The Interrogation of Tony Martin - C4
Discussion
martyn850 said:
As far as I’m concerned, if you’re breaking into a house you leave your rights at the door. Or the window or however you got in......
But, the whole discussion is about protecting yourself and your property. If it had gone down the way he said it had then he’d have an argument for self defence. However..... it didn’t go down like he said it did. He said he discharged his shotgun on the stairs aiming below a torchlight. That was a downright lie. And that’s the difference between protecting yourself/property and murder. Barras was shot in the back at a range of five meters or less, a distance away from the house as he was running away. He wasn’t shot in the house, or just outside. His body wasn’t found until the next day. That’s how far he was away from the house. Shooting someone in the back as they are running away is not self defence. The other one was shot in the arse so again, running away. And that’s not even taking into account his shotgun, which was illegally held and.... well somewhat uncompliant with current firearm regulations.
So if he’d shot them inside his house as he said it had happened, fair play. But that wasn’t the case.
The shotgun license you are correct about, no defending it, but regardless of where he shot them, when you break into somebodies house, you lose your rights. No sympathy from me.But, the whole discussion is about protecting yourself and your property. If it had gone down the way he said it had then he’d have an argument for self defence. However..... it didn’t go down like he said it did. He said he discharged his shotgun on the stairs aiming below a torchlight. That was a downright lie. And that’s the difference between protecting yourself/property and murder. Barras was shot in the back at a range of five meters or less, a distance away from the house as he was running away. He wasn’t shot in the house, or just outside. His body wasn’t found until the next day. That’s how far he was away from the house. Shooting someone in the back as they are running away is not self defence. The other one was shot in the arse so again, running away. And that’s not even taking into account his shotgun, which was illegally held and.... well somewhat uncompliant with current firearm regulations.
So if he’d shot them inside his house as he said it had happened, fair play. But that wasn’t the case.
Leicester Loyal said:
martyn850 said:
As far as I’m concerned, if you’re breaking into a house you leave your rights at the door. Or the window or however you got in......
But, the whole discussion is about protecting yourself and your property. If it had gone down the way he said it had then he’d have an argument for self defence. However..... it didn’t go down like he said it did. He said he discharged his shotgun on the stairs aiming below a torchlight. That was a downright lie. And that’s the difference between protecting yourself/property and murder. Barras was shot in the back at a range of five meters or less, a distance away from the house as he was running away. He wasn’t shot in the house, or just outside. His body wasn’t found until the next day. That’s how far he was away from the house. Shooting someone in the back as they are running away is not self defence. The other one was shot in the arse so again, running away. And that’s not even taking into account his shotgun, which was illegally held and.... well somewhat uncompliant with current firearm regulations.
So if he’d shot them inside his house as he said it had happened, fair play. But that wasn’t the case.
The shotgun license you are correct about, no defending it, but regardless of where he shot them, when you break into somebodies house, you lose your rights. No sympathy from me.But, the whole discussion is about protecting yourself and your property. If it had gone down the way he said it had then he’d have an argument for self defence. However..... it didn’t go down like he said it did. He said he discharged his shotgun on the stairs aiming below a torchlight. That was a downright lie. And that’s the difference between protecting yourself/property and murder. Barras was shot in the back at a range of five meters or less, a distance away from the house as he was running away. He wasn’t shot in the house, or just outside. His body wasn’t found until the next day. That’s how far he was away from the house. Shooting someone in the back as they are running away is not self defence. The other one was shot in the arse so again, running away. And that’s not even taking into account his shotgun, which was illegally held and.... well somewhat uncompliant with current firearm regulations.
So if he’d shot them inside his house as he said it had happened, fair play. But that wasn’t the case.
martyn850 said:
As far as I’m concerned, if you’re breaking into a house you leave your rights at the door. Or the window or however you got in......
