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

[nicky g]

"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).?"

Be serious.

Martin heard them in his home. When he came down, they heard him and ran. He knew they were in his home at first, and he knew they were leaving when he came down. One of them had already got out. Futhermore after having shot them he did next to nothing to help them, waiting till Barras had bled to death before calling the emergency services.

[brad]

suppose he shot, took cover (concealment), wasnt sure he got them all, and didnt want to expose himself for tactical reasons, figuring shots were heard, help on the way, best to sit tight in case 3rd man was laying for him?

why should he have to take unnecessary risks?

====

i mean in general you know.

[nicky g]

The details i gave are incorrect; apologies, it's been a long time since the case was in the press. Here's a link to a story covering the original conviction.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/martin/article/0,2763,214334,00.html

And an excerpt from a piece analysing Martin's defence:

"From the outset Martin claimed that he opened fire on Barras and Fearon, who between them had a string of convictions, in self defence. He claimed his home in the remote fenland village of Emneth Hungate, near Wisbeach, had been plagued by burglars for years and had lost faith in the police.

There were two crucial issues at stake: where Martin was standing when he opened fire on the burglars with a Winchester pump action shotgun - which incidentally he claimed he had found - and his mental state at the time.

Martin's story is that he was in his bedroom when he was woken by the sound of the raiders breaking in. He said he fired from the rickety stairs into his breakfast room after a torch was shone into his eyes.

The prosecution accused Martin of lying. It said he was waiting for the burglars in the dark on the ground floor of his home and had effectively "executed" Barras.

Forensic tests concluded that at least two of the shots must have been fired by Martin while he was downstairs. But Martin's position when he fired the first shot - the one which killed Barras - is vital.

Martin's defence took the "tactical" decision of going along with the theory that all the shots had been fired while downstairs, as its alternative was to have to explain why Martin had fired once from the stairs then pursued the raiders downstairs. Such a scenario did not fit with the idea of a terrified man trying to defend himself.

As to his mental state, the prosecution depicted Martin as an angry man. It pointed out that he had violent views about burglars and especially about travellers - Barras was from a travellers' community. He had once talked of "putting gypsies in one of his fields surrounded by barbed wire and machine gunning them".

His defence maintained he was terrified. During the appeal it has been argued by his new legal team - he sacked the old one - that the trial defence could have argued more strongly that the murder charge could have been reduced to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.

It is thought, however, that Martin, an intensely private man from an old farming family, did not wish his defence to focus on his mental state and history.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/martin/article/0,2763,583540,00.html

[ohnonotagain]

I have read a number of previous posts by you about the UK and its approach to law and order/gun laws. I read them with irritation and scepticism because it seemed to me that your grasp of the facts was slight at best, and your understanding of our country minimal or nil.

I was therefore gratified to find that this post was based on a blind acceptance of competely erroneous facts presented in a shockingly biased manner. Moreover, the presentation of the article to which you provided a link made it obvious by its style that it was an opinion piece, not serious journalism; you were blind to this, it seems. You have confirmed my suspicion that you simply take on faith anything that fits with your world view and reject anything else.

Where do you think the quote "threat to burglars" came from? You did not notice that it was unattributed?

Oh no!! Not again!

[brad]

arent u canadian? your guns were/are being confiscated right now, right? hope u enjoy it.

[ohnonotagain]

No I'm English and I'm delighted that most guns are illegal in this country.

Unlike most of the gun nuts on this forum I've spent a lot of time in both the UK and the US so I feel I have some idea of whether it is better for safety and quality of life to have tens of millions of guns in private hands, or almost none at all. I could be wrong, but at least I have half a clue.

Oh no!! Not again!

[John Cole]

M,

"I had no reason to suspect the article was providing an inaccurate . . . account."


Didn't you see on the web page Ann Coulter's book advertised? A sure warning sign right there. [img]/forums/images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

John

[Tom D]

You can't just execute people.

Tom D

[MMMMMM]

Well I'm sorry it didn't occur to me that the reported facts might be wrong. I'll keep an eye out for that regarding opinion pieces in the future--a slight slant is what I expect from opinion pieces, not a wholesale distortion of the actual facts--but based on this article (apparently) and the article regarding that rape case not too long ago, it seems that my expectations should be revised to several notches lower.

Anyway, I think England should consider instituting a law allowing homeowners to keep a long gun and giving them carte blanche them to shoot burglars/home invaders. That would certainly cut down on the rampant burglaries, and would put the concepts of responsibility and transgression and potential endangerment in their proper perspectives--in other words, it's ALL the burglar's fault;-)

[John Cole]

Ohno,

Although M does take a conservative stance on many issues, he is, and has demonstrated this in a number of posts, very willing to listen to opposing viewpoints. Besides, he's a nice guy, too. And we disagree on most political/social ideas.

John