In message ,
Thames Ranger writes
"Stimpy" wrote in message
...
"Thames Ranger" wrote in message
...

It's thread drift and, in line with Usenet convention the thread has
even been renamed. Live with it or, if you don't like, it just set
your newsreader to ignore the thread.

Great excuse for something that has no relevence to either group. Not.

Well, that is what usually happens. Welcome to Usenet! :-)

Thread drift is fine when it still has *some tenuous link* to the group at
the very least. The actions of Tony Martin have feck all to do with anything
in either group.

That's debatable. After all the right of people (or entities) to defend
their own property from people who break and enter in order to commit
crimes of theft or vandalism *is* something of relevance to the
railways.

Personally my sympathies lie entirely with Mr Martin. As I understand
it he fired downwards intending to injure one burglar in the legs, with
no knowledge that the other was crouching there. People who break into
other people's houses (or factories, locosheds, etc) with criminal
intent deserve all they get, and the law should be on the side of the
burgled, not the burglar.

--
- Jack Howard, Systems Development Engineer, Firstnet Services Limited
===[ http://www.firstnet.net.uk --- Total Internet Solutions ]===

===[ This message subject to http://www.firstnet.net.uk/disclaimer.html ]===

Personally my sympathies lie entirely with Mr Martin. As I understand
it he fired downwards intending to injure one burglar in the legs, with
no knowledge that the other was crouching there. People who break into
other people's houses (or factories, locosheds, etc) with criminal
intent deserve all they get, and the law should be on the side of the
burgled, not the burglar.

While it seems nice on the surface, the Daily Mail answer to crime is a
dangerous one.

At the moment we have a system where after committing on average about 10
burglaries, the person is bundled before the courts and receives a
punishment, usually of a hundred or so hours unpaid work first time round,
custodial later on. The punishment is not currently death.

Anyone using force is required to show that it was reasonable in the
circumstances - e.g. if Tony Martin had been threatened with a knife, firing
a lethal weapon in their direction might have been reasonable.

If you move to a system where minor crimes are subject to unlimited
punishment, things quickly escalate.

E.g. domestic argument, visitor pushes householder, householder responds
with murder?
E.g. ambulance called to house, paramedics killed by 'anti-burglar' measures
or over-enthusiastic neighbour
E.g. person lost and trespasses on land, shot as a 'possible burglar'
E.g. police able to use unlimited force without checks, easily exploitable
by corrupt officers
E.g. person able to kill and pretend they were defending their own property
at the time

This kind of disproportionate reaction is justified only in very rare
circumstances, e.g. by the government in protecting order, and you can see
the dangers of its introduction, for example, by looking at the effects of
its use in Northern Ireland.

Tony Martin belongs in one place until the end of a typical murder sentence,
and that is prison.

Richard

Richard wrote:

This kind of disproportionate reaction is justified only in
very rare circumstances, e.g. by the government in
protecting order, and you can see the dangers of its
introduction, for example, by looking at the effects of its
use in Northern Ireland.

Tony Martin belongs in one place until the end of a typical
murder sentence, and that is prison.

I wonder if people who spout this mantra would behave any differently if
they were in Tony Martin's situation or were actually taking note of the
whole situation.

In message , Richard
writes
Personally my sympathies lie entirely with Mr Martin. As I understand
it he fired downwards intending to injure one burglar in the legs, with
no knowledge that the other was crouching there. People who break into
other people's houses (or factories, locosheds, etc) with criminal
intent deserve all they get, and the law should be on the side of the
burgled, not the burglar.

While it seems nice on the surface, the Daily Mail answer to crime is a
dangerous one.

At the moment we have a system where after committing on average about 10
burglaries, the person is bundled before the courts and receives a
punishment, usually of a hundred or so hours unpaid work first time round,

So, for totally destroying a family's feeling of security in their own
home, depriving them of items of possibly incalculable sentimental
value, you regard getting away with it 10 times and then doing a few
hours of unpaid work as a suitable punishment?

Perhaps you are a hermit who owns nothing of value, financial or
personal, but most of the rest of us regard our homes as places of
safety and security in which we can store our goods and memories.

The punishment for those who shatter that feeling of security should be
one hell of a lot worse than 100 hours of light labour, IMO.

custodial later on.

After they've wrecked even more people's well-being.

The punishment is not currently death.

I'm not suggesting that it should be. However those who set out to
commit such crimes should expect both a high level of risk (including
the possibility of death, maiming, or other very serious injury) while
carrying out their acts, and harsh punishment when caught by the proper
authorities.

