The second shot is what made the difference between murder and self defence. Firing a shot at the two intruders he could have got away with, firing a second shot when the guy was down was murder... it seems pretty clear to me, there is no requirement to defend yourself against a guy laying on the floor wounded.

We miss you in the circle jerk :icare:

Are you sure the criminal wasn't reaching for something to use as a weapon? I'd err on the side of caution if I saw a criminal reaching for ANYTHING and promptly shoot to stop the threat.

Can you explain the other stories in the article? These are just a few selections from an entire country that places criminal rights above the rights of victims.

"Don't put barbed-wired around your house because burglars might get hurt."

I wish my ancestors were still around so that I could thank them for fleeing such a place.

Of course you shouldnt be able to surround your house with barbed wire, it is a danger for children and animals.

The guy who killed himself is an unfortunate story, but the law does not allow you to take pot shots at vandals, even with pellet guns. The vandals of course should have faced charges, but it is right that the man was charged for shooting at the kids with his pellet gun.

The kid who ran around waving a toy gun obviously made someone think he had a real gun, that was the report that the police got and they had to act on it - the kid was released I dont see a problem. Toy guns should not be legal anyway, why would you want to encourage a child to play shooting people? It was a very irresponsible gift to buy an 11 year old child and the parents need to look very hard at themselves rather than looking at who else they can blame - if the police receive a report of a kid running round with a gun they have no choice but to take it seriously.

What Mr. Famous is neglecting to tell you is that this punk was, in fact, threatening Mr. Martin with a crowbar. The first shot winged the little bastard in the legs and also wounded his companion, who then escaped through a window. The Kid whom Martin killed then reached for his crowbar and was in the process of rising to his feet when Martin shot him a second time, this time in the head and neck, killing him instantly.
He is also not telling you that the reason Mr. Martin was denied the "Self-defense" excuse is because he used an "Offensive Weapon." BTW, in England, a kitchen knife is considered an Offensive Weapon, because of the fixed nature and length of it's blade.
Martin was denied parole because, in the words of Home Sec. Jack Straw ( paraphrasing here ) "burglars are people as well, who require protection from dangerous people like Mr. Martin here." This was the opinion held by the majority of the parole board, as well.
To get the whole story, check out www.keepandbeararms.com, with it's archived reports from the BBC and various US sources. I would strongly encourage Mr. Famous to do the same, assuming Her Majesty's Govornment still allowes British Subjects to view such websites.

BTW, "barbed wire around your house" refers to putting it atop one's garden wall, not at street-level.

The difference between being a subject or a citizen really isnt very important in actual terms... it doesnt effect my everyday life at all.

One guy was running away, the other guy more seriously wounded and Martin shot him. Tony Martin had previously stated that Hitler had the right idea in killing gypsies in gas chambers...

You may choose to present him as a poor elderly man defending his house (which had been burgled many times) I see an intolerant racist killer, who acted out of vengence and rage, he did not kill to defend himself, he killed to revenge himself on the people he saw as persecuting him (with the continual break ins on his property)

And yes, I must tell you that the majority of the British people do believe that burgulars have a right not to be murdered... I believe this, and I believe that most people agree with me. You do not have a legal or a moral right to kill someone just because they break into your house.

