Author Topic: UK man who shot burglar in self defence denied parole: Reason: Ridiculous (Read 918 times)

Gman · « **on:** January 23, 2003, 05:43:07 PM »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/01/17/nmart17.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/01/17/ixportal.html

Quote

Tony Martin, the farmer jailed for shooting dead a teenage burglar, had his application for parole rejected yesterday.

The three members of the Parole Board, who met in London to review his case, gave no reason for turning him down.

A friend of Martin's claimed that it was because a probation report branded the 58-year-old "a danger to burglars".

Others suggested that a primary reason was Martin's refusal to express remorse for shooting 16-year-old Fred Barras when he and another burglar raided his remote Norfolk house at night in August, 1999.

Martin, who will automatically qualify for release on licence in July after serving two-thirds of his five-year sentence for manslaughter, was said to have been resigned to the decision.

Malcom Starr, a friend and leading supporter who visited Martin in Highpoint Prison, Suffolk, called the decision "an absolute disgrace".

He said: "These people on the Parole Board are completely out of touch with public opinion. "All right-thinking people agree that Mr Martin should be released immediately."

Mr Starr, a Cambridgeshire businessman, said Martin told him a Probation Service report to the board criticised the farmer for "not being up to speed with the 21st century and of thinking things were better 40 years ago".

Mr Starr added: "A lot of prisoners lie and say they are sorry about something when they are not. He was not prepared to lie. It is not a question of 'does he feel sorry'. He feels he should never have been intruded on and he acted in self defence."

Richard Portham, another friend, said: "He told me that the Norfolk probation service was recommending that he should not get parole because they considered him a danger to burglars.

"I suppose the attitude came across in this report that he would do it again."

The shotgun Martin used on Barras, from Newark, Nottinghamshire, was illegally held. He had lost his licence after an incident when he fired on a car trespassing on his farm.

GG UK!

john9001 · « **Reply #1 on:** January 23, 2003, 05:50:48 PM »

"a danger to burglars".

only in britain and kaliforina

hawk220 · « **Reply #2 on:** January 23, 2003, 05:52:00 PM »

""I suppose the attitude came across in this report that he would do it again."

Golly-geen right he should do it again!

Mr Starr added: "A lot of prisoners lie and say they are sorry about something when they are not. He was not prepared to lie. It is not a question of 'does he feel sorry'. He feels he should never have been intruded on and he acted in self defence."

good for him for standing up for himself. its like they want this big tearful apolgy for violating the social order..well screw them..

ra · « **Reply #3 on:** January 23, 2003, 05:54:29 PM »

This article isn't very convincing as it only contains quotes from friends and supporters. The law is the same in the US, you can't use deadly force on an intruder unless you have reason to fear a physical attack. If he couldn't convince the jury of that, then he goes to jail.

There are a lot of things about UK gun laws I wouldn't be comfortable with, but so far this case is not an example of one of them.

ra

Gman · « **Reply #4 on:** January 23, 2003, 06:30:39 PM »

RA let me did up quotes from this specific trial. Tony was assaulted as was his wife when he used the Shotgun in self defence. I'll find em and post them up.

hawk220 · « **Reply #5 on:** January 23, 2003, 06:34:25 PM »

actually RA, the Castle Doctrine allows this:

"Castle doctrine" is a legal concept which allows you to stand your ground rather than have to retreat from an assailant who confronts you WITHIN YOUR HOME"

(http://www.floridatoday.com/sections/emergency/force.htm)
Q. What if someone is attacking me in my own home?

A. The courts have created an exception to the duty to retreat called the "castle doctrine." Under the castle doctrine, you need not retreat from your own home to avoid using deadly force against an assailant. This only applies when you are inside your home.
Example: Two men were fist-fighting in the common hallway between their apartments. One of them shot and killed the other. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the first degree murder conviction of the defendant, rejecting a claim of self-defense.
The court said the defendant could have and should have retreated. The defendant in the above example claimed that because he had one foot in the doorway of his apartment, he did not have to retreat. The court rejected this argument, saying the defendant should have gone inside and shut the door.
The castle doctrine applies if you are attacked in your own home by an intruder or an invited guest. The castle doctrine does not apply when the attacker and the person attacked both have the same legal right to be inside the home, such as husband and wife.

hardcase2 · « **Reply #6 on:** January 23, 2003, 06:34:45 PM »

I believe you can shoot any intruder in your house in the US. You cannot shoot them outside your house if they are running. You must drag them back inside after shooting. The home invasion presopposes that you are in danger if someone is in your home.

Puke · « **Reply #7 on:** January 23, 2003, 08:55:26 PM »

Then explain the case in Texas where the Japanese foreign exchange student and American friend went up to the wrong door for a Halloween party and the Japanese student was shot dead and the Texas shooter wasn't guilty of anything.

As for that Castle Doctrine, you still state in there that deadly force in your own home can only be used "against an assailant" which is totally different from an "intruder." All I know, if you do ever shoot someone in your own home, make that shot count and shoot to kill so there is no difference as to the events that took place.

hawk220 · « **Reply #8 on:** January 23, 2003, 09:03:35 PM »

"I believe you can shoot any intruder in your house in the US. You cannot shoot them outside your house if they are running. You must drag them back inside after shooting. The home invasion presopposes that you are in danger if someone is in your home."

Dragging a corpse into your home after shooting them outside is really bad advice.. its roots are in urban myth. tampering with a crime scene will not do you any favors when you are arrested for shooting someone. and they will know if you dragged someone.

also, Puke..you don't have to ask a stranger what his intentions are when he breaks into your house. the fact that he's there can be enough to constitue a threat to you.

