Still a Major Fraud???
Barras was attempting to obtain property which did not belong to him. That is never morally right, and anything that I or anyone else might say about his tender age, his background, etc. can only ever mitigate (and not excuse) what was a crime for which punishment was obviously appropriate.
Ingrams was attempting to obtain property which did not belong to him. His 'education' allowed him to do that by lying and cheating his way to £1 m of someone else's money, rather than by going and physically stealing it in the dead of night.
Do please point out the MORAL difference to me, Flying Lawyer. I would have thought that both contravene the "Thou shalt not steal" commandment, while Ingrams also "bore false witness".
Cap'n G,
My understanding was that Barras was running to the window. Stopped, was shot once in the back, begged for his life, and was shot again as he struggled to get to the window. I'm afraid that any wisdom I might have is entirely 'out of the window' because this case (and especially the way it has been presented) just makes me see red. Martin was not an ordinary bloke who was in fear of his life, he was a psychopath who was looking for an opportunity to shoot burglars and/or gypsies, and his previous record makes this clear. As Scud points out, there have been other cases when householders have killed intruders, and their actions have been found reasonable, and I would not necessarily disagree with such findings.
Ingrams was attempting to obtain property which did not belong to him. His 'education' allowed him to do that by lying and cheating his way to £1 m of someone else's money, rather than by going and physically stealing it in the dead of night.
Do please point out the MORAL difference to me, Flying Lawyer. I would have thought that both contravene the "Thou shalt not steal" commandment, while Ingrams also "bore false witness".
Cap'n G,
My understanding was that Barras was running to the window. Stopped, was shot once in the back, begged for his life, and was shot again as he struggled to get to the window. I'm afraid that any wisdom I might have is entirely 'out of the window' because this case (and especially the way it has been presented) just makes me see red. Martin was not an ordinary bloke who was in fear of his life, he was a psychopath who was looking for an opportunity to shoot burglars and/or gypsies, and his previous record makes this clear. As Scud points out, there have been other cases when householders have killed intruders, and their actions have been found reasonable, and I would not necessarily disagree with such findings.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: City of Culture
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the farmer case points out a lot of stupidity concerning UK's self defense laws. The subject of "reasonable force" comes up time and time again. What this means is that if your assaulted in your home by 3 drug addicts and they attack you, you pick up a knife and defend yourself. You are in the wrong. Likewise you will be charged if you use a gun (a legal weapon) to defend yourself if they do not have a gun also.
What it all comes down to is that you are not allowed to defend either yourself, your family or your propety only the police can do that. Your wife could be getting gang raped in your own home and yet if you knife them you will be charged with murder and end up in court. Compare that to the US were if anyone enters your properity you can legally shoot them dead. Im not saying this is the best alternative but its certain that the current system is ****ing useless.
What it all comes down to is that you are not allowed to defend either yourself, your family or your propety only the police can do that. Your wife could be getting gang raped in your own home and yet if you knife them you will be charged with murder and end up in court. Compare that to the US were if anyone enters your properity you can legally shoot them dead. Im not saying this is the best alternative but its certain that the current system is ****ing useless.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko
The actions of both Ingrams and Barras were morally wrong.
Both men tried to steal property which didn't belong to them, but Barras's victim wasn't some impersonal 'legal entity' but a real person with real feelings. He didn't break into commercial premises, but into someone's home. Compare any 'distress' the shareholders of Celador might have felt if Ingrams had succeeded with the distress they'd feel if someone broke into their home to steal.
The distress residential burglars cause to their victims is enormous, far greater than simply the distress they feel at the loss of whatever is stolen.
Night-time burglaries of houses cause even greater distress. The one place where we should feel safe is in our own homes; victims of night-time burglars frequently never feel safe in their homes again.
That is why, rightly in my view, the courts impose more severe punishments for house burglaries than for burglaries of commercial premises and more severe punishments for house burglaries at night when houses are, or are likely to be, occupied than for burglaries of unoccupied houses by day.
Stealing is morally wrong but, in my view, violating someone's home to steal is morally worse.
The actions of both Ingrams and Barras were morally wrong.
Both men tried to steal property which didn't belong to them, but Barras's victim wasn't some impersonal 'legal entity' but a real person with real feelings. He didn't break into commercial premises, but into someone's home. Compare any 'distress' the shareholders of Celador might have felt if Ingrams had succeeded with the distress they'd feel if someone broke into their home to steal.
The distress residential burglars cause to their victims is enormous, far greater than simply the distress they feel at the loss of whatever is stolen.
