Tony Martin... an innocent man?

[Pavilionaire]

The TM case does raise all sorts of issues.

For instance, say you were being burgled in the middle of the night, it's dark, you grab a baseball bat and hit the intruder once, split his skull and he dies. Should you go to prison for that?

I'd say definitely not, even though the guy lies dead. As I understand it you'd probably do a stretch, and that's where the law is an ass.

The Martin case was potentially a great deterrent for burglary, but the government has not seized the opportunity to change the law.

 

[Dropkick Turnip]

Tony Martin was neglected by the law and took desperate measures to protect himself and his home. I don't condone his actions but I can understand what drove him to them and I can't be sure that I wouldn't do the same if I was in his position.

The law is at fault and Fred Barras and Tony Martin have become victims of the law's apathy towards "petty" crime.

I agree that he may not have become a tabloid hero if he wasn't being repeatedly being broken into members of the UK's most marginalised group but the fact remains that it was gipsies that were breaking in so doesn't that prove the point in some way?

*retreats before the pro-gipsy brigade start flaming me for being a racist*

 

[Simster]

Pav, I don't think you would go down for that as it isn't premeditated and presumably the burgular isn't running out the door as you pummel them.

Something else I've just found out - apparantly after shooting this kid, TM went round a neighbour's house and fell asleep on his sofa. So he didn't give a shit then.

 

[Gwylan]

But the jury are only judging the facts of the case, and that is that he did indeed shoot the guy dead. They do not get to decide whether he SHOULD be entitled to defend himself in that way. That is not for a jury to decide, that is a matter for the government.

Not true at all. That is exactly what they had to decide. The argument was not whether he'd shot the fella, but whether his actions counted as self-defence. The jury decided it didn't.

I don't quite understand why people on this thread persist in thinking that home-owners don't have the right to defend themselves. They do and they can use reasonable force and if they're attacked by a burglar and they kill the burglar, it's highly unlikely that the home-owner would be convicted (there was an instance of this recently when a home-owner defended himself with a sword stick and was acquitted).

IMO, the law is pretty good at the moment. I for one would't be happy about a law that gave more powers to home-owners to defend their property. It might be hard to draw up a law distinguishing burglars, and, say, kids getting their ball back from the garden. Well-intentioned legislation often gets badly drafted with unforeseen consequences. There was a case in the US a couple of years ago when a trick-or-treater was shot dead - do we really want situations like that over here?

 

[readingstockport]

Tony Martin was neglected by the law and took desperate measures to protect himself and his home. I don't condone his actions but I can understand what drove him to them and I can't be sure that I wouldn't do the same if I was in his position.

I must say I hesitate to get involved in these discussions over on this board but I happen to know a solicitor who sat on TM's first parole board. The things that we have not been told about this case are amazing - possibly to do with the fact that the truth would not follow the Mail and the Suns agenda on this subject.

TM did not live in the house, he went there that night specifically to try to catch the 2 people. He made a journey out of his way to collect his illegally held pump-action shotgun, a gun for which he had already been arrested 3 times after shooting it at ramblers who were quite legitimately walking on a footpath over the farm. He had taken many steps to ensure that the farm house was easy to enter, steps he took with the deliberate intent of enticing burglars into the building. He had booby-trapped the house such that should someone, albeit illegally, enter the house they stood a very high chance of being maimed or at the least injured. He had said in public something like 2 weeks before the incident that he wanted to kill the pikies. He has never shown any sign of remorse for his act and this is one of the main reasons he served as long as he did.

The guy I know who was on the parole board said he was one of the most unbalanced people he has ever interviewed and was in his opinion a serious threat to the general public. He's now done his time, let him out - but the guy is no f'in hero, he's a psycho.

 

[Gritt23]

Not true at all. That is exactly what they had to decide. The argument was not whether he'd shot the fella, but whether his actions counted as self-defence. The jury decided it didn't.

No Gwylan, you are giving me too much credit for being a decent person, my views are a little bit more extreme than purely weighing up the "self-defence" issue. The debate I meant, was not physically defend himself (of course that is pretty what I typed though), but purely as a right of passage that someone is illegally on his property, and illegally going through his belongings and stealing what they fancy, should he be entitled to attack them, endangering their lives. THAT is the debate the Jury are not allowed to have.

Jury will have specific guidelines such as "Is he in direct physical danger at the time of firing?" Clearly at that precise moment then no he wasn't, therefore he is not physically defending himself, therefore he is found guilty of an unlawful killing.

Even if it's the jury's belief is that "The little shit was a criminal and deserves no sympathy or protection from the law, as he would have been perfectly safe if he had not broken the law in the first place." then they are not allowed to find him innocent on that basis.

That, as I said, is down for the government to address the law if they see fit.

 

[Gwylan]

No Gwylan, you are giving me too much credit for being a decent person, my views are a little bit more extreme than purely weighing up the "self-defence" issue. The debate I meant, was not physically defend himself (of course that is pretty what I typed though), but purely as a right of passage that someone is illegally on his property, and illegally going through his belongings and stealing what they fancy, should he be entitled to attack them, endangering their lives. THAT is the debate the Jury are not allowed to have.

