I was listening to a peice on the radio the other night as I drove down to London. They were talking to some Americans who have heard about the case and are astounded that Tony Martin was jailed. In America he wouldn't have had a case to answer.

I feel that you should have the right to defend your home in the event of a burglary/break in...what if the people that had broken in had been armed?? Jailing Tony Martin was the wrong way to go. In America burglarys are down 50% because people know that breaking into someones house could result in them getting injured/killed by the occupant.

The whole thing where the burglar that survived is going to sue Tony Martin because he can't work again is a joke. According to what I've read the guy's never done an honest days work in his life so what he actually means is that he'll never be able to scale someones wall to climb in their window and steal their belongings. He should be laughed out of court.

Sometimes the law is far too lenient in this country.

I honestly have to say i was completely puzzeled when i first heard of the Tony Martin case. Not just, that he was jailed for four years for shooting a burglar, but also, that that weird guy can sue him.
I dont wanna say again : my country is better than yours, lol, but as far as i am aware it would have been a lot different in Germany. Tony Martin might have had to go to court for shooting that boy, but only as a formality.
As he has clearly acted in self defence for himself and his propperty. What was he supposed to do? Not defend himself? What if one of the burglars had gotten out a knife after Mr.Martin had encountered them? Or should he just have watched them rob him? I think it is sad, that the boy died. he was really young, and probably just under that others mans influence, but even at that age he must have known, that he was doing wrong. and that it was dangerous.
And how is it possible That guy can sue Mr.Martin? Thats just laughable.

I have to admit that i can be quite a scared little girl and when i used to be alone in germany in the evening, i would get out one of my golf clubs ( usually a 7 iron, but sometimes a driver) and search the house for burglars.
And if there ever would have been one, i cannot guaranteed i wouldnt , more or less accidentally, have killed them with a blow to their head. Mainly cause i *am* absolutely terrified of ever finding someone in my house whos not supposed to be there. I'd be terrified of getting raped or killed myself. You hear it often enough. And even after i've heard of the Tony Martin case you can be well sure i'd put up a good fight with any Burglar. (well, more likely is, that i'll try and flee screaming like a little girl, but if i couldnt flee, i would at least scratch and bite!)

See, part of the problem with this whole issue is the state of journalism in this country.

How many of you know that Tony Martin spoke openly about killing the next person that broke into his house? Or that he kept his firearm close by for this sole reason? Or that the reason this case was considered not to be self defence was that Mr Martin failed to convince anyone that he felt in anyway physically threatened by the robbers, and that his motive for killing was not to protect himself but to protect his property? When he fired, his intention was to kill someone in revenge for the previous break-ins to his property and the failure of the police to do anything about it.

Now that I've coloured myself a bleeding heart liberal who is more interested in the rights of thieves than victims, let me clear some things up. I don't think Tony Martin is an evil man, and I think the family of the dead crook are the lowest form of scum. As is the low-life planning to sue him (and let's not pre-judge the judicial system before the outcome, or even start, of that case). I wouldn't shed a tear for the death of a single one of them, least of all the dead kid’s parents, whose clear immorality probably is the real reason their son is dead, and not Mr Martin.

As for Parole, I don't think they had a choice. Mr Martin refused to show any remorse, and made it clear he would do the same thing again once released. They have done their best to make the release as smooth as possible and to protect him from possible vigilantes.

We do have the right in this country to use 'reasonable force' to defend yourself in this country, whatever the far-right tabloids try to tell you. Reasonable force is defined as being anything you felt reasonable at the time. That is, if you felt your life was in danger, and the only way to preserve that life was to kill your assailant, then this is a legal defence. The law even takes into account your panicked state of mind at the time, and that your reaction may not be as rational as it would be in less fraught situations.

Just remember it's not as black and white as the red tops want you to think it is.

