The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
*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 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.
Page:
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
Whether or not he should have shot Barras I don't know, but he did, and he should have probably shown some remorse for taking a life, but I guess that shows how fed up he was with the amount of break-ins he'd suffered in the past, and basically wanting to get some revenge.
I'm not sure if it's good to glorify Martin's actions in taking the law into his own hands, but it shows how normal people feel about crime and their attitudes towards criminals. If you see stuff on TV about this, invariably there'd be quite a few people showing no sympathy for the criminals in this particular case.
I'm not sure if it's good to glorify Martin's actions in taking the law into his own hands, but it shows how normal people feel about crime and their attitudes towards criminals. If you see stuff on TV about this, invariably there'd be quite a few people showing no sympathy for the criminals in this particular case.
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.
Page: