He is "a danger to burglars." Lock him up - The Firearms Forum

armedandsafe · 07-21-2003, 03:51 PM

Tony Martin refused leave 'because of risk to burglars'
By Daniel Foggo
(Filed: 20/07/2003)

Tony Martin, the farmer who killed a criminal who broke into his house, has been denied a preparatory home visit before his release on parole next week because he is considered to be a "danger to burglars".

In a meeting last week with the wing governor at his prison and Annette Stewart, his probation officer, Martin was told that he had been refused a trial three-day home release because the authorities felt that he might reoffend even during that short space of time.

It is normal practice for prisoners awaiting release to be given a few days outside to introduce them gradually to the prospect of regaining their liberty.

It had been thought that Martin had previously not been given the home visit because of fears over the security of his property. Concerns have been raised about Martin's safety after his life was threatened by friends of the teenager he killed.

The revelation that the probation authorities are still reluctant to let him go, even so close to his release, sparked fury from his supporters last night. Malcolm Starr, a close friend, said: "This is the final insult."

Henry Bellingham, Martin's MP, who visited the farmer in prison last week, will take up the snub with the Government. He said: "I will be writing to the Home Secretary about this, it is quite extraordinary.

"Tony Martin has been turned into a political prisoner. The Probation Service is being vindictive. Even the matter of a house visit, a standard request for him to be treated normally, has been spiked and I find it stunning."

The 58-year-old farmer related the conversation with Ms Stewart in a letter to Peter Sainsbury, the general secretary of the POW Trust, a charity which has been supporting Martin.

In the correspondence, a copy of which has been supplied to this newspaper, Martin said: "There was a meeting today after Malcolm [Starr] visited with the parole board for home visit. They still consider me dangerous."

It is understood that Ms Stewart questioned Martin about his views on the burglar he shot dead, Fred Barras. Martin replied that he was "not going down that route again".

Mr Sainsbury has now written to the governor of Highpoint, the category C prison in Suffolk where Martin is being held, demanding an explanation in writing.

A reply to Mr Sainsbury's letter from the governor, which was handed to Martin directly on Friday, states that the home visit was not granted because he "did not fit the criteria".

Ms Stewart has previously written a report on Martin which was submitted to the Parole Board before its ruling in January. In it she said that Martin's support base in the country had made him more likely to reoffend.

"This is a case which has attracted immense and ongoing media attention and public interest," she wrote. "I believe this has had an impact on Mr Martin's own perceptions of his behaviour and his right to inflict punishment on those whom he perceives to be a threat to his own security.

"Indeed this may have contributed to his justification of the offending. This encapsulation of his views has served to disallow any rational contemplation by Mr Martin of his crimes and he does not express any remorse for the death of one so young."

Martin was convicted of murdering Barras, 16, and wounding his accomplice, Brendan Fearon, 33, during a burglary at the farmer's home in Emneth Hungate, Norfolk, in August 1999. This was reduced on appeal to manslaughter. He became eligible for early release last autumn, at the discretion of the Parole Board, after having served half of his sentence.

Although this was turned down he is now automatically entitled to parole having completed two thirds of his prison term. Fearon, who has more than 30 criminal convictions and is currently in jail, is seeking compensation from Martin under the Human Rights Act. Last night Mr Sainsbury described the refusal of a home visit for Martin as "absolutely appalling".

"There has been no process by the Prison Service to fit him back into the community," he said.

"Why is he not in an open prison now for a start? Normally prisoners are transferred to open conditions prior to their release to allow them to readjust, but not Mr Martin.

"The Parole Board have gone out of their way to stop him being released. He should have been released last September, which was his earliest possible release date.

"Then an idiot probation officer said he should not get it because he was a danger to burglars and now this. It is one insult after another."

tuckerd1 · 07-21-2003, 04:10 PM

Quote:

"I believe this has had an impact on Mr Martin's own perceptions of his behaviour and his right to inflict punishment on those whom he perceives to be a threat to his own security.

Duuuuhhhhh???!!!! What the hell are you supposed to do? Rollover and play dead?

armedandsafe · 07-21-2003, 04:14 PM

You are beginning to get the idea, lad.

Pops

1952Sniper · 07-21-2003, 04:27 PM

Well, technically, nobody really has the right to "inflict punishment" on anyone, unless it's done through the law. Anyone who uses a firearm against another person should do so to stop that person from doing what they're doing. Not as punishment.

So I think the guy made a valid point there. I still think it's stupid that the farmer is in trouble over it, though. But I agree with the sentiment that civilians should not be out there shooting people for punishment. Protection of people and property, yes. Punishment, no.

Shizamus · 07-21-2003, 04:54 PM

Don't know if you are aware but there is more to this story...

