River End Canary 18 Posted November 18, 2018 The more I am watching the more it is clear he was the victim he should be given the freedom of the city. we shoot burglars we shoot burglars Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Branston Pickle 3,673 Posted November 18, 2018 You are just very wrong.  He shot someone in the back, and killed them, from outside the house when they were running away - that is not 'defending your property'. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bill 1,788 Posted November 18, 2018 read the book he was not found guilty by a Norfolk jury for nothing he chanced his arm and went for a murder charge thinking he would get off but the evidence was so obvious that he was found guilty, and no I have NO sympathy with those two robbers but this was premeditated murder, no more no less  Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Branston Pickle 3,673 Posted November 18, 2018 It is certainly one of those cases you need to look beyond the headlines and media coverage - this definitely was not a case like the guy earlier this year. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
River End Canary 18 Posted November 18, 2018 Listening and to the interview he really was stitched up by the Police  Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bill 1,788 Posted November 18, 2018 Anyone reading the book https://www.amazon.co.uk/Right-Kill-Tony-Martins-Story/dp/1903906369 will wonder how Martin had the bare faced cheek to let this go to court. His lies were so childlike ie where he claimed to have been when he fired the shot, which would have meant the gun firing round two corners ! Why did he not simply 'set the dogs on them ' ? If was little more than a premeditated trap so as to be able to kill - nothing to do with protecting property. The real question which is never asked is why such a clearly unhinged bloke with previous was allowed to have guns. For my part I would have let the dogs loose, not have them locked up. The first sight of intruders I would have fired a warning shot with the 'advice' that if they made on move forward I would fire at them. What I would not do is rig my house up as a trap, leave windows unlocked then lie in wait, creep on on them and fire at close range as they tried to get out of the house. It was those latter acts that convicted him. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bill 1,788 Posted November 18, 2018 2 minutes ago, River End Canary said: Listening and to the interview he really was stitched up by the Police  Yes, it was the naughty police who told him to lie to the court, even his own solicitor. It was the naughty police who provided forensic evidence that proved he was lying and how he really killed the bloke . What next ? Harold Shipman was framed Peter Sutcliffe was a victim of a ME TOO witch hunt. Harry Robert... it was only a bit of 'bantz' that got out of hand. I can only hope for your sake that you never are tried by a jury with someone like you on it  Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Felixfan 53 Posted November 18, 2018 I never want to be associated with that moronic chant. It does our club and supporters no favours. 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
93vintage 16 Posted November 18, 2018 1 hour ago, Bill said: but the evidence was so obvious that he was found guilty, and no I have NO sympathy with those two robbers but this was premeditated murder, no more no less He was found guilty of manslaughter, not murder. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Branston Pickle 3,673 Posted November 18, 2018 Actually, he was found guilty of murder by the jury.  It was reduced on appeal to manslaughter on the grounds that he's as bad as a box of frogs.  Which he most definitely is. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bill 1,788 Posted November 18, 2018 Nope he was convicted of murder. I suspect he had hoped to be found not guilty so would escape justice. Murder it was. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
93vintage 16 Posted November 18, 2018 My point was, you can't say it was premeditated murder if he was found guilty of manslaughter. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bill 1,788 Posted November 18, 2018 he wasn't he was convicted of murder look it up Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chelm Canary 404 Posted November 18, 2018 1 hour ago, Bill said: read the book he was not found guilty by a Norfolk jury for nothing he chanced his arm and went for a murder charge thinking he would get off but the evidence was so obvious that he was found guilty, and no I have NO sympathy with those two robbers but this was premeditated murder, no more no less  Premeditated murder? You must be joking. And no more, no less? I see you've doubled down on it. Do you understand that for it to be premeditated, he would have had to arrange for them to arrive on his land and then shoot one of them, with him having orchestrated the entire scenario. Don't throw daft comments around unless you know what you're talking about. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rivvo 257 Posted November 18, 2018 Thatâs not really correct, he wouldnât have to arrange anything, just decide that the next time someone burgles him heâs going to shoot them. Premeditation shouldnât be confused with pre planning, premeditation can be decided seconds or minutes before the deed is done. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bill 1,788 Posted November 18, 2018 err on law I do though I haven't the slightest idea what double down is some sort of bedding, perhaps and do look up what premeditated is, not the guff you have put up 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chelm Canary 404 Posted November 18, 2018 3 minutes ago, Rivvo said: Thatâs not really correct, he wouldnât have to arrange anything, just decide that the next time someone burgles him heâs going to shoot them. Premeditation shouldnât be confused with pre planning, premeditation can be decided seconds or minutes before the deed is done. premeditate /priËËmÉdÉŞteÉŞt/ verb past tense:Â premeditated; past participle:Â premeditated think out or plan (an action, especially a crime) beforehand Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bill 1,788 Posted November 18, 2018 4 minutes ago, Rivvo said: Thatâs not really correct, he wouldnât have to arrange anything, just decide that the next time someone burgles him heâs going to shoot them. Premeditation shouldnât be confused with pre planning, premeditation can be decided seconds or minutes before the deed is done. thank you Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rivvo 257 Posted November 18, 2018 Beforehand- before an action or event. the dictionary doesnât say how long though, as I said it can be seconds or minutes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bill 1,788 Posted November 18, 2018 2 minutes ago, Chelm Canary said: premeditate /priËËmÉdÉŞteÉŞt/ verb past tense:Â premeditated; past participle:Â premeditated think out or plan (an action, especially a crime) beforehand Obvious that you are not aware otherwise you would not have resorted to a dictionary. What this thread will undoubtedly demonstrate is the enormous 'ignorance' that attaches to so much of our political and judicial system. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bill 1,788 Posted November 18, 2018 2 minutes ago, Rivvo said: Beforehand- before an action or event. the dictionary doesnât say how long though, as I said it can be seconds or minutes. Where the latin mens rea comes in - the guilty mind With Tony Martin it was that. His intent was to kill,as shown by the way the house was booby trapped and by hs following the victim around before shouting him iin the back as he tried to leave the house. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chelm Canary 404 Posted November 18, 2018 3 minutes ago, Rivvo said: Beforehand- before an action or event. the dictionary doesnât say how long though, as I said it can be seconds or minutes. Lol no. Premiditation isn't a response to something. I.e if they come to my land I'm going to kill them. Premiditation would be - I'll invite them to my land and shoot them. I know law. I studied law. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bill 1,788 Posted November 18, 2018 17 minutes ago, Chelm Canary said: Lol no. Premiditation isn't a response to something. I.e if they come to my land I'm going to kill them. Premiditation would be - I'll invite them to my land and shoot them. I know law. I studied law. no one has claimed it was Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
93vintage 16 Posted November 18, 2018 27 minutes ago, Bill said: he wasn't he was convicted of murder look it up Maybe look up your own post, where you said "this was premeditated murder, no more no less". It doesn't matter what the original verdict was, as the appeal verdict takes precedence. What you should have said was, "it was manslaughter, no more no less". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rivvo 257 Posted November 19, 2018 Premeditation - specific intent to commit a crime for some period of time, however short. there is no requirement for him to invite people onto his land in order to shoot them to prove premeditation, obviously if he had done that then it would have demonstrated the premeditated intent to kill them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bill 1,788 Posted November 19, 2018 14 minutes ago, 93vintage said: Maybe look up your own post, where you said "this was premeditated murder, no more no less". It doesn't matter what the original verdict was, as the appeal verdict takes precedence. What you should have said was, "it was manslaughter, no more no less". now you are being silly, he was convicted or murder as you admit over turning a verdict does not mean it did not happen 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
93vintage 16 Posted November 19, 2018 2 minutes ago, Bill said: now you are being silly, he was convicted or murder as you admit over turning a verdict does not mean it did not happen With your line of thought I suppose you could describe Ched Evans's actions as rape, given that he was originally convicted of this crime? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bill 1,788 Posted November 19, 2018 He was convicted of rape as you say Tony Martin was convicted of murder Nothing will change either of those events Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Crabbycanary3 994 Posted November 19, 2018 I have not seen the programme, and I have not seen all the evidence for this, so my questions are not intending to catch anyone on here, out.  Was the house booby trapped with 'life ending' possibilities? Was Tony Martin given any empathy to his previous situations (i.e being burgled) and lack of police attention to these burglaries, or was he left on his own to deal with these (and was his mental health a factor on these?) With pre-meditation is it clarified differently to someone who is living their life at home, going about their daily lives and wanting to protect that minimum standard, to someone like a gunman going to a High School, for example, and killing non specific people? I am presuming the traps would not have affected, someone like the postman delivering to Martin's house? Were the traps designed for someone who was not invited onto Martin's land (in certain situations), and Martin felt he would not be as composed and clear cut in thinking as Bill seems to believe he himself would be in that situation (and these are a consequence of Martin's mental health and previous experiences)? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
city4eva 213 Posted November 19, 2018 can this be moved to non football 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites