Norfolk Farmer Jailed
 

Admittedly nothing to do with aviation, but just heard that the Norfolk farmer who shot dead a 16 year old burglar has been found guilty by a 10-2 majority verdict and jailed for life.

Interestingly the judge said the case should serve as a clear warning to other burglars! Seems to me it's just the opposite. Come and burgle all you want, guys! We'll just fail to police the countryside properly and then woe betide any poor householder who decides to actually defend his own property!

What happened to Englishmen and their castles? Wouldn't happen in the USA!

I couldn't believe it either! But then I've also heard of burglars who have got themselves injured breaking in, and sued the owner of the house!
The only thing I've heard that was OK was a guy who wired up his car to give anyone who tried to break into it a huge electric shock. He had notices on the car to that effect. Well someone did try and break in, and tried to sue the owner of the car. And failed.
But as for burglars, hell, we may as well invite them in, and give them dinner too - I mean it probably comes under civil rights or something. Quite unbelievable.
I'm not saying its right to shoot someone, and maybe he did overdo it a bit, but how did he know the people breaking in weren't going to try and kill him? Whats he meant to do, wait until he is injured or dying and then at least he will be OK in court?
We are getting closer and closer to the ridiculous legal state of the USA.

I'd say it's an unsafe conviction which will be overturned on appeal. Even an art student of my acquaintance (and aren't they all lefty liberals?) thought so.

However, as a policeman remarked, - "No winners in this one." Tragedy all round.

You are right, Max. Nothing to do with aviation but such a serious situation that it is absolutely right that it is mentioned here.

I have seen some crazy things in my life but what I have seen today defies description. This sort of nonsense does not occur in the US and it should not occur in the UK.

What sort of a crazy screwed up system is it that puts a man away for simply defending himself against burglars? What sort of message does this send out to the ever growing criminal community?

The judge in handing out the sentence said that " this should serve as a dire warning to those who burgle" and "Homeowners can use reasonbable force" but at the same time hands down a life sentence!!!

The person who really made me furious tonight was the Chief Constable of Norfolk who said that he agreed with the sentence and that people should leave Burglaries to the Police!!!!!! How many times had Mr Martin been burgled before? Had the Police done anything about it?

If Mr Martin had gone out of his way to locate a criminal before blowing them away or had popped off ramblers on this land that would have been a completely different matter but all he was doing was sitting at home minding his own business!

It is very easy for the PC brigade to argue that he went beyond what was reasonable but I would say to them that it is very easy to make these statements in the cold light of day. Try being rational when you are in the middle of nowhere during the night confronted by a gang of criminals. You don't know how many there are or how well they are armed. They aren't interested in being 'reasonable' and yet you as the victim have to use balanced reason in making your decision whilst scared out of your mind!! I am not for a minute saying that its right to kill someone but in this situation he had every right to defend himself.

And remember these 'fun loving and devoted people' had 115 convictions between the three of them!

I am absolutely disgusted at what has happened today. An innocent man has been handed a sentence similar to those who have coldly kidnapped, tortured and butchered children. The man has no criminal past and was simply minding his own business. This is not justice by the wildest stretch of the imagination.

The whole business is a grotesque miscarriage of justice and leaves me extremely distressed. I will be writing to my MP and would strongly urge anyone who agrees with me to do the same. This country is descending into a criminal infested cesspit and the 'system' only seems to be interested in defending the rights of those who inflict constant misery and suffering on others.

The only shred of hope is talk of an appeal. I hope and pray it is successful.

I hope everyone on this Forum agrees. Remember, this could happen to any one of us.

My thoughts are with Mr Martin (and only Mr Martin) tonight. http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif




[This message has been edited by Doors to Automatic (edited 19 April 2000).]

DtA :

1) Although he'd been burgled before Mr Martin apparently did not contact the police. This is only what I've heard reported on the radio news, so I might have heard wrong.

2) If someone is convicted of murder, the only sentence which can be imposed is life. There is NO discretion on that, since it's stipulated in law. It may well be that someone sentenced to life will not be incarcerated until they pop their clogs inside.

