Cyclist assaulted in Sheffield

In article , Mark
Thompson (pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_t o_reply*.com)
wrote:
Protect your own property and upset some cretin in a baseball cap.

Prison is assured.

Almost four years in prison for shooting to death a 16 year old with an
illegally held pump action shotgun when they were already running away from
you ain't bad going thobut. Tip: tell 'em you didn't mean to shoot them.

If he'd waited until the minipikey was outside and run him down with a
Lard-Rover, he'd have got off with a community service order, tea and
sympathy...

--
Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
Kinder surprise! What's the surprise? Your children are now dead.

On Tue, 02 May 2006 11:56:47 GMT someone who may be Mark Thompson
pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_t o_reply*.com
wrote this:-

Almost four years in prison for shooting to death a 16 year old with an
illegally held pump action shotgun when they were already running away from
you

It was worse than that. My recollection is that Mr Martin did not
shoot the thief dead. Rather he wounded the thief, who later bled to
death near the house. It is possible that had Mr Martin contacted
the police immediately the thief could have been taken to hospital
and survived. Instead Mr Martin went off to dispose of his illegal
and illegally held gun.

Some might argue that thieves deserve everything they get, but
allowing people to wound those they think are thieves and leave them
to bleed to death is hardly the mark of a rounded society.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On 2 May 2006 09:27:46 GMT someone who may be
(Arthur Clune) wrote this:-

I'm a little shocked that such a deliberate assult didn't get
a custodial scentence.

A deliberate assault using not just one but two weapons and
threatening words. Attempted murder by the sound of it.

"Get the white *******" sounds like a racial aggravating factor as
well, which the courts are supposed to take into account when
sentencing. Perhaps the Hutton did take it into account and this is
a "more severe" than he would usually impose.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Along with all the other posters, I think this case and the sentence are
incredible: how can someone who twice assaulted an innocent man not be
charged with assault, GBH or ABH?

He appears to have been charged only with dangerous driving, affray and
possession of an offensive weapon?

Mark Thompson wrote:

Protect your own property and upset some cretin in a baseball cap.

Prison is assured.

Almost four years in prison for shooting to death a 16 year old with an
illegally held pump action shotgun when they were already running away from
you ain't bad going thobut. Tip: tell 'em you didn't mean to shoot them.

If you're referring to what I think you're referring to, you've neatly
missed out that the 16 year old and his mate were burgling someone
else's farmhouse at the time, this was the latest in several such
burglaries they'd carried out on the same victim, the local police were
unable to do anything about the repeated burglaries due to lack of
resources, and it was the middle of the night.

If I broke into someone elses house in darkness and then got shot I'd
consider I'd got what I deserved, regardles of whether the weapon was
illegal or not.

It really is time we once again started having punishments for crime
which actually punish the wrongdoers, instead of endlessly making up
excuses for criminals.

Pyromancer wrote:
If I broke into someone elses house in darkness and then got shot I'd
consider I'd got what I deserved, regardles of whether the weapon was
illegal or not.

That's your decision. Most national and all international courts disagree
with you.

It really is time we once again started having punishments for crime
which actually punish the wrongdoers, instead of endlessly making up
excuses for criminals.

I'd rather we stopped criminals offending again, in a manner which minimises
the cost to society, assuming that the crimes they commit are ones that are
harmful to society.
--
Ambrose

Pyromancer wrote:

If I broke into someone elses house in darkness and then got shot I'd
consider I'd got what I deserved, regardles of whether the weapon was
illegal or not.

What /you/ consider is irrelevant; it is what "the law" says (ie, what
the rulers at the time consider, with some slight modifiers from what
society as a whole considers) , and the law considers that convicted
burglars "deserve" a sentence decided by a judge or a bench of
magistrates weighted by various factors; the law also considers that
individual members of the public cannot ignore parts of the law as they
see fit and pass summary justice.

It really is time we once again started having punishments for crime
which actually punish the wrongdoers,

The criminal Tony Martin /was/ punished for his wrongdoing.

instead of endlessly making up
excuses for criminals.

But the maximum punishment for burglary in England is umpteen years in
prison, not summary execution.

If people are ever allowed to go around dispensing summary justice up to
and including execution whenever any laws are broken, I'll be first to
be targeting speeders with a bazooka. Tony Martin evidently felt
threatened by his burglars; I feel threatened by speeders. What's the
difference? ;-)

R.

Ambrose Nankivell wrote:

I'd rather we stopped criminals offending again, in a manner which
minimises the cost to society, assuming that the crimes they commit
are ones that are harmful to society.

I'd rather they did not offend in the first place and part of that is
deterrence.

pk

Richard twisted the electrons to say:
the law also considers that individual members of the public cannot
ignore parts of the law as they see fit and pass summary justice.

What Mr Martin *should've* done (IMHO), was shoot them both in the front.
Then he would've been the only witness and thus could quite legitimately
have claimed "I said I was armed and willing to defend myself. They
continued advancing towards me so, being in reasonable fear of my life,
I was forced to defend myself".

Of course, since he used an illegal/illegally-held weapon (accounts vary)
he was already "up the creek" as soon as he pulled the trigger ...

It really is time we once again started having punishments for crime
which actually punish the wrongdoers,
The criminal Tony Martin /was/ punished for his wrongdoing.

It's true that Tony Martin is not a poster-boy for the "right to self
defence". Unfortunately, the result of his prosecution is to reinforce
the belief (in certain circles) that we have *no* right of self defence
in this country.

instead of endlessly making up excuses for criminals.
But the maximum punishment for burglary in England is umpteen years in
prison, not summary execution.

Did Tony Martin *know* they where only doing burglary or was he in
reasonable fear of his life? (We'll never really know of course!)
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

On Tue, 02 May 2006 19:45:34 +0100, p.k. wrote:
I'd rather they did not offend in the first place and part of that is
deterrence.

And another part involves social support. I'd prefer;

"I don't commit crimes because I have no reason or desire to do so."

to

"I don't commit crimes because I'm scared of the consequences."

Jon