Government lawyers trying to keep the Norfolk farmer Tony Martin behind bars will tell a High Court judge tomorrow that burglars are members of the public who must be protected from violent householders.
The case could help hundreds of criminals bring claims for damages for injury suffered while committing offences.
In legal papers seen by The Independent, Home Office lawyers dispute Mr Martin's contention that he poses no risk to the public because he only represents a threat to burglars and other criminals who trespass on his property.
They say: "The suggestion ... that the Parole Board was not required to assess the risk posed by Mr Martin to future burglars or intruders (on the grounds that they do not form part of the public at large) is remarkable."
"It cannot possibly be suggested that members of the public cease to be so whilst committing criminal offences, and whilst society naturally condemns, and punishes such persons judicially, it can not possibly condone their (unlawful) murder or injury."
God knows that criminals have a right to work too...If only the State in the UK had a better welfare system and of course mightnight basketball then the homeowners could be away from home while all their property was being stolen.
Your sarcasm is noted, however, do you have a clue just how dangerous it is to break into an unsuspecting persons home and steal their property? Negotiating the alarms, the dogs, and often angry householders is very stressful, is it any surprise that most burglars have to carry knives to protect themselves. What do you expect them to do when faced with an angry, recently awoken person trying to thrash them, preach peace and happiness?
It is not as if most thieves are doing it just for riches. By far the majority need the money to buy much needed drugs, cigarettes and the occasional tipple after a hard nights work. Would you negotiate fences and hedges, and risk cutting yourself on broken glass just to make a living?
Honestly, sometimes I think the WTS are correct and the love of the greater number is cooling off. Shame on you.
UK law allows the use of reasonable force to protect yourself or your property.
Tony Martin deliberately set up his house to be burgled, then he shot the intruder in the back with a 12 bore shotgun from a distance of 4 feet.
I mean, if people are now saying that a privately operated execution system for theft is to be praised, then I expect that we''ll eventually return to people being hanged at Tyburn for stealing a loaf of bread. Tony Martin executed his intruder just as surely as if he'd pulled a trapdoor beneath his feet.
It's called a sting. Police set up stings all the time, except they only put their targets in jail. For instance, their agents will offer to sell people drugs, then bust them for posession.
If the state wins, perhaps it will set up a burgler protection program, where robbers would escorted by police to protect them from abusive householders, angry dogs etc
There are just some plain old mean people in this world and if he set it up so as to get robbed, just so he could shoot someone, he needs to be in jail. On the other hand, if you come into the house uninvited and unanounced to rob me, you better expect some ugliness to go down. I don't own a gun, but I know how to gut fish...and just remember, if you sue me later its awfully hard to get blood from a turnip...eheh..
Sounds to me, Englishman, like this Tony Martin had been burglarized one too many times, had not seen justice from the English courts, and decided to take matters into his own hands. Am I right?
Perhaps shooting the burglar in the back was a bit much, but only someone who has been victimized repeatedly by criminals and a criminally insane judicial system can truly understand the frustration.
