If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Tony Martin Fans?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I am a "Tony Martin Supporter" and I'm thinking about buying his book.
Do you think he was right to shoot and kill that 16 year old kid?
I think so.
I read in the Daily Mail a special report about ESACTLY what happend and it was very interesting.
So do you think he was right to be thrown in jail or was he only protecting himself?
His case just shows how much we need a law to allow home owners to use "reasonable force" to protect them selvs if you ask me.
Do you think he was right to shoot and kill that 16 year old kid?
I think so.
I read in the Daily Mail a special report about ESACTLY what happend and it was very interesting.
So do you think he was right to be thrown in jail or was he only protecting himself?
His case just shows how much we need a law to allow home owners to use "reasonable force" to protect them selvs if you ask me.
0
Comments
Ha ive read Martin has said he is going to stand as an MP:rolleyes:
how long was he in prison for? If he was in for less than a year he can stand
Anyway what he did i think was wrong, he shouldn't have shot him, maybe attack him, kick the fuck out of him but shoot him while he's running away...hmm no.
He's a murderer.
He shot that kid in the back when he was running away. He'd also previously been done for firearms offences.
If you think thats right, you need professional help. Maybe for them "voices" in your head. :rolleyes:
No, he shot him in the back.
Please get your facts right.
Yes, householders are entitled to use reasonable force, but shooting an unarmed boy who was RUNNING AWAY does not constitute reasonable force in anyone's book. If the boy had been armed and drawing on a weapon then yeah, maybe Martin would have had a point, but those weren't the facts. Martin kept a loaded weapon under his pillow with the sole intention of committing serious harm to an intruder- that fulfils both the mens rea and actus reus for murder.
And murder he should have been jailed for. He's not a "people's hero" to anyone except the HateMail and Richard Littledick- he is murdering filth who got away with it.
Oh, and makaveli, if you don't think that householders are entitled to use reasonable force then I suggest reading a law textbook or two. Reasonable force is a defence against the charges of assault, battery or murder, among others, but reasonable force actually ahs to be used. Sadly, idiots seem tot hink that shooting intruders is perfectly reasonable, and idiots seem to think that battering an intruder within an inch of his life is reasonable force. It isn't- it never has been, and never will be.
Personally I think he's a child murderer, simple as that, and deserves all the scorn that normally implies.
What is interesting is that most of his supporters are from the reactionary right-wing of UK politics. People who claim law and order is important and that criminal should be punished. Yet I haven't heard of anyone comdemning him for this illegal act...
If he had shot to stop the boy then I would've supported him fully but he went too far. Shotguns tend to remove whole swaves of the anatomy, not slow down an escaping criminal. I think he was a man on the edge and he was going to do what he was going to do. What he did though was half justified/ half criminal.
Use reasonable force by all means.
But a whole new question is how would the law define reasonable force?
tony martin was obviously terrified by these teenagers, i think he had been burgled before by them, hes not a young guy either and wouldnt have stood much a chance against two fit young boys if he wanted to fight them, he obviously did what he did due to the fear the burglaries had instilled in him. he was defending his property and i think everyone has that right to some extent, but he should never have killed the lad.
The use of force which is equal to or less than that of your attacker.
If someone comes at you with a knife then it's a free for all, however this is the crux:
IF you resume your attack once you have finished defending yourself you're fucked in the eyes of the law.
If someone tries to stab you and you knock them out you can't start kicking them when they are on the floor.
Likewise shooting someone facing away from you isn't self defence
Tony Martin's case seems also perfectly clear: Confronted the burglars, burglars ran away, Martin took aim carefully and shot the lad in the back with a shotgun as if he were a rabid dog.
A clearer case of murder you won't find. Self-defense (as some claim) my hairy arse.
Both kids (I say kids, one was about 25 and a career criminal) were shot in the back and leg when they were shot (in the dark) the guy shot in the leg jumped out the window and ran for his life. The 16 age boy climbed out the window and fell to the ground and crawld over to shelter where he fel unconscious and died...After about half an hour. Not, as people say he was dead in miniuts.
Tony Martin asumed they both got away and didint bother phoning the police for some time, if the guy who escaped had called the police to tell them his "friend" had been shot an ambulince could have saved his life. But no he got in the car and left him for dead.
And to Aladdin:
Know wonder no one take you serioulsy when you post terrribly un funny and inofensive childish pictures like that.
We are all debating Tony Martins case.
And then theres you.
And I hardly think that Tony Martin's book counts as a reliable source.
We're talking about wether a man with a shotgun of all weapons is justified in shooting someone in the back.
The majority, including the police believe it isn't. It wasn't as dark as you think, it was light enough for him to get a well aimed shot in, twice.
Most people agree Tony Martin was in the right. Acording to all the polls I've seen by various papers. Even radio 4's vote in had over 50% voting for a new "Tony Martin Law".
Here are some more views I found...:
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,15410-1098329,00.html
Lucky T Martin did have a shotgun, or he could have ended up like this guy.
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-12990363,00.html
Get this straight: the jury found out that Martin shot the kid in back as he as fleeing. No mitigating circumstances. No excuse. Cold-blooded murder. Deal with it my dear.
It is extremely amusing that you present this as evidence: Do you expect anyone to take you seriously?
And let's examine these 'polls' shall we? We all know the significance of the Radio 4 poll- which has been universally acknowledged as hijacked. 26,000 measly votes, most of them from the 'Free the Murdering cunt' campain that only produced the result it did because human beings were celebrating Christmas and couldn't be arsed to vote.
And what else can you present? Well, some opinions from Rupert Murdoch's Sky News website. That organ well known for accurately reading the nation's pulse.
Must do better I'm afraid.