Tony Martin

Former Member

Tony Martin will be released soon. I was wondering what everyone thinks about this.

1) Did he deserve to go to prison? If so on what charge?

2) What do you think about him being sued by the theif he shot?


I would say that although it is unfortunate that Fred Barras, who was only 16 was killed, everyone has a right to protect their home. I think maybe it would have been different if he had a wife and children to protect.
If someone broke into my flat then I wouldn't think twice about using a wooden baton I have (Souvenir from Spain!) to protect
my home and more importantly myself. If that person died then I wouldn't expect to be carted off to prison.

I think judges should be getting tougher and protecting the decent people of Britain.
Lord Chief Justice Lord Woolf kept Tony Martin inside but released the Bulger killers. Hmmmm...

Former Member

Indeed, everyone has the right to defend their home.

However, premeditated murder is not the same thing.

Personally, in case you hadn't guessed, I have no sympathy for Mr Martin in so far as he was imprisoned. This doesn't mean that I support the current legal action being taken against him.

BTW The Bulger killers case, and Tony Martin's cannot be linked. That both of these boys served 8 years - the original sentence whereas Mratin sentence has been reduced should be noted...

Former Member

I would question that it was premeditated murder!!!!

Former Member

Originally posted by dantheman
I would question that it was premeditated murder!!!!

Well the jury would disagree with you. It was a judge who reduced things, remember.

But having a loaded gun, shooting someone in the back (therefore not in self defence) and having a house which was effectively on big trap kind of point towards alittle preparation. Wouldn't you say?

Former Member

Yeah I can understand where you're coming from, but this guy was completely vulnerable, no protection from the police, been robbed before etc.

Former Member

No justification though, I'm afraid.

Oh I understand why he did what he did, but that doesn't excuse going to the extremes which he went to.

He shot an unarmed man, in the back. That's pretty low...

Rarely will you find that justifiable.

Former Member

Neither of them should have been there, and I believe that Martine had every right to defend his home and himself. Where was the evidence that he prepared it all? he woke up, went to the stairs and saw 2 shadowy figures at the bottom and shot. How could he have known which way they were facing?

I dont believe the kid deserved to die, but then i don't believe Martin should have been punished for it. As for Fearon, he's a dirty piece of shit, and I hope he can't have sex ever again, so he doesn't pollute the world with his offspring. Breaking into someone's home is one thing, suing the owner because it ruined your sex life is another.

Former Member

Regardless of how disgusting burglaries are (I was the victim of one not so long ago) NOTHING justifies anyone shooting someone in the back as they were running away. That is shooting to kill, i.e. murder.

That he got his sentence commuted to manslaughter is little short of a disgrace and a capitulation to the ultra right wing press- the very same press, I should add, that cry endlessly about murderers being let out early.

The surviving burglar is a scumbag and he should not be allowed to take the piss and jump on the compensation wagon like that. But that is a separate issue from the sentence served to Martin.

Former Member

Well no, the belief of the right, and myself is that criminals don't deserve the same rights as the law abiding. Apart from the right to life, but they should forfeit all others.
Why should a mugger be able to claim benefits? Why should a burglar get access to free law advice? If found guilty they should be forced to pay for it all, either in money, property or liberty.

I hate the way that criminals are treated touchy feely, how people see crime and realise they won't be caught, and if they are they won't be punished.
I hate the way that someone who is burgled gets nothing, whilst the criminal can sue if he tripped on a frayed carpet. i know that usually they will get nothing, but they shouldn't even be allowed to try.

AARRRGGGH

Former Member

Originally posted by dantheman
I would question that it was premeditated murder!!!!

Premeditation is not a necessity under English law. All that is required is "malice aforethought." Even if the intent to kill had only been formed a split second before he pulled the trigger, it could still qualify as murder. Specifically, there are four possible situations that constitute malice aforethought in the legal definition;

"1) The suspect intended to kill, or
2)The suspect intended to do an act knowing that it was probable that it would kill any person, or
3)The suspect intended to cause grievous bodily harm [serious injury] to any person, or
4)The suspect intended to do an act knowing that it was probable that it would cause grievous bodily harm to any person."
source

Nowhere is it mentioned that the suspect has to plan anything in advance for it to be legally considered murder instead of manslaughter.

Former Member

When I was younger I was outraged that this person was charged and convicted, but now that I am older and (hopefully!) a little wiser, I understand more about the case. I think a lot of people based their opinions on the "facts" reported in the tabloids.

Former Member

Tony Martin should NOT have been sent to prison. The thief violated Martin's right to property and should have accepted his injuries.

Does the burglar think HE has a right to violate others' property?

Former Member

.

Former Member

I don't think that at all.

Former Member

.

Former Member

Originally posted by monocrat
Tony Martin should NOT have been sent to prison. The thief violated Martin's right to property and should have accepted his injuries.

Does the burglar think HE has a right to violate others' property?

Does Tony Martin think HE has a right to take other people's lives?

Former Member

If they violate his property, then why not?

Former Member

Because a human life is worth more than an old TV?

Former Member

Originally posted by monocrat
The thief violated Martin's right to property and should have accepted his injuries.

Kind of difficult when you are dead



~~~~

@ *WhoWhere*. I presume that you have never, ever broken a single law in your life. Never dropped a piece of litter? Because if you had, by your own argument, you have forfitted any rights which you currently have.

Former Member

Originally posted by Aladdin
Because a human life is worth more than an old TV?

Then it should be a warning to people to respect the property rights of others.

Kind of difficult when you are dead

But Martin's victim did not die. In my view he was simly punished for not respecting others' right to property.

Former Member

Originally posted by monocrat
But Martin's victim did not die. In my view he was simly punished for not respecting others' right to property.

And now Martin is being punished (as a warning to others) for not respecting others' right to life.

So what is your point?

Former Member

Well a person could possibly forfeit their right to life if they violate another's right to property. Certainly a person has the RIGHT to defend their property rights.

As I said earlier, the burglar cannot possibly think he has a right to violate others property rights. He should be ADULT and rational enough to realise that he got punished for violating someone's right to property.

Former Member

I think if someone breaks into your house while you are home, you have the right to defend yourself to the fullest extent. How could anyone tell in the dark whether a person is there to merely rob them. What would be the danger of passing a law that says if a stranger breaks into your house, you have the right to kill him/her? Would we see innocent strangers being killed more often...of would we see a drop in burglaries.

Former Member

probably both pnj, I think reasonable force should be allowed but its a difficult one as most people suddenly finding their homes being burgled are not going to act reasonably or rationally. Sad but true.

Former Member

Originally posted by pnjsurferpoet
I think if someone breaks into your house while you are home, you have the right to defend yourself to the fullest extent. How could anyone tell in the dark whether a person is there to merely rob them. What would be the danger of passing a law that says if a stranger breaks into your house, you have the right to kill him/her? Would we see innocent strangers being killed more often...of would we see a drop in burglaries.

Sorry but anyone who enters another property without permission should face the consequences of doing so, even if they are not there to 'merely rob them'.

Former Member

Originally posted by monocrat
Well a person could possibly forfeit their right to life if they violate another's right to property. Certainly a person has the RIGHT to defend their property rights.

"could" isn't th word though, monocrat. Under British law the word is "doesn't"

You forfeit you right to freedom, not life.

He should be ADULT and rational enough to realise that he got punished for violating someone's right to property.

Again, a little difficult to be rational when you are dead.

In fact, I think you often prove that it is difficult to be rational when you are alive too

Former Member

Originally posted by Man Of Kent
"could" isn't th word though, monocrat. Under British law the word is "doesn't"

You forfeit you right to freedom, not life.

And? A person has the right to defend their property.

Again, a little difficult to be rational when you are dead.

In fact, I think you often prove that it is difficult to be rational when you are alive too

I'm always rational.

Burglars should face the consequences of their actions. You should only expect to have your rights upheld if you respect the rights of others.

Former Member

Im impressed that the whole lot of you ahve singularly failed to address the real issue here. Its not about property rights, its not about the right to live, its about what Martin did.

Under the law you are entitled to defend your home to a reasonable standard- you are entitled to install alarms, electric fences, and so on. You are not allowed to booby-trap your land, though. Martin booby-trapped his home- removing the middle steps from his staircase and replacing them with a rabbit trap and a stepladder is not a reasonable precaution.

Under the law you are entitled to defend yourself to a reasonable standard, but you must not use more force than is necessary. If Martin had warned Barras to not approach him or he would shoot, and Barras had ignored these warnings, then Martin would have been entitled under the law to shoot Barras in self-defence. However, disturbing the burglars then chasing after them shooting at them is not acting in self-defence- it is unlawful killing.

The level of Martin's unlawful killing was determined by the factors in the individual case. He had been burgled several times before, and had been known to swear revenge on the next burglar. He laid in bed with the gun loaded, the safety catch off, with shoes on, waiting to apprehend the next burglar. The victim does not have to be known for the killing to be premeditated- Martin intended to injure, and possibly kill, the next burglar. That is premeditated, regardless of the identity of the next intruder.

Ergo, Martin should have been jailed for unlawful killing. Whether it was murder or manslaughter is a fine line- the premeditation would indicate murder, but many believe he merely intended to apprehend Barras and "teach him a lesson", not actually kill him- meaning the charge should have been manslaughter. Martin comiited a very serious criminal offence regardless, and was punished accordingly, with all mitigating circumstances taken into account.

As for the damages, the simple way would be for Martin to counter-sue the other burglar for trespass, and for nominal damages to be awarded for the injuries caused by Martin. Then the trespass should be found against severly, thereby teaching the robber a lesson. Thatd be the easy way of solving this conundrum, but no law could be passed prohibiting trespassers suing for damages without damaging the whole fabric of the law, and the doctrine of reasonable care.

And I do wish all this bullshit about property rights being supreme would stop now.