[Master Blaster]

Sick joke
Martin AND shot
burglar freed


Out of jail ... Tony Martin

RELATED STORIES
• Sun Says



By JOHN TROUP
and JOHN KAY


FARMER Tony Martin left prison yesterday — and one of the burglars he shot will walk free TODAY.

Mr Martin, 58, was taken to a police station ahead of his official release on Monday.

Brendon Fearon — who is suing Mr Martin over his injuries — is being freed after serving less than a third of an 18-month sentence for heroin dealing.

The timing of his release was branded an outrage by friends and supporters of the farmer.

And Mr Martin’s solicitor James Saunders said last night: “This is astonishing. Surely they could have picked a better time to release this man.



Cocky crook ... Fearon served 5½
months of 18-month term


“The irony of this emphasises just how wrong it was to make Tony serve his entire sentence because he is honest enough to say he could not rule out defending himself in the future.

“Fearon, on the other hand, has made all sorts of promises, then broken the law time and time again.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is astonishing. Surely they could have picked a better time to release this man.

Tony Martin's lawyer last night

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



“It’s awful when decent people are treated worse than career criminals.”

Fearon, 33, was shot and wounded by Mr Martin while raiding his home in Emneth Hungate, Norfolk.

He is now suing Mr Martin for loss of earnings, despite never having done an honest day’s work in his life. Fearon was jailed for 18 months for heroin dealing on February 6, but is being let out already from Ranby Prison, Notts.

He will be fitted with an electronic tag and must stay indoors from 7pm to 7am each day.


Senior prison sources confirmed his release. One said: “It is a total coincidence that he is being released at the same time as Tony Martin.

“The Prison Service has no control over dates — and we’d hardly want to stage-manage a joint release like this.”

Mr Martin will be officially released on Monday after being given a controversial five-year sentence for the manslaughter of burglar Fred Barras, 16.

Friends of Barras are understood to have put a price on the farmer’s head.


But he has told pals he is determined to return home despite by the threats.

Police spent yesterday frantically fitting CCTV cameras, security lights and a burglar alarm to Mr Martin’s house.

Officers using large sticks also checked undergrowth around his farm for booby traps and explosive devices.

Mr Martin’s MP Henry Bellingham confirmed he had left jail yesterday. Home Office sources said he would have been taken to a police station cell.


SUPPORTERS are selling £5 badges bearing a gun logo and the words “Tony Martin Security Services” to help him fight the legal action by Fearon.

Sun readers have donated more than £92,000 to Mr Martin’s defence fund.

[Kharn]

Friends of Barras are understood to have put a price on the farmer’s head.
Agricola has previously stated that targets of the IRA are issued a handgun by the government. Does Mr. Martin stand a chance of being issued one, since he's in the same situation but with a different aggressor?

Kharn

[agricola]

kharn,

probably not - given that the IRA threats were definable rather than tabloid tittle-tattle.

[hammer4nc]

Police spent yesterday frantically fitting CCTV cameras, security lights and a burglar alarm to Mr Martin’s house.

Officers using large sticks also checked undergrowth around his farm for booby traps and explosive devices.

Will someone please explain this? Was part of his release contingent on agreeing to have state-owned TV cameras/security systems monitoring his private property? Given the obvious bias the court has shown against Mr. Martin (and for the burglar profession), having 24/7 CCTV monitored by the local prosecutor is the last thing I'd want.

I think Mr. Martin is about to be made an example of; he'll probably be nicked for speaking loudly, and intimidating some of Mr. Fearon's buddies who come to welcome him home.

Fair warning to those not properly humble before the crown.

[Master Blaster]

Obviously the Crown has recognized a viable threat to Mr. Martin, thats why they are installing a burglar alarm cameras etc. So since the Govt believes the threat is real, when will Agricola's superiors issue Mr Martin a proper side by side so he can defend himself?

As to the IRA threats, did they have a billboard called the IRA official hit list on which they published the names of those to whom the gvt would "issue a handgun"?

Very civilized and sporting of the IRA huh?

[agricola]

master,

er.... no. The IRA used to have lists and other detailed instructions of people (members of the military, RUC officers, builders, joiners, plumbers, non-Catholics etc) its cells were planning to hit, when the evil redcoats raided the "freedom fighters'" hideouts, they recovered these lists (as well as money, guns and explosives funded by something called NORAID....). Those who were at risk were permitted to own handguns for their own defence from what was a real threat, not one dreamt up by the Sun, which as we all know is a toilet of a rag of a newspaper.

IMHO the state shouldnt subsidize his CCTV and alarm system, they wouldnt do it for any other convicted killer so I dont see why he should get any benefit. As for his ownership of a firearm, after the evidence introduced by the defence at his appeal, I wouldnt trust the man with a stapler; to say nothing of the fact that he has precisely 0% chance of getting a firearms licence.

[HankB]

Police spent yesterday frantically fitting CCTV cameras, security lights and a burglar alarm to Mr Martin’s house Obviously the Crown has recognized a viable threat to Mr. Martin This is Britain. Rather than protecting twice-victimized Mr. Martin, perhaps the security is meant to provide for the safety of future burglars.

[seeker_two]

Police spent yesterday frantically fitting CCTV cameras, security lights and a burglar alarm to Mr Martin’s house

They're just waiting for Martin to give them another "easy" conviction when Fearon & his buddies show up. (Certainly you didn't think it was for Martin's protection, did you?... :rolleyes: )

As for his ownership of a firearm, after the evidence introduced by the defence at his appeal, I wouldnt trust the man with a stapler; to say nothing of the fact that he has precisely 0% chance of getting a firearms licence.

agricola: Seems like he did pretty well with that shotgun...:D But I wouldn't want you to feel less safe as you go about your daily business (What was it that you do, again?...:scrutiny: )

[Jim March]

The Limey gov't realizes that if Martin is killed by those brats, it vindicates his original position and the outrage might be enough to cause a shift in gun laws.

Possibly all the way up to shall-issue CCW.

[Zedicus]

HankB: This is Britain. Rather than protecting twice-victimized Mr. Martin, perhaps the security is meant to provide for the safety of future burglars.
Probably....
Or it could be to Try and catch him doing anything they can use to put him back in prison.......:rolleyes:
The Limey gov't realizes that if Martin is killed by those brats, it vindicates his original position and the outrage might be enough to cause a shift in gun laws.

Possibly all the way up to shall-issue CCW.
Another High Possabillity....

[Gray Peterson]

The Limey gov't realizes that if Martin is killed by those brats, it vindicates his original position and the outrage might be enough to cause a shift in gun laws.

Possibly all the way up to shall-issue CCW.



We can only dream, Jim, but I doubt it. The UK is just too far gone on the anti-gun path....

[rrader]

Sun readers have donated more than £92,000 to Mr Martin’s defence fund

That is a very hopefull sign. Some portion of the British people still have at least a vestigial memory of justice even if the government doesn't.

As for the British government; what a low and retrograde legal system they have. More akin to some African hell-hole or a S. American banana republic than a western nation. Sad to see them degenerate to this level.

[Byron Quick]

But self defense is legal in Britain...agricola said so!


agricola, could you provide references for someone who defended themselves with violence against a violent, unprovoked assault in Britain that the police didn't arrest for doing so? Lately? Not ten or twenty years back. Where the criminal was (gasp) actually seriously injured?

Does the Home Office have plans yet for legislation banning running away from a robber, rapist, murderer or thief? Poor guy might have a coronary chasing his dastardly victim, you know. Britain must be progressive.

[Standing Wolf]

Rarely does a day pass when I fail to feel grateful to our forefathers for having rebelled against the English and founded a republic.

An Englishman's home was his castle; now it's whatever any burglar or rapist decides it ought to be.

[Byron Quick]

We know, SW, we know:)

[TamThompson]

Couldn't the poor, beleaugered Mr. Martin just move to Texas?
Right, right...a person has a right to not be run out of their homeland by crime, and they should fight back. But FIVE YEARS? Unbelieveable.

[agricola]

byron,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2660021.stm
http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2003/01/17/story84621.asp

ferguson was never arrested, but the perp did make a complaint of assault against him, which was found to be baseless. other incidents happen all the time, unfortunately not involving as newsworthy a person. Unfortunately the Police and criminal justice system over here, like Justice herself, must take each allegation on its merits and act accordingly. One does not lose ones rights by ones actions.

jim,

er... no. your argument suggests that we are going to turn our hands up and say "you know old bean, we should ignore this whole British thing and just become americans" in the event of Martin being done in.

all,

Still, I guess while you all are basing the whole "Britain is hell" thing on the Martin case and your own clearly identifiable biases, I guess its understandable. One shouldnt try reasoned debate on the issue because these threads always degenerate into nonsense.

[Baba Louie]

agricola,

you state:

As for his ownership of a firearm, after the evidence introduced by the defence at his appeal, I wouldnt trust the man with a stapler; to say nothing of the fact that he has precisely 0% chance of getting a firearms licence.

If you were put in the position of being released from a prison spell and the word was out that the heroin pusher and/or his buddies were out to "get even", and you, now having a criminal record and having, as you state, "0% of getting a firearms licence" (sic), would you think that owning an illegal firearm might just keep you alive for another day?

I mean, you are now a criminal or parolee or whatever, lived in the pen for a bit, obviously don't like burglars breaking in and stealing your stuff to keep their heroin habit alive, and know that your government is doing all they can (CCTV, alarm system) to keep you safe from the other nasty criminal types... Its obviously a rhetorical question and I simply wonder what YOU (or I) would/should do in the event of home invasion by heroin loving fun-boys out for a romp in the evening. I guess you'd tackle the man/men as Mr. Ferguson did. How old is Mr. Martin? How old is Mr. Ferg? How old are the surviving heroin boys? How old are you? Me, I'm 48 and not as young or spry as I once was...

Illegal firearms are probably available to a criminal type who wants one... and since it appears you feel that Martin is a criminal type... Could you point me to a link that indicates all of the damning evidence against Martin (I must be dense if it was posted herein before and missed it) which would negate any trust you have in him owning a stapling device? I am a bit obtuse at times.

It is an interesting coincidence that both men are released at about the same time, neh? Any chances of them bumping into each other at the Pub or market... or in Mr. Martin's house for a friendly chat? Survival of the fittest and all, eh what? Let the best man last standing win and then lock him up, again.

I would appreciate any link that has THE evidence that forms the basis of your opinion, tho. It may be that my/our take on this is all wrong. Then again, it may be a cultural thing.

Enquiring minds want to know. Well, at least I do.

Adios

[MicroBalrog]

Agricola has previously stated that targets of the IRA are issued a handgun by the government

Yes, but only in Northern Ireland. According to Steven Kendrick, the permits aren't valid in the UK, neither are such permits issued there.

[LawDog]

agricola, could you provide references for someone who defended themselves with violence against a violent, unprovoked assault in Britain that the police didn't arrest for doing so? Lately? Not ten or twenty years back. Where the criminal was (gasp) actually seriously injured?

Agricola, I don't see anything in the links you posted mentioning that the burglar(s) were seriously injured.

Byron has piqued my curiosity. Will someone come up with a verifiable news story out of Britannia where a victim of an attempted violent crime fought back against the criminal with the result that the criminal was killed or seriously injured and the original victim was not prosecuted by Crown authorities?

Now, to avoid misunderstanding, when I say "seriously injured" I don't mean "restrained", and I don't mean "held down until police arrived."

When I say "seriously injured" I'm referring to stab wounds, broken bones, concussions, gun shot wounds, and/or damaged organs.

You know, the type of injuries that result when you are fighting for your life.

LawDog

[Don Gwinn]

Tam, that does sound like a more profitable use of 92,000 pounds. He wouldn't have to go even that far. I hear Finland and Norway are holding the line pretty well.
Then again, the food and music are better in Texas. ;)

[rrader]

Agricola:

...they recovered these lists (as well as money, guns and explosives funded by something called NORAID....).

Contributions to NORAID were used exclusively for the benefit of the families of the Irish political detainees, many held without trial, in British prisons. For example, the family of Paul Hill, one of the “Guildford Four” falsely convicted (in the low and retrograde British legal system) of the 1975 Guildford Bombing.

No credible evidence exists that any NORAID money went to purchase weapons or explosives.

Looks like they're still in business:

http://inac.org/

[CZ-75]

Should've been a better shot, then the burglar wouldn't be walking anywhere. ;)

[agricola]

lawdog,

the perp Ferguson detained was put in hospital for three days, I'd class that as "pretty serious".

[HBK]

I personally think Martin should've killed the guy. I really don't understand your position on this, agricola. Am I missing something? I really believe people should be able to defend themselves and their property. I can't understand any condition to the contrary. Care to enlighten me?

