On 7 Apr 2018, Farmer Giles wrote
(in article<1P-***@brightview.co.uk>):
> On 07-Apr-18 3:46 PM, johnny-knowall wrote:
> > On 7 Apr 2018, Farmer Giles wrote
> > (in article<***@brightview.co.uk>):
> >
> > > On 07-Apr-18 11:35 AM, johnny-knowall wrote:
> > > > On 7 Apr 2018, Farmer Giles wrote
> > > > (in article<***@brightview.co.uk>):
> > > >
> > > > > On 07-Apr-18 10:12 AM, johnny-knowall wrote:
> > > > > > On 7 Apr 2018, Farmer Giles wrote
> > > > > > (in article<***@brightview.co.uk>):
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 06-Apr-18 11:10 PM, ***@btopenworld.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 7:50:00 PM UTC+1, Farmer Giles wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 06-Apr-18 7:19 PM, ***@btopenworld.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 6:56:33 PM UTC+1, Ophelia wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Just heard he has been released without charge!!!
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I should jolly well think so too!!!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > As the facts of the matter have emerged, there could have bee little
> > > > > > > > > > doubt as to what the eventual outcome would be.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Try telling that to Tony Martin.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There is no parallel between the two cases. On the one hand the victim
> > > > > > > > became embroiled in a struggle with a burglar over possession of a
> > > > > > > > weapon
> > > > > > > > (the screw driver) which any reasonable person would accept placed the
> > > > > > > > former in danger of serious harm. On the other a disturbed burglar in
> > > > > > > > possession of no weapon was in fact fleeing the scene of his crime and
> > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > constituted no threat to anybody.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There is a right in law to protect yourself and your property using
> > > > > > > > reasonable means to do so. This right does not extend to unnecessarily
> > > > > > > > taking of life or deliberately inflicting needless injury.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > All very well in the light of a safe day. Tony Martin was alone in a
> > > > > > > remote farmhouse, and he had no idea whether the intruders had weapons
> > > > > > > or not. It was also very dark at the time and he would have been unable
> > > > > > > to see exactly where they were.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So "unable to see them", that he shot directly at one and killed him.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yeah right.
> > > > >
> > > > > Did he, were you there?
> > > >
> > > > No, but Wikipedia was....
> > > >
> > > > "Martin shot three times towards the intruders (once when they were in the
> > > > stairwell and twice more when they were trying to flee through the window
> > > > of
> > > > an adjacent ground floor room). Barras was hit in the back and both
> > > > sustained
> > > > gunshot injuries to their legs. Both escaped through the window but Barras
> > > > died at the scene.”
> > > >
> > > > Pretty accurate shots for someone ‘unable to see exactly where they
> > > > were’
> > > > (your phrase).
> > >
> > > Ah, Wikipedia is it, must be right then. Perhaps we shouldn't bother
> > > with trials and just consult Wikipedia.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > He was in his house alone when they broke in.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, so you keep repeating.
> > >
> > > I've said it was dark once before and that he was alone. Is that your
> > > idea of 'keep repeating'? No wonder you have trouble with facts.
> >
> > I only have trouble with your ability to make assumptions and call them
> > facts.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > It was dark and he was
> > > > > terrified.
> > > >
> > > > Was he? Were you there?
> > >
> > > No, but no-one disputes that.
> >
> > I do, because you can’t prove it.
> >
> > > He was so terrified that he's not gone
> > > back to live in the house since.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > There is no proof that he fired 'directly' at them - but even
> > > > > if he did it was no more than they deserved,
> > > >
> > > > Why are you introducing your violentpersonal opinions?
> > > >
> > > > Are you trying to appear ‘hard’?
> > >
> > > Do stop being silly.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > they were the authors of
> > > > > their own fate. His house had been broken into several times.
> > > >
> > > > He had also shot at people on his property before.Mr Osborn-Brooks has no
> > > > previous history of stabbing people with screwdrivers before, at least to
> > > > my
> > > > knowledge.
> > >
> > > I understand that he shot at a vehicle once before, and that was being
> > > driven by someone also stealing things from his property.
> >
> > Apples.
> >
> > > If the facts
> > > are as reported then he was wrong to do that, but it is irrelevant to
> > > the factual details of this incident.
> >
> > No. It is very relevant - because not everyone will fire shots at folk
> > stealing soft fruit from an orchard.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > No doubt he was extremely fed-up with people committing crimes against
> > > him, and it seems that he had every right to be.
> >
> > He seems to have been targeted by a bunch of Irish ‘travellers’ (the
> > sort
> > who avoid paying any tax whatsoever and steal anything that is not nailed
> > down - i.e. 99% of those people).
> >
> > However, he took the law into his own hands - something our screwdriver
> > stabbing friend obviously did not.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I cannot see how anyone can argue the case for Mr Osborn-Brooks without
> > > > > > > doing the same for Tony Martin.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You are unable to see as well?
> > > > >
> > > > > You clearly can't, or read properly it seems.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe not, but I can make grown-up judgements based on unbiased logic.
> > > >
> > > > You ought to try it sometime.
> > >
> > > The only evidence we have about what led up to the shooting that night
> > > is from two sources. Firstly from the career criminals who were
> > > committing another of a long string of crimes - and, secondly, from the
> > > innocent victim of their illegal activity. I know which one I choose to
> > > believe. You can believe the former if you want, but don't try to
> > > pretend that it's 'grown-up judgement based of unbiased logic'.
> >
> > You can blather as much as you like, but it was you who insisted that the
> > Tony Martin case could be discussed as an almost identical one to
> > Osborn-Brooks thus - “
> >
> > I cannot see how anyone can argue the case for Mr Osborn-Brooks without
> > doing
> > the same for Tony Martin."
> >
> > As you have probably realised hours ago, your statement was rubbish - but as
> > you would never ever admit to being wrong, you resort to personal abuse and
> > childish pedantry in your efforts to close down arguments you have well and
> > truly lost.
>
> Oh the irony!! 'Personal abuse' is your normal method of discussion, as
> it was here.
Cite please...
>
>
> Mark your own homework if you like, and award yourself all the brownie
> points you want. Your 'views' are of little interest to me. As I said a
> while back, you are unstable and best avoided.
Great. Another one in self imposed silence.
> I should have stuck to
> that, as I will from now on.
That is convenient for you. Now you don’t have to show me where my personal
abuse on this thread was situated.
>
>
> The space below is all yours for a further and free rant: