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.

?

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

He shot a burglar, the use of 'boy' is very emotive, are we expected to accept 'boys' being burgling thugs?
He defended his home and himself, the thug got what he deserved.

"The tresspasser/burglar got EXACTLY what he deserved. Conviction should 100%be overturned."
Do you think there should be capital punishment for trespassers and burglars?

He shot a burglar who was also a boy, legally, being under 18 years of age. It may be emotive but it's also true.

He shot a burglar, the use of 'boy' is very emotive, are we expected to accept 'boys' being burgling thugs?
He defended his home and himself, the thug got what he deserved

The 'thug' was nevertheless a 16 year old boy

cross post with annie

He shot a child in the back and killed him. Of course his conviction should stand.

I'd never read the appeal judgement in this case until now. After reading that, it's even more obvious he should never have been charged for anything other than having an unlicensed gun.

The shooting a 16 year old in the back makes it sound like he was standing behind him and deliberately aimed at Barras's back as he was leaving the property. It seems like it was very different and Fearon changed his evidence after visiting the property with police after initially saying that shots were fired from the stairs towards the floor in the dark after Tony was blinded by a light shining in his face. He couldn't have called an ambulance for Barras if he couldn't find him after he escaped via a window and crawled away after being shot. He stated he was unaware anyone had been hit which makes sense.

Would anyone really wait to see if people who invaded their home's intentions were friendly? I wouldn't. It wouldn't have been clear how many there were in the dark. It was accepted that he was terrified for his life.

It was remarked that Tony was of 'previous good character' in the judgement so hardly a violent thug unlike the scum who invaded his home. It seems that as he had publicly threatened to shoot anyone who invaded his property previously, which let's face it anyone would do in frustration after previous invasions, that was taken as intent.

I do feel sorry for Barras. Not that he was shot while causing terror to someone while invading their home, but because a young boy obviously had no one in his life to save him from taking the path that meant he'd racked up 29 convictions by the time he was 16. The adults in his life were responsible for that, not Tony Martin.

I hope he's successful in getting his conviction quashed.

Barras's age was irrelevant. How could Tony possibly have known how old he was.

It was remarked that Tony was of 'previous good character' in the judgement so hardly a violent thug unlike the scum who invaded his home

I suppose if you consider someone who'd reacted so strongly to someone pinching apples that they lost their firearms certificate AND had held a previously illegally owned firearm as well as the murder weapon 'of good character' he was. He also used a gun to damage property belonging to his own brother and frquently told neighbourhood watch meetings that he'd put burglers in a field and use a machine gun on them.

I find it amazing that a man with a history of illegally obtaining guns gets such sympathy. If you hold illegal firearms then you only have one intention imo - murder.

“The shooting a 16 year old in the back makes it sound like he was standing behind him and deliberately aimed at Barras's back as he was leaving the property. It seems like it was very different and Fearon changed his evidence after visiting the property with police after initially saying that shots were fired from the stairs towards the floor in the dark after Tony was blinded by a light shining in his face.”

That’s exactly what it does say- that Martin shot him in the back as he was running a way. That Martin lied about being on the staircase when the shots were fired from within 4m, well inside the same room as the burglars.

Fearon didn’t lie about the staircase- he had never been in the house before and assumed. He didn’t know, in the dark, that Martin had removed the last 3/4 steps of the staircase and therefore couldn’t have been standing at the bottom of it. Nothing like the untruths that came from Tony Martin

FeckingEll

Barras's age was irrelevant. How could Tony possibly have known how old he was.

Well that's fucked all the raped children as the perpetrator can claim they thought the victim was over the age of consent.

Seriously, have a fucking think before you post.

That’s a bit daft historonics. I wouldn’t defend Tony Martin for a second but his only encounter with Ballas was over seconds in the pitch black. Of course he didn’t know how young he was, how could he?

It’s in no way like the rape of a minor for goodness sake

Of course his age is important, Tony Martin may not have realised how old he was, he still killed a child, whether by accident or not.

The Jury would have had all the factual evidence, so I think they are in a much better position to judge then random hearsay on the internet.

It really doesn’t matter whether the boy who was shot had previous convictions etc... he was still a human being and his life was taken in quite dodgy circumstances it seems.

lala that was in the court judgement BTW. Its not my opinion.

Capri in the appeal judgment, one of the experts agreed that it was possible that the first shot came from the stairs. Not that they've been known to ever get it wrong have they? It was also said that in his distress Martin didn't remember walking down the stairs.

Histrionics please DO think before you post hysterical bollocks. There's a dear.

Meralia it's irrelevant in that Martin did not have deliberate intent to kill a child.

WTAF was a 'child' doing out in the early hours of the morning invading people's homes? The fact that he had criminal convictions for violence (together with his accomplices) shows that Martin was correct to fear for his life no?

No. It’s never been shown that he feared for his life. Otherwise he would have a self defence defence and not convicted of anything.

“WTAF was a 'child' doing out in the early hours of the morning invading people's homes?“

Agreed. But that’s a different discussion, surely?

You are allowed to use reasonable force. Shooting someone in the back as they are running away does not fall into that category.

OP, you suggested that it doesn't matter if the victim of a crime is later to be identified as a child. You said it was 'irrelevant'.

You do realise many sexual assault charges in the UK hinge on the victim and perpetrator ages? Belief or claimed belief by the perpetrator that the victim is over the age of consent is key.

www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwidpYn599jeAhVCgRoKHfanDwwQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fuk-news%2F2017%2Fmar%2F17%2Fman-who-pleaded-guilty-of-raping-12-year-old-freed-by-glasgow-high-court&psig=AOvVaw3fFi9nKKryVT3gtvaLCoPg&ust=1542458533599753

Here we have a (then) 19 year old walking free from pleading guilty to raping a 12 year old. But how could he have known? Is the same argument you've presented for Tony Martin. You suggest the victim in this case being a child is irrelevant. In what way?

Is age of victim irrelevant or not? Should we treat people perpetrating crimes against children differently to those who have perpetrated crimes against adults or not?

“You are allowed to use reasonable force. Shooting someone in the back as they are running away does not fall into that category.”

This really is the bottom line, isn’t it. No more needs to be said.

Gavel!

It isn't self defense if someone is running away.
He shouldn't have owned that gun, it was an illegal shot gun.
And by your logic does the kid being out of the house at dodgy hours deserve death then? A lot of young people sneak out of the house at night, and sadly some do get caught up in crime at a young age. I don't see why that means it's justified to be shot in the back and bleed to death. He was a person.
Burglary is awful and I don't minimize the trauma it causes victims or justify burglars behaviour, but I don't think it's worthy of a death sentence, no.

I think some people are confusing what they would like the law to be (the right to kill burglars) and what the law actually is (ie it allows proportionate self defence).

Therefore the takeaway is aim low and hit them in the leg, to immobilize them while the police show up.

Therefore the takeaway is aim low and hit them in the leg, to immobilize them while the police show up.

If you were sufficiently calm and collected to formulate that thought, you were calm enough not to shoot them.

Well can I just ask what posters would do if they faced two burglars in their home in the early hours of the morning after previously being burgled on several occasions. It’s pitch dark and you are in a remote, run down farmhouse. Alone.

I will concede that if he had Rottweilers on the premises for protection he should have had them with him and not roaming around outside.