egafd.com

Knave Editor wrote:

> Tony Martin is not a criminal and should never have had to
> spend time in prison.

He owned an illegal weapon, THAT makes him a criminal.

> If the two criminals hadn't travelled 60 miles to rob Martin
> then they wouldn't have got killed/shot in the leg. The points
> about Martin being 'eccentric' and shooting Barras in the back
> are totally irrelevant ??burglars have no rights. If you break
> into someone's home with the intention of stealing their
> property then you should lose all rights to protection from the
> law.

Everybody has rights. Martin had a right to use reasonable force to defend himself. He didn't, he used excessive force.

> It's entirely fair and reasonable that Martin should be able
> to make some money from selling his story; it's not as if he's
> able to earn a wage for the last couple of years is it?

Why? He's a convicted criminal who will profit from his crime.

In all this supposed public outrage about the fact that he was jailed, and that the law is an ass. People seem to forget that he was tried by a jury of his peers who, after listening to all the evidence, found him guilty.

I agree.....

even in the Wild west shooting someone in the back was Murder..

wasnt that how jesse james was murdered?its also cowardly to shoot someone in the back.

And the person he Killed was only a Sixteen year old kid !
thats a Sixteen year old kid running away from an illegal shotgun !
I hate Pikeys as much as the next man ...and in the old days they would have had their heads cut off and stuck on pikes on a citys gate..!

....but come on this man has killed a child do we really want to read his story and know in the backs of our mind that Tony Martin is getting paid for killing !

"Everybody has rights."? Why should criminal scum who rob, steal, injure and kill have ANY rights? Fearon and Barras were not exactly innocent first-time burglars, they both had a vast amount of convictions.

As soon as you plan to rob someone, choose to travel 60 miles to someone's house with the express intention of stealing their property, smash your way into their house in the middle of the night and set about nicking that terrified person's posessions then you should lose the right to any sense of protection from the law.

"He's a convicted criminal who will profit from his crime."

Profit from his crime?

Don't think of it as profit, think of the cash the Daily Mirror are stumping up as Martin's rightful compensation.

Tony Martin will be living in fear for the rest of his life with talk of a ?60,000 price being put on his head by those peaceful tax-paying law-abiding travelling folk.

And now Fearon's going to sue Martin for 'loss of earnings'. What a joke this country is.

He was a scrawny little 16 year old and he was shot in the back with and illegal gun (an offence which carries a mandatory 5 year sentence in its self) while he ran away "kill or be killed"?

Tony Martin he had previously lost his gun licence when he had shot at the car of some people he believed had stolen apples from his land. He is a paranoid nutter who pestered the police with false reports of theft from his house, those reports have now become the '9 burglaries he was 'terrorised' by. His house was extensively boobytrapped and he slept with a gun.

His local neighbourhood watch representative had this to say about him:

"Obviously the man shouldn't have done what he done. If they knew him they wouldn't have gone near his house cos he's a loony. He's got funny ideas.

"He wouldn't treat you civil if you went over there. People were just wary of him. I don't know anybody round here who was friends with him or spoke to him."

He probably shouldn't have been convicted for murder because he's an obvious mentalcase, and that's why his conviction was reduced to manslaughter. But the way the gutter press have made him out to be some sort of have-a-go hero is totally irresponsible and wrong. And as for his 'campaign', we have every right to defend ourselves and our property with reasonable force. Although the laws are open to interpretation and usually biased towards the householder shooting an unarmed man in the back from 4 feet isn't and will never be considered reasonable force, and rightly so.

Knave Editor wrote:

> "Everybody has rights."? Why should criminal scum who rob,
> steal, injure and kill have ANY rights? Fearon and Barras were
> not exactly innocent first-time burglars, they both had a vast
> amount of convictions.

Are you suggesting that it would have made a difference to Tony Martin if this had been their first offence?

> As soon as you plan to rob someone, choose to travel 60 miles
> to someone's house with the express intention of stealing their
> property, smash your way into their house in the middle of the
> night and set about nicking that terrified person's posessions
> then you should lose the right to any sense of protection from
> the law.

Rubbish!

> "He's a convicted criminal who will profit from his crime."
>
> Profit from his crime?
>
> Don't think of it as profit, think of the cash the Daily
> Mirror are stumping up as Martin's rightful compensation.

He is being paid ?125,000 for telling his story to the Mirror (I think I said Express in a previous post, oops!). Do you think anyone will pay Barras' family the same amount to hear how their life has been affected.

> Tony Martin will be living in fear for the rest of his life
> with talk of a ?60,000 price being put on his head by those
> peaceful tax-paying law-abiding travelling folk.

From the reports on last nights news that I saw, neither the Police nor the residents of his home town are taking the ?60,000 rumour very seriously. Why is it so important to people that the perpetrators were travellers. What difference does it make. Would you have made the same comment if the burglars were black or jewish.

> And now Fearon's going to sue Martin for 'loss of earnings'.
> What a joke this country is.

Which I don't believe he has a snowball's chance in hell of winning, and if he does I will be one of the first to condemn.

I don't give a monkeys about Fearon and Barras. Barras is dead and Fearon, given that he appears to be a lousy criminal, will no doubt follow soon if he doesn't end up in jail first. My concern is that a someone in possession of an illegal weapon who sets his home up to ambush burglars is being treated as if he was the victim of a huge miscarriage of justice.

This wasn't a case where the evidence was suspect, or their were different witness reports or someone claiming an alibi. This rested on whether or not the jury felt he acted in self-defence. They didn't, and I agree with them.

Who cares if Barras was only 16 years old? He was clearly old enough to run up a string of previous convictions.

Why not ask the victims of his other crimes if they care that he was killed. If someone's breaking into your house and stealing your property their age is somewhat irrelevant.

Tony Martin is the only victim in this case.

Tony Martin would never have shot Barras if Barras hadn't broken into his home.

'Who cares if Barras was only 16 years old?'

everyone makes mistakes when they are young ......

Letting people learn from their mistakes is how we grow as people

not shooting them in the back !