Joe-b-1 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Tony Martin made one big mistake - he didn't shoot Fearon as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penistone999 Posted March 3, 2015 Author Share Posted March 3, 2015 He shot a boy in the back who was trying to run away. It was not self defence and it was right that he was charged. ---------- Post added 03-03-2015 at 17:37 ---------- How much thought have you spared for the dead boy or his family? Who cares if he was running away . He had just burgled Mr Martins property, and in my eyes he got what he deserved. No sympathy for him what so ever. ---------- Post added 03-03-2015 at 21:13 ---------- Tony Martin made one big mistake - he didn't shoot Fearon as well. Correct ........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liza D Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 Do you think we should condone shooting people in the back, who are trying to flee? That is certainly not self defence. If an assailant is trying to knife you to death for example or trying to kill your wife/son/daughter and you happen to find a loaded gun in your hand, fair enough. Shooting someone who's running away is vengeance. From what I remember of the case, It was dark, Martin had just been woken up by the noise they made when they broke into his home ( I think this was the 3rd or 4th time he had been burgled and the police did nothing). He was a farmer who had a right to have a gun. And he used it. I wonder what any of us would have done in the same circumstances. Yes a 16yr old died but who was really to blame for that. I guess had he lived and they had killed Martin his age would get him off with a slap on the wrist. Victim - Perpetrator , Why do SO many people including the courts keep getting the two mixed up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 From what I remember of the case, It was dark, Martin had just been woken up by the noise they made when they broke into his home ( I think this was the 3rd or 4th time he had been burgled and the police did nothing). He was a farmer who had a right to have a gun. And he used it. I wonder what any of us would have done in the same circumstances. Yes a 16yr old died but who was really to blame for that. I guess had he lived and they had killed Martin his age would get him off with a slap on the wrist. Victim - Perpetrator , Why do SO many people including the courts keep getting the two mixed up? No he didn't. It was illegally held. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyper Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 (edited) Do you have children? One of your kids nicks a bar of chocolate from my corner shop and I shoot them dead. Can you see anything wrong with that? You honestly think they are similar? Really? Genuine question What next? Let all murderers free cos my kid once squashed a spider? Edited March 4, 2015 by hyper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 From what I remember of the case, It was dark, Martin had just been woken up by the noise they made when they broke into his home ( I think this was the 3rd or 4th time he had been burgled and the police did nothing). He was a farmer who had a right to have a gun. And he used it. I wonder what any of us would have done in the same circumstances. Yes a 16yr old died but who was really to blame for that. I guess had he lived and they had killed Martin his age would get him off with a slap on the wrist. Victim - Perpetrator , Why do SO many people including the courts keep getting the two mixed up? No, he waited for them, sat on a staircase, fired at them once (with his illegally held shotgun), when they ran, he followed them to a window, and fired at them again, shooting them in the back. All 3 people involved were guilty of crimes, none of them deserved to die. ---------- Post added 04-03-2015 at 09:02 ---------- A third party.. the government ... which retains the services of people with firearms says that we the public may not own firearms unless we meet certain criteria. Some of us choose to accept that some do not. Tony Martin was protecting his property... who cares whether he shot the scrote in the back or the face? I know I don't. Unfortunately the scrote lived. I suppose some doogooders or bleeding heart liberals will disagree with that. That is their right. Just as it is the right of those that think martin did the right thing to hold their views. . . Are you trying to morally justify the illegal possession of firearms? The law cares, it's quite clear on how self defence works. What a surprise that this thread is in full pitchfork, revenge fantasy mode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 You honestly think they are similar? Really? Genuine question What next? Let all murderers free cos my kid once squashed a spider? Can we please have the list of things which, if stolen, makes it permissible to shoot the thief dead. Also, a time frame from after the theft to when it is no longer acceptable to shoot them dead would be appreciated. jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyper Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 Can we please have the list of things which, if stolen, makes it permissible to shoot the thief dead. Also, a time frame from after the theft to when it is no longer acceptable to shoot them dead would be appreciated. jb It's not about what is stolen, or over what time frame, and maybe therein lies the argument. If it was me, in a remote farmhouse, not knowing who was intruding and for what purpose, I'd be bricking it. The fact they might only be wanting the TV might actually come as a relief. I'd be there gun in hand (metaphorically, I don't own a gun), shaking, hoping that he (they? - its dark and I cant see how many)wasn't about to rape or murder the wife & kids. Shaky hand, sensitive trigger, heightened senses ... you put it together. End result, he's a victim, I'm a murderer. Surely, this is not correct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodmally Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 It's not about what is stolen, or over what time frame, and maybe therein lies the argument. If it was me, in a remote farmhouse, not knowing who was intruding and for what purpose, I'd be bricking it. The fact they might only be wanting the TV might actually come as a relief. I'd be there gun in hand (metaphorically, I don't own a gun), shaking, hoping that he (they? - its dark and I cant see how many)wasn't about to rape or murder the wife & kids. Shaky hand, sensitive trigger, heightened senses ... you put it together. End result, he's a victim, I'm a murderer. Surely, this is not correct And add to the fact that this bloke had been broken into before and had the pain and the shame of a robbery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 Not borne out by the evidence brought before the court. Besides, anyone discharging a firearm into a dark space knowing there might be people there is a dangerous and reckless person who probably needs locking up. Exactly...ultimately even shooting through a closed door lands you in jail. Ask Oscar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now