When the Law fails

[The PIT]

The UK is having a little debate now over a farmer who shot dead a burgler.
The man in question according to some reports is slightly twitchy in the first place. However after being repeatly burgled and stating that he would blow one of these burglers away one day he finally did it. Since the police knew that he had threatened to do it and that he was being continually being burgled why didn't they do more about it.
One reason maybe once these thugs are caught the courts don't do anything about it.
The three Burglers in this case had racked up 114 offences between them only one seems to have spent anytime just 2 years. Another reason maybe lack of resources but perhaps just hiding one officer in the area may have caught these thugs before one of them got killed. A more positive response when Mr Martin reported crimes may have detered him from taking the law into his own hands. Speaking from personnel experiance when Burgled the policeman showed no interest and basically said we won't catch them. Thats despite the burglers working through the area during the month.
At the end of the day offenders need to punished just giving them a warning and saying don't do it again just gives them the green light to carry on. The police need to do there job and the courts need to back them up. If they don't they'll be more cases like this when the victimn loses his wrag and hits out.
To long in this country we have forgotten the victimn's and pampered the criminal. This leaves law abiding poeple feeling unprotected and defenseless. Unfortunatley people can only take so much and in many cases will hit
out. In this case there's two victimns Mr Martin and Barras. If things had been done properly Martin would be free and Barras alive and in jail.
However I feel any law changes that allow the home owner to protect his property will be undermined the European court of human rights.

[ahartman]

My politics are becoming more and more clear to most of you... at any rate, my thoughts...

I don't think of that burgler as a victim. He's a career punk who made a living off the intimidation of others. I'm not saying he got what he deserved, but he's certainly not any kind of victim.

It seems that the UK is catching a bad case of the 'no-personal-responsibility' syndrome that has run so wild here in the States.

A story:

Last summer, some friends and I were partying in our apartment. We were very loud and apparently the guy downstairs was banging on our door for a while. He stormed into the apartment and we physically removed him.

He called the cops because he wanted us arrested for assault & battery. They almost arrested HIM for breaking and entering. The police told us there's no such thing as battery (the actual assault) when you're defending your life or property.

My thought was "What if we were drug dealers and I shot that guy when he barged in?" The cop's reply was "Less paperwork."

By the way, we felt awful about the noise afterwards and tried to apologize to the guy downstairs (before we knew he called the cops) but he would have none of it.

Andy

[This message has been edited by ahartman (edited 27 April 2000).]

[Dilitante1]

Another unfortunate by-product of this is that the gun law freaks where you live will just use the incident to outlaw the last remaining firearms in your country.


-Dil

[Wombat]

There was a case here in the US where a burglar broke into a home, and fell on something. He broke a leg, and the homeowners called an ambulance. When the burglar had recovered, he sued the homeowners, and WON. Only in America....

[The PIT]

Ahartman I think you some it up perfectly with the no personal responsibilty quote.

Certainly in the UK it now always seems someone else's fault. This may also be part of the reason why theres increase in suicides in jail with young offenders. It's probably the first time they had to face up to the fact that there wrong and they've ****ed up and Mummmy and Daddy aren't going to come around blaming everone else.

It doesn't help when do gooders in the European court of human rights forget that the rights of the victim have been removed by the thug they're sticking up for. It's time the UK said bollocks to you we have our laws and you ain't go to over rule them with Ivory tower crap.

More and more Poeple here are losing confidence in the police. In the case of Burgleries and Vandlism many don't bother to report it as the Police don't seem bothered. They like this of course because they can say crime has fallen. I was once asked by my Insurance company did I report the damage to my car to the police. I said no they never seem interested and the company said fine and accepted that.

I'll quote another example. I friend of my's daughter was sexual assulted by a gang of youths. The police did arrest those involved but didn't think there was much chance of doing anything. Anyway the gang started sitting on the garden wall of my friends house shouting abuse and loitering around. On contacting the Police the police said theres nothing we can do and we won't come out. When the father said I'll go out and hit them then they curtly replied we'll arrest you then sir.

Another example of sensible policing. My brother law had an accident at the time there seemed to be no injuries. Three weeks later his neck started getting painful. His Doctor said it was result of the accident. He then rang the Police up to check what he should do and was then told if he came in he would be arrested for failing to report an accident when there was an injured party. He put the phone down at that point.