Self-defense is a law of nature, and that includes defending one's dwelling. When one lion invades another lion's territory, the resident lion defends it.
Secondly, it was too dark for Martin to be able to tell the ethnicity of the perp, as he stated at his trial, so this cannot have been a racially-based incident.
Thirdly, your "Admired Hitler" defense appeared in only one source that I'm aware of; the Daily Mirror, the National Enquirer of the British press.
Fourthly, your "Majority of the British people..." nonsense. If this is true, then why was over 5,000,000 Pounds Sterling collected for Martin's defense fund in less than a week?
Fifthly, the difference between Subject and Citizen is quite profound. If you don't understand how, allow me to educate you. As a Subject, you are a chattel of the Crown, and may be disposed of in any way, according to Her Majesty's Pleasure, or that of any of Her deputies, such as Parliment. You have no Rights beyond what Her Majesty ( or Parliment ) see fit to give you, and these rights can be stripped at any time, for any reason or no reason at all. Examine the situation in The North of Ireland for some truly sickening examples of this. As a Citizen, I have certain rights which may NOT be legally infringed upon. I have the absolute Franchise, Right To Counsel, etc etc etc. More importantly, I have the right to remove, by whatever means nessescary, any official who violates those rights. If that means voting, as it usually does, then so be it. If that means parting their hair with a rifle bullet, so be that as well. We havn't had to resort to the rifle bullet in over 200 years, thankfully....since we left this British Subject nonsense behind the first time, actually.

off topic

citizenship means nothing to people in guatenamo bay, does it?

citizenship didnt mean that much to blacks living in segregated cities in the 50's in America, did it?

I assume also you use "The North of Ireland" rather than the
correct name because you are an Irish nationalist? There were many grave human rights abuses carried out by the British army
in Northern Ireland, being a citizen or a subject made no difference to it though.

You are also not correct that no formal human rights exist in the UK, they are set out under EU law, which takes precedence over UK law

/off topic

we are not wild animals. and it is not justifiable to use lethal force to defend your property. if a few maniacs wanted to pledge (not give, pledge) millions of pounds to Tony Martins defence fund this in no way means a majority of people supported him. Certainly some people did, and the worst elements of the UK press (disgusting rags like the Daily Mail and Sun) did, most people saw him as a murderer.

And you really cant have it both ways - it cannot be so dark that he couldnt see what the guy was doing or who he was, and at the same time light enough for him to identify that the burgular had a crow bar.

Martin justifiably was angry that his home had been robbed so many times and that the police couldnt protect him... unfortunately he decided to execute his own kind of "justice", because the law failed to provide real justice.

Do criminal home-invaders in Britain always agree that they are only after someone's property and not their blood when breaking into a house?

The best thing about using a firearm to defend your life is that you and the criminal are on equal footing. A 7'0 foot, 350 pound gladiator can easily be taken down by a frail 85 year old grandmother using a firearm to defend her life. It seems that Britain wishes for a return to the Middle Ages when brute strength determined who lived and who died, regardless of the law.

We can all pretend that the world is perfect and harmonious and that everyone gets along and never has any bad intentions, but if someone broke into your home in the middle of the night you would either call the police (assuming that the phone lines haven't been cut/you get a cellular signal) or grab a weapon that relies on strength. If you are injured and cannot effectively use a strength-based weapon, oh well. Sorry grandma, you had a good long life.

No thanks.

It's all political correctness at it's worst.

i say that as soon as an intruder enters your house, they lose all their rights, except to be killed in cold blood, saves the hassle.

And welcome the voice of the modern Tory to the discussion...

Can't blame a guy for supporting Queen and Empire...

erm... Empire? What Empire? There isnt any left.

ok, if you want to nitpick, the Commonwealth and Queens realms then.

The commonwealth is merely a ceremonial organisation, it has no real meaning.

And to go back to the subject, Tony martin is a convicted killer and rightly so, you do not have the right to kill someone merely because they break into your house, and rightly so.

Just fyi,

In several US States you do have such a right. And in all, if you can reasonably show you were in fear of your life you have the right.

yes, I know, but in the UK you dont, hence Tony Martin being in jail, and all these people thinking it is a terrible injustice. I personally am happy with our law at least in this matter. But even under American law, I dont think a jury could find a guy could have feared for his life when he fired the second shot and killed the wounded man.

the commonwealth is a huge organisation, moving around billions of pounds in trade, aid, and all kinds of other things. being kicked out of it isn't something to be taken lightly (see mr.mugabe).

i agree that tony martin shouldn't have killed the kid, that was wrong, but i am against him being sent to jail for it.