So Tony Martin has died.
Farmer Tony Martin who shot and killed a teenage burglar at his house has died at the age of 80.
The convicted killer was jailed in 2000 for the murder of 16-year-old Fred Barras and injury of 29-year-old Brendon Fearon after the pair entered his Norfolk home.
Martin took matters into his own hands as he came downstairs with a pump-action shotgun in August 1999, confronting the pair and shooting Barras dead.
He was jailed for murder but released three years later after the conviction was reduced to manslaughter.
Since then, the pensioner has said he ‘doesn’t regret anything’.
I get why he was prosecuted – shooting someone in the back doesn’t fit the requirement for self-defence as the threat of bodily harm had passed. However, I was always sympathetic and he did take a scumbag out of circulation. On balance, he was one of the good guys.
When asked after his released from jail, Mr Martin always insisted those who broke into other people’s properties deserved all they got.
Indeed.
I read at the time that he felt abandoned by the Police who couldn’t or wouldn’t do anything. I don’t know if this is true but if the public come to believe that the Police are not there to help them than instances of local reaction and even vigilantism are likely to rise.
The police AREN’T there to help you. Not anymore.
Would that we all had the means to defend our homes and families. Since the banning of most firearms the only people with guns are criminals. Both public and private sector.
I read a story on NotAlwaysRight.com which was from South Africa. This guys house was pretty heavily fortified with high fences, powered gates and a small highly trained pack of dobermans. The story was about a pair of door to door missionaries who had managed to get over the fence and encountered the hounds at close range. Is this where we are headed if the police won’t do their jobs? I should add that Humberside Police have never given cause for complaint.
I used to do business with a South African guy in the UK, ex-police over there. He told me how once he was called to a compound just like you describe. The owners had gone away and left their Boerboel dogs roaming freely in the grounds. Through the fence he could see a body, or what was left of one, as some would be burglar had won a Darwin Award by climbing over the fence and attempting to break in. He had to contact the owners to return to get the dogs contained, then tagged and bagged the remains, and that was that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boerboel
80. That’s a good innings, and he’s one of the rare few who got to shoot a couple of scrotes. Not a bad life
Don’t agree on the ‘in the back ain’t self defence’.
Running away, at a distance, perhaps.
But it takes an instant to turn away, and an instant to turn back and resume the attack.
The entry of shot doesn’t indicate that the attack had ceased and self-defence was no longer a primary concern.
If the intended victim has a moment’s edge, they should use it (see Belgrano!).
The scrotes could easily have set the house on fire and burned him out.
My understanding was the primary cause of the prosecution was the use of an illegally owned gun, and the plod’s embarrassment at doing nothing on all the previous break-ins.
I’m reminded yet again of Tom Sharpe’s masterpieces “Yes maam, when we arrive we will find the villain armed with a knife taken from the kitchen and household valuables scattered near the body. We won’t arrive for 20 minutes.”
Fair comment, however, that’s how the police and court will view it.
Those incompetents view many things differently to the general public.
Which is why, after you’ve shot the scrote, you shout ‘that was a warning, stop or I’ll shoot again!’ and then put the other barrel in the ceiling ?
Our system is designed to limit the ability of the law abiding citizen against the those who would do them harm specifically because the latter includes the state.
What really grates is that the 1688 Bill of Rights covers that specifically.
Whereas the late King James the Second by the Assistance of diverse evill Councellors Judges and Ministers imployed by him did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion and the Lawes and Liberties of this Kingdome.
…
By causing severall good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law
…
That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law
So, we seem to be back to the days of James the Second – except now it’s Parliament doing it instead of the King.
Interestingly, one item from the Bill of Rights does still seem to be in force:
That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament.