Re: Murder
Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:12 pm
In one word, No.
Mart
Mart
Oooh, sounds well moody, steve. I reckon he was probably trying to work you 'a Beechams'.
Officer Dibble
Page 2 of 4
Re: Murder
Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 5:09 pm
Re: Murder
Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 6:39 pm
In response to you Gilbert...everyone move out of stinking Britain. In France no one and I mean no one apart from the gemdarmes (that means the gasman etc) are allowed to set one foot on your property. I remember the postman not being able to get a package into our post box (which are all located on the outside of your property) and she looked as if she was delivering myrrh to Jesus, bowing and apologising as she came towards me through the gate before doing a runner....weird. And another thing, a group, well not a group but 2 boys had there 'hoodies' up..it was about 34 degrees though and the police came round the corner and told them to take them off and they did, without rooneying them. I almost fell over..oh its so wonderful not having to live in fear over here, well apart from the pensioner who tried to run me over when I knicked his parking space, but thats another story!!!
Re: Murder
Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 10:27 pm
As far as I was aware everyone mentioned has to obtain your permission before entering your home unless they have a warrant.
As far as I'm concerned, I would feel absolutely no guilt whatsoever if someone had broken into my house in the night and I'd killed them with the first thing to come to hand, which would more than likely be a 3 1/2 foot sword.
Of course, after the Tony Martin case Mr Blair couldn't change the law quick enough so that now if someone is injured on your property, no matter how when or why they are there or what it is they were doing to become injured, you are now liable and they can sue you. If someone breaks into your house and stubs their toe while kicking your ribs in, or sprains their ankle while performing the tricky manuever of throwing you down your own stairs, then they can sue you for it.
One has to wonder if he'd have been so quick to pass that particular law if he didn't know that him and his family was going to have 24hour protection for the rest of their lives.
As far as I'm concerned, I would feel absolutely no guilt whatsoever if someone had broken into my house in the night and I'd killed them with the first thing to come to hand, which would more than likely be a 3 1/2 foot sword.
Of course, after the Tony Martin case Mr Blair couldn't change the law quick enough so that now if someone is injured on your property, no matter how when or why they are there or what it is they were doing to become injured, you are now liable and they can sue you. If someone breaks into your house and stubs their toe while kicking your ribs in, or sprains their ankle while performing the tricky manuever of throwing you down your own stairs, then they can sue you for it.
One has to wonder if he'd have been so quick to pass that particular law if he didn't know that him and his family was going to have 24hour protection for the rest of their lives.
Re: Murder
Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 11:14 pm
You should be a bouncer 
that was a regular occurance...
Man i dont miss those days
that was a regular occurance...Man i dont miss those days
Re: Murder
Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 11:58 pm
"If someone breaks into your house and stubs their toe while kicking your ribs in, or sprains their ankle while performing the tricky manuever of throwing you down your own stairs, then they can sue you for it."
Really? Come on, cite the legal precedents for that. Otherwise you're talking bollocks.
Mart
Really? Come on, cite the legal precedents for that. Otherwise you're talking bollocks.
Mart
Re: Murder
Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 1:44 am
bloody hell, i've been in hospital for a week and come back to just as many depressing threads as before.
being tested for lymphoma is as depressing as this forum at the mo
being tested for lymphoma is as depressing as this forum at the mo
Re: Murder
Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:03 am
Gee, sorry to hear that diplodocus. Hope the results are good news.
Problem here is some people keep raising same old same old topics.
Mart
Problem here is some people keep raising same old same old topics.
Mart
Re: Murder
Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 1:05 pm
"Really? Come on, cite the legal precedents for that. Otherwise you're talking bollocks.
Mart"
If by legal precedents you mean cases where this has happened before, then I really don't have the time nor the inclination to trawl through legal case histories just to prove my point to you. I do believe though that you are liable for any and all injuries to anyone occuring on your property, regardless of why they are there or what they did to incur such injuries. The things I mentioned were just potential worst case scenarios, and I didn't mention the possibility of actually winning such a case (if it's a jury with common sense, low, if it's some overpaid, underworked judge who's never done a proper days work in their life and probably has police protection 24/7, then more than likely quite high).
Mart"
If by legal precedents you mean cases where this has happened before, then I really don't have the time nor the inclination to trawl through legal case histories just to prove my point to you. I do believe though that you are liable for any and all injuries to anyone occuring on your property, regardless of why they are there or what they did to incur such injuries. The things I mentioned were just potential worst case scenarios, and I didn't mention the possibility of actually winning such a case (if it's a jury with common sense, low, if it's some overpaid, underworked judge who's never done a proper days work in their life and probably has police protection 24/7, then more than likely quite high).
CIVILISED???
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 1:45 pm
If someone ACTS in an un-civilised, unsociable manner - in my opinion (and I'd suggest, in any right thinking persons opinion) - the perptrator has given up ANY RIGHTS to be treated in a CIVILISED manner...
If they cross the "line in the sand" - i.e. trespass and break into your property - they shoul dbe deemed to have left their "rights" on the other side of that line!
The test of reasonableness - i.e. "reasonable force" is ludicrous... everybody has a different perception of what is "reasonable" in these circumstances which is why I feel you should be free to make up your own rules within the confines of your own home!
If they cross the "line in the sand" - i.e. trespass and break into your property - they shoul dbe deemed to have left their "rights" on the other side of that line!
The test of reasonableness - i.e. "reasonable force" is ludicrous... everybody has a different perception of what is "reasonable" in these circumstances which is why I feel you should be free to make up your own rules within the confines of your own home!