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.

Totoro wrote:
> Maybe when we do have burglars in our houses we’ll have some idea as
> to how Tony Martin felt, until then, we have no idea, so can’t really
> judge the man and his actions.

I agree with what you said before, but he's come out of jail and said he feels no remorse for what he did, how he'd happily gun the lad down again. That's not a snap judgement, that tells me he meant to do it.

Martin was wrong.
Wrong to shoot the guy in the back as he was running.
Wrong to possess that sort of firearm.

However, as Goatboy said, Barras and Fearon should not have been there in the first place. Barras was a career criminal, the sort of scum that clearly break into old people's homes because they are vulnerable and an easy target. Martin should not have killed Barras, the taking of a human life is too great a crime to be excused, especially in this situation. He got the sentence that I felt he deserved for committing that crime.

While personal property can be replaced in most cases, there are certainly some things that cannot be so easily restored. The point isn't the property itself, it's the fact that these people are so arrogant that they feel as though the law doesn't apply to them, as if they are somehow entitled to go wherever they please and take whatever they like. Granted, that's a fairly simplified view, but the point still stands - burglars have to understand that they are forfeiting rights once they break into someone else's home (although nowadays it seems they get more, but still). Barras died - I won't be shedding a tear. He burgled countless homes, and put himself in that situation. Martin's out? I don't care, so long as he doesn't do it again.

At the end of the day, it’s easy for all of us to say “Tony Martin shouldn’t have shot the boy”, but 99.9% of us have absolutely zero idea as to the mindset of fear of someone who has intruders in their remote farmhouse.

Maybe when we do have burglars in our houses we’ll have some idea as to how Tony Martin felt, until then, we have no idea, so can’t really judge the man and his actions.

My own views?

Should'nt have been in Martin's place at all.
Martin shouldn't have shot him in the back, as he was leaving.
It's just stuff, can be replaced.
No right to steal, no right to kill.

It's not self defence if you shoot somebody in the back as they are fleeing. If they had woken him and he reached immediately and shot, maybe.
But to take aim and blow someone away as they flee, it could have been dealt with differently.

It's just possessions, they can be replaced.
Same as my accident, I let the police and courts deal with the assface that almost killed me, I didnt go round and beat him - despite the tempation.
It's called restraint, and killing somebody as they flee your property isn't self-defence.

At the end of the day, I don't care.

Some are still arguing that a criminal has rights whilst engaging in criminal activities.

Easy way not to get injured/killed whilst stealing - don't steal. Thieves get their hands cut off in Saudi you know...

Mr Snuggly wrote:
> There's no clear cut answer,

This sums up the whole situation. It is never a black and white decision, as each and every event will have different circumstances.

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.

Why does it have to be one or the other? I'm not saying he was right, I'm not saying he was completely wrong - it's perhaps understandable given the situation that he reacted the way he did, but that's not saying I support his actions. There's no clear cut answer, it's just a horrible situation.

And no one in this thread is on the side of the criminals, that's something you keep putting in our mouths. The only rights they have is the right to live as human beings, because as we've rightly established, burglary is not on a par with taking a human life.

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.

Mr Snuggly wrote:
> He commited a crime, and was jailed for it. He did not have every
> right to kill an intruder in his house, if he did, then he wouldn't
> have gone to jail.

Ok, so maybe I've gone too far in saying that he had every right to do what he did, as, as you pointed out, he wouldn't have been jailed for what he did, but still, he stuck up for his property, and surely that's what most people would do when threatened. Maybe in an over-the-top manner... but then, these men shouldn't have been there, should they?

> How about if a female criminal breaks into your house - you still
> think you have every right to do what you want with her? Is it fair
> enough to rape her? No? But it's okay to kill her, because she was
> on your property?

The point I was originally trying to make, is, as I stated in the above section of this post, flawed. And what you've said is acceptable enough, but I'm going to partially stick by what I said earlier. Maybe "you're allowed to do what you want as they're on your property" is a bit far, but you most certainly shouldn't be forced to stand around and do absolutely nothing about it in fear of what many see as wrongful prosecution.

I've found 'employee' to be fairly accurate.

It is at the factory anyway.