-
Posts
-
It is a difficult one, I think had the situation been just slightly different in circumstances we would all probably agree that you should be allowed to defend yourself if you feel threatened, However, Mr Martin wasn’t a scared poor old pensioner was he ? He was a nasty vicious man who had shot at someone for stealing apples ? seriously ? If he had of killed a teenager by shooting him with a shot gun from a distance for climbing and stealing some of his apples would the nation have applauded him then ? doubt it… He knew they were coming, to me that is the crux of it, he could have prevented it in many ways, just firing a gun into the air would have scared the shyte outta them and they’d have run, he didn’t want to prevent it though did he, he wanted to kill or injure one of them. Lets not lump all 16 year olds in to one bracket either. Some are smart clever young people, brought up to know right from wrong, some will never have felt the need to steal and had very privileged up bringings, some may have barely had any education and terrible role models as parents, dragged up in a society which gives them nothing unless they take it and that’s all they know and how they and their parents have lived. Does that make it their fault ? Some 16 year olds may have learning difficulties and / or suffer peer pressure, or be used by others. Mr Martin wasn’t being attacked, that was made clear, he was being robbed by kids, so if you can shoot a teenager at point blank range for stealing what are you allowed to do to someone breaking in and trying to rape your wife or daughter , shoot them ? Take their life ? oh no hang on, that’s already been done ….
Not sure if Somer or Rude have kids , I suspect not, but could be wrong, and that isnt a judgement in anyway, however, when you are a parent you realise 16 is very very young. They think they know it all, I did, I bet most of us did . We didn’t and They Don’t, and when they are older they then realise they didn’t know a damn thing, and before anyone says ” my kids would never do that anything like that”, soooo many parents have thought that only to get a rude awakening…
2 members liked this post.
” A 16 year old isnt a 6 year old , you can get married at 16 and its above the criminal age of responsibility- Bolgers killers were ten yet condemned as knowing right from wrong , this lad knew the risks of entering an old mans house.”
Jamie Bolger’s killers tortured and murdered a baby boy.They did not try and pinch a set of ladders.
No a 16 year old isn’t a 6 year old, its 10 very quick years later. Yes you can get married at 16, mainly because at 16 most young people are physically sexually mature. You can’t have men of 18 and 20 full of testosterone and bulging ( those things Scep called you ) running around not ‘allowed to have sex’ , and if you are allowed to have sex obviously you are allowed to marry. It doesn’t make them ‘mentally’ mature though, they can’t vote, drive a car, buy alcohol, by cigarettes , etc etc .
” this lad knew the risks of entering an old mans house.”
I seriously doubt that anyone would think the risk of entering an old mans house ( with intent to rob ) would mean they may die, be they 16 or 60 !!
The Law ( which you may say is an ass and in some cases I’d bloody agree) says you can’t murder someone for stealing, luckily we’ve moved on a bit from The Ten Commandments, a person stealing, for whatever reason or motive doesn’t expect to die for doing it, as that is Murder. Life is far too precious to be flippantly snuffed out.
2 members liked this post.
Few intresting facts about this case.
The 2 junkies and the young boy had driven across 3 counties to rob mr martin.
On route they were stopped and gave a story to a cop about being on their way to work he let them go.
The guy who waited in the car while the other 2 had gone to rob mr martin had burgled him 6 months previous.
This guy also heard the gunshots drove off, rang nobody did nothing.
Some friend eh.
After shooting these 2 mr martin drove to his mothers house in the early hours of the morning for a cup of tea and hid the gun there.
He told the cops a load of tripe about what went down in the house.
He made out there was a struggle, But I think he heard them and as soon as they came through the window he shot them.
He had no ideal of age , shape, etc it was pitch black.
Mr fernon crawled across a field to mr martins neighbour he alerted police.
It would appear martin left them to die.
3 members liked this post.
” A 16 year old isnt a 6 year old , you can get married at 16 and its above the criminal age of responsibility- Bolgers killers were ten yet condemned as knowing right from wrong , this lad knew the risks of entering an old mans house.”
Jamie Bolger’s killers tortured and murdered a baby boy.They did not try and pinch a set of ladders.
No a 16 year old isn’t a 6 year old, its 10 very quick years later. Yes you can get married at 16, mainly because at 16 most young people are physically sexually mature. You can’t have men of 18 and 20 full of testosterone and bulging ( those things Scep called you ) running around not ‘allowed to have sex’ , and if you are allowed to have sex obviously you are allowed to marry. It doesn’t make them ‘mentally’ mature though, they can’t vote, drive a car, buy alcohol, by cigarettes , etc etc .
” this lad knew the risks of entering an old mans house.”
I seriously doubt that anyone would think the risk of entering an old mans house ( with intent to rob ) would mean they may die, be they 16 or 60 !!
