt - a tough standard.  In civil court, the plaintiff simply needs a preponderance of evidence - more in his favor than against him.  This is a significantly easier standard to meet.  

It's the difference between being sure of something vs leaning more one way than the other.