[HK_UMP.45]

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-12346105,00.html/

Thats it, England is officially past the point of no return :cuss:
He was shot in the leg in the comission of a break-in.




A burglar who says he cannot enjoy sex after he was shot and injured by Tony Martin has won the right to sue the jailed farmer for damages.


Brendon Fearon, 33, successfully asked a judge at Nottingham County Court to overturn an earlier decision that threw out his claim.

Fearon will sue Martin for a reported £15,000 following his wounding during a break-in at the farmer's home in Emneth Hungate, Norfolk, in August 1999.

During the burglary Martin shot dead Fearon's accomplice, 16-year-old Fred Barras, of Newark, Nottinghamshire.

Fearon claims that his injuries, which included a leg wound, have affected his ability to enjoy sex and martial arts and that he has suffered post-traumatic stress.

He claims he cannot even watch shoot-outs on television or in movies because of the memories of the incident.

Fearon was jailed for his part in the raid on Martin's home and has more than 30 criminal convictions.

He has been granted legal aid to mount his claim for damages.

Malcolm Starr, a friend and campaigner for Martin, said: "This is disgraceful and means yet more public money will be wasted on this claim.

Tony expected this to happen, because of flaws in the law that must now be addressed."

Mr Starr added: "Public opinion must be at boiling point. People will be gobsmacked that the law can be so wrong."

Earlier this year, Fearon, of Newark, was told that he had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claims that he has been unable to work because of his injuries.

But the judge who made today's ruling said the mistakes of Fearon's solicitors should not prevent him getting his case for compensation heard in a court of law.

The judge also pointed out that the case has a great deal of public interest concerning the rights of both householders and trespassers.

Henry Bellingham, Tory MP for Martin's constituency in Norfolk, said: "I feel very strongly that no criminal should have any right after he has broken into a property - all legal rights should be left outside the property that was burgled."

[rrader]

What idiocy. The British must be an awfully passive and backward people to tolerate this perversity.

[El Tejon]

Same stuff happens here.

[rrader]

Same stuff happens here.

Good point.

[Desertdog]

I am wondering, are these cases being heard by a judge or by a jury?
I can see a judge being so stupid as to finding verdicts for the burglar, but a jury finding for him just doesn't seem possible. I guess they could be as brainwashed as the judge.
Keep us updated, and remember, 10 years from now this could be us!:scrutiny:

[CasualShooter]

What happened to the old idea that a criminal can not profit from his crime? Now-a-days they sue their victims and sell book and movie rights to their mis-deeds. Whats wrong with this picture.:banghead:

Seems to me that if anybody gets sued, it should be the burglar, for recovery of the cost of spent ammunition, and the burglar's attourney, for fileing a frivilous suit which effectively harrasses the victim, the Farmer.:confused: I know, I know, that would seem to logical for today's world.:rolleyes: BTW, why is the Farmer in jail? For protecting his property?

There really were some Good Things about the Good Old Days . As a senior citizen, I can say that our Grand Parents were NOT stupid. They knew how and were willing to deal with the criminals and thats why they had less crime. Perhaps one day we will rediscover their wisdom.

[Mr. Bombastic]

What idiocy. The British must be an awfully passive and backward people to tolerate this perversity.

What's even more perverse is that Tony Martin was jailed simply for having the means to defend himself in the first place.

And now, on his release, he is gonna get sued by the surviving piece of scum. Pity he didn't meet the fate of the other burglar.

Human rights this, human rights that. What about peoples human right to have the means to defend themselves and to exercise that means when needed?

:fire: :cuss: :banghead:

[cool45auto]

:banghead: :cuss: :fire: :rolleyes:

...help me out, I'm runnin' out of smileys here!

[CZ-75]

A burglar who says he cannot enjoy sex after he was shot and injured by Tony Martin

If he were in prison, where he belongs, I doubt he'd be enjoying sex either. More to the point, HE wouldn't be enjoying sex - no mention of his cell block, though. :evil:

[Standing Wolf]

A burglar who says he cannot enjoy sex after he was shot and injured by Tony Martin...

Well, if it keeps his kind from reproducing, so much the better!

[JMag]

Oh, for the love of....

