The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
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.
> But it was handled, 'spun' , in such a way as to give a different
> impression. To me, anyway.
Yup; it was spun that way to both sell papers, and to misrepresent what was going on in order to assuage the hang 'em and flog 'em brigade that the nation was going to the dogs.
>
> I'm not saying blast every trespasser, I'm saying that if criminals
> are injured or killed in pursuit of their chosen career then tough
> luck - they should have no rights or comeback against those who
> inflict the harm, as they should not be there anyway.
I agree; and not one of the burglars or their families has received any financial benefit (though one was given permission to sue, it didn't follow that he would win. And in fact, I believe that the civil case has been dropped).
But it was the state, not an individual, who prosecuted Martin. Frankly I think he should have been put somewhere he would get some help, but that is by the by. The bottom line is that the burglars did not get any comeback in this case.
I'm not saying blast every trespasser, I'm saying that if criminals are injured or killed in pursuit of their chosen career then tough luck - they should have no rights or comeback against those who inflict the harm, as they should not be there anyway.
Sorry Borat....
>
> If someone got in my house, I don't care what they are doing, as far
> as I'm concerned my family (and myself) are at risk, and that person
> is gonna be lucky to leave with out a severe concussion
Severe concussion?
Wasn't I talking about someone shooting and killing someone? So isn't that...well, different?
Still, for the record if you did wade in without finding out what they're doing there/who they were first, you'd be in breach of your general duty of care. You'd probably be said to be acting recklessly, and so would be up for a charge made against you. Which does suck, absolutely I agree about that.
Jesus...okay, I'll start again; I'm not begrudging the right of a man to defend his home, 'kay? What I AM talking about is the mindless and facile use of a sick man as the flagbearer for an unpleasantly right-wing view that the best way to deal with criminals is to kill them.
Umm...or have I got it wrong and you were posting in reply to someone else?!
Manslaughter and possession of an illegal firearm.
"I shot from the top of the stairs", when forensics have proved the shot would have been on a par with the magic-bullet from Kennedy's assasination?
He wasn't convicted of murder.
Manslaughter and the possession of an illegal firearm.
At the end of the day, only the jury got to hear all of the evidence, not tainted by media slant.
And they convicted him of manslaughter.
I'd say they might have a better idea than you or I
If someone got in my house, I don't care what they are doing, as far as I'm concerned my family (and myself) are at risk, and that person is gonna be lucky to leave with out a severe concussion
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.