Night-time burglaries of houses cause even greater distress. The one place where we should feel safe is in our own homes; victims of night-time burglars frequently never feel safe in their homes again.
That is why, rightly in my view, the courts impose more severe punishments for house burglaries than for burglaries of commercial premises and more severe punishments for house burglaries at night when houses are, or are likely to be, occupied than for burglaries of unoccupied houses by day.
Stealing is morally wrong but, in my view, violating someone's home to steal is morally worse.
"Ingrams was attempting to obtain property which did not belong to him. His 'education' allowed him to do that by lying and cheating his way to £1 m of someone else's money, rather than by going and physically stealing it in the dead of night."
Surely it was his lack of education that caused him to cheat. A social worker would no doubt argue that an educated person would have been able to answer the questions honestly and therefore the Majors lack of education left him with no choice but to cheat.
Just they argue that burglars have no choice but to steal.
Surely it was his lack of education that caused him to cheat. A social worker would no doubt argue that an educated person would have been able to answer the questions honestly and therefore the Majors lack of education left him with no choice but to cheat.
Just they argue that burglars have no choice but to steal.
Dr J,
That's why 'education' was in inverted commas. The Major's inability to answer some fairly simple questions unaided was astonishing, IMHO. The argument that anyone in Britain today has 'no choice but to steal' is specious, though I can see that environment, parental influence education and deprivation may sometimes combine to reduce the natural restraint against criminal and anti-social behaviour, making it more likely that some elements within society will engage in crime. That's why Tony's 'Tough on crime AND tough on the causes of crime' one-liner would actually be such a great idea, if it represented what he really intended. Punish and deter individual criminals and change the environmental factors which influenced their offending behaviour.
FL,
No MORAL difference then?
(Since morals are absolute). Of course I can see a difference between both crimes and can recognise that both should attract different punishments. I'll even agree that there's something uniquely nasty about having your home violated and about having personal property (which may have sentimental value) stolen, rather than 'mere' cash. I have always thought that crimes against an individual should attract a tougher penalty than crimes against an organisation, and always thought the way in which the Criminal Justice system imposed heavier penalties for crimes which involved very large amounts of money than for simple burglaries (even if the latter involved serious assaults) was questionable. I daresay Ronnie Biggs would agree, too! Not that I'm defending the Great Train Robbery, before we go off on another tangent.
That's why 'education' was in inverted commas. The Major's inability to answer some fairly simple questions unaided was astonishing, IMHO. The argument that anyone in Britain today has 'no choice but to steal' is specious, though I can see that environment, parental influence education and deprivation may sometimes combine to reduce the natural restraint against criminal and anti-social behaviour, making it more likely that some elements within society will engage in crime. That's why Tony's 'Tough on crime AND tough on the causes of crime' one-liner would actually be such a great idea, if it represented what he really intended. Punish and deter individual criminals and change the environmental factors which influenced their offending behaviour.
FL,
No MORAL difference then?
(Since morals are absolute). Of course I can see a difference between both crimes and can recognise that both should attract different punishments. I'll even agree that there's something uniquely nasty about having your home violated and about having personal property (which may have sentimental value) stolen, rather than 'mere' cash. I have always thought that crimes against an individual should attract a tougher penalty than crimes against an organisation, and always thought the way in which the Criminal Justice system imposed heavier penalties for crimes which involved very large amounts of money than for simple burglaries (even if the latter involved serious assaults) was questionable. I daresay Ronnie Biggs would agree, too! Not that I'm defending the Great Train Robbery, before we go off on another tangent.
Thanks gang,
As for tangents, I'll agree that we have wandered down this one quite a way. But this interesting discussion IS linked to the question in hand: the Ingrams.
The Martin burglars and the Ingrams all attempted to steal valuables/money.
The major difference between the two cases is that the Ingrams never physically threatened or hurt anyone. If the burglars had been caught and sent to court, they admittedly would not have been shot as a result... but that is not relevant.
What is relevant is that Tony Martin used what HE believed was reasonable force to defend himself and his home.
He had no idea what they might do to him in order to cover up their crime. So in my view, he actually did use reasonable force to counter the threat he faced. The jury obviously took a different view, but then the legal system in this country stinks and it is guilty of charging Martin with murder. When he should have faced a lesser sentence of a fine, a warning and probation, and put the whole thing behind him.
JACKO: I too fail to see the association between parking in someone's space accidentally, and deliberately breaking into the house it belongs to
After all one act contains violence, and the other ....doesn't!
Have you resorted to such gibberish (like the Bluntie jibe) as a last stand against the tide of opinion on this thread which is in favour of my view over yours?? Better luck next time
A CIVILIAN: One of the best points you've raised on this forum, keep it up.
The Martin burglars and the Ingrams all attempted to steal valuables/money.
The major difference between the two cases is that the Ingrams never physically threatened or hurt anyone. If the burglars had been caught and sent to court, they admittedly would not have been shot as a result... but that is not relevant.
What is relevant is that Tony Martin used what HE believed was reasonable force to defend himself and his home.
He had no idea what they might do to him in order to cover up their crime. So in my view, he actually did use reasonable force to counter the threat he faced. The jury obviously took a different view, but then the legal system in this country stinks and it is guilty of charging Martin with murder. When he should have faced a lesser sentence of a fine, a warning and probation, and put the whole thing behind him.
JACKO: I too fail to see the association between parking in someone's space accidentally, and deliberately breaking into the house it belongs to
After all one act contains violence, and the other ....doesn't!Have you resorted to such gibberish (like the Bluntie jibe) as a last stand against the tide of opinion on this thread which is in favour of my view over yours?? Better luck next time
A CIVILIAN: One of the best points you've raised on this forum, keep it up.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Martin case was heard by a jury. After considering all the evidence he was found Guilty by at least a 10-2 vote. Everyone else on here DID NOT hear all the evidence. Anyone who disagrees with the verdict doesn't understand that the jury, representing you, found that the force used exceeded a "reasonable force" and that came to that conclusion "beyond a reasonable doubt".
Now I don't disagree that Barras should not have been there BUT killing him was not "reasonable force". I'm sure that all the arguments presented here (in fear of life or whatever) would have been presented to the jury and been rejected.
Those who claim his innocence should stop reading the Daily Mail and remember the above. grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Now I don't disagree that Barras should not have been there BUT killing him was not "reasonable force". I'm sure that all the arguments presented here (in fear of life or whatever) would have been presented to the jury and been rejected.
Those who claim his innocence should stop reading the Daily Mail and remember the above. grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
What the accused thinks is reasonable is irrelevant. You might think it reasonable to shoot me to shut me up (and I might well agree.....) but when the accused is quite so plainly 'eccentric' (I'm being charitable and not using words like deranged, unhinged, or insane) the definition of what is and is not reasonable must, quite rightly, lie with the jury.
Re parking. Were I to shoot you for deliberately parking on double yellows outside my home (I don't have any double yellows, but bear with me) or even on my drive, or in my garage it would patently be an insane, disproportionate and unreasonable act on my part. The fact that you had deliberately gone out with the express intention of breaking the law, committing trespass, or breaking into my garage would be irrelevant.
I find it interesting that those who so vocally campaign for Martin choose to ignore his past record (whereas that of Barras is paraded as being of supreme relevance) and his far right political leanings and links.
You chose to label me as a tired old hack and questioned the 'nobility'of my profession. Fair enough. You also chose to post a tirade about gypos 'forefeiting' their rights and then got pompous (inviting me to look at your profile) when I drew the obvious inferences from that ignorant and ill-educated piece of prejudice. My reference to blunties was to tip you the wink that I had indeed checked your profile. I'm horrified that anyone who holds a commission in HM Forces should express some of the views that you have done, especially with regard to the desirability of vigilanteeism and with regard to gypsies.
No-one here has expressed the classic liberal argument. Not even me! We all seem to agree with SpruceMoose's statement: "I despise burglars" and would all want burglars to be properly punished for their despicable crimes. I suspect that most of us would agree that force (and even lethal force) is sometimes reasonable. But it seems that to agree with SM's belief that he "doesn't want to live in a country where any loon can fatally wound someone with a shotgun" (let alone to despise oily, greedy white collar criminals with equal vehemence) marks one out as a peddlar of dangerous "pinko nonsense".
Re parking. Were I to shoot you for deliberately parking on double yellows outside my home (I don't have any double yellows, but bear with me) or even on my drive, or in my garage it would patently be an insane, disproportionate and unreasonable act on my part. The fact that you had deliberately gone out with the express intention of breaking the law, committing trespass, or breaking into my garage would be irrelevant.
I find it interesting that those who so vocally campaign for Martin choose to ignore his past record (whereas that of Barras is paraded as being of supreme relevance) and his far right political leanings and links.
