He is "a danger to burglars." Lock him up

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by armedandsafe, Jul 21, 2003.

  1. armedandsafe

    armedandsafe Guest

    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."
  2. tuckerd1

    tuckerd1 Moderator Supporting Member

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

  3. armedandsafe

    armedandsafe Guest

    You are beginning to get the idea, lad.

  4. 1952Sniper

    1952Sniper New Member

    Aug 22, 2002
    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.
  5. Shizamus

    Shizamus New Member

    Jun 27, 2001
    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
    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.
  6. 1952Sniper

    1952Sniper New Member

    Aug 22, 2002
    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.
  7. Shizamus

    Shizamus New Member

    Jun 27, 2001
    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.
  8. Evilahole

    Evilahole New Member

    Mar 30, 2003
    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.
  9. FN_Project90

    FN_Project90 New Member

    Jun 5, 2003
    Atlanta, GA, USA
  10. 1952Sniper

    1952Sniper New Member

    Aug 22, 2002
    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.
  11. Cow Caregiver

    Cow Caregiver New Member

    Mar 26, 2003
    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.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum The Army's new hand gun is a danger to the public Jul 29, 2014
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Suspected of being dangerous Apr 5, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum The Most Dangerous Law Since The Civil War Mar 2, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum The 2nd Amendment Is A Danger .......... Feb 18, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum West Point center cites dangers of ‘far right’ in U.S. Jan 19, 2013