View Full Version : Burglars need protection (So the government says!)

Dr Jekyll
6th May 2003, 16:24
From the Independent:

Government lawyers say burglars 'need protection'
By Robert Verkaik, Legal Affairs Correspondent
05 May 2003

Government lawyers trying to keep the Norfolk farmer Tony Martin behind bars will tell a High Court judge tomorrow that burglars are members of the public who must be protected from violent householders.

The case could help hundreds of criminals bring claims for damages for injury suffered while committing offences.

In legal papers seen by The Independent, Home Office lawyers dispute Mr Martin's contention that he poses no risk to the public because he only represents a threat to burglars and other criminals who trespass on his property.

They say: "The suggestion ... that the Parole Board was not required to assess the risk posed by Mr Martin to future burglars or intruders (on the grounds that they do not form part of the public at large) is remarkable."

"It cannot possibly be suggested that members of the public cease to be so whilst committing criminal offences, and whilst society naturally condemns, and punishes such persons judicially, it can not possibly condone their (unlawful) murder or injury."

A recent report by the Law Commission, which advises ministers on proposed changes to the law, argued that judges had been too willing to reject criminals' claims for damages. The commission insisted that "even a criminal who has committed a serious offence" must be allowed to exercise their civil rights. In recent years, the courts have accepted a number of arguments to defeat actions brought by criminals on the basis of the principle that "crime should not pay".

Legal experts say the case for treating criminals as ordinary litigants will have been boosted by the arguments raised by the Home Office lawyers in Martin's case.

But Oliver Letwin, the shadow Home Secretary, said the rights of the victim needed to be addressed. "There certainly seems to be an imbalance [between the householder and burglar] made clear by the fact that burglars can sue for damage done to them in the course of committing a crime. We've put forward an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill which would rebalance the law in the appropriate way."

Norman Brennan, a serving police officer and the director of the Victims of Crime Trust, said that, by committing crime, burglars gave up "any rights". He added: "The public in this country are sick and tired of all these organisations pandering to the offender. Burglary is a despicable offence." He said: "sensible and reasonable" members of the public knew that, when criminal committed crime, they were putting themselves at risk.

Martin, 59, wants the court to order the Parole Board to reconsider its decision that he is not a suitable prisoner for early release. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for murdering 16-year-old Fred Barras at his Norfolk farmhouse, Bleak House, in August 1999 but his conviction was later reduced to manslaughter by the Court of Appeal when he was given a five-year prison sentence.

A second burglar shot by Martin, Brendan Fearon, was granted legal aid to sue him for damages. Fearon's claim was thrown out by Nottingham County Court last month.

Martin's barristers, Bitu Bhalla and Tony Baldry, of One Essex Court chambers in London, will tell the judge tomorrow that their client's application "concerns the liberty of the citizen which is a matter of paramount concern in English law". They will tell Mr Justice Kay that the Parole Board failed to acknowledge the true extent of Martin's remorse or properly consider the risk he posed to the public.

In Martin's application for judicial review, his lawyers argue: "The risk that has to be assessed in Mr Martin's case is any risk of the use of excessive force when he is either burgled or attacked in his home."

Martin's solicitor, James Saunders, says that this risk is significantly diminished since he no longer owns a gun and has agreed to fit an air-raid siren to his home that "could be heard all over the Fens".

The court will decide tomorrow whether to grant Martin a full review hearing. He is due for release at the end of July.
6 May 2003 08:18

Anthony Carn
6th May 2003, 17:30
At least the Letwin and Brennan inputs are a more sensible side to this. The lawyers are just doing their jobs in proposing this ruling.

The big worry, of course, is that an alarming proportion of Judges seem to have lost the plot ! Ever more bizzare rulings keep coming to light. :(

The term which angers me is the "excessive use of force" in defending oneself and one's property. How on earth does one assess this ? Ask the intruder what his intentions are ?

If someone breaks into my house during the night, then my first course of action will be to minimise my own personal injury, but if I'm cornered, then they'll face everything I can throw at them (so to speak).

6th May 2003, 18:25
You could always arrange it so there are no witnesses and no evidence - seems to have worked around here (not that I've actually killed anyone just in case you are all getting a little worried, just persuaded some local burglars to move on).

6th May 2003, 18:53
a lawyer once told me when looking at damages..you pay-out more for permanently harming someone than you do for killing them. ie..blindsomeone and put them in a wheelchair it'll cost more than if you just killed 'em straight out.

not sure how true this is...and would rather not find out.

Maybe we'll all end up putting signs outside our property.

"Attention all would-be burglars. Please pay careful attention to the following....

Any unauthorised person found trespassing on this property..will be attacked with any number of ordinary house-hold objects until they cannot remeber their own name. The householders will not be liable for any injury received by ignoring this warning - and if caught stealing my stereo I will remove both ears, your tongue and 1 leg." :E

6th May 2003, 20:31

I'd agree with your proposition with one small change. Rather than defending by any means that you wish, I would suggest that you should be allowed to defend yourself using any means necessary .

This gives you considerably more scope than the present "reasonable force" (how do you determine what's "reasonable" when you're in the dark, terrified, facing an intruder who may or may not be armed). "By any means necessary" would allow you to hurt them a bit more than you can at the moment, without entitling you to mine the front lawn, for example.

Damages ? How about making the criminal pay for the damage they've caused ??

7th May 2003, 01:41
"Burglars need protection".

Yes. The little barsteward who pushed my 84 year-old neighbour to the floor then stamped on her as he walked over her to steal her handbag from the kitchen table needs protection all right.

At least, he might if I (hypothetically speaking, naturally) were to get my hands on him:hmm:

7th May 2003, 02:04
Is there an American lawyer on PPRUNE who can outline an American citizens rights/responsabilities in a similar situation. I'd like to know whether I should shoot to kill or maim if some punk breaks into my home creating a potential threat to my children. I don't believe this British lawyer., rights of protection for the burglar:yuk:

7th May 2003, 02:04
I wonder if an amicable agreement can be found with the hypothetical burglar? After he/she (delete as applicable) has broken into your house, and you have persuaded him/her that it was an error (with a baseball bat,) you can then discuss the options available. Either we take the whole matter to the police after a reasonable degree of extra injury has been inflicted with an option to burn down their house, or we can leave things where they stand and they can walk free with a few bruises and concussion to re-evaluate their life.

7th May 2003, 03:13
But whats to stop you inviting someone you had a particular dislike to round for a cup of tea, and then beating him/her senseless?

"They tried to burglarize me your honour"

It would be your word agains his/hers. Not an acceptable situation IMHO


Flying Lawyer
7th May 2003, 04:30
Someone that devious could orchestrate the scenario you describe under the present law. "We had a row, he attacked me and I had to defend myself your honour."
Not an acceptable situation? Juries decide such disputes every day of the week in some court or other.

Virgin's idea is interesting.
Should it be legal to booby-trap your home/car against burglars/car thieves provided you post a warning?

Mac the Knife
7th May 2003, 05:15
I have a sign on the main inner door, it says:

"Is there life after death?
Trespass here and find out"

I suppose that strictly speaking it should be in all 11 official languages....:eek:

An interesting thought is that an illiterate could always claim that they were unable to read the sign. Nevertheless, the skull-and-crossbones and the gun cartoon should be fairly self explanatory :ok:

henry crun
7th May 2003, 07:35
I have a professionally made sign showing the business end of a large calibre revolver alongside the words "Forget the dog, beware the owner".

I do not know if it has deterred any would be burglars but the kids passing by take great delight in making a quick draw and shooting at it with their fingers. :)

7th May 2003, 11:08
Well, when I moved to the US many years ago I came to admire and also be appaled at the legal system. One, a burglar fell through a skylight window into the house he was hoping to rob. He sued the homeowner and won an award! Thankfully, the appeal court over turned the verdict.

