Tony Martin To Stand As MP (Possibly...)

in these current times. law and justice don't go hand in hand Mike.

sad but true

hey, it was dark you know

Tony Martin's only problem was that he shot them outside. He should've let them in and then shot them (that's advice from a police officer). Personally I think if someone's knocking down my front door, I should be well within my rights to shoot them through the door. Unfortunately, our laws pertaining to self-defense are designed to protect the criminal. Now if Tony Martin watches these guys, then stalks them through the streets of London with a 12-gauge, that's a bit different than shooting them on his property while they're fleeing, which should still be a protected right.

Why should he have to call the police if he knows they're (the criminals) coming? The fact that he havd that knowledge in advance doesn't effect the fact that they broke into his house and are on his property (yard?). Its still self defense.

I don't know know how to explain my beliefs about guns in detail without having the whole of JT (well, most of them) set upon me with a vengance, but I believe citizen ownership of firearms (both of hunting and military purpose) is an integral part of maintaining a free society, as well as ensuring self defense.

Adrian

Im not sticking up for any theif but they dont deserve to be shot dead, shooting all burglers wouldnt solve any problems it would just make Britain more violent. Im glad are gun laws are so strict, I watched a programme on TV the other night where in America they were offering a free gun to anyone who signed up for this bank account

Ok, the first issue we have here is the use of the word "armed". In the Tony Martin case the burglar was not armed nor had he given Tony Martin reason to think he was.


As Mike has quite rightly pointed out - the person who was shot was not in Tony Martin's house.

In this country, you cannot shoot an unarmed man who is fleeing the scene in the back and claim it's the right thing to do. You know what? I'm damned glad of that.

Absolutely Mike, this is exactly the point.

It is not self defence. He was not defending himself! The burglars were leaving the scene - at that point Tony Martin was not in any danger, nor was the situation remotely confrontational. Therefore shooting the burglar in the back was unlawful.

We don't have capital punishment in the UK anymore, something which having studied the law, I am glad of. In this instance, Tony Martin decided that the UK should still have the death penalty and he took the law into his own hands. Something which is totally unacceptabe - criminal or saint.

k so lets for a minute imagine that he let them go cos they were fleeing (wouldn't u if sopmeone was waving a gun in ur face)

how long would it be till they came back tooled up to get him or to rob him again?

it wasn't the 1st time he'd been robbed and even though getting shot for breaking into a house is a bit extreme. guess what. he wouldn't be dead if he hadn't done it in the 1st place.

when my bro got arrested for drink driving he was blamign me and my mates for messing around in the car and drawing attention to it and i basically said "we'll if you don't drink and drive, they can;'t arrest you if you get pulled over. simpleas that"

you have to accept the consequences of your actions. if you break into a house sooner or later someones going to do something about it.

I'd rather have a gun and know i'll come out better off than anyone that breaks into my house

I was using armed in the an example other than the TM case.

You should be able to if he's on your property. This is what happens when people are disarmed. Their property rights slowly vanish since they don't have any way to defend them. Now if the guy was in the street and running, I would look at it differently, but if the burglar was, for example, turning to run in Tony Martin's porch, on the front steps, or running down the driveway, it should be Tony Martin's right.

See above about shooting the running man. As for capital punishment, I don't believe in it either. The state has no business killing people, given the way they screw up everything else they'd probably kill the wrong guy most of the time, plus I don't believe that killing should be funded with tax dollars, since there are people who object to it.

Yeah actually, they do deserve to be shot at. I'm not saying every petty peeping tom or car thief should be killed, but when the people start shooting at assailants, the crime rate invariably goes down. It wouldn't make Britian more violent, it'd send a strong message to the criminals that they can't just walk on the populace. Check out the stats I posted on robberies in the US compared to robberies in the UK on the other page.

The free gun for a bank account is an over-publicized incident in what was probably a backroad town. Things are a little different in the country.

Adrian

If the guy who was shot's mate had a gun, there'd been more than 1 dead....

You should know that Tony Martin lives on a farm & the trespasser was not shot right outside his back door.

That's a pretty bad reason for letting the criminals have their way with your property. Don't defend yourself and your property because they might shoot back. Not a good enough reason for not defending yourself. That tells me to always shoot first and use high capacity magazines....

If he shot the guy on his property, it should be dropped. If he shot the guy in the street, he should have to prove he was defending himself, and if he can't, he should be tried as a criminal.

Adrian

You know how many people walk across farms?? Do they all forfeit their right to live??