3) A neighbour of Mr Martin's was recorded as saying ( and this isn't verbatim, but as good a paraphrase as I can remember ) that "if this hadn't happened last year then it would have happened sooner or later". Other people interviewed gave their impressions of Mr Martin's views on how to deal with burglars and other criminals, which appear to have involved a great deal of "blowing their heads off" and "machine-gunning them". Add to that, he had apparently had his fireams/shotgun licence revoked and his weapons removed, but still obtained a pump-action shotgun, a recipe for disaster.

I don't want this post to be read in any other way than that of expounding on the info mentioned by DtA, but anytime someone kills someone else the circumstances must be investigated fully by the police and it's then down to the courts and juries to decide. After all, juries are made up of the same people as you and I.

WNR,

Well, this particular jury was clearly soft in the head!

WNR,

The reports also said that most locals had lost confidence in the police to protect them. Mr Martin may have been eccentric but mostly he was terrified of crime and was not prepared to sit around and let it continue happening. At the end of the day why should it? I stand by everything I say.

I can tell you that if this jury had been made up of people like me Tony would be a free man by now and the criminals would have been sent a clear message. Unfortunately the view that criminals should be protected to the nth degree, at the expense of everyone else, seems to be the commonly held one.

Not a happy verdict. This happened in my family's part of the world - they're in the same business not too far away and have been burgled several times over the last five years. Firearms in the house is an entirely normal state of affairs in the Lincolnshire/Norfolk agricultural community and the first thing my father said to me in relation to this case was "There but for the grace of God...".

It was hardly surprising the trial took place some distance from the location of the event - no local jury would have convicted the defendant.

Well said DTA.

I was with a friend at a small claims court hearing not long ago and had the opportunity to pop into a number of crown court sittings - to look at the jurors it was clear something was amiss - this was clearly not a representative sample of the British public - morons wearing baseball caps the wrong way round, football shirts, fat women, long-haired blokes - I'm told it's really easy to get out of jury service if you're any kind of productive worker!

Which just leaves the dross. And they call it justice!

Here beginneth the sermon.....

We all know people who are too busy or indispensable or important to sit on a Jury. They write to the court, and are usually excused, because a reluctant juror is a potential problem. So all of the busy educated successful people get themselves excused, and then on Sunday morning in the pub they moan about the poor quality of juries these days.

All that is required for evil to triumph is that good men should do nothing, as someone said.

Here endeth the lesson.

I am of course oversimplifying, but if the cap fits......

You've lost me, Max C. Why would a fat woman be any less capable as a juror than a thin one?

Speechless,

Fair point, and I withdraw the comment about fat women.

I was just trying to paint the picture of a modern-day jury as I saw it with my own two eyes; more like an Oprah Winfrey audience than a representative sample of the British people.

I believe the all encompassing phrase you're seeking is "Trailer Park Trash".

As regards the verdict I think it was the only one that could be arrived at. Whilst I don't want to see the UK legal system descending into the mire within which the USA resides (where you have to put warnings on hot food that it's hot :rolleyes: ) I wouldn't want to see it go to the other US extreme; that of people shooting each other defending their VCR. If your life or that of your family is at risk then, yeah, go for it but it can never be worth killing someone over a burglary. It's only "stuff" for heaven's sake. I'm not condoning a soft approach to justice here though. Once these the burgling !!!!!s are caught they need to actually suffer justice not enjoy it. Social workers and do-gooders bemoaning their upbringing and sending them off on safari are not what they need. A good shoeing is.

'Git orf my laaand!'

Not like me to come over all cuddly and liberal but the quote below - taken from today's Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/st...212232,00.html -

does tend to indicate that the jury got it right.

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

The court heard that Martin, who had a vitriolic hatred for burglars and Gypsies, had come downstairs with a pump-action Winchester shotgun and fired at the two men.

Barras had pleaded for his life, shouting: "I'm sorry. Please don't. Mum." In panic, Fearon, who was seriously injured, pulled out a rotten window and he and Barras jumped through. It was not until the next afternoon that the teenage boy's body was found.

That is typical of what I would expect to read in a tenth rate publication like the Guardian. It seems to forget that:

1) He had been done over several times before

2) The police had done b*ggerall to protect him because, let's face it, all they are interested in these days is meeting their targets laid down by the spineless politicians for speeding fine revenue.