The Law ( which you may say is an ass and in some cases I’d bloody agree) says you can’t murder someone for stealing, luckily we’ve moved on a bit from The Ten Commandments, a person stealing, for whatever reason or motive doesn’t expect to die for doing it, as that is Murder. Life is far too precious to be flippantly snuffed out.
I’m not sure how you can correctly term the law an ass but then go on use it as a moral template in order to ascertain right from wrong? As we have said many times on this board, laws are transient changing from one generation to another where 200 years ago you could get hung for wandering onto a monarchs estate by mistake- the laws of today will be regarded as equally ridiculous in another 200 years. The “law” is simply what a bunch of bickering, guffawing idiots in the houses of parliament say it is and shouldn’t be used as a guide to form your own views on like an unthinking sheep.
Another pet hate of mine is this nonsense of “mental health” that’s reeled out as an excuse to mitigate crime. I’ve lost count of the times I’ve read about a depressed drug addict on his 54th conviction having a defence solicitor stating the poor lamb has realised the error of his ways and is now in rehabilitation with ” mental health problems.” If I say I’m depressed and go out and gut someone like a fish, backed up by a little letter from a doctor confirming my “mental health” problems, does that mean I get a lesser sentence than someone who is a happy go lucky type of chappy singing jingle bells? You only have to read the boards and chatrooms here to realise how many mentally ill individuals are about in society, do they get carte blanche to commit crime because they are 3 sheets to the wind? Unless someone is a complete vegetable with no recognition of who or where they are, there should be no mitigation or sympathy for mental health…I doubt Jack the Ripper was the full schilling somehow, but unlikely had he been caught we would have a collection of sympathising snowflakes prevalent in todays society stating he was suffering mental health issues and need help with his rehabilitation and his addiction to grapes etc.
I used the eg of Bolgers killers not to draw parallels with severity of crime, but to illustrate how at the age of ten you are deemed criminally culpable so the full force of ” the law” should also apply to a 16 year old.
Ultimately Martin was in a dark farmhouse and couldnt see how old these two thieves were unless he politely put the gun down and asked for a birth certificate of course. The thread title describing him as ” evil” for shooting two figures in the dark having been robbed previously is utterly ridiculous and the only reason many are up in arms about it, is the age of Barrass which Martin couldnt possibly know anyway.
-
This reply was modified 6 years ago by
rudeboy.
Dosent matter knowing there age.He had sed to friends he was going to shoot the next person who broke in to his house.He was ready to kill.He did and was rightyly convicted of murder.
4 members liked this post.
” A 16 year old isnt a 6 year old , you can get married at 16 and its above the criminal age of responsibility- Bolgers killers were ten yet condemned as knowing right from wrong , this lad knew the risks of entering an old mans house.”
Jamie Bolger’s killers tortured and murdered a baby boy.They did not try and pinch a set of ladders.
No a 16 year old isn’t a 6 year old, its 10 very quick years later. Yes you can get married at 16, mainly because at 16 most young people are physically sexually mature. You can’t have men of 18 and 20 full of testosterone and bulging ( those things Scep called you ) running around not ‘allowed to have sex’ , and if you are allowed to have sex obviously you are allowed to marry. It doesn’t make them ‘mentally’ mature though, they can’t vote, drive a car, buy alcohol, by cigarettes , etc etc .
” this lad knew the risks of entering an old mans house.”
I seriously doubt that anyone would think the risk of entering an old mans house ( with intent to rob ) would mean they may die, be they 16 or 60 !!
The Law ( which you may say is an ass and in some cases I’d bloody agree) says you can’t murder someone for stealing, luckily we’ve moved on a bit from The Ten Commandments, a person stealing, for whatever reason or motive doesn’t expect to die for doing it, as that is Murder. Life is far too precious to be flippantly snuffed out.
I’m not sure how you can correctly term the law an ass but then go on use it as a moral template in order to ascertain right from wrong? As we have said many times on this board, laws are transient changing from one generation to another where 200 years ago you could get hung for wandering onto a monarchs estate by mistake- the laws of today will be regarded as equally ridiculous in another 200 years. The “law” is simply what a bunch of bickering, guffawing idiots in the houses of parliament say it is and shouldn’t be used as a guide to form your own views on like an unthinking sheep.
Another pet hate of mine is this nonsense of “mental health” that’s reeled out as an excuse to mitigate crime. I’ve lost count of the times I’ve read about a depressed drug addict on his 54th conviction having a defence solicitor stating the poor lamb has realised the error of his ways and is now in rehabilitation with ” mental health problems.” If I say I’m depressed and go out and gut someone like a fish, backed up by a little letter from a doctor confirming my “mental health” problems, does that mean I get a lesser sentence than someone who is a happy go lucky type of chappy singing jingle bells? You only have to read the boards and chatrooms here to realise how many mentally ill individuals are about in society, do they get carte blanche to commit crime because they are 3 sheets to the wind? Unless someone is a complete vegetable with no recognition of who or where they are, there should be no mitigation or sympathy for mental health…I doubt Jack the Ripper was the full schilling somehow, but unlikely had he been caught we would have a collection of sympathising snowflakes prevalent in todays society stating he was suffering mental health issues and need help with his rehabilitation and his addiction to grapes etc.
