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
Man who killed armed intruder jailed
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/news/stories/Detail_LinkStory=85176.html
What are your thoughts on this?
I think its absolute madness if you can't defend yourself and your own property. The police can't do their job and soon get pissed off when we do it for them.
What are your thoughts on this?
I think its absolute madness if you can't defend yourself and your own property. The police can't do their job and soon get pissed off when we do it for them.
0
Comments
The man was found in an alley- that means the homeowner didn't try and get help. That shows a lack of remorse, which could increase a jail sentence.
The policeman comments on the severity of the circumstances- that indicates that there was more to it than simply protecting oneself against an intruder, even if the intruder was armed.
There is always more to it than meets the eye. I shall have to wait for the case notesd to be published before deciding me thinks.
However in cases like Tony Martin's, where someone shoots a burglar on the back as he runs away, there is no excuse whatsoever and the perpetrator should be punished.
Prisons are supposed to house people who are a menace to society, he didn't go out to murder someone. The situation was thrown upon him.
If someone breaks into my house tonight and I hit him round the head with something it'll be me who goes to jail. I might even get sued. Its out of order.
One stab would have imobilised the intruders arm enough to stop him from using a gun, 4 is going over the top. He did kill somebody after all.
He should be grateful that's all he got.
Yes people should be allowed to defend their homes and i am in full favour of people having the right to bear arms, I know some people wouldn't be mentally able to have a gun but there would be some sort of system check before a person was granted a gun but you could argue that someone anywhere could just snap and go and get their legally obtainted gun and there could be a repeat of the Columbine massacre.
But maybe he didn't have the gun?
The murderer could have just lost the plot and gone over the top in the heat of the moment.
:yes:
i agree with that
if you don't want to get hurt or die ...don't go out intentionaly frightening people in their homes. if you come and rob my house theres every chance i will go over the top and kill you ...not intentionaly but ...
i have two females to protect and i won't be asking you a series of questions to see what your intentions are.
the moment you break into my house you loose all rights as far as i'm concerned.
do any of you actualy have any experience of the sort of fear your mind goes into in these situations?
your sat at home minding your own and next thing the action of some mindless fucking scumbag lands YOU in clink ...can't be right.
The thing is, that doesn't happen. If someone threatens you and you protect yourself with REASONABLE FORCE then that is a defence. Self-defence negates any charge of battery or homicide, providing you don't go overboard with the force.
If the facts of the case are as laid out then the jury was badly directed by the trial judge, and there would be grounds for appeal. But, as I suspect, there is more to it than that, then the jury would be correct to find the man guilty of manslaughter.
Don't forget it isn't the "system" that jails people like this- it is the jury. Twelve normal common people.
The jury convicts. The judge then, usually, has to deliver a tariff based on guidelines relating to that conviction. Ah, the joy of mandatory sentences :rolleyes:
The story doesn't explain what happened very much- in fact, the lack of detail is rather dubious, to be honest. But for a judge to give eight years, when Tony Martin only received four, indicates to me that something more than self-defence happened.
I know it's not a fashionable opinion to hold, but generally judges get the tariffs spot on, given the Home Office's guidelines and precedent. Members of the public generally give sentences 30% stiffer than judges (find the source yourself, I heard it from a respected defence solicitor), so if the public were jailing this guy he'd have got 11 years- he must have done something hefty for that.
Aboustely right.