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 don't understand why it has been continually stated that the three convicted criminals involved in this were not a risk to TM and he should have known that.
Because they were trying to escape out a window?

The two intruders were clearly pretty unsavoury character with a lot of form. Ditto Tony Martin. They didn't have guns - he did. To me that's about the only thing separating them. TM had a long history of illegal firearms use and had boasted about having a new gun so he could shoot intruders. Which he then did. That's called premeditation.

The conviction should stand. People blathering on about thieves 'deserving all they get' can go and live in the US where you have the right to bear arms and around 35000 people die every year from gun use. Enjoy it.

I havnt been burgled bit o don't believe I would shoot someone as they left my house if they posed a risk to my child that would be different. My husband has been burgled numerous times so have most of his family. It was common where they grew up on the estate they lived on it happened regularly it was obviously horrible but he doesn't believe Tony Martin should have shot anyone. It obviously awful to be burgled I don't think anyone on here would argue that and if you are at risk of harm then I think that's totally different but he wasn't at risk when he shot at them . Burglary is obviously very wrong but it's not punishable by death.

I'm not sure how likely a scenario is of someone "accidentally" invading a home at nighttime

It's happened in the States, with teenagers sneaking back into their own homes after breaking their curfew, shot dead by their own families who took them for burglars.

I must admit that I have not read all the posts on this thread, so I may be reiterating what has already been expressed. I do have some sympathy for Mr Martin. My brother and very elderly mother live on an isolated and, to be honest, rather run down, farm. There have been some suspicious visitors on the property and they have been a little scared at times.

However, my brother does not have a gun. He has a mobile phone that he can use to call the police and/or family members.

Mr Martin chose to 'defend' himself and his property by killing a child . There were alternatives to this action and Mr Martin did not take them.

So, yes, I can understand his fear, but his actions were criminal and cost a young boy his life. I am afraid I have much more sympathy for the mother who lost her son.

No, they weren't at the time he fired Leeking.

Here's a tip, why don't you check if what you are stating is actually true before posting.

Here's a tip, why don't you check if what you are stating is actually true before posting

Were you there when it actually happened then? Because as far as I'm aware different erosions of events have been stated!

The detailed forensic evidence considered in the trial and reconsidered by the Court of Appeal suggests that, at best (for Tony Martin), only the first shot from the stairs could have been in self-defence. The other two were fired when the burglars were leaving.

Tony Martin was quite unhinged and had his firearms licence removed for that reason. like another poster said we dont want here to end up like the us.

No, they weren't at the time he fired Leeking.
Not at the time of the first shot, but yes at the time of the third shot.

The big problem for Mr Martin was that there were two possible explanations for the events; one that it was self defence, and the other that he was laying in wait for the burglars and planned to kill them. The fact that his account of the facts was shown to be false on the basis of the forensic evidence (as agreed by his own expert) and that one of the shots occurred whilst the burglars were trying to escape, undermined his story about self-defence.

"I wonder how many people on here have been in a house in the dead of night when a burglar has broken in, absolutely terrifying."

I have. Was alone in the building as they entered the room where I was sleeping.

Still feel an awful lot safer knowing that I don't live in a society where people regularly keep firearms and take pot shots at anyone they suspect of being a burglar or otherwise up to no good.

I am sure that many of us would carry out summary justice if the circumstances were right. We might any of us kill a burglar, or someone who hurt our child. But that's why we have a legal system. We have decided as a society that we do not want tit for tat, eye for an eye retribution.

Yes we can be grateful we live in a society that doesn’t have firearms. Plenty of thugs have them though and a few hospitals have dedicated wards and experts in firearms injuries.

Having a gun in the house was totally normal for TM.

And totally criminal. His firearms license had been revoked.

Certainly his record shouldn't be quashed.

Remorse, I was told when I was convicted as a teenager is very important and I had shown zero. It didn't matter my reasons for committing (not that I killed anyone mind), or what the other party had done to me. I was on trial, not them. Many years on, I often think about my act but still feel no remorse. Based on what other party had done over months.

My lawyer tried to have me walk free. Something supported over several pre-sentencing hearing in the report, as I wasn't aware I'd committed a crime. Told ignorance is no defence. Second was I had premeditated my act and thus I deserved my sentence.

Tony Martin had a history of gun use and had license removed. Boasted he would kill someone. Waited for someone to chance their arm, who knows how many nights he sat there waiting for his big chance. He then shot someone, in the back. See, what I cannot get my head round is if he'd wanted to scare them away he'd have shot away from noise, like up for example. So, if what he did do wasn't premeditated then I honestly don't know what is.

Many have used mental health reasons in an attempt to avoid/reduce sentence.

If he has conviction stricken, can I get mine done too? Please, I've been good since...

Having a gun in the house was totally normal for TM.

I’m amazed the way people are just so casually accepting that this man had a firearm. He had an illegally held gun. Having previously lost his license by inappropriately using a gun. At which point it was discovered he had another illegally held gun.

Seems the “well if you break the law you pay the consequences” doesn’t apply to TM in the minds of many.

He was charged with murder because the bulletin holes which killed the burglar were in his back....he was fleeing.

They should not have been burgling TM and th courts took that into account when it came to sentencing and is why he didn’t get life.

He also had a gun he was holding illegally.

The burgers deserved retaliation but as the law stands defence must be reasonable and TM was not in his actions.