Jury will have specific guidelines such as "Is he in direct physical danger at the time of firing?" Clearly at that precise moment then no he wasn't, therefore he is not physically defending himself, therefore he is found guilty of an unlawful killing.

Even if it's the jury's belief is that "The little shit was a criminal and deserves no sympathy or protection from the law, as he would have been perfectly safe if he had not broken the law in the first place." then they are not allowed to find him innocent on that basis.

That, as I said, is down for the government to address the law if they see fit.

As I said in my original post, such a law would be difficult to frame. How could it be framed so it could distinguish between a burglar and kid retrieving a football. Burglars don't really wear stripy jumpers and carry sacks with swag written on them

You could guarantee that if the government passed a law giving home-owners more leeway in chastising burglars, they would be a borderline case where some nutter shot a kid apple-scrumping or something.

I think the law is pretty good as it stands, it gives the right to protect property but doesn't give people the right to take the law into their own hands (as TM did).

Still, it's honest of you to admit to not being a decent person

 

[brighton rock]

lets hope they leave the bloke alone,we would all defend our homes

 

[Dropkick Turnip]

Gypsies have a different set of rules to the rest of us which might be why they're marginalised. I wouldn't be surprised if Tony Martin was dead in six months.

 

[Simster]

Did anyone see Midsomer Murders on Sunday. Made me want to puke, it did. All the pikies were portrayed as clean, romany, fun loving happy-go-lucky chumps unfairly picked on by Troy and the other nasty policemen.

Pass the sickbucket.

Sorry, but Virtua Pikey portrays them more accurately from my experience.

 

[fatbadger]

Tony Martin was not defending himself, he was defending his property. If any of you think that property matters more than life, then you are a sick and twisted individual.

Tony Martin killed someone; it was eventually considered manslaughter not murder because it was recognised that he was suffering from mental illness when he did it. Fair enough. But, by rights, he should not be let out early as he has refused to accept that he did anything wrong, and has refused to address the issues thrown up by his actions. Now Martin wants to set up a group for victims, and relatives of the victims, of crime. Will the young kid's family get help from him, although they have lost a son, a brother, a grandson, rather than just a bloody video?

Proportion, please. Thieving, even breaking-in, does not deserve judicial killing, let along extra-judicial killing.

 

[Brovion]

I agree with you Fatbadger. I think to turn Martin into some kind of 'have-a-go-hero' is a bit sick.

However ordinary people, yes people who read the Sun and watch Eastenders, cannot understand why criminals 'get away with it'. They read that the government are considering not jailing 1st time (caught) burglars and how people like Barras's accomplice can consider suing for 'distress' caused whilst committing a crime. A biased and distorted view it may be, but it isn't all hysteria whipped up by the right-wing tabloids. There is very much a culture of 'criminals are victims too' which needs to be addressed - along with this ludicrous 'blame' concept that everything must be somebody's fault. See the 'Lewes gravestones' thread.

 

[Mr Popkins]

I agree with you Fatbadger. I think to turn Martin into some kind of 'have-a-go-hero' is a bit sick.

However ordinary people, yes people who read the Sun and watch Eastenders, cannot understand why criminals 'get away with it'. .

Bit of a sweeping statement there brovian.

Eastenders is the most watched proggramme on TV
The Sun is the most Read Newspaper

you have just offended 20 million people in this country

 

[WATFORD O]

Mr Popkins, The Sun is read by knuts, ERastenders is believed by knuts. End of, even if that means 20m people in this country are knuts, personally I'd be amazed if it were that few......

 

[Dropkick Turnip]

What's this? I find myself agreeing with something Twatty said. It'll be Dwayne next

 

[fatbadger]

twatty and no-brayne have both recently posted with never-before-seen common sense and intelligence.

Do you think someone has nabbed their sign-in passwords?

 

[Dropkick Turnip]

twatty and no-brayne have both recently posted with never-before-seen common sense and intelligence.

Do you think someone has nabbed their sign-in passwords?

Makes you wonder, doesn't it? They'll be in for a hell of shock when they get back off holiday and find that people don't think they're arseholes any more.

 

[Mr Popkins]

can agree with you boys on "The Sun".. altough i buy it sometimes on saturday for the Sport.

but "Eastenders" is watched by all classes ,seems to me your just having a dig as you dont like it!?

 

[Brovion]

Sorry Mr Popkins I think you misunderstood me. I most definitely was NOT having a swipe at Sun readers (or tabloid readers) generally and Eastenders fans. There is a snobbish tendency amongst the middle-clsss intelligentsia to sneer at Red Top tabloid readers and people who watch soap operas. They think that these people are the great unwashed with simple tastes and simple opinions and cannot grasp anything unless Murdoch sticks a pair of tits on it.

For a lot of ordinary, decent people Tony Martin is a hero, wrongly in my book, but I understand their sentiments.

 

[Biscuit]

If sum one try to nick ur stuff, shot the hell out of them.