Viewing Thread:
"I wish Tony Martin would go away"

*Entering the Daily Mail zone*

I know it's not nice to have your house burglarised senseless by young tearaways (who are probably asylum seekers) because there aren't enough straight, white Bobbies on the beat and the rest of the kids have been influenced by the flesh baring antics of corrupting pop stars. But it still doesn't give you the right to kill someone. And Tony Martin, thanks to our wonderfully thick populace, does not regret a single thing he did and seems to think that he was right to do it.

Let's have a quick look at the facts. Career criminal and young protege enter run down farmhouse, try to climb stairs, two shots are fired, protege goes down and career criminal valiantly leaves him to die and runs off, is later caught. Tony Martin goes to court. Now this goes out to all the Martin sympathisers -"oh it was only manslaughter!"- not quite. There are two types of manslaughter - involuntary, where it's unfortunate and down to recklessness, and voluntary manslaughter where the accused committed murder but there is a mitigating circumstance (usually provocation or diminished responsibility). This distinction is important because it confirms that Martin did not just fire off a shot and happen to kill a burglar. A Jury decided that Martin specifically intended to kill or cause grevious bodily harm to that burglar, in other words they decided that Tony Martin meant to kill the burglar. Only then did they take into account his deluded state of mind and paranoia, which they regarded as impairing his mental responsibility for the crime.

Now in the Mirror Martin has been assuring us that he is quite sane and a model citizen. Well, if that is the case then he should be serving the mandatory life sentence for murder because that's the crime he committed. Some people will still suggest that he acted justifiably. Do you really think that property should count more than human life? Look at the most consumerist, and some would argue morally bankrupt, country in the world and you see a blanket acceptance that if there's an intruder one should shoot to kill. God forbid he should take a telly and then you'd have all the hassle of the insurance companies and you'd miss the season finale of Friends, far better to administer some gunishment and just hope the stains come out the carpet. Shrewd home owners will of course carefully way up the cost of dry cleaning a shag pile carpet and letting the intruder steal stuff.

That's clearly stupid. Property is replaceable and ultimately worthless anyway. Is it really worth dying for? That's what the law supposes too; it treats crimes resulting in physical injury far more seriously than those against property.

So whatever those two burglars did, Martin's crime was worse. And he should now quietly return to his life and shut up, because he got off very lightly indeed.

I agree with Totoro. Martin had been targeted so many times before that he had to do something drastic to stop it. Killing the guy was taking it several steps too far, but it doesn't mean that he has to show remorse for what he did.

LL Cool ver T.2d wrote:
> This man has been classified as having a deluded view of life, though,
> and even so, the remorse factor isn't much of an issue for me. I
> think not having any remorse for doing it wouldn't be too much of a
> sticking point, but saying he'd happily shoot the guy again is going a
> bit too far.

half of us would probably be classified similarly y'know...

Fact is that very few people can stand up to having the spotlight of media attention on them for this long.

Practical Magic wrote:
> VenomByte wrote:
> Not good enough? How about he orders them at gunpoint to lie on the
> floor with their hand behind their backs, ties them up, and then
> takes
> them down to the police station the next day.
>

> 1 man, gets two to surrender ? Fully trained armed police deploy en
> masse and they can't always get suspects to do this, yet Martin could
> ? oookay.


Okay, let me clarify.

He has a gun. They do not. He orders them to surrender (or other alternative). Should they refuse, I'd have absolutely no problem with him killing them.

Police can't get criminals to surrender because they know the police will only use force as absolutely the last resort. A farmer in a rage has no such obligations, but should at least offer ONE chance to resolve the situation without anybody getting hurt. After that, he can do what he wants. He's at least made an effort to do the right thing.

As retarded as these kids are, I seriously doubt they'd be stupid enough to provoke someone pointing a shotgun at them.

Practical Magic wrote:
> So, essentially, we all come down to one of two camps -
>
> 1 - what Martin did was right and burglars deserve everything they
> get
> 2 - what Martin did was wrong and criminals have rights whilst engaged
> in their illegal activities.


This is not about the rights of the criminals. It's about Martin's rights to commit murder.

How could Tony Martin prove that he tried to get the kids to surrender in the first place? It would only be his word against the one who escaped.

The whole case was just a lose-lose situation, there would have been a victim either way.
I think it would have turned out better for Martin had he shot both the burglars, put them in some kind of farmyard grinding machine and spread them over his fields with his muck-spreader.

He would have got away with it, unless Scooby-Do happened to be in the neighbourhood.

VenomByte wrote:

> As retarded as these kids are, I seriously doubt they'd be stupid
> enough to provoke someone pointing a shotgun at them.

But what if they saw him, he told them to stop, they panicked, they ran off, and he shot them in the back? If he had only fitted a burglar alarm, he wouldn't have seemed like he was going about for revenge for the other 30 times.

A burglar alarm, especially in a remote area like that, does little more than provide an annoying soundtrack to burglary. As others had noted earlier in this thread, these two travelled from Nottingham to the area, hence they'd know how remote it was, and that the burglar alarm would not make any difference.

And Venombyte, what if he stops them, and instead of acting like the true english gents and them stopping on the spot, they split up and go for him eh ? Even marksmen have a job engaging two seperate targets with something like a shotgun at close range...

From what I've read of the interviews and the various collated expert opinion that were put forward in the court of appeal, Mr Martin is a man with acute mental problems. His immensely paranoid state of mind (which would seem to be unresolved) was a key factor in the death of the toerag he shot.

But basically, anyone trying to hijack this case and use it as an example of "Britain gone mad!!" is simply not bothering to look at all the facts. More to the point, they're not remotely interested in Tony Martin himself; if they were, they'd be very keen on getting him some specialist psychiatric help. As is, by unquestioningly supporting what he did, they're practically exhorting him to shoot someone else.

And here's another case; Albert Dryden. He's an old chap from County Durham who killed a bloke from the housing dept of the local council. Why? The guy had turned up to serve notice of demolition on the house he had built. This was Albert's house; his own property. This man was trespassing without permission from the landowner. And he got shot dead by a mentally unstable old man. The only difference between the cases? Tony Martin shot a toerag, Albert Dryden killed a council official.
Funny how that one never gets used by the Hang 'em and Flog 'em brigade to justify blasting the hell out of anyone near your home whom you don't like the look of...remember, be good citizens and fear your neighbours.