But, the whole discussion is about protecting yourself and your property. If it had gone down the way he said it had then he’d have an argument for self defence. However..... it didn’t go down like he said it did. He said he discharged his shotgun on the stairs aiming below a torchlight. That was a downright lie. And that’s the difference between protecting yourself/property and murder. Barras was shot in the back at a range of five meters or less, a distance away from the house as he was running away. He wasn’t shot in the house, or just outside. His body wasn’t found until the next day. That’s how far he was away from the house. Shooting someone in the back as they are running away is not self defence. The other one was shot in the arse so again, running away. And that’s not even taking into account his shotgun, which was illegally held and.... well somewhat uncompliant with current firearm regulations.
So if he’d shot them inside his house as he said it had happened, fair play. But that wasn’t the case.
Glad there's some sense being shared on this.But, the whole discussion is about protecting yourself and your property. If it had gone down the way he said it had then he’d have an argument for self defence. However..... it didn’t go down like he said it did. He said he discharged his shotgun on the stairs aiming below a torchlight. That was a downright lie. And that’s the difference between protecting yourself/property and murder. Barras was shot in the back at a range of five meters or less, a distance away from the house as he was running away. He wasn’t shot in the house, or just outside. His body wasn’t found until the next day. That’s how far he was away from the house. Shooting someone in the back as they are running away is not self defence. The other one was shot in the arse so again, running away. And that’s not even taking into account his shotgun, which was illegally held and.... well somewhat uncompliant with current firearm regulations.
So if he’d shot them inside his house as he said it had happened, fair play. But that wasn’t the case.
I hope people who watched this drama appreciate it was not based on the facts of the case, but the interviews with Martin after his arrest. His side of the story was fictional. I actually wondered if the contrast between the martin in the interview and the real Martin in the final interview were so different, were they suggesting he were putting on the act of a victim. There were interesting looks and reactions from the officers that suggested they didn't believe a word that was being said. A lot was proven to be false in the trial.
An interesting drama. I too found him creepy in the extreme.
Leicester Loyal said:
The shotgun license you are correct about, no defending it, but regardless of where he shot them, when you break into somebodies house, you lose your rights. No sympathy from me.
As I previously mentioned, you break into a property, you should be leaving your rights at the door. However they weren’t in his property when they were shot. He wasn’t even just outside the window. He wasn’t 10, 20 or even 30 meters away. He was found at the bottom of the garden shot in the back from a range of less than five meters. And that’s what’s wrong with it. He went after them, shot them and lied about it. It wasn’t self defence. He wasn’t in fear of his life. He wasn’t defending his property. He blatantly murdered someone. Someone gets killed while you’re protecting yourself/family/property then that’s their tough luck. Someone getting killed when you’ve actually been sitting in wait with a loaded shotgun and chased them down the garden isn’t self defence. Also he knew he’d killed someone. He didn’t mention that when he was arrested did he? Body was found in the afternoon the next day. He knew he’d done wrong, lied and was hoping to get away with it.
monthefish said:
AshVX220 said:
PositronicRay said:
I found the end interview chilling.
Indeed, he seemed to have absolutely no remorse, martyn850 said:
As far as I’m concerned, if you’re breaking into a house you leave your rights at the door. Or the window or however you got in......
But, the whole discussion is about protecting yourself and your property. If it had gone down the way he said it had then he’d have an argument for self defence. However..... it didn’t go down like he said it did. He said he discharged his shotgun on the stairs aiming below a torchlight. That was a downright lie. And that’s the difference between protecting yourself/property and murder. Barras was shot in the back at a range of five meters or less, a distance away from the house as he was running away. He wasn’t shot in the house, or just outside. His body wasn’t found until the next day. That’s how far he was away from the house. Shooting someone in the back as they are running away is not self defence. The other one was shot in the arse so again, running away. And that’s not even taking into account his shotgun, which was illegally held and.... well somewhat uncompliant with current firearm regulations.
So if he’d shot them inside his house as he said it had happened, fair play. But that wasn’t the case.