Proper justice includes the extraction of fair vengeance from the
wrongdoer. Those who commit crime for gain should have fewer rights
than those who don't, or who only do so to protect themselves and their
property from criminals.

snip silly examples

And BTW, I don't read the Daily Mail.

--
- Jack Howard, Systems Development Engineer, Firstnet Services Limited
===[ http://www.firstnet.net.uk --- Total Internet Solutions ]===

===[ This message subject to http://www.firstnet.net.uk/disclaimer.html ]===

Proper justice includes the extraction of fair vengeance from the
wrongdoer. Those who commit crime for gain should have fewer rights
than those who don't, or who only do so to protect themselves and their
property from criminals.

I don't aim to defend current levels of punishment as right or wrong.

I would go so far as to say that those committing crime for gain should have
fewer rights.

(For example, if the lad hit by Tony Martin wins his compensation case, a
large chunk of his compensation will likely be taken away for contributory
negligence).

Something which hits me quite hard at the moment is having to keep property
safe, even for those who break in and take equipment from locked cupboards -
at the moment I can be sued for any injury to them, particularly if they are
young.

But my point is that use of violence can only be justified where there is a
proportionate risk to the attacker. So shooting people dead just because
you saw them in your house is just not good enough, ever. The Daily Mail
attitude (and yes I am quoting their name, whether or not you read them,
because they have done a lot of damage by using this exact method) of
engendering limitless sympathy for someone who has suffered x or y crime,
and then encouraging vigilante attacks on said criminals with any amount of
punishment justified, has the potential to do a great deal of damage to our
country.

Especially as only the 'popular' crimes are dealt with. The 'ugly' crimes
that are so much more frequent, and do so much more damage, but which so
many more Daily Mail readers are involved in, are quietly brushed under the
carpet. So assaults are only covered in this way when they are committed by
'someone else' - asylum seekers, etc, never white lads or girls on a night
out. Etc, etc. Killing on the roads is encouraged, as being macho to stand
upto authority by drinking a few and then driving at 100mph on the way home.

Richard

"Richard" writes:
out. Etc, etc. Killing on the roads is encouraged, as being macho to stand
upto authority by drinking a few and then driving at 100mph on the way home.

Time to put your money where your big mouth is. The Mail online can
be found at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/; please post a link to any
story there which encourages killing on the roads, or drinking and
driving combined. You can also find newsgroup archives at Google; try
to find any posting in what you would consider a "pro-motorist"
newsgroup (uk.rec.driving and uk.transport would be good places to
start) which also attempts to justify or encourage such behaviour, or
suggests that perpetrators should go unpunished. Anything you can
find to back up your rantings will be most welcome.

--
Jonathan Marten, SCM Team Engineer VSP Bracknell, UK
Sun Microsystems

"Progress is not expedited by frequent requests for progress reports"

In article , Richard
writes
Anyone using force is required to show that it was reasonable in the
circumstances - e.g. if Tony Martin had been threatened with a knife, firing
a lethal weapon in their direction might have been reasonable.

If you move to a system where minor crimes are subject to unlimited
punishment, things quickly escalate.
[...]

For example, as we've seen in the past, it produces cases of people
being driven from their vandalised homes for the heinous crime of being
a paediatrician.

--
Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address

In article ,
Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
In article , Richard
writes
Anyone using force is required to show that it was reasonable in the
circumstances - e.g. if Tony Martin had been threatened with a knife, firing
a lethal weapon in their direction might have been reasonable.

If you move to a system where minor crimes are subject to unlimited
punishment, things quickly escalate.
[...]

For example, as we've seen in the past, it produces cases of people
being driven from their vandalised homes for the heinous crime of being
a paediatrician.


Indeed. And Spike Milligna also suffered...

Gordo



--
This is not my sig nature....
gordo AT loop zilla.org......

Gordon Joly wrote:

Indeed. And Spike Milligna also suffered...

From what did Spike suffer?

"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...
Gordon Joly wrote:

Indeed. And Spike Milligna also suffered...

From what did Spike suffer?


Well, he has been diagnosed as having "Bi-polar disorder" ( previously then
diagonosis was schizoprhrenia, but it was toodifficult to spell properly).
Sufferers from any " mental health problem " tend to be ostracised,
socially, I suppose that his 'celebrity' has caused him to gain the
attention of the
"saner" sections of "normal society". ( please understand that the previous
section is meant sarcastically.