3) The real criminals in this case were not exactly your schoolboy apple scrumpers - 115 convictions between them

4) When forced to make the decisions that I sincerely hope none of us ever have to make he did not know a) how many burglars he was dealing with b) how well armed they were

As I said before and will say as many times as I have to Mr Martin acted quite correctly and it is absolutely outrageous that he even had to justify himself in court never mind be found guilty.

For all those that disagree, What would you do in the same situation?

StopStart, how are you meant to establish the motives of a person who breaks into your house? I guess you will just ask him? Look kind sir, are you here to put the lives of my family at risk or do you just want my VCR? http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/confused.gif

[This message has been edited by Drop and Stop (edited 21 April 2000).]

I would not shoot dead an unarmed man (or boy) who was begging for mercy.

JN :mad:

I take it from your post that you seem to be taking the moral high ground on behalf of the two pieces of S#&T that this poor chap had to deal with. My regret is that he didn't get the other one in the head.

1. Did this young scamp of a lad actually say theese things or is this just what his poor injured fellow low life theiving scum partner in crime remembers/fabricated?

2. Mercy you say, i dont actually believe that he was executed! Didn't he die of his initiall wounds?

3. Next time your down route/on det and on the phone to your male life partner/wife etc just stop and think how much mercy you would show if you discovered that somebody was breaking into your house and endangering them.

I am not a right wing gun toating facist BUT God help me if i am ever in this poor fellows shoes i hope i have the balls to defend my house/family with conviction. Whilst i do not whish to live in a society of gun culture like the US, the one issue i feel they have got right is the right to defend your hearth and kin. I know that there have been high profile cases which were the extreme (the shooting of a jap student in Texas spring to mind) but the right to defend yourself in your own home must be sacresant. Whilst staying with a Viper driver mate in Phoenix it was made clear to me that the reason his house was protected by a 120lb german shepard and a cupboard full of guns was not so he could "wope sum ass" for fun, but to make sure that if that someone came calling ,who cared not a dam about his human rights, he could send him to God and let him be the Jury.

My sympathy is only for this poor farmer and for the next victim, and at 115 counts and counting i am sure there will be another one,of the prosecutions star witness.

JN - The question wasn't what wouldn't you do, it was what would you do?

It's a simple enough question.

:mad: :mad: :mad:

Being a pilot now, but coming form an agricultural background it seems the whole world has it in for those on the land. Seeing all the comments of the police not responding to farm burglaries, I thought I was reading about Zimbabwe!

Drop and Stop: I take it you're of the Shoot first ask questions later school of thought. So you discover Steven Smackhead in your house and you're armed. What do you do? Blow his head off on the off chance he's the local axe murderer? Your family'll thank you for that as you're escorted off to the clink for the rest of your life. Surely the threat of force should be enough. If, of course, the guy is high on crack and appears to be armed and threatening then yeah blow his brains out. You'll probably be doing him a favour anyway.

This whole thing is Bullocks. The guy should of been let off, when all said and done what the hell are people meant to do http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif

If a burglar is in your house in the middle of the night and you are alone and in the middle of nowhere knowing that the police won't respond for atleast 2 hours what do the police want you to do. Go and greet them and offer them Tea. I don't think so.

The crims are winning the battle at the moment, they can pretty much run riot and when they are stopped they scream blue murder and all of a sudden are the victims of society. Saying this guy was "fun loving and a great kid" what a load of s**t 29 convictions including assualting an officer and agrevated assualt on members of the public, and all this before he was 16!!

The other thing that I can't understand is the Farmer was found not guilty of attempted murder on the other scumbag. How can he be guilty of murder on one hand and acquited of attempted murder on the other, that just doesn't make sense :)

I hope i'm not coming across as liberal pinko over this. AH makes a valid point - we, society in general, are being held hostage by political correctness and the assertion that everyone, no matter what, has certain rights. I personally don't believe that any member of Joe Public has the right to take anothers life. On the other hand , I do believe that once you start breaking laws and inflicting pain and grief on people for your own gain you sign away most of your other rights. The crap that usually surfaces over these sort cases is unbelievable. Terrible upbringing, broken home etc etc. Not relevant. The law's the law. Break it and you pay the price. In this case, the kid didn't deserve to have his life taken away but he does deserve to suffer for his crimes. 129 other convictions? Clearly the legal system is falling down here. Borstal was what this little f*cker needed but not a shotgun to the back of the head. Of course the parents will come out with the usual "loveable scamp" !!!!!e but then he was their kid and didn't burgle their house (probably did though and they never knew about it).
Still, if you're going to shot people why not just use buckshot etc? You won't kill the little !!!! just, with any luck, blind or cripple him. Course, problem there is that he'll then sue you :rolleyes:

SS, the point that I was trying to get across is that it would be difficult to ascertain the lowlife's motives in a very short period of time. Being woken in the middle of the night to somebody breaking in is enough to give anybody a heart attack, if you had a gun the first thing you would do is grab it (well I would do anyway). Hopefully switching the lights on and yelling FARK OFF whilst waving a gun around would be enough to scare him off (I don't think he'd be coming back in a hurry!).
I do mostly agree with your last post, I believe that when a person decides to break the law they sign away their rights as a human being, I feel that person has as much right to life as a feral animal………..and you should not get life for killing a pest. That's what I think.
On a funnier note I once saw a no trespassing sign, it read: Trespassers will be shot, survivors will be shot again!!! Done in jest of course.

Or on a gardener's fence : Tresspassers will be composted!

I'm not a lawyer, and know nothing of this case, apart from that written above, but seriously, the only excuses in law (and morally corectly IMHO) for killing someone is to[list=a][*]Prevent yourself from being killed, or[*]Prevent the death of another, and[*]a legally sanctioned killing, as in war or an exectution ordered by the courts[/list=a]

Now belting down stairs with a shotgun and shooting a burgalar doesn't fall into any of those categories. It wasn't reasonable force, and thus it was murder.

Belting downstairs with a shotgun, pointing it at a burgular, and shouting "Freeze scumbag", then calling the police while holding the burgular would be more appropriate. Perhaps if you buy a shotgun for the purpose of self defence, you should also buy a couple of pairs of handcuffs. (Goes well in your defence, as to intent, later as well.)

Note that you life doesn't have to be threatened in fact, you only have to prove (ie convince a jury) that you believed it to be threatened. Perhaps this guy just needed a better defence.

I have followed this story with great interest since the day it happened. I had a suspicion of the way it would turn out, and time has proven that suspicion!

I wonder if the decision might have been different if he had either stabbed him to death or used some other means to kill him?

I wonder what would have happened, if the burglars had inadvertently killed their victim?

As the odds of being caught and convicted for murder sometimes appear low in the UK, perhaps his biggest mistake simply wasn't killing them both?

Regarding shooting someone pleading for mercy. Enter my house uninvited in the middle of the night and it will all be over before you get a chance to utter the first word in defence!

The people that really made my blood boil were the Home Secretary and the Chief Constable of Norfolk. If they had done their jobs properly the 'fun-loving baby' would be well behind bars doing a very long stretch for his 28th offence and Tony Martin would be living in peace.

The crap that they both came out with on TV after the verdict beggared belief. Whilst the Chief Constable's only suggestion was to, and I quote directly: "Make a lot of noise", all JS could offer was that it was for the courts to decide whether force used was reasonable.

So, let's get this straight, Mr Straw; Some thieving Gypsy scumbag with no regard whatsoever for the law attacks me in my own home, the home that I have worked hard for, and then its up to me to have to defend my actions in front of a jury? Real election winner there, Mr Straw!!!

Just how out of touch with public opinion are you?

Why not......

WARNING!

BURGLARS WILL BE SHOT

SURVIVORS WILL BE SHOT AGAIN

Doors to Auto, if you kill somebody I certainly hope that your actions are the subjuct of scruitiny! What do you want ?? A licence to kill anyone on your property?

Checkboard,

Well, actually, yes, or something very like it.

That would surely be the best possible deterrence against burglars.

Look at it this way - if you were a career criminal, specialising in burglary, and a proper right of defence was available to a householder, shoot first and ask questions later and no prosecution, how long would it be until you thought about a career change?

It's a serious question for the country. If you literally cut people's hands off for a theft conviction, you'd find the rate of theft would seriously diminish, but it wouldn't disappear completely. It's a balance. IMHO the balance of toleration has drifted too far towards the criminal and his "rights".

This issue should be a godsend for the Conservatives. If they were to enact a proper right to defence in your own home, I might even start voting for them again!

