Cyclone Posted December 5, 2004 Share Posted December 5, 2004 Originally posted by Strix Easy for you to say whilst sitting in that comfy chair. I'd like to see you act that rationally in the exact same circumstances.Blind panic tends to take over somewhat. An incident like this happening in a city like Sheffield would see the culprits leave and do something else. They were in the middle of nowhere. They're likely to have come back for round two, and Tony Martin was completely alone... Just stand at the top of his stairs in his boots for a couple of seconds................... Chilling, isn't it? The person he killed was over 50 metres away. At that point i'm pretty sure that i'd be over the inital fright. I'd certainly be of sound enough mind to know that killing him was murder. I might decide to chase him down and restrain him, maybe. But then i'm not elderly, i'm fit and i'm of the opinion (rightly or wrongly) that i can hold my own. The law states that shooting someone who is running away (or throwing a brick or a fire poker) or whatever is not self defence. It's not ambigous, and Tony Martin clearly broke the law. Homes are not military establishments and any defence based on such flawed reasoning will land you in jail. No what your rights are and no how to present them in court, otherwise you are asking to loose. "I honestly believed that he had a weapon your honour and that he would use it to kill me". Job done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lickszz Posted December 5, 2004 Share Posted December 5, 2004 Please forgive my editing your post. Originally posted by Cyclone The person he killed was over 50 metres away. At that point i'm pretty sure that i'd be over the inital fright. I'd certainly be of sound enough mind to know that killing him was murder. 50 metres away? I'm not sure about that. They were in his house. The first shot was fired when a torch beam was shined on him the other 2 shots were fired in total darkness. Originally posted by Cyclone I might decide to chase him down and restrain him, maybe. But then i'm not elderly, i'm fit and i'm of the opinion (rightly or wrongly) that i can hold my own. They were mob handed, possibly tooled up as they had already got past his dogs. Would you still attempt to chase them and restrain them? Originally posted by Cyclone "I honestly believed that he had a weapon your honour and that he would use it to kill me". Job done. At least Martin was fortunate to escape with his life still in tact. Unlike his near neighbour, farmer Mr Auger of Outwell who many years before was beaten senseless, bound and gagged and left to die a slow painful death in an orchard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strix Posted December 5, 2004 Share Posted December 5, 2004 Thank you for clarifying that, Lickszz. We can all be holier-than-thou and matter of fact if we haven't actually experienced somebody else's situation, but presenting untrue 'facts' is not helpful to the debate, Cyclone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted December 5, 2004 Share Posted December 5, 2004 Why bring up tony martin at all? There are other householders who have shot people and been fully exonerated of any crime in court - what about them - or do they not fit with the "self-righteous brothers" mindset? The difference is that they used reasonable force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 5, 2004 Share Posted December 5, 2004 having checked the tony martin story it appears that 50 metres is an exaggeration. Obviously so thinking about it as at 50 metres a shotgun is practically useless. Fred Barras was 12ft away from Tony Martin when he was shot in the back and killed (with an illegally held firearm). Apparently he opened fire as they attempted to escape through a window. I can't find a distance quoted anywhere for the shot that injured Fearon. Either way ot was deemed not to be self defence by a court. As Phan said, there are other more recent case(s?) where a burglar has been shot and killed and no prosecution was brought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wattsy Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 He is the only copper that has spoken any sense on the subject. ithink you should be able to use as much force as you want should anyone break into your house or destroy any of your belongings. i think your dog shold be able to attack anyone tht breaks in. eye for an eye nad tooth for a tooth. would they like it if you did it to them - NO! they would get very mardy.I thik Tony Martin desrves amedal when he shot that W****r that broke into his house he put up with it for a long time before he snapped. Well done! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wattsy Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 Originally posted by JoePritchard Sir John Stevens, chief of the Metropolitan Police, suggests the following : "My own view is that people should be allowed to use what force is necessary and they should be allowed to do so without any risk of prosecution. "There is a definite feeling around when I go out on the beat with officers and talk to members of the public that we need clarity in the law. Full story at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4067681.stm OK...what do people feel? I'd like to see such a change in the law. Joe I take it from your comments that you are either a Special Constable or a regular officer. I am an an ex special and ex regular i resigned last year form South Yorkshire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenback Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 Originally posted by Wattsy He is the only copper that has spoken any sense on the subject. ithink you should be able to use as much force as you want should anyone break into your house or destroy any of your belongings. i think your dog shold be able to attack anyone tht breaks in. eye for an eye nad tooth for a tooth. would they like it if you did it to them - NO! they would get very mardy.I thik Tony Martin desrves amedal when he shot that W****r that broke into his house he put up with it for a long time before he snapped. Well done! What if the intruder is just a kid coming into your garden to get his ball back? Pump them full of lead first, be immune from prosecution later? Surely this isn't a road we want to go down - we don't live in the Wild West. Besides, a change in the law would just mean burglars would be far more likely to enter properties tooled up, knowing that they may be in for a fight. Which can't be good news for anyone. "Reasonable" force may not sound very fair, but ultimately it protects the homeowner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 it's not breaking and entering to climb into your back yard, it's trespassing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenback Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 Originally posted by Cyclone it's not breaking and entering to climb into your back yard, it's trespassing. It's the broader principle that I'm talking about - the implication that it's fair to kill anyone who interferes with your property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.