Because as I read it, he had a house that looked like an unmaintained shed, dogs that attacked the burglars in his yard, and Tony gets up and loads his shot gun. The two men are trying to escape the dogs, or hell even if they aren’t, the enter the house thinking it empty. By this time, Mr Martin has descended the steps and taken aim at the men. He emptied his shot gun even as one was in the window trying to get back out.
There is no indication in the account that Tony Martin was ever threatened or had a need to fear for his life. He offered no warning, he just shot the two men. I understand adrenaline pumping and all that other stuff going on, and I wasn’t on the jury, but it really sounds like he made no effort to ensure that he was at risk before he fired.
That’s all true. But many viewed it in the wider context of a man who had already been burgled a number of times, whose remote location meant the stretched police resources of Norfolk/Cambs would take a while to respond to a 999 call, and who was a victim of crime by Travellers (that in its own is enough for some people to call him innocent).
The men weren’t there on lawful business, and his setup at the farm was well known (dogs, guns etc), so arguably they took the risk in commiting that crime.
However, hard cases make bad law, and it’s generally better for people not to assume they can shoot people in the back to preserve property.
This is true (on all counts). However, given that even repeated burglary isn’t a capital crime, TM’s approach which was clearly aimed at revenge wasn’t an appropriate response, despite the obvious frustration he must have been feeling.
The other way of looking at it was that had he been acquitted, it could have set a precedent that repeated harassment could be legitimately stopped with the use of firearms.
We have a Thames Valley Police and a Hertfordshire Constabulary. No difference between them, it’s just a word.
The RUC were unarmed before The Troubles, (although the Ulster Special Constabulary was always armed) and even now their stated aim is to return to unarmed policing eventually.
This is why Tony Martin commands significant sympathy from certain sections of the British population.
There’s currently increasing pressure to give homeowners greater rights in cases such as this, but it’s hard to know whether the issue is a real one, or the result of tabloid stirring and the misplaced concerns of middle england.
You got a cite for this anywhere? I certainly don’t remember seeing any cops with guns who weren’t the normal ARUs and I’m practically on “Murder Mile.”
Not doubting you personally. I just find that frankly, whilst Hackney has problems, many are more to do with lazy journalism than anything else and I suspect this might be the same.
The kids on my Estate didn’t even realise they were one of those evil hoody-wearing postcode gangs until a Daily Mail journalist turned up and told them they were. :rolleyes:
Police carrying tasers count as “armed” in the UK, and they tend to be a bit less obvious than proper firearms… but patrols with tasers will still count as armed.
For a board as liberal as this one, that’s a pretty interesting statement, as the same could be said for American Jim Crow laws, slavery laws, the anti-semitic laws of the Nazis, etc.
Just because a government does something, doesn’t make it right. This is one of the hazards of a representative democracy (that is outweighed by its many benefits). This is why voting on issues rather than feelings is important. A vigalent, educate constituancy is necessary for a successful and free people to exist.
Oh, my eyes are open. Supporting the criminal prosecution of a vigilante murderer is similar to supporting slavery and the holocaust. Why on Earth did I not spot that before.
Well, that’s my mind changed. Turns out that Tony Martin was a Schindler figure all along.
My point was that it seems that British people are quite happy for Americans to comment on British laws; we (at least in this thread) do not resort to petty insults that ignore any substantive points raised (“busy-body blabbermouths”) when said Americans disagree with us.
Typical over reaction. Point still stands. Just because a government says something is true and makes a law, doesn’t mean its correct morally or from a public policy stand point. This is the justification for everything from Thoreau to Ghandi to King.
Look at the history of the laws I mentioned and the argument for prosecution and punishment were essentially the same–its the law, it was prosecuted in the courts and the acts or the mere fact of being something made it legal. I don’t really care about the case mentioned, I’m addressing your statment that because everyone agrees its against the law, its automatically right.