Missi
It's not that simple is it?
I'm sure that he could've stopped him without killing him. I do believe that we don't know what the boy was doing. He may have been going to get something to go for Martin.
There are no right or wrong answers.
I do know that I would protect my family.
He didn't know he'd even hit him until the body was found the next day, let alone killed him. If the boy had been a law-abiding kid at home with his parents where he should have been it wouldn't have happened. It's no use keep blaming Martin for it. I'm sorry but it IS as simple as that, and the other sack of crap suing for £100,000 is a bloody disgrace. I have no respect for the laws and courts of this country as it is; they don't deserve any, but if this case goes ahead it will prove beyond doubt that justice is something this country knows nothing about.
I do agree that the boy shouldn't have been there & the other one is being ridculous trying to sue. I do think that all the talk about innocence is crap.
But, I would hate to think that should one of my children stupidly take up a life of crime, that they'd die like that.
Life isn't fair or just. Living in this world teaches me that, if nothing else.
I have two sons of my own, the eldest has had a few scrapes with the law, nothing serious but a few scrapes nevertheless. I told him, and the younger one too, if you break the law you have to pay the price, I won't defend you. We all have to behave in this world or face the consequences. I will not advocate leniency because one of mine might be next in the dock. I would treat my own children exactly the same as yours. I expect dicko will trap off about my principles and suggest that his are superior but I'll live with mine anyway.
Okay I just have two questions
was this all about a burglary? As in just some stuff that was probably insured or was it something more sinister?
and, why exactly did this man feel the need to have a gun in his house anyway?
What is wrongly intruding into all of this is a prejudicial consideration of the personal characteristics of Martin and the burglars.
No-one can blame Martin for shooting at those men as we would all have done the same, but when we sympathise with him it is more through personal anger than anything else. Often his defenders simply sound misanthropic in a general sense; itching to shoot anyone who looks at them funny.
The law must be above this. It cannot in any circumstances be legal to kill someone - it is too dangerous. There are bound to be 'injustices' but these are surely safeguards for the rest of us. If I acted as Martin did I would surely expect to go to prison, but for a reduced term. This I would understand as a necessary sacrifice for protecting my family.
Unfortunately the law protects all of us, including Barras and his ilk. Martin's crime was understandable, but that doesn't make it right.
Come on Vicky, the guy had been burgled several times already. Thieves get to know what houses they can rob with impunity and go back again and again. As for insured, most insurance companies either decline to insure bad risks such as Tony Martin or raise the premium so high it isn't worth the cost. Most farmers have shotguns, they use them to control vermin, rats and such like. I used to be a village blacksmith and worked on most of the farms in my part of Essex. I didn't know a farmer without a gun, it's part of country life, I also didn't know one without a dog or two either.
These two twerps what was on their previous criminal records.
Did ABH or GBH appear on either of these ned heads records.
I fail to see what Mr Martin did that was wrong.
I would probably use a gun to defend my family, but certainly not my property. Although I agree with Grec who said that we should never shoot people in the back I strongly disagree about "in no danger". I would warn first, once...
Sorry George, I love you but we aint gonna agree on this one.
I've been burgled no less than 5 times in my life. I don't care. They can have the ruddy lot that I sweated to buy with my piddly little money.
It's just stuff George.
And farmer or no, anyone who thinks it's a good idea to have a gun in their home should, by definition, be refused a licence.
Also mob justice makes me feel very ill inside.
First of all Tracey Louise, I was being sarcastic.
Come on Flash. You're better than this. I'm assuming, since the bullet was found he was in back, (pretty indisputable), he was shot in the back. Plus there's the evidence of a witness; hardly an impartial one, but neither is Martin, and he can't remember a f**king thing anyway - so he's sod all use.
Look, Missi, while I lock horns with you in intellectual debate, I am your superior; you may not like it but it's true.
But if you have a gun, I'm MORE scared of you than you are with me.
Ya see, guns cause regrettable death in the spare of the moment. If you're glad of that, fine. Get a gun, you freak.
Ask America.
I'm a teetotal Wuss Belle, i couldn't drink if i tried, if i drunk more two pints i'd probably think Anne Widdicombe was attractive. No the little description in brackets was of you not me.
What is an afterschock?
I'm sorry Flash, I'm not reading an article that describes the burglars as "gypsies" and talks about self-defense (sic) when this is clearly not the issue.
Read something English. Americans are crazy.
Just got back from the pub have we? All juiced up like every Friday night? It probably makes you feel good to think you're superior dicko but nobody here apart from the 'other' two why's men would agree with I suspect. You are a self-confessed junkie. A nasty objectionable little shi.t. A pathetic little nobody. I very much doubt that you are superior to anybody, least of all me. If there's any freaks on this site you're it.
For your information shot guns do not fire 'bullets'.
