---

by sara-angel
Well...there are quite a lot of stories from all them different sources.
I have to admit i went out early this morning and got myself the daily mirror to read up what Mr.Martin had to say for himself and it contradicts some things you've heard, jayjay. I'm not saying there might not be some truth in what you're saying, but i found it interesting what he said.

---

An interesting piece of 'faction' (what, that's already a word?) Two journalists almost manage to make Martin sound worth the £100,000 Piers Morgan is splashing out to boost sales (I borrowed a copy, BTW). Never thought I'd see the day when the Mirror would describe Andrew Neil as a 'titan', and Roy Greenslade a 'pygmy', though...

---

by Milky
(quotes)
he shot the guy while he was inside his house where he had no right to be.

---

Wasn't he running away from the property when he was shot?

---

by Inc
Do you feel more or less safe now that he has been released?

---

More. reasons:-

1) i never intend to burgle him, nor tresspass for any reason on his land.

2) Next time he might get someone who, in a month or year would have burgled me. OK i dont live in the UK now, crime being one reason i left, but if i did live there it'd be a valid argument because i lived just over the boarder from him.

---

by Cat
1) i never intend to burgle him, nor tresspass for any reason on his land.

---

That trespass point is a little worrying though don't you think?

I wonder how many people posting here have never trespassed at some point in their life, be it to recover a football, to nick an apple or just because sometimes doing something stupid seems like fun.

---

2) Next time he might get someone who, in a month or year would have burgled me.

---

The blood lust of some of the posting here is jaw-dropping. Unless I've radically misunderstood what you are saying (in which case I apologise), your argument here is that you'd be glad if he shot and killed another burglar because it reduces the chance that at a future date that person will steal something of yours.

Even more bluntly, your material possessions have greater value than a man's life.

I must have missed the meeting when it was decided that death was a reasonable deterrent for theft.

As for leaving the UK to escape crime, last time I checked, it wasn't a localised problem.

---

by Incandenza
That trespass point is a little worrying though don't you think?

I wonder how many people posting here have never trespassed at some point in their life, be it to recover a football, to nick an apple or just because sometimes doing something stupid seems like fun.

---

Or simply because they're out for a walk, and happen to pass through the wrong field. Having spent most of my life surrounded by farmland, I must have technically trespassed countless times.

How about at the T Party this year, when I tried to get into the hotel afterwards, even though I wasn't staying there (not to stay the night, just to go to someone's room). Would it have been okay if the security guard had shot me?

---

by Sydney
(quotes)

Wasn't he running away from the property when he was shot?

---

From what I've heard he was shot inside the house as he was running away, he managed to get outside but his injuries caused him to decide to lie under a bush where he died from loss of blood.

---

by In A State Of Dan
How about at the T Party this year, when I tried to get into the hotel afterwards, even though I wasn't staying there (not to stay the night, just to go to someone's room). Would it have been okay if the security guard had shot me?

---

Hell yeah!!!..would have meant more drink for the rest of us

For once I find myself in total agreement with Inc (shudder at the thought!), only he's put it more eloquently than me.

It truly is worrying the very overt vigilante tones being expressed here. And violent crime isn't a 'British' problem. But people will always feel the grass is greener on the other side perhaps.

As I said in one of my earlier posts, I fear people aren't seeing the bigger picture. Once you start letting people dish out their own form of justice you are on the slippery slope towards anarchy and Kangaroo Courts.

---

by Whistler
For once I find myself in total agreement with Inc (shudder at the thought!)

---

I know its happening to me a lot these days

---

by Inc
your argument here is that you'd be glad if he shot and killed another burglar because it reduces the chance that at a future date that person will steal something of yours.

Even more bluntly, your material possessions have greater value than a man's life.

---

Not generally, no, but in case you'd missed the news recently, a lot of burgulers pick on the weak, beating them up to know where their jewellery, moey etc etc is.

For a woman on her own, it's bloody scary! especially since i'm not allowed to keep anything to protect myself (like pepper spray).

I also lived in the country, the police dont respond quickly to any crime, especially burgulary that a way away (any one read about the family held at 7 inch knife point until they surendered their jewellery, cars keys and money?). the police took 30 minuted to arrive, even though the neighbours called the police when they heard the door being broken down my a sledehammer.

So, to be a law abiding sitizen, i have to not protect myself, call the police, and become a victim.

Sorry, no can do!

one less low life is potentially many less deaths. They are already commiting a crime and a person has the right to protect their property and family.

---

by Inc
Even more bluntly, your material possessions have greater value than a man's life.

---

Depends on the man really doesnt it.

---

by Inc
As for leaving the UK to escape crime, last time I checked, it wasn't a localised problem.

---

Well in my town, i've heard of 1 burgulary since i've been here (5 months). thats right, 1. no muggings, hardly any car crime, no assaults, no rapes, no sexual assaults, 1 case of child abuse (not in my town though). Basically, no major threats to my personal saftey. And i live near gipsey town! even the travellers here are nicer!!!!!!!!!

Why? The police take notice and people still squeel on the criminals. there isnt much point in crime if you're gonna get caught.

Over here, i'd balk at Tony Martin, how dare he!

In te UK, more power to him, he protected himself when no one else would!

(Edited by Cat 01/08/2003 19:49)

---

by Cat
one less low life is potentially many less deaths.

---

So's one less motorist. Maybe we should summarily execute everyone with a driving license? You'd be a heck of a lot safer then.

---

They are already commiting a crime and a person has the right to protect their property and family.

---

Oh wait, we should probably restrict that to motorists who commit crimes. Fitting speed cameras with machine guns would probably do the trick.. They're aleady committing a crime, after all, and we have a right to protect the safety of our roads.

---

Depends on the man really doesnt it.

---

Here on planet earth, we have this concept known as human rights. Our countries sign conventions about them and everything. We like to allow them to everyone.

---

In te UK, more power to him, he protected himself when no one else would!

---

Your definition of 'protected himself' does not resemble our earth definition.

I have to say, Cat, that I do find it ironic that you are extoling the virtues of your crime free village in Spain while at the same time advocating people should tool up with prohibited weapons and not think twice before using them if they think they need to.

Remind me not to walk up behind you and tap you on the shoulder to say 'Hi'. Maybe I should shout out at the top of my voice from ten feet away to ensure I don't get a face full of hairspray first.

---

by Dan
Your definition of 'protected himself' does not resemble our earth definition.

---

I think yours doesnt. most people here agree with me. YOU are the minority! Maybe you've never felt like most women do. I am weaker than men, i admit that. i am not even allowed to carry something to protect myself.

You talk of human rights, what the hell happened to human responsibilities? the responsibility you have to othere members of the human race? the thing, call it conscience, that STOPS people breaking inot other peoples houses, taking things that they havent earnd and done belong to them?

---

by Whistler
I have to say, Cat, that I do find it ironic that you are extoling the virtues of your crime free village in Spain while at the same time advocating people should tool up with prohibited weapons and not think twice before using them if they think they need to.

---

Mabe bacause this resembles utopia more than the UK. Here people are respinsible, there's no social secuiity, you work for what you have,m you appriceate it and you dont take from others. respect is mutual here.

---

by Whistler
Remind me not to walk up behind you and tap you on the shoulder to say 'Hi'. Maybe I should shout out at the top of my voice from ten feet away to ensure I don't get a face full of hairspray first.

---

Walk up to me, talk to me, call my name. fine. I'm not antisocial.

Attack me (by which i mean grab me, hit me or any other voiolation of my space that ios not warented or appriceated) and expect the heal of my hand in nose!

creep up behind me and expect hairspray in your eyes. i'm always aware while outside at night of who is around me, if you see me reach into my bag, run!

OK, used to being on the same side as Dan (what with our mutual fan club an' all), but me, Whistler and Inc? Has the world gone mad?

OK, I'll try to avoid personalising things by generalising.

Those who feel Tony Martin was mistreated do so because they feel it is right for someone to use lethal force to defend their property? I specifically say property as it was shown in a court of law that there was insufficient reason at the time of firing for Mr Martin to thing he was doing so to save his or anyone else's life. Some of you also feel a death sentance without trial is a reasonable punishment for breaking and entering.

If it had been shown that Mr Martin was being attacked at the time of shooting, then I would have more sympathy for him. I say more, because although I think justice was done, I do sympathise with the conditions he had been living in. But he wasn't. At best, Mr Martin was firing an illegal weapon without care for the consequences while under no duress. At worst he deliberately killed someone as revenge for past crimes, and the failure of the local constabulary (for whatever reason, be it under funding or incompetence) to offer him security.

As I said, I do sympathise with him, I have no sympathy for the dead thief or his accomplis or their families. But what Mr Martin did, from the evidence presented to court, was not a reasonable reaction. That's not just my opinion, but of the court that heard all the facts and found him quilty of murder (and remember that the difference between murder and manslaughter is that murder is pre-planned and pre-meditated).

Some of you didn't like Whistler's alternative scenario? Try this one on for size. As kids, did you ever dare each other to go up to the big scary house? Maybe even to sneak in? How would you have felt, if instead of a 16 year old thief, it had been an 8 year old scally wag, sneaking into Mr Martin's house on a dare, and had been shot dead in the back? Still feel he would have been right? Still feel safe for you, your children or relatives? That eight year old is still breaking and entering, if with a slightly less distasteful intent. Remember, by Mr Martin's own testimony he did not know who he was shooting at. It could easily have been a small child that had been killed. And clearly not felt guilty about.

I'm not saying all this as a dispassionate liberal. I know what it is like to feel unsafe in your own home. I used to sleep with a metal bar next to my bed because I was so scared after a series of break ins where they had come through my bed room window (fortunately I hadn't been in when it happened). I used to wake up in a sweat if even an empty drink can got blown down the street. Eventually had to move out and for many years afterwards I couldn't sleep on a ground floor. Not long before I moved out I found myself on my own in the house (most of the street was empty as it was a student area and it was the middle of summer) and from the kitchen window I suddenly saw a pair of hands appear at the top of our back wall, and someone clearly starting to pull themselves up. I bolted upstairs to where the phone was and hid until the police arrived. Never went near that metal pole, I was too frightened to confront this person. Turned out out one of my neighbours was still in town, and had merely tried to get over my wall to retrieve a football, thinking no one was in my house. I'm not proud of the terror I felt, and the running and hiding like a big scaredy cat. However, had I been Tony Martin that neighbour would now probably be dead.

One last thought on the use of items like mace. These are illegal for the same reason any threatening weapon (like guns or switchblades) are illegal - if you can own them so can your assailant. Want to defend yourself? Attend self-defence groups and learn to run very fast. However, the majority of assaults are committed by people the victim knows, and self-defence is rarely possible, as they use trust to get past your defences.

Sleep well.

---

by JayJay
How would you have felt, if instead of a 16 year old thief, it had been an 8 year old scally wag, sneaking into Mr Martin's house on a dare, and had been shot dead in the back? Still feel he would have been right? Still feel safe for you, your children or relatives? That eight year old is still breaking and entering, if with a slightly less distasteful intent.

---

Breaking and entering is never right. i'm sure the 16 yr old felt peer pressure too. Fact is, you raise your kids right, they wont do it (especially not at night when even a 16 yr old should be safely tucked up in bed after sturdying hard for his GCSE's!).

---

by Jay Jay
I'm not proud of the terror I felt, and the running and hiding like a big scaredy cat.

---

uaually best. but if forced i WILL defend myself. I'd rather die than live a victim!

---

by Jay Jay
One last thought on the use of items like mace. These are illegal for the same reason any threatening weapon (like guns or switchblades) are illegal - if you can own them so can your assailant. Want to defend yourself? Attend self-defence groups and learn to run very fast.

---

In the USA mace and Pepper spray are only available to women and police officers. they are licenced too (a friend who lives there told me for a story)

---

by JayJay
However, the majority of assaults are committed by people the victim knows, and self-defence is rarely possible, as they use trust to get past your defences.

---

Also very true. But you have more say over who you live with than who comes into your house uninvited, or attacks you on the street. Not that battered wives deserve it, but most people i speak to say that know they should have left after the first time, or they did leave after the first time.

hurting someone else is never right, be it steling what they have worked for from them or hitting them or, god forbid, worse.

the UK needs to relearn human responsibility, not just human rights. As i was brought up, you dont have rights without fulilling your responsibility's. same as it should be for everyone.

And, should a would be attacker ever sue for damage from my "concealed weapon" of hairspray in his eyes, well, i may end up poor, but never a victim! Not as long as i can help it!

---

by Cat
In the USA mace and Pepper spray are only available to women and police officers. they are licenced too (a friend who lives there told me for a story)

---

The problem is, not all crime is committed by men, and not all women are nice people. You create a legal market and you also create an easy source for black market sales. Would you think it was ok for only women and police officers to own hand guns?

As for my eight year old example, I don't know about anyone else, but I did things like that as a kid that harmed no one. Would you really say that an eight year old kid playing double dare deserves to die?

Ok... there's more than one way to skin a cat (so to speak) so how about this:

I'd like to think that we can all agree with the following statement as a general principle:

Killing people is wrong.

In general.

I think that's a good place to start, even though we inevitably end up making exceptions to the rule.

In this country, we still think killing people is so wrong that the state won't execute convicted murderers. We don't adopt an eye for an eye, we set a higher standard of behaviour.

What comes next is the extenuating circumstances where killing another sentient human being becomes, not morally right, but acceptable, negotiable, tolerable and the underlying principle of violence in self-defence is 'rather you than me'.

If you are trying to harm me then I can harm you (within reason) to protect myself.

I have no problem with that. But if that's the standard, 'rather you than me', then I do think we should make damn sure that that was the choice.

Not rather you than my car, not rather you than my television, my jewellery, my wallet or mobile phone ... rather you than me, and by extension my family.

That's not all. There's another distinction, another line that's hard to draw, that moves from case to case ... how much of a threat merits a deadly response? If Jayjay threatens to stamp on my foot, can I shoot him? What if he tries to break my leg, both legs... what if my assailant is a professional boxer, or he has a baseball bat, a knife... what if the intention is rape?

At what point along that spectrum of possible attacks does it become acceptable to shoot and kill another human being in self-defence?

Of course the intentions of someone else are hard to gauge and discern.

I believe that judges and juries should allow the greatest of latitude in interpreting what constitutes reasonable force. I also believe they applied the standard here.

I am not saying that no-one should defend themselves against attack, and neither does the law.

What I am saying, and what I will defend to the hilt, is that Tony Martin did not use reasonable force in reacting to the threat in front of him. He used unreasonable force. He opened fire with a pump action shotgun on unarmed intruders. I refuse to accept that the only important word in that sentence is intruder.

If they'd had guns, hell if they'd had knives and a menacing stare, then the question of reasonable force is open again. But unarmed... versus a pump action shotgun?

I can't bring myself to agree with Jayjay entirely either. Were the two men who got shot paragons of virtue? No. Were they the lowest kind of scum deserving only death and dishonour? Unlikely. I don't know them, I don't know their families, their friends ... but I imagine they had some good points like anyone, some bad points like anyone... maybe the bad outweighed the good but it sure as hell isn't my place to make that call.

---

by Jay Jay
You create a legal market and you also create an easy source for black market sales. Would you think it was ok for only women and police officers to own hand guns?

---

No, but i'd rather be pepper sprayed (temporaty efects) than hit, punched, possibly with a weapon (long term efects).

---

by JayJay
As for my eight year old example, I don't know about anyone else, but I did things like that as a kid that harmed no one. Would you really say that an eight year old kid playing double dare deserves to die?

