July 11 , 2002Posted on 07/11/2002 3:18:44 AM PDT by from occupied ga
Pity poor Tony Martin as he languishes in jail surrounded by those whom the British State was meant to protect him from. Some would say he is a political prisoner of political correctness as he completes two years of a five-year sentence for manslaughter and is up for parole in September. What was his crime? Shooting a couple of burglars in self-defence who were caught one night in his darkened farmhouse. One died and the other was wounded in the legs and Martin was sent down for life for murder, but was later commuted to manslaughter. That the manslaughter appeal had to be won on the grounds of diminished responsibilities says much of modern justice today.
This tragic tale of judicial blindness actually began in May 1999 several months before the shooting incident as Tony Martin experienced yet another burglary to his farm. Being a rural setting, one could not rely very well on the police response time, let alone a successful prosecution. In other words, you were on your own with whatever means of defence you had.
In response to that latest attack on his person and property, he bought a pump-action shotgun. This was the first clash with the Law for shotguns were banned here several years ago. This act alone added twelve months to his eventual sentence. Three months later came the fateful conflict when he confronted two men in his house one night on the 20th August. Fred Barras was killed whilst his accomplice, Brendon Fearon, received shotgun wounds to the legs. Barras, though a mere 16 years old, was an incorrigible criminal who had 28 court convictions and was currently out on bail when he met his death.
What actually happened was always going to be one man's word against another but police forensics would supply some details. Martin confronted the intruders in a darkened room from his stairs. This was a house lit by very few light bulbs and the place was in general darkness. Fearon claimed that they thought that the house was derelict but had heard there were antiques inside. When they entered the grounds, they further claimed that Martin's Rotweiller guard dogs chased them inside.
Once inside, and on the lookout for the property of others, Barras was confronted and died from a gunshot wound to the back of the chest. A shot to the back would indicate retreat, but Tony Martin claimed he was blinded by their torchlight when he came downstairs and opened fire in this vulnerable condition. Fearon counter-claimed that Martin pursued them downstairs before firing but forensics only found spent cartridge material on the steps. Martin’s testimony appeared to be more trustworthy than the strange contortions of Fearon.
Barras stumbled and fell through the window into the garden undergrowth whilst Fearon crawled off to raise the alarm with neighbours. It is to be noted that Fearon received wounds to both legs. If Tony Martin was so intent on murder as the prosecution claimed, it is highly unlikely Fearon would have managed to crawl outside to safety with two wounded legs. Nevertheless, eight months after his arrest, Martin was found guilty of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.
It is to be noted that young Barras came from a criminal family; even his grandmother had a conviction. Indeed, after the grieving process had ended for his son, Fred Barras senior took part in the attempted armed robbery of a warehouse. For this he got 14 years in jail. In the eyes of the Law, Fred Barras senior and Tony Martin were equally culpable when it came to possession of firearms. In fact, going by the sentences handed out, Martin was deemed the greater offender.
Going back to Martin’s trial, one of the jury allegedly complained of threats whilst others complained of being psychologically stared at by certain members of the public gallery during the trial. A reputed £60,000 bounty was also placed on Martin's head as the criminal class worked its work and an air of intimidation generally hung over the court as it had done over Tony Martin during those successive invasions of privacy.
Ultimately, Brendon Fearon was sentenced to three years jail for burglary but was released on parole having served less than half his sentence. It seems criminals rarely serve their full tariffs these days. He pledged to go straight after his life of crime which consisted of 33 convictions including assaults, burglary and 18 offences of theft.
But with re-offending always a high risk with such people, one wonders how he was going to finance his new repentant lifestyle? The answer may come in his successful application last week to use State-funded legal expenses to insanely sue Tony Martin for up to £50,000 by claiming assault and trespass against his person. Such a State-backed action carries no financial risk to the plaintiff whatsoever for it is a "no-win, no-fee" situation – Fearon cannot lose either way.
In a bitter twist of irony, it seems that Tony Martin may yet have to hand his house over to the criminal to pay these unnatural damages. The house he fought so fiercely to defend from that same criminal in the first place.
What can we say of the main characters in this tragic play? Mr. Martin was a man let down badly by the State. With rural police services 30 minutes away and having suffered at burglars' hands on several occasions, this was a man reduced to a siege mentality. Denuded of the right to bear arms, Mr. Martin was left with the unwelcome conundrum of how to defend himself against several potential intruders younger and stronger than himself.
In the end, he played the libertarian, rebelled against Statism and went to face his potential assailants fully armed. Whether he would have suffered any harm at the intruders' hands is not a question to be asked. Neither is it to be asked by prosecutors in the cool light of day how accurate a terrified man's assessment is when faced by danger. Neither is it to be asked how accurate the gunshots should be in a darkened room faced with potential murderers. When danger is perceived to arise, the violated must strike the first blow and strike it well.
And though the life of one man is tragically cut short, we can say that not only Tony Martin but also Fred Barras was let down by the State. Martin was let down in that the State had miserably failed to stop the criminal career of men who each carried dozens of convictions prior to that doleful night. Barras was let down in that failing to curtail his thieving career with more efficient sanctions, he would eventually come to that night where one person said, "enough is enough".
How does one temper natural justice with unnatural excess? The right to self-defence is as old as civilisation itself. In the Old Testament, it is declared that "If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him." It is to be noted that the word "breaking up" merely implies unlawful entry and not even physical threat whilst the word "smitten" does not set a limit on the type of weapon to be used. Thus, we ascertain that the right to life and property was so inviolate in ancient times that even life could be extinguished in the defence of them.
Criminal rights advocates may say such a law was a carte blanche for any burglar to be shot dead unconditionally on trespassing. Not really, witness testimony could establish whether there was no need to exercise self-defence (e.g. the thief was seen to be halfway across a field in broad daylight when he was gunned down). Moreover, it is not the natural inclination of men to take life at the drop of a hat, this was a law primarily designed for life taken unintentionally but in the cause of self-defence. The fact that the Law, in the absence of witnesses, would give the benefit of the doubt to the property owner would have been a powerful incentive not to attempt burglary.
So the slide of Statist justice Western-style continues. The growing criminal sector continues to walk the countryside and streets with impunity. Young and old alike rebel against natural authority as egalitarian nonsense about empowerment for the underprivileged unwittingly provides the weapons for society’s decay. Punishments in violation of natural justice continue to be doled out with the deterrent force of a wet sponge and justice rolls not like a mighty river but like a dripping faucet.
As ever, when the State fails to provide, people take their own action in the protection of themselves and loved ones. Vigilante groups spring up, neighbourhood watches are instituted and ultimately people resort to means forbidden by their impotent lawmakers.
When State Welfare does begin to unravel, one thing must needs be ditched or reformed first and that is State Justice. When the welfare and criminal class see their free money cut off, there will be such a rise in crime fuelled by decades of amoralistic teaching in the classroom that only locally and swiftly applied justice will do to arrest the plague. In that day, the government had better legalise firearms quickly or the jails will not hold the army of Tony Martins that will arise in that troubled time.
(For those interested, Tony Martin has a support website here.)
July 11 , 2002
Roland Watson [send him mail] writes from Edinburgh, Scotland. He now runs his own Christian libertarian blog.
Copyright © 2002 LewRockwell.com
By the way, who's King George the Second?
My nickname for GWB II - current president of the US. Since he acts more like a monarch (we think that the pilots should not be armed and we won't allow them to be armed) than an elected representative I decided that the royal nickname was appropriate.
BTW what country do you live in? I just plunked 50% down on a full auto Uzi :-)
I'm curious why you call President Bush a monarch? He could get voted out in 2004 is this not true? Monarchs wouldn't allow such a thing. It also makes me want to ask who your King George the First is? George Washington? I remember reading that at first Washington was offered the title of King of the USA but he rejected it- said it defeated the purpose of the Revolution. If Washington rejected a monarchy, why tag him with the "King" handle?
Bull. The tiny-but-shrill antigun lobby didn't spend millions on ads to try to defeat Bush because they thought he was antigun.
Since his inauguration, Bush has driven the antigun lobby - and the Eurocommies - nuts with his support of gun rights. From his nomination of John Ashcroft (and getting him confirmed) to his standing up to the Eurocommies' demands for global gun control, it's obvious who's not their man!
Finally, trying to replicate Brit-style confiscation here is now impractical. Only reason why it was practical in Britain was that almost all guns there were registered - and few had them anyway. Here, a high share of the public has guns - and many share my attitude that "my only 'dependent' eats Purina!" Many of us at any given time have also just been told that we are terminally ill.
GUN REVIEWS free from ad-money bias - emphasizing woman-friendliness of tested guns!
As I said before it's his imperious attitude toward the peasants' Second Amendment rights.
He could get voted out in 2004 is this not true? Monarchs wouldn't allow such a thing.
True, but I believe I answered this already.
It also makes me want to ask who your King George the First is?
GWB, "read my lips" the first - president of the USA just prior to Slick WIllie Klinton who on his own signed an executive order to ban the import of various guns, magazines, and ammunition. This was not done through the representative law making system, but as an unconstitutional executive decision. Executive branch is charged with enforcing laws in the US - not making them.
Interesting. I didn't know Bush the present was that powerful- maybe I should go out and join the Democratic Party and oppose him.
BTW, what is "occupied ga"? At first I thought you were talking about Georgia, but your English is very good. You wouldn't be talking about the United States Georgia would you? But look, Cynthia McKinney is bound to be voted out of office and Georgia won't be occupied by socialists any more and then you will have to explain your name in the future. I was born and reared in Griffin btw.
We like Bush (King George II?) a LOT here in Great Britain. He is a strong leader and it is no wonder why the lefties dislike him so much. I suppose you're right- he has it within his authority to pass a constitutional ammendment and a law (written in stone too) that airline pilots will be armed and has not done so. It's a pity the Americans, when they thought up the Constitution, didn't devise a system of checks and balances where the Congress could make a law when the need arose-- then you wouldn't be so mad at the President, then the Congress would share at least some of the blame. But since you don't have a system like that- it must be ALL Dubya's fault and you are right to call him names.
I could say the same for your drivel
The tiny-but-shrill antigun lobby didn't spend millions on ads to try to defeat Bush because they thought he was antigun.
No they thought that Gore would be more favorable to their schemes. They didn't think that GWB would wholsale restore our rights.
Since his inauguration, Bush has driven the antigun lobby - and the Eurocommies - nuts with his support of gun rights.
Just what has he actually done?
From his nomination of John Ashcroft (and getting him confirmed)
Just how does this do anything to help gun owners' rights? The ONLY thing that Ashcroft has done that could even vaguely be construed as pro-gun was to send a memo that the 2nd Amend was individual. Talk is cheap. neither Bush nor any of his appointees have done a single solitary substantive pro-gun thing. Magaw imperiously annnounced that there would be no arming of the pilots. (Killing everyone on board with a sidewinder is OK, but arming the pilots is not). Don't think that lap dogs like Magaw do anything that isn't approved from the top.
If GWB II is so pro-gun (and he's not) he could simply rescind the executive orders blocking imports signed by his daddy, King George I, and the despicable Klinton. He hasn't and he won't. He is slightly to the right of the Democrats, but not much, and is certaintly no real conservative.
Brit style confiscation
I agree that it is impractical now, but in the future when the so-called "instant background check" has registered 99% of all of the gun owners, then the government will test it. Remember what they did in New York City - registered them in 1976 with the promise that they would never be confiscated, and then 20 years later confiscated them. Politicians' promises aren't worth the contents of a spitoon. When GWB DOES something pro gun, then I'll be happy to change my judgement, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
I don't know about the supremes, but the citizens and Congress is calling for armed pilots. Bill passed out of the house yesterday overwhelminginly in favor of arming the pilots.
Interesting. I didn't know Bush the present was that powerful- .
He's not supposed to be, but Congress has been abdicating it's authority to the president for decades
BTW, what is "occupied ga"? At first I thought you were talking about Georgia, but your English is very good. You wouldn't be talking about the United States Georgia would you?
Yep, Georgia in the USA - occupied by yankees, liberals and home grown scalawags
But look, Cynthia McKinney is bound to be voted out of office and Georgia won't be occupied by socialists any more
Oh would that it were true, but I suspect that McKinney won't be voted out of office. She is black, and her supporters are mostly black, ad that's the main reason that they vote for her. Also her supporters include the terminally envious, and Mckinney is perpetually voting to stick it to the high achievers, but this is another topic and I'm rambling
We like Bush (King George II?) a LOT here in Great Britain. He is a strong leader and it is no wonder why the lefties dislike him so much.
Actually it is a wonder why the lefties dislike him. He has been following a redistributionist policy that would have made Ralph Nader proud.
...written in stone too) that airline pilots will be armed and has not done so.
He through his transportation agency has blocked the arming of the pilots administratively - convenient fiction that when some bureaucrat wants to make a law they just say that the authority was granted under Congress under existing laws
It's a pity the Americans, when they thought up the Constitution, didn't devise a system of checks and balances where the Congress could make a law when the need arose-- then you wouldn't be so mad at the President, then the Congress would share at least some of the blame. But since you don't have a system like that- it must be ALL Dubya's fault and you are right to call him names.
My, sarcasm. The constitution is only valid to the extent that it is followed. If the government doesn't follow the constitution, then there are no checks and vbalances, and believe me they don't follow the constitution.
Regarding McKinney- I thought her major competition was also a black woman- boy was I misinformed! If her competition were a black woman as I had thought- the black voters wouldn't know who to vote for would they, seeings how they don't care about America and only vote for skin color.
Yankees huh? So my home state is occupied by the 'evil Yankees' is it? You can't leave. You can't vote. You can't own a gun or property there in the Heart of Dixie? You're occupied by dem evil Yankees? My grandfather- in the political spectrum- would probably have made you look to the left of Lenin and he didn't even go on such. It hasn't been that long since I left- how bad could it have gotten? And is Georgia the only State occupied by dem Yankees and yonder scalawags or is there more?
End note. You know, when I was a boy growing up in "UnOccupied Georgia" we didn't like people being disrespectful of the President. Since you obviously don't share in that tradition, I will point out to you that the only reason we are having this discussion is because you were and I would also point out that Dubya is probably the only thing standing between your freedoms as you enjoy them and total subjugation to the rule of the collective- which is what the lefties/liberals/democrats/socialists want. You're either with 'em or against 'em- sho' nuff.
"In the future" doesn't exist. As things are now, nobody knows from instant background checks how many guns have been resold a year later - off-paper. And - with the gun market so glutted with used guns that manufacturers are having a hard time selling new ones - things are likely to stay that way for your lifetime and mine. That's the difference between "registration" and "instant check" - and why we aren't NYC. It's also why the antigun lobby demands "registration."
You ask what Bush has done. He told the Eurocommies pushing UN global gun control to forget it at that UN conference.
And his mere presence has set back the antigun lobby a century. The Democreeps - even Klinton - now admit publicly that it was the gun issue that cost Algore the election. The antigun Washington ComPost not only says few politicians even want to push gun control as a result of the 2000 elections - but that the antigun lobby is in financial collapse.
Don't be defeatist and falsely analogize us to Britain. Britain is a tiny island of Eurocommies - while Red Nation is a huge contiguous area of (usually) armed people who (overwhelmingly) are social conservatives. Britain's population is so small compared to Red Nation's to make police-state fascism practical - especially being that Brits effectively disarmed a couple generations ago.
"In the future" doesn't exist.
What nonsense. In 1976, 1996 didn't exist, but nevertheless guns registered in 1976 were confiscated by the government of NYC in 1996. If one were to follow your "logic" to its obvious conclusion, then it would be OK to step off a tall building now because the future in which you make a big red splash on the pavement doesn't exist. You can do this if you want, but I think that I'll continue to believe in the future.
As things are now, nobody knows from instant background checks how many guns have been resold a year later - off-paper.
True, but utterly irrelevant. They will go after to ones who are registered via the instant background check. This will get most of the guns. And BTW haven't you heard the media drumbeat to "close the gunshow loophole?" This will have the effect of registering private sales. The government and the anti-gunners don't give a rat's ass about who buys guns as long as they have that confiscation "instant background check" list.
And - with the gun market so glutted with used guns that manufacturers are having a hard time selling new ones - things are likely to stay that way for your lifetime and mine.
I'm glad that you are so confidant and can predict the future that according to you "doesn't exist."
You ask what Bush has done. He told the Eurocommies pushing UN global gun control to forget it at that UN conference.
Whoopie do. More talk - and talk is cheap. His daddy held firm against the antigun media for what, 11 days, before banning semiauto imports via an unconstitutional executive order. I wonder how long before King G. II will go along on this like he's gone alone on just about about every other liberal initiative. Like I said before. Let the boy do something for the 2nd A. crowd beside talk and then I will agree with you.
And his mere presence has set back the antigun lobby a century.
Do you have the faintest idea of what you're saying? Obviously not. To set gun control back a century you would have to have the same gun control laws that the US had in 1902. As far as I know the only gun control laws that existed in 1902 were a number of state statutes prohibiting blacks from owning handguns. I believe that NY's infamous Sullivan law was passed around this time (plus or minus a few years) to prohibit immigrants from owning the means of self defense. NYC has always been a leader in victim disarmement and police state mentality. So if King George II's mere presence put gun control back a century, I should be able to legally buy a full auto weapon without regestering it. I can't. I should be able to legally buy a medium or large caliber weapon without regestering it and its ammunition as "destructive devices." I can't. I should be able to buy large capacity handgun magazines legally without being a member of the police. I can't. I should be able to buy any of the excellent small arms offered by rosenburo. I can't. Just to list a few of the contracdictions to you ridiculous statement.
The Democreeps - even Klinton - now admit publicly that it was the gun issue that cost Algore the election.
So what. Slick Willie and the democreeps admitted that it was the vile Brady (may that despicable hag rot in hell forever) law that put the Republicans in control of Kongress in 1994 for the first time in 50 years. I didn't see anything but talk then - the gun control initiatives kept coming then and they're still coming now.
The antigun Washington ComPost not only says few politicians even want to push gun control as a result of the 2000 elections
Disinformation designed to lull the easily gulled into a sense of false security. I don't believe the profesional liars who write government propaganda for the Post for one minute and no one whose seen this crap happen before and still isn't senile should either.
- but that the antigun lobby is in financial collapse.
The pro gun lobby isn't doing especially well either. Conservative fund raising is far down too, because of the false idea that we now have a conservative in the white house.
Don't be defeatist
Try realist
and falsely analogize us to Britain. Britain is a tiny island of Eurocommies - while Red Nation is a huge contiguous area of (usually) armed people who (overwhelmingly) are social conservatives.
Yes the red area is so ovewhelingly socially conservative that the only reason that Owlwhore lost the election is that communist Ralph Nader siphoned off the really extreme left wing vote. < /sarcasm> Republicans should thank Nader. He gave them the presidency.
Britain's population is so small compared to Red Nation's to make police-state fascism practical -
Again irrelevant. The USSR wasn't small, but they had a very effective police state. China is a lot large than the US and they have a pretty effective police state too. (Damn! I've just proved what men have contended forever - Size is irrelevant!)
especially being that Brits effectively disarmed a couple generations ago.
Again true but irrelevant. The statists take the long view. If they can't enslave you they'll settle for enslaving your children or grandchildren.
Oh and don't get the idea that I'm picking on you personally. I'm not. I think that we're both on the same side, but many battles and wars have been lost by underestimating the enemy, and that is what you're doing. The anti-gunners are the enemy. They will not stop until we are totally enslaved, we are dead, or they are dead.
I agree, but I failed to do that several years ago, and I still can't decide if I screwed up or not. In retrospect (hindsight is always 20/20) I did the right thing and no shots were fired, but tactically I could have gotten killed.
I was going to work very early in those days (as in 5ish) and I noticed a van that appeared to be following me. I made a few turns (on the way to work) and the van made them too. I speeded up and the van kept up with me. I was driving a car that would have had a hard time outrunning a guy in a walker, so I pulled into a parking lot at speed stopped at the darkest part, jumped out of the car with my trusty weapon, got behind the engine part of my car and aimed my firearm across the hood at the van which had followed me into the parking lot. Three black guys got out and started toward me. Rather than shooting them and then emptying the rest of the magazine into the driver's area of the van I yelled "can I help you" There were many shouts of "He's got a gun, it's cool man" and other stuff I don't remember. They ran back to the van (which btw they'd manage to lose the license plate from) and took off with squealing of tires. Alls well that ends well (other than the fact that my hear rate didn't drop down to normal for many hours), but if they'd been determined I would have been in deep brown stuff, so I still can't decide if I did the right thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.