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
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
What exactly are you suggesting poster?
An excellent idea sunshine .......
Some people will go to extraordinary lengths to justify a cowardly act
EXACTLY what I was getting at. If I were at home and a stranger broke in endangering myself, my kids or a dog I know who I'd rather see get hurt (as a mother, picture your kids in danger).
It's not a case of whether it's right or wrong to shoot somebody, it's a case of self-defense....
But yeah, apart from if the firearm is ilegal, I don't believe it should be classed as murder because at the end of the day we should all have our own individual dutie to protect ourselves and our loved ones.
And Aladdin, defending one's home from a burglar is not the same as supporting the death penalty for burglary. :rolleyes:
Tony Martin was wrong to shoot Fred Barras. Fred Barras was wrong to burgle Tony Martin's house. Of course Martin should have phoned the police, but I can understand what he did, and why.
It is a natural human instinct to fight back when attacked. Whether the attack is perceived or real is only important in hindsight. It is too easy for us to examine all the facts now and tut tut at Martin for his actions. He shouldn't have held an illegal gun, he shouldn't have shot Fred Barras, but his home was being burgled and I can imagine the headlines had the situation been reversed: "Farmer attacked by burglar at isolated farmhouse".
Ever shoot anyone, yourself?
Or do you simply blather on about that which you have no experience/comprehension?
In the trial he claimed that he was blinded by their torchlight.
He lost his gun license after he shot a hole in the back of the vehicle of a man who had been scrumping his apples, and was trying to get away.
The response of most people to being burgled would be to secure their houses, so that it didn't happen again. His was to set booby traps inside the house......... and to rant in the pub about what he would do to the next burglars.
He had a pretty nasty line on travellers as well.
Is it okay to shoot at people scrumping apples?
Not with real bullets no. As I understand it in the states they train their police, and the same may be try here, to incapacitate with one shot an armed person, this normally means in the chest and is likely to be a killing shot. Personally, this seems like total bollocks, I don't pretend to be an expert but if you shoot someone in the legs what are they going to do about it without a gun of their own? Even if they did have a gun, are they going to be able to aim/pick it up at all?
Have you ever been shot yourself? Or do you think that because I think a killing shot is excessive in this case, I actually know nothing?
Right, so either way he couldn't see if the burglar was running away or still rummaging around downstairs.
No, I detest guns anyway, but his previous convictions shouldn't have affected his murder trial.
Of course there is more to this case than what was reported. He broke the law, and deserved to be convicted. But he was also a frightened man who was fed up of being burgled and robbed. He reacted in a way he saw fit, incomprehensible though it may seem to us.
Agreed, mostly
Make your mind up
Rather than taking steps to prevent another burglary, he took to sleeping with his clothes on, and his shotgun next to his bed - having already shot at a man fleeing him after being caugyt scrumping apples, theres a strong case for surmising that he wanted burglars to enter - so he could shoot them. Oh yes, and usually when you've got a torch you shine it in front of you, not behind you......
Considering that he used an illegal gun, the reasons for his license being revoked were relevant to the case.......
Tony Martin is a nasty piece of work, and it was right that he was banged up.
I don't know how that quote is contradictory.
I don't follow the logic. He shot a fleeing burglar which shows that he wanted burglars to come?
Agreed, so Fred Barras was facing him, not running away?
Fair enough. Fred Barras was a shining example of how to behave. They were both wrong. I accept that Martin was not right to shoot a burglar but i can understand why he did.
No, Tony Martin was telling lies.
Fred Barras was, at the end of the day, a 16 year old lad .........
16/60 he shouldn't have been there.
Can we talk about Tony Martin's belief that Hitler was "right about gypsies", and about his desire to round up gypsies in a barbed wire enclosure and gun them down with sub-machine guns instead please?
Something like "why should frightened people take precautions to stop people entering their houses", perhaps?
time to leave the thread then ?
Bye......close the door on your way out
Now now becky boo, you know when you say things like that they only come back an response to it 'cuttingly'.
sorry, couldnt resist it
You are norty!:p
who exactly is they?
Isn't it time you got over your paranoia?
And I asked you a question ........
As for Martin's views on Hitler and gypsies, I'm guessing the line goes, "well I don't agree with them, but I understand why he had them."
Am I right?
Zzzz.
If you want to shoot someone at actaully hit the target while defending yourself or property you are not going to have the time to take careful aim at their legs.
Becasue if you miss you may not have the chance again.
Strangely enough, the facts of the latest case contradict you entirely:
If you're the only one with a gun, you can afford to fire a warning shot, if the target then advances on you in a life threatening way, you can kill him.
Going straight for the kill in that situation is most definitely not "reasonable force"
Nor is shooting him in the back.
Some of you keep missing the point. The whole issue regarding Tony Martin's case isn't about whether someone has the right to defend themselves and their property. It's about whether homeowners should have the 'right' to shoot people dead on purpose as punishment or deterrent to others for the grand crime of burglary.
Because, and I'm getting rather tired of repeating this, the Court found that Martin wasn't defending himself, shooting in confusion or in a threatening situation. He saw the kid run away, took careful aim at him and shot him in the back.
No self-defence. No life-threatening situation. No confusion. Plain, cold blooded murder.
And a long way premeditated as well, since Martin had said on numerous occasions he intended to shoot the next intruder.
And anyone who in spite of these findings still maintains that Martin should have not been found guilty and that he should be entitled to murder someone for trespassing, is in effect advocating the death penalty for burglars with no right to trial or appeal and is a nasty piece of work with an appalling disregard for the value of human life IMO.