Mr. Martin was repeatedly being thuggerised by these thugs, repeated damage to his property, and repeated calls to the
police for some relief that did not happen. These thugs were not
angels, they had police records. Mr. Martin finally got fed up
and dug out his gun that he had hid instead of turning it in
to the authorities to comply with the gun ban, and started
blasting (firing). I believe the thugs even had a say into his
sentencing.
I believe that this is how it went down, not sure.

As far as to inflict punishment, they are playing with words.
Mr.Martin basically drew a line in the sand like any one of us
could/would do. To end the nightmare he was going thru.

1952Sniper · 07-21-2003, 04:57 PM

And I believe he had every right to do so. I wasn't saying that the farmer was wrong. I just happened to agree with part of the statement made about inflicting punishment.

The thing is, we have to make sure that people realize that we gun owners are not intent on punishing criminals. We only want to protect ourselves and our loved ones and our property.

Shizamus · 07-21-2003, 05:06 PM

The thing is, we have to make sure that people realize that we gun owners are not intent on punishing criminals. We only want to protect ourselves and our loved ones and our property.

I believe that Mr. Martin was trying to do that.

Evilahole · 07-21-2003, 06:13 PM

That's the big problem with the justice system...the true criminals have special protection rights while citizens protecting their life and property are treated like lepers.

FN_Project90 · 07-21-2003, 11:47 PM

amen to that hole

1952Sniper · 07-22-2003, 07:37 AM

Quote:

That's the big problem with the justice system...the true criminals have special protection rights while citizens protecting their life and property are treated like lepers.

That may be true in certain parts of the country, but I can tell you assuredly that there are still places in America where you can live and have more rights than criminals.

Here in Texas, you are legally allowed to use deadly force to protect your property. You are legally allowed to use deadly force to protect someone else's property too. In fact, not only are you allowed to shoot a burglar (regardless of whether he's a direct threat to you or your family), but you're allowed to shoot him in the back as he runs down the street with your property, provided that it is after dark. The old adage about if you shoot someone on your property, you should drag them inside.... doesn't apply. If a guy is outside your window trying to get in, and you reasonably believe that he will get in the house if you don't shoot him, you are allowed to shoot him and kill him.

Obviously, there are legal stipulations to everything. And a person has to be very careful to make sure that all the factors are right, before shooting another human being. But here in Texas, the law allows people to defend their property with deadly force, regardless of value. I don't relish the thought of killing a person over a television set, but it's nice to know that I have that right.

The only problem is, these legal protections are only for criminal charges. No matter how justified I am in shooting someone, their family can still sue me in civil court and take everything I have. That's the flip-side of the coin.

Cow Caregiver · 07-23-2003, 04:03 PM

Some is more equal than others. Wonder why the Diddlecrats want to give all the felons back their "right to vote"? Examine thread above.

07-21-2003, 03:51 PM	#1
armedandsafe Former Guest Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Moses Lake, WA Posts: 10,344	He is "a danger to burglars." Lock him up Tony Martin refused leave 'because of risk to burglars' By Daniel Foggo (Filed: 20/07/2003) Tony Martin, the farmer who killed a criminal who broke into his house, has been denied a preparatory home visit before his release on parole next week because he is considered to be a "danger to burglars". In a meeting last week with the wing governor at his prison and Annette Stewart, his probation officer, Martin was told that he had been refused a trial three-day home release because the authorities felt that he might reoffend even during that short space of time. It is normal practice for prisoners awaiting release to be given a few days outside to introduce them gradually to the prospect of regaining their liberty. It had been thought that Martin had previously not been given the home visit because of fears over the security of his property. Concerns have been raised about Martin's safety after his life was threatened by friends of the teenager he killed. The revelation that the probation authorities are still reluctant to let him go, even so close to his release, sparked fury from his supporters last night. Malcolm Starr, a close friend, said: "This is the final insult." Henry Bellingham, Martin's MP, who visited the farmer in prison last week, will take up the snub with the Government. He said: "I will be writing to the Home Secretary about this, it is quite extraordinary. "Tony Martin has been turned into a political prisoner. The Probation Service is being vindictive. Even the matter of a house visit, a standard request for him to be treated normally, has been spiked and I find it stunning." The 58-year-old farmer related the conversation with Ms Stewart in a letter to Peter Sainsbury, the general secretary of the POW Trust, a charity which has been supporting Martin. In the correspondence, a copy of which has been supplied to this newspaper, Martin said: "There was a meeting today after Malcolm [Starr] visited with the parole board for home visit. They still consider me dangerous." It is understood that Ms Stewart questioned Martin about his views on the burglar he shot dead, Fred Barras. Martin replied that he was "not going down that route again". Mr Sainsbury has now written to the governor of Highpoint, the category C prison in Suffolk where Martin is being held, demanding an explanation in writing. A reply to Mr Sainsbury's letter from the governor, which was handed to Martin directly on Friday, states that the home visit was not granted because he "did not fit the criteria". Ms Stewart has previously written a report on Martin which was submitted to the Parole Board before its ruling in January. In it she said that Martin's support base in the country had made him more likely to reoffend. "This is a case which has attracted immense and ongoing media attention and public interest," she wrote. "I believe this has had an impact on Mr Martin's own perceptions of his behaviour and his right to inflict punishment on those whom he perceives to be a threat to his own security. "Indeed this may have contributed to his justification of the offending. This encapsulation of his views has served to disallow any rational contemplation by Mr Martin of his crimes and he does not express any remorse for the death of one so young." Martin was convicted of murdering Barras, 16, and wounding his accomplice, Brendan Fearon, 33, during a burglary at the farmer's home in Emneth Hungate, Norfolk, in August 1999. This was reduced on appeal to manslaughter. He became eligible for early release last autumn, at the discretion of the Parole Board, after having served half of his sentence. Although this was turned down he is now automatically entitled to parole having completed two thirds of his prison term. Fearon, who has more than 30 criminal convictions and is currently in jail, is seeking compensation from Martin under the Human Rights Act. Last night Mr Sainsbury described the refusal of a home visit for Martin as "absolutely appalling". "There has been no process by the Prison Service to fit him back into the community," he said. "Why is he not in an open prison now for a start? Normally prisoners are transferred to open conditions prior to their release to allow them to readjust, but not Mr Martin. "The Parole Board have gone out of their way to stop him being released. He should have been released last September, which was his earliest possible release date. "Then an idiot probation officer said he should not get it because he was a danger to burglars and now this. It is one insult after another." -->

