The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
I think that people who’ve been burgled before, possibly multiple times, have more of an idea about what Tony Martin felt like than those who’ve never been burgled.
Luckily I’ve never had that horrible experience happen to my family, but my uncle has. Precious family items that meant so much were taken, and it that happens to many people everyday, so what goes through the victim’s mind I can only imagine.
Tony Martin was failed by the police force multiple times, but is it any reason to fire first and ask questions later? He’d suffered so many break-ins at his property, and living in such a remote place must be pretty scary anyway, so when he was forced into this situation yet again, he did what any person would have done; he lost his rag after being a victim once too often and lashed out at the disgusting vermin that plague our society.
Lets look at what would have happened if the young burglar hadn’t been shot dead, and instead had been caught. He would have gone to numerous court hearings, young offenders institutes etc, and would he change? Probably not. My dad’s a Probation Officer, and he sees career criminals like that everyday of his life. A tiny percentage do mend their ways and go on to be semi-useful members of society, but the majority offend again and again. If Fred Barras hadn’t been killed and was alive today, it’s more than likely that he would have just created many more victims of crime in future years, people that have to go through the terrible ordeal of discovering their house had been ransacked and burgled by a stranger. So at least that’s one more dirty criminal off the streets.
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?
Luckily I’ve never had that horrible experience happen to my family, but my uncle has. Precious family items that meant so much were taken, and it that happens to many people everyday, so what goes through the victim’s mind I can only imagine.
Tony Martin was failed by the police force multiple times, but is it any reason to fire first and ask questions later? He’d suffered so many break-ins at his property, and living in such a remote place must be pretty scary anyway, so when he was forced into this situation yet again, he did what any person would have done; he lost his rag after being a victim once too often and lashed out at the disgusting vermin that plague our society.
Lets look at what would have happened if the young burglar hadn’t been shot dead, and instead had been caught. He would have gone to numerous court hearings, young offenders institutes etc, and would he change? Probably not. My dad’s a Probation Officer, and he sees career criminals like that everyday of his life. A tiny percentage do mend their ways and go on to be semi-useful members of society, but the majority offend again and again. If Fred Barras hadn’t been killed and was alive today, it’s more than likely that he would have just created many more victims of crime in future years, people that have to go through the terrible ordeal of discovering their house had been ransacked and burgled by a stranger. So at least that’s one more dirty criminal off the streets.
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?
No, I'm saying that they rarely deserve any sympathy if their actions place their lives and rights in jeopardy.
How to avoid being shot by Tony Martin - don't break into his legal property in an attempt to take it.
Many burglar's target the elderly and vulnerable, people like that deserve to die. I don't buy into this "it was their childhood, they've got no hope so they do it etc' whining crap. Plenty of people with bad childhoods or who had little money go on to be good people with law abiding lives. Same goes for when the lawyers defence is along the line of "he only did it to feed his habit" - who cares ? That's illegal too. Toss them into a cell for a week with food and water and problem solved.
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.
How to avoid being shot by Tony Martin - don't break into his legal property in an attempt to take it.
Many burglar's target the elderly and vulnerable, people like that deserve to die. I don't buy into this "it was their childhood, they've got no hope so they do it etc' whining crap. Plenty of people with bad childhoods or who had little money go on to be good people with law abiding lives. Same goes for when the lawyers defence is along the line of "he only did it to feed his habit" - who cares ? That's illegal too. Toss them into a cell for a week with food and water and problem solved.
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.
Practical Magic wrote:
> A 16 year old, with a criminal record, breaking and entering with a
> known drug dealer, against one man, miles from anywhere. He was no
> great loss, I don't give a toss about him or the scum that was just
> injured.
So, you think that because he took drugs and led a criminal lifestyle, he deserved to die? Likewise with all other criminals? They all deserve to die?
> A 16 year old, with a criminal record, breaking and entering with a
> known drug dealer, against one man, miles from anywhere. He was no
> great loss, I don't give a toss about him or the scum that was just
> injured.
So, you think that because he took drugs and led a criminal lifestyle, he deserved to die? Likewise with all other criminals? They all deserve to die?
A 16 year old, with a criminal record, breaking and entering with a known drug dealer, against one man, miles from anywhere. He was no great loss, I don't give a toss about him or the scum that was just injured.
What the hell were those burgulars trying to steal anyway? Martin's house was a hovel jammed with rotting junk.
But anyway, all I can say is that I roughly agree with the initial post. And when a man shoots dead a 16 year old boy and doesn't feel any remorse whatsoever, then there is something severly lacking in his character and outlook.
But anyway, all I can say is that I roughly agree with the initial post. And when a man shoots dead a 16 year old boy and doesn't feel any remorse whatsoever, then there is something severly lacking in his character and outlook.
Anyone defending the rights of burglars or criminals in general because "the system" allows it is simply proving how screwed up the system is in the first place.
That is what i found interesting aswell, Tony Martin says he shot at them from the stairs but as a ballistics experts said "The bullets must have travelled round corners" to hit Fred Barras.
Funny thing is though the local council have approved plans to have a gypsy caravan park right near Martins house.
Funny thing is though the local council have approved plans to have a gypsy caravan park right near Martins house.
I feel very strongly about this case. Tony Martin was stretched to breaking point by these criminal sh1theads and put in his position I can honestly say I don't know what I'd have done, by I don't see any way that Martin can justify kiling a 15yr old boy that was fleeing in terror. If he was directly threatening him then maybe you could argue it was self-defence, but this was a kid running away terrifyed by this farmer with a shotgun - Martin had simply had enough of being abused by these pikeys and snapped. I saw an interview with Martin conducted by *sigh* Martin Bashir, in which Tony Martin suggested that he wasn't sorry for what he'd done at all, and that he'd do it again given the chance. I'm sorry Mr Martin, I sympathise with you and feel your plight and all, but when it comes down to it, you shot a teenager in the back for nicking yout telly, and that's murder in my book.
Ok lets put it this way, your house has been burgled many times, the police has said there is nothing they can do about it and this time you see a guy about to break into your house and you happen to have a gun in your house (Tony martin says he found it after being robbed last time)
Do you:
1) stay upstairs and keep quite hoping he won't be long and that he don't take much of what YOU have worked hard to buy
2) go downstairs and face him.
Personally if I had worked long hours every week day and then came home to find a burgler in my house I don't think I would be very happy. Killing him is a different issue, I think it would be stupid to do it because how much the courts favour thiefs these days.
Put it this way if a burgler broke in my house tomorrow then i would make sure he wouldnt be getting up for a while.
Do you:
1) stay upstairs and keep quite hoping he won't be long and that he don't take much of what YOU have worked hard to buy
2) go downstairs and face him.
Personally if I had worked long hours every week day and then came home to find a burgler in my house I don't think I would be very happy. Killing him is a different issue, I think it would be stupid to do it because how much the courts favour thiefs these days.
Put it this way if a burgler broke in my house tomorrow then i would make sure he wouldnt be getting up for a while.
it is because, rightly or wrongly, occupiers owe a duty of care to trespassers injured on their property. If you took a short cut home and cut through a field owned by Farmer Bloggs, and were injured by one of his bear traps, you'd be entitled to damages.
Burglars ordinarily do not enjoy the rights to such damages unless they were the victim of an intentional attack. This burglar was and so he can claim. It's a logical application of the law. His being a burglar sets a pretty high threshold for a claim, but once it's met then he can claim, and in this case it took being shot at deliberately to meet that threshold. Hopefully though he will only get nominal damages and he definitely shouldn't have been allowed legal aid to pursue the claim.
So you would honestly murder someone who tried to take your telly?
That is really pathetic, and something of which I think you should be deeply ashamed. Would your conscience be able to sustain the weight of killing another person? Or would you be an utterly remorseless killer? Read some Dostoevesky and think again.
Burglars ordinarily do not enjoy the rights to such damages unless they were the victim of an intentional attack. This burglar was and so he can claim. It's a logical application of the law. His being a burglar sets a pretty high threshold for a claim, but once it's met then he can claim, and in this case it took being shot at deliberately to meet that threshold. Hopefully though he will only get nominal damages and he definitely shouldn't have been allowed legal aid to pursue the claim.
So you would honestly murder someone who tried to take your telly?
That is really pathetic, and something of which I think you should be deeply ashamed. Would your conscience be able to sustain the weight of killing another person? Or would you be an utterly remorseless killer? Read some Dostoevesky and think again.
Page: