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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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:
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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=
 
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).
 
I'm not having a dig at anyone for owning a gun, Martin's gun was unregistered is all I was saying.
 
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.
 
Thank you Agricola I was fairly sure that was the case.

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

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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

K
  • Locked
Back Behind Bars ( Tony Martin's burglar busted again )
Replies
8
Views
688
PeteyPete
P
P
  • Locked
Tony Martin threatened with death - but still disarmed...
2 3
Replies
65
Views
2K
Preacherman
P
P
  • Locked
British farmer, jailed for shooting burglar, seeks better self-defence laws for UK
2
Replies
44
Views
1K
2dogs
2
D
  • Locked
Tony Martin security sign scares off would-be thieves
Replies
5
Views
856
jsalcedo
J
H
  • Locked
Shot Burglar to Sue
2
Replies
42
Views
2K
rrader
R
Back
Top