BBC1 Tonight at 9 - To Kill a Burglar: The Tony Martin Story
Discussion
Furyblade_Lee said:
So the general concensus is Tony Martin was correct and at the end of his teather.
How about some stickers for our front doors...... PISTON HEADS_speed matters...DO NOTING BURGLE, YOU WILL BE KILLED, PIKEY
Careful, if we ever have the misfortune of dealing with an intruder, our front doors may prove our actions were premeditated.
On the odd occasions I've had alarm calls in the middle of the night and had to go to my commercial property, I have never gone empty-handed. (It was always a false alarm though.) At the same time, I've often said what I'd do if I caught a "live one" in there. Interesting that the law might judge me the criminal had I collared a burglar though.
fluffnik said:
Had I been on the jury he'd have been found not guilty.
The problem is that even if the jury felt that Tony Martin was right they still had to find him guilty of murder because of the obvious premeditation. It is the law that is wrong. The only reason he was eventually released was because a psychologist said he was suffering from paranoia. He's not the only one.
hyena said:
The only reason he was eventually released was because a psychologist said he was suffering from paranoia.
That may well be the technical reason used to let him out but I doubt there was anyone out there who seriously believed he deserved to get banged up for life for this.
No doubt some of what Tony Martin did was not right(illegal gun etc) and that cannot be dismissed. However, had the scumbag not broken in he would not have got shot - he did, he died.
At aged only 16 he already had plenty of form, Tony Martin did us all a favour, shame he didn't get the other two.
Furyblade_Lee said:
Last year a friend of mine (have to be careful here legally) was cleared of manslaughter at the Old Bailey (was origionally murder) after he "defended" his family from someone who had been systematically terrorising them for months. Despite hard taped evidence of threats of murder, rape of his mum, and killing the baby (i am NOT joking) THE POLICE DID NOT EVEN INTERVIEW THE MAN, and would not until he actually DID something. The guy one night crashed a stolen car INTO his house, attacked 3 vehicles on the drive with various weapons and was attempting to smash the front door down to gain access to them all when he recieved a crossbow bolt to the thigh from an upstairs window. The t
If the police would have just taken the time to use surveillance and catch him in the weeks previous it would not have happened at all and he'd still be alive.The Police should have given him a medal
There were 15 of them in the same road a week before checking tax discs.
Cotty said:You play the Chinese game stone /scissors/paper with the burglar ,that's PC. They've got rights you know!!!!!.
One of the things that I picked up from the program is that if the burglars had shotguns then Martins response of shooting them with a shotgun was legal, because it was equal. But how do you know what weapon your burgler is using to know what is appropriate in response. Ie if you burglar has a knife, can you use a baseball bat or if he has a baseball bat can you use a knife, how do you tell
unlogic said:
So the general concensus is Tony Martin was correct
No.
He made a few stupid errors.
1. He let one of them live.
2. He didn't get rid of the bodies.
3. He didn't get rid of the gun.
Other than that, he did nothing wrong.
And if he had done it right, no-one would have known or been any the wiser.
Job done
That's exactly what I said while the programme was on. If he'd given the pikey
er another barrel he could have got rid of the bodies and no one would have been any the wiser. I mean, its not as if the guy in the getaway was going to say anything, was it? You only have to look at the way the retard left his mobile phone in the car when he was meant to be ringing him what level of intelligence you're dealing with.
As others have said and I've said all along, THEY WERE BREAKING INTO HIS HOUSE! If they hadn't have been doing that, the kid would still be alive. Whether he meant to go or was just caught up in it, he still chose to go into the house.
hyena said:
Had I been on the jury he'd have been found not guilty.
The problem is that even if the jury felt that Tony Martin was right they still had to find him guilty of murder because of the obvious premeditation. It is the law that is wrong. The only reason he was eventually released was because a psychologist said he was suffering from paranoia. He's not the only one.
A jury can still acquit if it thinks that it's what best serve justice. If I'd been in the jury room I'd have been arguing for the benefit of burglars knowing they could be executed by housholders.
Cotty said:
One of the things that I picked up from the program is that if the burglars had shotguns then Martins response of shooting them with a shotgun was legal, because it was equal. But how do you know what weapon your burgler is using to know what is appropriate in response. Ie if you burglar has a knife, can you use a baseball bat or if he has a baseball bat can you use a knife, how do you tell
I suppose, if it gets to that situation, as long as the corpse is found holding a gun/big knife, then no problems.....
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I have said many times on here that I think the only solution is to use some of the remote uninhabited islands that the UK has in abundance as penal colonies. Three strikes and you are deemed to have given up your right to live in society and you go to the penal colony with no chance of payrole. They would be easy to set up, easy to make secure, and then leave the inhabitants to it. They either get on or kill each other. Either way they can no longer harm the decent majority.
I really think we are getting to the point where there is little viable option. Crime only happens because society tolerates it.
Yugguy said:
I can only add to the comments already made. Wether Tony Martin was right to shoot or not is immaterial. If they had not been burgling him they would not have been shot. So BBC can make all the lentilist emotive reconstructions they like but it does not change this one simple truth.
No "turning the other cheek" or "forgive those who trespass against us" then? Sounds like Tony Martin only belived in the first bit of the Bible....
Well if you seriously want to debate that rather than score cheap points then I'll say this.
I'm not an aggressive person, thai boxing notwithstanding, and have backed down many times when faced with a threat to myself.
However, although I might turn the other cheek for myself I will NOT place my family in danger and I do not believe God would want me to. If you take the Biblical analogy of Christ as the husband and the church as the wife then Christ died for his people. Greater love has no man than this than he lay down his life for his friend...
I'm not an aggressive person, thai boxing notwithstanding, and have backed down many times when faced with a threat to myself.
However, although I might turn the other cheek for myself I will NOT place my family in danger and I do not believe God would want me to. If you take the Biblical analogy of Christ as the husband and the church as the wife then Christ died for his people. Greater love has no man than this than he lay down his life for his friend...
Yugguy said:
I can only add to the comments already made. Wether Tony Martin was right to shoot or not is immaterial. If they had not been burgling him they would not have been shot.
How about if we change the scenario, but not the underlying principle?
"Whether Man A was right to rape her or not is immaterial. If Woman B had not been burgling him she wouldn't have been raped."
Would you support that statement? After all, neither rape nor shooting someone in the back as they are running away from you can be considered to be "self-defence".
O.k. a bit of a low blow, sorry. Couldn't resist.
I don't know enough of the details to really comment on Martin. I remember strange details about him laying traps, removing stairs etc. IIRC, it wasn't as simple as just shooting an intruder in a one-off incident.
Were the intruders armed with shotguns?
I don't know enough of the details to really comment on Martin. I remember strange details about him laying traps, removing stairs etc. IIRC, it wasn't as simple as just shooting an intruder in a one-off incident.
Were the intruders armed with shotguns?
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff