More British Boneheadedry?

[Coot]

Later today in the High Court, Government lawyers will demand the law does more to protect burglars from householders who turn violent.

Opposing yet again the release of farmer Tony Martin, the Home Office will argue that he should be kept in jail because of the threat he poses to those they probably refer to as members of the burgling community.

Mr Martin, you will recall, shot dead one burglar and wounded another when they raided his remote Norfolk farm house.

He was originally sentenced to life for murder, later reduced to five years for manslaughter on appeal. But even though he is due for release at the end of July, he has repeatedly been refused parole.


Opinion piece found here. (http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,43-2003202066,00.html)

While the British government has been selling their citizens down this path for years, it is at least heartening to know that there still exists some voice of reason in that country on these matters...even if it is summarily ignored.

[limeygit]

The Sun as a voice of reason... :rolleyes:
I know I should go past this thread, and collect my $200, but this case has been misrepresented in the press in the UK, and jumped upon in the US by pro-gun groups for their own purpose.
There is an awful lot of the case that was never given much coverage, because it wouldn't have sold newspapers.
First let me say, I certainly don't think he deserved the life sentence, or the reduced sentence, or any jail time, what he needed was psychiatric help, but that won't fit in with the terrified man fights back against thugs angle that was sold.
Lets start with some basics. As a farmer, Mr. Martin was legally allowed to own a gun, for shooting a fox and the like. However the pump action shotgun he owned was illegal, and obtained by criminal means.
Also the two burglars were 'new age travelers', or to give them their older name 'gypsies'. Mr. Martin had a long history of dislike of these people, as farmers often do. He had stated that if he ever saw 'gypos' in any field near him, he would want to 'put barbed wire around it, and machine gun them.'
Also his story is that he was in bed, heard a noise, got his gun, and shot from the landing to the ground floor when a light was shone at him, in other words he shot blind and got lucky.
It was easily proven that he had in fact shot from the ground floor, in other words, the prosecution claimed, and the jury believed, he shot two unarmed men, without giving them any warning. There is also a lot of doubt over his claims of being a victim of multiple repeated burglaries.
Mr. Martin also has a history of mental illness, and slept fully dressed and booted on top of the bed at all times, and kept a collection of teddy bears which he discussed world affairs with.
I sense the majority of members of this site getting their knives sharpened as we speak. Save it, I am not trying to start a debate on gun control or ownership, or anything of that nature. I am trying to suggest that sometimes a story can be spun to help it prove a point, and that the facts of a story that distract from the cause, are quickly ignored.
A simple question to ask yourself. Why did polls at the time of the trial show 85% thinking Mr. Martin was innocent, yet the jury did not? One set relied upon the media, one on the evidence of the case.
Should Mr. Martin be in jail? No.
Should he have shot from the darkness two men without warning them? No.
Should I have stepped onto the tracks in front of the large locomotive of pro-guns on this forum? No

[Coot]

I am fully aware the Sun is a tabloid, but the editorial itself speaks to issues that, at least to my understanding, are very real in the UK...namely that violence against people invading your home is a more serious offense than the actual invasion.

If these individuals, were actually inside the man's house when he shot them, then good on him...even the befuddled can make the right decisions some of the time.

[ShinyTop]

I have to feel that if one wakes and finds unknown people in their home they should not have to ask if they are armed or what their intentions are before assuming danger and shooting. If proven they were unknown and uninvited no other proof should have to be shown before releasing the defender.

Were the victims inside or out Limey?

[limeygit]

If some migrant workers (a similar situation as this is a fruit picking area, that attracts drifters and the like after immediate cash at the end of the day work) were stupid enough to break into Chez Coot, would you shoot them from the darkness without issuing a warning?
Anyway, my main point is more to do with my growing feeling that when he is released he will be brought to the US and paraded on right wing talk shows as a hero. And the facts will sink even further from view.
AS I said, I think in the end, the fact they broke into his house, means they lost their rights, and Martin should have been offered help, not jail time. He actually has a history of gun offenses, and had his shotgun license removed, even though the gun in question would have been illegal anyway. He brandished a WWI pistol during an argument back in the 70s and used a shotgun to smash windows during another argument, he also shot a hole in the car of a man in another incident. That was when his license was removed.
He also held fascist views, having attended Aryan camps in his younger days, camps run by a relative who was one of the founders of the British National Party (think KKK in terms of general views on race).

There is actually a much bigger issue beneath this, in my opinion, the fact the judge was being bound by a concept called 'mandatory sentencing guidelines', a vastly stupid idea, that tries to remove, during any initial sentencing, the judge's discretion in terms of what sentence he gives. A simplistic, murder is murder, and murder means life.
The 'mandatory sentencing guidelines' should be removed, at least partly because of this fiasco.

[limeygit]

Originally posted by ShinyTop
I have to feel that if one wakes and finds unknown people in their home they should not have to ask if they are armed or what their intentions are before assuming danger and shooting. If proven they were unknown and uninvited no other proof should have to be shown before releasing the defender.

Were the victims inside or out Limey?

I don't disagree Shiny, although the prosecution claimed, and there is some proof, that he didn't wake, and shoot downstairs (one doubts he could have sneaked past them - the Jury went to the house to see the layout), but that instead he was sitting waiting for them.

[Robert Harris]

limey: You are not going to win this one, regardless of facts and the like.

[ShinyTop]

Limey, if he lured them somehow I have to agree he should be charged with a criminal offense. If he merely waited for people who had been breaking in his home to do it again that is another matter. I think when laws began allowing the criminal to break in and then charge the home owner for excessive force they just gave the criminals a carte blanche. If criminals knew the home owners could shoot on sight they might begin to think about another line of work. Even if it did not deter very many new criminals it sure would be a deterrent on the dead burgler.

[Steve]

limeygit, thanks for shedding some light on what I will certainly agree seems to be a media spin on a tragic event, a spin designed to appeal to the anti-crime sentiments of the average citizen, to the exclusion of the facts.

I'm "pro gun", to use a hated (by me) phrase; I'd give home invaders one chance to leave before shooting, and you can bet the police would find a couple of my large butcher knives clasped in their cold, dead fingers....but this poor guy does sound to have been mentally unstable, his weapon was illegal, and he probably acted precipitously.

Not exactly the best "poster child" for the "pro gun" movement, eh?

[Coot]

Still, something doesn't ring quite right with the explanation offered.

There is also a lot of doubt over his claims of being a victim of multiple repeated burglaries.

Now if that were the case, what possible difference would it make if he shot from the landing or from downstairs in the dark? Is there something in the British law he was trying to avoid? Perhaps a charge of lying in wait? Without getting into the pro or anti gun debate, just what was it that conviced the jury that he wasn't fearing for his own safety?

[Biker]

While I was living in the UK, I had an opportunity to speak with one of the local constables over a pint at my local. If I were to find someone who had broken into my home in the middle of the night, I am required to give him a wide berth and escape, if at all possible. I cannot defend my property, and I may only use the minimum amount of force necessary to protect my life or the life of my family.

Indeed, the criminal does have more rights and if he makes it into your home there, you are the one required to leave, not him.

[ShinyTop]

That may be the best explanation yet for the decline of the British Empire.....and we are not far behind.

[EMIG]

Originally posted by limeygit
A simple question to ask yourself. Why did polls at the time of the trial show 85% thinking Mr. Martin was innocent, yet the jury did not? One set relied upon the media, one on the evidence of the case.

And there is no possibility the jury was presented with a distorted and one-sided view of the events, of course.

[Robert Harris]

If the jury received a one-sided account that would be a reflection on the defendent's lawyer.

[EMIG]

Of course. Judge and prosecutor are irrelevant. Silly me.

[Neo]

Hey this is the same county and system that sentenced a man named Gary Hart to five year in prison for causing the death of 10 people by dangerous driving.

And what was his dangerous driving? He stayed up all night talking on the phone instead of going to bed. The next day while driving he fell asleep and his vehicle plunged through a guardrail and caused a train wreck that resulted in the 10 deaths.

Good thing he hadn't drank a beer. He probably would have got the death penalty. Oh, wait! They don't have a death penalty. OK he only would have gotten life!

[ditch]

We could sit here trading dumb arse legal convictions all day and make us all look like fools. The US, The Brits and Aussies and anyone else you care to name. The Garry Hart type story is not a British exclusive.

[Advocat]

Originally posted by EMIG
Of course. Judge and prosecutor are irrelevant. Silly me.

Of course... see O.J. case for examples ;)

[Neo]

Originally posted by ditch
We could sit here trading dumb arse legal convictions all day and make us all look like fools. The US, The Brits and Aussies and anyone else you care to name. The Garry Hart type story is not a British exclusive.

Yes we could but "we" usually don't. What "we" usually do is point out just the dumb arse legal convictions in America and everything else dumb arse about America with a lot of it coming from people other than Americans.

But when the story is about others' countries' dumb arse scenarios are raised than certain people of many other nationalities besides American are clearly glad to dish it out but not so understanding when it is some country, like theirs, instead of America that is being laughed at or ridiculed.

(I don't mean you or anyone else specifically ditch.)

[Advocat]

Matrix, while I understand your angst, I'm not really sure what it has to do with the dicussion at hand. We have a situation where a man shot several intruders; there seems to be some issues with the evidence -- whether the people broke in and he shot them, or whether he set up a trap. Whether he was a home defender whom law enforcement didn't help, or a mentally disturbed person who had his own illusionary mindset going.

Surely, the evidence and facts can be argued, and people are. But what does that have to do with people "picking" on America? Others have raised the above mentioned issues in discussion, which is right and fair... but to bring up "well, they make fun of <b>us</b>" really doesn't seem a cogent arguement.

