It's closer than you think..

[Philobeado]

Tony Martin: Crime and controversy


Martin killed a burglar and sparked fierce national debate
Farmer Tony Martin became a focus of huge national debate after shooting dead a teenager who was burgling his home.
The incident ignited a furore in Britain over issues such as rural crime and the rights to defend property.

Many vigorously supported the then 54-year-old, but others dismissed him as a violent eccentric who chose to act as a vigilante.


The case continues to attract controversy, with the ongoing attempts of Brendon Fearon, an accomplice of the teenage burglar, to sue Martin for injuries sustained during the incident.

The episode began in August 1999 when 16-year-old Fred Barras, and 33-year-old Fearon, broke into Martin's remote, semi-derelict farmhouse in Emneth Hungate, Norfolk.


Martin's farm was extremely remote and had been burgled many times
Martin, who was in the house at the time, opened fire with an illegally-held pump-action shotgun.

Barras was shot in the back and died at the scene, while Fearon was shot in the leg and recovered after treatment in hospital.

Three days later, Martin was taken into police custody and charged with murder and wounding with intent.

The case caused an immediate furore, with local supporters protesting outside the remand hearing.

It became apparent that Martin's orchard farm and home, called Bleak House, had been plagued by crime for years



BBC NEWS | UK | England | Norfolk | Tony Martin: Crime and controversy

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Yeah this is a longstanding issue and the circumstances of this specific case are illustrative of the devolution of not only the British culture, but that of the European culture on the whole.

The right to defend one's self, no longer exists in Britain... Now the British government would tell you that such is not true; that the individual subject is entitled to defend one's self, they simply can't do it through the use of a fire-arm... of course, they also can't do it through the use of a bat, or a knife, or a car, or a 2x4... as any implement which one may bring to bear in self defense is largely considered a weapon of 'offense' and not defense.

For instance, if you're being attacked; and you manage to break contact and secure the bat, let's say... then the British court would argue, that you had been successful in breaking contact with the attacker and stopped, secured a weapon and turned to attack the attacker... thus you have become the attacker... the offender.

And THAT is the argument of the halfwit conspirator of the dead burglar... 'we were just innocently burglarizing this old farm house, trying to earn a living and this crazy old man came in guns a blazin', killing my associate and wounding myself... I'm now unable to continue in my chosen field of endeavor and have suffered physical and psychological limitations as a result...'

What's WORSE is that the British government is suing the property owner for damages sustained through the medical treatment of the 'burglarer'...

Beyond THAT, there is a movement in Britain's "Social Science" community to have muggers, burglars and such deemed a 'trade'... thus gainful employment; and on what basis?

IT GETS THEM OFF THE DOLE... Because the British can't AFFORD ALL OF THE LEFTIST SOCIAL ENTITLEMENTS THAT THEY'VE ACCEPTED piecemeal, over time.

Once again demonstrating the folly of lending credence to left-think... It undermines the means to reason; and as such stands as little more than a cultural virus, to be avoided and where such is not possible, to be destroyed.

 

[Agnapostate]

Not a very pleasant sounding case. The murder charge was indeed excessive, but shooting at people trying to escape through a window and hitting them from behind obviously contradicts his claim of self-defense too. That said...

Fearon, who had more than 30 criminal convictions, is now trying to sue Martin for damages as a result of being shot.

He has asked for a reported £15,000 for loss of earnings, claiming he can no longer enjoy sex or bear to see shootings on television.

That is quite a leg shot.

 

[Diuretic]

The law of self defence is alive and flourishing in English law. It's in such good shape that it can differentiate between actual defence and vengeance. Martin was rightfully convicted and the law of self defence was upheld by that conviction.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The law of self defence is alive and flourishing in English law. It's in such good shape that it can differentiate between actual defence and vengeance. Martin was rightfully convicted and the law of self defence was upheld by that conviction.

Uh NO...... It's not.

Where an individual has sought to destroy you, or strip you of your property, they are a threat to you, your rights and the liberty on which all of that rests...

Where one enters one's home; one has violated the sanctity of one's life; such has been done intentionally, overtly and without care for their OWN PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to not exercise their rights and their freedom to the detriment of another.

Where one is attacked, that offense continues as long as the attacker is present...

I have a RIGHT; meaning I am ENTITLED, on the authority of NATURE ITSELF... to live my life free of aggression from those who would seek to strip me of the means to exercise my rights.

When one takes to threatening my life; where one takes to the overt offense of infringing on my means to freely pursue the fulfillment of my life, by forcibly stripping from me, the product of my labor; it is my SACRED DUTY, to defend my life and my rights... and that DUTY rests ON THE AUTHORITY OF NATURE ITSELF.

Where an individual has overtly sought to impart their power to infringe upon my rights; to threaten my life, it is my DUTY, MY RESPONSIBILITY to prevent that... NOW AND IN THE FUTURE.

Where one enters my home, whether invited or not... and takes to overt action which would rob me of the product of my labor and in so doing theaten my life and the sanctity of my home; it is my duty, it is my responsibility to end that individuals LIFE; as they have FORFEITED THEIR RIGHTS THROUGH THEIR OWN PERSONAL FAILURE TO MAINTAIN THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO NOT EXERSICE THEIR LIFE AND THEIR RIGHTS TO THE DETRIMENT OF ANOTHER.

Diur here wants to define the right of self defense to be limited to A RIGHT TO ESCAPE.

Here's the thing about that DIUR: FUCK THAT!

Enter my home for the purposes of robbing me and my family; threatening our lives and infringing on our rights and the penalty is DEATH. There is a 100% CERTAINTY, that such individuals will not survive that encounter... and where one is found fleeing... which is the absolute only potential one will have in terms of survival, one's back will be struck as many times as it takes to end their life; not to prevent them from further harming me... but for the purposes of ending their life, for the crimes againt me and my family; which I witnessed, which constitutues the evidence necessary for fair trial of the facts; a trial which took place in the moments where I found them in my home, overtly infringing upon my rights and threatening my life and that of my family; where upon they were judged guilty by the wieght of the evidence and the judgment being handed down that the penalty for such is death... PERIOD.

It is not my responsibility to defend the life of those who attack me... It is my responsibility to DEFEND ME and those around me who are being threatened.

Now that said with the mamby pamby Feminzied Euro-Australian notions of 'the RIGHT TO ESPCAPE' being dismissed on the whole and on the basis that it's an invalid rationalization which contests the immutable principles on which real, valid and sustainable human rights rest. Rights which you and the Euro-gals are CONCEDING.

 

[Diuretic]

The law of self defence in English law was upheld. It has limits. Those limits have been known for hundreds of years and have been delineated through case after case - including this case. End of story.

 

[YWN666]

If he hadn't shot the guy in the back, I think the outcome might have been different.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

If he hadn't shot the guy in the back, I think the outcome might have been different.

The guy deserved to be shot in the back... Had that been my house, there'd have been TWO DEAD burglarers...

The only reason they had their backs to the home owner was that they were looking at a superior force, which turned the circumstances against their favor.

The crime had already been committed; sadly, justice was usurped when one survived.

It is worth noting here that the leftist who've contributed, have all determined that the AGRESSORS were 'victimized'... and in so doing, have proven themselves, once again, to be "THE PROBLEM."

 

[YWN666]

If he hadn't shot the guy in the back, I think the outcome might have been different.

The guy deserved to be shot in the back... Had that been my house, there'd have been TWO DEAD burglarers...

The only reason they had their backs to the home owner was that they were looking at a superior force, which turned the circumstances against their favor.

The crime had already been committed; sadly, justice was usurped when one survived.

It is worth noting here that the leftist who've contributed, have all determined that the AGRESSORS were 'victimized'... and in so doing, have proven themselves, once again, to be "THE PROBLEM."

If someone is burglarizing your house and the burglar is running in the opposite direction, you can't use deadly force because the burglar is not an immediate threat to you.