But, you shoot 'em and wound 'em, you deal with him and his lawyer;

you shoot 'em and kill 'em, you deal with his "loving" family and their lawyer.

[Quintin Likely]

Why are crooks too stupid to realize that if they keep their hands off other people's property, they probably won't get shot...:banghead:

[jimpeel]

A burglar who says he cannot enjoy sex after he was shot and injured by Tony Martin ...Well, I guess that leaves out the option of telling him to go f--- himself.

[Orthonym]

I have only two things to say:
1.:barf: :banghead: :cuss: :fire: :mad: :banghead: :cuss: :cuss: and:
2: What does "gobsmacked" mean?

[agricola]

remember, this is Fearon being given permission to sue Martin. Fearon now has to convince a civil court of the validity of his case.

also Fearon was imprisoned following the Bleak House raid

[HK_UMP.45]

So let me get this straight:

Thief and accomplice try to burgle farmhouse and are foiled. Accomplice dies on the scene and thief is arrested. He goes to jail for 3 years. Upon release he may now sue for 'damages'

Farmer is arrested and convicted. He gets to spend the next 7 years in jail. Neighbors must now guard historic farmhouse.

Interlopers come and burgle house repeatedly, stealing 200 year old outhouse tiles.

Justice has been served. :banghead:

Link to article detailing subsequent break-ins
http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2001%2F07%2F29%2Fnmart29.xml

[another okie]

"I am wondering, are these cases being heard by a judge or by a jury?"

Judge. Jury trials are almost gone in Britain, except for criminal cases, and Blair wants to do away with those. Too many little people expressing their real opinions in the jury box. Got to leave all those decisions up to someone who went to Oxford and wears a wig.

[agricola]

another okie,

actually juries remain in some civil trials

http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/using_courts/jury/index.htm

[Robby from Long Island]

It's really sad to see that the fall of the British Empire never seems to end.

Safe shooting.

[Mk VII]

In his first interview, David Hatch, chairman of the Parole Board, tells Richard Ford that Martin, the farmer who shot a teenage burglar, is a dangerous man who should not be freed
THE spotlight is shining on the Parole Board more brightly than ever this summer. The high-profile cases of Tony Martin and Jeffrey Archer - one refused parole, the other applying for it - ensure that it is firmly in the public eye.
It is a position that the board has largely avoided during its 36-year existence, but one that David Hatch, the retiring chairman, predicts is inevitable given rising public interest in criminal justice and the greater focus on victims of crime.
Hatch, 64, has spent the past two years being careful that, as attention is focused on the board, the public and Government can have confidence in its decisions to release prisoners on parole.
"We are one of those little forgotten areas that goes about its rather important work and does it rather well," Hatch says in his only newspaper interview since taking the job in 2000.
He expresses frustration at the general lack of understanding of the board's job, but says that every decision it takes is based on a rigorous assessment of the risk to the public of anyone considered for release.
"Everyone should know that the most important consideration is the safety of the public," he says. "That is first, second and third, and comes before considering the liberty of the individual."
This belief made him bullish about the way the board handled the case of Tony Martin, the farmer given five years for the manslaughter of a teenage burglar at his isolated farm in Norfolk. Martin was refused parole; then, amid unprecedented publicity, his lawyers challenged the decision in the High Court. They failed to win a review of the decision, but not before parts of the media had found against the board.
Hatch, who retires this November, is unshaken by the furore. "I was very confident we made absolutely the right decision in the Tony Martin case," he says.
"If the press decides to have a view about something, the press will have a view about something. Tango-ing with the press does not get you very far.
"Mr Martin was a very dangerous man. He shot a 16-year-old boy and killed him, shot him in the back at a range of about four feet."
Hatch says that irrespective of what the press thinks, the job of the board is to protect the public. There had been a full and proper assessment of Martin's case. "We said he was a dangerous man and he should stay in. I am very glad that a High Court judge saw it our way."
The board comprises 110 members, including 23 judges, 19 psychiatrists, five criminologists, nine probation officers, and 51 independent members. Individual parole decisions are made by smaller panels.
Hatch's confidence in the board's approach is a result of a strategy involving a tougher applications procedure, rigorous training, appraisal of the way members operate, plus reviews when cases go seriously wrong.
It has not reached this position without resistance. Hatch is diplomatic, but it is clear that judges have taken some persuading of the necessity of proper interviews and appraisals of the way they operate.
Though he is a reformer, there is one change that would be a step too far for Hatch. While he recognises the need for greater transparency in the board's work, he is opposed to allowing the public access to hearings.
"I have seen a video of an open parole hearing in the United States, and I would hope it would not be introduced here," he declares
[Times 27-05-03]

[rrader]

We are one of those little forgotten areas that goes about its rather important work and does it rather well," Hatch says in his only newspaper interview since taking the job in 2000.

What a perverse comment comment from the head of a parole board (Hatch) that is presently incarcerating a political prisoner who's only "crime" was an act of self defense. The same parole board which undoubtedly released innumerable times, the very criminal thugs who burglurized Martin's home.

What a sick, twisted, low minded bastard (Hatch). :cuss: :fire: :cuss: :fire: :cuss: :fire: :cuss:

(I know this is the High Road but it needed saying.) :fire:

[agricola]

rrader,

thats the thing - the act was not one of self defence, and Martin had a long history of, to put the best face on it, "eccentric" behaviour with his shotgun.

the Parole Board made the correct decision IMHO based on the history of that individual.

[erikm]

In a way I do hope the perp sues mr Martin.

I hope mr Martin gets a good defense team which then proceeds to make (legal) mincemeat out of the perp's case, but runs up a sizable legal bill in the process.

I further hope that the judge then rules against the perp and, as permitted under english law, sticks the perp with the full costs, including those by the defense team.

Cheers,
ErikM :evil:

[rrader]

Agricola:

From what I have read, admittedly across 3000+ miles of open water, Martin's previous transgressions amounted to threatening trespassers on his property with the shotgun he eventually used against the two thugs, that and not properly registering the gun.

That's eccentric behavior then only by virtue of reference to a society that itself is seriously out of whack.

Both "offenses" seem to be perfectly understandable given the constant threat of robbery the citizens in that area seem to face.

IMO Martin is a political prisoner kept in prison to serve as a warning to anyone else who might choose to ignore the inhumane firearms laws pushed by the extremist left-wing ideologues in control of the UK's government.

[agricola]

here is some of the background:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/martin/article/0,2763,214336,00.html

[GSB]

Nice hit piece, agricola. Can anyone count the number of "loaded" sentences in that article? The number of ways the writer tries to make every character trait or behavior out to be something sinsiter? And none of which is actually germane to whether a man should be put in prison for doing something that ought to be done with far greater frequency.

Nice example of hit and run journalism by the Guardian. Kudos! Almost makes American journalism look respectable.

[rrader]

Nice example of hit and run journalism by the Guardian. Kudos! Almost makes American journalism look respectable

Even Randy Weaver got better press than Martin.

[agricola]

yep, the way they reported the prosecution case as well as the defence (and even the Guardian didnt report the main plank of the prosecution case - that Martin had been stood downstairs and ambushed the two burglars - which has resulted in the wholly disproved defence that he was stood upstairs becoming "fact") shows their clear bias.

as an aside, how do you put a positive spin on putting someones windows out with a shotgun over an argument?

edit: and to say that Martin got a bad press shows a deep ignorance of the media campaign surrounding his case.

[CZ-75]

Though he is a reformer, there is one change that would be a step too far for Hatch. While he recognises the need for greater transparency in the board's work, he is opposed to allowing the public access to hearings.
"I have seen a video of an open parole hearing in the United States, and I would hope it would not be introduced here," he declares

Big Brother knows best. :barf:

[Mr. Bombastic]

Agricola is right.

If disabled people have no right to protect themselves, why should homeowners be able to protect themselves or their property?

How dare he be downstairs, with his own gun, in his own house, and have the audacity to shoot two possibly armed intruders in the middle of the night?

[agricola]

ah, misrepresentation of an argument - surely only a Godwins Law violation can top that

[CZ-75]

Nazi fascists. :evil:

[HK_UMP.45]

Not to fight anyone's battles for them, but what arguement was misrepresented? Mr. Bombastic's? Mr. Martin?