Ah another one. My Mother had a car accident at a black spot near our house. The road was solid sheet ice (The council don't grit on Sundays) and the car slid happily into another Car. Since there were no phones nearby she went back to our house 5 minutes away and rang the police since the road partly blocked. I waited by the car. The Police arrived and the proceeded to give me a load of verbal since my Mother had left the scene of the accident. He then tried to insist that I removed the car despite that the front had recieved a far amount of damage by the front suspension and I hadn't passed the driving test. I refused and he got even more grumpy but was distratced by arrival of the emergancy gritting team who took one look at the road and said I ain't driving down this except over my own grit. Oh a bus driver had also refused to drive down the road as it was to dangerous. But what the **** was the plod trying to do asking a driver who hadn't passed his test to move the car on his own? What a prat.

Wombat. If the burgler had broken the Victimns leg would they have been able to sue or would the Burgler have come from a deprived back ground where nobody loved him?

Oh I like the auto removal of swear words!

[This message has been edited by The PIT (edited 27 April 2000).]

[merchant2112]

it is for reasons like your's that ir is a good idea to keep a nice knife lieing around to put in thier hands after you perminately shoot (kill) the robing bastard (if he don't have a crow bar or what not useable as a weapon.)

[Jammrock]

Today's legal system pretty much sucks. The accused have more rights than the victims.

On a lighter note (this may not be true, but funny none the less)...

Some guy in the USA had succeed in importing some extremely expensive Cuban cigars (for those not familiar, it is illegal to import Cuban cigars to sell in the US due to an imbargo, which makes having them an exoctic item for Cigar people. There are ways to get them in the country leaglly, but not for retail purposes). The cigars were worth so much that he put down an insurance policy against them, including fire insurance. After the space of about a year he finished smoking all his precious cigars and then realized that the cigars were burned, and that was covered under the policy.

So he filed for his insurance reimbursment for the burnt cigars. The insurance company said they wouldn't pay since cigars are for smoking and since he smoked them, that made the policy void. So the guy took the company to court and won.

The insurance company, not to be under done, then counter sued him for arson and got all their money back and more

Jammrock

[The PIT]

Well Jammrock in that case justice was done.

[Wombat]

There was another case in the US where a few farmers lost their crop in a flood when a dam broke. One farmer tried to have his insurance company pay for the damage, but they refused, saying that the broken dam was an "act of god." The farmer took them to court, and lost. He then sued his local church (God's representative), and won.

[The PIT]

How about the daftest court case thread?

[HollyBerri]

I can't believe that farmer won against the church... If God (or representatives therof) can be sued for the flood damage (and I'd like to know what ambulance chaser took that case, hoping to make a name for him/herself), then would that not presume that the farmer then owned the crops?

But the farmer does not; if they are a product of the Earth, then they would also be owned by God, so if God destroyed them, tough luck, case dismissed.

All right, but what about the labor, then? I'd agree that the farmer deserves to be compensated for that, given that the destruction of the product was not his/her fault, but the labor had been performed. However, since the labor was not performed "for the benefit of" God (if you take the tack that you perform paid work for the benefit of your employer), I'm not sure how that would make God responsible for such compensation of lost labor.

Looks like it was "work for hire", to me....and many of you may know what happens to your rights as a creator/laborer when you perform work for hire.

Maybe the court was just stunned that anyone would be suing God (or representatives therof) in a court of law. I mean, can you imagine being the court clerk receiving the papers "Farmer Joe Brown vs. God"?? And God <u>lost</u>????... what a great line for the 11pm news.. "In a stunning defeat today, God the Creator was fined $100,000 in damages to a farmer in...."

Fun for the entire polity...!

------------------------
Holly

[merchant2112]

holly, what our great corut system dose these days dose not surprise me in the least. (if i remember right your from ny? if not you may not remember this.) a few years ago there was a muger who was trying to mug some one in the subway. the transit police saw him he ran and in the process of fleeing he was shot and wounded. now this in it's self is not strange. but there is a federal law that basicly says you can not profit from a crime no matter what. well this muger sued the police and won 2 million dollars. and the coart said he could keep the money.

so need money?, go to ny mug some one get shoot by the cops and collect 2 mill. what is wrong with this contry ? i really would like to know.

[Compton]

maybe that's why the NYPD is a better shot these days. so they dont have to worry about the suspect suing them.

[ahartman]

The law is commonly referred to as the "Son of Sam" law. Basically, it prevents criminals from profiting from books & movies about their lives & crimes.

I doubt that a civil rights violation falls into that realm.

Now before, you guys fire notes at me, I seriously doubt that the criminal's civil rights were violated by being shot, but I bet that's how he won the settlement.

Reminds me of the burglar (purse snatcher, I believe) that lost his leg because a samaritan pinned him against a building with his car to keep him from fleeing. The burglar won a big judgement from the motorist.

[merchant2112]

i think it covers all proceeds, one of the exaples i remember was something like you cant steel 1000, use it to make 10000 give the 1000 back and keep the profits it more than like was a civial rights case, but that dosn't make it right.