(Edited by Jayjay 01/08/2003 21:51)

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. Part of his statement was, that he woke up to the sound of the people shuffeling along downstairs, he didnt know what to do and first even stayed in bed but then forced himself to get up and walked to the upstairs hallway, then he could hear someone come up the stairs and he retreated, understandably terrified to his bedroom where her kinda waited for what would happen next. He wanted to leave the house, but didnt dare jump out of the window. Also quite understandably. At his age he would at least have broken his hip and wouldnt have been able to move away from under his window.
He then remembered his gun and tried to find it.
He said he's heard the stories about him having a gun next to his bed for the sole purpose of shooting burglars but says it wasnt so and that he infact had to search for the gun which he found under the bed with a lot of rubbish.
He then made his way downstairs to get out but when he was still on the stairs a flashlight shone into his face blinding him and he simply shot. He said he doesnt even remembered pulling the trigger more than once, cause of the adrenalin and didnt think he'd shot anyone, as they had run off afterwards.

Also, he said he didnt want to kill anyone, but that he was prepared to shoot at burglars after the police hadnt halped him after several break ins. He said while walking through the house he held his gun low as not to kill him, but because he was standing on the stairs when he shot it went horribly wrong.
And i cannot imagine that anyone can know whether or not he felt physically threatened by the intruders. I would always feel physically threatened by burglars. Where do you know they are not prepared to kill or at least hurt you?
He was terrified as, i suspect, anyone would be. And i can understand too well he shot. That the boy died was tragic, but no more Mr.Martins fault than his own.

One more thing, I do not know whether the family of the burglars can be called scum. As far as i know ( and please, bare with me, i only know what the media tells me) is, that Brendon Ferons family tried to stop him from suing Mr.Martin.
And what i've seen of the boys family, they seem to be decent aswell. I obviously dont know them but find it hard to judge them by the action of their 16 year old son.

And now that i have colored myself as a sympathizer with a heartless killer who's simply killed in raving revenge and sleeps with his gun under his pillow let me get back to my golfclub and practice my swing.

I don't think anyone but Tony Martin can really tell us what was going through his head at the moment he fired his gun, just because someone says they are willing to shoot someone if they break into their house doesn't mean they actualy will do it. As Barbara pointed out I think most of us would feel we would defend ourselves in that situation, but how we react at that given moment in time nobody could possibly say.

As for being sued by the other burgler ... it's a joke, he knew what he was doing when he entered Tony Martin's property no one forced him no one was holding a gun to his head and making him do what he did.

From a legal point of view, the burden of proof regarding 'self-defence' is on the accused and they have to show their actions amounted to reasonable force for the situation. In other words, he would have had to have shown his life was in danger or at risk of very serious harm when he pulled the trigger.

It's a misconception that you are allowed to do anything in self defence. A person is permitted to take whatever steps as is required in order to protect themselves or that of another person if they require it. If someone throws a punch at you in the street, it doesn't give you free reign to launch a sustained and viscious attack in response, knife them twenty times in the chest or shoot them in the head. Remember, it is not only the victim whose interests are being protected, it is the public at large. If the police sometimes get it wrong in armed response incidents (and they frequently do) and an innocent person is shot, then it is possible for a nervous member of the public to do the same if they are under the misapprehension they are under threat from attack.

As to the rights and wrongs of this particular case, the only people who heard all the evidence were the jury so I'm cautious as to express a point of view when I don't know all the facts. However, I would say that a) there must have been evidence of an intent to kill for the case to be brought and got all the way to trial and b)there is a wider picture to be looked at here that goes beyond this single case that the public sometimes forget.

It is a tragic case all round.

(Edited by Whistler 30/07/2003 14:25)

He shot someone in the back as they were running away... he did not shot to wound he shot to kill. And now he's being made out to be a Hero?!?

It sickens me

I agree with you whistler, that it is hard to tell for us. I have a question: Was he trialed for murder? I know its a stupid question, but remember i wasnt in england 4 years ago and have no clue. lol. I thought he'd been trialed for firing a gun he didnt have a licence for?

Another thing. IF its right what he says, than there's no light in the downstairs part of his house and he had no way of knowing at who or what he shot. especially not if they had their backs turned or not Sydney.

I do think it is a very very difficult case but if there was no light downstairs (and i've heard nothing contradicting that) than i do believe it was hard to judge whether the burglars were armed or not.
I am just trying to put myself in his place. Wouldnt you be absolutely terrified when realising that you're alone in a house far away from others and help while its being burgeled? Wouldnt you have loads of adrenalin rushing through your blood.

I do think though, that i'd much rather have hidden in a closet (WITH a weapon, in case i got found and be able to defend myself. Whether it'd be a golf club, a knife , a gun or just something heavy) and try to wait it out)

Well, or, I'm rather young. I'd probably have jumped out of the window and run a couple of miles.lol

Edit: Just an afterthought: as i do definitely count myself as a nervous member of the public i wouldnt ever have moved into a place so far out. So I'd probably just start screaming like hell and scare them away while all the windows in my house would break.

(Edited by sara-angel 30/07/2003 16:53)

---

by sara-angel
Was he trialed for murder?

---

Yes, he was tried, and convicted, of murder. This was later reduced to manslaughter on appeal

---

Another thing. IF its right what he says, than there's no light in the downstairs part of his house and he had no way of knowing at who or what he shot. especially not if they had their backs turned or not Sydney.

---

If he could not see who, or what, he was shooting out, his actions are reckless. It is no defence. It still amounts to an unlawful killing at it's lowest.

---

I do think it is a very very difficult case but if there was no light downstairs (and i've heard nothing contradicting that) than i do believe it was hard to judge whether the burglars were armed or not.

---

As above, he was being reckless as to whether other people's lives were at risk. He would have to prove that his live was in danger (or he was at risk of very serious bodily harm) to justify letting off a shot.

---

I am just trying to put myself in his place. Wouldnt you be absolutely terrified when realising that you're alone in a house far away from others and help while its being burgeled? Wouldnt you have loads of adrenalin rushing through your blood.

---

The public are entitled to be protected. Yes, these were burglars who are beneath contempt. Let's take an example. Someone breaks down in their car late at night near Martin's farmhouse. They approach his front door to ask for help or to use his phone. Martin, who has been the victim of burglaries in the past, hears a noise outside and fears that another burglar is on his premises. Knowing the police have failed to deal with the problem in the past, he grabs his shotgun and hears someone at the front door. In his panic, he fires off a shot. Outside, the stranded motorist collapses. He later dies in hospital. He leaves a wife and two children.

Okay, it didn't happen, but it could have.

This is the wider picture the public sometimes fail to see.

As is say, at it's lowest, this case was still an unlawful killing. If the appeal judges had decided Martin had acted with reasonable force his conviction would have been overturned altogether. Although, I agree, had the police done their job to begin with, in tackling the burglaries, then none of this would probably have happened.

And, as Sydney says, there's something unsettling about turning someone who has killed a fellow human being, into some sort of a folk hero

---

by Milky
In America he wouldn't have had a case to answer.

---

Oh, and is this something we want to aspire to in this country.

Or have we forgotten that an American's citizens right to bear arms has led to numerous tragedies in the States, not least of which was what occured at Columbine High School four years ago.

And I apologise for repeating in my earlier posts a lot of what Jayjay had already said in his post


(Edited by Whistler 30/07/2003 17:19)

ok, this subject is really getting on my nerves. Every time i see a pic in the paper of the guy that burgled Tony Martin, i just want to find him and shoot him myself.
Tony martin has done nothing wrong.
Yes he shot 2 people, but if someone broke into my home, i would shoot them. There is NO excuse for someone BREAKING into your home, invading your privacy and stealing your things, and as far as im concerned, the burglers are the ones that are committing the crime, so they are the ones that run the risk if anything happens.

Anyone can take the side of the burglars, but if the situation happened to them, they would back tony martin all the way.

And now this guy is trying to sue tony martin, saying his sex life has been ruined and he cannot work cos he has been shot. Well, from what ive heard hes never worked, so what has been ruined, the fact that he can't burgle other houses while he is injured. If anyhting, tony martin has done the other locals a favour. if the guy got away who knows how many other people he would have tried to have robbed.
The justice system these days sucks, there is absolutly no common sence. A man gets jailed for defending his home, and the burglar he shot is allowed to sue him????????? Is there anyone who see this as wrong, too many people.

Has anybody been reading the policemans letters in the sun newpaper, about how frustrating their jobs are these days because criminals they bring in know how to work around the system, so they just get away with everything.

Basically this can all be summed up. If that idiot didnt commit a crime by breaking into someones house, then none of this would have happened. So whos fault is it????

No one is saying that the burglars haven't committed a crime. But that doesn't give anyone the right to start shooting people without lawful excuse.

And, Im afraid, GothBoy, you have managed to illustrate why 'reasonable force' is a part of any self defence argument. If we all took the view that we 'shoot now, ask questions later' then we would be on a very slippery slope towards vigilantes and anarchy.


Oh, and yes, I have read these letters the police officers have been writing to The Sun. There is two sides to every story. And, while there are undoubtedly failures in the CJS, these are on all sides. These officers seems to be suggesting it is the fault of everyone other than the police which simply isn't the case. I saw one officer bemoaning the fact that he had to list material that undermined the case. What stupidity!! It was the with-holding of undermining material which lead to Sally Clarke being convicted of killing her babies and the subsequent successful appeal. The job of prosecuting people isn't to just secure convictions, it is to prosecute them fairly.

I don't suppose they will admit to cases collapsing because they have failed to gather the neccesary evidence to prosecute people. Or would they suggest we fabricate evidence to secure convictions at the risk of innocent people being convicted?

The principle of British Criminal Law is that it is better for a hundred guilty people to be acquitted than one innocent person be convicted. And, while there are miscarriages of justice occasionally, the majority of times the right verdict is reached.

Yes, common sense must be a factor in the prosecution of cases. But once you let emotion take over, juggement is clouded and then the Criminal Justice System would truly collapse.


(Edited by Whistler 30/07/2003 18:26)

---

by Whistler
Let's take an example. Someone breaks down in their car late at night near Martin's farmhouse. They approach his front door to ask for help or to use his phone. Martin, who has been the victim of burglaries in the past, hears a noise outside and fears that another burglar is on his premises. Knowing the police have failed to deal with the problem in the past, he grabs his shotgun and hears someone at the front door. In his panic, he fires off a shot. Outside, the stranded motorist collapses. He later dies in hospital. He leaves a wife and two children.

---

Ok, just had to add. There is a BIG BIG difference between someone knocking on your door asking to use the phone, and someone making noise INSIDE your house while going through your stuff, walking up and down your stairs.

This is not a difficult case. Just put yourself in tony martin's shoes. If Your house was being robbed im sure you would do everything you could to defend it. Tony martin had a gun because of repeated attemps at buglars invading his home. I would have done the same thing in his position. You're all still invited round to my place though lol.

---

by GothBoy
Basically this can all be summed up. If that idiot didnt commit a crime by breaking into someones house, then none of this would have happened. So whos fault is it????

---

My sentiments exactly if you are going to commit a crime it is a hazard of the 'job'.

While this reasonale force thing is hard to define you have to remember that it isn't a new thing for burglars to beat people to death, It may be too wrongs dont make a right but it is the burglars who shouldnt have been there in the first place.

I agree 100% with Tony Martin.

Also, on a self defence note, do you know it's illegal for women (or men) to carry mace or pepper spray to defend themselves from an attack? How rediculious! Like we little women can just fight off a big strong bloke!

A good way around this is to carry a small can of hair spray or deodorant. If you've ever got hairspray in your eyes you'll know it stings like crazy, blinding an attacker and giving you a chance to flee!

though, i have been warned, if you do harm an attacker with this spray, you can be charged and he will have legal recourse to sue.

Me, i'd rather be sued and charged than attacked so i contunue to carry my "concealed weapon".

---

by GothBoy
(quotes)

Ok, just had to add. There is a BIG BIG difference between someone knocking on your door asking to use the phone, and someone making noise INSIDE your house while going through your stuff, walking up and down your stairs.

---

But how do you know that Martin wouldn't have done this if he was constantly worried about tresspassers and/or burglars.

I take your point. I'm just saying that people are prosecuted with the public in mind and it is the Crown which bring prosecutions and not the aggrieved. Hence why it is 'The Queen versus.....'. The State has a duty to protect citizens being shot by others.

I'm sorry if that sounds dispassionate but if the evidence is there and the public interest factot is satisfied, then you prosecute.

I work in an office, so I run the risk of papercuts, Postmen run the risk of getting bitten by a dog and burglars run the risk of getting shot. Its as simple as that.

I'm not the "go quietly" type and although I've never had someone break into my house, I *have* been attacked on the street. I did what I always said I would, I fought and screamed and kicked the B****** until he was down and I could run away (I think he was quite surprised by the fighting and I was outta there like a gazelle on steroids), but afterwards I got *really* scared. It was almost like I was on autopilot and in all fairness I couldn't have been held responsible for any of his injuries.

