We live in a society in which the system of jurisprudence has broken down - revenge is ok on an international scale - ie what has happened in Iraq but not ok on a personal one. If Blair can kill then why can't we?
You really are avoiding the question, aren't you?
Look, I'm a teacher. And I agree. Usually - and I stress usually - when there's nothing you can do with a kid, it's cause the parents have f**ked up - have let something go, given up, caused an awful spiral. But everyone makes the odd mistake.
But let me ask these questions, and tell me, HONESTLY, how many you can say yes too?
Have you ever done anything illegal as an adult?
Have you ever done anything, as an adult, you're thoroughly ashamed of?
Have you ever taken drugs or drunk excessively as an adult?
Have you ever lost control of a situation, as an adult?
Have you ever taken something that isn't yours, as an adult?
If you can answer yes to most of these, then you must accept we are capable of mistakes as adults, despite the exemplary upbringings we had. I can answer yes to all of these.
If we're capable of drink/drug-taking, then we're capable of becoming addicts, and getting ourselves into a pickle. I never did. You probably didn't. Maybe we were lucky, strong-willed, whatever, but it CAN happen to people and you never know if you'll be one of the unlucky ones. It just happens.
But we all have put ourselves out there.
Now, let's assume, your kids are strong-willed. They're not addicted to anything, they're never going to burgle, because you taught them well that stealing is wrong. But let's say, one of your kids gets pissed - it happens - gets in with the wrong crowd - it happens - trespasses onto someone's land, throws things at the windows (haven't we all done stuff LIKE this) and maybe even worse (peer pressure is stronger than anything you can exert sometimes - maybe not consistently, but there are moments of madness)
how would you feel, if the owner got the heebee geebees, and (due to Martin's reccent example, shotgun at the ready) killed your child?
Please don't give me the he-was-a-smackhead-burglar, can't happen to one of mine business...all kids can get themselves into scrapes, no matter what you've taught them. Kids are extremely stupid. Your hair would stand on end if you knew EVERYTHING your kids got up to.
And if we look up to Martin in any way, this is MORE likely to happen to your child. More guns, more twitchy trigger fingers.
Don't let this happen.
We needed a clear message on this. Cold-blooded murder needs to be treated as murder.
I'm really glad you bring up your kids right.
It's a shame this kid didn't get the same chances. It's a shame this kid didn't get to put things right.
R.I.P.
Because hopefully civilised human beings have more moral fibre than Blair, Bush and Martin.
Whatever the circumstances, whoever the intruder, was the contents of Martin's house or the protection of his property more important than a young person's life? I doubt it.
It's not a question of possessions.
If someone breaks into my house, my priority is to protect my kids.
They can take the whole bloody house if they want to, but how do I know they're not going to attack my children?
I would protect my child with my life.
If it was us or him, I would kill.
If you break into someone's house, your rights diminish somewhat.
I would not shoot a boy in the back.
I would not own a gun.
I'm not a farmer.
Cold blooded murderer who should have been imprisoned for ten years(or more). Maybe society should ask what drives an indigneous people to commit so much crime. The race of people where that boy belonged are one of the most put down people in Europe with bigotry and predjudice directed against them at every turn. What i think is scary is some farmer who can get so much publicity while trying to justify the shooting of a sixteen year old boy in the back. The neo right wing brigade will try and have field day on the back of this. Piers Morgan has a lot to answer for.
I don't doubt htat Tony Martin was wrong & he probably took pleasure in killing the boy, but the fact remains that he should not have been in the house in the first place.
I wouldn't own a gun & wouldn't shoot someone in the back, but at the same time, no one has the right to break into my house.
That's not what I'm saying.
Martin shot him in the back & I'm not condoning that. He murdered the boy & I've already said that was wrong & at the end of the day he caused his death. I assume & can only assume because I don't know the guy tht as a farmer, he would've been able to shoot him in the leg to stop him then call the police.
I've also said I would not own a gun.
But what I am saying is this boy was not innocent. He may have been unfortunate, a victim in another way but not innocent.
Have you got children?
You can't blame all parents for their children doing stupid things.
Children can be guided, not controlled. They are people not robots. As a teacher you must see children who are being guided correctly but still don't listen.
Some people make mistakes, some are just plain nasty.
Right
When I was at Glastonbury a few weeks ago. A man broke into my tent (whilst I was in it) and stole my wallet.
What you are saying Sabelle is that I had the right to shoot him in the back if I chose to because it was my property.
Come on.
Ralph
Soldiers follow orders to murder. Martin was using illegal means to exercise his own laws. If we all did this as opposed to just talking about it there would be no need for contraception.
I don't think that is what Sabelle is saying, Ralph - she is merely saying that no one has the right to break into your property - it is a violation "I wouldn't own a gun and wouldn't shoot someone in the back" she is not condoning what Martin did, but she IS saying that no-one has the right to violate your private space - and I whoeheartedly agree - so where was she saying you had the right to shoot the man who entered your tent??? I can;t see it myself.
Also, on the issue of children, I know it would do whatever was necessary to protect child members of my family. I do not own a gun - but I would do anything to protect them.
I also think the idea of perpetrators sueing the owners of the property they break into is outrageous. I have two dogs - we also have a notice clearly displayed saying so. If somebody decides not to heed the notice, breaks in regardless and is attacked by pets instinctively defending their territory - do they have a right to sue? I think NOT. Our pets' insurance policy actually has a clause that states if your pet corners a burgler, they receive a £500 reward. We become more and more litigious - another example of us mimicking The USA where everyone sues everyone for anything!!
load of tosh blaming what happenened in childhood Stephen_d.
I should know. I, acording to statistics would be able to get away with murder.
Battered (by mother), sexually abused (by mother's numerous lovers) , unloved, father missing, the list goes on and on.
And I nervously say I have grown up a caring and loving person.
I abhor violence. BUT I WILL STAND UP AND BE COUNTED TO PROTECT ME FAMILY AND FRIENDS. ALWAYS.
PS......waatched the interview with Martin. What an obnoxious man!
I would feel bad about killing anybody. I would feel remorse. But I would do the necassary. If needed.
L
She is not stating it but maybe implying with a scattering of liberal pepper.
Of course it is wrong to break into anyone’s house, I am not disagreeing with that at all.
But to shoot someone with an illegal weapon when the assailant was clearly backing of is a vile crime and the way that Mr Martin has conducted himself since proves that he is clearly unbalanced. If the intruder then the case was attacking Mr Martin might be construed otherwise (the question of the illegal gun will always remain though) and there is some justification for self-defence. If it were I I would have reported the crime to the police (I know that they acted poorly here as well) and rode my luck.
Dogs are fine policeman/woman.
Nice Ya Ya’s by the way.
Ralphie
I didn't watch it. The thought just made me feel sick.
The fact that he wouldn't apologise for killing the boy was bad enough. I would apologise for the fact that he was dead, but not the fact that I was defending myself. But now he's amking money out of it as well.
So which was this burglar?
I don't have children; but I have much experience dealing with them, as most people here know. And I used to be one myself.
"Children can be guided, not controlled."
Yes, that's what I'm saying to AJ. And then there's the onset of adulthood. When I was a kid, I saw a mate pinch a penny sweet and get away with it. The next day I tried it, got caught, my mum was devastated, and I never did anything similar again - until I was 18/19, and had left home! - and this time it was a bit more serious. There followed a few incidents which are funny now in a way, but I'm not proud. But old lessons are sometimes forgotten, your value system and moral learning almost starts from scratch away from the apon strings, and it's a weird time, hard to look back on.
I said from the start the burglar isn't innocent. More burglars should do time, possibly. But this is missing the point. They need the chance to learn from mistakes (prison? fine), not be gunned down by crazed vidulantes. This is not America, and I'm happy to live in a society where you're very unlikely to get caught in the paranoid crossfire of gun-toters. Calling a murder a manslaughter could be the start of a slide down a slippery slope.
Thank you LL
As I said I don't own a gun so I can't shoot anyone.
I wouldn't own a gun so I wouldn't shoot anyone.
I don't agree with someone being shot over possessions, only stupidity Ralph.
I don't agree with someone being shot in the back.
But, I also don't agree with this nonsense that as LL said someone can break into my house, steal my things, rape/attack my children, even murder them and then get paid compensation if I try to stop them.
Ralph, if someone you loved was in danger from the man that stole your wallet in this canvas palace of yours, what would you do? Would you protect them or just watch it happen?
Missi, where are you?
I was not in danger because I gave him my wallet. I read the situation well. If I did not give him my wallet then I may have been in very real danger. I played the percentages
If someone I loved was in danger I would indeed fight for them. That is fair only if you weigh up the circumstances (i know that we have to react in a heartbeat) we always have choices.
But I am looking at this case. You seem to be ignoring the fact that he was backing off, he was no physical threat. It was possesions he was after and not someones life.
Tony Martin did not think, I know he had been taunted time and time again by this lad, but to kill someone in a situation is wrong.
A very diffrent scenario. I am not a soliciter.
Very tricky indeed.
I know that Missi was obsessed with this case and has very strong views on it, it would be good if joined in on this.
Ralph
The guy who broke into the house was a scumbag. I used to have mates who broke into houses and robbed people for whatever reason they invented for that particular week and frankly if they were shot it wouldn't have been a tragedy or fundamental loss of any kind.
Martin is a scumbag for owning a gun, period.
The friend of the kid who died is also a scumbag.
None of these people are worth losing sleep over.It's not an issue of any moral importance, except in the hysterical, schizophrenic world of the tabloid media.
What a positive post.
'Martin is a scumbag for owning a gun, period.'
'The friend of the kid who died is also a scumbag.'
Reads like a Sun headline all by itself.
Irony eh!
Ralph
I think Marc's got a point.
a) We maybe shouldn't agonise over the fates of these people too much - far worse things happened to far better people just yesterday, I imagine.
b) We shouldn't take sides. This should be a matter of ethics, not who we most sympathise with. The very fact that the case caused such a furore proves it isn't a simple matter of who's blameless and who's the scumbag.
I like this thread though - it's refreshing to see a range of different opinions after all the depressing polls where 90% plus people said that Martin was a fine, upstanding gentleman, should never have been jailed etc. etc. I suppose part of the reason is that anyone who recognises the severity of the case isn't going to take part in such a grossly simplified record of opinion.
Personally, I think Martin should have been jailed for longer. I put it to you (tentatively) that people who don't think he should have been jailed have an impossibly idealistic notion of what prison should do - ie. that it should separate people they like from people they're afraid of. Whether or not you can sympathise with Martin's actions, if you don't jail someone for deliberately shooting a kid in the back with an illegal gun, whatever the circumstances, then that sets the trend. We start off saying it's OK if they've invaded your house, then we say, alright, extend that to property (so you can shoot people in your garden,) then we ask, Well, honestly, what's the difference between someone defending themselves in their garden and someone defending themselves on the street? It's all self-defence, isn't it? So suddenly, you can shoot anyone you like and claim they attacked you first. Anarchy ahoy.
I never said Martin was right.
I don't know the guy so I don't know whether he made a mistake or was nasty.
But I do know that if one of my children chose a life of crime, I would like to think there'd be a deterrent, not people saying "oh, did you come from a bad family."
Obviously it's a waste of a life, but someone should've been doing something about it before, because now it's too late.
"Grow up and look at life, real life," I'm told.
And this has to do with my argument how? I argued (with accompanying detail,) that the law shouldn't be protecting a 'type' of person.
The only thing I can think is that you want me to look at 'real life' so I get over-emotional and irrational, and start making unrealistic demands of the law, rather than trying to look at what it *should* be doing.
You cannot win....
1..if Mr martin got a good pasting from the guys..it would of been said don't take the law into your owns hands.
2..If this case was in the usa it would of been ok to defend your self to the full.
3..RALF if you take drugs you @!#$ yourself.
4..Sabelle I'm with you all the way at any cost I would defend my family home and dog.
5..Most of us work hard to get what we want in life, then someone thinks they have a right ot take it and if you try to stop them the can take action against you.
6..This is a true case....A man was doing up an old house he had brought....a scumbag broke in and fell through the first floor and broke his leg.. the scumbag got £8000. the man who was doing up the house had to pay because there was no warning sign to warn the scumbag that some of the floor boards were missing.
7..Illegal weapon? would it of made it any better if the gun had a permit........I've got a draw full of knifes.
8..
But what i don't understand and please forgive me for being slow is the sutle difference between
a: As a nation we vote someone into power who orders soldiers to kill other people in defence of our land
and
b: Killing someone ourselves in defence of our property
Is it that the first one is simply passing the buck and the second is taking responsibility ourselves for our own protection?
Please don't think i'm advocating killing, just the right of a citizen to protect his own property. If we can be ordered to do it by someone we vote into power why can't we do it without being ordered to.
I agree with Hen, Ralph AND Sabelle's last posts.
I do not think Martin is a fine upstanding gentlemen - he broke the law, as did the assailants - end of.
However, Martin had been taunted by these two -the police were unhelpful , to say the least - and Martin reacted in a way that had devastating consequences. BUT the fact still remains, these two men broke into his property.
There are no easy answers to this one.
I would be interested to know what other people's views are on The Mirror buying his story - is it in the public's interest that we know all these detals - and is it right that Martin should receive payment for his story? If so, one could argue that the surviving perpetrator also has the right to sell his side of the story?
I am just putting this 'out there' - it is not necessarily my view.
Who/what was Martin defending?
As far as I know he lived alone in a derelict house.
Whose kids was he protecting?
Does beg the question what the burglars were going to nick.
There was a case a few years ago where a burglar was chased down the road by the house occupant and stabbed to death. He went to prison-no uproar (well mini-uproar). It's only the papers making this into a national issue. 1500 kids a day, die from preventable diseases in Africa. You won't see that on the front page of the Mail.
LL
I think it's disgusting that the Mirror are buying his story just as it is disgusting that he would take it.
He definitely isn't an upstanding membe of the community, tho he would argue as a farmer he is entitled to own a gun.
Maybe Martin & the friend should be locked up together
The subtle difference is, if you kill on behalf of your government (and are very good at it) you get a medal and a pension. If you do it on behalf of yourself you get life in prison (plus free food and shelter).
I think the court got this about right. I agree that Martin should have been done for manslaughter rather than murder, as the boy was in his house. I don't feel sorry for Martin and I don't feel sorry for the boy, except in the sense that he'd been a victim long before Martin shot him.
This would all die down now if Martin and the papers would be sensible about it (ha). If Martin wasn't the git he is, he'd quietly move to another farm, helped in that by the police, and we could forget Martin in the knowledge that a measure of justice was done in a complicated case.
d.beswetherick.
a lot of the comments on this thread have got nothing to with the case, talking about defending children ect..this is exactly what the ultra right wingers want, to get on to the old boat about more tougher punishment for people deemed as criminals and ignite fear in to society and stir up on sentiments that they know will touch at the heart of the materialistic many.
What has been proven for the last million zillion years is that societys crime and punshment bills do not work and never will and if anything will end up destroying society as left fights right on how to deal with people who are not conforming to the countrys system. Wether you like it or not burglars are human beings, yes they where born from wombs have hearts blood and minds, most of them probably cry when their mum and dads die and this alone should put human life above electronic possesions, thats right they cry when their mums die, does that ring a bell, and there will be many reformed burglars working and helping society.