Second, in Texas, you are quite within your rights to shoot anyone "on your property". The police, in fact, will say "look, if you shoot the fcuker while he's running away pull him back inside and we won't ask questions." Sounds good eh, why not, he/she is still on yer lawn. 'Cept, during the 1994 Worldcup, in Texas some drunk British football fan, lost, couldn't find his way to his hotel knocks on someone's door and asks - in a drunken state - for help. In fear, Owner pumps two rounds from a Remington shotgun through the glass front door, snuffing out said fan. Owner walks free. Don't believe there were any warning signs.

All I am saying is that some legal rights for burglars should go right out the, ahem window, when they are executing their trade. However, blanket "shoot to kill" rights by homeowners is in itself dangerous and those who engage in this should be liable as well.


7th May 2003, 11:26
WARNING!! This property is protected with a 12 gauge shotgun 4 nights per week. You figure out which 4...

7th May 2003, 11:56
"Burgulars Beware!

This house is tiled so if you just broke in from the rain, be careful you don't slip and hurt yourself.

Remember to take your time as most injuries are caused whilst rushing.

The lights are situated near every doorway, use them, you don't want to stub your toe on the coffee table!

Be careful when lifting the safe, bend your legs and ask someone to help you, you only get one back!

If you help yourself to a glass of milk, check the use-by date and make sure the fridge door is shut when finished please.

Use trolleys to remove my belongings via the ramp provided, not the steps, especially in the rain."

There, NOW you're protected....

8th May 2003, 04:08
The school my mum used to teach at put plexi glass windows in after them getting smashed all the time.

5 weeks later they all had to be taken out because some little **** threw a brick at the window which didn't break. It bounced off and unfortunatly didn't remove him from the gene pool but gave him a nasty gash on his head. The council then decided that it was open to being sued by the kids mother.

Crazy thing is that if you are doing some DIY and don't secure your floor boards, leave live wires hanging out the wall etc. And a burgular hurts themselves you will be done.


8th May 2003, 22:11
I remember some years ago listening to a lawyer explaining on the radio about the need for proportional response to an attack on one's person or property, and at the time wondering about how I might react in the middle of the night when my house was broken into.
I have heard a JP friend of mine who was far more acquainted with the Martin case and is no bunny hugger, say he thought that Martin was justly served by a prison sentence, but I cannot help but feel that the fact that he had been repeatedly offended against, had to have influenced him into taking the drastic action he did. He probably does think that he has been unjustly punished, and to punish him further for not showing more remorse is to ignore that fact.
The present course of the judiciary under governmental direction, and the percieved softness towards crime, the curtailing of most forms of discipline from the nannies and child minders to the school masters and onwards, may well result in stopping some child abuse that may have happened. It may well also, be the cause of some very undisciplined behaviour in many, later on in life, which might have more drastic consequences than the violence it was supposed to curb initialy.
The baby, sadly, will have been well and truley pitched out with the bathwater.

9th May 2003, 04:53
In regard to ‘appropriate response’, can anyone (ie, a judge or a lawyer) explain to me how I differentiate between a ‘harmless’(!) burglar who’s only broken into my house to ‘harmlessly’ steal my hard earned property, and a homicidal maniac who intends to kill me and my family?

What seems totally reasonable in a well-lit courtroom at 2.00 pm as discussed by two bewigged, robed gentlemen skilled in all the nuances of legal debate can have a very different ‘nuance’ at 2.00am for a scared out of his wits home owner facing an unknown intruder(s) of unknown category in a dark house. Even if the intruder was to wear a striped t-shirt, a beret and a ‘ghost who walks’ mask, how in hell am I supposed to know he isn’t a maniacal axe murderer posing in the ‘uniform’ of a ‘harmless’ burglar?

Flying Lawyer
9th May 2003, 17:28
The "two bewigged, robed gentlemen skilled in all the nuances of legal debate" don't decide the issue of self-defence - or any other issue. They merely put the opposing arguments forward for the jury to consider. eg The prosecution might argue that it wasn't self-defence at all, or that the Defendant went too far.

When the judge has directed the jury on the relevant law, the jury decides the verdict. If there is any doubt, the defendant is given the benefit of that doubt.

The Judge's direction to the jury will be along these lines, adapted to the facts of the particular case. You'll see that the points you raise are covered:

A person who is attacked or believes that he is about to be attacked may use such force as is reasonably necessary to defend himself. If that is the case he is acting in lawful self-defence, and is entitled to be found ‘Not Guilty’.
It is for the prosecution to make sure that the defendant was not acting in lawful self-defence, not for him to prove that he was.
A person only acts in lawful self-defence if in all the circumstances he believes that it is necessary for him to defend himself and if the amount of force which he uses in doing so is reasonable.
So there are two main questions for you to answer:

1. Did the defendant honestly believe or may he honestly have believed, that it was necessary to defend himself?
If you decide that he was or may have been acting in that belief, you must consider the second question:

2. Taking the circumstances and the danger as the defendant honestly believed them to be, was the amount of force which he used reasonable?
Force used in self-defence is unreasonable and unlawful if it is out of all proportion to the nature of the attack, or is in excess of what is really required of the defendant to defend himself.
When deciding whether or not the force used by this defendant was reasonable, questions such as these are helpful:
What was the nature of the attack upon him?
Was a weapon used by the attacker?
If so, what sort was it and how was it used?
Was the attacker on his own, or was the defendant being attacked, or in fear of being attacked, by two or more persons?
Remember that a person who is defending himself cannot be expected in the heat of the moment to weigh precisely the exact amount of defensive action which is necessary. If you conclude that the defendant did no more than he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary to defend himself, you may think that would be strong evidence that the amount of force used by him was reasonable.
If you are sure that the force used by the defendant was unreasonable, he cannot have been acting in lawful self-defence; but if force used was or may have been reasonable, then he is not guilty.

If the defendant may have been honestly mistaken as to the facts, he must be judged according to his mistaken belief of the facts.
Whether or not the amount of force used was reasonable is a purely objective question for the jury.

Hope that helps.

Tudor Owen
(" ..... bewigged, robed gentleman" ;) )

9th May 2003, 21:42
Flying Lawyer -
Just going by what you have written does that mean that a person may use reasonable force to defend themself from attack but may not use force to defend their property?:uhoh:

9th May 2003, 22:13
The oldest trick in the book, shoot first then afterwards fire a shot into the wall/roof. That's your warning shot!

Or if you really want to go for it, stab your self in the arm with a knife, wipe it clean and put the weapon in the dead mans hand.

I shouldn't be saying this, but an Irish policeman told me this many moons ago.......................

Flying Lawyer
9th May 2003, 23:55
A person may use reasonable force to defend his property. The questions the jury would be directed to consider would be adapted.

Again, it is for the jury, as 12 members of the public chosen at random, to decide what was reasonable in all the circumstances.

10th May 2003, 00:50
'Burglars need protection". What nonsense.

It is outrageous that a man who punches a burglar in the face in the course of defending his property can be charged with assault. The law must be changed.

However - Tony Martin didn't punch a burglar. He shot one in the back, then shot him again and killed him. He didn't just overstep the line he jumped right past it.

I can understand the frustrations of law abiding citizens with the protection the law affords burglars, but to make a hero out of this man is not the best way to convince people of your argument. He murdered this burglar. Burglary and murder as crimes are not even in the same league. Martin deserved to go to prison for his crime, if he had not, the legal system would have failed and sent a message that you can kill somebody for stepping on your property. Is that the sort of society we want?

10th May 2003, 02:44
This discussion is not about the rights or wrongs of what Tony Martin did. It's not about whether Tony Martin is a hero. It's not even about Tony Martin.
Try reading the thread again - or for the first time? His appeal was mentioned as an introduction to the discussion, and nobody's mentioned him since until you.

