He broke the law. That's clearly, unequivocally, wrong.

That you, or anyone else, thinks the law is wrong doesn't change that. You are free to campaign for the law to be changed, but in the meantime you, me, Tony Martin and everyone else, must abide by it, or face the consequences.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

The two Traveller thieves were Fred Barras and Brendon Feardon. Barras, shot dead by Martin while defending himself and his property, had already been convicted of a total of 29 offences by the time of his death at the age of 16, including seven convictions for theft and six for fraud. He had been sentenced to two months in a young offenders' institution for assaulting a policeman, theft and being drunk and disorderly. Fearon's crimes included obtaining property by deception, criminal damage, failing to surrender to bail, attempted burglary, and theft from a vehicle.
Martin had been burgled at least 10 times previously and received little support from the police.

Edited by georgenorman (12 Apr 2022 10.34am)

I must admit the bar does have to be set high. An Englishmans home is his castle and if someone breaks into your home (especially multiple times) you likely have PTSD alongside the usual 'fight or flight' so it's no wonder the bloke's mental health may have taken a tumble. To my mind unless something extreme happens (torture etc) none of us know how we are going to react in the moment, where we may fear for our own lives and realistically know what whatever takes place will be long over by the time the police have arrived (if they bother to turn up at all). There were likely wider implications for home owners for finding Martin guilty than not guilty.

That said, the thoughht stated earlier that the other guy both deserved to die and should've been killed is a bit of a weird, sadistic take. Ultimately they broke into someones home, and while as stated the events that followed are understandable, it's hardly the ideal that people are shot dead for committing a burglary.

This point has been answered many times.

Forgive me if I stifle a yawn.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Whilst all true, they relate only to the character of the victims. That they are scumbags doesn't alter the fact that they were the victims of an unlawful act. We cannot allow vigilante law to apply. Punishing burglars and persistent offenders is the job of the law, and those who administer it.

Martin was guilty.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

That anyone tries many times to defend the indefensible cannot change facts.

Martin committed a serious offence and was found guilty.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.