Since alot of our European brothers have reacted with doubt and scorn concerning claims the American MPs will receive a fair trial, I’d just like to point everyone over to this story of Dutch justice.
What do you think? Should the old guy get a medal or the chair (electric, of course!)? 
Disabled man faces jail for ‘self-defence killing’
14 May 2004
AMSTERDAM
There was a similar case where a British man in the West Country? Dorset? shot and killed a career robber. The robber was in jail 30 times for robbery but was always released fairly quickly no doubt because the British Court System understood the root causes for his rage. Naturally, the honest, law-abiding, property owner was the one who went through the ringer. After all, he wasn’t poor so he wasn’t entitled to justice or self defense.
Then again, looks like the Europeans have “blown” it again…
Encouraging schoolchildren to experiment with oral sex could prove the most effective way of curbing teenage pregnancy rates, a government study has found.
Pupils under 16 who were taught to consider other forms of ‘intimacy’ such as oral sex were significantly less likely to engage in full intercourse, it was revealed.
Britain’s teenage pregnancy rate is the highest in Europe. In 2002 there were 39,286 teen pregnancies recorded. The government has spent more than
Thank you Blueface:
I think that these two cases are interesting in that they do to some extent explain why the Europeans and Americans are so far apart on Iraq. Saddam and any manner of nasty-assed idiots are defended because of root causes, poverty, blah blah blah, while the honest, upright, law-abiding America is vilified for defending itself. Sad but sick.
to be fair, Tony Martin was a bit of a nutter. He was also convicted in a court of law by jury of his peers. I reckon they probably have more of an idea of the facts than is available to us.
True but BF and FS need another excuse to rail against Europeans.
There are probably more miscarriages of justice in the US than anywhere else in the civilised world. That’s because it is a more violent society and many only get boners when litigation is involved. It’s a struggle getting one with BF’s wife. What a sack o’ tatties. Useless. 
While you get a boner looking at photos of the Brother Elephants. :upyours:
:wanker:
Robbery is an inherently violent act. A 71 year old disabled man confronted by four masked men in an alley? He had reason to fear for his life.
Acquittal.
The U.S. has the same problem. White homeowner shoots black or Mexican burgler, perhaps a “youth”. If he lives in a state with a lot of blacks or Mexicans, the D.A. will have good political reason to go after him, and he’ll get sued for good measure.
Anybody remember the white guy who shot some black muggers on the NY subway awhile back? Bernard Goetz or something. (Maybe ten years ago.) Oh, how the media agonized over that. (“Is it a crime to hang around in ghetto clothes and ask lone passengers for money?”)
I thought that guy walked around the place with money hanging out of his pocket or in his hand… where ever it was noticeable.
A person came up tried to grab the money… then gets shot for it
Defense was, the right to protect one’s property
Tony Martin is understandable to a point… in the UK and Ireland, crime in the coutryside and against older people living in the coutryside has increased. … older people are becoming frightened.
Eventhrough the boy that as shot was young… they did invade someone’s home…another scumbag ( big brother of the boy that was shot) was clipped too… he then was planning to sue John Martin as he had become “disabled” from the shooting… until that is “The Sun” newspaper caught him on camera riding his bicycle and jumping around the place…
Alot of people supported John Martin… invasion of the home and crime against older people crosses the line to them
To be honest if you don’t want to get shot don’t invade someone’s home
In Ireland if someone broke into my home and broke their leg in the process they could sue me
In Ireland if I persued someone and grabbed them before they got out of my house else caught them outside, and then beat the living shit out of them… they can sue me
According to the law… you can only excerise restrained force as self defense… therefore if the person is running away with your TV… you have no right to persue them as you are in not danger
Comforting to know that the law is there to protect the thief so he can get away and now the victim whos stuff is pinched
The reason I am of this opinion is cause an elderly person near my home was beaten black and blue by a couple of scumbags for the little bit of money she had… it was a measly 20 pounds :fume:
But don’t you want to understand the root causes as to why they beat her up? I am sure that they did not know what they were doing. Higher ups influenced their decision. They are not personally responsible. Society is. Etc. etc. etc.
Yes and no
Why would a person want to steal or rob?
They don’t have money, maybe they have lost all hope, blah blah blah…
But on the otherhand what sort of people would do this to an old person?
She gave them the 20 pounds, they wanted more, so to get it out of her they beat her
Thats the bit I don’t get… the simply had no respect or regard for people and people like that in my book should not have the law applied to them
They were never caught … they disappeared back into the city
Ever see Clockwork Orange…
Problem is there may be root causes but if no one is punished for crime where is the deterrent? I believe this is why the US experienced a massive increase in crime during the 1970s and 1980s but this immediately dropped off in the 1990s when harsher sentencing took place. That said, we are in a need for some serious prison reform. We need to crack down on abuse in the prisons as well. Difficult subject. Wouldn’t want to find my worthless skin in any US prison.
[quote=“fred smith”]Ever see Clockwork Orange…
Problem is there may be root causes but if no one is punished for crime where is the deterrent? I believe this is why the US experienced a massive increase in crime during the 1970s and 1980s but this immediately dropped off in the 1990s when harsher sentencing took place. That said, we are in a need for some serious prison reform. We need to crack down on abuse in the prisons as well. Difficult subject. Wouldn’t want to find my worthless skin in any US prison.[/quote]
harsher sentencing or less reporting and detection of crime?
Sometimes the reports come out saying this many crimes were committed but at the same time how many crimes go unreported ?
go to this link and see page 4
ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/tcsadnci.pdf
You will see at the middle to end of the 1990’s it descreased after climbing in the early 90’s… had this to do with a good economy?
The estimates also sunk in the 80’s but climbed at the turn of the decade… was this to do with the adminsitration?? …Reaganism
Actually this is not very politically correct, but the last report that I saw attributed to the drop in crime to fewer young Black men in their late teens and 20s coupled with increased incarceration rates of same. Does saying this make me a racist?
The massive increase in the prison population is mailny to do with non-violent drug offenders - some 1 in 4 of the prison population. This increase has not come cheaply to the US public either as the cost isbewteen US$21,000 and $26000 per inmate (from various figures I have seen). Give that for every 100000 US citizens 666 will be in prison, that is a lot of cash. Whilst some may baulk at this, increasing social welfare programmes has been shown to reduce crime levels in a number of counries, and cost considerably less than paying for massive levels of incarceration. Just on the economics of the situation it is surely worth looking at. A more Redistributive tax system may mean paying less taxes over all.