Burglar stabbed to death!

  Autoschediastic 14:55 23 Jun 2011
Locked

Having been a victim of a terrible burglary some years ago my grandma had just died and we was storing all her pre WW2 and family photos/clothes and personal things, the photos was thrown out on the garden where it rained all night and they was unrecoverable! that hurt more than the things they took, I lost absolutely everything they even took my socks? and my suits?

i had been staying away for the night and my mother (I was living with her for a month) had stayed out for the night so no one was at home, we left the tv on curtains closed and lights on basically what a lot of people do and they ripped the kitchen window off its frame costing us quite a bit, i had also just lost my job and we couldnt afford the insurance for the house so really the burglar couldnt of picked a worse time to hit us!

After having a solid tipoff i took his binbags from his wheelie bin and found some of my things like my ID so i called the police and they said they knew of the guy he was known for aggravated burglaries and had just got out of prison for beating up a 85 year old man up he was trying to his house, the police stated they would send someone in the next hour to search his house....10 years later i am STILL waiting?? no call back from the police no knock on the door...

I hope the person who was in this house who was living here doesnt get a custodial sentence! IMHO if someone is about to rob another person or burgle a house they simply deserve ALL they get! whilst they may use the "I need the money for drugs" gaffe well there is plenty of people that need money but dont turn to crime...!

READ HERE

  spuds 12:48 23 Jul 2011

spider9

You are quite correct, it was Tony and not George, a very simple slip on my behalf. If you have a copy of todays Sun newspaper, you may well see an article from Tony Martin about this particular incident.

As a matter of personal curiosity, why have you put a significance to "Didn't he shoot someone in the back"?.

  bremner 13:00 23 Jul 2011

Surely the significance is obvious, if someone is running away and you shoot them in the back, they are not a threat to your life, therefore as with Martin, they were correctly found to have used excessive force.

  Forum Editor 13:18 23 Jul 2011

why have you put a significance to "Didn't he shoot someone in the back"?.

I would also have thought the significance would be obvious. Martin shot the two men as they tried to escape via a window; they were not threatening him in any way, but he carried on and fired regardless. I imagine that was the critical point that convinced 10 of the twelve jury members that he intended to harm the men. If you shoot at someone at close range with a pump-action shotgun you must have a pretty good idea that they will be killed.

  spuds 16:20 23 Jul 2011

bremner

Thank you for your comment, because it is the most logical statement so far. I agree with you wholeheartedly.

spider9

I simply referred to the Sun article, because it was from a person (Tony Martin) who had first hand experience of incidents like this (incident = event,occurrence, naturally attaching to). Whether you read the Sun or any other newspaper, is of very little interest to me.

I will refer back to my original question: As a matter of personel curiosity, why have you put a significance to " Didn't he shoot someone in the back"?.

  spuds 18:04 23 Jul 2011

spider9

I was asking you the question, and possibly my curiousity was why you had brought it into the discussion. The same might now apply as to why you are referring to the KKK!.

If you read bremner's post correctly and fully, you may well see why I wholeheartedly agree with it. If you don't understand then may I explain it to you. The post is pure simple fact and not speculation.

And whats all this nonsense about 'profiteering from crime'. Have you checked your facts?.

I can now only refer to what you have already stated, 'there's little more I can say'!.

  Forum Editor 10:00 24 Jul 2011

spuds

"And whats all this nonsense about 'profiteering from crime'. Have you checked your facts?."

I'm beginning to wonder if you've checked yours.

Martin was paid £125,000 by the Daily Mirror in 2003, for an exclusive interview on his release from prison. If that wasn't a clear case of a man profiting because of a criminal act I don't know what is. The press complaints commission, in a cowardly attempt to pander to the Mirror's readership, later justified the payment by saying that Martin "had a unique insight into an issue of great public concern".

I imagine that rape is an issue of great public concern, but I don't see any interviews with released rapists being published in the Mirror, or interviews with convicted child killers, or paedophiles.

Tony Martin shot two men from behind as they attempted to flee from him. A jury convicted him of murder. His conviction was later downgraded to manslaughter on the grounds of his diminished responsibility, and his parole application was refused. He has been described as a dangerous man because he obviously still believes that what he did was right. He's incapable of understanding that gratuitously shooting people in the back is a serious crime.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Oppo A9 2020 Review

The year's best animated short Hair Love is finally online

Mac Pro 2019 release date, price, features & specs

Cdiscount : la PS4 Pro 1 To + 5 jeux à moins de 400 €