UK: Tony Martin, the Police, and Gun Charges

Ammoland ^ | 28 February, 2016 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

Tony Martin became a cause celebre in 1999 when he shot a pair of professional burglars in the middle of the night, at his remote farm in the UK.  The teenage suspect died.  The Shotgun that Martin used was not registered. Martin was prosecuted and convicted of murder.  On appeal the charge was reduced to manslaughter.  He served three years of a five year sentence.  His case sparked a resurgence in the belief of the right to self defense in the UK, and attempts at reform.

Martin had credible death threats made against his life. From bbc.co.uk :

14 April 2000: Norwich Crown Court hears that Martin is taken to a secret address under police protection after death threats are made against him and reports of a £60,000 price tag on his life emerge.

In 2015, Martin continued to move about frequently, often sleeping at friends houses and at different locations, sometimes in his car on the farm where the original shooting occurred.  On 29 December, 2015 Martin gave an interview to a reporter about a recent shooting homicide in the UK.  From ukshootingnews:

The police operation against Martin is said to have been pre-planned. Norfolk Constabulary refused to deny Starr’s allegations that local constables wanted to teach the old man a lesson.

Martin had been commenting to a local newspaper about a fatal shooting at an Essex care home on 29th December. A resident in her 80s was shot dead, reportedly by a man of about the same age armed with a revolver.

It is thought the farmer said words to the effect of “Do I still have a gun? You’ll have to find out, won’t you.”

The telegraph.co.uk reports it this way:

[marktwain]

Tony Martin, the UK farmer who went to prison for three years, after shooting burglars in his home, has more charges made against him, then dropped.

[Vaquero]

Better to be tried by 12.....

Tony needs farm in the USA.

[Yo-Yo]

Coming soon to a Hillary-run country near you. VOTE, people!

[mrsmel]

I feel so sorry for this guy. He had been repeatedly robbed by the same men, because they knew, or thought that they knew, that they could do so with impunity, thanks to the UK government being on the side of the criminals (just like our own is, to some extent, which they’d like to further).

[BobL]

Ping!!! Top of the afternoon to you. I’m sure there’s more than one side to this...

[miss marmelstein]

Now you’ve done it.

[BobL]

LOL - I like the guy, and often there are multiple sides to issues - and he is a straight shooter (figuratively, of course).

[marktwain]

The Scotsman is a good man. I am sure he will read the whole article.

[BobL]

He reads a LOT MORE than just the article - that’s why I pinged him.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

Sounds like someone could make a pretty penny in the UK by being a professional “cleaner”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleaner_%28crime%29

That is, especially those who live in higher crime rural areas would pay a nebulous form of insurance, a small regular fee, so that when and if they kill a burglar or robber, the earthly remains and associated incriminating evidence are removed and repaired expeditiously.

Such things are to be expected when the law and authorities are bad or worthless.

[marktwain]

The Scots Man is well read and educated, to be sure.

[zeugma]

Interesting idea. The main problem with it is that most of these ‘services’ would be feds.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

Nothing about this would have the appearance of illegality in the UK, until it was actually done. And this is the saving grace.

In retrospect, it shouldn’t be called insurance, because insurance is strongly regulated. Instead I would call it a “general maintenance and repair” contract. Workmen coming to your house at any time of day or night like an on call plumber to fix a water leak before it causes damage.

Except in this case, they discreetly remove a body for disposal, clean up any blood or fluids, patch holes, replace window glass, that sort of thing. All for a low monthly fee. If necessary, they secure any trace of gun or ammunition away from the scene, safe from any search.

And they also give a briefing to the homeowner and any witnesses about how they will approach the situation and respond to any inquiries.

Done properly, the deceased robber will have just vanished. One less vote for Labour.

[the scotsman]

Blushing ever so slightly at my fan club here, lol.

Any questions, fire away.
Pardon the pun.

[Winniesboy]

The Martin case was not about the right to self-defence, which was never in question. The question before the court was whether the actions of Martin on that day, in particular his shooting in the back of an unarmed man who was running away from Martin’s property, could reasonably be seen as self-defence. The judge in his summing up made it clear that the case was finely balanced. The jury clearly found it so, since they only returned a narrow majority verdict after long deliberation. The Court of Appeal also found it so, when it subsequently overturned that verdict and substituted a guilty verdict on a lesser charge. Whatever the rights and wrongs, this was a complex and unusual case for a variety of reasons, not the crude caricature which subsequent mythologising has made it. And Martin himself, unfortunately, was a rather unconvincing martyr.

[marktwain]

Than you for the details about the case.