You've nailed it - what Tony Martin did was only just short of cold-blooded murder; I suspect he knew as much at the time and he certainly knew it afterwards.But, the whole discussion is about protecting yourself and your property. If it had gone down the way he said it had then he’d have an argument for self defence. However..... it didn’t go down like he said it did. He said he discharged his shotgun on the stairs aiming below a torchlight. That was a downright lie. And that’s the difference between protecting yourself/property and murder. Barras was shot in the back at a range of five meters or less, a distance away from the house as he was running away. He wasn’t shot in the house, or just outside. His body wasn’t found until the next day. That’s how far he was away from the house. Shooting someone in the back as they are running away is not self defence. The other one was shot in the arse so again, running away. And that’s not even taking into account his shotgun, which was illegally held and.... well somewhat uncompliant with current firearm regulations.
So if he’d shot them inside his house as he said it had happened, fair play. But that wasn’t the case.
I do strongly sympathise with him though - the police were not protecting him or his property from serial break-ins, so what was he supposed to do - keep getting burgled, giving warnings and then the next time warning shots, until it escalates into a shoot out inside his own home after having been woken up by intruders in the middle of the night?
IMO, a 16 year old with 29 convictions should not be walking the streets until they've proven they have changed their ways. I'm all for second chances, but sometimes our legal system is a joke.
AshVX220 said:
I think, for me anyway, that if someone were to burgle my house, even though they shouldn't be there etc and yes, they are scum of the highest order. But, if I were to shoot them and kill one of them, even a 16 year old chav. I'd be quite remorseful.
I think I'd be the same. I don't own a gun to go and shoot someone with, but I'd think that being involved in something which led to the death of someone else would trigger remorse in most people. The whole self-doubt around whether or not you could have acted differently to a different outcome. Like in a car crash, even if you aren't at fault, but someone else dies? That's got to be pretty horrendous. AshVX220 said:
monthefish said:
AshVX220 said:
PositronicRay said:
I found the end interview chilling.
Indeed, he seemed to have absolutely no remorse, I suspect many people's forgiving attitude is due to their lack of empathy with Martin. The guy had removed steps from his stairs to stop burglars coming upt to his room whilst he was asleep!
Some people choose to see that as the manifestations of a mental illness, I see it as a guy who is terrified of being attacked in his own home at night and feels defenseless to stop it.
The mental torture that comes with being burgled can't be imagined by anyone unless you've been in the situation. I did and still do understand why he did what he did and in a very black and white way of thinking, look at it as follows; if those 2 morons hadn't broken into his house, they wouldn't have been shot. It's not simply a case that he shot a random guy, these 2 were intent on stealing from his house and for that they deserve what they got whether they were running away or not.
eybic said:
The mental torture that comes with being burgled can't be imagined by anyone unless you've been in the situation. I did and still do understand why he did what he did and in a very black and white way of thinking, look at it as follows; if those 2 morons hadn't broken into his house, they wouldn't have been shot. It's not simply a case that he shot a random guy, these 2 were intent on stealing from his house and for that they deserve what they got whether they were running away or not.
OK... I've been burgled. It wasn't nice. I didn't feel like killing the blokes that did it
Shakermaker said:
AshVX220 said:
I think, for me anyway, that if someone were to burgle my house, even though they shouldn't be there etc and yes, they are scum of the highest order. But, if I were to shoot them and kill one of them, even a 16 year old chav. I'd be quite remorseful.
I think I'd be the same. I don't own a gun to go and shoot someone with, but I'd think that being involved in something which led to the death of someone else would trigger remorse in most people. The whole self-doubt around whether or not you could have acted differently to a different outcome. Like in a car crash, even if you aren't at fault, but someone else dies? That's got to be pretty horrendous. It goes without saying that killing someone is obviously one of the most traumatic events a person could go through, but being subject to repeated burglaries over years whilst living on your own in an isolated house, without any protection from the police, and not knowing when, how or what those career criminals will do whislt you are asleep is pretty close.
The guy slept fully clothed, with his shoes on and a gun under his bed, every night, terrified that someone was going to break in again, like they had so many times before.
