The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
The whole point of weapons, is not to use them.
Now, suppose Tony Martin had seen the criminals, but instead of shooting at them, had shouted a warning along the lines of the following:
"You two get the hell out of here right now, or I'll blow your kneecaps off. And if I ever see you on my property again, I'll aim for your heads instead!"
I suspect they'd have left quickly, and thought twice about ever trying to steal from him again.
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.
Don't like that? Fine, there are hundreds of other ways he could have resolved this in a satisfactory way without shooting with intent to kill. Some still illegal, but just about every single damn one was a better alternative than shooting someone in the back with a shotgun.
If you'd willingly kill someone when there is no need to, even if they're intruding on your property, then you are the danger to society who should be locked up.
Now, suppose Tony Martin had seen the criminals, but instead of shooting at them, had shouted a warning along the lines of the following:
"You two get the hell out of here right now, or I'll blow your kneecaps off. And if I ever see you on my property again, I'll aim for your heads instead!"
I suspect they'd have left quickly, and thought twice about ever trying to steal from him again.
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.
Don't like that? Fine, there are hundreds of other ways he could have resolved this in a satisfactory way without shooting with intent to kill. Some still illegal, but just about every single damn one was a better alternative than shooting someone in the back with a shotgun.
If you'd willingly kill someone when there is no need to, even if they're intruding on your property, then you are the danger to society who should be locked up.
But I'm not saying people should murder intruders, I'm saying they use force necessary. Dr Duck , you say intruders like those two only place a person att "risk of very minor injury for that matter" . Erm, how do you know ?? Someone breaks in then you assume the worst, the media is littered with stories of burglars comitting assault, torture, and sexual offences alongside their nicking. Even so, like Snuggly you're suggesting criminals have rights. They shouldn't, other than the right to be locked up.
Practical Magic wrote:
> Crap comparison Snuggly and you know it. Shooting has the immediate
> effect of removing the danger, whereas rape would not.
And if someone's climbing out of your window, leaving your presmises with your tv under their arm, shooting them does not have the effect of removing any danger. There is no danger.
The general point seems not to be about self defence, I don't think anyone would argue against the right to protect yourself.
The point is that when someone is stealing your property (and/or placing you at risk of very minor injury for that matter), it's not acceptable to kill them. It's not proportional to their crime.
And if you argue that killing someone, not in self defence, when they steal from you is acceptable, and if you accept that rape is 'less bad' than murder, then you can rape theives too.
> Crap comparison Snuggly and you know it. Shooting has the immediate
> effect of removing the danger, whereas rape would not.
And if someone's climbing out of your window, leaving your presmises with your tv under their arm, shooting them does not have the effect of removing any danger. There is no danger.
The general point seems not to be about self defence, I don't think anyone would argue against the right to protect yourself.
The point is that when someone is stealing your property (and/or placing you at risk of very minor injury for that matter), it's not acceptable to kill them. It's not proportional to their crime.
And if you argue that killing someone, not in self defence, when they steal from you is acceptable, and if you accept that rape is 'less bad' than murder, then you can rape theives too.
Mr Snuggly wrote:
> 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?
Crap comparison Snuggly and you know it. Shooting has the immediate effect of removing the danger, whereas rape would not. Say what you like but I'm not agreeing with you this time, how would you feel if two lads broke into your place tonight when you were in, what would you do ? Call the Police ? They can't get there as fast as those two will be up your stairs and odds are they won't let you watch as they go about nicking. Given the chance I bet you'd do the same, attempt to stop them by any means available. Those with family certainly would.
> 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?
Crap comparison Snuggly and you know it. Shooting has the immediate effect of removing the danger, whereas rape would not. Say what you like but I'm not agreeing with you this time, how would you feel if two lads broke into your place tonight when you were in, what would you do ? Call the Police ? They can't get there as fast as those two will be up your stairs and odds are they won't let you watch as they go about nicking. Given the chance I bet you'd do the same, attempt to stop them by any means available. Those with family certainly would.
AfroJoe wrote:
> As far as I can see,
> Tony Martin had every right to do what he did, and he was wrongly
> treated for it as well.
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. The fact that Fearon was released before him and is suing him etc. is a related matter granted, but doesn't really change my view on the initial incident. Martin's attitude since he left jail has been pretty sickening if you ask me. Wonder how much he's getting paid for all these exclusives he keeps churning out?
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?
> As far as I can see,
> Tony Martin had every right to do what he did, and he was wrongly
> treated for it as well.
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. The fact that Fearon was released before him and is suing him etc. is a related matter granted, but doesn't really change my view on the initial incident. Martin's attitude since he left jail has been pretty sickening if you ask me. Wonder how much he's getting paid for all these exclusives he keeps churning out?
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?
Tony Martin had every right to shoot them. Maybe not to kill, but to wound and to scare. It's as simple as this; they shouldn't have been breaking into his house, and they got everything that they deserved. I think it's really crappy, however, that the man who broke into Tony Martin's house, actually got out of prison before him. It's balls.
How he was treated for what he did shows what a mess the criminal justice system is actually in. If someone is on your property, without authority, I think you should have every right to do as you please to them. Simple.
And who knows what might have happened to Tony Martin had he not shot at these two men? They may well have killed him. As far as I can see, Tony Martin had every right to do what he did, and he was wrongly treated for it as well.
How he was treated for what he did shows what a mess the criminal justice system is actually in. If someone is on your property, without authority, I think you should have every right to do as you please to them. Simple.
And who knows what might have happened to Tony Martin had he not shot at these two men? They may well have killed him. As far as I can see, Tony Martin had every right to do what he did, and he was wrongly treated for it as well.
Practical Magic wrote:
> No, I'm saying that they rarely deserve any sympathy if their actions
> place their lives and rights in jeopardy.
But did they place his life in jeopardy? No. Yes, they heavily encroached on his rights, but I am not of the belief that if someone invades my privacy then I am fit to do what I want to them outside the law. Where do you draw the line? How about people walking on your lawn, would it be reasonable to sit on your porch with a cocked shotgun, firing rounds at people who walk on your grass?
Don't get me wrong, I'm just as sick of criminal scumbags like that Fearon type as you are - people like him deserve to be locked up for life, or better, deported. However, they don't deserve to be killed in my eyes.
I think the fact that this man, who has had something like 35 previous convictions, was still roaming the streets, is the real root of the problem here.
>
> I am sick to death of the people who have more interest in the
> criminals than the victims. the ones you defend would attack you,
> steal from you, as readily as they would anyone else.
> No, I'm saying that they rarely deserve any sympathy if their actions
> place their lives and rights in jeopardy.
But did they place his life in jeopardy? No. Yes, they heavily encroached on his rights, but I am not of the belief that if someone invades my privacy then I am fit to do what I want to them outside the law. Where do you draw the line? How about people walking on your lawn, would it be reasonable to sit on your porch with a cocked shotgun, firing rounds at people who walk on your grass?
Don't get me wrong, I'm just as sick of criminal scumbags like that Fearon type as you are - people like him deserve to be locked up for life, or better, deported. However, they don't deserve to be killed in my eyes.
I think the fact that this man, who has had something like 35 previous convictions, was still roaming the streets, is the real root of the problem here.
>
> I am sick to death of the people who have more interest in the
> criminals than the victims. the ones you defend would attack you,
> steal from you, as readily as they would anyone else.
I too would've shot towards the ceiling. If that failed to scare them away... I don't know what I would've done...
Basically I think that anyone who makes a conscious decision to commit a crime against another human being deserves everything they get, it’s just a shame more burglars aren’t shot.
Totoro wrote:
> Imagine you’re in Tony Martin’s position: You’ve been burgled many
> times in the past, you’ve had enough of these people thinking they can
> rob you, it’s the middle of the night and the farm is a remote place
> with no immediate help from anyone, you hear burglars enter your
> property, you have a shotgun. Would you pull the trigger or just be a
> victim yet again?
Personally, I would've shot several times towards the ceiling. I wouldn't have shot at someone who was 12 feet away with an illegal shotgun. Yes he was scared, but he was also reckless.
> Imagine you’re in Tony Martin’s position: You’ve been burgled many
> times in the past, you’ve had enough of these people thinking they can
> rob you, it’s the middle of the night and the farm is a remote place
> with no immediate help from anyone, you hear burglars enter your
> property, you have a shotgun. Would you pull the trigger or just be a
> victim yet again?
Personally, I would've shot several times towards the ceiling. I wouldn't have shot at someone who was 12 feet away with an illegal shotgun. Yes he was scared, but he was also reckless.
Page: