I'm disgusted
Tony Martin refused early release yesterday. He should never have gone to prison in the first place, and certainly should not have been charged with murder. British justice is a joke. And the wee b****** he didn't kill gets legal aid to sue him!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3010949.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/3009769.stm
Posted by: rob
Re: I'm disgusted - 09/05/2003 06:31
Were we living in a country of vigilante justice where the punishment for burglary was death, then Martin should not have been convicted. Thankfully we don't live in such a country. People who are driven to attempted murder in response to such provocation are certainly victims in many senses, but that doesn't make it OK for them to start executing kids - not even antisocial ones.
As for legal aid, the whole point of the system is to make the legal system accessible to those who cannot otherwise afford it. Martin can also claim legal aid for his representation if he meets the criteria. The legal aid system absolutely must not take into account innocence or guilt, because those things have not been established until AFTER the process for which the aid is required.
Rob
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: I'm disgusted - 09/05/2003 06:44
Interesting.
One thing that stuck out to me from reading that is that he had "an illegally-held pump-action shotgun". I hadn't thought about hunters in England before. When is it legal to own a shotgun or a rifle? I mean, you guys have to get out and kill your foxes, right? Or do the hounds just tear them apart enough that you don't need to waste a bullet?
(Sorry for the baiting. I just find fox hunting particularly gruesome. The real question is legitimate.)
What I have issue with is the prison system. Martin is refused early release because he refuses to show remorse and doesn't say sorry. He's being honest. On the other hand, the guy he shot was on parole at the time, and is now back in for drug offences and has a stream of previous convictions, as did his partner in crime. So Martin is still in prison because he hasn't said "ok, I'm so sorry. I'll be good".
In that report it states that he's not being released as "he'd be a threat to other burgulars". Well I hope he is a threat to them.
If someone were to burgle your house, and your in at the time, you would arm yourself with something. In self defence you may well strike out - be it with a gun, knife or golf club, it makes no difference. If you injure or kill the burgular then tough for them. They give up their rights when they walk into your home. Martin didn't go out and look for trouble. It came to him and he reacted. Good for him I say.
Rant over
AFAIK, you can legally hold a shotgun as long as you are licensed and vetted by the police, and you must have a good reason. All hand guns are banned here, but farmers etc can own a shotgun for vermin etc. Martin's license was revoked as he fired on a car previously!
Fox hunters don't have guns - they just let the hounds rip their necks off. Nice and humane that way (!)
Posted by: ashmoore
Re: I'm disgusted - 09/05/2003 07:09
Not to start a country/city sensibility battle here, but.....
If fox hunting is bad, what about any hunting in the US or even worse, bow hunting.
A bullet is only an instant kill in hollywood. An arrow is even less.
How many hunters out there are skilled enough for an instant kill? Not that many.
How many deer or javalina die a slow death from blood loss, especially from bow hunters.
Also, how does any predator kill its prey? Not by talking it do death, thats for sure
The real core of this debate is that any form of hunting is always frowned upon by the city folk who think that the beef burger was never a real living animal, and can even less likely think about the whole process of just how that chicken, ribeye or pork chop got to their plate.
Whereas the country folk are the ones raising the cattle/chickens/pigs etc. They have a totally differant view of what is happening.
I am not a veggie, I just accept all aspects of killing other animals for food etc. Millions of cows/chickens/pigs die every year to feed us, no amount of glossing over the speed/painless or humane methods used can hide what happens.
A visit to a slaughter house will rid anyone of any thoughts that the animals there a treated with respect. They are all walking meat and burgers. The cows are TERRIFIED and trembling in fear before they are 'humanely' killed then chopped up and served in Burgerking the following week.
Thats life (ours, not theirs)
Yes, but fox hunting isn't killing for food. Its just plain barbaric. Lots of poncy lords and ladies dressed up on horses - pathetic.
The excuse is that "the fox population must bge controlled". I don't think so.
Posted by: genixia
Re: I'm disgusted - 09/05/2003 07:19
So he's previously fired upon a car.
He was in possession of an illegal weapon.
He then shot a burglar with said weapon.
He refuses to acknowledge that he was wrong to do so.
And you're wondering why he's in prison?
1) In the UK is is not legal to shoot a burglar. You can debate whether it should be until the cows come home, but the law remains.
2) He doesn't appear to have any regard for UK firearm laws. 3 firearm offences that I can see.
3) He doesn't appear to understand that he is in the wrong.
And you think he should be on the streets?
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: I'm disgusted - 09/05/2003 07:24
Martin is refused early release because he refuses to show remorse and doesn't say sorry.
That seems reasonable to me. I don't know a lot (anything, really) about the British parole system, but, to me, the key word is ``early''. If he doesn't have any qualms about having shot the guy, then why should he get out early. I don't know what the official stance on incarceration is in the UK (or if there is one), but it seems that at least one of its functions should be to try to prevent the crime from happening again. If he has no interest in avoiding it, then why should he be let out
early?
Somehow I imagine that the burglar started running away as soon as he heard that shotgun being pumped and that there was no real need to shoot the guy, but that's starting to question the sentence, which, as you say, isn't the issue.
The fact that he had a gun is neither here nor there. He could have killed him with an icecream scoop, what difference does that make?
He defended himself and his property. He'd been robbed many many times before and the Police were sod-all help. He was at the end of his tether and desperate. When faced with a scary situation, he responded.
He has shown regret that the situation arose, but not that he killed him. Quite right, see above.
Your points...
1) True. But it was not murder, and he should be paroled by now. The only reason he's not been paroled is because he hasn't said sorry. Why should that be?
2) See above, it makes no difference
3) He may have been wrong to kill him, but he should not be in prison now.
Yes, he should be on the streets.
Tony Martin is not a threat to anyone. Thats been widely accepted. The Police have stated that they can't guarantee his safety from a few people and thats the reason they won't recommend his release. It stinks.
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: I'm disgusted - 09/05/2003 07:30
He shot at a burglar (who may have had something coming), and, by your admission, he shot at a car. It sounds like he is a threat.
Posted by: JeffS
Re: I'm disgusted - 09/05/2003 07:31
Sorry, I just don’t buy the “vigilante justice” argument. Taking the law into your own hands because the police aren’t available is different than willfully skirting the law in order to see your own brand of justice done. From what I can see this man didn’t hunt down these people and seek revenge: he tried to stop them at gunpoint from burglarizing his house.
From the original article:
“The parole board, however, has so far refused him early release - saying he has shown no remorse and would continue to pose a danger to any other burglars.”
Not if the burglars stop burglarizing. I simply don’t understand why this guy should feel sorry for trying to defend his property. Yes someone got killed, and that’s bound to happen when guns are in the mix. One solution is to ban the use of guns and peoples rights to defend themselves; another is to stop burglars. I’d opt for trying to stop burglars, and if a few get shot trying to steal things they haven’t earned from those who have, then I think we have to chalk that up to a necessary evil (My Texas roots showing up here).
Also from the original article:
"We don't have a death sentence for burglary in this country and we don't want one either."
Guns will always be in play, even if they aren’t in the hands of the common man: There is no law that is not enforced at some point by a gun. That doesn’t mean that every law carries a death sentence if broken, but when you resist hard enough eventually you will get shot.
Of course I don't live in England, so I really can't debate the law on this issue. I'm just stating my personal beliefs.
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: I'm disgusted - 09/05/2003 07:36
he tried to stop them at gunpoint from burglarizing his house
According to one of the articles, he shot them in the back as they were trying to escape. He'd already stopped them burglarizing his house. Shooting them was a punishment. He'd have gotten jail time in the US, most likely.
Posted by: genixia
Re: I'm disgusted - 09/05/2003 07:50
The fact that he had a gun is neither here nor there. He could have killed him with an icecream scoop, what difference does that make?
Quite a big one. He shot a 16 year old kid
in the back and killed him. Had he thrown an ice cream scoop at him, the kid would still be alive now, and Martin wouldn't be in gaol.
He defended himself and his property. He'd been robbed many many times before and the Police were sod-all help. He was at the end of his tether and desperate. When faced with a scary situation, he responded.
He shot burglars in the back as they were running away. At that point it should be obvious that his life and his property are no longer under immediate threat. It is irrelevant how many times he had been burgled in the past - or how much use the Police had been in the past. He had already scared them off before he shot them.
He has shown regret that the situation arose, but not that he killed him. Quite right, see above.
He killed a 16 year old kid. Ok, that kid didn't appear to be a particularly nice kid. But he was still a kid. Somebody's son. Shot in the back.
So this guy regrets that the situation arose but not that he killed a 16 year old kid by shooting him in the back? I think he's regretting the wrong bit.
Your points...
1) True. But it was not murder, and he should be paroled by now. The only reason he's not been paroled is because he hasn't said sorry. Why should that be?
As Bitt mentioned above, parole is for *early* release, that has to be earned. His sentence was already reduced from life to 5 years because it was determined that manslaughter was the more appropriate charge.
2) See above, it makes no difference
Of course it does. You cannot choose which laws to follow. Oh, I like this one, no problem. Hmm, I don't like this gun law thing, I'd better ignore that.
3) He may have been wrong to kill him, but he should not be in prison now.
Yes, he should be on the streets.
Well, I'm not about to suggest that I'm in a better position to decide that by reading the news online than the judges who get to review *all* the evidence. If you do the crime, be prepared to do the time.
Yes, I'm sympathetic to his burglary problems. And I could understand that the heat of the moment got to him and that he shot the kid (even in the back) out of fear. But he doesn't even appear to care, and that is worrying.
Posted by: ashmoore
Re: I'm disgusted - 09/05/2003 07:55
Sorry Phillip, but you are 'cityfolk' right?
The line always seems to be drawn right along the city limits.
Ever been to a hunt?
The whole villiage gets involved, those with horses ride as well. The poncy lords and ladies own the land but the vast majority of the riders are regular folk.
Folk such as the very nice lady whose parents ran a sheep farm. And every year she would take time off to go help with lambing season. This was in Glasgow a few years back when I worked there.
One year she came in with news of how the lambing was going and told us of one poor little lamb whose mother rejected it. So they had to feed it and nurture it for four months or so.
Of of her coworkers ooh-ed and ahh-ed "how nice', "how cute" only to be told the lamb was worth more after it was fattened up for sale rather than letting die naturally.
It was likely in a supermarket cold store the following week.
The point is, country folk understand the way this works and embrace it, along with all of the other stuff like personal hunting etc that goes with country life.
They see the hard side of life, its called death and death is not (to outsiders) pleasant or humane.
City folk cannot accept this and refuse to even think about its consquences. All the while thinking they are living the 'civilized' life.
Instead they wander blithley through the supermarket shelves brushing aside the blood, gore and dismemberment that has gone on in their name.
Posted by: rob
Re: I'm disgusted - 09/05/2003 07:55
Sorry for the baiting. I just find fox hunting particularly gruesome.
..in common with most people in the UK. Blood sports are getting banned, slowly but surely.
Rob
Thats why I love this BBS... a sensible discussion for once.
Martin did not deserve to escape a conviction, but jail is not the answer for him, and it never was. Don't you get annoyed when really evil characters walk free all the time because they say the right things. Martin broke the law, thats not in dispute, but the way the case has been handled seems to show him being made an example of for some reason. My original point was that the prison system needs to change - radically, and I still stand by that.
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: I'm disgusted - 09/05/2003 07:58
You cannot choose which laws to follow. Oh, I like this one, no problem. Hmm, I don't like this gun law thing, I'd better ignore that.
I actually have a problem with this line of reasoning. Rebelling against unjust laws, I think, is important to a free society, and the general acceptance of them that is currently going on in the US bothers me quite a bit.
And I could understand that the heat of the moment got to him and that he shot the kid (even in the back) out of fear. But he doesn't even appear to care, and that is worrying.
We have a winner! The fact that he's apparently unremorseful about killing a human being, I think, indicates tendencies towards sociopathy. I mean, if I could go back to 1939 and kill Hitler, I'd probably do it, but I'd still have qualms about killing someone -- anyone -- and I think that that's a part of humanity.
Posted by: JeffS
Re: I'm disgusted - 09/05/2003 08:02
The fact that he's apparently unremorseful about killing a human being, I think, indicates tendencies towards sociopathy. I mean, if I could go back to 1939 and kill Hitler, I'd probably do it, but I'd still have qualms about killing someone -- anyone -- and I think that that's a part of humanity.
Excellent point, Bitt.
Posted by: Redrum
Re: I'm disgusted - 09/05/2003 08:03
"he'd be a threat to other burgulars".
If burglars felt no threat breaking into houses chaos would run rapid. The threat of a short prison stay does not adequately deter crime. The threat of an instant shotgun blast is a much better deterrent.
Hopefully burglars feel threatened to enter my house, they should. Like the old saying goes. “I’d rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.“
I’m sure this fellow still feels that way. He had no idea what if the burglar was only a burglar or a killer too. Along with that I am sure he was terrified.
I have no problems with eating chickens, pigs, cows and I know fine well how they are killed, but I ain't giving up my bacon roll because of it.
But fox hunting IS different. It serves no real purpose at all. Do you support bull fighting?
This Country vs City argument always seems to go down the route of "well you don't live here, so you don't understand". Well I may not have been to a hunt, but even I can figure out that a group of people on horses and a group of hounds chasing a fox to death will not come anywhere close to solving the problems of them eating the lambs and chickens.
If foxes are a problem, then deal with them properly and shoot them, but don't pretend that chasing them across the countryside while dressed up is making any difference.
Posted by: ashmoore
Re: I'm disgusted - 09/05/2003 08:12
Sad but true.
Even though guns are more prevallent here, shooting someone in the back as they run away cannot be called defense.
I sympathize with his prediciment, but killing someone and expecting to get away with it doesn't cut it.
To take Genixias icecream scoop, it is not highly likely that he could have killed someone with his icecream scoop while they were running away, and if he did succeed in killing his burgler with the scoop it would have been a more clear cut murder.
We are back to acceptibilty again, should he go free because he used a gun to kill the burgler instead of a knife, or hanging, drowning, poison or set his pack of wild dogs on him.
The method of murder is irrelevant, the fact that it happened is very relevant.
Just like killing a fox by dogs or a chicken/rabbit by twisting its neck rather than shooting it.
I suppose only veggies can truly answer that last part
The difference is that Martin did not actively go out of his house to kill someone. Someone came to him looking for trouble, and found it.
I know what follows isn't the point, but if the 2 burgulars had been in prison, they wouldn't have been free to enter hsi house in the first place. Prison should be so gruesome that you have to worry about where your next meal is coming from. It sure as hell shouldn't be the holiday it is now. If it served its purpose, those 2 guys would be so scared of going back, that Martin wouldn't have had to shoot him.
Posted by: rob
Re: I'm disgusted - 09/05/2003 08:14
But it was not murder, and he should be paroled by now. The only reason he's not been paroled is because he hasn't said sorry. Why should that be?
Why should he be treated any differently to everyone else? If you don't show remorse you don't get parole. This is true in most Western countries, and indeed in the USA it can mean the difference between life and death (a death sentance cannot be commuted if the condemned does not admit guilt, or so I understand).
The legal stance on this is thus: your guilt is not in question, because you have been convicted. Therefore, as a guilty man, you should be shown leniancy only if you have acknowledged your wrong doing and convince the parole board that you will not reoffend.
This doesn't work well for people who were falsely convicted, however the legal system cannot second guess itself - and that's a different issue. Martin isn't disputing what he did, he is disputing that he was wrong to do it, and in law that is clearly untrue. Therefore he is demonstrating that he has not been rehabilitated and should not be released early.
Rob
Posted by: rob
Re: I'm disgusted - 09/05/2003 08:29
If burglars felt no threat breaking into houses chaos would run rapid. The threat of a short prison stay does not adequately deter crime. The threat of an instant shotgun blast is a much better deterrent.
If our best shot (pardon the pun) is to prevent crime by making people scared to commit it then our society is pretty screwed long term anyway. The deterrent that prevents me from breaking into peoples houses is the conflict with my principles - the basic feeling that it is wrong. If all that concerned me was getting shot then I would probably train to become a better burglar, or carry a bigger gun than most of my victims.
If Martin can demonstrate compassionate principles he can walk out of prison. If his solution to his difficult situation is to continue to shoot people then he's going nowhere.
Rob
But in practice, what would end the crime in the long term? I'd rather live in a messed-up society with no crime, than a non-screwed society where crime ran riot like Back to the Future part 2!
Posted by: JeffS
Re: I'm disgusted - 09/05/2003 08:46
If our best shot (pardon the pun) is to prevent crime by making people scared to commit it then our society is pretty screwed long term anyway. The deterrent that prevents me from breaking into peoples houses is the conflict with my principles - the basic feeling that it is wrong.
Unfortunately not everyone shares the same moral principles. In fact, apart from religion (and not all people are religious) there is no compelling reason to follow any moral standard at all. I also can say that Martin did not go to jail peacefully because his moral principles told him to; he did it because he’d end up getting shot if he didn’t obey. Making people scared
is the only way to prevent crime unless either all people adopt the same religious code (not likely until the return of Christ
) or someone comes up with a pragmatic reason for all people to adhere to the same moral standard. And saying “for the benefit of society” doesn’t work, because no one really cares about society when it comes down to a personal gain or loss.
Posted by: Redrum
Re: I'm disgusted - 09/05/2003 08:47
Rob, unlike you and me some people are just plain animals with no moral values or feelings of right and wrong. They are out for themselves and to heck with everyone else. They unfortunately must be treated like animals, locked up or in some way deterred from being “bad.” Hopefully the “non-animal” humans (I know that makes no literal sense but you get my point) will continue to flourish and keep the animals at bay.
And yes, he broke the law and by doing that they are entitled to keep him in prison. At least he has the conviction to stand by his principles, like them or not.
Hopefully the laws will be changed to favor defendant rather than the aggressor.
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: I'm disgusted - 09/05/2003 08:52
In fact, apart from religion (and not all people are religious) there is no compelling reason to follow any moral standard at all.
I don't want this to turn into another religion thread (any more than it already is), but this is, if you'll excuse the expression, bullsh
it.
I don't have a religious bone in my body, yet I cannot bring myself to kill anything. I realize that's hypocritical given my carnivorous nature, but it's true. On several occasions, I've been in the situation where I've come across an animal too hurt to survive and in pain, and I still can't do it. Fortunately for the animal, there were others around who could. But the fact that religion has anything to do with it is totally bogus. Society, maybe.
Yes, I have morals. I understand and adhere to the principles of right and wrong, and I feel guilt when something happens to someone if I think there was a tiny chance I could have prevented it. I also think that religion is a nonsense. So I don't know what guides me, but its not religion.
Posted by: JeffS
Re: I'm disgusted - 09/05/2003 09:06
Ahem, not trying to turn this into a religious thread. What I should have said was “In fact, apart from religion (and not all people are religious) there is no compelling reason to follow any moral standard at all other than what you happen to feel is right.”
While you may not feel killing another person is wrong, how and the world are you going to compel another person who believes differently not to do it without the use of physical force? You can’t appeal to moral virtue, as this other individual simply has a different moral code from you. I merely brought up religion as the one construct I see that enables us to non-forcibly (in the physical sense) place our moral codes onto others. To be sure, I am very uncomfortable discussing religion is this light, as it seems to denigrate the whole faith thing into a means of non-physical control. However, pragmatically it seems to me that it is the only alternative to physical restraining those who have different morals than “society”.
Posted by: ashmoore
Re: I'm disgusted - 09/05/2003 09:10
You have a point there Bitt.
You personally cannot kill anything, I also have problems when actually holding the club.
Can most people realize they are hypocrites when discussing murder and/or hunting?
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: I'm disgusted - 09/05/2003 09:14
What I should have said was “In fact, apart from religion (and not all people are religious) there is no compelling reason to follow any moral standard at all other than what you happen to feel is right.”
That's fair, although I think that it's more than ``happen''.
a means of non-physical control
One of my major problems with religion, but:
it is the only alternative to physical restraining those who have different morals than “society”.
At which point is becomes a government, which probably is what the ancient Jews needed, but is long since outdated by now (A religious-based government, that is), as a government based in religion is bound to mark those that don't agree as criminals.
But, as I said, I have no desire to make this about religion.
Posted by: frog51
Re: I'm disgusted - 09/05/2003 09:26
I agree 100%. Prison should be feared. Sod all that human rights nonsense - if you have violated someone else's human rights, why should you get to keep yours? Especially as many households don't have the same facilities/luxuries as prisons. Why should criminals get computer games, comfortable beds, gym facilities? My vote would definitely be for concrete cells, bread + water (plus whatever minimum required to survive) and hard labour as exercise.
Posted by: JeffS
Re: I'm disgusted - 09/05/2003 09:28
At which point is becomes a government, which probably is what the ancient Jews needed, but is long since outdated by now (A religious-based government, that is), as a government based in religion is bound to mark those that don't agree as criminals.
Government based on
anything is bound to mark those who don’t agree as criminals; if it didn’t it would be failing in one of it’s major responsibilities. And that’s what we have here: a burglar who is engaging in activities society has marked as criminal. The question is how society can enforce it. If everyone agreed on the same moral virtues, than it wouldn’t be a problem. However, everyone doesn’t and I see no way to convince the outliers other than to point guns at them and lock them up.
Posted by: ashmoore
Re: I'm disgusted - 09/05/2003 09:30
I am a big fan of that, but in old England they used to call it "Australia".
Thats quite a nice place to live now too !
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: I'm disgusted - 09/05/2003 09:31
Yes, but the basis for the criminality is that it affects other citizens. A religious government will tend to mark things as criminal that have no effect on other citizens. For example, prostitution and purchasing alcohol on Sunday mornings.
Posted by: ashmoore
Re: I'm disgusted - 09/05/2003 09:48
Isn't fake morality fun
Like prohibition, which did nothing more than increase the power of the mafia in the US.
I find the old laws most fun.
These are the ones that no-one can be bothered to get removed from the statute books. Here is a great set of examples
http://www.equerry.com/html/fun/eq_humor-shl.htm
You can bet that most of them are still there!
What makes it even more scary is the fact that every so often, the local nuts in power will start to enforce some ancient law.
I recall this happened up north when they decided to arrest someone for cursing in front of children.
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=16529
Posted by: visuvius
Re: I'm disgusted - 09/05/2003 10:15
In reply to:
"A Wyoming community passed this one: "No female shall ride a horse while attired in a bathing suit within the boundaries of Riverton, unless she be escorted by at least two officers of the law or unless she be armed with a club." And continues with this amendment to the original: "The provisions of this statue shall not apply to females weighing less than ninety pounds nor exceeding two hundred pounds."
- Are these f'ing for real???
My favourite...
"The rider of any horse involved in an accident resulting in death shall immediately dismount and give his name and address to the person killed."
Posted by: ashmoore
Re: I'm disgusted - 09/05/2003 10:40
Can you imaging getting arrested for one of these "crimes" ?!?!?
You will notice the fact that the jokers in power call themselves "lawmakers". They don't see it as their responsibility to clean up. That is the courts job, as well as the poor schlub who has been arrested and is spending time in jail of course.
Sad fact is, most laws are created and voted on by politicians. You get what you pay for!
Lack of faith in the legal system, me? Never!
Posted by: Daria
Re: I'm disgusted - 09/05/2003 13:17
Were we living in a country of vigilante justice where the punishment for burglary was death, then Martin should not have been convicted. Thankfully we don't live in such a country. People who are driven to attempted murder in response to such provocation are certainly victims in many senses, but that doesn't make it OK for them to start executing kids - not even antisocial ones.
On one hand, death is the ultimate price, and shouldn't be handed out so lightly. On the other hand it's no effort to avoid it in this case. Choosing to not burgle is in fact the "do nothing" alternative. If you go out of your way to put yourself in such a situation, you're implicitly agreeing to whatever mistreatment comes your way. (in my opinion
)
"We don't have a death sentence for burglary in this country and we don't want one either."
I wouldn't cry too hard over one for stupidity. "Don't steal" is a pretty simple concept.
Posted by: Redrum
Re: I'm disgusted - 09/05/2003 13:26
Agreed…..
Occupation - Thief – Hazards – Being shot and possibly killed while at work.
Posted by: cblake2
Re: I'm disgusted - 09/05/2003 13:26
This martin guy was in the wrong. Maybe he shouldn't still be in prison but he is..
I am much more disgusted that OJ is not in prison or dead already for brutually murdering 2 people.
Also more disgusting is that you can be a police chief in the US even if you have a violent background.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030509/ap_on_re_us/police_chief_shootings_4
Posted by: tanstaafl.
Re: I'm disgusted - 09/05/2003 19:16
Why should criminals get computer games, comfortable beds, gym facilities?
Because the fundamental concept of imprisonment is supposed to be rehabilitation, not punishment.
The vast majority of prisoners are not confined for life; they are going to be back out on the streets again when their prison term is finished. Do you think our prisons should be nothing more than advanced training centers to make these criminals even more proficient at their criminality than when they began their incarceration?
I, for one, would not feel comfortable in an environment where every released prisoner re-entered society as a bitter, brutalized, totally angry misfit whose sole purpose in life was revenge on the people that made him that way.
That said, our prisons do a miserable job of rehabilitation. Just look at the recidivism rate for confirmation of that. Many people a lot smarter than I am have tried to come up with a better system and failed. I wish I had the answers, but I don't.
It has been shown time and time again that fear of punishment is NOT a deterrent to crime. Criminals do not perform their crimes with the intention of being caught. I don't think making prisons even more brutalizing than they are now is a viable solution to the problem.
tanstaafl.
Posted by: bonzi
Re: I'm disgusted - 10/05/2003 07:55
Well said, Doug. There was a short article in one of recent SciAms (I can't find it right now) about US experts warming up again for rehabilitation aspect of the penal system (Europaens never abandoned it), with statistics showing 20%-50% better (i.e. lower) recidive rates if thugs were not simply punished.
Posted by: bonzi
Re: I'm disgusted - 10/05/2003 08:06
Speaking of being disgusted at justice or lack thereof, how about
Tulia case?
Posted by: Anonymous
Re: I'm disgusted - 10/05/2003 09:29
The man broke the law. So I suppose they have a legal right to keep him in jail. The problem is the law is bullshit. I admire the man. He has the character to not give in, and stand by what he did. It kind of reminds me of The Crucible.
We don't want burglars, and we don't want people getting shot. If everyone was armed, there would be no burglars and nobody would get shot. I don't have much remorse for a dead thief. It's been proven that areas with less restrictive guns laws have less crime and areas with more restrictive gun laws have more crime. And areas that previously had relatively low restrictions on guns and then started restricting gun use, had increases in crime, and vice versa. The bottom line is more guns in the hands of the common man equals less crime. It makes a criminal's job much harder.
If someone breaks into my house, he's either going to jail willfully, or one of us is gonna die. Contrary to what wfaulk said, if that happened in the US, he would not have gotten jail time. If a burglar is in your house, you have the right to kill him. And that's the way it should be. Wfaulk, if someone comes into your home, rapes your daughter and tries to kill you, what are you gonna do? Hide in the corner and cry? Call the police? Hell no. You need to find your balls and kill the son of a bitch before he kills you. I don't care if he's a crackhead just trying to steal my tv, it'll be the last time he breaks into my house, one way or another.
Guns in the hands of good citizens will keep the peace. Disarming men like Tony Martin will not solve crime. In fact, it will only proliferate it. And Britain won't solve their crime problem until they either realize this or start putting criminals in jail for good.
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: I'm disgusted - 10/05/2003 10:09
Stop talking out of your ass.
I can't find an example in the twenty seconds I went looking, but there are any number of cases in the US where people have been sent to jail for killing people who illegally entered their homes. The one I specifically remember is the guy who heard someone outside his house, got his gun and waited for the guy to come in and then shot him. He got convicted of first degree murder, IIRC.
And having someone come into my house and commit further crimes is not the same as hearing someone leaving and then shooting them in the back. One of the guys was obviously already out of the house.
This does not excuse the burglary at all, and the guy does have the right to protect his stuff (if not with a gun in the UK), but he already did that, and then killed the guy anyway.
Posted by: Anonymous
Re: I'm disgusted - 10/05/2003 10:15
If you can't find any, I would be happy to link stories of people rightfully defending their homes. But you do have a point, that if the burglar is outside of the home and running away, then the shooter could be convicted.
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: I'm disgusted - 10/05/2003 10:29
If you can't find any, I would be happy to link stories of people rightfully defending their homes.
I don't deny that this is the case. Many burglars come into homes who have no qualms about killing its inhabitants. I feel that if the occupants feel like their well being is in danger then they have the right to defend themselves.
But these were two junkies who wanted to steal some stuff to support their habits (most likely). Unless the homeowner really thought that they were about to release some SBDs while their backs were to him, he was in no danger, and he knew it. He wanted to punish those two guys, and he did.
Fortunately, the law recognizes that it's not up to the individual citizen to be judge, jury, and executioner. It allows for private citizens to prevent crimes and (I assume this is the case in the UK as well as in the US) perform citizens' arrests. But, again, the crime had already been prevented.
Honestly, and this is totally tangential, it looks to me like there would be better ways to defend that house than lying in wait with a gun. In the picture I saw, there were many windows broken in. I somehow doubt that those two guys broken them all. It looked to be in a state of general disrepair. Now, if the homeowner was poor and couldn't afford to fix it, then that's one thing, but the articles said that it was one of at least two occupances he owned and that burglars had previously stolen hundreds of pounds worth of furniture, so I find it unlikely that he's poor. Installing
glass may well prevent the burglaries. And a cheap alarm system is probably not out of his range. That's not to say that this sort of thing should be required, but he seems to have the wherewithal to do this, and the cost of that ought to be less than the cost of a human life, as wretched as it might be. It should definitely be less than living in jail for years.
I actually wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that he was lying in wait for someone to show up so he could shoot them.
Posted by: ilDuce
Re: I'm disgusted - 10/05/2003 14:23
well.... I find it kind of disturbing the attitude of some here. Since when does the value of your TVset be equal to the value of any human life?
And that less restrictive Gun control lowers the crimerate is just bullshit. That perhaps may be the case in the states. But if you compare the homocide rate in "civilized" USA and the homocide rate in most of Europe you se a BIG difference!
I recently watched michael Moores "Bowling for Columbine" And he does have some points.. Allthough his approach is 'tacky'(?) or tasteless (?).. Allthough his point where Americans seems to take the law into their own hands and thinking it justified hit straight in the bullseye. And his statistics of homocides committed speaks for itself...
I think he really does have a point where he says that americans seems afraid.. Allthough I can see why.... Its a deeply rooted problem that wont be solved over night..
About the punishment vs rehabilitation prison issue, I think that society have alot to gain with the sentiment of rehabilitation. Less crime is committed, and the general attitude of the people is more humane.
Its not simply the value of a TV set as you put it. Its a violation of someones HOME. Not just a house, but your home and your family. Thats worth more to me than the life of some crack addict burgular.
I don't think any of us can say how we would react until we've actually been there. I hope we never have to either. But if it did happen to me, and someone close to me was killed by them, I would have hoped I'd done EVERYTHING possible to stop them - if I happen to have a gun at the time, I may well use it. I won't know until it happens.
Posted by: PaulWay
Re: I'm disgusted - 10/05/2003 19:06
In reply to:
While you may not feel killing another person is wrong, how and the world are you going to compel another person who believes differently not to do it without the use of physical force? You can’t appeal to moral virtue, as this other individual simply has a different moral code from you. I merely brought up religion as the one construct I see that enables us to non-forcibly (in the physical sense) place our moral codes onto others. To be sure, I am very uncomfortable discussing religion is this light, as it seems to denigrate the whole faith thing into a means of non-physical control. However, pragmatically it seems to me that it is the only alternative to physical restraining those who have different morals than “society”.
The problem, as I see it, is simply that the moral code that binds society together and makes it a society rather than just a bunch of individuals is not taught well enough. Maybe enforcement is part of that problem, but
something has taken the large majority of us and made us decide internally that we don't want to steal, lie, torture and kill.
Society is altruism. Society is the principle that we work better as a team rather than as a diaspora of individuals. The reason society ultimately works is because each member decides to be a part of it and work together. Giving everyone the right to do whatever they want is Anarchy, and there is good reason why this always seems to be portrayed in the same light as lawlessness and mistrust.
In a perfect world everyone would simply move around to fit into the social group that best suited them. See Neal Stephenson's book
The Diamond Age for an excellent example of this. Each group ultimately has penalties and punishments for members who don't conform, and those penalties are naturally harsher when you move into groups that require a smaller degree of personal responsibility. Bud, for example, is allowed to get a skull gun and do what he likes with it, until he actually gets caught. Hackworth, on the other hand, internally rejects any desire for such power over his fellows; but Hackworth is an inventor and a Neo-Victorian and thus actually commands far greater power over people. It is Hackworth's choice to exercise restraint in this that defines his role in society.
My personal conviction is that we now have a society where morals and social requirements are barely taught at all formally. We've devolved from the old school system that taught three languages, a variety of humanities and sciences, and enforced a strict discipline - and thus produced people who could force themselves to do great things - to not forcing any student to do anything if they don't want to and therefore giving them no determination and drive at all. They just hang around hoping it will all be handed to them on a platter and complain when it isn't.
Sorry, boys and girls, but what no-one's taught you is that this society works on the idea that you actually have to work to have stuff. Stuff is the reward for doing work. We have this legal system to protect that because we recognise that it often appears easier to steal the stuff rather than work for it. We can't send you off to your own land where no-one has to do any work and everyone starves, because we don't have a place like that, so we have to do the next best thing and shut you away from the rest of society for a while.
Just on a side thought, just imagine if you fitted the prisons out with exercise bikes that put the power they generated back into the grid? Would you get any power put back into the grid? Maybe they could pay their way by generating electricity? I mean, in centuries gone by they used to have giant treadmills or endless staircases or pedals that would push paddles through pits of sand - all things that did nothing but made the prisoners work. These days about the hardest thing they do is to put earpads back on airline headsets. Make 'em work, I say! That way even if you're put in prison unfairly you can still do your work with a good conscience.
I tried to be good and expound my moral theories but I got distracted.
Have fun,
Paul
Posted by: Anonymous
Re: I'm disgusted - 10/05/2003 20:52
I agree with you that one shouldn't be eager to kill, but being that when a theif breaks into your home and tries to steal your stuff, you should be able to defend it with full force at your discretion without having to worry about going to jail for protecting your home. Afterall, the theif brings it on himself.
Posted by: Anonymous
Re: I'm disgusted - 10/05/2003 21:10
I recently watched michael Moores "Bowling for Columbine" And he does have some points..
Ah, yes. Bowling For Columbine. The fictional documentary. (
http://www.revoketheoscar.com)
well.... I find it kind of disturbing the attitude of some here. Since when does the value of your TVset be equal to the value of any human life?
Is a TV set worth a human life? I don't think so. What about a hundred tv sets? what about a thousand? What about every red cent and every piece of property in this country? Is a murderer's life worth more than a victim's? Is law and order worth a human life? Should we just start handing out tv sets to whoever wants one? What if I want my own tv set? Maybe we should just have anarchy. I bet that will bring down the homicide rate.
What would you do if you were being robbed of your tv set? Call the police? So they can use their guns to stop the criminal? Why shouldn't you be able to use your own gun to stop the criminal? Then you can let the theif decide whether or not his life is worth a tv set.
Whether you like it or not, guns will eventually be used to stop criminals, whether by you or by the police. This is the same line of thinking that people have when they complain about how animals are killed inhumanely. Then they goto to the supermarket and buy that animal's dead body, yet they can't bear the thought of killing that animal. And yet they attack the very people who do the dirty work for them. It's a fact of life - if you want to survive, it's either you or the animal. If you want to live in peace, it's either you or the criminal.
Twenty years of Oprah have caused the pussification of America. Tony Martin isn't a criminal; he's a crimestopper.
Posted by: matthew_k
Re: I'm disgusted - 10/05/2003 21:17
The police will use the same standard you as an individual have to use when deciding to shoot someone. The police can't shoot someone untill they threaten to harm someone. In the US, you are also allowed to shoot someone should they threaten to kill you. You can't kill them for threatening to take your TV set.
Matthew
Posted by: tonyc
Re: I'm disgusted - 10/05/2003 21:23
You can't kill them for threatening to take your TV set.
And, as any good mafioso will tell you, dead people don't talk. So if it were legal to kill anyone who threatened to take your TV set, there would be a lot of dead people who allegedly threatened to take TV sets.
Thankfully, in this country, you need to be able to prove that you were in direct danger if you decide to bust a cap in someone's ass. If it were any different, we'd have gun-toters popping off on anyone who walks by their property with so much as a gleam in their eye.
Posted by: Anonymous
Re: I'm disgusted - 10/05/2003 21:46
Whether they threaten to steal is irrelevant. It's the action that matters. If someone breaks into your house, you have the legal right to shoot them dead. Even if they were only stealing a 5 cent stick of gum. Perhaps it varies from state to state, but in Louisiana, the use of deadly force is legal if someone breaks into your home, is attempting to break into your home, or is carjacking you.
I don't believe it would be legal to kill someone simply because they verbally threatened you on the street. Now maybe if they stuck a gun in your face and threatened you...
Posted by: cblake2
Re: I'm disgusted - 10/05/2003 22:23
Well.. If I'm going to use a gun to kill someone then its
going to be for a very very good reason. Just because someone breaks into my house I would not kill them unless
they threatened me or my family.
I'm not just going to shoot them and hope some court thinks I had the right to do so. If a court convicts you on murder charges then you spend the rest of your life behind bars.
For what??!! For killing a stupid thief who was never going to harm you. NOT WORTH IT!
Think about it. If someone shoots your mother/father dead and then you find out who did it. Does that mean you can go
kill him/her for killing your mother/father. Nope. You'll goto prison.
One time my uncle woke up in the middle of the night and found some guy in his living room. The guy ended up being missing from a mental health facility and didn't even know where he was.
Posted by: ilDuce
Re: I'm disgusted - 11/05/2003 02:48
its all good points..... Allthough..... I dont think its justified to kill anybody unless they propose an imidiate danger to you or your family.... Here in sweden we have a principle called the staircase of violence. You are only allowed to take one step over the assiliant within the law. If he threatens you.... You are allowd to threat him back. If he punches you, then you have the legal right to punch him back. But if you were to jump a couple of steps, say if he threatens you and you then kick him in the face! then you are the agressor and he is the victim. And you get convicted. Or if he broke into your home threatening you and you shoot him in the back, then you are definetly going to get convicted. And rightly so....
of course you have the right to defend yourself... But only when you actually HAVE to defend yourself... after all.... its just material things.... and will probably be replaced by your insurance company....
Posted by: Yang
Re: I'm disgusted - 11/05/2003 07:51
Hrm... There's something disturbingly wrong about that sequence. You are only allowed to kill someone if they kill you first.. Yay..
I'm of the opinion that a threat invites force in retaliation. IE, if someone threatens me (IE, by waving a knife in my direction), I'm entitled to kick their butt. The simple act of threatening me gives up their right to not be harmed. Likewise, if they are in my house uninvited, I should be able to threaten them even though they haven't threatened me. Am I supposed to just let them come in and take my stuff because they haven't threatened me yet?
Posted by: Roger
Re: I'm disgusted - 11/05/2003 07:54
its just material things
No. It's not. It's the violation of my space. Have you actually been the victim of a burglary? Yeah, the stuff's "just material things", but the invasion of your privacy/sanctuary is something that an insurance company can't give back.
Posted by: Roger
Re: I'm disgusted - 11/05/2003 07:57
As a matter of interest:
Note that I'm excluding muggings, car breakins, etc. here.
Posted by: Anonymous
Re: I'm disgusted - 11/05/2003 09:32
I'm not just going to shoot them and hope some court thinks I had the right to do so. If a court convicts you on murder charges then you spend the rest of your life behind bars.
Well, I don't know where you are from, but over here you can kill a theif and not goto jail. And not surprisingly, of the 20 years I've been alive, my house has never been broken into. (although stuff has been stolen from outside of the house so I did answer Yes on Roger's poll.)
Think about it. If someone shoots your mother/father dead and then you find out who did it. Does that mean you can go
kill him/her for killing your mother/father. Nope. You'll goto prison.
Avenging your mother/father's death would be premeditated murder, which would be a lot different than self-defense.
Posted by: ilDuce
Re: I'm disgusted - 11/05/2003 10:21
actually I showed some bad examples..... You are allowed to take a step further. Allthough with some restrictions I guess. If someone threatens you, you are not allowed to punch them. But say if someone starts a fight with you. Then you are of course allowed to put a stop to the fight. But you are not alloed to apply more force then what is necessary.
This is not a law, but more of a guideline. The same guidelines apply to both police and the common man.
The goal here is to prevent unecesary violence, as in this case where he shot them in the back.
Of course you are right with that the burglar also violates your privacy. But does this give you the right to take someones life?
Could you consider to withstand some of your privacy to SAVE someones life?
if so, then I think you can be able to NOT shoot the assailant and let the police do their work. They are qualified in dealing with agressors in a safe and humane way.
Posted by: Redrum
Re: I'm disgusted - 11/05/2003 12:17
Alternative Head Lines….
Tony Martin 56 years old was found dead in his home after apparently surprising two teen-age burglars. The two teens (high on crack) allegedly took the baseball bat Mr. Marin was trying to use for defense and bludgeoned him to death.
Seen this before?
I have.
Might have been a good thing he had a gun.
Posted by: genixia
Re: I'm disgusted - 11/05/2003 13:21
'What ifs' are not a defence to a crime. The court cannot consider what *may* have happened under different circumstances, only what *did* happen. The fact remains that this guy shot a 16 year old kid in the back. The law says that this isn't allowed. Guilty. Even in a completely lawless society where everyone lived under the gun, shooting a kid in the back would have repercussions...and gaol would be the last of Mr. Martins worries. He should be thankful that he does live in a society with laws.
Posted by: canuckInOR
Re: I'm disgusted - 11/05/2003 14:27
Unfortunately, d33zy is not talking out of his ass -- depending on what State he's in. For example, the penal code of Texas allows the use of deadly force to protect property:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/pe/pe0000900.html#pe014.9.42(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
For the case in question, under Texas law, whatizame was (1) justified in using force (section 9.41 deals with when use of *any* force, deadly or not, is permissable for protecting property), and (2) when he reasonably believed the deadly force necessary (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing from escaping with the property; and (3) he reasonably believes that: (A) the property cannot be recovered by any other means.
Other states may have similar "make my day" laws (Oklahoma and Louisiana do), but Texas law isn't exactly the norm. In most states, you can only use deadly force if you believe you are in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. Otherwise, you are restricted to use of "reasonable force" -- no more than necessary to defend against the threatened harm. With the exception of Texas, et al, use of deadly force is
never allowed to protect property.
Posted by: cblake2
Re: I'm disgusted - 11/05/2003 14:49
Deezy is talking out of his ass! Maybe in his state you might get away with it BUT..
I bet 47 out of the 50 US states would convict you of murder if you shoot someone in the back for breaking into your house. You have to show proof they were going to harm you and if you shoot them in the back or their unarmed to begin with then you have a BIG problem!
GUILTY in most states for sure!
Posted by: andym
Re: I'm disgusted - 11/05/2003 15:51
I'd have killed the little fu
ckin' gippo b
astard myself, scum like that get just what they deserve.
Sorry for the outburst, It's a shame he didn't kill the other one too. It would stop him trying to sue for impotency and not being able to find a job.
I refuse to answer Rogers poll for fear of answering no, going to bed only to find my house ransacked overnight....
Posted by: andym
Re: I'm disgusted - 11/05/2003 15:51
Duplicate post deleted.....
Posted by: lectric
Re: I'm disgusted - 11/05/2003 16:07
Not exactly true. If a burglar is in your home in the dead of night, and you shoot him, you will likely not be convicted of any crime. You have no way of knowing whether or not the intruder has a weapon or not, and since he has the temerity to break and enter an occupied home, odds are very decent that he IS armed and willing to sacrifice you and yours for your property. There's a saying around here about this very subject: "If you shoot a burgler on your front porch, be sure to drag his ass inside before you call the police".
If I were to be awakened at 3:00 AM by a noise and find a guy wearing a ski mask in my hallway, God help him, because I won't hesitate to pull the trigger. Odds are, he wouldn't hesitate to pull his on me. Oh, and before we go there, if someone commits a robbery with an empty weapon, it is still armed robbery. There are more than a few criminals that think it is a good idea to use an empty weapon, so that in case they're caught, they can say that they never intended to use the weapon, since it was empty. This does NOT work in court.
And for the record, there is at least one firearm in every room of my house. No, we don't have kids. Yes my wife knows how to shoot. Yes, I feel safer knowing that I can defend myself if the need arises.
Posted by: cblake2
Re: I'm disgusted - 11/05/2003 16:19
Great now I have to go look up the cases to prove otherwise. You might get away with it BUT you might not. You might not get convicted of murder but probably manslaughter.
In texas this may be different but where I am from if you shoot an unarmed man you are going to prison.
Posted by: JeffS
Re: I'm disgusted - 11/05/2003 16:45
Yes, Texas is not a very criminal friendly place. In fact my father in law apparently shot a thief in the back as he was trying to leave his (my father in law's) home. He was not accused of any crime, though it is true the man didn't die. I'm not confident of all the details either, since my wife was young at the time and all I have to go on is what she's told me.
Texas is hardly representative of the entire U.S. however: we just executed our 300th prisoner, where the next highest state is somewhere in the 80s. It'd be interesting to know what the crime rate is here vs. other places.
As far as rehabilitation vs. deterrent, prison is primarily punishment, (and therefor a deterrent) and any rehabilitation that takes place there is a bonus. I support measures to help prisoners gain good moral codes, but I am under no illusion that our prisons are an optimal place for this teaching to take place.
If you think that prisons are not a deterrant to crime, try to image what tomorrow would be like if it were a national "free crime" day where no one would be arrested for anything, be it rape, crime, stealing, etc. I'm sure there would be a chaotic crime spree because people would know they could get away with whatever they wanted. Prisons are a deterrent.
That being said, I do think that instilling proper moral values in people is the best approach to dealing with crime. I agree with Paul that this isn't being done, and I'm not sure that society has a good answer (other than the aforementioned church) how it could be. I think most of us would agree that parents should be the ones primarily responsible for instilling morals in their children, but what should we do when they fail to do their job or the moral values simply don't take? I don't really have a good answer to this, and until we do I see no choice but to rely on punishment to deter criminal behavior.
Posted by: canuckInOR
Re: I'm disgusted - 11/05/2003 17:44
Deezy is talking out of his ass!
I'm sorry... was my quoting of the Texas Penal code somehow insufficient to show that deezy isn't talking out of his ass, though what he's saying
does need a rider to clarify that such laws are state dependant?
Maybe in his state you might get away with it BUT...
But nothing. If that's the law in his state, then that's the law in his state, and he's not talking out his ass. The only part where he's wrong is believing that the law in his state is the same in the rest of the states. In some parts of the US, you
do have the right to shoot a burglar in the back and kill him. QED.
Edit: As I'm digging, I found some criminology course lecture slides from the Northwest Missouri State University regarding use of deadly force: one, two, and three. The source is a bit dated, but I haven't been able to find anything with more up to date info.
Posted by: lectric
Re: I'm disgusted - 11/05/2003 19:50
Hooofah, I knew I liked living in Louisiana for a reason.
Posted by: bonzi
Re: I'm disgusted - 12/05/2003 11:00
Somewhat tangential on living vs. not living in a country of vigilante justice, I recommend Peter Ustinov's
Krumnagel.
A BIT OF SPOILER
The thing begins like this: an American cop sees a guy bursting out of a jewelry shop. Thinking 'robery' he shoots him. Turns out the guy was catching the bus after buying engagement rings. The cop is publicly reprimanded, but privatelly the boss lets him know he did the right thing. A bit later, on a trip to England, the cop essentially repeats the performance and gets a life sentence.... It gets even better
Posted by: tanstaafl.
Re: I'm disgusted - 12/05/2003 18:52
And for the record, there is at least one firearm in every room of my house
Congratulations.
You have greatly increased the chance of your being shot.
tanstaafl.
Posted by: lectric
Re: I'm disgusted - 12/05/2003 19:03
We'll see.
Posted by: lectric
Re: I'm disgusted - 12/05/2003 19:09
Let's not forget that where I'm from, guns are a way of life. Knowing how and when to use them, proper safety and storage, etc. I just don't buy into the crap that owning a gun makes you more likely to get shot. Sounds like a load of bullshit to me. I have known too many people that have been killed by an armed robber when they were unarmed. I also happen to live in an area that just simply does not get burglarized. Mainly due to the fact that everyone around here owns guns. If someone's looking for trouble, they go into the city, not out here.
I'm sorry to disagree with you, but I happen to believe that an armed society is a safer one, since it makes the risk of perpetrating a crime simply not worth the rewards.
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: I'm disgusted - 12/05/2003 19:34
I also happen to live in an area that just simply does not get burglarized.
So you're armed for what reason?
Seriously, if you're house is not apt to be burglarized, then the only guns going to be in your house are yours. Statistically, you've just increased your chances of being shot, if what you say is accurate. If you had no guns in your house and no burglar comes in, there would be virtually no chance you'd be shot, as there would be no gun to shoot.
Posted by: Anonymous
Re: I'm disgusted - 12/05/2003 21:28
I bet the reason his area has low crime is because everyone is armed. The statistics are bullshit. Factor out all the suicides, accidents caused by children, and stupid people handling guns unsafely, and then factor in all the lives that have been saved by people using firearms, and I'd say the chances of a responsible adult accidentally shooting themselves is very, very low and are far less than the chances of being shot by an intruder while unarmed.
Posted by: Anonymous
Re: I'm disgusted - 12/05/2003 21:58
From
http://www.nraila.org/media/misc/fables.htm#FABLE%20I:.
FABLE I: A gun in the home makes the home less safe.
Firearms are used three to five times more often to stop crimes than to commit them,1 and accidents with firearms are at an all-time recorded low.2 In spite of this, anti-firearm activists insist that the very act of keeping a firearm in the home puts family members at risk, often claiming that a gun in the home is "43 times" more likely to be used to kill a family member than an intruder, based upon a study by anti-gun researchers of firearm-related deaths in homes in King County (Seattle), Washington.3 Although Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay originally warned that their study was of a single non-representative county and noted that they failed to consider protective uses of firearms that did not result in criminals being killed, anti-gun groups and activists use the "43 times" claim without explaining the limitations of the study or how the ratio was derived.
To produce the misleading ratio from the study, the only defensive or protective uses of firearms that were counted were those in which criminals were killed by would-be crime victims. This is the most serious of the study's flaws, since fatal shootings of criminals occur in only a fraction of 1% of protective firearm uses nationwide.4 Survey research by award-winning Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, has shown that firearms are used for protection as many as 2.5 million times annually.5
It should come as no surprise that Kleck's findings are reflexively dismissed by "gun control" groups, but a leading anti-gun criminologist was honest enough to acknowledge their validity. "I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country," wrote the late Marvin E. Wolfgang. "I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. . . . What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. . . . I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology."6
While the "43 times" claim is commonly used to suggest that murders and accidents are likely to occur with guns kept at home, suicides accounted for 37 of every 43 firearm-related deaths in the King County study. Nationwide, 58% of firearm-related deaths are suicides,7 a problem which is not solved by gun laws aimed at denying firearms to criminals. "Gun control" advocates would have the public believe that armed citizens often accidentally kill family members, mistaking them for criminals. But such incidents constitute less than 2% of fatal firearms accidents, or about one for every 90,000 defensive gun uses.8
In spite of the demonstrated flaws in his research, Kellermann continued to promote the idea that a gun is inherently dangerous to own. In 1993, he and a number of colleagues presented a study that claimed to show that a home with a gun was much more likely to experience a homicide.9
This study, too, was seriously flawed. Kellermann studied only homes where homicides had taken place--ignoring the millions of homes with firearms where no harm is done--and used a control group unrepresentative of American households. By looking only at homes where homicides had occurred and failing to control for more pertinent variables, such as prior criminal record or histories of violence, Kellermann et al. skewed the results of this study. After reviewing the study, Prof. Kleck noted that Kellermann's methodology is analogous to proving that since diabetics are much more likely to possess insulin than non-diabetics, possession of insulin is a risk factor for diabetes. Even Dr. Kellermann admitted, "It is possible that reverse causation accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership and homicide." Northwestern University Law Professor Daniel D. Polsby went further, writing, "Indeed the point is stronger than that: 'reverse causation' may account for most of the association between gun ownership and homicide. Kellermann's data simply do not allow one to draw any conclusion."10
Posted by: JeffS
Re: I'm disgusted - 12/05/2003 22:01
I can honestly say I wouldn't feel comfortable having a gun in my house. Not to say that I don't think people should (my dad kept one loaded in our house where I grew up and he taught me to shoot as soon as I could hold one) but it would definitly be more dangerous to me than anything else. I couldn't shoot an animal at my leasure, much less a human being under pressure. Perhaps if someone came in and was physically threatening my family I could find the courage, but in this case I'd likely not be of much help anyway.
Fortunatly I live in an area I consider very safe, and burglary isn't something I worry about. I don't know what I'd do if I lived someplace in which I wasn't so comfortable.
Posted by: mcomb
Re: I'm disgusted - 12/05/2003 23:05
From http://www.nraila.org/media/misc/fables.htm#FABLE%20I
Oh yeah, now there is an impartial source
I am not saying guns should be outlawed (not gonna open that can o worms), but no rational person can argue against having a gun around increasing the chances of being shot. It is just simple math, owning a pencil increases the chance of getting stabbed by a pencil as well.
-Mike
Posted by: Anonymous
Re: I'm disgusted - 12/05/2003 23:17
Not if there are other people out there who are trying to stab you with their pencils. Having your own pencil to stab with in self-defense can be a deterrent to potential stabbers. I would venture to say that possessing a pencil would increase your chances of being poked accidentally, eventhough that is a remote scenario for people who handle their pencils safely.
Go tell a cat that he'll be safer if he's declawed, because then he won't accidentally scratch himself.
Posted by: genixia
Re: I'm disgusted - 12/05/2003 23:17
Factor out all the suicides, accidents caused by children, and stupid people handling guns unsafely ... and I'd say the chances of a responsible adult accidentally shooting themselves is very, very low
Yep. I totally agree.
If you factor out all the hijackings, accidents caused by lack of maintenance, and stupid pilots handling airplanes unsafely then the chances of a responsible pilot accidentally crashing a plane is very, very low.
Who'd'a guessed?
Posted by: Anonymous
Re: I'm disgusted - 12/05/2003 23:20
And you wouldn't advocate the banning of airplanes, now would you?
Posted by: mcomb
Re: I'm disgusted - 13/05/2003 01:04
I would venture to say that possessing a pencil would increase your chances of being poked accidentally, eventhough that is a remote scenario for people who handle their pencils safely.
Agreed, the problem is that with guns you don't get poked accidentally, you get shot dead. That is why when calculating deaths due to guns you need to include accidents, misguided attempts at self defence, burglars who only shot you because you pulled a gun first, your child finding the weapon and thinking it is a toy, and the burglar shooting you with your own weapon. In all of those scenarios you are equally dead, it makes no difference how you got there.
If you are going to be pro-gun then be that way based on your constitutional rights, your fear of an unjust government, or your need to protect yourself from aliens for all I care, but there is no point in pretending the statistics are in your favor.
-Mike
Posted by: lectric
Re: I'm disgusted - 13/05/2003 06:16
Well good lord, look how many [bleeding heart liberal voice] children [/bleeding heart liberal voice] get killed every year in auto accidents. I guess we'd better take all cars off the road to keep everyone safe. Or how many people accidentally drown in their pool in the back yard, we don't really need those do we? I mean, they're just for fun. God, how many people die every year because they fell asleep with a cigarette in their hands? Well, let's rule out smoking at home too. Oh but wait, I heard that second hand smoke kills milions of people a year, let's just ban smoking altogether. While we're at it, having electricity in your home GREATLY increases you and your family's risk of being electrocuted. Perhaps the amish have it right after all. No, wait, they have all those nasty farm implements around. Hmmmm.
If you want my opinion, I'd much rather have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it. And yes, my point in my earlier post was that my area has extremely low crime because trespassing on someone's property around here will get you an ass full of rock salt buckshot. If you go into their house, it turns into real buckshot. If we were to give away all our guns, we become people who live a mile away from each other and therefore easy pickings.
Posted by: ilDuce
Re: I'm disgusted - 13/05/2003 07:07
well.... I live in a country were firearms are illegal.... I have never been robbed/hijacked/abused or felt threatened in any way (exept when I am in a bar and someone tries to pick a fight with me) I seriously dont miss owning a gun, or miss the fact that my neighbour would try to kill me if I rang his doorbell asking to barrow some sugar.
Gun control works... And I bet I feel and ARE alot safer than most of you guys, atleast from the sound of it.
I have done military duty, so I am not totally unfamiliar with firearms. Allthough I really miss being able to shoot with them on a firing range.... But I dont want them back at the cost of my safety...
I miss that feeling of my old 7.62mm machine gun blasting away... *dreams back to the good old days* (2 years ago...=)
And I really would like to try shooting some 12.7 mm guns to.... I never got the chance of doing that.... and I probably never will again....
Posted by: davekirk
Re: I'm disgusted - 13/05/2003 13:58
well.... I live in a country were firearms are illegal.... I have never been robbed/hijacked/abused or felt threatened in any way (exept when I am in a bar and someone tries to pick a fight with me) -ilDuce
I don't know what country you're in; but apparently they still need to outlaw alcohol.
Posted by: Daria
Re: I'm disgusted - 13/05/2003 16:30
Outlawing alcohol in Sweden would never work.
Posted by: cushman
Re: I'm disgusted - 13/05/2003 19:50
This quote from Cypress Hill explains why Be-Real keeps a gun in his house:
Here's an example, just a little sample.
How I could just kill a man!
One-time tried to come in my home,
take my chrome, I said "Yo, it's on.
Take cover son, or you're ass-out.
How you like my chrome?", then I watched the rookie pass out.
Didn't have to blast him, but I did anyway...
Hahaha... that young punk had to pay.
So I just killed a man!
Just thought I'd share. The song came on while I was reading this thread.
Posted by: canuckInOR
Re: I'm disgusted - 13/05/2003 21:11
Whaddaya mean? The ban was a rousing success in the US!
Posted by: Anonymous
Re: I'm disgusted - 13/05/2003 23:04
Yeah, if you were in the mafia.
Posted by: mtempsch
Re: I'm disgusted - 13/05/2003 23:21
I live in a country were firearms are illegal
I'll assume you mean illegal to carry / use as a tool intended for self defense.
Because we do have a fairly large pool of weapons in this country - counting hunting weapons alone, there is about 1.1 million in a population of about 8.8 million.
To that you need to add the guns used for target / sports shooting (haven't found a number), the guns that are stolen each year (mainly hunting weapons from homes, as the control of military weapons in storage has improved the last years) and the weapons smuggled into the country (mainly from the old east bloc countries).
/Michael
Posted by: mcomb
Re: I'm disgusted - 14/05/2003 00:56
Well good lord, look how many [bleeding heart liberal voice] children [/bleeding heart liberal voice] get killed every year in auto accidents
The difference being that the primary purpose of an auto is not to kill living things. I didn't mean to come of as a BHL either, there are good arguments for and against outlawing guns and I haven't formed a particularly strong personal belief either way. The point I was trying to make is that if you are going to argue against gun control you better have a pretty compelling argument as the downside (guns in the hands of people who aren't properly trained or who intend to cause violence upon you) is severe. Manipulating statistics that are not in your favor is not a compelling argument (to me at least).
If your position is that more guns means safer homes than you should provide the information to prove it. Provide numbers for burglaries that have been peacefully prevented because the burglar surrendered or fled when he realized the homeowner had a gun. Provide home invasion rates that compare highly armed areas (Texas?) to areas where guns are less common or banned entirely. If those numbers are not in your favor then give us a good reason why so many citizens should be armed.
If your only point was that you personally feel safer with a gun in your house than I certainly won't tell you how to feel. Hopefully you know how to use it and take the necessary precautions so that others can't use it.
-Mike
Posted by: mtempsch
Re: I'm disgusted - 14/05/2003 01:37
If your position is that more guns means safer homes than you should provide the information to prove it.
The probably best work (no one has yet, AFAIK, been able to refute it, several that have tried have gone down hard) is
John Lott's "More guns, less crime". Google should also pull up lots of comments on it. Interesting talk, (.ram)
here.
It only covers US conditions, obviously. Trying to extend these sorts of statistics between countries is probably pointless, as social conditions vary...
/Michael
Posted by: jwtadmin
Re: I'm disgusted - 14/05/2003 06:35
In reply to:
don't pretend that chasing them across the countryside while dressed up is making any difference
Perhaps you should check your history of fox hunting.
Fox hunting DID serve a purpose, it really did control the fox population. Fox in the UK had NO natural predator and shooting them was unrealistic. Farmers relied on huntsman and their packs to control the fox population. They were only able to kill the weakest fox. Just like natural selection.
The fancy dress came out of respect for the farmers and land owners. The red coats came from Thomas Pink who made a waterproof red coat for a huntsman out of left over British army boiled wool.
Today Fox hunts provide incentive to keep land open and undeveloped. They also carry on a tradition of keeping a working pack of hounds and the skill of riding through rough country.
Unfortunately the folks who are anti hunt see fit to bomb kennels and string up wire to decapitate unsuspecting riders or to break a horses leg, because it's more humane than a fox hunt.
Have you ever seen a fox hunt to completion? I suspect not. The fox is generally killed within a second of being caught by the hounds. Have you seen a fox killed by poison? It's not pretty and generally fox who have been poisoned(the preferred method of farmers today) are more dangerous to humans in there last few hours while they slowly struggle against the poison.
Hunting and fishing (also on the list to be banned in the UK) provide incentive to people to keep a part of the countryside natural. If you take that away then you are left with golf courses wich are huge strains on local resources for water and pollution run off.
Don't be so quick to condemn our ancestors way of life, we were better off when we knew where our food came from.
Posted by: Roger
Re: I'm disgusted - 14/05/2003 06:42
we were better off when we knew where our food came from
So you've eaten fox, then?
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: I'm disgusted - 14/05/2003 06:45
... fox hunting ...
That would be more convincing if the people instigating the fox hunts hadn't often raised the fox in a kennel themselves.
If they were really controlling the fox population, that'd be one thing, but they simply want to participate in killing an animal in the guise of population control.
I completely recognize the historical necessity for fox hunting. That necessity is gone. (One wonders, however, how the fox came to be overpopulated in the first place. Was it an import from elsewhere? Did its natural predators die off?)
Posted by: jwtadmin
Re: I'm disgusted - 14/05/2003 07:29
Having some experience in this, the hunts that raise fox generally don't do anything more than chase them. It wouldn't make sense to hand raise a fox then kill it. You wouldn't have very many hunts that way.
Unfortunately even the drag hunts are being banned in the UK. (Drag hunts are where an artificial scent has been laid for the hounds to follow it.)
No I don't eat fox, but I do eat game fish and deer. And once upon a time hunting was the way you got your meat. and if you raised pigs and chickens you had to kill them yourself if you wanted to eat them. How horrible!
I have seen kids today who won't eat a fresh egg out of the chicken coop, but an egg McMuffin Oh boy!
Posted by: Roger
Re: I'm disgusted - 14/05/2003 08:37
How horrible!
Nothing horrible about it. If you're killing the animal for fun, then that's horrible.
Posted by: ilDuce
Re: I'm disgusted - 14/05/2003 09:42
Because we do have a fairly large pool of weapons in this country - counting hunting weapons alone, there is about 1.1 million in a population of about 8.8 million. - mtempsch
yeah.... thats true.... Allthough... I was thinking in the lines of easy conceilable handguns, and weapons actually used in selfdefence. Allthough the amount of handguns are increasing I still dont feel atleast threatened. I hope you feel the same?? My arguments was meant to explain that i DO feel perfectly safe without owning a gun... And we DO have a smaller percentege than USA in counts of deaths by guns. Not saying if its accident/selfdefence or anything else... Death should never be in the hands of anybody else than mother nature...
Posted by: mtempsch
Re: I'm disgusted - 14/05/2003 10:00
I was thinking in the lines of easy conceilable handguns, and weapons actually used in selfdefence
So I assumed:
I'll assume you mean illegal to carry / use as a tool intended for self defense.
I still dont feel atleast threatened. I hope you feel the same??
Most certainly - where I live. But there are areas where I wouldn't comfortably walk at night, unless in a fair sized group. And we can only hope that we are allowed to stay comfortable - there isn't anything (practical) we can do about it.
Death should never be in the hands of anybody else than mother nature...
In a perfect world... As the world is, I'd prefer it to be in available in my hands if someone else is intent to apply it to me. Won't argue with Mother Nature though
/Michael
Posted by: JeffS
Re: I'm disgusted - 14/05/2003 10:06
Death should never be in the hands of anybody else than mother nature...
Of course this is true; human’s shouldn’t kill either other. Neither should they steal from one another or rape one another or make war on one another. However, we don’t live in a world where “should” reigns. Instead people do all manner of despicable things. The question is whether deadly force is justified in stopping another human being from doing something he or she shouldn’t. If someone comes into my home and starts to kill my family, I will use deadly force to stop them if I can. It may not be the way the world should be, but sometimes deadly force is necessary to thwart a greater evil.
Of course when exactly deadly force is necessary is a nebulous area, and while I’m sure most of us would agree to its use in the above scenario, this line becomes blurred with lesser offenses. However, to say that we can never use deadly force is putting ourselves into a position of being at the mercy of those who would.
Posted by: mtempsch
Re: I'm disgusted - 14/05/2003 10:11
Death should never be in the hands of anybody else than mother nature...
Please note that that line wasn't mine. Since the posts are adjacent, most will see that, but if they had been further apart...
AFAICT, orange has traditionally been used for first level quoting on this board, yellow for second level. (Though sometimes I fall into the usage from another board I'm on and use bold for quoting - should probably get with the program and use q, qq, etc)
/Michael
Posted by: JeffS
Re: I'm disgusted - 14/05/2003 10:22
Please note that that line wasn't mine.
Yes, sorry about that; I knew it wasn't yours.
In fact, I copied it from the origional and just accidently clicked "reply" on the wrong post. I'm not sure what I can do to fix it now, though.
Posted by: mtempsch
Re: I'm disgusted - 14/05/2003 10:57
I'm not sure what I can do to fix it now, though
No worries
, just wanted to point it out.
/Michael
Posted by: ilDuce
Re: I'm disgusted - 14/05/2003 11:42
yes... you are right... Somewhere along the line deadly force will be needed. I just rather it be judged by someone who is trained to prolong that line as far as it gets....
Of course the police cannot be everwhere everytime. But somewhere you have to draw the line. And I think its a good place to draw it on immidiate danger to my own life... Or someone elses... Shooting somebody for violating my privacy is NOT that line...