---

I'd have sereious doubts about a kid allowed out after midnight.

anyone remember Jamie Bulger? seen the recent age for the youngest rapist? (8 BTW couldnt be tried becaus ehe was too young)

---

by Inc
Killing people is wrong.

---

NO. an eye for an eye. quid pro quo. what goes around comes around. i could go on...

---

by Inc
In this country, we still think killing people is so wrong that the state won't execute convicted murderers. We don't adopt an eye for an eye, we set a higher standard of behaviour

---

Actually, higher standards dont come inot it. the death penalty was ablished because so many people were cleared after the fact.

In the US death penalty cases take up to 16 yrs with speal after apeal. i think any new evidence would come out in that time. not like the UK when it was about 2 weeks from trial to execution.

Higher standards didnt come into it, miscarriages of justice did.

---

by Inc
I have no problem with that. But if that's the standard, 'rather you than me', then I do think we should make damn sure that that was the choice.

---

A man grabs me on the street. hits me, drags me away. does he want to rape me and kill me or get me somewhere quite to rob me? how do i know? what i should do in this situation? normally i'd use anything available to diabale the bas.. Bad man! I dont have my illegan hair spray (since i'm it's illegal) But i also find a brick on the pavement. but if i hit his head and killed him i'd be wrong.

So, oh wise one, please tell me what my reaction, as a weaker member of the species (as are old people, like Tony Martin) should be?

Seems to me you raise a lot of questions but provide no answers for the ordinary man (or woman).

Cat, quite simply you are advocating a anarchic society how ever much you are in denial.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Or would you rather stoop to the gutter level of the people you want to kill?

And, as for your brick scenario? Did you completeyly ignore the numerous posts in this thread that reasonable force is determined by the situation. If you are being raped, I can't see a CPS office in the country prosecuting you for assault in order to fend off your attacker with such an item.

(Edited by Whistler 02/08/2003 02:25)

Cool, some stuff to disagree with Whistler and Inc on!

Whist - anarchic society. Tut tut. Doesn't sound like anarchy to me. Lawless, feral, chaotic, maybe. But nothing to do with the teachings of Proudhon and co.

Inc, I take it you're referring to my comments about the family and the two thieves? Most of my vitriol is really aimed at the dead thief's parents, who have done numerous interviews about how their son was a not a bad lad, and that he had a heart of gold. All those robberies were youthful hijinks. No they weren't. They were invasions of people's privacy and security. It seems clear to me that their failure to raise their son with morals has led to misery for others in the area and the death of their son. People like that should not be allowed to be parents (before anyone starts, I'm not advocating the licensing of parenthood, just bemoaning their inability to be proper parents). While Tony Martin's actions were not reasonable, I do sympathise with the strain he was under.

As for the kid story, who said he was allowed out? Did you never sneak out without your parents knowing? Did you always do just as you were told? I don't know any child like that.

Instinctively, I fall on the side of the householder. But as has been detailed at length here, Tony Martin was an unstable individual who went far beyond the bounds of the law in defending his property, and not his life and limb. The original trial jury had the option of convicting for manslaughter, but chose murder; the public is overwhelmingly on the side of householders, so there was clearly a strong (and extreme; Martin’s conviction garnered such publicity because the circumstances are so rare) case to answer.

But I still see where he was coming from. He was burgled countless times and received insufficient police protection. Which doesn't excuse executing a 16-year-old boy in the back, but does in part explain it.

I'm not in favour of the law ending at a person's front door -- but I am in favour of more lenient definition of self-defence than is currently allowed. Holding a burglar prisoner and torturing him to death would of course be wrong, but killing them on the spur of the moment if you chance upon them intruding into your property is in my mind justified. (Martin didn’t do this; he executed Fenton when he was clearly fleeing him.) You could have only seconds to act before you and your family are put in mortal danger, and if the burglar doesn't want to put their own life in danger, they shouldn't be there in the first place.

And anyone who is injured in the pursuit of a crime should be barred from suing for personal injury, a reform that is rightly being introduced by Parliament.