The answer lies within this i believe. When people commit a materilistic crime in this country they are branded and society vehemently works against them to make it near impossible to understand what they done was of no benefit or value to there own lifes , making sure they never forget and impailing a mentality of your a criminal and second best to everyone else, when the clear facts of what society deems as a criminal are deadly wrong.
Up to 85% of people in prison there because of some sort of abuse as a child. If society does not start to recognise this and deal with it we are going to end up on roads that well, we really dont want to go down. We need to understand why people commit crime not just be banging them up in prisons, its wrong it doesn't work and could eventually bring this country down. Dont get me wrong i am not advocating for crime but it is blatantly obvious that the system doesn't work and causes heartache for all involved.
Did that wee guys mum ever commit a crime, did his dad, then we can only take it they have not, so why must they be put through more heart ache of reading all this and hearing that 65% plus of the country agreed that her son should die.
For the right wing christain live by the sword die by the sword brigade Did they not call Jesus a criminal, who was Jesus crucified next to, a thief, what did he say to him, do not worry son they know not what they do. Well two thousand odd years later it seems that they still not know what they do. Locking people up in a toilet is not good for mental health and mostly does not rehabilitate people. We need to start again, soon.
Oh and i am led to believe that the general view of prison probation and social workers is that they can't stand burglars and in a lot of rural areas they dont offer them much support in trying to turn them from crime; in fact in a newspaer report last week an article stated that they would rather deal with paedophiles, murderers and rapists. there is something wrong if probation officers are making comments like this.
Oh by the way i am not a burglar and have never been burgled, although i doubt it if the local fence would give much on six day old underpants and holy smelly socks, although he might pay well on my writing, maybe.
I don't know what the probation officers said, but the difference is probably that the burglars do not wish to be cured of what is to them a profession, whereas murderers, rapists, and paedophiles might be prepared to take part in schemes to change their behaviour.
d.beswetherick.
I don't recall anyone saying that he should've died. What people are saying is that he's not the innocent victim many people are trying to make him out to be.
Tony Martin went beyond the realms of self defence & straight into revenge, but we only know that because he guy was shot in the back. If it had been a chest injury we would never have known the truth. This case is cut and dried, but it doesn't mean that others are
Stephen_d,
I agree with much of what you have said, but as the criminals probably react in a flesh and blood, human, emotional level ('they cry when their mothers die'), then so will people respond on this thread in an emotional way? it is the human condition to react based emotionally - and often to relate it to their own lives. I am sure that Martin reacted in a "do now - think later" way - an emotional response. Of course he was wrong. I also agree with d. beswetherick on Martin moving to another farm etc. It is interesting that you comment on the fact that they probably cry when their MOTHERS die - arguably the strongest bond is often between mothers and their children - and comments have been posted on here by mothers and people with young children who have said they would do anything to protect them. I see your point about right wingers loving this but people are going to voice their opinios regardless of left / right politics - and why shouldn't they?
There is a deterrent: prison. It could be argued it's not used enough, but it's there. What are you advocating, Sab? The everybody-has-a-loaded-shotgun-so-watch-out deterrent. No, I don't think that's what you mean.
I think you're skirting round the issue. We'd all like all parents to perfect disciplinarians, we'd all like a deterrent that stops all burglary (is there one? Nah, course not.) The fact is, burglaries happened, this burglary happened, two people made a mistake. On was killed as he was running away; the other, the killer, had his sentence reduced, and got to sell his story to a paper.
And I don't buy his sensitive, confused, frightened, bleating act in todays Mirror either. It sits very uncomfortably with his macho posturing a couple of days ago.
I think he's been talking to some PR people.
Don't you?
Sabelle
i beg to differ and say the 16 year old boy is innocent. He is only 16, his race of people experience extreme prejudice and discrimination which drives people to crime. I think your last comment \'if it had been a chest injury we would never have known\' somehow puts across that you think well it was kind of right because he MIGHT have done something else.
Marc
i think your last paragraph unless you are being sarcastic in some way says a lot. \'Why should any one lose sleep and its not an issue of moral importance\'. What do you mean when you say it is not an issue of moral importance. Do you ever plan to have children ? have you any relatives around the age of 16 ?
LL
True people should voice their opinions and maybe the mother child bit was a bit to strong but i think i was trying to show that not all people who commit materialistic crime are to be blamed and they are indeed human.
Dont think its about property though Freda.. I think its about territory and security. When someone attempted to break into my house it really freaked me out, and i went to bed with a knife in some vain attempt to protect myself, although i managed to cut myself in the night.
Useless. I dont know what I wouldve done if someone actually did get in though.. I suspect all the liberal left stuff would fly right out of the window if my children were in danger from some no hoper with a crack habit. They could @!#$ right off and get help elsewhere after Id sliced their knackers off.
There's no way I would've read it. I think it's disgusting that the Mirror have paid him for kiling someone & even worse that he's taken the money.
An unscsrupulous character.
What issue am I skirting round.
He murdered someone. Yes
Should the boy have been there No
Did he pay a heavy price. Yes
Would I have shot him. No because I don't have a gun.
Did he deserve to die. No
Should Martin still be in prison. Yes
There are no more issues. In life we make some mistakes sometimes the consequences are serious, sometimes they are not.
Hey, the poor guy was a repeat victim of career burglars who had come all the way from Newark to rob him. I'm a little bit sorry the boy's dead, I just wish Martin had shot the other two vermin instead. But, there again, there are some very evil teenagers who have chosen crime as a way of life and most of the time they get away with it and mock decent young people who are trying to make an honest living - I think that's a greater shame.
And we ALL count our property as more important than other people's lives otherwise we'd all live in much greater poverty than we do and give ridiculously to aid agencies.
I wish Tony Martin well, I hope he makes money from his story.
Stephen
I am black & have experienced prejudice & hatred, but that has not made me a mugger, burglar or any other kind of criminal.
My children are black & I would hope to God that they do not turn into any of these either. We cannot say that because he experienced prejudice he became a criminal. He made that choice. I know loads of young black men who experience prejudice in education and work related situations, have very little or no money, but do not choose this route.
It's an insult to those of us who live within the law to use prejudices as an excuse.
Yes he may have had a hard, tough and maybe unbearable life but to say he is innocent is madness in itself
On the assumption you are addressing me Freda I offer an answer. We all DO possess weapons. Anything from a dinner knife to a garden fork or even a clenched fist is a weapon. It is possible to kill someone in 10 seconds with a ballpoint pen. If I was about to be killed by an assailant I'd far prefer a shotgun blast in the head to being hacked to pieces with a carving knife. Ok, that sounds flippant but the point I'm trying to make is it's immaterial what weapon a person has, what's important is their willingness or otherwise to use it. One could quite fairly argue that all shootings are the responsibility of goverment as they condone, and indeed, are customers of arms manufacturers.
Good point but
prejudice and hatred can affect different people in different ways. Just because some people can take it and deal with it doesn't mean every one can deal with it that easy. I still argue that he is innocent because my own theory behind disruptive teenagers and juvinile crime is that they (the juviniles) are ultra sensitive to hatred discrimination and the pain around us in the world ect..which spurs them on to act outwith what society deams as ok, CRIME. I was one of these teenagers myself and know what i felt and experienced as a young child. I do believe society is about to become more enlightened to this at some point in the future. Do you know what i mean?
Also referring again to the original topic, one could also blame the government for inadequate policing, resulting in people feeling the need to possess weapons.
Pages