To agree that Tony Martin's murder conviction should be over turned?

[FeckingEll]

Just read an article that he is appealing against his conviction so his name is cleared before he dies. It always troubled me.

Putting myself in the position of living in a isolated farm which had been continously burgled, probably living in a state of hyper vigilance. Home invaded by a group of young men in the middle of the night. It was not right that he shot when they were not actually advancing towards him but he wouldn't have known that they weren't going to turn round and come back.

He didn't seek anyone out to kill them and he couldn't have been expected to have taken account of the age of the people who had invaded his home.

Much was made of him 'booby trapping' his house but who wouldn't so you could hear if anyone got in while you were sleeping?

The people responsible for the 16 year olds death were the adults who took him with them to invade someone else's house! It could easily have been Tony who was murdered. If someone invades your home in the middle of the night, you can expect that to be a potential outcome, no?

The way Tony was portrayed in the media was abhorrent especially as it has come out that he is on the autism spectrum.

?

I thought they let him out years ago?

YABVVVU

Imo once someone steps in your house uninvited like that all bets are off and they get what they deserve.

But then I wanted to electrify my front hall so any intruders would get electrocuted so I'm probably not the best person to comment. (I've had a home invasion).

Absolutely agree 100%. There was a very similar case in Ireland about 10 years ago, a man called Padraig Nally who was originally sentenced to 6 years for manslaughter, but whose conviction was later quashed.

Iirc, he shot the boy in the back when he was running away?

I can’t see how it could be anything but murder if that was the case.

He sat waiting in an unoccupied property (he owned it but it wasn't his home and it was derelict) waiting for people to enter and when they did, on being alerted to his presence, they tried to run away but he shot one of them in the back. Yes yabu.

I dont want the uk to turn in to the usa. So his record should remain as a warning that this behaviour is wrong

Yes. You are.

I've never heard that before Lady. From my understanding he did live there at the time but never returned after the burglary.

The prosecutions case was that he was lying in wait but not sure what evidence they had and how would he have known they were coming.

I am trying to put myself in his mindset at the time having been burgled while asleep myself (thankfully had a lock on bedroom door but I can still remember the utter horror on realising someone had been in my home). He could have been frightened they might come back.

He had been burgled 10 times previously. Barras had 29 previous convictions at 16 and had only just been released on bail on the morning for another offence.

Agree. There is plenty of scope for people to defend themselves to a reasonable degree to protect themselves/loved ones/property and actually all circumstances are taken into account - so, what's "reasonable" when it's the middle of the night, you're groggy from sleep, can't see properly and have kids asleep in the next room is different from what's "reasonable" if you're on a busy sunlit street with a police station on the corner (for example). If you go beyond that remit then you really have gone too far and yes should be held responsible. It happens rarely though - courts and police understand about stress and fear and panic and will generally give you the benefit of the doubt. You'd have to be deliberately setting out to get someone or go well over the top to end up with a record. Both of which, incidentally, apply to Martin.

Burgled ten times.Dont you think that would affect anyone.Maybe less do gooders and harsher sentences for burglery would be better.

He should never haveee been jailed imo.

You kill someone you kill someone.
Meh.

Hundreds of thousands of burglaries are carried out each year, but it is very rare for a burglar to murder a householder. Therefore, no, you should not expect to be murdered by a tresspasser.

He shot the boy as punishment for his offence of tresspassing. If you, like Tony Martin, think that being shot and killed is an appropriate punishment for this crime, I'd be interested to hear what you think should happen to child abusers and rapists. Medieval style torture?

Live by the sword, die by the sword. Meh.

One of my local radio stations was talking about Tony Martin’s case today.

They had a retired senior police officer on, who said, among other things, that the gun Tony Martin used was illegally owned because the police had removed his firearms license (and a gun he’d owned at that time).
He also said that before the fatal burglary, Tony Martin had been telling numerous people that he’d got a new gun, and that he would use it to shoot any burglars.
Which does make the shooting sound rather premeditated.

And he said that, while householders are legally allowed to use force to protect themselves if confronted by a burglar, once the burglar has turned to flee the property, they’re no longer presenting a threat, so shooting a burglar in the back doesn’t count as legitimate self defence.

@HopeGarden but if those scrotes hadn't been breaking in to his house they wouldn't have been shot.

Death by misadventure inmo..

Well, he did murder someone so his conviction should not be overturned.

It must be awful when your property is repeatedly burgled, but threats to your property are not threats to your life. Shooting a person in the back as they are leaving your property is not self-defence.

In a civilised society you act within the confines of the law or you are committing a crime.

You make the decision to enter someone's house illegally, then you take your chances and accept any consequences imo.

I think he’s got a cheek tbh. His murder conviction was reduced to manslaughter already.

He shot someone in the back as he was running away with an illegally held firearm, and even if he hadn’t had his firearms certificate taken away the one he had would still have been illegal).

Plus he lost his firearms certificate for shooting at someone who stole apples frim his trees so he also has a history of over reaction.

Eliza9917

True that he wouldn’t have shot them if they’d not broken in, but it’s also true that shooting someone in the back as they’re fleeing the house can’t be considered as legitimate self defence.

Tough shit. They shouldn't have been there. If they weren't, they wouldn't have got shot.

In the dark, after being burgled 10 times, how's he to know which direction they were going?

Never heard of "an eye for an eye"? Killing someone is nothing like burglary. I wouldn't want to be burgled, but it really doesn't warrant a death penalty.

Once you cross a threshold when you shouldn't be there you deserve all you get inmo.

Also haven’t the police said they doubt the 10 burglaries actually all happened?