[Byron Quick]

agricola,

That really depends on the policies of the hospital and the doctor overseeing the case. Three days hospitalization for a beating? No sir, as a healthcare professional working in emergency care, I would most certainly NOT classify that as a serious injury. A serious injury is three days in an intensive care unit after surgery and then transfer to a medical surgical floor for a week or two.

You sure y'all didn't charge Ferguson with something? Surely he violated the burglar's rights? False imprisonment? Kidnapping? After all, he restrained the burglar and after all: "One does not lose one's rights by one's actions."

Surely the police found something?

Sarcastic teasing, aside-I must say I am surprised at even that. Can you find two? Maybe one where the assailant was really hurt and the victim wasn't victimized by the Crown?

[agricola]

byron,

its difficult to validate that theory because in cases where the burglar or whatever sustained a life-threatening injury - which is what one takes your example to be - one would hope that the person who inflicted that injury (for whatever reason) would always be arrested.

Ones reason for this is because before any questions can be put to that person as to their involvement in an alleged offence they have to be cautioned (our version of your MIRANDA rights), which usually means they have to be arrested. In addition, in a serious incident like that which you describe you're never going to be able to get 100% of the facts at the time and so any story (which would only be admissible if the victim was under caution) can usually only be confirmed through forensication, location of any witnesses and seizure of evidence.

here's another link:

http://www.authorsonline.co.uk/authors2001/cunn01/fina01/sample.htm

[Byron Quick]

Good for that old trooper. But is there any place for such as he in England today?

agricola,

I do respect you. Truly. To come from backgrounds as diametrically opposed as yours apparently is to mine...and to a greater or lesser degree-others here on THR...and to maintain civility is rare. However, I truly believe that your stance (and apparently that of your government) is sick. And I mean that in the clinical, pathological sense.


Give you a couple of clues.

Friend of mine, a gas service station owner, was the attempted target of a strongarm robbery. He's a little guy. About 5'6", if that. Maybe 125 pounds. There were three of them. One grabbed him from behind in a bear hug. He said to his wife,"Baby, give me my gun." She slid open his desk drawer and deftly handed him his revolver. The guy holding him decided that maybe he should let go. The three would-be robbers hauled their posteriors out the door. He was in hot pursuit. The robbers split in three different directions and he pursued tail end Charlie. During the pursuit, he fired a round into the ground and shouted,"Stop or I will shoot you down." The fleeing felon stopped, turned around, and lunged for his gun...yelling"I'll make you eat that gun." My friend replied,"Eat this!" and fired. As the felon was bent over in his lunge, the bullet entered his upper left chest and exited his upper right abdomen. The bullet penetrated the felon's left lung, heart. right lung, and liver before it exited his body. Needless to say, the felon was DRT (dead right there). My friend was taken to police headquarters and interviewed by the investigators for about three hours. He was never arrested and the grand jury no billed the matter. The felon's family could not find an attorney who would file a wrongful death suit on a contingency basis. Georgia attorneys are very fond of getting paid for their endeavours for some reason.

A couple of years ago, a young woman was kidnapped by an ex-boyfriend in Tennessee. The woman jumped out of a second story window in her effort to escape the ex-boyfriend. She suffered compression fractures of her verterbrae while doing so. During her escape attempt, the felon murdered her mother. The he came outside and captured her. She was bound in duct tape and placed in his van. And away they went. He drove to Georgia and stopped for gas at a convenience store outside of Rome, Georgia. While he was in the process of pumping and paying for the gas, she was in the process of freeing herself. But she did not run. Freeing herself, she acquired his gun, which he had stupidly left in the van. Walking was painful, but she met him as he was walking across the tarmac to his van. He ran. She chased him and shot him in the back. He fell to the pavement and she shot him multiple times as he lay there. Helpless.

Now, even most folks on The Firing Line, thought that she was in big trouble. By a dispassionate viewing of the statutes of the State of Georgia, that woman had committed murder. I told them at the time: she's not in trouble. She will not be arrested, she will not be indicted, nor will she be tried. She killed the man who had killed her mother. If she had slowly tortured him to death...she might have been tried for some misdemeanour or other. And been given First Offender probation.


We're poles apart, sir.

[Jim March]

Regarding this bit of trash:

its difficult to validate that theory because in cases where the burglar or whatever sustained a life-threatening injury - which is what one takes your example to be - one would hope that the person who inflicted that injury (for whatever reason) would always be arrested.

Agricola, this time I'm having to struggle to maintain decorum.

"One would hope?"

I'll tell you what "one would hope" if they were SANE, or MORAL: the cops at the scene would make a rough judgement call. If this even *smelled* like self defense, there'd be no immediate arrest. There might be more questions later, an analysis of the available evidence (forensics, etc) but no immediate arrest.

Do you understand why?

Because an arrest record for a crime against another can be viewed by the "victim". So the "victim" (or their relatives) will know who successfully fended off the sumbich crook. And might retaliate in EXACTLY the fashion being threatened against Martin right now.

You don't get it yet, do you? YOU ADVOCATE AN ACTIVE ALLIANCE BETWEEN THE OBVIOUS CRIMINAL CLASS, AND THE CRIMINAL CLASS WITH BADGES AND BLUE UNIFORMS.

----------------------

True story - I have to delete a bunch of details but this really happened.

A guy from Arizona is driving through California with his 12-year-old daughter. He's legal for gun carry in AZ, and in Oregon where he's going. But self defense is banned in California.

So on the freeway, bandits try and run him off the road. He holds up a 45, bandits take off. He figures the problem is solved.

Wrong.

You KNOW what the bandits did, right?

Yup. They got to a phone, called the cops. Gave a description of his vehicle, said he was randomly pointing the gun out the window. Said bandits agree to meet the cops somewhere up the road to swear out a complaint...but of course, they never show, because they knew there were TWO people in the car to testify that this was assault.

So the cops pull the guy over, drew eight guns on him, bust him. He's facing all kinds of legal hassles, his daughter is in tears, and she now knows the truth: gun control means the cops actively help the crooks.

:cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

[agricola]

byron,

therein lies the secret of this, contained within your very post:

My friend was taken to police headquarters and interviewed by the investigators for about three hours. He was never arrested and the grand jury no billed the matter.

In this country, your friend could not be interviewed about what had happened UNLESS he was under caution (in this case following arrest) in line with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and I'd argue this is the correct policy because we are dealing at the end of the day with a homicide (whether justified or not) and the person who may be accused of the killing must have access to legal advice offered before making any statement, and have any statements they make recorded for posterity, as well as having access to (or knowledge of) the material facts of the case. From your case it seems as if the OB knew very quickly what had occured and so the issue was provable quickly, but this is not going to be so in every case (especially something like the Martin case).

In the second example, she would probably be done for, at the most, manslaughter over here on the grounds of provocation. However, while the killing in retribution of someone else is understandable it should not go unpunished. Justice is meant to be blind for a reason.

[agricola]

Jim,

Youre wrong, and for the following reason:

No officer, indeed no human being, can tell from his or her arrival at a scene exactly what has occured. They can guess, sure, but they cannot KNOW, and until they do they have to assume the worst, because if the person they think acted in self defence turns out not to have done so, and flees, then they are in a world of trouble (and rightly so).

We arent talking about speeding or drink-driving. We are talking about what must be the most serious thing that can ever happen to a human being, and the call cannot and should not devolve upon one officers feeling at the scene - its not fair to the victim, the person who may stand accused of the killing, to the officer and to justice itself.

Oh, and in this country a victim cannot gain access to the crime reporting system - the only chance they get is at Court when the name and address of the accused may be read out.

[Byron Quick]

OK,
Allowing for differences in the law between your country and my state: if you are involved in a self defense matter involving serious injury you must be arrested in Great Britain (apparently the same thing will happen in some of our states...especially the People's Republics) Turn my question to: arrested and subsequently charged and prosecuted with a crime by the Crown. (am I correct now?)

Justice is meant to be blind for a reason.

And I am in total agreement with this statement. However, Justice in Great Britain appears to be biased in blindness toward the activities of the criminal. Justice in Georgia is blind toward the activities of the victim.


I reckon it depends on which brand of blindness you prefer.

But you might want to tell the criminals on your beat who might be considering a vacation in the US: If you want your rights to be respected by the ordinary citizen in Georgia, you might want to consider your activities carefully. Of course, your law abiding citizens will need no such cautionary statements.

[TamThompson]

Thanks, Don!
Better yet, why not wait until the airlines are having a 2-for-1 sale on fares, and send the two perps to Texas? Perhaps to, say, Williamson County, which has the highest percentage of CHL's in the state. Let 'em try breaking into a house HERE. Problem taken care of.

I agree. Although it conflicts somewhat with my Christian beliefs, in terms of practicality, he probably should've just killed the little dirtbags. Their families still would've sued, but at least the db's wouldn't have it out for him.

I'm in a somewhat similar situation. WARNING: long story coming, but probably worthwhile to read due to it's entertainment value.

I have an ex-employee who has directly threatened my life, and threatened to break into my home. Granted, the threats were three years ago and I haven't heard from him since, and he does tend to be a blow-hard and a coward when it comes right down to it, but he owns a shotgun, is mentally unstable, and I SAW him at a store a few months ago, near my home.

This guy is so evil and obnoxious that he has no long-term friends, and everyone in his family has disowned him. There's a long trail through his past of ex-girlfriends, ex-friends, and ex-employers. I.E., if he ever breaks in, or comes and threatens me, I will most likely kill him since there is NO ONE who cares enough about him to sue me, and, in fact, many people will thank me.

I went through a very ugly lawsuit with him three years ago. I had been kind enough to employ him when he was down on his luck (he's a lawyer who can't stay employed OR get clients because of his personality and because he is so inept), and was being evicted from his apartment.

I got him a new apartment and hired him to renovate my rent house. Paid his rent, food, bills, bought him new tires, and gave him cash for about a year for repairs that should've taken 2 months. Total outlay: about $17,500. When I lost my patience at his foot-dragging, I fired him, and hired others who finished the job in a matter of weeks.

Then I made the mistake of telling him I was selling the place. One week before the closing, he filed an M&M lien on my property, claiming I'd underpaid him by----$46,500!!!!! This was on a little tract house that sold for $142,000. Even the title company people couldn't believe his GALL.
My profit sat in escrow for 9 months while I sued him to release the lien (according to my attorney, I HAD to sue him--only way to get him to release the lien.) This was legalized extortion. OH, and he also called the buyers and told them that I "had a gun and I don't know what she might do with it." So I sold the house, and the money went into escrow.

After eight months of his inept legal manuvering, during which he managed to piss off the judge enough to get several thousand dollars in fines slapped on himself, we settled. It was legal blackmail--he was threatening to file another huge lien on my own home since he came over once and helped me till up soil for a garden. My husband was livid. My lawyer said it'd cost another $20,000 to go to trial, and I'd already spent $20,000.

What killed me is that when I fired him, I'd offered him $5,000 just to GO AWAY and leave me alone. He wouldn't take it. When we settled, he'd gotten another lawyer to represent him, and I'm guessing the guy was in for a 50% cut. We settled for about $9,750 and some household items. So he got less than he would have a year earlier if he'd just taken my overly-generous offer.

OH--and I'd been stupid enough to have an affair with him, too, so he tried to blackmail me on that, too. I didn't fall for it--I confessed everything to my husband, and took the heat. I thank God he forgave me, and our marriage survived after my stupid, awful mistake.

Thing things couldn't get weirder? He actually convinced the people who bought the house (who were buying it as storage, and as a home for their live-in gardener) to let him live there!!!! A year later, I got a pleading phone call from them: "how do we get rid of this guy, he's driving us nuts, he's threatening to sue us, after taking our money, and he's threatening to call Child Protective Services because we don't send our severely-handicapped retarded child to school!" But these people never been very nice to me, so I told them it was their problem. (Had they not taken him in, he would've been evicted as he was trying to get more money from me, and probably wouldn't have been able to fight as well.)

So, yeah---he breaks in or threatens me with deadly force, I will shoot him or stab him until he is dead. I'll be doing my small corner of the world a favor.

[Iain]

Hello people, thought I would make my first serious post here being British this is a mjaor issue.

A few links

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2550627.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/717024.stm (the last paragraph is telling)

and less seriously

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/3025262.stm


I am disappointed by some of the comments on this thread, especially the first reply.

[Byron Quick]

Lesson # 1: Have as little to do with lawyers as possible. In all ways, personally as well as professionally.

Lesson #2: If you cannot be a Buddhist due to prior religious commitments, at least cultivate a Buddhist attitude towards worldly possessions.