I can only imagine that to take control of that situation and bring it to an end must be very relieving.
Shakermaker said:
eybic said:
The mental torture that comes with being burgled can't be imagined by anyone unless you've been in the situation. I did and still do understand why he did what he did and in a very black and white way of thinking, look at it as follows; if those 2 morons hadn't broken into his house, they wouldn't have been shot. It's not simply a case that he shot a random guy, these 2 were intent on stealing from his house and for that they deserve what they got whether they were running away or not.
OK... I've been burgled. It wasn't nice. I didn't feel like killing the blokes that did it
If not, I don't think you can compare your experience to Martin's.
Shakermaker said:
eybic said:
The mental torture that comes with being burgled can't be imagined by anyone unless you've been in the situation. I did and still do understand why he did what he did and in a very black and white way of thinking, look at it as follows; if those 2 morons hadn't broken into his house, they wouldn't have been shot. It's not simply a case that he shot a random guy, these 2 were intent on stealing from his house and for that they deserve what they got whether they were running away or not.
OK... I've been burgled. It wasn't nice. I didn't feel like killing the blokes that did it
eybic said:
Shakermaker said:
eybic said:
The mental torture that comes with being burgled can't be imagined by anyone unless you've been in the situation. I did and still do understand why he did what he did and in a very black and white way of thinking, look at it as follows; if those 2 morons hadn't broken into his house, they wouldn't have been shot. It's not simply a case that he shot a random guy, these 2 were intent on stealing from his house and for that they deserve what they got whether they were running away or not.
OK... I've been burgled. It wasn't nice. I didn't feel like killing the blokes that did it
I do see why he was convicted of muder though - the law simply doesn't allow for situations like his, or protect him from it. He was in a no win situation.
Shakermaker said:
eybic said:
The mental torture that comes with being burgled can't be imagined by anyone unless you've been in the situation. I did and still do understand why he did what he did and in a very black and white way of thinking, look at it as follows; if those 2 morons hadn't broken into his house, they wouldn't have been shot. It's not simply a case that he shot a random guy, these 2 were intent on stealing from his house and for that they deserve what they got whether they were running away or not.
OK... I've been burgled. It wasn't nice. I didn't feel like killing the blokes that did it
It really wasn't nice, however i'd have got over it.
The effect it had on my wife though - i'd have happily chased the blokes down the road and shot them.
irrelevant that they were shot in the back and one was found far from the house (he could have dragged himself away...) whats relevant (or should be) is where they had been and where they were fleeing from.
They had just burgled a terrified, bloke in the middle of no where who was multiple times a victim, with the police showing no interest.
Just shame he didn't get the other vermin too.
As for the neighbor who seemed to implicate him, whose to know what axe he has to grind...country folk have odd relationships with their neighbors, especially farming community.
They had just burgled a terrified, bloke in the middle of no where who was multiple times a victim, with the police showing no interest.
Just shame he didn't get the other vermin too.
As for the neighbor who seemed to implicate him, whose to know what axe he has to grind...country folk have odd relationships with their neighbors, especially farming community.
The Mad Monk said:
However
What were they doing there? They were there to rob (or is it burgle?) his house.
They were not an asset to the community.
Has the man who was shot but survived committed any more crime since this incident?
Oh yes, they weren’t there to spread the word of the lord! And certainly they were probably described as “loveable rogues”, “cheeky chappies” or “devoted dads” or some other sWhat were they doing there? They were there to rob (or is it burgle?) his house.
They were not an asset to the community.
Has the man who was shot but survived committed any more crime since this incident?
te. But....... the discussion is, when is it right to pull that trigger????1) as they are walking up the drive?
2) as they are breaking in?
3) when they are inside?
4) in the back as they are running away?
5) seeing them the next day in the street?
Personally I’m happy with two of those scenarios. Pull the trigger. And I’m sure some people here will even go as far as all 5 and understandably so, but does that make it the right thing to do?
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff