Jump to content

Essex murder...three guns missing.


Recommended Posts

I disagree, Pistorious used the idea of an intruder to mask his murder, if the idea of armed defence of a property being allowable in SA law. Yet it is not actually allowed, you can only use commensurate force, so both Oscar and Rudi were in the wrong to fire unless they knew that the intruder was armed, yet the attitude seems to be shoot first sort it out afterwards. What a beautiful attitude towards human life, one rightly punished, the other being punished every day.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, henry d said:

the other being punished every day

I would fall upon my sword rather than be tortured with that knowledge.

 

4 hours ago, henry d said:

shoot first sort it out afterwards

The mistake was to not shoot a burglar. In every situation you need to be sure of your target and environment before you raise your gun. 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna739541

Made sure he was safe before opened fire so no collateral damage. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, WalkedUp said:

The mistake was to not shoot a burglar.

It's still in the psyche, shoot first! Is Rudi's daughter just collateral damage, should Rudi be spared from prosecution just because it was his daughter and he is going to suffer enough? You believe that a burglar can reasonably be shot in the act, so surely all law breaking should be sorted out by violence that is higher than the offence? I punch you, you stab me? That's a place I don't want to be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, henry d said:

I punch you, you stab me?

Yes. 

25 minutes ago, henry d said:

Is Rudi's daughter just collateral damage

No. 

26 minutes ago, henry d said:

should Rudi be spared from prosecution just because it was his daughter and he is going to suffer enough

No, punish the crime not the man. 

 

26 minutes ago, henry d said:

surely all law breaking should be sorted out by violence that is higher than the offence

No. 

😊

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just on the subject of tony martin... I thought the biggest problem for Tony Martin was that his gun was not on a licence and he shot them as they were trying to flee the scene. Also going against him was him having his licence revoked for shooting a hole in the back of someone else's car in 1994 for the crime of pinching a few apples.

UK law does permit killing someone in self defence if you believe your life is in danger, it was found that he shot from upstairs down to them, so it was taken by the court and jury that his life was not in immediate danger.

Link to post
Share on other sites

30 Replies and not one person has expressed sorrow or shock that an elderly man has been strangled to death, bad reporting-yes, the possible ruination of a shotgun -yes. Jesus wept what have we all become (me included) when we read such stories then quarrel over the finer points.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I related the story some time back but just to recap I was relating the Hungerford story to some folks in a small town in Texas and the local judge pushed his Stetson back on his head and said, "Well I suppose it could happen in Llano but some good old boy would take the rifle of the rack in is pickup and blow him to hell".  It was made clear to me that to invade another persons property in Texas could prove fatal.   To my mind there are far too many killers being looked after fed and watered in our prisons who really should have gone to the crematorium.  Taking someones life in this country today has become nothing more than stealing in a bank robbery and that is sad.

Edited by Walker570
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, bruno22rf said:

30 Replies and not one person has expressed sorrow or shock that an elderly man has been strangled to death, bad reporting-yes, the possible ruination of a shotgun -yes. Jesus wept what have we all become (me included) when we read such stories then quarrel over the finer points.

I guess sorrow is taken as a given so no one felt it needed to be stated.

No shock as this is 21st century, such events seem common. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, WalkedUp said:

In this country it is illegal.

No. It is not illegal to defend yourself in this and the law allows that to be with a weapon. Indeed the oft quoted Bill of Rights references that very thing, weapons, with the wording..."May have arms for their defence..."

As England has a Common Law legal basis (as does the USA) where the law changes and evolves the ability to use self defence as a counter to a charge from ABH through to murder has changed. I don't like using Wikipedia but as I'm lazy I'll link to it here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defence_in_English_law

So there it is. Tony Martin had Barras been on the stairs advancing towards him, or evem down the stairs and advancing towards him may have been either not charged or if he had been charged may have been acquited.

It was not "Labour" that convicted Tony Martin it was a jury that did so after hearing the evidence. The damning part of which was perhaps (no one knows the jury's deliberations in a trial are and remain secret both during and for all time after) that Barras was shot in the back AFAIR?

Edited by enfieldspares
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, enfieldspares said:

No. It is not illegal to defend yourself in this and the law allows that to be with a weapon.

All interesting analysis however we were discussing killing a burglar rather than defending yourself from an attacker. I don’t believe anyone contests that you can defend yourself from attack with proportionate (incl lethal) force. I believe it is morally just to kill a burglar, regardless of immediate mortal danger. I wouldn’t however because I believe it to be illegal. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, enfieldspares said:

No. It is not illegal to defend yourself in this and the law allows that to be with a weapon. Indeed the oft quoted Bill of Rights references that very thing, weapons, with the wording..."May have arms for their defence..."

As England has a Common Law legal basis (as does the USA) where the law changes and evolves the ability to use self defence as a counter to a charge from ABH through to murder has changed. I don't like using Wikipedia but as I'm lazy I'll link to it here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defence_in_English_law

So there it is. Tony Martin had Barras been on the stairs advancing towards him, or evem down the stairs and advancing towards him may have been either not charged or if he had been charged may have been acquited.

It was not "Labour" that convicted Tony Martin it was a jury that did so after hearing the evidence. The damning part of which was perhaps (no one knows the jury's deliberations in a trial are and remain secret both during and for all time after) that Barras was shot in the back AFAIR?

Isn’t that ‘May have arms for their defence......as allowed by law’. ? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WalkedUp said:

All interesting analysis however we were discussing killing a burglar rather than defending yourself from an attacker. I don’t believe anyone contests that you can defend yourself from attack with proportionate (incl lethal) force. I believe it is morally just to kill a burglar, regardless of immediate mortal danger. I wouldn’t however because I believe it to be illegal. 

I agree, if you attack someone’s home then you should expect limitless consequences, the law doesn’t see it that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, enfieldspares said:

Yes. As allowed by the Common Law and not as many would have you believe only as allowed by statute law.

So which arms are we allowed to have for self defence by law in England? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Things are getting very strange with rules and regs and of course you should be able to protect yourself your home from this type of scum floating about in the society and also got to agree with something said earlier we are watering and feeding to many killers locked up inside.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, henry d said:

so both Oscar and Rudi were in the wrong

 

11 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

Here he is, the caped defender. 

Wherever there's criminals, Henry won't be far away to defend them. Except when it affects him personally of course. 

You missed the above, but don't let that stop you from having a dig at me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, henry d said:

 

You missed the above, but don't let that stop you from having a dig at me.

I just find it an interesting insight into your views when you only seem to get involved in threads like these when people start getting angry about criminals, you then start slating their view points rather than the violent murdering criminals. Very strange view that, imo of course. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...