"a threat to burglars"

M

MaddMexican

Guest
Story from Frontpage magazine...

Tony Martin is not a worldly man. He has never been to San Francisco. It’s probable that he’s never even been to London. He’s a middle-aged man who, until two and one half years ago, lived a quiet, unexceptional life in a remote farmhouse in Norfolk, one of England’s least populated counties.

Because he lived alone in a place without neighbors, and was judged, by their own low standards, to be faintly eccentic, he became the target of local Gypsy raiders, who broke into his home and robbed him several times. Each time, Martin called the police, who sometimes turned up an hour or two later, or didn’t turn up at all, citing the distance they’d have to come. After each robbery, Martin responded by boarding up more windows and jamming the doors. He had no neighbors to turn to for help.

Fatefully, in August 1999, two Gypsies broke into Martin’s home while he slept. In a blind panic the 55 year-old Martin took his gun out of the cupboard, crept down the stairs and fired three shots blindly into the dark, intending only to frighten them away. One wounded 30 year-old Brendan Fearon. The second shot killed 17 year old Fred Barras. Subsequent forensic evidence proved his assertion that he fired in the dark in a blind panic.

Martin then called an ambulance and made the only phone call to police that ever caught their attention.

Martin became a hero in Britain, a country where self-defense has been legislated away in a mush of Princess Diana-esque "emotional intelligence." This is a country where private citizens were outlawed from keeping a gun after a madman broke into a Scottish school and killed several children a few years ago. One madman and millions of law-abiding, sane people were deprived of their ancient right to self-defense. When only the police and the military are armed, the authorities tend to become distanced from the ordinary, unarmed citizenry, and unquestionably the police have become less responsive and less friendly in recent years.

A fund established for Martin’s defense was overwhelmed with contributions.

Natural justice was once again thwarted when Martin was found guilty of murder. In the face of public fury, the charge was later reduced to manslaughter and his five year sentence was reduced by one-third. But Martin had done no wrong by any civilized measure of judgement.

He has now served two and one-half years and he came up before the Parole Board two weeks ago. Martin has been a cooperative and untroublesome prisoner. He keeps to himself, but shows no hostility to other prisoners or the guards. But he was refused parole because he has failed to show remorse. He refuses to go along with the thought police. He still thinks he had a right to protect himself and his property. If he’d shown remorse and expressed Clintonian pain for Fred Barras’s death, he would be out today. But he’s made of sterner stuff and refused to wrap himself in the mantle of political thought fascism.

That he has shown no remorse led the Orwellian Parole Board to refuse him freedom on the grounds that he poses a "threat to burglars."

At the same hearing, authorities cited another ####ing cause for refusal of parole: "He tends to think things were better 50 years ago." This sentiment surely puts Martin in the land of the sane. Who doesn’t think things were better when parents weren’t afraid to allow children to walk to school, when there was general respect for law and order, when there were no hordes of illegal immigrants begging with their children in the streets and subway stations, when police took threats of life and liberty seriously? Tony Martin seems a good deal more tethered to reality than the British Parole Board.

Finally, the Parole Board sneered, "He doesn’t seem to be up to speed with the 21st Century." Well, heaven forefend! Lock him up forever and throw away the key! Society needs to be protected from people who are mildly out of kilter with the new century!

Tony Martin was said by a friend to have been "depressed" by the judgement.

This case take place against a background in which, a month or so ago, a senior member of the judiciary handed down "guidance" that judges should no longer send "first time burglars who didn’t use violence in the course of their burglary" to prison because British jails were "too overcrowded". They should, instead, be given community service sentences. So now the word is out to ambitious British burglars everywhere: First time’s free.

Later the Lord Chief Justice, the most senior legal figure in Britain (a political appointee of Tony Blair) stated, in response to outraged letters to the newspapers, that he couldn’t believe most people wanted first time burglars (meaning, let us remember, "first time caught") to go to prison. He didn’t believe the law-abiding British were upset by the new guidelines. Something tells me that being chauffeured around in a government provided limousine, drawing an immense salary from the taxpayer and living in luxurious and well-policed housing causes dementia praecox in the legal profession.