07-21-2003, 04:54 PM	#5
Shizamus Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Vermont Posts: 891	Don't know if you are aware but there is more to this story... Mr. Martin was repeatedly being thuggerised by these thugs, repeated damage to his property, and repeated calls to the police for some relief that did not happen. These thugs were not angels, they had police records. Mr. Martin finally got fed up and dug out his gun that he had hid instead of turning it in to the authorities to comply with the gun ban, and started blasting (firing). I believe the thugs even had a say into his sentencing. I believe that this is how it went down, not sure. As far as to inflict punishment, they are playing with words. Mr.Martin basically drew a line in the sand like any one of us could/would do. To end the nightmare he was going thru. __________________ “The Matrix is a system, Neo, and that system is our enemy. When you are inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters, the very minds we are trying to save. Until we do, these people are part of that system and that makes them our enemies. You have to understand that most of these people are not ready to be unplugged and many are so hopelessly dependent on the system, they’ll fight to protect it. “The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. Even in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, when you go to church, when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.” - Morpheus, in the movie, “The Matrix”

07-21-2003, 05:06 PM	#7
Shizamus Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Vermont Posts: 891	The thing is, we have to make sure that people realize that we gun owners are not intent on punishing criminals. We only want to protect ourselves and our loved ones and our property. I believe that Mr. Martin was trying to do that. __________________ “The Matrix is a system, Neo, and that system is our enemy. When you are inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters, the very minds we are trying to save. Until we do, these people are part of that system and that makes them our enemies. You have to understand that most of these people are not ready to be unplugged and many are so hopelessly dependent on the system, they’ll fight to protect it. “The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. Even in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, when you go to church, when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.” - Morpheus, in the movie, “The Matrix”

07-21-2003, 11:47 PM	#9
FN_Project90 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Atlanta, GA, USA Posts: 803	amen to that hole __________________ Things n' Stuff

07-23-2003, 04:03 PM	#11
Cow Caregiver V.I.P. Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 136	Orwell's "Animal Farm".... Some is more equal than others. Wonder why the Diddlecrats want to give all the felons back their "right to vote"? Examine thread above. __________________ Freedom comes dear. Don't let anybody steal yours....

07-21-2003, 04:14 PM	#3
armedandsafe Former Guest Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Moses Lake, WA Posts: 10,344	You are beginning to get the idea, lad. Pops

07-21-2003, 04:27 PM	#4
1952Sniper Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 5,138	Well, technically, nobody really has the right to "inflict punishment" on anyone, unless it's done through the law. Anyone who uses a firearm against another person should do so to stop that person from doing what they're doing. Not as punishment. So I think the guy made a valid point there. I still think it's stupid that the farmer is in trouble over it, though. But I agree with the sentiment that civilians should not be out there shooting people for punishment. Protection of people and property, yes. Punishment, no.

07-21-2003, 04:57 PM	#6
1952Sniper Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 5,138	And I believe he had every right to do so. I wasn't saying that the farmer was wrong. I just happened to agree with part of the statement made about inflicting punishment. The thing is, we have to make sure that people realize that we gun owners are not intent on punishing criminals. We only want to protect ourselves and our loved ones and our property.

07-21-2003, 06:13 PM	#8
Evilahole V.I.P. Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 348	That's the big problem with the justice system...the true criminals have special protection rights while citizens protecting their life and property are treated like lepers.