You chose to label me as a tired old hack and questioned the 'nobility'of my profession. Fair enough. You also chose to post a tirade about gypos 'forefeiting' their rights and then got pompous (inviting me to look at your profile) when I drew the obvious inferences from that ignorant and ill-educated piece of prejudice. My reference to blunties was to tip you the wink that I had indeed checked your profile. I'm horrified that anyone who holds a commission in HM Forces should express some of the views that you have done, especially with regard to the desirability of vigilanteeism and with regard to gypsies.
No-one here has expressed the classic liberal argument. Not even me! We all seem to agree with SpruceMoose's statement: "I despise burglars" and would all want burglars to be properly punished for their despicable crimes. I suspect that most of us would agree that force (and even lethal force) is sometimes reasonable. But it seems that to agree with SM's belief that he "doesn't want to live in a country where any loon can fatally wound someone with a shotgun" (let alone to despise oily, greedy white collar criminals with equal vehemence) marks one out as a peddlar of dangerous "pinko nonsense".
The point is that the previous record of Barras was relevant. What is reasonable action to take depends on the threat, an habitual criminal is clearly more of a threat than a decent human being. So in order to judge whether, or to what extent, the householders action was disproportionate clearly we have to consider what he was dealing with.
Imagine this scenario:
Defendant: I shot the intruder because it was a rabid man eating grizly bear.
Prosecution: But that is unreasonable, you should not shoot harmless pussy cats.
Defendant: But it wasn't a cat was it, it was a rabid man eating grizzly bear.
Prosecution: Oh, but that isn't relevant.
Martin's record on the other hand is not relevant.
Previous convictions are not normally admissable in evidence,and in any case being eccentric and holding demented political views are not yet illegal.
Are you suggesting Martin's previous record justifies his house being burgled?
Imagine this scenario:
Defendant: I shot the intruder because it was a rabid man eating grizly bear.
Prosecution: But that is unreasonable, you should not shoot harmless pussy cats.
Defendant: But it wasn't a cat was it, it was a rabid man eating grizzly bear.
Prosecution: Oh, but that isn't relevant.
Martin's record on the other hand is not relevant.
Previous convictions are not normally admissable in evidence,and in any case being eccentric and holding demented political views are not yet illegal.
Are you suggesting Martin's previous record justifies his house being burgled?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dr J, your reply defies belief. So what if you parked on double yellow lines before - it doesn't mean you can be shot this time. Besides I doubt whether Martin asked him about his "previous" before his premeditated use of lethal force. And presumably in your "analogy" (in the loosest term) the Grizzly Bear would be acting like a Grizzly Bear and not a Pussy Cat. Get a life.
Maybe you could list what crimes deserve the suspect to be dispatched with instant justice? Presumably anything that would be considered a greater crime than bulgary.
Maybe you could list what crimes deserve the suspect to be dispatched with instant justice? Presumably anything that would be considered a greater crime than bulgary.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pulse1
Must be a very old copper or a very old conversation.
Prior to the Theft Act 1968, there were separate offences for burglary during the hours of darkness and during the daytime. There is now no such distinction, though, as already stated, the circumstances (eg time and place) of the burglary are very important at the sentencing stage. For example, a dwelling burglar (as opposed to, say, a warehouse burglar) will invariably receive a custodial setence, even for a first offence.
Put simply, burglary is entering a building as a trespasser with intent to steal or, having entered as a trespasser, stealing whilst therein. There are additional elements to the offence, which, for the sake of brevity, I won't go into.
Must be a very old copper or a very old conversation.
Prior to the Theft Act 1968, there were separate offences for burglary during the hours of darkness and during the daytime. There is now no such distinction, though, as already stated, the circumstances (eg time and place) of the burglary are very important at the sentencing stage. For example, a dwelling burglar (as opposed to, say, a warehouse burglar) will invariably receive a custodial setence, even for a first offence.
Put simply, burglary is entering a building as a trespasser with intent to steal or, having entered as a trespasser, stealing whilst therein. There are additional elements to the offence, which, for the sake of brevity, I won't go into.
Nope, sorry. Anyone breaking into a house should expect to run the risk of being shot on sight by the occupant. Don't like the idea? Then don't break in. Simple.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nope sorry, anyone parking outside my house in MY space should expect to run the risk of being shot on sight by the displaced car's owner. Don't like the idea? Then don't park there. Simple.
Nope sorry, anyone dropping litter should expect to run the risk of being shot on sight by the local litter patrol. Don't like the idea? Then don't drop litter. Simple.
