I've got a shotgun, do you want me to help?

[Luckypants]

Far as I'm concerned they are stealing scumbags. Good on him, more rubbish no longer walking around.

And northy if you are referring to a certain Norfolk farmer, good for him too! He had burglars on his property several times and the cops were less than useless, what do you eexpect him to do? Sit there and let them? So what if they were running away, you go out burgling you should go in fear of your life! They never came back did they?

[yorkie_chris]

It's this whole law thing getting in the way, how irritating.

Heard of a few similar stories from a saffer mate of mine, the cops are likely to turn up and go "good shot mate"

[northwind]

Originally Posted by Luckypants

what do you eexpect him to do?

I'd expect him to not murder a 16 year old who was running away. People like to say "If you break the law, you give up your rights" - in that case, he can't complain about being burgled as he had an illegal weapon, a worse crime that burglary... Tony Martin wasn't a nice man pushed too far, he was a nutcase with a history of violence and firearms offences (he once shot at a man for stealing apples, another time he used a shotgun to threaten a man over a property dispute before smashing his windows with it, yet another he threatened a neighbour with a pistol including firing it and killing a homing pigeon) Not a very good poster boy.

It's much the same deal though- if there'd been even a whiff of self defence it'd be a totally different issue.

He was a nutcase but the police should take some of the stick for Tony's actions. He really was a nutter who was pushed too far by having repeated burglaries and no police intervention. Yeah the kid was only 16 and didn't deserve to be shot but it wasn't just burglary he was commiting, he was deliberately turning a crazed man more insane. I'm certainly not sad about the loss of his life, but I wouldn't have wished it upon him.

Oooh, I can't resist, sorry, I tried (for about 30 seconds).

Crazy Texans first.
He asks the police if he should assist. The police tell him not to. This'll be a big point for the prosecution - this was not a caught in the moment "hell what do I do?" thing, it was considered and strongly rejected by the police. The "eye for an eye" brigade are quite hot on saying "if he hadn't disobeyed instructions from the police he wouldn't be in this mess". He had a whole multitude of options open to him and the time and professional advice to consider them all, he could have fired a shot in the air, he could have yelled "stop or I'll shoot" (rather than "move - you're dead"), or he could have done what the police told him to do.
Whilst we're on "eye for an eye". It says "eye for an eye" - the clue is in the phrase, it doesn't say "brain chunks for a dvd player".

Crazy Norfolk farmers next.
A search will reveal my multitude of ramblings on this one, I've put the case far more eloquently in the past. But basically Tony Martin ain't no poster child for your cause. In using him as such, you weaken your position not strengthen it. The guy is, and evidence strongly suggests, always has been, completely utterly bonkers. He bought a giant teddy bear to court every day, the gun he used was illegally held, he goes to National Front meetings. The only blame I can apportion to the police in that case is that which allowed a man with a clear history of violent firearms offences to continue to illegally hold a firearm. Earlier intervention may well have ensured that the system recognised Tony Martin for a nutcase far earlier and had him safely locked away in a mental hospital.

As northy says, if there had been a whiff of self defence in either case it might be a different story.

He said 'you move and your dead'. At least he gave him options

I think it was clear in the audio that he knew that he couldn't challenge them without endangering his own life. If they'd shot the old man it would be a different matter entirely so he warned them of his presence, he waited, then something happened that caused him to shoot (how many robbers will be unarmed in the US??!)). If you're going to allow people to have guns (a pump action shotgun - woo) you can't expect them not to use them! That would be like letting people own cars and taxing them and fuel to the point it's too expensive to drive- barmy

Should he have challenged them? Yes! To not be allowed to protect those close to you and your own property for fear of prosecution works entirely in the favour of the criminals.

No, I think it was clear in the audio that his life was in no danger whilst he was on the phone to the police, and whilst the police were telling him to stay where he was. When the police tell you thirteen times to put the gun down, and you don't - well, it's going to end messy.

1:27 "You hear the shotgun clicking and I'm going"
1:28 (Police) "Don't go outside"
1:30 "Move, you're dead"
1:32 bang
1:34 bang
1:36 bang

I'm not entirely sure that timeline can be summed up by

so he warned them of his presence, he waited, then something happened that caused him to shoot

Wasn't it 'move and you're dead' ?

I meant that if he was to challenge them he was in danger. He could have sat watching worlds scariest police chases in safety but that's no fun when your got a 12 gauge by the phone

Originally Posted by gettin2dizzy

Wasn't it 'move and you're dead' ?

I meant that if he was to challenge them he was in danger. He could have sat watching worlds scariest police chases in safety but that's no fun when your got a 12 gauge by the phone

Teehee - yeah, a certain fondness for Charles Bronson movies is one of the many good reasons why I should never be allowed a gun licence

Dunno on the wording, I'm just going on the transcript, but on listening again you may be right. There may even be a "yeehar!!!" in there too

Oh, and a couple of news sources are now reporting that he shot at least one of them, possibly both, in the back....
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5362232.html
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?se...cal&id=5821943

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

It's this whole law thing getting in the way, how irritating.

Heard of a few similar stories from a saffer mate of mine, the cops are likely to turn up and go "good shot mate"

Yep. One colleague was advised, by a police officer- shoot them and then straight away shoot the wall next to them. Claim the hole was the first shot (a warning shot) which they ignored and then you had no choice but to shoot them.

As to this case, boohoo, some scum died and an innocent man's property was protected by his (good) neighbour. No property is worth you dying over, but is it worth some thieving human waste dying over over? Oh yes...

People who haven't been burgled often fail to appreciate that it's not the material goods going missing that is the real crime. It's worrying that they'll be back, being unable to sleep for weeks afterwards, wondering if every little noise at night is them returning. It's feeling unsafe in your own home. If the burglars are killed the first time round, I would imagine all this would be alleviated.