BBC1 Tonight at 9 - To Kill a Burglar: The Tony Martin Story
Discussion
IS200RJR said:
Tony Martin should be seen as a hero by all the self respecting Home owners in this country he did what we should all do Most people struggle to buy their homes and an english mans home is his castle so why should we live in fear that one day some scumbag might come and rob you, threaten you and your family ?
I for one dont want my hard earnd tax to be wasted locking scum away from socity.
SHOOT THEM, HANG THEM
Make your mind up!
Which method of dispatching the thief do you prefer? You don't fancy vigilante bum-rape justice then?simond001 said:
The arrived armed with a 12" pry bar. It is part of the housebreakers tools that the police found. If they had attacked Martin with this he would have been within his rights to protect himself (albiet with an unlawfully owned weapon). However if they had attacked him with this he would probably have been dead.
Are you saying, then, that because he isn't dead they didn't attack him with it?
Having said that, I thought Tony Martin had a shotgun...? In a simple game of home defence top trumps, shotgun beats pry bar hands down - especially when the pry bar wielder is running away.
simond001 said:
I am totally behind him.
Best place to be, by all accounts.
simond001 said:
I went to the pub after the programme and we had a drink to Tony Martin. may there be more like him!
God forbid. May there be fewer people who simply decide on their own whether or not someone lives or dies.
Edited to clarify one point
>> Edited by Ecks Ridgehead on Friday 17th March 10:17
If the law, that is designed to protect us, is so totally useless and so devoid of teeth to serve the people what do you expect? Should I continue to allow armed (bars, knives, bricks..whatever) pikeys into my home until I or my wife and kids are harmed or have a nervous breakdown. Should I HOPE that one day the law will do what is expected of it?
I am sorry but until the law does the job it was intended then the moment someone steps into my home with the express aim of robbing me (and not caring about putting on a little violence (mental or physical) if I happen to get in the way) then the person entering my house deserves no human rights at all.
I am sorry but until the law does the job it was intended then the moment someone steps into my home with the express aim of robbing me (and not caring about putting on a little violence (mental or physical) if I happen to get in the way) then the person entering my house deserves no human rights at all.
Yugguy said:
well you could say shooting in the back was self-defence as one of them feckers certainly won't be coming back to burgle again.
I beleive the government used this arguement to justify torpedoing the Argentinan General Belgrano war ship in the Faulklands war. Outside the exlusion zone, moving/pointing 'away' from the islands but still viewed as a threat to the UK task force.
Tony Martin was also at war but with Pikeys, shame he didnt have a nuke sub at his disposal and a log book that got lost. He defended his property from that and future attacks from the same people.
>> Edited by superlightr on Friday 17th March 10:31
garyhun said:
If the law, that is designed to protect us, is so totally useless and so devoid of teeth to serve the people what do you expect? Should I continue to allow armed (bars, knives, bricks..whatever) pikeys into my home until I or my wife and kids are harmed or have a nervous breakdown. Should I HOPE that one day the law will do what is expected of it?
I am sorry but until the law does the job it was intended then the moment someone steps into my home with the express aim of robbing me (and not caring about putting on a little violence (mental or physical) if I happen to get in the way) then the person entering my house deserves no human rights at all.
If you were to wave a shotgun at a burglar and he turned around and ran, you would have successfully defended your house. If you were to shoot him in the back as he fled, when he is of no danger to you at all, it is considered to be over and above what is required to defend your house and is therefore a crime. Is this so hard to understand?
Yugguy said:
Aye. I wonder though if he's ever experienced burglary first hand, or seen the effects it can have on a close family member?
Not personally, but my uncle has. All he could talk about afterwards was how he'd have bum-raped the little sod if he'd caught him at it.
But seriously, is the psychological trauma going to be lessened by emptying two barrels of buckshot into someone's spine? It's not going to stop another burglar breaking in in the future, is it?
Ecks Ridgehead said:
If the law, that is designed to protect us, is so totally useless and so devoid of teeth to serve the people what do you expect? Should I continue to allow armed (bars, knives, bricks..whatever) pikeys into my home until I or my wife and kids are harmed or have a nervous breakdown. Should I HOPE that one day the law will do what is expected of it?
I am sorry but until the law does the job it was intended then the moment someone steps into my home with the express aim of robbing me (and not caring about putting on a little violence (mental or physical) if I happen to get in the way) then the person entering my house deserves no human rights at all.
If you were to wave a shotgun at a burglar and he turned around and ran, you would have successfully defended your house. If you were to shoot him in the back as he fled, when he is of no danger to you at all, it is considered to be over and above what is required to defend your house and is therefore a crime. Is this so hard to understand?
Not at all. What is hard to STOMACH is that those people who run away will come back time and time again causing misery to my family until the law gets some teeth. I would not pre-meditate shooting BUT if I and my family had been terrorised in our own home over a period of time and they still came back because the law failed me I might just lose it in that moment and shoot the liitel fu**ers!!! Is THAT so hard to understand?
garyhun said:
If you were to wave a shotgun at a burglar and he turned around and ran, you would have successfully defended your house. If you were to shoot him in the back as he fled, when he is of no danger to you at all, it is considered to be over and above what is required to defend your house and is therefore a crime. Is this so hard to understand?
Not at all. What is hard to STOMACH is that those people who run away will come back time and time again causing misery to my family until the law gets some teeth. I would not pre-meditate shooting BUT if I and my family had been terrorised in our own home over a period of time and they still came back because the law failed me I might just lose it in that moment and shoot the liitel fu**ers!!! Is THAT so hard to understand?
Really? Faced with literally millions of homes around the country, the spineless little toe-rags will go back to the one house which has a psycho waving a shotgun around in it, will they?
Oh, and if you buy a gun, the sole purpose of which is to defend your home, you are, by definition, pre-meditating shooting.
Ecks Ridgehead said:
If you were to wave a shotgun at a burglar and he turned around and ran, you would have successfully defended your house. If you were to shoot him in the back as he fled, when he is of no danger to you at all, it is considered to be over and above what is required to defend your house and is therefore a crime. Is this so hard to understand?
Not at all. What is hard to STOMACH is that those people who run away will come back time and time again causing misery to my family until the law gets some teeth. I would not pre-meditate shooting BUT if I and my family had been terrorised in our own home over a period of time and they still came back because the law failed me I might just lose it in that moment and shoot the liitel fu**ers!!! Is THAT so hard to understand?
Really? Faced with literally millions of homes around the country, the spineless little toe-rags will go back to the one house which has a psycho waving a shotgun around in it, will they?
Oh, and if you buy a gun, the sole purpose of which is to defend your home, you are, by definition, pre-meditating shooting.
Ecks...it's pointless -- you are obviously never going to get this are you? The law is an ass and until it does the job it was supposed to then we will beg to differ as to how justice is best served !!!
If a burglar breaks into someone’s home then only the most disproportionate violence by the householder should be subject to any legal penalty.
If they encounter them they should be able to strike them or stab them with any weapon that is to hand. The Tony Martin case is somewhat unique because the burglars were already running away, and outside his house?, when he killed the boy. This means it is a grey area for me, but if I had been on the Jury I would have not convicted him.
The current law when the householder is supposed to calmly view what weapons the burglar is carrying before he can pick up one himself is an absolute nonsense. The law should be changed urgently so that only in the most exceptional circumstances would the householder face prosecution.
If they encounter them they should be able to strike them or stab them with any weapon that is to hand. The Tony Martin case is somewhat unique because the burglars were already running away, and outside his house?, when he killed the boy. This means it is a grey area for me, but if I had been on the Jury I would have not convicted him.
The current law when the householder is supposed to calmly view what weapons the burglar is carrying before he can pick up one himself is an absolute nonsense. The law should be changed urgently so that only in the most exceptional circumstances would the householder face prosecution.
garyhun said:
Ecks...it's pointless -- you are obviously never going to get this are you? The law is an ass and until it does the job it was supposed to then we will beg to differ as to how justice is best served !!!
Burglary = crime
Shooting someone in the back as they run away from you = crime
Sorry, I can't see how the law is an ass here. Please explain.
Incidentally, what job in your view is the law supposed to do?
Jaglover said:
The current law when the householder is supposed to calmly view what weapons the burglar is carrying before he can pick up one himself is an absolute nonsense.
Exactly. I should NOT have to think about reasonable force when woken in the night by a burglar.
I have a weapon as it were, a chinup bar, kept by the bed. It's better than a baseball bat as some idiot judge can't claim I bought it specifically as a weapon. It's a heavy lump of metal and I'd have no worries about wrapping it around a burgler' ribs.
What I wouldn't do I hope is carry on hitting him when he was down, but if I'd been robbed repeatedly I can't say that I wouldn't.
Ecks Ridgehead said:
Ecks...it's pointless -- you are obviously never going to get this are you? The law is an ass and until it does the job it was supposed to then we will beg to differ as to how justice is best served !!!
Burglary = crime
Shooting someone in the back as they run away from you = crime
Sorry, I can't see how the law is an ass here. Please explain.
Incidentally, what job in your view is the law supposed to do?
Burglary - pre-meditated attempt to steal good from hard working person
Shooting - reaction to being scared shitless in your own home
Law - supposed to protect the victim and punish the guilty (i.e put the tossers inside for a long time) it fails time and time again so an ass.
Sorry - cannot afford to speand any more wasted moments at my keyboard answering to liberal clap trap!
Jaglover said:
If they encounter them they should be able to strike them or stab them with any weapon that is to hand. The Tony Martin case is somewhat unique because the burglars were already running away, and outside his house?, when he killed the boy. This means it is a grey area for me, but if I had been on the Jury I would have not convicted him.
How is that a grey area? Under what circumstances could you possibly consider that someone running away from you is a threat to your own personal safety (which is, thank god, the only legal recourse that we have to violence)?
If someone tries to snatch your bag in the street, fails and runs away, do you believe that gives you the right to shoot him in the back?
Jaglover said:
If a burglar breaks into someone’s home then only the most disproportionate violence by the householder should be subject to any legal penalty.
If they encounter them they should be able to strike them or stab them with any weapon that is to hand. The Tony Martin case is somewhat unique because the burglars were already running away, and outside his house?, when he killed the boy. This means it is a grey area for me, but if I had been on the Jury I would have not convicted him.
The current law when the householder is supposed to calmly view what weapons the burglar is carrying before he can pick up one himself is an absolute nonsense. The law should be changed urgently so that only in the most exceptional circumstances would the householder face prosecution.
Agreed!! I would have found him not guilty too!! Let common sense prevail!!
Ecks Ridgehead said:
Ecks...it's pointless -- you are obviously never going to get this are you? The law is an ass and until it does the job it was supposed to then we will beg to differ as to how justice is best served !!!
Burglary = crime
Shooting someone in the back as they run away from you = crime
Sorry, I can't see how the law is an ass here. Please explain.
Incidentally, what job in your view is the law supposed to do?
The law my friend should be there to protect the inocent the scum had already broke in to the house so that is the first crime if there was a deterant like being shot do you think the scum bag would have still tried to burgle the house i think what garyhun is pointing out is that the law no longer deters crime so it was left to Tony Martin to defend his home and family.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff