Uk farmer who shot burglar freed

[Koolkid101 0]

Should you be allowed to shoot burglars?

LONDON, England -- A farmer jailed for shooting dead a burglar's accomplice has been freed in Britain to messages of support from wellwishers and alleged death threats from distant relatives of the youth he killed.

In a case which raised passions across Britain, Tony Martin was freed after serving two-thirds of his five-year sentence for shooting a burglar and killing a 16-year-old who was on the thieving mission with him.

Martin, 58, who lived alone on a remote farm in Norfolk, eastern England, was released on license after repeatedly being turned down for parole because he refused to show remorse for killing Fred Barras, 16, and shooting Brendan Fearon, 33.

Martin was originally jailed for life for murder but his sentence was reduced on appeal for manslaughter.

The case brought further controversy on the eve of Martin's release when it was revealed Fearon, who Martin shot in the legs during a raid in his home, had been released from jail Friday, earlier than the man he targeted for crime.

Fearon was less than a third of the way through an 18-month sentence for heroin dealing, imposed after he served 18 months of a three-year sentence for the farm burglary.

At the weekend, UK Home Secretary David Blunkett demanded a report from the head of the Prison Service Phil Wheatley on why Martin's release coincided with that of Fearon.

It was unclear whether Martin would return to Bleak Farm, Emneth Hungate, the scene of the 1999 shootings. His local MP, Henry Bellingham, said the farmer had given his story to a national newspaper and was expected to be guided by the newspaper's editor.

On Monday the same newspaper, the Daily Mirror, reported that two men who said they were cousins of 16-year-old Barras had threatened to kill Martin.

Said one of the men: "Tony Martin is a dead man. I don't know if it will be a traveler who will do it but it will be a proper hitman -- a professional job. The detectives can't watch him all the time."

But Barras's uncle, Tony Joynes, from Newark, in England's Midlands, told the paper: "I have never heard of these people.

"They are certainly not part of Fred's immediate family. It's nothing more than stupid talk and they are clearly spouting off the top of their heads. I can categorically say it's absolute rubbish. We're putting the whole episode behind us."

At the weekend the only sign that someone once lived at Bleak Farm was a 1970s Rover 2000 sitting on its deflated wheels, gathering debris and cobwebs.

An immaculately kept lawn has been tended to by Martin's loyal supporters, but the house itself is covered by uncontrolled ivy and the windows remain boarded up.

Despite the alleged death threats -- Martin reportedly has a £60,000 underworld contract on his head -- friends say he is determined to lead "a simple life of getting back onto his tractor" and "looking at his apple trees."

Police have established a mobile police station outside his farmhouse and it is thought officers will staff the unit 24 hours a day for several weeks to ensure his safety.

Friends said Martin plans to spearhead campaigns on his release from prison, to protect householders who defend themselves against intruders, and to prevent burglars getting legal aid to sue for compensation if they are injured during a break-in.

Fearon, of Newark, Nottinghamshire, who has 30 criminal convictions, had begun a bid to sue Martin with legal aid for up to £15,000 for being unable to work since being shot in the legs. He later said he was dropping the case.

Martin's friend Malcolm Starr said he spoke to the farmer on Sunday night. Martin wanted to lead "a simple life of getting back onto his tractor, looking at his apple trees apple trees to see how they need pruning after four years, and his wild animals -- his peacocks and deer: these are the things he focuses on," he said.

"Each day the Home Office or the Parole Board or the Probation Service has kept him in prison has made him stronger, because the public support has been getting fierce about his situation.

"People are fed up taking for granted that from time to time they are going to be burgled."

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/07/28/uk.martin/

[GoOB 0]

A very similar incident occured here (Sweden) not long ago. Infact a man my parents knew had gotten five burglaries in twelve months, so one night he simply sat on the porch with the lights turned off and his shotgun in his hand and waited for the burglar to come. And the burglar came, then he just shot the guy in the back of his thigh. He had made reports to the police about these burglaries, but no action from their side was taken in a whole year.

My opinion:

If you have made reports to the police about burglaries and almost no response is given from their side even after twelve months of continous burglary in the same property something has to be done. I am against violence and I wouldn't go about stopping a burglar this way. But it is hard to tell who the offender is in situatuations like these, both are but generally the one "defending" their property gets the heavy blow. In this case the burglar got a hundred thousand crowns for being shot in the thigh and a few months in prison. And the guy who injured the burglar got to pay hundred thousand crowns and got his gun license revoked with no possibilityof regaining it, also two months in prison.

P.S Before you ask, no alarm system was installed in the house but an alarm system serves no purpose when you are living 500 km's from the nearest police station. D.S

[D.murphy man 0]

Well the point is,it was the burgerlers fault for being there.He should be reisponsable for his action and what they might lead to (Death,or a very nasty gun shot wound).

In my opinion a person tresspassing on some one elses property with intent on stealing or summing eks along thoughs lines,should not be able to sue or take legal action against the property owner for any injurys as a result of his actions.

Then again im a 15 year old kid with simplistic veiws,and awful spelling .

[Harnu 0]

Yes you should be able to shoot burglars. Especially the ones that break a bone or get cut on something of yours as they rob the house. And then they try to sue you. Those ones are definately worthy of some buckshot.

[ran 0]

Yes you should be able to shoot burglars.  Especially the ones that break a bone or get cut on something of yours as they rob the house.  And then they try to sue you.  Those ones are definately worthy of some buckshot.  

only in the US .......

[Koolkid101 0]

You can't do that in Mass. you have to "retreat"

[ran 0]

at home it's "LEAVE THE FUCKING AREA WITHIN 5 SECONDS , IF NOT , GET READY TO BE SHOT LIKE FUCKING RABBITS !" in a megaphone

[Tex -USMC- 0]

I think that not being allowed to defend your home and property by violent means (if necessary) is complete and utter bullshit. And it is a travesty of justice that the burglar got released before the farmer. A man with 30 convictions, for Christ's sake! I could go on for pages about what's wrong with that picture, but then Denoir will just have more to type . No doubt the robber wasn't hugged enough as a child, or maybe his family was socio-economically underpriveleged, and therefore couldn't help his suddenly manifested urge to steal other people's stuff.

I have a radical idea for curbing this sort of crime. The way I see it is this: charge the farmer with disturbing the peace, fine him a few sheckles, and let the bad guys know that the law no longer protects their good for nothing criminal asses. I'm no fan of vigilante justice, but as soon as a criminal breaks into a person's house, he has just declared open season on himself. No matter what our dear Swede says, criminals, especially house burglars, are all cut from more or less the same cloth- they're cowards, and if you make a display of appropriate force, they'll take a career change into serious consideration.

[Koolkid101 0]

Hmm I wonder what Denoir would say

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Hmm I wonder what Denoir would say    

We had a debate something along these lines a few months back- ranged from the death penalty to gun control and back, up to and including Denoir calling me a fascist  

edit: although to be fair, I did call him a bleeding heart pinko ivory tower intellectual

[Shashman 0]

@ Aug. 01 2003,23:57)]edit: although to be fair, I did call him a bleeding heart pinko ivory tower intellectual    

ROFLMAO!!      

[InqWiper 0]

If your life is threatened by the burglar I think you have the right to take his life to save your own. If your life is not threatened you should try not to kill him. If he is armed with a knife or something you can always shoot him in the legs. If he is not armed you should try to get him to cooperate, if he does any sudden movements or tries to run away, shoot him in the legs

[<>Crippler<> 0]

I agree entirely that you should be able to shoot burglars- they are breaking the law, so why should they have rights? I'd like to point out though, that if memory serves, the farmer shot the boy in the back when he was trying to get away, which was probably what swayed the trial. You really should only be able to shoot someone in self defence- its just not cricket otherwise Oh, and as pointed out earlier, the sentence was reduced from murder to manslaughter, i think this was because of diminished responsibility- the farmer wasnt all there in the head.

Just my two penneth worth

Crippler

[Shashman 0]

Scared to drive alone?

 

[FSPilot 0]

If I found someone in my house in the middle of the night someone would be leaving in an ambulance.  Screw the courtroom.

[ran 0]

If I found someone in my house in the middle of the night someone would be leaving in an ambulance.

hmm .... let me guess who .... ;)

[The Frenchman 0]

Scared to drive alone?

I want one of those! Now!

[GoOB 0]

I don't think I would shoot a burglar that brke in to my house. I'd just wave the gun in his face, unless he is stupid he'll run. And also you cant't steal your bike back if someone has stolen it without doing yourself guilty of theft. One of the wierdest things involving the beloved Swedish juridical system is a case were a burglar broke in to someones summer home and lived there for a year and a half. Guess who the court thought had the rights to live in that house?

[denoir 0]

@ Aug. 02 2003,00:43)]

Christ's sake! I could go on for pages about what's wrong with that picture, but then Denoir will just have more to type

Thank you for saving my fingers

Quote[/b] ]I think that not being allowed to defend your home and property by violent means (if necessary) is complete and utter bullshit.

This idea would not have been so wrong, if now had been 20,000 BC and we were living in individual caves. As it is now, we're no, we're part of a larger society that has its rules. It is through social evolution that the job of protecting us has been delegated to institutions as the police and the military. Vigilantes and lynch mobs do not have a place in a civilized society. In such societies we say that killings over material posessions is not acceptable. Your home is not some form of private kingdom of yours, it's a part of the society that sets those rules.

You have the right to self-defence. If your life and health are at stake, you have the right to use the minimal force necessary to protect yourself.

Quote[/b] ]No doubt the robber wasn't hugged enough as a child, or maybe his family was socio-economically underpriveleged, and therefore couldn't help his suddenly manifested urge to steal other people's stuff.

Those are long-term social problems and I very much doubt that it's going to be solved through the barrel of a gun. There will of course always be criminals, but the question is what relation should they have to normal citizens. Sure, being a criminal becomes a more risky job, but at the same time becoming a victim is more risky too. And as I see it the criminals are winning this standoff in USA.

You still have a high crime rate, while the population fears criminals. People are so scared that they get guns for protection and lock themselves up in suberbian fortress communities with gates and armed security guards.

The mere thought of thinking that you need a gun to protect yourself means that there is something seriously fucked in your society. If the citizens arn't feeling that the socitety can provide the most elementary form of security for its citizens, then you have to stop and take a long hard look at how you are doing things.

Quote[/b] ] No matter what our dear Swede says, criminals, especially house burglars, are all cut from more or less the same cloth- they're cowards, and if you make a display of appropriate force, they'll take a career change into serious consideration.

You are armed to the teeth, you try to scare them with the death penalty and yet you have serious crime problems. I don't need a gun because I know that the probability of me needing it is extremely low. Criminals here don't rob houses while people are in them. In general burglars wait for them to go on vacation or to work and then they break in. It's not common, but should it happen it's still just a minor inconvenience - your stuff is all covered by the insurance.

So why on earth would I need a gun for protection?  

Although I understand that it's a part of your culture to shoot at other people, it would seem that you don't like the part where people shoot at you. So my advice, should you choose to change things is this:

1) Get a better police force. Make crime a difficult task and make sure that you catch the criminals.

2) Chill out. Don't be so hysterical. It's only stuff after all, covered by your insurance.

3) Invest in long term society stabilizing projects. Crime is linked to poverty. 13% of the US population lives under the poverty line (src: CIA World Fact Book). Fix that and you'll fix a lot of your problems long term.

Now, your objection, especially to 2) is going to be "Are you crazy dude? If we let our guard down, the criminals will take advantage of it and rob us much more."

The answer to that, is yes. Initially there would probably be increased crime. Someone however has to take the first step. And for obvious reasons it has to be the law-abiding citizens and not the criminals. Right now you have an escalating spiral of violence: you get a big gun and the criminal gets a bigger gun and then you get a yet bigger gun and whine about the federal ban on privately owned thermonuclear weapons.

Not good progress, I'd say.

[Shashman 0]

Quote[/b] ]a minor inconvenience - your stuff is all covered by the insurance.

So why on earth would I need a gun for protection?  

Quote[/b] ]2) Chill out. Don't be so hysterical. It's only stuff after all, covered by your insurance.

Errm...Have you ever been burgled?  

Have you any idea what it feels like to come home one day and find all your posessions, everything that makes you who you are tipped out, uprooted,turned upside down,smashed,vandalised? I'm telling you m80 it ain't nice  

It's not only the fact that the burglars have made off with valuable stuff, it's the invasion of privacy, it's the feeling of intrusion, it's like someone has come into your own little world and messed it up.It's truly devastating and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

If what I have to do to stop this happening again is to buy a 12 guage then believe me buddy I will and tbh I don't give a flying fuck whether I'm thought of as being just another redneck with a shotgun.It's just not on.

I know it's sad that it has to come to this kind of attitude but at the end of the day, I care more about my family,dwelling and belongings more than I care about facts and figures.

