If There Was Any Doubt Of Labour's Anti...
News2 mins ago
Tony Martin
After the docu-drama last night I am convinced more than ever that it was a travesty that he was tried for murder.
Opinions?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flip-flop. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Of course it was a travesty, a frightened man alone in a house having been burgled countless times. If you ask me he rid the world of some vermin. If I was the judge I would have senetenced him to shooting lessons, make sure you kill both the scum next time. Only our twisted system could send a man like that to jail, in the US he would have been a local community hero.
I just posted this answer on a similar threead in People and Places:
I agree with you in that a man does have the right to defend his castle, but in that documentary last night I felt that Brandon came across as arrogant, and cocky, but Tony Martin came across as a complete and utter liar.
I have never been broken into, and would probably be a complete girl and hide or scream, but I would like to think that I would defend myself and my property and family asd much as I could, but I would not resort to using a gun (if I had one) unless they were armed too.
Were the boys carrying any weapons? I mean, the young lad, whatever he was doing at the time, had turned to run and was blown in the back. I don't think it is a cut and dried case, but Mr Martin did not strike me as being genuine or truthful.
The boys should absolutely not have been in Mr Martin's house, but Mr Martin should not have fired so many shots, and should most definitely have called the police in any event, whether he knew he had hurt somebody or not (imho).
Natalie, you are thinking about it in the cold light of day, not in a remote dark house, when you've been the victm counless times before. How is he supposed to know if they are armed? It's dark, you're alone, frightened, there are at least 2 people in your house intending to doing god knows what, you have a gun, tell me you wouldn't use it!
I appreciate what you're saying Loosehed, but Tony Martin had shot trespassers before. He's not exactly innocent is he? Considering the gun he shot them with he wasn't licensed to hold. Incidentally the gun he used was a very dangerous (llike some aren'!!) gun at such close range, and blasted holes in their legs and would have filled them with pellets. It's not like it was a graze across the arm now.
loosehead these discussions do not belong to you - if opinions are asked for please allow others to offer them without you feeling the need to respond to everyone - just because you shout loudest doesn't mean your right.
What i believe is simply this (though i didn't see last nights show) - the police had no option but to arrest the man as he had shot a man in the back with an illegally held weapon (i seem to remember), the CPS had no option but to bring the case to court as it was a very serious crime - the only people that had a choice were the jury that convicted him... they represented us all and made a decision based on all the available evidence, now it was these people that decided not to acquit or find diminished responsibility or any of the other options to reduce the sentence or type of crime convicted off � I was surprised by this at the time BUT trial by jury is the foundation of our legal system and we need to accept the findings of those that are presenting society (the jury) and I challenge you (expect Loosehead) to suggest a better system if you don�t agree with their findings
I a wait being calling an apologist or a wish washy liberal again ... (Loosehead you need to find some new catch phrases)
Great post undercovers - Personally I have sympathy for Tony Martin but as you say of you shoot somebody in the back with an unlicensed gun then the CPS and Police don't really have a lot of leeway.
I think the should possibly be a change in the law but when it happened, as now, you can't shoot people.
It's difficult to comment when your not involved but a better approach might have been to warn the robbers that he had a gun and he wasn't afraid to use it, gave them 30 seconds to leave and when they did follow them out and shoot in the air.
I think the should possibly be a change in the law but when it happened, as now, you can't shoot people.
It's difficult to comment when your not involved but a better approach might have been to warn the robbers that he had a gun and he wasn't afraid to use it, gave them 30 seconds to leave and when they did follow them out and shoot in the air.
So I have your permisssion to respond then do I Undie?
Mind your own business I get involved in discussions on here all the time, I'm not shouting. In this case I feel the need to make people realise what happenned here as it happenned not after the event in some cosy idealogical dream world.
The current system is what convicted him yes, but it's not perfect, people get off when they shouldn't and get convicted when they shouldn't . I challenge anyone to put themselves in the position of TM and tell mey they wouldn't do the same, even the jury. What we need people is a huge dose of empathy.
Can we stop this horsesh1t about the fact he was shot in the back. It was DARK for the thick among you that means absence of light, TM did not know whether he was armed or what direction he was facing all he knew was that there was an intruder.
OK anyone care to tell me what they would have done in the same situation.
Firstly Loosehead, I am not thick and secondly how can you tell me what happened that night ("In this case I feel the need to make people realise what happened here") - were you there that night?
Do you kow if he was sat in wait (he had been diagnosed with paranoia lest we forget) or whether he happened to be broken into? It doesn't change the fact that the law states (staed?) reasonable force, and a gun against two unarmed lads is NOT reasonable.
