CarpetCleaner

I read a cross section of media. these judges that read ****ing tatler and harpers and queens haven't got a fecking clue about the real world

sharkspeed007

Cheers for all the comments since my last bit. However, there's a few things that need to be cleared up.

Firstly, I'm afraid the conclusions that people seem to want to jump to about me are just wrong.

Quote: 'Alot of these 1st year lawyers are public school types with their heads stuck up their rearends most of the time' - good argument. I presume thats implying that I am? I'm from Liverpool, a council state and a crappy state school. When I was twelve my Dad was just about to get into his car outside the flat when a local gang jumped on him and gave him the kickin of his life, (and thered been plenty before cos well thats what happens as many of you must have experienced). These kids though he'd touched their car which was parked next door. Of course he hadn't. Well you can't say anything to the cops cos well your whole family will just end up with the same treatment. Anyway a local coppa heard about what had happened and discovered a kid who'd gone along with this gang and arrested him. Kid was addicted to heroin and ended up getting done for possession and ended up banged inside a Young Offenders Institute. Doctors said he had no idea what he was doing.

Although you can imagine the hate that I felt as a kid for them, couple of years later it came out that this kid had been shot in a later incident which was totally drug induced. His older brothers were all into it, so he had little choice. He'd been shot by someone as he tried to break into a store to steal for drug money for his older brothers. The person who killed him was neva caught.
You might say well druggie deserved to die. Did he? Can a kid of 14 be responsible for what he does when he's surrounded by brothers 8 yrs older and family who all do it? He's got no chance has he? If you say yes he has then you've never been him. Much as i should have laughed at this kid's death i just couldnt get round the fact that this wasnt right. What right had these kids to attack my dad and nearly kill him cos he looked like he was about to break into a car (which of course he wasnt)? What right had the unknown guy to shoot a little kid who had no idea what he was doing and more importantly really couldnt have helped being in that state? So yeah i though ok this is shti, this can't be right. Yeah it went agaisnt what i'd grown up with and knew but thats why i decided to do law. And just becasue I do it doesn't mean that I want to see criminal's getting away.

Should all these people just have no rights becasue they did something stupid? Yes they harmed someone, deliberately or not, but should they then suffer as 'nothing's' for the rest fo their lives? If someone comes into your home, without knowing their intentions should you just be able to presume theyre gonna rob you and shoot them. And then walk away from it rubbing your hands becasue you've done something good? That's just not on. The Americans killed balck people in the 1960's for coming onto their land and becasue of the deep racism in parts like Alabama the police turned a blind eye. Is that what we want all over Britain? If you were one of those not favoured by the police how would you feel?

The newspaper points are also good. I don't read a newspaper, can't be arsed with it half the time cos it rarely says what really happened, just what someones interpretation of some of the facts are. I suppose that's enough if it happens to fit in with your views.

Bill bill thanks. Quote:'I have heard your kind give the 'what if's' in court. Why were you in court? A criminal facing a tough prosecution barrister. A victim who just wants someone convicted regardless of whether they did it or not. A police man who also just wants to see someone convicted. Or were you a person who was trying to be helped by the 'what if's' - I doubt it.

Those who said 'your still wet behind the ears', put down 'your little satchel bag' and 'people like you talk shtie cause you think crime will no affect you' are just wrong. Please argue with me rather than resorting to name calling. It's pathetic and what little kid's do. Do you understand what judges have to consider when coming to a verdict? Have you been someone who has shot a trespasser and been banged up then faced him suing you? It seems very easy to say the law should do this and that when you have little grasp of what its trying to do. If you think the law should follow what happened in America or now in ZImbabwe then please go and live there. I prefer a society that trys to balance everyone's rights, while stil trying to convict those who do wrong. Tony Martin did something wrong. If he'd just done nothing he could have claimed insurance and the criminals might have been caught. If they weren't then that's life. It's not always fair. But noone should have the right to walk around shooting people without proper reason for doing so.

If you don't agree with me then that's life isnt it? You should know that being grown up and 'experienced' in life. But I can make a good bet you've never been in the position of Fearon's family. If you have and still think that he should die then thats absolutly up to you. Of course it is.

CarpetCleaner

well Shark respect where it's due my assumptions were incorrect

All I know is that somewhere, sometime things have got to change and that means dealing with the crims appropriately so they are deterred from repeat offending

No where in your post that I can see do you highlight the rights of those who have or are victims

if someone breaks in to someones house and they get killed it's tough **** as far as I am concerned. Sorry if that offends

Popeye P1

I can understand being a 1st year lawyer how you have come to the conclusion regarding Tony Martin. My sister is a Solicitor too and speaks 'legal cr*p within the law nonsense' to me all the time.

'Tony Martin did something wrong. If he'd just done nothing he could have claimed insurance and the criminals might have been caught. If they weren't then that's life. It's not always fair. But noone should have the right to walk around shooting people without proper reason for doing so.'

