---

by Incandenza
Killing people is wrong.

---

---

by Cat
NO. an eye for an eye. quid pro quo. what goes around comes around. i could go on...

---

Presumably you now believe it reasonable for Fred Barras' relatives to find and kill Tony Martin. And then for his mates to take out some of them...

---

by Cat
A man grabs me on the street. hits me, drags me away. does he want to rape me and kill me or get me somewhere quite to rob me? how do i know? what i should do in this situation? normally i'd use anything available to diabale the bas.. Bad man! I dont have my illegan hair spray (since i'm it's illegal) But i also find a brick on the pavement. but if i hit his head and killed him i'd be wrong.

---

Firstly, as has been said, your conclusion is not true. But, also, this is not an equivalent scenario to the one being discussed. If someone attacked you in the street and you pulled an illegal gun on them, they took one look and legged it and you shot them in the back, that would be an equivalent scenario. And, yes, you would be called to explain your actions.

The main problem with arguing in favour of Tony Martin's actions is that you are defending a situation where, rather than having set, clearly explainable laws for everyone, we reach a situation where people are allowed to define their own laws according to their own personal beliefs, priorities and desires. If a person lives in an area where motorists are constantly speeding, this could be causing a real danger to children playing outside. But, is that person justified in arming themselves and shooting at any offending motorists? I don't think so.

Jayjay - You're right. Somehow this just feels more natural.

I haven't seen interviews with the parents. I absolutely agree with you (damn damn damn) that these were not hijinks committed by lovable scamps. However, is it their fault or their sons'? Did they breed a criminal or did the burglars exercise personal choice?

Perhaps at some point, another thread on determinism, culture and psychology would be interesting.

Clothing the dead in saintly innocence is hardly a unique incidence here. What kind of a parent would say of their child 'He was a wrong 'un who got what he deserved?'

My point really though was simply this: none of us are without our flaws. Every person affects the lives of other people around them for good and ill. No doubt Barras and Fearon caused a great deal of distress to many. But at 16, Barras also had family who loved him and friends who will miss him and it is not impossible to sympathise with that loss regardless of their culpability of otherwise.

The argument about truant children is illustrative as an example but in some ways off the point I think. Cat can list any number of examples where self-defence is justified and any number of other examples can be used to show the potential for mistakes. And that's as it should be.

As I said above, the law allows self-defence with reasonable force. Tony Martin is a specific case with very unusual details. To argue he was guilty is not the same as arguing against self-defence, no matter how much some newspapers (and their readers) and some politicians might say it is.

Cat

An eye for an eye...

Where to start? There's the metaphorical rebuttal... an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

How about the law of God as commanded to Moses: 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'.

In any case, the quote doesn't mean what you want it to mean. The 'eye for an eye' principle is not an advocacy of brutal retribution or vigilantiism. It's intention was to prevent the escalating cycle of retaliation by ensuring punishment for a crime was proportionate to the crime being committed (from Leviticus for example: "And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast." ). Shooting a burglar is not taking an eye for an eye.

If that doesn't convince you, then how about Matthew's account of the Sermon on the Mount?

---

by Jesus
You have heard it said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
But I say to you, resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also...

Ye have heard it said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
But I say to you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

---

I don't believe in God but it seems sensible to respond to biblical references in kind.

---

by Cat
the death penalty was ablished because so many people were cleared after the fact.

---

That is simply untrue. Since 1945, only three people have received posthumous pardons, two of those in the last five years.

Two hundred years ago, there were hundreds of offences punishable by death under English Law. These included letter stealing and being in the company of gypsies for one month. In the 1800's Parliament abolished the death penalty for many offences until only four remained: murder, treason, arson in royal dockyards and piracy with violence.

In the last century, the issue came up in Parliament on numerous occasions, in much the same way that hunting has recently. More than once, the House of Commons abolished the death penalty only for the Lords to overturn the decision.

