Cyclist assaulted in Sheffield

On Wed, 3 May 2006 01:51:13 +0100, Pyromancer
wrote:

Do you believe that the kind of person who kidnaps and sexually assaults
a pre-teen child should be allowed to live? I don't.

Is that kind of person born evil, and therefore deserves death? Or
has that kind of person been conditioned to be evil by our society,
and therefore deserves death?

The violent thug in the Sheffield case was undoubtedly treated too
leniantly, but people in Norfolk are fed up with the nazi gun nut Tony
Martin being held up as a paragon of virtue.

1/

Martin had a long history of gun violence including threatening his own
brother and firing at scrumpers, that's why Tony Martin lost his gun
licence.

2/

Martin had not suffered a string of break ins at all, the police
confirmed that the only theft he had reported was a tractor battery
some months previous to Fred Barras being shot in the back and left to
die.

3/

Martin shot Fred, then disposed of his gun at his mum's house and went
for a pint. The horrified bar staff called the police and ambulance
after Martin started bragging about what he had done.

4/

Martin set a trap. He locked up his guard dogs, removed the stairs and
chased the burglars out of the house firing as he went. Even Martin's
own defence had to abandon the "terrified householder " scenario when
the ballistic evidence proved this. Martin murdered a young man and
left him to bleed to death. The man belongs inside.

Pyromancer wrote:

Do you believe that the kind of person who kidnaps and sexually assaults
a pre-teen child should be allowed to live? I don't.


Our judicial system has shown itself to be anything but 100% perfect
with many cases being reversed on new evidence and development of new
techniques such as DNA testing that have proved beyond doubt the
innocence of those who had been convicted. The death sentence is
irreversible for those where the system has wrongly convicted them. The
fact that innocent people will almost certainly be executed if you have
a death penalty is all I need to convince me the death penalty is wrong.


--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
Tony Raven wrote:
I can show you a few executed innocent people who were not resurrected
by their posthumous subsequent acquittal.

You can *show* me‽ Isn't that a slightly frivolous reason to exhume
someone?

Ambrose, is there some reason my posts are attracting your nitpickery at
the moment?

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Tony Raven wrote:
Pyromancer wrote:

Do you believe that the kind of person who kidnaps and sexually assaults
a pre-teen child should be allowed to live? I don't.


Our judicial system has shown itself to be anything but 100% perfect
with many cases being reversed on new evidence and development of new
techniques such as DNA testing that have proved beyond doubt the
innocence of those who had been convicted. The death sentence is
irreversible for those where the system has wrongly convicted them. The
fact that innocent people will almost certainly be executed if you have
a death penalty is all I need to convince me the death penalty is wrong.

I wouldn't necessarily argue that the penalty itself is wrong, but
having that penalty as an option in a system which is flawed is an
unacceptable risk.

So while the principle of the death penalty is debatable, the practice
is not acceptable precisely because of the risk of wrongful conviction,
irrespective of the moral acceptability or otherwise of state
sacntioned killing.

...d

David Martin wrote:

I wouldn't necessarily argue that the penalty itself is wrong, but
having that penalty as an option in a system which is flawed is an
unacceptable risk.


Its maybe semantics but IMO it is wrong because an infallible judicial
system is impossible (unless we can invent time travel to go back and
study the crime as it was being committed). Therefore it can never be
an acceptable option.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Pyromancer wrote:

Do you believe that the kind of person who kidnaps and sexually assaults
a pre-teen child should be allowed to live? I don't.

Even if such a person cannot tell the difference between right and
wrong? There are "mentally ill" people whose brains are so miswired,
through no fault of their own, that they fall far outside the acceptable
bounds of behaviour. Should they be killed too? At what point do you
draw the line?

R.

in message , Alistair Gunn
') wrote:

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

Both, as I understand it. He had had his firearms licence revoked, /and/
you can't licence a pump-action in the UK - they're illegal, even with a
licence.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken, and there was nothing we could do but wait
patiently for the RAC to arrive.

in message , Tony Raven
') wrote:

Pyromancer wrote:

Exactly. Show me one executed serial rapist who ever committed
another offence.

I can show you a few executed innocent people who were not resurrected
by their posthumous subsequent acquittal.

Good God! I agree with Tony again. Someone prick me.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Q: Whats a webmaster?
A: Like a spider, but nowhere near as intelligent.

On 2006-05-03, Simon Brooke wrote:
in message , Alistair Gunn
') wrote:

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

Both, as I understand it. He had had his firearms licence revoked, /and/
you can't licence a pump-action in the UK - they're illegal, even with a
licence.


Has that changed? You certainly used to be able to hold
pump-action shotguns, albeit with the magazine capacity limited. Several
people at the shooting club I was a member of held them for Practical
Shotgun.

Memory suggests that pump action shotguns with a fixed magazine
capable of holding no more than two rounds are allowed on a shotgun
certificate but I can't quickly find an authoritative reference.

I belive Mr Martin's shotgun had a five round magazine and was
therefore illegal to hold on a shotgun certificate.

Higher capacity shotguns on a full FAC were allowed but again
I can't quickly find an authoritative reference. Mr Martin didn't I
think hold an FAC and if he did wouldn't have met the requirements
or "good reason" to have held a high capacity shotgun on an FAC.
--
Tim.