What do you think of the government's view that burglars committing a burglary are entitled to the same protection as law-abiding citizens? (Ridiculous.)
Or the parole board's decision that he shouldn't be released on parole because he's still a danger to burglars who might try to burgle his home - even though he's no danger to law-abiding citizens? (Absurd luvvie nonsense)
Or of Virgin's suggestion we should be allowed to booby-trap our homes/cars against attack by burglars/car thieves as long as we put up a warning notice? (Difficult to see any sensible argument against the idea - blind people don't burgle houses/steal cars, and we could adopt easily recognizable international symbols for those who can't read.)

Lots of scope there for a good discussion.
This isn't JetBlast - try to keep to the point.

(I resist the temptation to correct the inaccuracies in your post.)

Mac the Knife
10th May 2003, 03:06
FL - thanks for a good explanation of a judges possible directions.

Wedge - "He murdered this burglar." - well, in October 2001 the court of appeal substituted a conviction of manslaughter due to diminished responsibility and reduced his sentence. So the law has decided that he isn't a murderer no matter what you may personally think.

"One probation officer had said that Martin "demonstrates no remorse or victim empathy ... He clearly holds a view that an Englishman's home is his castle and he is entitled to take any steps necessary to secure that"."

While it is sad that a young thief was killed after deliberately putting himself in harm's way I think that there are limits to the amount of empathy that victims should be expected to display.

10th May 2003, 17:13
Along those lines it might actualy be approriate to remark that though the justice system appears to be geared towards the criminal and his sentence, or lack of in these 'enlightened' times, not enough attention is actualy directed towards the victims of crime. And I am not neccesarily talking about monetary compensation, I am more concerned with them in relation to the offenders, though I do believe that more is being done now than has in the past.

Mac the Knife
10th May 2003, 23:04
Okay then, let's be sensible about it. Invited guests on your property, phone technicians, insurance salesmen, plumbers etc., who accidentally injure themselves - AFAIK you do have some liability, but your home insurance should contain some provisions for cover (mine does). I do not believe that you should be in any way liable for accidental injuries to uninvited guests (including burglars).

Burglars do not give up all their rights on entering your property ininvited - you are not entitled to castrate them, lock them up in the root cellar for 6 months or torture them any more than you are permitted to do these things with anyone else. Nor are you allowed to immobilise or incapacitate them and THEN blow them away.

If you or yours have good reason to feel physically threatened then you are entitled to take reasonable steps to stop this threat. Prospective burglars should note that ordinary people are not in the business of carefully quantifying such threats and adjusting the response appropriately. Such situations are extremely frightening and burglars must accept that a small proportion of victims will respond with considerable and perhaps disproportionate aggression that may lead to their their injury and perhaps death.

If the burglar is attempting to remove your personal possessions then you are entitled to attempt to stop them - this may well result in a scuffle in which you or the burglar may be seriously hurt. Your call. If you are hurt then the burglar compounds his breaking and entering. If he/she is hurt then if it is felt that your reaction was quite inappropriate and grossly disproportionate then you may face some liability or charges.

I think that most courts are sensible and realise that in this sort of situation both protagonists are extremely alarmed and will certainly not be considering the end-results of their actions in any sensible way. This is how most householder deaths during a break-in take place. The burglar had no intention of killing or harming the victim, but events just snowballed. Alas, sometimes things go the other way and the burglar is killed or injured. But the two unfortunate results cannot be regarded as identical. Burglars plan their B&E, even if it is only in the pub half-an-hour beforehand, and must be presumed to have been aware that things may go wrong. Householders do not usually plan on being burgled or on fatally hitting the burglar over the head with a candlestick.

Perhaps this is one of the vexing problems in the Martin case. As anyone who has ever been burgled knows, the feelings of nervousness and paranoia persist for ages. People who are more distressed and less stable may well sit up night after night with a shillelagh or a shotgun in order to forestall (OK) or avenge (not OK) further/previous insults. Is this premeditation? Well, yes, in a sort of way - but one has to remember that once again the burglar (even if it was a different one) put him/herself in harm's way - the householder did not seek them out while they were innocently going about their business outside.

Being a burglar is a risky business. There is always the chance that you will trip over a stair-rod in an unlighted house and fall down the stairs or that an angry and terrified householder will injure you, perhaps fatally. You may plead that you were unaware of the risks, but ignorance has never been much of a defence.

11th May 2003, 16:04
All of which is precisely why there is such an outpouring of indignation from the public at large when you get even a hint of laws that may seem to be in any way condoning or even encouraging protection of those who are doing the breaking and entering.

12th May 2003, 23:40
If Martin is a danger to burglars then you'd imagine that prison is the last place you'd want him to be!

Training Risky
19th May 2003, 20:48
I don't get it!!:confused: :mad:

I just don't understand the agenda of the liberal elite of this world.

I (and the huge majority of people in the world) work bloody hard for what I have. I put my life on the line for HMG and ultimately the general public. I am entitled to a crime-free life with my wife and dog in my own house without hurting anyone.

Why on earth should I get in trouble for coshing/shooting (if Bliar would let me own a pistol) an intruder in my home??

It should NOT matter if said intruder wants either my property or my life for the taking. ANYTHING I do to defend me and mine should not be scrutinised with the same intensity as the actions of the intruder.

If the gates of Ellis Island were not so tightly locked these days, I'd emigrate to Texas, where the rights of decent householders aren't trampled over. Unlike in the courts of Bliar's Cool Britannia.

19th May 2003, 23:40
TR, the liberal view in this case (and it happens to be one I share) is that it is the mark of an uncivilised society to shoot someone who illegally enters your property.

I agree that the law needs to be changed and I said earlier on the thread that it is outrageous that you can be prosecuted for using force on a burglar such as hitting them. I would say it is reasonable to go further than that, and hit them with a cricket bat if necessary to get them off your property, even if this meant that they were badly injured.

However - the use of guns is a completely different issue, I agree with the government's strict line on them (the laws passed by the Conservative administration in Australia are even tighter than here).

Let me ask you again:

"[if Martin had not gone to prison], the legal system would have failed and sent a message that you can kill somebody for stepping on your property. Is that the sort of society we want?"

Is it the kind of society you want? Because it's not what I want.

Training Risky
20th May 2003, 01:06

Jailing Martin, sent the message out that the courts are on the side of the criminal, not householders.

How can you believe that not jailing Martin would have sent out the wrong message to burglars!:confused: :rolleyes:
If he had been released with a caution, justice would have been served, he would get his life back, and any other criminal watching the case will think,

"Oh, so that's what I can expect if I break into a farm/house is it?
I'd best go find find a job then"

To reiterate my point:

1. I do NOT think you need to worry about anarchy in the UK, just because I think we should let people like Martin off the hook for a small misjudgement.

2. I'm not advocating compulsory shooting of just anyone in the home (salesmen, etc), just burglars whose motives are unclear when they are breaking in, in the middle of the night.

20th May 2003, 15:04
Rationaly explained it is quite logical to say that even a burgler has rights, and inapropriate action by the householder can be punishable. The stall holder who lops the arm off a kid who sampled a grape from his fruit display is undisputably in the wrong to a greater degree than the kid was in taking the grape.

The public at large however is understandably upset by the sentiment expressed in a statement that appear to condone or in anyway encourage the already soaring petty crime figures. Specialy with theft from property which has now esaclated to the point where the police seem to do little if anything about it. It is merely left for you to recover, if you can, compensation from the insurance companies who now have so much in the fine print that that is almost as difficult, as it was to get the police to do anything in the first case.
How do I know this. Because it happened.:mad:

20th May 2003, 16:00
I keep a very efficient anti intruder weapon at hand and would not hesitate to use it if I thought my family or property was threatened.

Remember the wise old saying "It is better to be tried by twelve than carried by six"

20th May 2003, 16:31
Yesterday, a man who shot someone he thought was an intruder was given a suspended prison sentence and ordered to pay £3000 compensation to the victim.

Apparently, the "intruder" was a drunken student who knocked on their door because he thought it was where a party was. He was shot in one eye by the 64 year old resident with an air rifle.

What do the advocates of householders being free to shoot burglars make of this?

Training Risky
20th May 2003, 17:14
I'll tell you what I make of this: As the case is described above, it has NOTHING to do with the Martin case at all.

If the student was merely knocking on the door, he does not deserve shooting, and the fine was justified.

If he was shouting at the door, "let me into the party you ba*tards", he still does not deserve shooting.

If he had decided to break into the house, and gained access via a window.... then the use or threat of an air-rifle by the householder would have been justified.

20th May 2003, 18:51
As it stands today petty crime and burglary appears to be offences which can be undertaken with relative impunity. Gone are the days when those underpopulated areas can be re-stocked with good strong vigourous settlers, such as the progeny of the early Antipodean settlers for example. (No offence cobbers)

Training Risky
21st May 2003, 18:05
Having read the report in yesterdays Telegraph about the trial and conviction of the householder who blinded a 'student knocking on his door', I can conclude that it was a tragic accident that appears to be no fault of the householder.

According to the report, he did not fire at the student just because he 'knocked on his door'.

The door was forced open, and the householder issued a warning which the drunken intruder ignored before lunging at the 64 year old frightened guy with the air-rifle.

Thank god this did not go any further than a fine for the householder.

Training Risky
14th Jun 2003, 07:16


Why do we still keep senile judges employed in this country?

The second burglar in the Tony Martin case has won his appeal to sue the householder for injuring him!:yuk:

He claimed the shotgun pellets have ruined his ability to "enjoy sex and martial arts!":rolleyes:

The only bad word I'll hear against Tony Martin is that his aim was bad. If it had been better, he would have been able to sterilise this piece of scum, making the world a slightly better place!

Want some money? GET A JOB!!

14th Jun 2003, 21:09
It appears that 'naming and shaming' is now an infringement of criminal's rights. The mollycoddling of the criminal element in Britain today is being carried to absurd and ridiculous lengths, where will it end?:uhoh:

17th Jun 2003, 16:16
Poor Martin,

He made one mistake - not shooting scum like Fearon dead.

And as for the jury that reached such a verdict - one can only conclude that it must have been packed with former criminals, or liberal luvvies!

Hope they get burglarised - serve 'em right!

18th Jun 2003, 20:52
According to the rag I read, it's size dictates in part it's purchase, the gentleman who approached a fellow talking on his mobile and beat him unconcious to the ground then spotted on CCTV walking away using the phone leaving his victim bleeding on the platform. He has been let off by the judge with 120 hrs of community service and a fine. He had a history of violence and a previous criminal record.
The judge I regret to say, should be smashed unconcious to the ground and robbed, then asked his opinion. I venture he might have had a mild attitude change after his 'appreciation' of the facts. But then I always have felt that most conservatives are liberals who have been mugged.

Doors to Automatic
10th Jul 2003, 01:44
Training Risky - Well said on all counts.

The only thing Tony Martin should have been given is a more accurate gun.

As for burglars' rights - whatever next?

Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it!!

10th Jul 2003, 06:58
As for burglars' rights - whatever next? Yeah! [email protected] right! Hang the guy! Let's have a good ol' lynch party. Where's the hanging tree?

In Saudi Arabia they axe off the burglar's hands, at least one good thing from the rag heads....

Doors to Automatic
11th Jul 2003, 17:42
In England they go one better than that ...........

PENSIONER Joyce Edwards found a burglar with his testicles impaled on glass from a window he smashed breaking in.

And when he screamed in agony that he was dying she snapped back: “GOOD.”

Joyce, 80, had been woken by a crashing sound from her bathroom.

She went to investigate and saw the raider dangling on shards of glass in his groin.

Last night she said: “He cried out to me, ‘I’m dying, please help me’.

