Make these ads go away.
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: Limits on Privacy

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    Happy
     
    Bruv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Kent..... South East England
    Posts
    12,088
    Local Date
    06-20-2018
    Local Time
    06:01 PM
    Points
    62,792
    Gifts Beer Beer FacePalm Ban Hammer Beer Beer Beer Beer

    Re: Limits on Privacy

    Quote Originally Posted by LarsMac View Post
    Shooting an unarmed, escaping suspect in the back should never be OK. However, the former burglar suing his on time assailant for injuries he received during the commission of a crime is preposterous. The lawyer who has encouraged the action should be taken to the Bar
    If the man who shot and killed a trespasser is convicted of a crime, as unpleasant as it appears at first sight, anybody else injured in the commission of that crime should have the right to pursue compensation. Whether it reaches court or not is by the by, or whether the judgment awards thousands or a token amount is down to the law.

    As it happens it all worked out fine HERE
    I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    is .
     
    I am:
    Happy
     
    Bryn Mawr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    15,274
    Local Date
    06-20-2018
    Local Time
    06:01 PM
    Points
    23,054
    Gifts Balloons Car Gift Naughty Mag Certificate Beer Beer

    Re: Limits on Privacy

    Quote Originally Posted by Smaug View Post
    The trouble here is that it's difficult to know whether those burglars were armed or not. Some of these scumbags are armed, mostly with knives, but how would Tony Martin have been able to tell? If one of those burglars had been carrying a firearm of some sort, shooting second is a poor substitute for shooting first! But I feel very torn here, TBH, as I disapprove of disproportional force being used in relation to the threat entailed (for obvious reasons; you wouldn't want to shoot a kid dead for scrumping apples from your tree at night, would you?)

    As for Fearon's solicitors chasing compensation, they should indeed go before the bar!
    When they're running away from you you're unlikely to shoot second when you have a shotgun to your shoulder even if they are armed.

  3. #13
    Proudly humble
    is Lost in the Ozone, again.
     
    I am:
    Cool
     
    LarsMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    usually on the road to somewhere.
    Posts
    10,043
    Local Date
    06-20-2018
    Local Time
    11:01 AM
    Points
    38,667
    Gifts Beer Balloons Gift Car Beer

    Re: Limits on Privacy

    Quote Originally Posted by Smaug View Post
    The trouble here is that it's difficult to know whether those burglars were armed or not. Some of these scumbags are armed, mostly with knives, but how would Tony Martin have been able to tell? If one of those burglars had been carrying a firearm of some sort, shooting second is a poor substitute for shooting first! But I feel very torn here, TBH, as I disapprove of disproportional force being used in relation to the threat entailed (for obvious reasons; you wouldn't want to shoot a kid dead for scrumping apples from your tree at night, would you?)

    As for Fearon's solicitors chasing compensation, they should indeed go before the bar!
    Well, they were fleeing. Chances are that were they armed, they were still not a threat. Were they even still on the man's property at the time?

    Water under the bridge, though.

    Back to privacy. It seems we (Civilized society) are going to have to define privacy in minute detail.

    My thinking:
    If you are in a public place, you have forfeited your right to privacy. If you are in someone else's property, your privacy is subject to their own rights.
    These days there should be the assumption that your behavior in public may be recorded, and that record of your behavior can and will be used as evidence of any events that occur.
    I have a camera pointed at my front door. You have to have committed yourself to be in my property to be at my front door, and therefore your right to privacy is forfeit.
    If I were to point that camera at my next door neighbors' property, I would be violating their right to privacy.
    It may not be so much that I've conceded your point as that you just can't hear me rolling my eyes.

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    is Copyright J.R.R. Tolkien.
     
    I am:
    Cool
     
    Smaug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midlands
    Posts
    1,599
    Local Date
    06-20-2018
    Local Time
    05:01 PM
    Points
    6,416
    Gifts Boxing Gloves Certificate Car

    Re: Limits on Privacy

    Quote Originally Posted by LarsMac View Post
    Well, they were fleeing. Chances are that were they armed, they were still not a threat. Were they even still on the man's property at the time?

    Water under the bridge, though.

    Back to privacy. It seems we (Civilized society) are going to have to define privacy in minute detail.

    My thinking:
    If you are in a public place, you have forfeited your right to privacy. If you are in someone else's property, your privacy is subject to their own rights.
    These days there should be the assumption that your behavior in public may be recorded, and that record of your behavior can and will be used as evidence of any events that occur.
    I have a camera pointed at my front door. You have to have committed yourself to be in my property to be at my front door, and therefore your right to privacy is forfeit.
    If I were to point that camera at my next door neighbors' property, I would be violating their right to privacy.
    Anybody who is armed is a threat, or potential threat, IMO. Fleeing people may suddenly turn and fire/attack with a carried weapon. I believe the shooting took place on Tony Martin's property.

    As regards privacy, I would agree with you on the various points you make. Seems logical to me.
    " To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    is .
     
    I am:
    Happy
     
    Bryn Mawr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    15,274
    Local Date
    06-20-2018
    Local Time
    06:01 PM
    Points
    23,054
    Gifts Balloons Car Gift Naughty Mag Certificate Beer Beer

    Re: Limits on Privacy

    Quote Originally Posted by LarsMac View Post
    Well, they were fleeing. Chances are that were they armed, they were still not a threat. Were they even still on the man's property at the time?

    Water under the bridge, though.

    Back to privacy. It seems we (Civilized society) are going to have to define privacy in minute detail.

    My thinking:
    If you are in a public place, you have forfeited your right to privacy. If you are in someone else's property, your privacy is subject to their own rights.
    These days there should be the assumption that your behavior in public may be recorded, and that record of your behavior can and will be used as evidence of any events that occur.
    I have a camera pointed at my front door. You have to have committed yourself to be in my property to be at my front door, and therefore your right to privacy is forfeit.
    If I were to point that camera at my next door neighbors' property, I would be violating their right to privacy.
    The one difference to this in British law, as I understand it, is that if you have CCTV on your property you must have a notice to warn people (general, not telling them where it's pointing) at each entrance.

  6. #16
    Proudly humble
    is Lost in the Ozone, again.
     
    I am:
    Cool
     
    LarsMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    usually on the road to somewhere.
    Posts
    10,043
    Local Date
    06-20-2018
    Local Time
    11:01 AM
    Points
    38,667
    Gifts Beer Balloons Gift Car Beer

    Re: Limits on Privacy

    Quote Originally Posted by Smaug View Post
    Anybody who is armed is a threat, or potential threat, IMO. Fleeing people may suddenly turn and fire/attack with a carried weapon. I believe the shooting took place on Tony Martin's property.

    As regards privacy, I would agree with you on the various points you make. Seems logical to me.
    If I was an armed, fleeing criminal, I would be a lot more likely to shoot at a person from whom I am fleeing if they started shooting at me.
    Just sayin'
    It may not be so much that I've conceded your point as that you just can't hear me rolling my eyes.

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    is Copyright J.R.R. Tolkien.
     
    I am:
    Cool
     
    Smaug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midlands
    Posts
    1,599
    Local Date
    06-20-2018
    Local Time
    05:01 PM
    Points
    6,416
    Gifts Boxing Gloves Certificate Car

    Re: Limits on Privacy

    Register to remove this ad.
    Quote Originally Posted by LarsMac View Post
    If I was an armed, fleeing criminal, I would be a lot more likely to shoot at a person from whom I am fleeing if they started shooting at me.
    Just sayin'
    We all react differently, I guess. Not sure how I would react, so I can't answer that in all honesty. Ducking/dodging would certainly be quite high on the list!
    " To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.5.2