Loosehead - in response to your opening question, I don't agree that you should be able to 'shoot to kill' burglars. I believe that Tony Martin was pushed to the edge of reason because he'd been burgled so many times before...but it still isn't an excuse to kill someone.
I was burgled three time at my old flat, and I know what it feels like to be consumed with the feelings of anger and helplessness that Martin must've felt.
But it's still no excuse - the punishment was way over the top in response to the crime.
Apology accepted Undercovers
Natalie: You clearly have not studied the history of this case. Mr Martin waited every night because he had been burgled about 40 times before in the preceding years, he learnt that the police did nothing and feared for his safety, it's not an isolated incident, it wasn't just a couple of lads on the off chance. He may have paranoia but I think in this case they really where there, he didn't imagine it did he?
Sorry about the "thick" comment it just that people keep going on about TM shooting the guy in the back and keep disregarding the fact that it was dark.
I'm sorry if I got heavy handed but part of debate is realising when your information is wrong and at the very least not propagating the wrongness.
Loosehead, you ask what I would do in that situation? I would phone the police.
As I have said elsewhere, the fault lies with police resources that failed to protect Tony Martin, it does not entitle him to behave like some kind of 18th century frontiersman and shoot people in his house.
I wouldn't, and couldn't have done that, because I have never even touched a gun, much less owned one.
My sympathy is entirely with Tony Martin for what happened in terms of his burglaries, and the cicumstance leading up to the shooting, but shooting people is simply not on, there is no justification for it, it is illegal, and he was tried accordingly.
If Mr Martin's 'rule' is allowed to take over, where do we stop? Do you shoot the meter man because he forgot to knock and thought he wouldn't distrub you/
Farcical yes - but so lawless gun use.
I'm fortunate to own two homes; a small house in London and a cottage in the countryside of Brittany and I think my response to a burglary would have been dependent on my situation.
In London, I would like to believe I would have called the police, gathered up my daughters and locked us all in my bedroom and screamed merry hell out of the windows to alert the neighbours.
However, in an isolated situation like Brittany, which is probably more similar to Tony Martin's and less accessible to a rapid police response I would have phoned the police, armed myself with my ex husbands shotgun, screamed loudly and opened fire on any burglar who dared climb the stairs.
Somehow, I doubt I would act this rationally if it were put to the test, but I'd rather trust my luck with a jury than a burglar.
In London, I would like to believe I would have called the police, gathered up my daughters and locked us all in my bedroom and screamed merry hell out of the windows to alert the neighbours.
However, in an isolated situation like Brittany, which is probably more similar to Tony Martin's and less accessible to a rapid police response I would have phoned the police, armed myself with my ex husbands shotgun, screamed loudly and opened fire on any burglar who dared climb the stairs.
Somehow, I doubt I would act this rationally if it were put to the test, but I'd rather trust my luck with a jury than a burglar.
Could we forgo describing the men who broke into Tony Martins house as �these boys� and �these lads�, they are career criminals, who knew the difference between right and wrong, and chose to disregard any sense of respect or consideration for there fellow man.
For once I feel I can almost endorse the oft repeated (on AB) line, �If they�re innocent they�ve got nothing to worry about.
To plagiarise a familiar line, �They are habitual criminals, who probably accept being shot as an occupational hazard, and presumably accept imprisonment in the same casual manner�.
If anyone finds me stealing from there house feel free to pull the trigger, likewise�.
"I challenge anyone to put themselves in the position of TM and tell mey they wouldn't do the same, even the jury"
Yes, I can safely say that everyone I know who have had their house broken into on seveal occasions have gone out and purchased shotguns illegally. (no, sorry that is a lie)
If I were to say that I live in a road where children have been killed or injured by speeding motorists, and despite all my phone calls, the police rarely did anything about it.
Would it be a traversty if a jury found me guilty if I purchased an illegal firearm and open fire on any random passing motorist who was speding (breaking the law)? I think not!
Yes, I can safely say that everyone I know who have had their house broken into on seveal occasions have gone out and purchased shotguns illegally. (no, sorry that is a lie)
If I were to say that I live in a road where children have been killed or injured by speeding motorists, and despite all my phone calls, the police rarely did anything about it.
Would it be a traversty if a jury found me guilty if I purchased an illegal firearm and open fire on any random passing motorist who was speding (breaking the law)? I think not!
Ah, but speed 'guns' ARE legal!
Could I suggest..
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,12389-1289718_1,00.html