No-one knows exactly what happened that night in Tony Martin's house, but self-preservation is just that and, when used within reasonable limits, should never be judged as murder.

I'm done being serious now... where's the caaaaaaaake?

---

by Whistler
Oh, and is this something we want to aspire to in this country.

Or have we forgotten that an American's citizens right to bear arms has led to numerous tragedies in the States, not least of which was what occured at Columbine High School four years ago.

And I apologise for repeating in my earlier posts a lot of what Jayjay had already said in his post

---

No I wouldn't want Britain to adopt America's very liberal gun laws...there have been enough incidents in this country never mind America which make me think that the public really shouldn't be allowed to keep guns for any reason (Dunblane instantly springs to mind )

What I am saying however is more or less what Gothboy said...The guy was commiting a crime by robbing Tony Martins house, he shouldn't have been there and if he hadn't been there he wouldn't have been shot. I see what you mean about the crown having to protect people and your example of a stranded motorist..but Tony Martin didn't shoot the guy through his front door when he was just standing about..he shot the guy while he was inside his house where he had no right to be.

On the issue of the guy sueing...it's a joke...he's sueing for loss of income because of injurys recieved while commiting a criminal act. If I decided to try and rob the local bank, scaled the roof, fell off and ended up paralysed would it be fair for me to sue the bank for not making sure I couldn't climb the roof??

Please excuse the length of this post.

Without rebutting specific claims by individual posters, some other thoughts on the Tony Martin situation:

Tony Martin shot and killed Fred Barras.

He shot Fred Barras with a pump action shotgun that he possessed illegally.

The reason it was illegal for Tony Martin to have a shotgun is that his gun license was revoked after he shot at a trespasser trying to steal apples.

After suffering several burglaries, witnesses during the trial testified that he had threatened to shoot burglars like 'rats in a trap' and to blow their heads off.

Brendan Fearon, who was also shot in the attempted burglary is not suing Tony Martin for damages. However, if he were, he would have a case. The law applies to everyone and will punish him for the crimes he commits. When he committed burglary, he did not forfeit his right to the law's protection in an instance where he is the victim (of a shooting with an illegally possessed pump action shotgun for example). Unfair? The law should be dispassionate and universal. It should not pick and choose.

A jury in possession of all the evidence convicted Tony Martin of murder after deliberating for just over nine hours.

This verdict was later reduced to manslaughter after Tony Martin's defence team claimed diminished responsibility due to psychiatric problems.


Personally, I think this is an extreme case, and extreme cases should never be used as the basis for lawmaking. However, what are the broad principles here?

We are lucky to live in a country where guns are scarce, even amongst the police. The more guns in circulation, the more likely that someone will get shot, deliberately or accidentally.

Before the burglary, the police did not consider Tony Martin safe to possess a shotgun. He obtained one illegally and killed someone. I'd suggest the police had made an accurate assessment.

I have little sympathy for the burglars and can understand the frustration that at least one of them had a string of previous convictions.

However, my personal feelings are this:

Human life is precious and when Tony Martin shot Fred Barras in the back he acted as judge, jury and executioner enforcing the death penalty for the crime of attempted burglary.

To act in self defence is to respond to a physical threat. Burglary is unpleasant but the willingness to break and enter, or to steal is not the same thing as the willingess to cause harm and should not be seen as such.

For lethal force to be a reasonable response, there should be a reasonable expectation of imminent physical injury.

Tony Martin had a shotgun, the burglars didn't. Fred Barras was shot in the back. Assuming for a moment that all the involved parties behave rationally, I would imagine that the threat of violence backed up by an overwhelming advantage of firepower would be sufficient to deter the burglars.

Someone running away from you does not represent much of a threat.

Burglaries happen. Reasonable responses include fitting better locks, calling the police and making claims against insurance policies. Laws exist to punish burglars in proportion to the crimes they commit.

And one final thought:

In 2001, Tony Martin's lawyers appealed his murder conviction on the grounds of diminished responsibility, that Mr Martin could not be convicted of murder because he was mentally incapable of understanding his actions in that context. Mr Martin does not appear particularly remorseful now he has been released. Do you feel more or less safe now that he has been released?