My apologies, an in group of one is rather jargony(and as you rightly point out goes against normal usage) I suppose,just used the phrases that first occured to me.The basic point ,which might be wrong , is that views on this subject will depend on how people judge the relative validity of different groups and this is tied in to a lot of views that are unprovable so we shouldn't expect a resolution.
As for American craziness, arms races are a normal reaction where the justice system is not efficient.
Labels for groups that are poorly thought of change quickly as former labels become insulting.So already traveller can be used as a term of abuse.
This is a bit less precise than my earlier post but hopefully cleare.Once again,sorry, I'm so used to jargony conversations I forget some people are busy having lives.
Oh by the way on a personal note I'm not sure killing people you don't care about is wrong.
Give 'em enough rope, eh? Heh heh.
I don't care about the technicalities of what guns shoot; I just know they kill people.
And no, I've been in with Karen, messing with decks, and I've had a few wines half an e.
You should try it, Missi. You might end up being not angry at someone.
I actually think you're okay, a good guy; just a bit, ahem, "misguided".
Flash
Come on. Even a teetotaller knows what an after shock is, you're messing about.
but in case you're not, it's a pink or blue or red liquor which tastes disgusting but is an indication of whether you can hold your drink. You have to drink it straight down.
Never mind that, how did your date go?
(And yes I am patronising, but only when someone thoroughly deserves it. Someone who has patronised hundreds of newcomers with a furioous inferiority complex (justified) might be a candidate; of course, I'm not naming names.)
come on ralphie why does missi get the blame for everything? you can do better than that surely? ok, perhaps not, have a nice time in Edinburgh, don't forget to wash your tongue between bums.
Sadie Hi, well yes.What's wrong is very subjective and people have always killed with abandon those outside their group.This seems to be the normal human behaviour.For larger societies(hope there are no sociologists here -I'll get pounded)laws are necessary to constrain individuals for the sake of benefits to some.However the law is not morality.There may be a very good moral rather than practical reasons against killing but I don't know what they are.I didn't mean to imply that I feel its okay, just that I don,t know because of my lack of exposure to a good argument on it.I'm not very sure of anything to be frank.
Vicky, every Friday night the schoolteacher gets pissed, takes drugs and gets trappy. Most Saturday mornings he wakes up and remembers his previous nights exploits and feels very silly. He comes over all apologetic and blames it on the booze. Some people never grow up.
Ooohh some of you young people do make me cross, specially you Greco. I've just spent half an hour reading and your arguments hold no water whatever. When we fought Jerry during the war it was for ungrateful wretches such as yourself. I don't mind telling you that during the battl;e of Britain we pranged the buggers - sorry for my language - and we didn't say oh he's already dropped all hios bombs we'll let him go home now. We blew Jerry out of the sky so that people of your stripe could live in a free country. We pranged him before he dropped his bombs and after he dropopedhis bombs and we did it for you. And if its the same for your country then its the same for your house. If an enemy bomber was heading home to Germany we still attacked him./
Why?
As you OOjhhhhhhh b yopu makje me so cross
AS a warning not to co,e again. As a warning not to try and attack England. And Tony Martibn shot the Gypsies as a warning to other burglars not to attack his farmhouse. And answer me this why shouldn't you call gypsies gypsies and what do you base your opinioin that all americans are crazy on.
Answer me. I am veryt cross
And ralph, I don't think your a nice person. You should watch your lanfguage. And try not to be such a big head.
i have a lot of sympathy for decent honest householders in all of this, but i saw tOny martin on tv the other night and he came across as anything but - a thoRoughly unpleasant individual. how could anyone who takes the life of a 16-year-old - no maTter what the circumstances - not feel a twinge of regret. a lot of his ansWers were evasive and dishonest, the subteXt being that he was out for revenge and to hell with the consequences.
that attiTude might appeal to the vigilante in all of us, but it's going to take our society down a very sorry path very fast. as more householders aRm themselves and sHoot burglars, what do you think Burglars are going to do? exactly, we are going to seE an escalation in violence.
he describes himseLf as a farmer - what a joke. he is little more than a glorified sQuatter in his own home.
Will you make your mind up? Which are you, Peter or Frank? There was no need to apologise though, to be honest I was taking the p.iss just a little bit. Sorry.
Can you confirm that, racially, they were gypsies, Sadie? If so, fine, I don't mind them being called gypsies. If not, I take exception to burglars being called gypsies, just because they have stolen something, implying that gypsies are ALWAYS thieves. I have an inkling, the writer of this article was using the word "gypsy" to mean "scumbag" which I don't particularly like.
Americans are crazy because they have this philosophy: if Joe Burglar has a gun, you better own a gun, just in case they shoot at you; and then Joe Burglar thinks, best have a gun, just in case Joe Burglar-anticipator has a gun. And then Joe-Burglar-anticipator thinks...
It's the philosophy of stupid people.
Is there anything else that OOjhhhhhhh b yopu makje you so cross (sic) or is that enough punishment for someone who doesn't think arguments through whilst tasting the delights of alcohol?
Pages