Martin determined to return home....

[Saracen]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
But should he have left him to die?

But did Martin do that?

All we have on that point is a limited set of facts about Martin;s movements, and Martin's explanation. By his account, he took the gun and went out looking for the intruders. Fearon had managed to get away but Barras climbed outof the window and managed to get as far as the undergrowth round the house before he collapsed and died - and was found some 123 hours later.

Martin waited for a while, then got a torch from his car and looked around before going to neighburs to tell them what had happened before going on to a friend where he slept for the night on the sofa and where he was subsequently arrested by the police.

According to Martin, he did not even know for sure that he had hit anyone, let alone killed them. There was, so far as I know, no evidence to challenge this part of Martin's story and, in the absence of such evidence, surely we have to take him at his word?

So, are you not jumping to a conclusion by assuming that Martin " left him to die"?

[DaBeeeenster]

Hmmm. The fact is that he did not call the police. I can see no argument that he didn't need to - if he was that upset about being burgled, why didn't he call the police?

Whether he thought he had hit Barras or not, he should have called the police immediately.

[Big RICHARD]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
I just dont like cultural stereotyping, that's all. There's no need for a roll eyes. Take each person on their merit, OK? People are mentioning Nelson Mandela in this thread - they would do well to read his biography and realise that pre-judging people based on an attribute they were born with is called prejudice and is not good...

I mentioned Nelson Mandela referring to the fact that he fought for his and others' freedom. TM in a way is fighting for the freedom of householders everywhere to live without being burgled by the local scumbags. I know they aren't particularly relavent, but TM atm is seen by some as a criminal, not as someone protecting their rights.

[Saracen]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
Hmmm. The fact is that he did not call the police. I can see no argument that he didn't need to - if he was that upset about being burgled, why didn't he call the police?

Whether he thought he had hit Barras or not, he should have called the police immediately.

Shock maybe?

A friend of mine was in a motorbike accident a couple of months ago. He remembers SOME of what happened, but there are large gaps in his memory. He phoned his wife after it happened, from the ambulance, and was astonished that she knew all about it. He'd forgotten that he had phoned her about 15 minutes earlier and to this day does not remember that first call. He remembers asking the ambulanceman "How did I get into theambualnce" andthe ambulanceman saying "You walked" but he doesn;t remember walking.

He has large holes in his memory, due to the shock of the incident.

According to Martin, some of his memories are vague too. He knows, and admits, he fired multiple shots but adamantly maintains he does not remember how many. He maintains he fired all the shots from the midpoint on the stairs, yet (as I understand it) readily admits that the forensic evidence strongly suggests two were fired from the base of the stairs, and he is at a loss to explain that yet STILL maintains he was half-way down.

He didn't seek to hide what had happened. He told a neighbour. Should not the neighbour have phoned the police? Would you not have phoned the police had your neighbour arrived on your doorstep in the middle of the night, carrying a shotgun and with a story like that?

We are both making assumptions, not only about exactly what happened but about Martin's state of mind in the immediate aftermath.

Shock can be a funny thing and he has, in my opinion, had a highly traumatic experience in which shock COULD play a part, and if that is the case, in combination with his claims that he didn't know he'd even hit anyone, then I don't see how you can put much blame on him for not phoningthe police. Yes, he should have. Yes, just about anyone reading this probably would have - BUT - we cannot (IMHO) impute any adverse motivation to Martin from the lack of him doing so given the circumstances, given the shock and given that he is a, erm, somewhat eccentric character anyway.

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
Whether he thought he had hit Barras or not, he should have called the police immediately.

Is that a moral "should have", based on your judgement (with which I agree, incidentally) or a legal "should have". If the latter, what's the basis? I'm not saying I disagree, just curious.

As I understand it, you're not obliged to report a failed buglary and given the history of burglaries and the notable failure of the ploice to so anything about it, maybe he felt - with respect to the burglary - that there was simply no point. If he thought he'd fired the shotgun and not hit anybody, why would he feel an urgent need to report that - and perhaps drop himself into unnecessary trouble, given that the shotgun was unlicenced?

I think you're jumping to a conclusion based on what you and I would have done, in the cool, calm light of day, and failing to take into account that we are not Tony Martin and that we hadn't been through his experience.

He might be "eccentric", and he did (according to the Appeals evidence) certainly suffer from some personality problems, but neither of those are criminal offences. We have to be careful about imposing our own judgements and standards on Martin and then concluding either criminal or moral culpability from those standards.

[DaBeeeenster]

The neighbour should have called the police, but their failure to do so does not remove Martin from guilt.

I agree shock can and would have had an effect, but I really dont think that satisfies a reasonable doubt in my mind that he was aware of what he was doing. I guess that's just a moral position. I dont think "I was drunk" is an excuse for bad or violent behavious, and I think the same goes for shock.

I dont think it's fair comparing two quite different mental states; your friend must have been hurt for an amulance to be called, and so it becomes a totally different matter; they are two very different states of mind.

Looking at the case again I still think he is guilty of manslaughtler for leaving Barras to die. According to the repoorts it took him 20 minutes to die; I cant imagine he would have been quiet for those 20 minutes...

[Knoxville]

depends on how badly he was wounded or if a lung had been punctured as to how quiet it was, imo the neighbours should have been charged with obstruction of justice or something. they knew about it yet did nothing

[DaBeeeenster]

Unless he was immediately knocked unconcious for a period of time, it's a 99% certainty that Martin would have heard him, surely?

I still think manslaughter was the correct charge, and that he was lucky to get away with not being sentenced for murder.

[Saracen]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
I agree shock can and would have had an effect, but I really dont think that satisfies a reasonable doubt in my mind that he was aware of what he was doing. I guess that's just a moral position. I dont think "I was drunk" is an excuse for bad or violent behavious, and I think the same goes for shock.

I dont think it's fair comparing two quite different mental states; your friend must have been hurt for an amulance to be called, and so it becomes a totally different matter; they are two very different states of mind.

Looking at the case again I still think he is guilty of manslaughtler for leaving Barras to die. According to the repoorts it took him 20 minutes to die; I cant imagine he would have been quiet for those 20 minutes...

Can you be sure, beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin was not suffering from shock, or that he did not genuinely believe he had not hit anyone? In the absence of evidence ot the contrary, I find it quite easy to believe that Barras collapsed from loss of blood and passed into unconsciousness. If so, he'd have been pretty quiet.

As for the shock, yes, my friend was hurt. Broken wrist and some bumps and scapes. But shock is a funny thing. Having your house invaded is, IMHO, a very personal thing. Being burgled is not just about material possessions - it is about having your home despoiled. It is about having your confidence in the sanctity of your 'refuge' destroyed. Burglary is about inflicting violence on people, even if the burglar doesn't see that. He doesn't see the hurt and devastation his actions cause. And that can be the case when you just come home to find your place turned over, let alone when you are in it, alone and in the dark, when multiple intruders break in. I see no logical problem in ascribing a state of shock to someone who has just been through that.

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
I still think manslaughter was the correct charge, and that he was lucky to get away with not being sentenced for murder.

He was charged with, and convicted, of murder, not manslaughter. It was reduced to manslaughter by the Court of Papeals on the basis of diminished responsibility.

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
Unless he was immediately knocked unconcious for a period of time, it's a 99% certainty that Martin would have heard him, surely?

How do you get to 99%? I mean, if you're going to quantify that probability, how do you get to that? How big are the grounds to Martin's house? It is, after all, a farmhouse with numerous outbuildings and even then, it absolutely covered in dense undergrowth. How thorough a search of the surrounding shrubs and bushes is Martin supposed to have carried out? What state was Barras in? If he was screaming in pain, maybe Martin should have heard him. But maybe he had collapsed in the bushes, unconscious, from loss of blood. He did, after all, have serious shotgun wounds!

It seems to me that unless you have convincing, or perhaps conclusive, evidence that Martin KNEW Barras was lying there in the bushes bleeding to death, then you cannot 'convict' him on that basis. We don't convict on the basis that someone 'might have'. or even 'probably did' commit a given offence. The standard is deliberately set at "beyond a reasonable doubt".

According to Martin, he did not go outside the house for "a while". There is no evidence I'm aware of to contradict that assertion.


I'm pretty sure we're never going to agree on this, but I've said before and I'll say again, I have absolutely no sympathy at all for a burglar shot and killed while burgling. So far as I'm concerned, it is one less scumbag out there to threaten or burgle the rest of us. I'm shedding no tears for Barras at all, and if I have a regret, it's that Martin's aim wasn't better in regard to Fearon. Fearon is a career criminal, burglar and drug dealer. He is a parasite and would be no loss to society.

The ONLY reason I don't support the American stance of completely open season on burglars is that it would probably result in many more burglars going tooled up (and bear in mind that Martin may well have believed Fearon and Barras to be tooled up) and more householders than is currently the case getting hurt or killed as a result.

But I have not one jot of sympathy for any burglar killed during his "work". None whatsoever. Hell will freeze over before you'll find me being sympathetic to such scumbags. They feel thay can do what they like, and can inflict suffering on others at their whim just to satisfy their own greed, and with total disregard for what their actions do to others. Fine. Then if they wish to live by the sword they can die by the sword.

Obviously I have not heard all the evidence that the Martin jury did, but based on what I have heard, I would have acquitted. Maybe that would not be the case had I been on the jury and heard the evidence, but based on what I do know, I cannot see it likely that my vote would have been for anything other than acquittal.

It is 100% within the personal control of any burglar not to get hurt or killed while burgling. Simply don't burgle!!!. The householder, on the the hand, has 0% influence on getting burgled. Which brings me neatly back to your point about drunks and violence. I agree that being drunk is no excuse for violence. But the difference is this. Getting drunk, or not, is in the hands of the drunk. He chose to drink, so his actions while drunk are entriely his own fault. Martin did not choose to get burgled, and the resulting shock, whatever it may have been, is entirely outside his control or influence.

[DaBeeeenster]

I guess we can agree to disagree. Even if Martin was suffereing from shock, he SHOULD have alerted the emergency services after the event. It's as simple as that.

I have little sympathy for Barras either, but to say that you are OK shooting people in the back for trespassing is taking things too far IMHO.

[Saracen]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
I guess we can agree to disagree. Even if Martin was suffereing from shock, he SHOULD have alerted the emergency services after the event. It's as simple as that.

So, for the sake of argument we accept that Martin was suffering from shock, and according to expert testimony, which was accepted by the Appeals Court as a reason for reducing the conviction to mansalughter, he had psychiatric problems which gave rise to diminished responsibility yet you STILL insist he should have behaved in a fully rational and responsible manner

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
I have little sympathy for Barras either, but to say that you are OK shooting people in the back for trespassing is taking things too far IMHO.

Who said that?