UK home defence
- Thread starter pdg
- Start date
Sneaky
Because the way it's always reported is the same as "positive discrimination" - i.e. because I'm not a 'minority' (and I'm male) I technically can't claim discrimination as a factor in things like work/pay disputes, or criminal investigations.
I have always thought (and always will) that the term "hate crime" was introduced and subsequently promoted as p.c. crap.
(Oh, and I thought ethnicity and other factors were recorded as motivational factors, because it gets asked...)
I know a very small amount about the terror related procedure, enough to know that if not monitored and kept in check it could potentially be the start of a nasty and slippery slope... That's outside the terms of this discussion though.
I was (and really I still am) unaware of the differences in NI and Scotland - I know they have different technical differences and some different laws (or interpretations thereof) but not the specifics or that they extended to basic procedure too.
Adequately covered by my previous statement, arrest for manslaughter, change if further evidence presents itself.
Unless there's immediate cause to suspect it was a case of luring, you can't assume that - not with "innocent until proven guilty".
it gets recorded as racially motivated but not as who against who, there's enough bloody paperwork as it is.
It's not about monitoring but how long you can detain someone before charging and how long you can hold them before letting them see a solicitor. I know way too much about terrorism, spent forty odd years on it, same terrorism just different terrorists.
Ah, no, not that sort of monitoring, not of suspects.
I meant that the relaxation of the limits on detention and all that stuff, and the acceptable reasons for uncharged detention (etc.) need to be monitored.
The very bleak pessimist could surmise that those practices could be slowly extended to cover other offences, progressively less and less related to actual terrorism until we find ourselves in a dystopian future where anything at all even partially construed (or described as) against the state could lead to "being disappeared" (insert dramatic music and the appearance of an unlikely hero fighting from atop his classic triumph bike for the rights of the oppressed individual).
Edit: Ooh, 500th message!
Ah this echoes a famous case here and one that people keep bringing up about how it's not fair to charge someone for murder when it's self defence.
Tony Martin was charged and found guilty of murder for 'defending his home against two lads who broke into his house' he shot one of them who died. Only, he had set traps around his house and lured them in, as they discovered what he'd done they ran off down the path, he chased them and shot them in the back killing one. His shotguns were illegal because he'd lost his shotgun certificate for threatening to shoot several people including his brother. He was found guilty of murder later after appeal because the psychiatric reports hadn't been available to the jury ( he has major personality disorder and claimed he was sexually abused as a child as well as being a paranoid schizophrenic) it was reduced to manslaughter. he'd sacked his first defence team and the second presented him as an angry man driven to shoot, forensic reports showed he'd also lied about where he'd been when he'd shot the lads who were travellers, people Martin had been saying should be 'put down'. In 2015 he was arrested again on firearms charges.
I did half wonder if that case would be brought up.
Shooting someone in the back with a long gun can't be self defence for a start imo. It's not like it's a physical possibility for that to happen during a struggle...
The only thing in his defence is that he'd been targeted by the same group of people burgling his property a fair few times, and nothing was officially done to stop that happening.
While it falls under "my" definition of murder, it was certainly aggravated and I don't know how much 'cause and effect' can be attributed to his condition and/or actions.
(As a side note, I'm still tempted to put a "protected by Tony Martin security services" sign on my gate... But if anything happened it wouldn't exactly work in my favour
)These specific counter terrorism laws are relatively recent though.
It wouldn't be outwith the realms of possibility for a 'faction' to develop within the counter terrorism units that could take advantage of said incompetence for their own ends...
There is an ideal level of incompetence within leadership that we seem to have managed to more or less maintain for a good long time - as long as it doesn't stray too far in either direction we should muddle along pretty much as we always have.
Doesn't that have to be decided by a court, following a hearing, following a charge being brought and intent to prosecute being declared?
I know it's not part one in the "shall we bring charges, and if so which ones?" handbook...
No, but having enough evidence in hand to have already initiated a prosecution, which isn't done unless there's a belief of a reasonable chance of success.
It's an alternative to bail if the defendant isn't deemed suitable for temporary release.
It's more of a "allow extra time to collate or reinforce evidence" step.
It's wholly unsuitable (and not intended) to be a means of detention while initial enquiries are made in order to determine whether a crime has actually been committed, if so which one(s) and whether a prosecution will be brought.
No one said it was the same group if in fact he had been burgled.
Not aggravated as he lured them in, he was also known to make violent threats against people including his own family. In fact, he'd caught a man stealing apples from his orchard, and as the man drove away Martin shot the back of his car with his shot gun.
By the way the 78 year old man who has been arrested isn't a frail little old man. A lot is being made in the media of him being 'punished' for defending his home, he isn't being punished he's being held at a police station ( and probably being looked after well ) while the police investigate. What has to happen is a proper investigation that leaves no doubt as to what happened, else there will be a public outcry that justice wasn't done. The police are dotting the 'i's and crossing the 't's, if it's self defence it has to be clear to everyone that it's self defence, if it's not that also has to be clear, there cannot be a precedence set where people can use self defence as a plea when in fact it's murder. yes it takes time but it cannot be botched. Too many don't understand the processes involved. The householder doesn't need to be left open to any civil court proceedings by the dead man's family if he's not cleared properly. There has to be a clear and open investigation done by the book so there are no loose ends, unwarranted suspicions etc. If it does go to court then it has to be obvious why.