[EMIG]

Originally posted by Advocat
Of course... see O.J. case for examples ;)

Right! I'm sure that crazy old man had the werewithal to hire the British equivalent of Johnnie Cochran.

[ditch]

Yes we could but "we" usually don't. What "we" usually do is point out just the dumb arse legal convictions in America and everything else dumb arse about America with a lot of it coming from people other than Americans.

Matrix, you won't get any argument from me that its the biggest kid on the block that cops the most flack. To throw a punch or two instead of being on the receiving end is perfectly legit in my book.

[ditch]

I cannot defend my property, and I may only use the minimum amount of force necessary to protect my life or the life of my family.

The minimum amount of force necessary.....I can see the lawyers having a field day with interpreting the meaning of that one. One things for certain, spreading them on the wall with a shotgun exceeds that limit as far as British law is concerned.

[Advocat]

Originally posted by EMIG
Right! I'm sure that crazy old man had the werewithal to hire the British equivalent of Johnnie Cochran.

Not necessarily; he might have been lucky enough to get a couple of prosceution screwups, as OJ did.

Point being, it's the job of the proscectuion to present evidence to show the accused is guilty... and the job of the defence to show they are innocent <b>or</b> to show reasonable doubt.

The fact the jury found him guilty means that: 1) the prosceution made their case and 2) the defence couldn't prove him innocent and couldn't raise enough reasonable doubt for the jury to aquit.

It's the job of the defence to blow holes in the prosceutor's case. If the defence couldn't find a way to disprove "a distorted and one-sided view of the events", it's most likely because he was guilty.

[limeygit]

He dismissed his first defense team, and would not allow the second to use any defense or argument that would involve his state of mind...

Also a scenario here, that the American legal experts may be able to answer. Let's say in the US, a man who shot an unarmed intruder in his house, with an illegal weapon, whose gun license had been revoked for previous offenses.
Would this person be likely to be charged, at least with the fact he had an illegal weapon?

[Biker]

Define illegal weapon.. About the only thing that's illegal is a machine gun, or sawed off shotgun, not something that one would normally find in a house. And thankfully, unlike Canada or the UK, you don't need a license to have a firearm in your home.

Now, if the individual in question had a felony conviction, he's automatically prohibited from owning firearms. In that case, yes, he would be charged.

[limeygit]

Originally posted by Biker
Now, if the individual in question had a felony conviction, he's automatically prohibited from owning firearms. In that case, yes, he would be charged.

I think that is as close as you'll get as the difference in the basis of the law are so different, as I am fairly sure an American who had waved a loaded weapon around, antique or not, smashed out windows, and shot at a moving car, would have been...

[EMIG]

Originally posted by Advocat
Not necessarily; he might have been lucky enough to get a couple of prosceution screwups, as OJ did.

So it's all a matter of luck rather than justice? What if the prosecution and/or the judge screws up and your attorney isn't sharp enough to call them on it?

Originally posted by Advocat
Point being, it's the job of the proscectuion to present evidence to show the accused is guilty... and the job of the defence to show they are innocent <b>or</b> to show reasonable doubt.

Not sure the reasonable doubt standard applies in British court.

Originally posted by Advocat
The fact the jury found him guilty means that: 1) the prosceution made their case and 2) the defence couldn't prove him innocent and couldn't raise enough reasonable doubt for the jury to aquit.

Or that the judge improperly allowed the prosecutor to use procedure to block evidence that would exonerate the defendant or cast the burglars in an unfavorable light. The fact he won an appeal strongly suggests there were irregularities in his trial.

Originally posted by Advocat
It's the job of the defence to blow holes in the prosceutor's case. If the defence couldn't find a way to disprove "a distorted and one-sided view of the events", it's most likely because he was guilty.

No. The defense could have been simply too incompetent to disprove a distorted and one-sided presentation of the evidence. It happens all the time on this side of the pond.

[Neo]

Originally posted by ditch
To throw a punch or two instead of being on the receiving end is perfectly legit in my book.

Thanks ditch. That was all I was attempting to do.

Originally posted by Advocat
Of course... see O.J. case for examples ;)

Originally posted by Advocat
Matrix, while I understand your angst, I'm not really sure what it has to do with the dicussion at hand. We have a situation where a man shot several intruders; there seems to be some issues with the evidence --....Surely, the evidence and facts can be argued, and people are. But what does that have to do with people "picking" on America? Others have raised the above mentioned issues in discussion, which is right and fair... but to bring up "well, they make fun of <b>us</b>" really doesn't seem a cogent arguement.

Sorry but I disagree. My point is cogent. I am not arguing the facts of the original topic. Limey and Coot among others have done that very well.

I am just pointing out a related subject as you've pointed out the 10 year old American case involving OJ.