Seems to me the comparison between disabled (sorry, 'differently abled') self-defense and this case is both apt and timely

What if Martin had 'come clean'? Maybe testified that he heard sounds of a break-in, armed himself and waited downstairs? Where would he be then? Probably in worse trouble than he's in right now. Weapons violations, some sort of trumped up 'premeditated' charge and probably poaching in the king's forest.

And in keeping with Godwin's law...
How would the nazis handle this situation?

:neener:


edit: CZ beat me to the nazi reference by 6 minutes... dang

[agricola]

mr bombastic misrepresented my argument on the disabled-man-with-CS thread

[capt_happypants]

UMP_45, I presume that the Nazis would keep with their Teutonic Overlord (tm) tradition and invade France.

As for Martin, I say that we set up a trade with England. We take in Martin, England gets their choice of American bliss-ninnies. I nominate Chucky Schumer.

[Mr. Bombastic]

I'm sorry. Disabled people DO have a right to protect themselves.

Just not with anything other than their disabled bodies.

Is that a correct representation Agricola?

[agricola]

no, try again.

[HK_UMP.45]

No, disabled people don't have the right to defend themselves?
No, using anything other than bare hands is illegal?
No, the farmer should have let the robbers take anything they wanted?

What gives? Could your answer have been any more cryptic?

edited because I apparently I can't spell

[Orthonym]

I hope I don't offend any of you loyal subjects over there, but I think she set a bad example for everyone by what she said at the time. It was something about being happy that the security people arrived before Prince Philip did, and that she was able to prevent the corgis from chewing on the fellow.(That's my recollection and I'm sticking to it:D ) Thinks: What if the Prince HAD charged right in there, pausing only long enough to grab an antique mace off the wall somewhere?

[rrader]

Agricola:

yep, the way they reported the prosecution case as well as the defence (and even the Guardian didnt report the main plank of the prosecution case - that Martin had been stood downstairs and ambushed the two burglars - which has resulted in the wholly disproved defence that he was stood upstairs becoming "fact") shows their clear bias.

Only a committed anti could possibly look at your linked Guardian piece and see anything other than that rags usual strident leftist drivel. A parade of every possible dark innuendo that could be raised.

A basic principle of common law, now sadly absent from the low and retrograde legal system of the UK, is that a criminal takes his victims as he finds them. The bastards were shot while robbing another persons home in the middle of the night. Only a committed anti could construe Martin's laying in wait as an unfair "ambush." A basic principle of home defense is to first ascertain who it is you're going to shoot. Would the Crowns Prosecutor rather Martin have shot wildly into the darkness?

Only someone deeply ignorant of the basic concepts of freedom and the basic human right to self-defense could possibly offer up these weak justifications for Martin's incarceration.

edit: and to say that Martin got a bad press shows a deep ignorance of the media campaign surrounding his case.

Like the British Armed Forces in the Iraqi theater, I stopped following the BBC, Guardian, etc... long ago. Somehow I don't feel as if I am missing anything.

[another okie]

Based on the link he have me agricola is correct about jury trials still "occasionally" occurring in civil matters. I've never heard of one. Here's a quote from that site:

"Sometimes jurors are needed in a civil case such as libel. This does not happen often. When it does, the trial will take place in the High Court or a county court."

As I said, it is true that Blair suggested doing away with jury trials in criminal cases.

[agricola]

no, he (and in reality it was David Blunkett, the Home Secretary who is more usually linked with this) suggested doing away with jury trials for criminal trials linked to complex frauds and where there was a likelyhood of jury intimidation.

a separate proposal suggested that the option for a jury trial be removed from some offences, removing them from the "each-way" bracket to the "summary only" bracket; meaning that the Court appointed to deal with those offences will be that of a Magistrate, rather than the Crown Court.

rrader,

You've managed to miss the point. That article from the Guardian is the only one I have ever read that contained even a portion of the prosecution case, and even then it didnt contain the bulk of it. The press were overwhelmingly on the side of Martin, to the extent that the facts of the case were misrepresented so that the decision of the jury - which, unfortunately for Martin was based on the actual facts and not the newspaper coverage, appears ludicrous.

