Is this crazy or what?

[magoo]

The length of the piece of string is determined by the circumstances of each case. Thats why we have a jury to decide what is reasonable in the circumstances. The length of the piece of string will vary depending on the circumstances of the incident. If the burglars had been coming towards him and were threatening he would probably have got away with shooting them.

Dont let a fear of crime fueled by the press make you feel wild west justice is acceptable. The fear of crime is often worse than the reality. For example the huge increase in street robbery is mainly due to school kids stealing each others mobile phones and it doesnt affect the rest of us. It sounds worse than it is.

Having said that Lizard makes a good point. Martin was let down by the police in the past. I also think that social services should have been involved as he clearly was under mental strain which may have led to him using such unreasonable and lethal force. I have once felt like doing the same when I was a victim of crime but I had the sense to be rational unlike Mr Martin.

[magoo]

That depends on the offence. Subjective or objective tests can be applied. If it was an objective test then yes it would allow for Martins particular mental state or panic.

Look it up in one of your books. Subjective or objective.

[magoo]

I meant to say "if it were a SUBJECTIVE test then it would allow Martins state of mind to be taken into account" ie the jury would say "what would a person of martins characteristics have been reasonably expected to do" rather than "what would a normal reasonable person do".


Sorry about that. I got my subjectives mixed up with my objectives. How silly of me.

[steve56]

he could always plead insanity,diminshed responseability he might have got off on that one,or he had P.M.T.

[magoo]

I read a case once about some poor 14 year old girl who was educationally subnormal (sorry I cant remember the pc term for backward kids). She lit a fire in a shed to keep warm and was convicted of arson. The objective (reasonable man test) was applied rather than the subjective test which would have taken her low mental ability into account when assessing wether she should have reasonably been expected to forsee the consequences of her actions. I thought it was very unfair but I dont write the rules.

Every few years there is a case which introduces either subjective or objective tests to certain offences. To be honest I cant keep up with it and it often makes no sense at all. Hence me looking for a new job where I dont need to think about such crap.

[Lizard]

Your well forgiven young feller me lad, the only bit in this whole saga that now stinks is the right to privacy, giving a convicted persons new addy out to a vengeful mob serves no purpose apart from more destruction, whats done is done 'everyone' should be allowed to get on with thier lives, the 'law' is truly a fucking mess over this point, and can be seen to be sponsoring/encouraging more trouble....nuff said.

[Wink Wink]

Thank you my learned friend.

[Billy Bunter]

Tee hee...gosh......oh my.......poor ole M.........

[Billy Bunter]

Oh, jolly good. Yes. Spiffing.
Yoicks !!!

[Mart]

I think it should be OK to let down the tyres of any vehicle on the pavement.

Mart