Before the British could recover from their outrage over the latest dismantling of law and order in Britain, the head of the Metropolitan Police (London’s police force, which can’t keep the law, yet is much bigger and better paid than New York’s police force, which manages to keep its citizens safe) announced to the press that the police would no longer even investigate burglaries forget calling the police unless the perpetrator were obvious and there was plenty of evidence against him. In other words, unless he crept out of your house in a Zorro mask carrying a big sack marked Booty and happened to have jotted his name and address down on your telephone pad. It was announced that the Metropolitan police will henceforth be saving their manpower for the three most important offences in the country: Murder, rape and hate crimes. Defending property is now formally no longer on the table in London.

The chief of police seems perplexed by the public outcry. "We will still," he explained patiently, "take a note of any burglaries reported for statistical purposes." They just won’t investigate them.

Meanwhile, Fred Barras’s companion-in-crime Brendon Fearon had his three-and-a-half year sentence reduced by half and was released in August 2001. Fred Barras’s father has been sent to prison for 14 years for leading a £400,000 ($600,000) armed robbery. Fred Barras’s 69 year-old grandmother is facing charges of possessing an illegal firearm and assisting an offender. And Fred Barras’s mother is suing Tony Martin for wrongful death.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Be careful what you read - there are two sides to that story.

They pikey was scum - I'd be the first to admit that, and yeah, he actually had hundreds of burglary offences (most comitted when he was too young to incarcerate, but still...)

But the problem was that Tony Martin left a window open. He secreted an illegal Pump Action shotgun (he would have been perfectly legally entitled to own a standard double-barrel model) and shot Fred Barras in the BACK as he ran AWAY from the house.

Had he shot the kid climbing in the window, he probably would only have faced charges for the illegal firearm.

I'll be the first to admit - Britain has its faults. We're an angry, independent and fairly violent bunch by nature. We're a nation of people that revere tradition and privacy - crammed into the most densely populated nation in Europe. We have centuries old feuds still running to date. This place is a powderkeg.

We don't need guns on our streets or in our houses.  Perhaps you Americans think that owning guns is WORTH the incredible mortality rate - criminal and accidental. We don't. Our decision. The fact that it's a decision that MOST OF THE CIVILISED WORLD has also made seems to have excaped you.

The chances are that Tony Martin would have gone to Jail for what he did in the US, where ownership of guns is legal. He shot a fleeing man in the back with no challenge, no warning, and he did so with an illegal firearm. Save your tears - despite the provocation (and obviously he'd been sorely provoked by previous burglaries) Tony Martin went to jail for a crime he most certainly DID commit. A lot of the popular support came before the full facts of the case had come to light.

Eon
 
question.

Did he really shoot blindly in the dark as stated in the first post, or did he intentionally shoot the kid in the back as he ran from the house?

I understand the part about owning guns in England, but I don't understand how its manslaughter if they are /in/ your house commiting a crime.

Mr. Eon, can you clarify this for me?

Something similar happened here in Arizona. A guy broke into a couples house and they shot and killed him in there house, and although they were not prosecuted for murder or anything, I think they were successfully sued in a wrongful death suite by the victims(criminals) family because he was unarmed.

Cory
 
I did not say it was fact. I just wanted hear opinions on the matter..

This is why we protect our right to bear arms.

"For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient. The world will follow our lead." ---
ADOLPH HITLER - 1935
 
I would only use a firearm to protect my family. Just pull out a baseball bat if the fool is running off with your TV.
 
He shot the kid in the back, the kid was on his land but not in his house. I understand he shouted at them (but didn't tell them he was armed), they ran for it and he popped the one he shot in the back as he ran for cover. The other one got away - not sure whether he was injured or not.

Part of the problem was that he'd spoken in the pub about setting a trap for them and ambushing them...

Eon
 
I really have to object to the whole Hitler being a gun control advocate argument. If Hitler was an advocate of brushing your teeth, would you stop?
 
Well, here's something: guns are meant for killing. They're not there to shoot cans off the fence post. They're there for hunting, or for warring, or for self-defense. However, guns are also used for murder. Which is most uncool.
Not to offend Eon, but British people are WEIRD. Too many feuds, too many longlasting fights, too much lying, too many spies. ANd admit it: you guys spy on each other like it's going out of style. When I read David Eddings' Belgariad, he has one country where if you're not in the spy service, you're not anybody. Everyone's a spy: spying on spies spying on spies spying on the royal family...Britain came immediately to mind.
Not prejudiced or anything: I'm British in heritage. But British people are whacked.
I don't understand what you're saying Mustard. Because a madman advocates it, it's bad?
I always pose this hypothetical question to myself: suppose I was behind the door when it was opened in the dead of night, and I have this superb night vision thing going on, because I've been by the door in the pitch black for a while, and these two guys come creeping in with handguns. I immediately shoot them both through their heads and they die. Should I be punished for shooting first, for killing them, for not disarming them, for not warning them? Or should I be let go for protecting my home, myself and my family? Or would that be negated because I should have at least warned them? Should I have sat down, made tea, and talked to them about literature before shooting them? What? Please help me. America's as screwed up as Britain is at times about stuff like this.
 
As far as I can see, if two guys openly carrying hand guns open your front door and make to effect an entry you are entirely justified in destroying them. In the US... <sighs>

The difficulty comes when, for example, they have a slung rifle - or a Shotgun on a table next to them. They're not presenting a clear and present danger at that point, and you're required to challenge.

Sans firearms, it is assumed that the threat of a firearm is sufficient force. They have to act to directly place you under threat, you see, and the mere fact of them having a knife doesn't qualify as that - unless it's drawn, they're running towards you and you don't have time to both challenge and shoot.


Regarding us Brits - yeah we're a bit weird... <smiles> But I quite like the way we are. It's led to a fairly unique sense of humour and outlook, that I think is unique in the world. I'd miss it if it weren't there - and judging from the amount of music, films and TV we export to you guys in the US so would you.
smile.gif


I like the way we can be as vicious as you Americans, as backhanded as the French, as devious as the Russians and as organised as the Germans. There's something so satisfying about playing a country on their own turf at their own game and winning. I know what you mean about spying - I'm fairly sure that the Drasnians represent that part of Britain - in the same way the Sendars represent rural Britain of WWII - Asturia and Mimbre represent Saxon and Norman fighting for supremacy and the Rivans represent modern Britain. Reserved, still touched by past conflict in many ways, but relaxed and friendly behind closed doors.

I like those books... <smiles>

Eon
 
Personally I love the British
smile.gif
.

As for the Hitler thing. Some of you may recall an article that I posted earlier about a Jewish gentleman, I believe his name was Haas, talking about how gun control caused problems for Jewish people because they couldn't defend themselves when the Nazis went to take them away.
 
Wow! An Eddings fan! It is a small world.
And I suppose the segment of those left behind, such as Mandorallen, could represent feudal Britain.
True enough about our whole gun control option....I wonder that when they start with the guns, then they move in the knives, then into the sticks, then into the saws, then into the power drills, then into the nails, then into the screwdrivers, until we're left with no hands, no feet and no saliva glands! Because anything could be a weapon, you know. We're completely psycho about stuff like this.
Let me put it this way about British people: if it weren't for British people, we wouldn't have Monty Python. If it weren't for British people, we wouldn't have Sean Connery. If it weren't for America, however, the world would be lax in celebrities.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I wonder that when they start with the guns, then they move in the knives, then into the sticks, then into the saws, then into the power drills, then into the nails, then into the screwdrivers, until we're left with no hands, no feet and no saliva glands! Because anything could be a weapon, you know. We're completely psycho about stuff like this.

EXACTLY!  The German army used to use spades in hand to hand combat because they're effective weapons.  You can decapitate someone with a spade!

Besides, do you think the gang member about to do a drive-by is going to rush to register his gun first? And do you think that banning guns from law abiding citizens will make them magically disappear entirely? It didn't work for drugs(unfortunately), it wont work for guns.
 