I used the eg of Bolgers killers not to draw parallels with severity of crime, but to illustrate how at the age of ten you are deemed criminally culpable so the full force of ” the law” should also apply to a 16 year old.
Ultimately Martin was in a dark farmhouse and couldnt see how old these two thieves were unless he politely put the gun down and asked for a birth certificate of course. The thread title describing him as ” evil” for shooting two figures in the dark having been robbed previously is utterly ridiculous and the only reason many are up in arms about it, is the age of Barrass which Martin couldnt possibly know anyway.
i understand why you used the Bolger case as an example, I agree the full force of the law should be used against a 16 year old and had they been caught breaking and entering one would hope it would be, but they weren’t caught stealing, they were murderd , premeditatedly , so I don’t see your point there.
I wasn’t using the law as a moral template. I was using it to point out that it is illigal to murder someone for trying to steal from you, today, in this country. In 100 yrs time that may well have changed. You may not agree with the law but that’s too bad . No he had no idea how old they were when they broke in, in the dark I agree, they could have been 12.Whatever your personal views on mental health are is irrelavent . I didn’t suggest the victim had mental health issues. I was pointing out that not all 16 year olds are the same. Are you suggesting that if the lad had let’s say for instance Downs Syndrome, and was desperate to impress his pals he deserved to have a hole blown through him ? Mental Health issues does not automatically equate to druggie. As I said above, at 16 you may be sexually mature but are far from mentally mature, which is why you can legally have sex but are not deemed responsible enough to do plenty of other things, such as drink , vote, drive etc etc . So saying suggesting a 16 yr old is fully mature and therefore fully culpable is misleading , in my opinion
Rudy, Tony Martins defence submitted evidence that he was suffering from a mental health disorder does this mean its okay for him to kill someone? or do you mean its okay for someone with a mental illness to kill someone else with a mental illness? The previous break ins he claimed to have happened never went reported. Martin exploited the situation for his own benefit.
The little boys name you mentioned is Jamie Bulger not ( bolger )
What i don’t agree with is Tony Martin profiting from his crime, his Representatives were discussing him writing a book with the title ” My right to Kill” the other title ” I will not say sorry”. ….quote… You only have to read the boards and chatrooms here to realise how many mentally ill individuals are about in society, do they get carte blanche to commit crime because they are 3 sheets to the wind?…. I am reading the boards and most of your posts show you have some type of mental health issues going on yourself with four sheets!! By the way its SHILLING not SCHILLING.. no doubt you will blame it as a typo haha
Good post Jamie! i totally agree with you. x
Awaits Mr Angrys reply with relish
3 members liked this post.
Found this case and posts very interesting. Thank you all for your input.
Laws are so complicated as a basic word hear often here about many conflicts and finding resolve is the term..”tweak”. Simple meaning in Lawyers term find a little flaw..not pertinent or what he or she did EXACTLY with the crime committed and find faults why client can not be punished under those laws. Not the same..he or she did not do it that way so therefore this law does not apply.. system can be backed up by those laws and time elapses so call them use mistrials, retry..or they change plea..make bargains lessen the crime and paying time.
Providing slight example regarding trespassing on your property. If you have a sign on your property some one come on does harm to property..harm of you..with out a doubt it is punishable. However, no sign..knock on door threaten you so forth..while outside that door entry you hurt them you can be punished by law.. however, if has weapon, does malice so forth comes into your home kill him…/her..then considered trespassing..you are not punished..
What fascinates me with the legal system is what called premeditated murder. Planned..worked out, executed. No matter how long it takes to eventually murder that some one..legal system finds a flaw..mentally incompetent. See that used often in court of law..person had slight break down..loss of recall..memory..what a crock..
And I love when some one tries to get out of jail with hideous crimes and then pleads..I am so sorry. I have reformed..changed my ways. Will never do it again.. set me free..empathy needed for that awful crime..begs for forgiveness..to come out of jail is a goody two shoes for awhile and kills another..
And let us not forget..a person can not be tried on the same crime if not found guilty first round..
1 member liked this post.
I’m not in favour of the death penalty for theft.
It’s a crime, for sure, and needs to be punished.
Sometimes you have to use violence, and my guess is that when panicked you could even kill someone invading your house.
But I don’t believe in the death penalty for theft
That would be sharia law, wouldn’t it, Master Rudeboy?
Actually…
I tell a lie.
Or I had best be careful in what I say on this site.
I was over-hasty.
Sharia law merely states that the thief’s hand should be cut off.
Those Muslims must come across as real liberal snowflakes to you, Master Rude boy, waiting with his claw hammer.
-
This reply was modified 6 years ago by
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!