In 1999, the United Kingdom ratified a European Human Rights convention that commits us to the permanent abolition of the death penalty, not for fear of making mistakes but because it is recognised as a violation of basic human rights.


Regarding the dragging into the bushes scenario, and as Whistler pointed out, the law does not in any way say you'd be wrong to defend yourself. To repeat one more time, believing what Tony Martin did was wrong is not the same as believing that defending yourself is wrong.

---

by JtB
(quotes)

I know its happening to me a lot these days

---

Me too!! *panics*

---

by Cat
hurting someone else is never right, be it steling what they have worked for from them or hitting them or, god forbid, worse.

---

Haven't you just negated your whole argument?

---

by Inc
How about the law of God as commanded to Moses: 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'.

---

All Gods (except perhaps pagan gids) sanction killing. ever heard of a religious war?

---

by Inc
That is simply untrue. Since 1945, only three people have received posthumous pardons, two of those in the last five years.

---

The death penality was abolished after Derek bently was hung. he was an adult in the eyes of the law, his partner in crime (who shot a policaman) was a child. Bentley told his friend to let the police officer "Have it."

after he was hung it came out he had the mental age of a 12 yr old and his comment, that got the conviction, was interperted differently. did he mean kill the policeman or give him the gun?

the public were outraged at this miscarriage and that was the beginning of the end. Back then politicians listened to the people and the people didnt trust justice. read the book, it's very interesting, called "Let Him Have It" i forget the author.

---

by Inc
the law does not in any way say you'd be wrong to defend yourself

---

Then why coud i be sued if i harmed an attacker with my hairspray? I knw thid can happen, a police officer told me it could (but he also, personally, advocated my carrying it, he said it was better not to be another statistic, just not to let people know why i carried it).

---

by Sydney
Haven't you just negated your whole argument?

---

I dont believe so. I would never instigate violence. I will retaliate with it though, leathally if necessary and have no regrets. They might start it, but i am prepaired to finish it.

Also, since you think i'm all "Kill 'em all, they're scum!" it might intrest you to know i can own a gun in Spain. And being a woman living alone, it's something i have thought about.

I dont because i believe in the institutions in place here to stop crime. i dont want to kill unless i have to, and gun's almost always kill. as long as the Policia Local and the Guardia Civil do their jobs properly, the justice system makes sure criminals are punished and i can sleep easy knowing this, i wont resort to buying a hand gun.

---

by Cat
(quotes)

All Gods (except perhaps pagan gids) sanction killing. ever heard of a religious war?

(quotes)

---

Whilst not wanting to get in a discussion about god(im an athiest) it is usually his representives on earth who start all the killing. And just because A god says somethings right doesnt mean it is.

---

The death penality was abolished after Derek bently was hung. he was an adult in the eyes of the law, his partner in crime (who shot a policaman) was a child. Bentley told his friend to let the police officer "Have it."

after he was hung it came out he had the mental age of a 12 yr old and his comment, that got the conviction, was interperted differently. did he mean kill the policeman or give him the gun?

the public were outraged at this miscarriage and that was the beginning of the end. Back then politicians listened to the people and the people didnt trust justice. read the book, it's very interesting, called "Let Him Have It" i forget the author.

---

The first government to attempt a wholesale abolition capital punishment was Labour in 1948. The Bill passed the Commons, but was defeated in the Lords. The momentum towards abolition continued over the next two decades; certain controversial court cases certainly played a part among politicians’ attitudes, but absolute moral grounds played just a large a part. The abject failure of the compromise 1958 Murder Act, which stipulated the death penalty in such absurd circumstances as murder “committed by poisoning”, and in the “furtherance of robbery” lead towards the final abolition in 1965, made permanent in 1969.

Opinion polls up to and including the present day show the majority of the public support capital punishment, though this majority has gradually been decreasing. So public revulsion had little if anything to do with abolition.

I do agree with you that the inevitable execution of innocent people is the most compelling reason to abolish capital punishment. You can argue the ethics of a life for a life ad infinitum without ever producing a clinching argument, but the state murdering innocent people in the name of vengeance is a cogent argument that will gain far more widespread support.

Now how long is it going to take for the inevitable death penalty thread to emerge ...

---

by JtB
Whilst not wanting to get in a discussion about god(im an athiest) it is usually his representives on earth who start all the killing. And just because A god says somethings right doesnt mean it is.

---

Amen, my son!

Cheers for the link amusing reading

I'd first like to make it clear that in replying, I in no way wish to endorse any connection between Tony Martin and the concept of a righteous war.

---

by Cat
All Gods (except perhaps pagan gids) sanction killing. ever heard of a religious war?

---

What century are you living in? I'd be the first to admit that Odin, Zeus and Mars were down with the whole idea of violence and war but I'm guessing those aren't the gods you meant.

The biggest world religions today are Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Atheism, Buddhism, Chinese Folk Religions and Sikhism.

The last time Christianity got involved in a holy war was the Crusades around 1100 a.d. It's hardly an episode that contemporary christians are proud of. Modern day christianity recognises the idea of a just war (fighting the Nazi's for example) although it still starts from the presumption that violence is wrong. Jesus, to reiterate, was very very clear on this point.

Islam is far more controversial. Islam itself means 'peace' but the concept of Jihad exists. That said, there are a sizeable number of muslims who do not believe Jihad equates to holy war. In any case, I'm guessing you aren't defending Tony Martin based on the teachings of the Qur'an.

Ahinsa, the law of noninjury, is the Hindu's first duty in fulfilling religious obligations to God. That applies to animals as well as humans. Ghandi wasn't big on retribution. Hinduism has no concept of Holy War.

Atheists are a moot point.

Buddhism also advocates Ahinsa. Buddhists have never been involved in a Holy War.

Chinese Folk Religions such as Confucianism and Taoism have no concept of Holy War and adopt a non-violence doctrine.

Sikhism has no concept of Holy War.

---

by Cat
Then why coud i be sued if i harmed an attacker with my hairspray? I knw thid can happen, a police officer told me it could

---

In future, IÂ’d suggest taking legal advice from an expert like ... oh I donÂ’t know, a lawyer perhaps? ThereÂ’s no point debating a piece of apocryphal advice.

---

by MR PINK
I don't want to kill anybody, but if you're in my way, one way or the other way you're getting out of my way.

---

---

by MR WHITE
That's the way I look at it. If it's a choice between doing ten years, and taking out some stupid [expletive removed], ain't no choice at all.

---

---

by Reservoir Cat
I will retaliate with it though, leathally if necessary and have no regrets. They might start it, but i am prepaired to finish it.

---

I just canÂ’t quite get my head around the no regrets bit.

---

and i can sleep easy knowing this, i wont resort to buying a hand gun.

---

And I can sleep easier knowing that.

Please do not partially-obscure swearwords - T21 Staff

(Edited by Staff 03/08/2003 17:29)

This is where i bow out. I never was a fan of the Na na, na na, na na! School of Debate, and with veiled insults being hurled my way. No thanks!

If you'd like to get back to ths issue which is essentially "Do citizens have right to protect themselves when the systems in place to protect the break down" please call me.

Until then, comparing me to a film i have never watched because it's too violent is just far too childish for me. I had more reasoned discussions among class mates when i was 12!

Can I ask all sides to avoid anything that could be construed as a personal attack and keep to debating the issue at hand.

Thank you.

Phew...a difference of opinion here, it seems.

I have very mixed feelings on the whole affair. When the affair first happened, I thought the guy deserved a medal- if you force entry to somebody's home without their permission and with the intent to steal their property, what rights should you have? But it's a horrendously complicated business from which nobody emerges with much credit at all.

My parents' house was broken into twice by the time I was 16 and since then people have tried to break into places where I've lived at least twice that I know of. The sad fact is that so many of the burglars are stealing to pay for drugs (in the case of my mum and dad's place, almost certainly heroin) that they'll probably be dead within ten years anyway.