So Checkboard,

You don't think I should have the right to defend myself in my own home?

OK, picture this: Middle of the night, pitch black, I hear noises. I don't know how many burglars there are, whether they are high on drugs, how well tooled up they are. I am in the middle of nowhere so no one will here me if I "make a lot of noise".

Exactly what should I do? Well, Checkboard? We are all waiting .......


Max Continuous - Couldn't agree more!

He should have shot them both in the legs and claimed the gun went off (er, twice) when he fell down the stairs. That way he would have had some form of defence and these thieving bastards might have had the rest of their lives to consider the error of their ways from the comfort of a wheelchair.

The only thing I can see wrong with this scenario is that the taxpayer would then be footing the bill for the rest of their days however given the cost of having them lose in society (or banged up from time to time) I think I could live with it.

I'm not a raving right winger, just someone who is sick of seeing scumbags living off decent members of society rather than going out and making an honest living. In my previous career I used to see upward of a dozen people a week who had been burgled. The sight of elderly people too scared to open their doors when they should be relaxing and enjoying their retirement is not something I enjoyed.

Flintstone,

I am in full agreement with you there. How much time has been spent by the PC brigade including that idiot Chief Constable sympathising with the family of that thieving gypsy over the last week?

What no one seems to be able to grasp is that they are a thoroughly bad lot - if placing a price on Tony Martin's head was not bad enough now there are suggestions of tampering with the jury.

These people do not give a stuff about the law and yet when things go wrong they seek its full protection. People like Jackass Straw then suck up to them beacuse it is the Politically Correct thing to do.

What about the OAP that got beaten half to death (by burglaring scum like Barras) in Exeter over the weekend? I don't see the Guardian reading idiots in power up in arms about the pain that she has suffered!!!

Straw....suck

Geddit?

:)

Jackass Straw is more appropriate

*Scene in court*

Judge: Well young fella-me-lad,you have now been convicted of B&E and I know have to pass sentence.

*puts on black silk square*

You shall be taken from this place to a place of execution, and there shall be hung by the neck until dead.

Right - NEXT!

*Cheers from Doors to Automatic and Max Continuous, sitting in the gallery

The simple fact is that with a progressive system of punishments the courts (at least not since the 1700s) don't execute people for robbery, and neither should you! Defending your person against an attack is a different matter.

God help me if I ever break down near your place, and wander up to your front door in the dark looking for a phone!

... you would be welcomed with open arms and I would do all I could to help you get moving again.

Would I be correct in assuming that if this happened you would actually ring my front door bell and request help rather than breaking into my house through a rear window?

*Scene in Checkboard's house*

Lying in bed on a windy night, you hear the sound of tinkling glass downstairs and furtive movements in the lounge and then footsteps coming up the stairs. Your children are sleeping peacefully in their beds.

*Checkboard: "Hello?! Hello?! Who is there?Are you a burglar?"

*No reply*

*Checkboard: "If you don't answer me you'll leave me no option but to shout for help! That'll teach you!"

*Still no reply*

*Checkboard: "Okay, you've asked for it; I'm going to have to use reasonable force to restrain your activities!"

*Burglar: "!!!!!"*

This is what happens when "unreasonable force" is NOT used:


"PENSIONER SPRAYED IN FACE BY RAIDERS

Masked burglars sprayed a noxious substance in the face of a pensioner during a burglary on his flat.

The burglars entered the flat in the Sparkenhoe Street area of Highfields at 9.30pm on Thursday and stole cash.

The man was treated at the scene by paramedics but did not require hospital treatment. He was left shocked and distressed by the incident.

Det Con Ben Maguire, of Asfordby Street station, said: "Two men wearing balaclavas entered the flat of the 67-year-old man and stole cash. Before leaving the premises, they sprayed a noxious substance in his face."

Officers are appealing to anyone who saw any activity in or around the Sparkenhoe Street area or knows anything about the incident to contact them.

Inspector Neil Canham, also of Asfordby Street police station, said: "Offences like this disgust me. This was despicable.'' "


Personally I could not have cared less if this pensioner had unloaded an illegally held pump-action shot gun into these two "loveable rogues".

Who in their right mind would want to defend this trash?



[This message has been edited by Doors to Automatic (edited 01 May 2000).]