“But I was so cross I shouted back ‘Good’ and ran out of the house.”

Joyce, whose husband Leslie is 90, added: “Goodness knows what he might have done if he had got into the house before we woke up.

“Leslie is deaf and has had a stroke so couldn’t have done much.”

The thief slipped after trapping his head while opening the small top window of the bathroom at the couple’s bungalow in Crowthorne, Berks.

His feet crashed though the large frosted window.

Joyce alerted neighbours who dialled 999. One rescuer said the raider lost up to four pints of blood.

He was treated in hospital but medics refused to say whether he had lost either of his testicles.

A man aged 35 from Finchampstead, Berks, was later arrested and charged.

Now that's my idea of burglars' rights!

:ok: :p

11th Jul 2003, 22:04

The chances are he is being 'advised' with regards to who he can sue for damages as we speak!


Doors to Automatic
11th Jul 2003, 23:23
Yes no doubt all manner of do-gooder lawyers queuing up to take it on, bleeding the legal aid system dry for their own selfish gain.

The old dear should have left him to bleed to death.

11th Jul 2003, 23:43
Burglars' rights eh ?

.... or lefts perhaps ?

I guess the poor chap will have to manage with just the one....

13th Jul 2003, 04:17
Divine justice may well have bereft him of both.:D

Lance Murdoch
14th Jul 2003, 19:23
Having been on the receiving end of two burglaries, one of which was a particularly nasty aggravated burglary, I have absolutely no sympathy for burglars whatsoever. The simple fact is that they are in your house by personal choice, the householder doesnt choose to be burgled. By implication they have accepted the risks inherent in their chosen occupation and should take the consequences. I do not think that burglars should loose all legal rights but the benefit of the doubt should ALWAYS be with the householder.
Fortunately the law isnt quite as ridiculous as the tabloid press would have us believe and I suspect that most burglars claims for damages are thrown out of court, for example on the post about the burglar impaling his testicles :E if he does sue I imagine that the defence wil argue sucesfully that the window was perfectly safe before he smashed it.

Doors to Automatic
16th Jul 2003, 19:08
That is something I suppose - but it should not get that far. Anyone injured through their own negligence whilst committing a crime should have NO recourse whatsoever.

It's not on that someone who sticks two fingers up at the law is then first in the queue to seek protection under the same law when things go awry.

Lance Murdoch
17th Jul 2003, 01:48

I quite agree that burglars claims should not even reach court and certainly a householder should under no circumstances have to pay any form of damages to a burglar injured whilst plying his trade. The fact that several high profile cases (i.e. Brendan Fearons case against Tony Martin) have even reached the court stage make a mockery of the law and give the tabloid press a feeding frenzy.

21st Jul 2003, 07:37
Certainly doesn't take much to get that bunch of Pirhana into a feeding frenzy let alone some of the more bizarre of the Judicial world's Solomonic pronouncements.

Training Risky
28th Jul 2003, 18:05
Well, I think he is practically a free man now.

What does the panel think, should he be issued with a 9mm for self-protection?

I do.

29th Jul 2003, 18:20
Being a farmer he would probably be more handy with a shotgun

Training Risky
30th Jul 2003, 22:43
I wonder if the coppers parked in his garden are firearms-trained?
If they are, they could give him some instruction on the Principles of Marksmanship, maybe let him have a go on a snazzy Heckler & Koch...;)

I think Tony Martin will need some proper arms training in the coming weeks, months and years of his life.
Considering the fatwa placed on him by the gyppo inbreds that knew the burglars, and the travellers camp intending to set up shop next to his farm!

Lance Murdoch
31st Jul 2003, 01:54
One suspects that the threats against Martins life are nothing but bluster (this does not mean that the people making these threats shouldnt be prosecuted if the police catch up with them). Lets face it, if anyone lays a finger on Martin its going to be quite obvious who did it or ordered the hitman. I think the threats are more Fearon and his cronies trying to intimidate Martin. Such is the mentality of this scum.