Re: Tony Martin - I haven't studied the case much, the only information I have is memory from the time and stuff that's public domain.
He claims to have been burgled about 10 times iirc. Police say they are unsure whether these burglaries took place.
But, retribution for previous burglaries was used as part of the case for prosecution.
I don't think anyone will really ever know what actually happened that night or the events leading up to it.
I have no idea whether you have any experience dealing with the 'group' in question or how the 'civilian' police try to deal with them, but I have some and it's not a pretty picture...
Oh, and the "surviving victim" was awarded legal aid to apply for compensation for being unable to work due to his injuries following that night -- even though he was in prison at the time for an unrelated offence and subsequent convictions suggest that 'work' involved stealing cars, burgling houses and dealing heroin.
The entire case and everything surrounding it is a complete bungled clusterflick () in my opinion and should never be held as precedence of anything other than how not to do it.
He claims to have been burgled about 10 times iirc. Police say they are unsure whether these burglaries took place.
But, retribution for previous burglaries was used as part of the case for prosecution.
I don't think anyone will really ever know what actually happened that night or the events leading up to it.
I have no idea whether you have any experience dealing with the 'group' in question or how the 'civilian' police try to deal with them, but I have some and it's not a pretty picture...
Oh, and the "surviving victim" was awarded legal aid to apply for compensation for being unable to work due to his injuries following that night -- even though he was in prison at the time for an unrelated offence and subsequent convictions suggest that 'work' involved stealing cars, burgling houses and dealing heroin.
The entire case and everything surrounding it is a complete bungled clusterflick (
) in my opinion and should never be held as precedence of anything other than how not to do it.
He didn't get any compensation. The problem there though is many people think only those they approve of should be dealt with fairly by the law, however there is a reason that 'Justice' is blindfolded on the statue at the Old Bailey.
The forensics on the Martin case were very good and he helped by shouting out in advance to all and sundry what he was going to do so it's not that cloudy a case. He has a personality disorder, it was never going to be easy. It also didn't help his case when he fired his defence, changed his story and was generally belligerent. His case has absolutely no bearing on the current case, many people are jumping on the band wagon with as much knowledge as they have of Brexit ie none at all.
No, he didn't get the compensation, but he got awarded the funds to sue from the state and dropped the case himself as part of a deal involving Martin dropping a counter claim.
It is my firm belief that someone injured while conducting a criminal act should never be allowed to seek compensation for those injuries.
Let's make it personal. I break into your house. An altercation occurs and I'm injured.
Because justice is blind, nobody is allowed to know whether I have 49 convictions for intimidating burglaries over the past 20 years.
Because it's not really blind, your history of training is disclosed... (Just as Martin's history of behaviour was.)
You say I threatened you, I say you were laying in wait and attacked me. The court sides with me.
Can you really, honestly, say that I should be able to sue you for damages?
Oh, and 5 years later your conviction gets overturned for some reason, because as it turns out I did threaten you after all...
Mmm hindsight. He was awarded legal aid to apply to court, if the case had got to court it would have been tried, thrown out most likely and set a legal precedent which meant a case like that couldn't be brought again. There's nothing wrong with trying things in court.
Martin's psychiatric history wasn't brought up in court, only his threats to kill travellers and that his shotgun was illegal ( he claimed he found it) because he'd shot at someone else and threatened others. His verdict was downgraded to manslaughter because of his psychiatric record not because they found his crime actually less than premeditated murder just that due to his mental problems it was diminished responsibility.
A civil court is different from a criminal court, the claim for compensation was in a civil court so different rules, different burden of proof, not whether guilty or innocent of a criminal offence. The claimant must provide proof and the judge decides the outcome ‘on balance of probability’, which means that if it looks likely that the claim is genuine, it will be awarded in favour of the claimant. Everyone has access to the civil court, to restrict who can sue and who can't would restrict us all.
His behavioural history was disclosed to the court.
Not exactly blind.
His psychiatric history wasn't disclosed, which could have led to a diminished responsibility verdict in the first place.
Seems more like a bit of restricted vision in one eye than actual blindness to me...
I can't see how restricting someone's "right" to sue for damages sustained while involved in criminal activities would restrict anyone else.
I did say that.
Not the CPS' responsibility, that was down to his defence barrister/solicitors as is how he pleaded.
You sue in a civil court and frankly you can sue for anything you want if you can afford the legal fees, it doesn't matter whether the damage was caused in a criminal attack or not, you can still go to court if you want. The judge would more than likely have thrown it out but it's a civil matter not criminal.
I can sue you because I think you libelled me on here or that you damaged my reputation or my business, do I have a case, highly unlikely but I can still go to court if I want. Same with that, it can be a spurious case but you are still entitled to go have your day in court.
Similar threads