Nope sorry, anyone exceeding the speed limit should expect to run the risk of being shot on sight by anyone whose kid has been injured by a speeding motorist. Don't like the idea? Then don't speed. Simple.
Nope sorry, anyone dropping litter should expect to run the risk of being shot on sight by the local litter patrol. Don't like the idea? Then don't drop litter. Simple.
Nope sorry, anyone exceeding the speed limit should expect to run the risk of being shot on sight by anyone whose kid has been injured by a speeding motorist. Don't like the idea? Then don't speed. Simple.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can we not foget the Reductio ad Absurdum and stick to practicalities? Most American states allow the use of firearms in defence of one's person and property (which includes home and, in some states car). In consequence, the incidence of homicide is higher in the USA than in the UK; but the incidence of property crime is much lower. A friend I stayed with in Virginia not long ago, who was ex-FBI, made a point of leaving his house unlocked when he went down town and his car unlocked when he parked there. Brits must understand the culture when they visit the USA. Some poor sod a few years ago who landed at Miami late at night got lost and knocked on a door to ask for directions. The door opened and Bang! he was a dead man.
JACKO: Fair enough then, I had a go at you for being a "tired old hack" and you called me a blunty. We are even.
But where do you get off suggesting that just because I am an officer I should not have this or that view or say something which happens to upset the sensibilities of a few select liberals!
As mature grown-ups in a supposed democracy, the military (and the police, firemen, nurses, binmen, etc) should be allowed to think and opine WHATEVER they choose to!
Only 2 things should keep me out of said military:
1. The initial selection process, where links to fascist groups and foreign govts are sniffed out.
2. Once serving, any ACTION of physical violence/intimidation towards another person (outside of the laws of armed conflict), which results in me being fairly convicted.
So as I am at the moment, why the hell shouldn't the 200 000 odd servicemen in UK PLC hold any view they like?
And Scud-U-Like:
I don't see how you can tie together knocking on a door, and housebreaking; that's absurd.
If the chap FV was referring to was a criminal and was caught kicking the window in, and was caught INSIDE the house, ......then give him both barrels.
But if the story went down as suggested, then the Miami householder in question exceeded minimum force.
But where do you get off suggesting that just because I am an officer I should not have this or that view or say something which happens to upset the sensibilities of a few select liberals!
As mature grown-ups in a supposed democracy, the military (and the police, firemen, nurses, binmen, etc) should be allowed to think and opine WHATEVER they choose to!
Only 2 things should keep me out of said military:
1. The initial selection process, where links to fascist groups and foreign govts are sniffed out.
2. Once serving, any ACTION of physical violence/intimidation towards another person (outside of the laws of armed conflict), which results in me being fairly convicted.
So as I am at the moment, why the hell shouldn't the 200 000 odd servicemen in UK PLC hold any view they like?
And Scud-U-Like:
I don't see how you can tie together knocking on a door, and housebreaking; that's absurd.
If the chap FV was referring to was a criminal and was caught kicking the window in, and was caught INSIDE the house, ......then give him both barrels.
But if the story went down as suggested, then the Miami householder in question exceeded minimum force.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, TR, you should be allowed to shoot-on-sight a person who breaks into your property, but not one who simply walks into your property. They could both be burglars, so, why waste one and spare the other?
Those who advocate the summary execution of burglars are hysterical fools, completely out of touch with reality. The law currently allows you to use reasonable force (even lethal force, where appropriate), so, why this ridiculous notion of shooting-on-sight?
It is not as if burglary is even on the increase. Between 1999-2001/02, domestic burglary in England and Wales fell by 23%. Sorry, I know some of you would like to hear that burglary is rife and out of control, but reality is rarely as exciting as media and political hype.
Those who advocate the summary execution of burglars are hysterical fools, completely out of touch with reality. The law currently allows you to use reasonable force (even lethal force, where appropriate), so, why this ridiculous notion of shooting-on-sight?
It is not as if burglary is even on the increase. Between 1999-2001/02, domestic burglary in England and Wales fell by 23%. Sorry, I know some of you would like to hear that burglary is rife and out of control, but reality is rarely as exciting as media and political hype.
Obviously a lot of you have not been victims of crime. I have just finished giving my statement to the police and was asked if I wanted to give a "victim statement" as well to express how I felt. I don't think that "If I could get my hands on the beggars they wouldn't walk again" would have been appropriate, but thats how I feel. Believe me, you have to experience crime to know what your reactions truly would be. Bring back hanging!