British Man Denied Parole, Ruled \"A Threat to Burglars\"
 

Somebody pinch me. 'Ave they lost their bloomin' minds? Here's M's summary, but the actual article is much better:


A middle-aged man in England, who had been robbed in his farmhouse several times (after which incidents police had been very slow in responding), the last time shot in the dark to scare them away, in a panic, and wounded one while killing the other. This time the police respnded quickly. He was arrested and subsequently convicted, even though investigation showed he had indeed fired blindly to warn them off. He served enough of his sentence to be eligible for parole, but the parole board turned down his request because he "showed no remorse" and was "not up to speed in the 21st century"-- they concluded he still poses a threat to burglars. This because he feels he has the right to defend himself in his own home--since the police obviously won't be providing that service.

The backdrop for this scenario: recently British judges were advised to no longer send first-time burglars to prison, due to overcrowding--so aspiring home invaders know that the worst they will get for a first offense is community service. The Metropolitan Police announced they would no longer investigate burglaries unless the perpetrator was obvious and the evidence plenty. Police manpower will now only be used to investigate murders, rapes and hate crimes. And citizens who defend themselves in their own homes run serious risk of being seen, in the eyes of the courts, as being "dangerous to burglars."


Read the actual article:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=5757

Re: British Man Denied Parole, Ruled \"A Threat to Burglars\"
 

The English law on self defense is a crime against humanity. But the problem here is that this guy's shooting was bad. It was ridiculous to call it a murder, but it really was a manslaughter. He had no idea how to defend himself. I'm about as strong a proponent for self defense and gun rights as you will find, but this guy's conduct was reckless. He should feel remorse about being an idiot and firing a warning shot. I don't have a lot of sympathy for the burgler of course, but the shooting was bad. He should be happy he is only doing a few years. That notwithstanding, England should allow the population to re-arm and allow the shooting of burglars in some circumstances.

Re: British Man Denied Parole, Ruled \"A Threat to Burglars\"
 

Too bad for the middle aged farmer (I assume he is since he lives in a farmhouse) that he doesn't live in New Mexico.

Re: British Man Denied Parole, Ruled \"A Threat to Burglars\"
 

MMMMMM you and the article you provide a totally distorted version of what happened. Martin shot a 16 year-old burglar as he was trying to escape through a window. The burglar posed no threat at all, and Martin's actions cannot be characterised as "self-defence." The article says he didn't intend to hit them; the trial jury didn't seem to think so, after studying ballistic evidence. If you fire a warning shot you fire it in the air, and not three times. He also shot the burglar's accomplice, who was also fleeing. He then left the burglar to bleed to death in his garden before calling an ambulance. That in itself is a very serious crime. Not displaying remorse for a crime is reasonable grounds for denial of parole. The idea that Martin is a "threat to burglars" has nothing to do with it.

It's worth noting thatnot only were both burglars in this case gypsies, but that neighbours testified to the effect that Martin had stated that all gypies should be put in a field and shot, and had praised Hitler's treatment of them. I think you should look for a new hero.

I don't know how accurate the information about the Met is. Certainly, where Martin lived was a long way from their jurisdiction. THere was recently an article in the British press about how Virginia police would no longer respond to domestic violence calls. London isn't the only city with a crime problem.

I don't see how Fred Barra's famly history is relevant (maybe the author has the same opinion f gpsies as Martin did), but one thing;s worth noting; none of the relatives he mentioned killed anyone.

Re: British Man Denied Parole, Ruled \"A Threat to Burglars\"
 

Well if the article portrayed the facts inaccurately then I'm sorry I didn't cross-check it before posting--although I had no reason to suspect the article was providing an inaccurate, let alone grossly inaccurate, account.

Anyway, how many times should this guy be expected to tolerate home invasions?

And why should the transgressors have any rights at all? They are willingly jeopardizing themselves, and putting the homeowner in fear and jeopardy to boot--I think the laws should be revised to allow shooting of such criminals by the homeowner. Nobody is forcing them to be home invaders--if they want to play that game, let them take their chances. They're big boys--they neither need nor deserve protection from the person they are putting in danger and violating.

If they don't want to take the chance of getting shot, they shouldn't choose to be home invaders or burglars. It doesn't really have to be all that complicated. And if the English are worrying about handguns on the street, the laws could be amended to permit long guns only, in the home.

Re: British Man Denied Parole, Ruled \"A Threat to Burglars\"
 

hard to say but if i was robbed by black people ten times im sure id be saying nigger nigger nigger.

Re: British Man Denied Parole, Ruled \"A Threat to Burglars\"
 

"Martin shot a 16 year-old burglar as he was trying to escape through a window. The burglar posed no threat at all, and Martin's actions cannot be characterised as "self-defence."

Martin almost certainly "walks" in New Mexico.

Re: British Man Denied Parole, Ruled \"A Threat to Burglars\"
 

Let me qualify a statement. I don't quite believe the home invaders should have "no rights at all." I think they should have the right not to be tortured, for instance. However, they are committing an act of aggression against the homeowner by entering to rob. The homeowner has NO WAY to know if they will merely rob him or if they will do much worse. The homeowner should not be required by law to take any further risks. If he chooses he can wait and see what develops. Maybe he can reason with the invaders. Maybe they won't beat him or kill him and they'll only take his money or possessions. But if he follows this path of increased risk, it should be at his own choosing; it should not be required by law that he allow himself to be jeopardized further. Therefore, if the homeowner does not choose to take this further risk, to in essence put himself at the mercy of these home invading criminals, he should have the option to shoot them with zero legal repercussions. They are the transgressors; they are the ones who chose to embark on this course of action and put themselves and the homeowner in jeopardy. The homeowner is the victim, not the burglars--and it is an immoral law that requires the victim to allow himself to be victimized further by willful aggressors, and requires him to take the chance of grave injury or death for himself or his loved ones.

Yes, burglars should have rights too: to receive a fair trial and not receive barbaric punishment by the court afterwards. However in the act of the burglary itself they should not have the right to expect not to be shot by a homeowner acting in self-defense, and they should not be able to rely on the law to assist them in their villainous endeavor--which it does, by making homeowners afraid to act in self-defense or defense of property if they so deem it prudent.

Re: British Man Denied Parole, Ruled \"A Threat to Burglars\"
 

of course.

btw, somebody climbs in your window, you make a sound or whatever, and they turn back towards the window.

how do u know they didnt climb in with a shotgun or something (put the shotgun in, then climbed in, then heard you and turned around to reach for it or whatever).?

pie in the sky? what percent of the time does something like that have to occur for you to be justified in making a split second decision to shoot? some low x%? so some low x% of the time youre expected to give up your life in the interests of ...?

Re: British Man Denied Parole, Ruled \"A Threat to Burglars\"
 

I agree with you on a number of things here. But in the Martin case they were running away. They were escaping out a window, and one of them was already out. They clearly did not pose a threat. Shooting people in the back is a crime no matter what they've done.