Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

342 replies

FeckingEll · 16/11/2018 00:11

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.

?

OP posts:
Aridane · 16/11/2018 01:43

Just referring to the legal position, eliza ...

Eliza9917 · 16/11/2018 01:45

So just because it looked dilapidated anyone and anyone should be able to trespass and take what they like?

Ladygodivasroom · 16/11/2018 01:46

Ell, I remember reading it at the time.

Newspaper report here which talks about "buildings" and the delapidated overgrown state of them:

www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/environment/born-into-a-well-off-family-the-happy-young-man-who-became-a-killer-1-55865

Eliza9917 · 16/11/2018 01:47

At the end of the day it wasn't their property and they had no right to be there.

Ladygodivasroom · 16/11/2018 01:48

The same newspaper report also gives a flavour of his previous gun activity.

statetrooperstacey · 16/11/2018 01:49

I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with ' he was a nut job who lived like a hobo' being a good enough reason to allow thieves to enter his property with impunity.
If someone is unwilling or unable to carry out maintenance and repairs should that mean their homes are less important? I'm sure Your home is very important even if you are 'reclusive Nutjob hobo'.

SmashedPatsy · 16/11/2018 01:50

I completely agree with the conviction.

Ladygodivasroom · 16/11/2018 01:51

Eliza, whether they "should" or not, yes, people do go into buildings they think are empty and don't belong to anyone, because they don't think they're doing any real harm. It's an entirely different act from breaking into a cosy family home. The guy's roof, what there was of it, was covered in fucking plant life. It didn't look like anyone was there.

Eliza9917 · 16/11/2018 01:53

So what?

Aridane · 16/11/2018 01:53

At the end of the day it wasn't their property and they had no right to be there.

Which is why they were given prison sentences. But still doesn’t sanction their murder when they were LEAVING the property. Revenge killing rather than self defence / protection.

Still, Martin’s sentence got reduced to mansalughter becaise or diminished respinsibilty, I think, not because of self defence

Eliza9917 · 16/11/2018 01:55

I think once you break the law yourself you give up all rights to being protected by law.

If they weren't there, they wouldn't have got shot.

Simple as.

Ladygodivasroom · 16/11/2018 01:56

Thanks for that, Aridane. There were a fair few reports at the time which said he didn't always sleep in the "house" - iirc the outbuildings - pretty indistinguishable from the "house" by that point, in terms of condition- were also used.

Ladygodivasroom · 16/11/2018 01:58

Well Martin himself had shot at people/cars/windows on various occasions by the time he installed himself in a chair with a gun waiting to shoot more people. Does that mean he should also lose the protection of the law?

Aridane · 16/11/2018 01:59

Ithink once you break the law yourself you give up all rights to being protected by law.

Happily our legal system isn’t constructed on that basis - otherwise for law breakers, DEATH AWAITS YOU

Jack65 · 16/11/2018 02:01

He shot a 16 year old in the back. Dead. Not sure how his family felt about that.

Eliza9917 · 16/11/2018 02:01

No, because he was sitting in his own property, if that hadn't have intruded they wouldn't have got shot. Pretty simple really.

Ladygodivasroom · 16/11/2018 02:01

GrinGrin

Fair's fair now. The wee girl in front of me in the shop was a penny short when buying her sweeties earlier on and tried to make off with them regardless. Obviously, I shot her in the face because she had placed herself BEYOND THE PROTECTION OF THE LAW.

Eliza9917 · 16/11/2018 02:11

That's entirely different, she didn't invade her way into someones house

Original poster
FeckingEll · 16/11/2018 02:11

I cannot believe that the state of a private property can be used as justification for people innocently breaking in Hmm.

I think he was justified that he could be at risk of attack personally. What could have happened if he hadn't had a gun?

These were hardly kids out for a muck around in some ruins. They all had previous convictions for violence.

He fired towards them, probably in utter panic. Tough luck they were hit in my view.

OP posts:
user1457017537 · 16/11/2018 02:12

LadyGodiva so why was he being burgled in the middle of the night then. Do thieves and burglars normally go around thinking “O there’s a derelict building that is overrun and dilapidated lets break in”. Why had the property been targeted on several different occasions. Obviously they though there was money or antiques on the premises. I have been the victim of a home invasion and I would still shoot the fuckers if I had the chance ten years later. My husband and son fought off 4 armed men and despite DNA they have never been caught.

Eliza9917 · 16/11/2018 02:15

Why should they be given the benefit of the doubt? Weren't the same people found to have burgled his property several times before?

Ladygodivasroom · 16/11/2018 02:16

Has no one on here ever snuck into an empty building to have a smoke and a can of cider with their mates? Really? Never been to a squat party?

Original poster
FeckingEll · 16/11/2018 02:17

He stated he was woken by them smashing a window Lady. Who could possibly prove that he was sitting in a chair waiting for them unless they were there? If he was, he was right to, no? It is stated he slept in his clothes and boots for fear of people breaking in.

OP posts:
ExFury · 16/11/2018 02:18

He fired towards them, probably in utter panic. Tough luck they were hit in my view.

He did kill the lad with a lucky/unlucky shot. He had an illegal firearm that reloaded automatically - so most likely chosen for its rapid firing ability - and he shot two people running away from him. Barras was hit once in the leg and once in the back so he wasn’t aiming to scare them, he deliberately shot someone with an illegal high powered gun.

Plus he bought/obtained the weapon for that purpose and had shot at people before, so not panic, but premeditation

Ladygodivasroom · 16/11/2018 02:18

And even if you haven't, can you really not see how someone doing that, and doing it unarmed, is a different situation to a wicked burglar jemmying open the lock on what is obviously an occupied home?