h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Zagreb,
"...Would you say the same of a the victim of a wife-beater who stabs her abusive husband in his sleep? Yes, it's pre-meditated killing but it's not "out the blue", it's a response to victimisation and desperation..."

Actually I would. In general terms, if you plan it out beforehand, then it's murder. Period. Premeditation makes a huge difference in my moral code. Planning, considering, choosing to kill... that's vastly different from acting/overreacting in the heat of the moment.

"Martin was driven to the extremes of booby-trapping his home and ultimately shooting a fleeing burglar because the law had failed him."

Personally if people were repeatedly breaking into my house I'd fit a burglar alarm not booby traps. I'd get window locks and more secure fittings not a gun. I'd want to keep people *out* not harm them once they've got in. If police response was a problem I'd get a bloody big guard dog and an alarm that was connected to a national network (like http://www.affinityone.co.uk).

I'd also get some nice cctv cameras and collect evidence of who the colprits were and hand it over to the police...maybe that would be some ideas for what Martin should spend his mirror money on.

"and ultimately shooting a fleeing burglar"... no he didn't.

he shot a burglar who was stood in his hall. The guy who died was shot in the back because he was kneeling over the bag of swag, dressed in black, and to all intents and purposes invisible.

As to getting an alarm connected to a national network, this isn't an option in that area, because as was mentioned at the time of the trial, the average response time for the police was over half an hour.

this only makes it reasonable to call them for "we have been burgled, and they got away", and that is pointless after 3PM on a friday, because most UK schene of crime officers only work office hours, so you are expected to live in the damage without interacting with it until monday morning (if they put you at the front of the que).

"As to getting an alarm connected to a national network, this isn't an option in that area, because as was mentioned at the time of the trial, the average response time for the police was over half an hour."

It *is* an option - the website linked to states that they wil connect "anywhere in the UK mainland within 14 days". The *average* response time may be over 30 minutes but these networks contact the police who send an "immediate response" if the personal alarm button is triggered...I'm willing to bet that this would be much faster than the average response time.

Plus the main attraction of these systems is that they're a deterent - having a monitered system box on the outside of your house, along with having secure windows and/or a guard dog and/or CCTV...even security lights would have been a deterent...buying a shotgun is not a deterrent - unless you stick a sign on the windows warning that trespassers will be shot.

This is my point - Martin showed no sensible moves towards deterring these theives from breaking in...he just bought a gun and shot them. Anyone seriously worried about breakins wouldn't buy a gun and wait to be broken into - they'd do everything within their power to keep the theives out.

"..."and ultimately shooting a fleeing burglar"... no he didn't..."

Yes he did, it's just that the one fleeing wasn't the one who died. According to the appeal judgement, the fatal shot was the first one, and I seriously doubt that anyone was hanging around when Martin climbed down the stairs to fire shots 2 & 3.

BTW, and on a lighter note, it's perhaps a good thing that Mr Martin hadn't adopted George Bush's pre-emptive self-defence doctrine, otherwise he would have gone round to Barras' own home and shot him there.

The man took a human life. It wasn't in self-defence. He wasn't being attacked, he wasn't threatened. It was a deliberate cold-blooded act. He should still be in prison. If it was in self-defence then it would be sad but understandable, but it wasn't.

Also the body wasn't discovered until the next day. Did he just leave the boy lying there and not even contact the police to report his 'self defence' ? The man still shows no remorse which is astounding.

I might be wrong, but as I understand it, the burglar who escaped was seen to leave, and the other one, being invisible was not spotted at all.

unless he was clearly visible, or in the path between the stairs and the exit which needed securing, the one who died might not have been seen until daylight.

in response to pencil queen's comment "if the personal alarm button is triggered", I have got a monitored alarm on my home, and the panic button is one the control panel (which is the usual configuration).

If you are talking about a personal attack alarm, then it gets very expensive, and you need an imminent risk for it to be worthwhile. for a farmer in a rural area, it just isn't an option with the current stresses on farm funding.

on response time, it is largely so high because all the cars are based in the big cities to be ready to help in emergencies, so there is a lot of minutes travelling tome to get to the location. again it means a very expensive security system to get around this for personal safety. again impractical for your average farmer.

wulfric states "He wasn't being attacked, he wasn't threatened", but if you are repeatedly burgled despite improving the security, it is seen by you as being under attack and is very threatening. the fact that these were not the same villains is largely irrelevent.

He had an illegal fire arm and killed someone. Just doesn't ring true that he was just scared out of his wits and acting in self defence. I can't believe he didn't know that he had hit more than one person. There were only 3 shots and he managed to hit targets he didn't know were there ? Didn't he turn any lights on to see what had been burgled ? Even if he didn't see the body (can't believe that) he should have reported the incident immediately.

Gents,
If you haven't already, I suggest you have a read of Mr Martin's appeal judgement. (I posted a link earlier in the thread). According to Mr Martin, he searched the ground floor of his house, then got in his car (with his gun) drove to a friend's house where he spent the night. The body of Mr Barras was found by a neighbour next morning.

Well you seem to have found the appeal link so
http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/Judgments.do and search for Anthony Edward Martin is a bit redundant.

All I will say is that nobody involved in this smells of roses and the only real victims are social justice and Fred Barras who 1. is not in a position to put his case and 2. had his life unlawfully forshortened.

Guns have only one purpose - to KILL.

turvy

Quoted from your link Geoff:

"(Mr Martin) was heard to express the view repeatedly that self-help was the better way of dealing with criminals. He is said to have used such remarks as "you know the best way to stop them - shoot the bastards"; that if a particular team of burglars returned he would "blow their heads off"; and he was also said to have suggested that he would recommend putting such criminals in a field and using a machine gun on them"

Hmm less like a scared man - more like lying in wait for them and quite keen to try out his very illegal firearm on them.

Citizen S (female actually !))

I also read that passage and it seems to me to indicate that there was more than just his fear at play, seems like he wanted to exact pennance his self.

Geoff, to answer tyour initial question, the papers as prepared by the Police and The CPS are documents covered by the official secrets act.

What you might be able to get hold of is transcripts of the shorthand record of the trial but again, these are not documents which are prepared as a matter of course so you would have to pay for the privilege.

"Hmm less like a scared man - more like lying in wait for them and quite keen to try out his very illegal firearm on them."

I think you'll find scared people tend to talk like that. They're usually anxious to do harm to whoever is frightening them.

The point here is that Martin had been repeatedly burgled by the same people, was driven nuts by it and acted on it in a way that killed one of the burglars. I don't think what he did was right, I just think that this has opened a debate on how we deal with persistent criminals in this country (or more to the point, how we respond to them). What I don't think is that this debate can be ended with "Oh, I see the Daily Mail sympathises with him, well I better argue with them then. Hmm, his shotgun was illegal and, even though I usually symathise with the mentally ill, since he's become a poster-boy for the tory-voters I'll just call him an evil, drooling nutter and leave it at that. He's probably a bigot too. Or something."

People are still going to get burgled. They'll still want a way of stopping it happening. There's still an issue here that won't go away. All Martin has done is bring it out into the open.

Haven't read all the back log but he shot the one who died who was trying to escape through a window. IMO that's murder. He was trying to get away.

As for not calling 16 year olds career criminals well it's well known for some young teenagers to be involved in crime since the age of 10. It was in the Sunday Mirror only a few eeks back of a heroin n crack dealer at the age of 12. Some children never go to school so if they spend all their time doing crime then they are career criminals in my eyes.

Diddy!

"Oh, I see the Daily Mail sympathises with him, well I better argue with them then. Hmm, his shotgun was illegal and, even though I usually symathise with the mentally ill, since he's become a poster-boy for the tory-voters I'll just call him an evil, drooling nutter and leave it at that. He's probably a bigot too. Or something."

The point has to be made though that half of all the furour came about due to his demographic; had he not been as you say a "poster boy" for the right wing press this would not have been an issue.

The issue for me is Vigilantyism (sorry if that is spelt wrong/ not a real word) is it ok for people to take the law into their own hands with potential fatal results) or not.

I know that He was released early becuase of mental illness; however part of my argument is that many of the people who are supporting Tony Martin (including the DM) are the same people who say "Hanging is too good for them" when people with mental illnesses kill people under other circumstances. There is a massive hypocracy here in the whole "Martin is a hero" way of thinking.

P.S. I have rerad in Private Eye that Martin had connections with far right parties, suggesting it is possible that he may in fact be a bigot. He certainly has expressed views on "killing Gypsies" in the past, a fact referenced in the case notes.

Blues,
Thanks for the pointers to the case notes. I think, however, that the appeal judgement has given me enough information to form my opinion properly, which was what the thread was originally all about.

Zagreb,
"...What I don't think is that this debate can be ended with "Oh, I see the Daily Mail sympathises with him, well I better argue with them then... blah blah insulting drivel blah blah..."

At the top of this thread, I was asking for source evidence ao I could inform a decision. I wasn't asking for Daily Mail editorials or shotgun licenses. I've found some source evidence in the form of the Appeal Judgement. I've READ it, and formed the opinion that Tony Martin is guilty of pre-meditated murder. It's an informed decision, Zagreb; based on such facts as I could reasonably glean from published sources. Don't go accusing me of knee-jerking liberalism just because I think the man should still be in jail. That's an easy, weak insult and falls well short of the standard I've come to expect from you.

Homeowners' rights and the system failing Mr Martin are valid points, but peripheral, for they cannot justify murder. I'm happy to agree with you on those issues, but I cannot in all honesty view them as mitigating factors in a murder. Tony Martin doesn't deserve my sympathy, or the Daily Mail's. Or yours.

So if you disagree with his solution, what is your alternative?

relying on the police for urgent safety doesn't even work in towns, let alone the countryside.

agricultural theft is also a persistant problem (especially because as the farmer, by the time you know you have a problem, it is too late to call for effective help).

As to the surviving criminal sueing for loss of (criminal) earnings, that is just silly.