As pointed out before, this has lead to the press accepting the disproven defence case as fact with confusion for those poor souls who read and believe it. Your statement below contains much of this nonsense:

A basic principle of common law, now sadly absent from the low and retrograde legal system of the UK, is that a criminal takes his victims as he finds them.

this remains in Common Law, but is more correctly applied to the sphere of an assault - ie: where a man punches another man, who because of an inherited weak skull collapses and dies, he is liable for the death of that man (which, of course, does not mean necessarily that he is liable for murder because of a possible lack of malice aforethought). This does not mean that the criminal loses his rights as a human being because of his actions - a legal principle that has existed since the Roman Republic, if not before.

The bastards were shot while robbing another persons home in the middle of the night.

they were shot while running away from burgling another persons home. Robbery involves the application, or threat of, force to steal property. There was no robbery involved -Fearon was convicted of burglary.

Only a committed anti could construe Martin's laying in wait as an unfair "ambush." A basic principle of home defense is to first ascertain who it is you're going to shoot. Would the Crowns Prosecutor rather Martin have shot wildly into the darkness?

If Martin lies in wait for them inside his house, makes no attempt to scare them off, and shoots them in the back as they flee having come across him, then he is guilty of murder. Those were the facts of the case, and those were the reasons why he was rightfully convicted of murder by a jury of his peers.

Only someone deeply ignorant of the basic concepts of freedom and the basic human right to self-defense could possibly offer up these weak justifications for Martin's incarceration.

it isnt self defence, any more than the chap in Texas has found. oh yes, and Martin is a political prisoner, held in by the evil Queen and her pinko minions blah blah blah great empire fallen by socialism blah
:rolleyes:

[rrader]

Agricola:

Speaking of nonsense... you seem to be having a great deal of trouble deciding whether you want to portray yourself as knowing very little about the Martin case or pontificating about it from the standpoint of having perfect knowledge:

Here you are as Agricola the ignorant:

That article from the Guardian is the only one I have ever read that contained even a portion of the prosecution case, and even then it didnt contain the bulk of it.

And now, Agricola the all-knowing (LMAO)

they were shot while running away from burgling another persons home. Robbery involves the application, or threat of, force to steal property. There was no robbery involved -Fearon was convicted of burglary.

And so you have only read of the prosecution's case to the extent of what is in the Guardian, yet have poured over the forensic evidence, including the blood-splatter analysis, in order to determine that the deceased burgler / robber was "running away" and you can somehow devine whether any verbal or physical threat was conveyed to Martin by the burglers / robbers.

If Martin lies in wait for them inside his house, makes no attempt to scare them off, and shoots them in the back as they flee having come across him, then he is guilty of murder. Those were the facts of the case, and those were the reasons why he was rightfully convicted of murder by a jury of his peers.

Insofar as the concept of "the glass-jawed plaintiff" goes, it isn't a concept strictly limited to a determination of liability in tort as you imply, it serves equally in criminal law (although exclusive of the low and retrograde British legal system). Simply put, if a criminal has put themself into a position of threatening the life of a victim or causing that apprehension then that victim should not be held wholly liable for any overaction.

The fact that the British legal system failed to take this into account in Martin's case is a damning indictment, as is your weak apologia for that failure. Physical evidence can't detail the nature of Martin's "lying in wait" or detail the nature of any verbal threats made by the burgler's / robbers. The fact that only two people now alive could offer eyewitness testimony to the events at Bleak house and that the word of the burglar / robber was taken over that of the homeowner is damning as well.

Your proposition that Martin had an affirmative obligation to somehow attempt to "scare off" the burglers is patent absurdity. But then again we are discussing the absurd and retrograde British legal system.

You don't seem to like the fact that legal system of the UK is considered an arcane laughingstock by the vast majority of members of this board. One question then, why do you stay?

I notice you haven't denied being an "anti"

Do you even own a firearm?

Bottom line: The British legal system denies honest law-abiding citizens the ability to defend themselves with a weapon and places an undue burden on the victims of crime to justify an act of self defense.

It's sad that so many Britons such as yourself seem to prefer this, very sad.