Ravenwood - 06/16/03 09:30 AM
Last month, I featured a story on Tony Martin. Martin was a homeowner who was jailed for shooting a home invader who burgled his house. Martin was denied parole, because of fear for the safety of future burglars, whom the parole board stated were "entitled to protection." So Martin sits in jail, as does the burglar, Brendon Fearon, who was convicted on an unrelated heroin charge. (The second burglar is taking an eternal dirt nap.)
The London Telegraph noted Friday, that Fearon (who they errantly label the "Martin victim") will be allowed to sue Martin for �15,000 in damages. The burglar, who has more than 30 criminal convictions has even been granted legal aid from the state to pursue his claim. "Fearon claims that his injuries, which included a leg wound, have affected his ability to enjoy sex and martial arts and that he has suffered post-traumatic stress," the article states.
Another article, from early last week notes that when both men are released from prison, Martin will not even be allowed to hide or conceal his identity, because Fearon, the burglar "victim" with more than 30 criminal convictions is "entitled to be told his whereabouts". It would seem that Martin, who by the way was invaded and burgled by Fearon, has less rights than Fearon, himself. (emphasis mine)
Officials from Scotland Yard's witness protection scheme (WPS) have been liaising with Martin since last autumn about how best to safeguard him, including possibly sending him abroad.So England is coddling the criminal, while the homeowner is being jailed and stripped of his rights for defending himself. It sounds like a lovely place to live, huh?However, they have now been told that Fearon, a career criminal who was also shot during the raid on Martin's remote Norfolk farmhouse, must be kept notified of his location. Declared a "victim of serious crime", Fearon is entitled to state an opinion on Martin's release under the Government's Victims' Charter.
He is also entitled to express views which may have a bearing on where Martin is allowed to live. If a victim has particular concerns the offender may be subjected to a restriction or exclusion order.
(link via Kim DuToit)
Category: Defending Your Life
Comments (5) top link me
Wow... guess you need to insure your intruder is dead when you shoot them over the pond.
Posted by: Plunge at June 16, 2003 10:22 AMIt used to be a nice place to live, until the human shit like Fearon got 'rights' ordinary people never had. Please USA, invade us now - I promise you an absolutely rapturous welcome (as long as you bring us the guns to do the job).
PS I, like you, hope and think that this turd has no chance, but guess what? He gets legal aid, taxpayer funded for his case, Tony Martin has to defend at his own cost , estimate £50,000.
The Sun has started a defense fund - please give now.
The 16 year old burglar that Tony Martin killed was shot in the back with an illegally-owned weapon - he was running away. In the UK we do have the right to protect urselves with "reasonable force". It's hard to see what threat a fleeing boy posed that he needed to be shot in the back. Burglary is a crime, but it's not punishable by death even in your country. To be eligible for parole a prisoner is required to accept that s/he is in the wrong and to show remorse, Tony Martin has never done either. I have no wish to defend the burglar who survived, I don't think he should receive public money to bring his case, but just because he was in the wrong doesn't make Tony Martin in the right. The Sun is a tabloid rag only fit for toilet paper, may I suggest you read the facts of Tony Martin's case?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/718129.stm
I don't see what any of those 'facts' listed by the BBC has anything to do with the case. (I did notice that the BBC uses very judgemental words like "murder" rather than "killed", when referring to Martin defending his property.)
When people break into a home, they put themselves at risk. Because burglars in the US are at a greater risk, home invasions in the US rarely occur when the occupant is at home. In the UK, where burlars' rights seem to be a major concern of the government, most home invasions occur when the homeowner is present.
Since you put so much stock in the BBC, try reading this article. When you do, note this line: "A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England."
The point of my post has nothing to do with who was facing which direction, and whether or not the government gave Martin permission to own his gun. It has everything to do with the U.K. systematically putting criminal's rights above the rights of people defending themselves, and their property.
Posted by: Ravenwood at June 23, 2003 9:03 AMI think you should so what we have done in South Australia and make home invasion a serious crime. And we are allowed to defend ourselves.
Tony
Posted by: tony at November 19, 2003 8:04 PM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