I'll say it again mr hotshot Lawyer, we're sick to death of SCUM getting the full weight of the law behind them not the victim!

After reading you're reply it appears that you have more sympathy for Fearon than Tony Martin. Fair enough thats you're opinion but if you're a representation of the legal profession then GOD HELP US!!!

sharkspeed007

Just have to say:

Popeye P1: does the fact that I and your sister a solicitior speak this 'legal cr*p within the law nonsense' maybe suggest that you have little idea of what actually goes on in the law? Are you a judge, solicitor, barrister or law student? Do you go and watch in court regularly and understand what goes on there? I somehow doubt it. With your extensive knowledge, I suppose you knew that Tony Martin's case is one of thousands of similar cases that come before the court every year, most of which we dont hear about in the news because they result in convictions.

Then secondly, 'Mr Hotshot Lawyer'. I'm not sure whether to take this as a compliment or not :-) Is this what you say when you can't come up with any more convincing an argument than 'we're sick to death of SCUM getting the full wieght of the law behind them not the victim'. One: 'we're' - who's this? You and a few others here? If you were on trial, would you prefer the system to have a presumption of innocence or guilt? Would you mind being convicted, despite the fact that you were innocent in sacrifice for convicting lots of 'guilty' people? If yes then congratualtions to you, you're braver than most people, who wouldnt want to be banged up for something they didnt do. Two: 'the full weight of the law behind them': this shows how little you really know. A quote from the Mail perhaps. Police try and arrest those who do wrong. If the case reaches court, the is a lawyer for the prosecution. The court's are already more likely to belive policemen than ordinary citizens. 'Full weight' -hardly.

A system which is more considerate to the victim and more efficent at convicting guilty people, YES. One biased against those just suspected, absolutly not. You say 'GOD HELP US if youre represenative of the legal profession'. What becasue I don't believe people should have the right to shoot and kill those who enter thier homes? Because I don't belive in locking up anyone who is merely suspected of a crime? A suspect deserves the chance to have his word - this is not 'the full weight of the law' behind SCUM but something called free speech and the right to fair trial. Wouldn't you want it? Or maybe you hadn't thought of that becasue you don't think it will ever involve you? What about those it does involve or do they not count, so long as you're fine and you don't have to read about other people's problems in the paper?

Popeye P1

'Or maybe you hadn't thought of that becasue you don't think it will ever involve you?'

Now you're jumping to conclusions. I've been burgled twice, car crime countless times. etc. And yes I would defend my property not just 'let them get away with it.'

'Are you a judge, solicitor, barrister or law student?'

Studied law for 2 years at University young chappy. Majority of the stuff I learnt was out of date/touch and written in OLDE English. Plus I preferred the crumpet than the law books.

'I suppose you knew that Tony Martin's case is one of thousands of similar cases '

I doubt it. As there wouldn't be anymore Pikeys left.

'If you were on trial, would you prefer the system to have a presumption of innocence or guilt? Would you mind being convicted, despite the fact that you were innocent in sacrifice for convicting lots of 'guilty' people?'

If I had a string of offences against ppl, I probably wouldn't know any better so I wouldn't care. If some 'HOTSHOT' lawyer could get me off on a technicality then I could continue making ppl lives hell.

'A suspect deserves the chance to have his word - this is not 'the full weight of the law' behind SCUM but something called free speech and the right to fair trial. Wouldn't you want it?'

Think you're missing the point Poirot, this 'suspect' was trying to rob someone and had a multiple string of offences. Why wasn't he in jail then? erm?


'A quote from the Mail perhaps.'

I said I read the express. Please try to remember.

Pops-Case dismissed!!!!!

wrxstiman

Shark is only a first yr law student which means nothing. He knows about as much law as 'your mum' does.

He still has a long way to go before he can start mitigating for the likes of Ian Huntley '...oh your honour he had such a hard upbringing....'

Just another PC do-gooder to makes the normal peoples/victims lives hell.

End of.

sharkspeed007

sorry but -

wrxstiman: Yes I'm a first year doing Law at Oxford. I'm from Liverpool like I said before and have been lucky enough to spend a three years doing English at Harvard. I've worked in an inner london magistrates for 4 months in the vacation, talking to people in the cells and victims and lawyers in the courts. I've also worked in a Citizens Advice Bureau back home. Please don't lecture me on being unqualified to give the opinon that I do. I certainly have a lot to learn about life, as everyone does and would like to read some solid arguments in repsonse to the actual points I raised rather than dismissing me as unqualified (none of us are unqualified to give our opinions) and Popeye quoting me then writing some 'repsonse' that for the majority (as everyone can clearly see) has no relevance to the quote, let alone gives me a good run for my money. I'm just writing a rough argument for a topic on scoobynet. You wanna see me get going properly then come on down...

best wishes,

shark

wrxstiman

Well Shark....your head will not fit threw the courtroom door to defend the likes of Huntley if you carry on name dropping about your education.

Pls stop bragging.

Remember you are removed from the real world mixing with the elite in those establishments.

Law Lords have just as privileged eduactional backgrounds but are completely detached from society's views.

Come down to earth and mix with us mere mortals.

I am not worthy.

Popeye P1

'I've worked in an inner london magistrates for 4 months in the vacation, talking to people in the cells and victims and lawyers in the courts. I've also worked in a Citizens Advice Bureau back home. Please don't lecture me on being unqualified to give the opinon that I do.'


Speaking to a few inmates in the cells makes you a Guru on the matter. LMAO. So So Sry to quote you again Mr Harvard.

BTW you say you did 3 years English yet I've seen a few gramatical errors. Obviously Harvard ain't all that!

Pops- On a roll.

Billbill

Quote: "Bill bill thanks. Quote:'I have heard your kind give the 'what if's' in court. Why were you in court? A criminal facing a tough prosecution barrister. A victim who just wants someone convicted regardless of whether they did it or not. A police man who also just wants to see someone convicted. Or were you a person who was trying to be helped by the 'what if's' - I doubt it."

OK Mr. Shark Lawyer, or what ever you want to call yourself.
I was in court for killing two burglars.
One on the premises and the other died later.
All the "what ifs" were aimed at convicting me of a homicide charge and not self defense.

Good Riddance, they had a long record despite their comming from "good" families.

I've been shot at by some of the best, and missed by most.
I'm going to be 84 years old, in August, spend most of my time in a wheel chair and have two .44 Magnums under my lap robe.
It has been MY experience that MY response time with the trigger pull is a h3ll of a lot quicker than law enforcement response time.

Send your bully boy burglars to MY premises!
I'll ruin another lap robe and give them a dose of my own personal justice!

In most of the US of A we are allowed to have handguns, rifles and shotguns, legally. Especially in the home.
Our constitution has a phrase: "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!"

As for the "poor little under aged criminal" being "out of his mind" and "not aware of what he was doing because of a drug or alcohol induced state of mind" or "Family peer presure?"
That's cr@p and you know it!
It is not a defense over here and if it is in GB, Gawd help you all!

The guy that shot the burglar, in your country, should receive a medal and be knighted by the Queen!
Sir Kills the Rot!!!!!

Billbill

Hmmm...
OK I got a little hot.
But after reading what I posted I stand by what I said!
Good luck to you Mr. Lawyer or solicitor to be.
I hope your enlightenment will enable you to make some serious changes in Great Britain's legal system. I hope those changes are not to the benefit of the GUILTY!

Popeye P1

'I hope your enlightenment will enable you to make some serious changes in Great Britain's legal system. I hope those changes are not to the benefit of the GUILTY! '

I'm afraid BillBill our legal system needs a radical change. We could try working around the phrase 'A man's home is his castle,' instead of a 'burglar can do what he likes and not expect prison!'

wrxstiman

The Human Rights Act has done more damage than good.

It seems to work against the system IMHO.

People have to accept there are low-lifes out there who need tough justice....not your lilly livered pampering by counsellors and Human Rights lawyers.

CarpetCleaner

Shark

A question.

If tonight I hear someone breaking in and then hear them coming up the stairs what do I do?

This is a simple enough question

wrxstiman

Use reasonable force until they stick you with a bayonet and you die.

Popeye P1

'If tonight I hear someone breaking in and then hear them coming up the stairs what do I do?'

The Law says you must wait for them to make the 1st move before you can defend yourself. Therefore if they're a pyschotic heroin addict you are fcuked big style.

bros2

[Edited by bros2 - 7/2/2003 1:46:07 PM]

CarpetCleaner

this is what I do.

I have a plant spray the ones you use by hand with a blend of spirit vinegar and tabasco sauce in it. This I would use to disable the ****** or *******. I have some nylon cable ties to use as 'cuffs

Failing that I have a C02 fire extinguisher if things get very nasty

bros2

[Edited by bros2 - 7/2/2003 1:46:32 PM]

Popeye P1

'Nice to see ol' lefty Popeye on a roll. Why insult someone for their education attainments, Popeye? Anyway, if you want to have a go, I've got a degree as well; all educated people are clearly the enemy of the working class.'

For you're info I got a Degree in Criminology so you're not an enemy old mukka. Plus I ain't no Tony Benn-lol.

i just hate ppl throwing their educational backgrounds/what paper they read into an argument like sharkspeed did to think their better than everyone else.



[Edited by Popeye P1 - 6/18/2003 4:36:40 PM]

wrxstiman

Get in the real world Bros2.

He had been burgled 30 times. What if they had killed him one of those times intentionally or unintentionally. No being wise after the event.

No-one can possibly second guess a criminals intentions (mens rea)when they enter someone's property so why should the victim have to wait for his possible death.

Seems the odds are stacked against the victim and in favour of the culprit.

Yanks have it right on this one for a change.

bros2

[Edited by bros2 - 7/2/2003 1:46:58 PM]

wrxstiman

'Sod it, I'm living in the real world.'

The real world is getting fed up of the law and this type of outcome. Tony Martin did not ask to be repeatedly burgled. In my book they made his life a misery and he became so paranoid that it all ended that way.

How do you know that the burglars had not done their own bit of pre-meditation to kill him if he put up a fight.

The beauty is no-one ever knows. You must prove intent and since no-one can mind read then its B*llocks.

Picture the scenario: You wake up and there is a solitary figure at the bottom of the stairs in the dark. I know what im going to do. Find the nearest thing and clobber em before they come for me. If they die then tough.

Zero tolerance will prevail.

bros2

wrxsti

No, it's not b0llocks, it's called the law. If Tony Martin had had a legally licenced gun in his hand, and one shot had been fired, then he'd have almost certainly got off. Having an unlicenced gun and standing in wait, as he's admitted he did, suggests premeditation. Firing a second shot corroborates this thought. Firing the shor into someone's back as they're attempting to get away ...that was put TM in prison.

Zero tolerance won't prevail unless you really think that the British public are so stupid as to want to see thousands of deaths every year through handgun-related crime. What goes along with the gun is the paranoic tyhought thast everywhere you go, in every part of the coubntry, someone is going to try and burgle you, mug you, kill you, rape your children.

Look outside, and realise that in reality this doesn't happen. Britain is one of the safest countries in the world, and although I've been burgled and beaten up, not once did I wish I had a gun.

Why? Because at the time it happened I was so angry that I could have shot somone, I'm ashamed to admit. After a few minutes, of course, I've always calmed down. But if you stuck a gun in my hand, I might just have used it. And this is what happens in the US, day in and day out.


Find someone in your house and clobber them, fair enough. Wait up in the night with a gun in your hands in case someone breaks in, it's a different story.

bros

Billbill

quote: " Wait up in the night with a gun in your hands in case someone breaks in, it's a different story."

Sure is! It's also the END of the story, for that one!
Bring on the next one!

Luke

Bros

A very good read ...sad but true.

Leslie

Bring on the Roman sandals!

Les

sharkspeed007

bros2 and u last two guys - people from the real world; finally!

some absolute comedy in the rest, although I fear it was unintentional:

1. wrxstiman says: 'picture the scenario. You wake up and there is a solitary figure at the bottom of the stairs in the dark. I know what I'm going to do. Find the nearest thing and clobber em before they come for me. If they die then tough.'
--> yes tough indeed. what a mature outlook on life. of course you wouldn't mind criminal proceedings. (i mean that could have been santa delivering pressies for all you knew) Without any idea what this guys going to do, you take a swing and happen to kill him? Murder touch to proove but you'd be alomst certainly convicted fo manslaughter. Although the judge can decide the sentence for manslaughter you would almost certainly face a long sentence. Yes, it's unfortunate that the law says that you can only respond with reasonable force, but that's to stop people killing off petty burglars, like you seem keen to do.

2. Popeye says: 'I just hate ppl throwing their education backgorund/what paper they read into an argument like sharkspeed did to think their better than everyone else.'

Next line says: 'For you're info I got a degree in Criminology'. Seems a little contradiction there. Also a 2 year degree in this country is very unusual indeed, particulaly in Criminology. Where did you study just out of interest as a friend is looking for a 2 year degree in criminology but can't find one? Also you say previously: 'majority of the stuff i learnt was out of date/touch. Plus I preferred crumpet than the law books.'
Oh and doesnt it show.

Secondly, I hate to go on about things Ive done. I've just been very lucky so far thats all and worked damn hard to get there. wrxstiman had just said 'shark....knows bout as much law as your meum does'. Just correcting him, that's all. I think evryone has a right to do that, particularly when people say things that they just have no evidence or understanding of.

Wrxstiman and popeye man please move into the real world. Particularly with your understanding of the law popeye, i'd have thought you would appreciate what happens if you go around just killing people without due cause. By all means go and kill the next person who comes into your house and doesnt provoke you. At least you may then experience what really happens when you kill someone; something it's easy to shrug off in a chat room. Also then we might actually continue with a useful debate rather than hearing the same old points being spouted again and again.

shark.

wrxstiman

Shark

If you cannot grasp the concept of pre-emptive strike then you are not in the real world.

If i had a family to protect then i would not think twice. I would not wait for a possible slaughter if i could strike first.

Please grasp that concept oxford boy and dont follow the each letter of the law as gospel.