Maybe blunt but it's how I feel.

P.S.

I live in Brussels, I am British, not American, and I don't own a gun in case you start assuming things  

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Quote[/b] ]This idea would not have been so wrong, if now had been 20,000 BC and we were living in individual caves. As it is now, we're no, we're part of a larger society that has its rules. It is through social evolution that the job of protecting us has been delegated to institutions as the police and the military. Vigilantes and lynch mobs do not have a place in a civilized society. In such societies we say that killings over material posessions is not acceptable. Your home is not some form of private kingdom of yours, it's a part of the society that sets those rules.

I knew we'd hit this barrier, I just didn't think we'd hit it so soon. Our philosophies are fundamentally different- you're willing to sacrifice rights to the government in hopes that the government will return the favor by taking care of you. I, on the other hand, will tolerate government only to the point where it starts infringing on my rights. And keep in mind that social evolution is a divergent process, and the socialist state isn't the only result. I recognize one fundamental truth about the workings of government: more often than not, the government doesn't work for anyone but itself. It's sprawling, it's self-perpetuating, and given half the chance, will set itself up in your living room and keep you company at night just to make sure you comply with social evolution's flavor of the week, whether it's enforced religion or mass murder. I want no part of that.

Quote[/b] ]Those are long-term social problems and I very much doubt that it's going to be solved through the barrel of a gun. There will of course always be criminals, but the question is what relation should they have to normal citizens. Sure, being a criminal becomes a more risky job, but at the same time becoming a victim is more risky too. And as I see it the criminals are winning this standoff in USA.

Wrong. A criminal breaking into your house is not part of a long-term social condition, it's part of a short term desire to relieve you of your property. Noone makes a criminal pull the trigger or pick the lock, other than the criminal itself. And the way I see it, your willingness to relieve the criminal of that responsibility is an offshoot of your own willingness to let the government take responsibility for you. Nothing is anybody's fault anymore, all forms of activity are part of a 'long term social trend', whether it's positive or negative. That loses sight of the fact that on the business end of all these trends are individuals, each of which makes a conscious decision to act or not to act. To remove responsibility from the individual is to see a lot more negative social trends than positive social trends in the future. But I'm sure the government will be able to take care of that.

Quote[/b] ]The mere thought of thinking that you need a gun to protect yourself means that there is something seriously fucked in your society. If the citizens arn't feeling that the socitety can provide the most elementary form of security for its citizens, then you have to stop and take a long hard look at how you are doing things.

Want to hear a secret? I don't own a gun at the moment. I've got a couple very sharp knives, though. It's very simple- we don't feel that the society can't protect us. It's simply a fact that some of us have not surrendered our individuality or our responsibility. Why should I rely on someone else to protect me? That kind of mentality makes a person weak and stupid, because everything is someone else's problem. Take, for instance, America's current pre-occupation with terror. We're frightened to death of something we don't understand, and all we can do is hide behind the government's apron strings and ask it to protect us. And look what it's gotten us so far. Which of course obscures the original fact: our government is the reason we're being targeted by terrorists, so why should we give them more power to deal with the terrorists? But I digress.

Quote[/b] ]You are armed to the teeth, you try to scare them with the death penalty and yet you have serious crime problems. I don't need a gun because I know that the probability of me needing it is extremely low. Criminals here don't rob houses while people are in them. In general burglars wait for them to go on vacation or to work and then they break in. It's not common, but should it happen it's still just a minor inconvenience - your stuff is all covered by the insurance.

We're a big country- we're bound to have big problems. Sweden has a population of what- 12 million people? Let's compare notes when you're pushing 300 million. Besides, a massive amount of the violent crime going on in America is criminal on criminal violence (not all, but a significant amount). Drug dealer wastes another drug dealer, gang violence, what have you. Statistics don't lie, but they don't exactly tell the truth either.

Quote[/b] ]Although I understand that it's a part of your culture to shoot at other people, it would seem that you don't like the part where people shoot at you. So my advice, should you choose to change things is this:

1) Get a better police force. Make crime a difficult task and make sure that you catch the criminals.

2) Chill out. Don't be so hysterical. It's only stuff after all, covered by your insurance.

3) Invest in long term society stabilizing projects. Crime is linked to poverty. 13% of the US population lives under the poverty line (src: CIA World Fact Book). Fix that and you'll fix a lot of your problems long term.

Now, your objection, especially to 2) is going to be "Are you crazy dude? If we let our guard down, the criminals will take advantage of it and rob us much more."

1) Our police force is fine, but they're bogged down by insufficient funding and revolving jail cell doors. Too much paperwork, an unwieldy justice system (a small virgin forest worth of paper is involved in the processing of your garden variety crack dealer), and of course a pop culture that glorifies drug use and yes (sigh) violence.

2) Oh, I assure you that there isn't anything hysterical about what happens to a criminal when they enter a house owned by someone with a similar mindset to mine. Well, unless we miss the first time

3) There's always going to be poverty. Whether you want to believe it or not, many people simply lack the motivation and work ethic needed to rise above the poverty line. I hate to get all social Darwinist here, but at the point where many poor families in America have a TV but can't keep their kids in nice clothes, you have to pull the plug (literally and figuratively). I won't deny that there's something fundamentally fucked up about our culture, but it isn't the concept of being able to defend what is yours. In fact, if I had to take a guess, I'd say the blame lies more towards the erosion of personal responsibility.

Quote[/b] ]Now, your objection, especially to 2) is going to be "Are you crazy dude? If we let our guard down, the criminals will take advantage of it and rob us much more."

The answer to that, is yes. Initially there would probably be increased crime. Someone however has to take the first step. And for obvious reasons it has to be the law-abiding citizens and not the criminals. Right now you have an escalating spiral of violence: you get a big gun and the criminal gets a bigger gun and then you get a yet bigger gun and whine about the federal ban on privately owned thermonuclear weapons.

Not good progress, I'd say.

It doesn't work like that. Criminals do not act like a normal enemy. The fact that they have sunk to crime indicates that there is something fundamentally messed up about their character, whether they're lazy, cowards, or genuine hard cases. The lazy ones and the cowardly ones, which make up the vast majority of criminals, are not willing to engage in an arms race with law abiding citizens. They have a certain means they live within- they've got a lead pipe, so they'll attack folks who they can overpower or intimidate with that weapon. If they run into a citizen with a gun (and survive), they'll make a note to be more careful and be more careful about what qualifies as an easy target. Only the most dedicated criminals will get shot at one day and be out in the same backalley the next day with kevlar and an assault rifle. They're out there, but they aren't numerous, and they aren't worth cowtowing to the entire criminal element.

[FSPilot 0]

If I found someone in my house in the middle of the night someone would be leaving in an ambulance.

hmm .... let me guess who .... ;)

I didn't want to brag as the bullet would probably miss, ricochet off an expensive decoration, go through an expensive computer, and lodge in my leg while the burglar runs off.

And I might as well dive into the argument.

I understand that the police are supposed to protect the civilians and so forth, but what are you to do when there's a strange man in your house and the police may not arrive for 5 or 10 minutes?  He'd of done his damage and been gone by the time the police arrived.  It didn't take long for the night stalker to climb through windows and slaughter his victims, didn't take long for charles manson to kill his victims either.  My point is that when someone is in your house it's very possible that your life is in immediate danger, or your family's life, especially if you alert him and try to call the police first.

[Renagade 0]

If your life is threatened by the burglar I think you have the right to take his life to save your own. If your life is not threatened you should try not to kill him. If he is armed with a knife or something you can always shoot him in the legs. If he is not armed you should try to get him to cooperate, if he does any sudden movements or tries to run away, shoot him in the legs  

basicly what he said ^^

u shoukld have the rights to defend urself others and ur property but not a license to kill.

AFAIK the fatal blow was in the house with regards to tony martin.

Ill get back to u on the other issues,im rather busy now

[Kuja- 0]

If I was confronted by a burglar, I would shoot. From my perspective, the burglar is utterly unpredictable and could be willing to do more or less anything to ensure they walk out of my house with my electronics etc - why take the risk of him preempting me and having harm come to myself or my family?

Shoot first, ask questions later

[Major Fubar 0]

Here in Australia the law is like that: if you shot someone breaking into your house the law would come down on you like a ton of bricks.

My personal opinion: damn right you should be able to shoot someone breaking into your house...you just don't know whether he is a "harmless" burgler just trying to nick your DVD player, or some psycho who wants to add your spleen to the collection he keeps in his basement.

They had a debate on this on a TV show here a few years ago and one guy made a very good point: all countries in the world will meet a hostile invasion into their territory with armed and deadly force, why should my home be any different...