It's absolutely amazing what happens when you tell a plaintiff's attorney this and you mean it: I intend to hire the best lawyer I can find. If you win, I intend to appeal and I intend to continue to appeal until I am penniless. So, this is the future, lawyer dude. If you lose, you get nothing. If you win, you get nothing. Win, lose, or draw, not one penny of mine will you or your client ever see. Yeah, buttwipe, a lawyer will get my money...my lawyer...all of it.


Lawyers are very, very enamored of getting paid. If you convince them that they won't see any of your money and their client is not coming up with cash on the barrel head...they have this habit of slinking back into their lair, gnashing their yellowed teeth, and seeking easier prey.

[agricola]

Byron,

Youre sort of missing the point. If there is reasonable grounds to suspect that you may have committed an offence then you cannot be asked any questions about that offence until you have been "cautioned" - any questions asked before that will be inadmissable in court as evidence, as will any evidence obtained as a direct result of those questions. This doesnt apply to just self-defence, it applies to almost all criminal law.

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_603121.html?menu=

[Byron Quick]

St. Johns,

The last paragraph is NOT telling to me. I own three shotguns with no "certificates." As well as thirty two other firearms including revolvers, semi-automatic handguns, bolt-action rifles, semi-automatic rifles (including the dreaded so-called assault weapons-gasp) and one fully automatic weapon ( the only one that is registered).

[Iain]

I'm not having a dig at anyone for owning a gun, Martin's gun was unregistered is all I was saying.

[Byron Quick]

OK, thirty four of mine are unregistered. So?

[Iain]

Am I wrong in thinking that in Britain Martin should have registered his gun?

[agricola]

St.John,

your point is relevant because Martin had (at one time) a shotgun licence, but it was taken off him after incidents where he had been either reckless or downright criminal in his actions. However, he was charged with possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life, not straightforward possession, probably because of his oft stated beliefs as to what would happen to anyone he considered a threat to him or his property.

He also had a sawnoff shotgun in an outbuilding if memory serves, which is a big no-no.

[Iain]

Thank you Agricola I was fairly sure that was the case.

Sawn-off shotguns - how illegal? You get automatic prison sentences for owning them.

[MicroBalrog]

St. Johns - Perhaps you do not know, but in the EU there is a legal standard (I don't know if it applies in the UK) that if an otherwise illegal weapon is used to kill a person, and the killing is proven to be self-defense, then the person doing the self-defense killing will not be charged for the possession of the killing. So

But that is besides the point. Do you hold that breaking a law is, in and of itself, immoral? What if you don't harm anyone at all?

[MicroBalrog]

However, he was charged with possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life, not straightforward possession, probably because of his oft stated beliefs as to what would happen to anyone he considered a threat to him or his property.


Nice. So basically, in your legal system , if I say: "I have a gun and whoever attacks me gets blasted", I'll be prosecuted for "possession with intent to endanger life?

[Iain]

It depends what the law is.

Nazi Germany passed some laws I would disobey in a heartbeat.
Registering a firearm in the UK seems just to be sense rather than a moral compulsion. The UK laws are what they are, the registering of shotguns seems minor, not something to get into civil disobedience over. The law itself, yes question it, but it hardly compares to racial segregation laws or the suchlike.

[Iain]

To your second post

Martin had threatened people's lives before, he had had his license removed for those reasons.

Regardless of whether or not you think it is ok to shoot someone in defence of property, shooting someone in the circumstances Martin did is wrong. A guy in this country was not charged with shooting a burglar who rushed him, therein is the difference.

[MicroBalrog]

However, he was charged with possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life, not straightforward possession, probably because of his oft stated beliefs as to what would happen to anyone he considered a threat to him or his property.


OK, minor thread hijack en route

1. Whether or not disobeying a gun law is a good idea, does doing so reflect upon a person's moral character? Definitely no, for example, a friend of mine illegally possesses 37 rounds of ammunition. Such is not legal in Israel. What does that reflect upon his morality.


2. The consequences of firearms registration could be bad enough that, if I lived in America and gun registration became compulsory, I wouldn't register.
Also check
http://www.lufa.ca

[Byron Quick]

St. John,

Laws differ, my friend. Here in Georgia, if you do not live in a house and you forcibly break into that house...your life is at the the discretion of the legal occupant. You do not have to be armed. You do not have to be rushing the occupant. In fact, you can be unarmed, naked, and painted "non-violent pacifist" over every square inch of your naked hide in fluorescing colours and with your back turned and get a hole blown through you from behind that a cat could be thrown through and it's legal.

Now, as I recall, Martin shot the scum outside of his house at night. Is that correct? He might be in some trouble here in Georgia for that. But I can tell you this: the surviving scum and their scum kin would NEVER get away with threatening the man's life. They'd be jailed right and left. The man's neighbours would be waiting for them to try. They'd be waiting armed.


And in Texas, what Martin did would be, in fact, legal. God bless Texas. Shooting thieves under cover of darkness on your property. Yes, for chickens, by the way. Do a search on The Firing Line.

Moral? By my lights, what Mr. Martin did was moral irregardless of the legality. If you don't want to get shot then stay off of my property. What part of that statement don't you understand?

The gas station owner I referenced in an earlier post? He has an eight foot fence around his home with concrete footing. To get on his property you will either cut through the fence or dig a tunnel three feet underground. He's got signs up ever ten feet on the perimeter of the fence which read: TRESPASSERS WILL BE SHOT. In eight inch high letters, red on a white background. Anyone who goes to the effort to trespass on his property deserves whatever they get.

Personally, I think he needs to put iron stakes out front by the road to mount the idiots' heads.

[Byron Quick]

Youre sort of missing the point. If there is reasonable grounds to suspect that you may have committed an offence then you cannot be asked any questions about that offence until you have been "cautioned" - any questions asked before that will be inadmissable in court as evidence, as will any evidence obtained as a direct result of those questions. This doesnt apply to just self-defence, it applies to almost all criminal law.

agricola,

I took your statements to mean that a victim would be arrested and cautioned. Then, based upon the results of the investigation, the victim would be charged with a crime or not charged with a crime. What am I missing?

[agricola]

byron,

yes, except without the emphasis on the word "victim", which relies on (at the time) his or her relation of events. Except that his or her relation of events cannot be obtained unless he or she has been cautioned and arrested.

One assumed that the link one posted up before would show how the system works.

[HBK]

If someone breaks into your house and you fear for your life or the life of your loved ones, lethal force is justified. I know in South Carolina the attorney general declared "open season on home invaders" a few years back. He said that anyone shooting someone who has invaded your home would not be prosecuted. That makes a hell of a lot more sense to me than arresting the person defending their home. I can't beieve this is even being debated. The gun laws in Britain are ridiculous. No, the gun laws in the US are ridiculous, so I guess the gun laws in Britain are ludicrous.

[Baba Louie]

If someone breaks into your house and you fear for your life or the life of your loved ones, lethal force is justified

OK.

Unless the firearm you use to defend your life is "unregistered" ala the last couple of infamous shootings in NYC, in which case you are still charged with a crime and now face those legal consequences as well.

And then, should you have witnesses who can and will testify that they heard you state, "I'll kill any so and so who"...

We've got enough situations here in the good old US of A that need rectifying if thats possible; absurd law enforcement (maybe selective law enforcement is a better choice) like the old man in the Baltimore jail who owns arms and blackpowder and belongs to the wrong group or have uttered words of despair that threatens an opposing political viewpoint... and has all (what was it) $8,000 of their savings confiscated (forfeiture laws doncha know)...

No need to rag on agricola and his fine countrymen and their political shenanigans. Lets clean up the mess here if we can, before its too late.

Or else we'll be in a similar boat, up a similar creek with no paddle in sight.

Adios

[Don Gwinn]

MicroBalrog, I think the UK must somehow have exempted itself from that self-defense standard. Remember the story of the paraplegic who used pepper spray to stop a mugger and was himself arrested and charged (for the illegal possession of the pepper spray, as Agricola took great pains to point out, and not for the actual act of self-defense.) :rolleyes:

[HBK]

As far as I know, I do not have to register my guns. Maybe NYC has gun registration, but i have guns that aren't "registered." If I had to use one of them to defend myself, alhtough I hope that never happens, I do not expect to be charged with a crime. I do not think we have slipped to point the English have, to the extent that self-defense is practically illegal. Nor do we have gun registration except in the big cities, which is why I don't go to the big city. We do need to clean up our own mess before we do have a de facto illegalization of self-defense here.