Dune · « **Reply #9 on:** January 23, 2003, 09:14:14 PM »

Hawk's right on both points. Dragging a bleeding body into the house is more than just a little obvious. And going to get you in real trouble. Plus, not all states have any requirement that you retreat. For instance, here are the Arizona laws concerning self-defense:

Quote

13-401. Unavailability of justification defense; justification as defense

A. Even though a person is justified under this chapter in threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force against another, if in doing so such person recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification afforded by this chapter is unavailable in a prosecution for the reckless injury or killing of the innocent third person.

B. Except as provided in subsection A, justification, as defined in this chapter, is a defense in any prosecution for an offense pursuant to this title.

13-403. Justification; use of physical force

The use of physical force upon another person which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal under any of the following circumstances:

1. A parent or guardian and a teacher or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a minor or incompetent person may use reasonable and appropriate physical force upon the minor or incompetent person when and to the extent reasonably necessary and appropriate to maintain discipline.

2. A superintendent or other entrusted official of a jail, prison or correctional institution may use physical force for the preservation of peace, to maintain order or discipline, or to prevent the commission of any felony or misdemeanor.

3. A person responsible for the maintenance of order in a place where others are assembled or on a common motor carrier of passengers, or a person acting under his direction, may use physical force if and to the extent that a reasonable person would believe it necessary to maintain order, but such person may use deadly physical force only if reasonably necessary to prevent death or serious physical injury.

4. A person acting under a reasonable belief that another person is about to commit suicide or to inflict serious physical injury upon himself may use physical force upon that person to the extent reasonably necessary to thwart the result.

5. A duly licensed physician or a registered nurse or a person acting under his direction, or any other person who renders emergency care at the scene of an emergency occurrence, may use reasonable physical force for the purpose of administering a recognized and lawful form of treatment which is reasonably adapted to promoting the physical or mental health of the patient if:

(a) The treatment is administered with the consent of the patient or, if the patient is a minor or an incompetent person, with the consent of his parent, guardian or other person entrusted with his care and supervision except as otherwise provided by law; or

(b) The treatment is administered in an emergency when the person administering such treatment reasonably believes that no one competent to consent can be consulted and that a reasonable person, wishing to safeguard the welfare of the patient, would consent.

6. A person may otherwise use physical force upon another person as further provided in this chapter.

13-404. Justification; self-defense

A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, a person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.

B. The threat or use of physical force against another is not justified:

1. In response to verbal provocation alone; or

2. To resist an arrest that the person knows or should know is being made by a peace officer or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful, unless the physical force used by the peace officer exceeds that allowed by law; or

3. If the person provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force, unless:

(a) The person withdraws from the encounter or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely withdraw from the encounter; and

(b) The other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful physical force against the person.

13-405. Justification; use of deadly physical force

A person is justified in threatening or using deadly physical force against another:

1. If such person would be justified in threatening or using physical force against the other under section 13-404, and

2. When and to the degree a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force.

13-406. Justification; defense of a third person

A person is justified in threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force against another to protect a third person if:

1. Under the circumstances as a reasonable person would believe them to be, such person would be justified under section 13-404 or 13-405 in threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force to protect himself against the unlawful physical force or deadly physical force a reasonable person would believe is threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and

2. A reasonable person would believe that such person's intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

bounder · « **Reply #10 on:** January 24, 2003, 12:38:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gman
RA let me did up quotes from this specific trial. Tony was assaulted as was his wife when he used the Shotgun in self defence. I'll find em and post them up.

Hmm, slight lapse in facts here:

Tony Martin does not have a wife.
Tony Martin was not physically assaulted
Tony Martin shot a 15 year old gypsy boy in the back as he ran away.
Tony Martin had his murder conviction reduced to a manslaughter conviction on appeal, citing ground of diminished responsibility.
Tony Martin often spoke about rounding gypsies up in a field, surrounding them with barbed wire and machine gunning them.

Revvin · « **Reply #11 on:** January 24, 2003, 01:07:40 PM »

Read about this some days ago and found it total lunacy. How many rapists/burglars/car theives are set free early showing no remorse? it's also mentioned he said in interviews with the parole board how it was safer in the 50's and he wishes for the same kind of lifestyle people had in the fifties....so what? he's right! these days criminals are pampered and have far too many loopholes to slip through the law.

Quote

Tony Martin often spoke about rounding gypsies up in a field, surrounding them with barbed wire and machine gunning them

Excellent idea! wandering scum, a social parasite

Curval · « **Reply #12 on:** January 24, 2003, 01:38:06 PM »

A close friend of mine is going to court for alledgedly threatening some Verizon employees with a gun who were trespassing on his yard.

He merely had the gun in his hand and never pointed it at anyone.

The Verizon guys refused to produce ID and when my friend called the company he was told that they were not employees of their company. So he grabbed his gun and told them to leave.

Now he may face a jail term.

He lives in Delaware.

Strange...you are allowed to own guns in the US but if you try to use it for its intended purpose (protection) you get arrested.

Please explain.

RafBader · « **Reply #13 on:** January 24, 2003, 01:59:01 PM »

Move to Tx. We have no problem shooting burglers here.

Gman · « **Reply #14 on:** January 24, 2003, 02:16:07 PM »

You're right Bounder, was another incident in the UK with similar circumstances, which I read on another board, but it wasn't Tony Blair, rather some other poor shmuck.