I'm not sure who made the point earlier, but its a good point- When you make owning guns illegal, you only disarm those who would obey the law anyway. Meaning the criminals that cause the high mortality rate (at least the purposeful ones) will still have their weapons because they would just have them illegally, and the victim would be defensless for being a law-abiding citizen.

I know there are a lot of statistics where there are a lot of 'accidental' murders or whatever, but it seems to me it happens more where there is bad parenting then where there is a gun.

Just my two cents.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]As for the Hitler thing. Some of you may recall an article that I posted earlier about a Jewish gentleman, I believe his name was Haas, talking about how gun control caused problems for Jewish people because they couldn't defend themselves when the Nazis went to take them away.
Yeah, because a few scattered Jewish people would have been able to stop the German army which conquered France in a matter of weeks... I don't think most of them would have fought even with firearms, it would have been certain death. At the time they really had no idea what was in store for them, nobody did.
 
Can I just point out how the stance that disarming the general population means only criminals will have guns is really not true.

In Britain you don't get ANYTHING like as many drive bys or Criminal Homicides involving guns. It's not because you can't buy them illegally - you can - it's because criminals don't feel the need to shoot first and ask questions later.

A gun does the owner no good if he gets capped by a burglar that is awake, armed and hopped on amphetimines. A gun does somebody shot from the cover of a dark alleyway no good at all. In Britain criminals use their guns mostly on other armed criminals.
 
Hence our IRA's famous feuds...
Well, you know, here's a newsflash: if you outlaw one thing, it will still come. What, alcohol was outlawed in the 30s. What happened? Al Capone. When drugs became illegal to just consume at will, what happened? More drug trafficking. When guns become outlawed, what happens? Well, aside from lots of money lost and many people unemployed, more guns come in illegally and America loses out on funding for legally buying guns...America has got some economic probs to work out.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Yeah, because a few scattered Jewish people would have been able to stop the German army which conquered France in a matter of weeks... I don't think most of them would have fought even with firearms, it would have been certain death. At the time they really had no idea what was in store for them, nobody did.

Actually, why don't you take a look at the interview itself.

http://www.jpfo.org/Survive.htm

Are you suggesting that Mr. Haas is lying?  Are you in a better position to describe the situation than he is?

I want you to pay particular attention to one part of the interview here, have a look.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Q.) Did the camp inmates ever bring up the topic, "If only we were armed before, we would not be here now"?



A.) Many, many times. Before Adolph Hitler came to power, there was a black market in firearms, but the German people had been so conditioned to be law abiding, that they would never consider buying an unregistered gun. The German people really believed that only hoodlums own such guns. What fools we were. It truly frightens me to see how the government, media, and some police groups in America are pushing for the same mindset. In my opinion, the people of America had better start asking and demanding answers to some hard questions about firearms ownership, especially if the government does not trust me to own firearms, why or how can the people be expected to trust the government?

There is no doubt in my mind that millions of lives could have been saved if the people were not "brainwashed" about gun ownership and had been well armed. Hitler's thugs and goons were not very brave when confronted by a gun. Gun haters always want to forget the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, which is a perfect example of how a ragtag, half starved group of Jews took up 10 handguns and made [language edit] out of the Nazis.

It's there, so you can read it yourself if you wish(unedited on the website, I had to take out a word that could be considered offensive).

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Can I just point out how the stance that disarming the general population means only criminals will have guns is really not true.

Oh really? Is that so?

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]it's because criminals don't feel the need to shoot first and ask questions later.

If you want to trade criminals let us know!

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]A gun does the owner no good if he gets capped by a burglar that is awake, armed and hopped on amphetimines. A gun does somebody shot from the cover of a dark alleyway no good at all. In Britain criminals use their guns mostly on other armed criminals.

So....you still didn't show why it should be illegal for your average Joe to own a gun.
 
I'm not questioning the veracity of Mr Haas's statements as regards what the inmates of the various camps might have thought - but he was and is dead wrong in his assessment of the German troops.

The Wehrmacht and even the SS were not necessarily uniformed thugs - they were highly trained and highly disciplined soldiers. They would have made complete mincemeat of any irregular Jewish resistance.

Once they were in Ghetto's it was all over.

Eon
 
Back
Top