|
The Castle Law |
Index |
Sections |
Related Links |
|
|
Summary |
   |
Summary
The case of Tony Martin was one of the most shocking cases of UK Law
failing to support the householder, and instead persecuting the victim of a crime. UK
resident, Tony Martin defended his home from 2 Burglars, and ended up in Prison
for some 3 years under the charge of manslaughter. He tried to protect his
personal self and his home, yet the Law came down harder on Martin than it did
on the filthy scum that broke into his home that night. Does anyone in the UK
really believe that Mr Martin should have even gone to court for his actions,
never mind actually be convicted of Murder and sent to Prison ? UK household Law needs
radical change, it is time that UK Law supported those that make the effort to
protect themselves and their property, rather than hide in the corner and pray
the intruder doesn't hurt them as well as steal their precious household
possessions.
Proposals
Introduction
The right to defend one's self,
family/friends, and property is indeed already laid down in law. Yet, in
practice... in these overly politically correct times, such laws are not only
inadequate when applied, but an insult to the good people of this country. Why
are we now in the situation where an intruder into a house can sue the
householder if they fall over and hurt themselves ? How did it come to occur
that the criminals are now in a position to sue the householder if they receive
'verbal abuse' ?
Reasonable Force ?
As things stand, any person defending themselves, family/friends, property, may
do so with 'reasonable force'. What the hell though is reasonable force? This is
such a grey area, it makes no sense at all to the average person. Ask a hundred
people what 'reasonable force' is, and you will get a hundred different answers.
Whenever I hear a police officer interviewed on the subject, I hear similarly
conflicting responses. Some say its okay to keep a 'baseball bat' under the bed,
others say that keeping any implement nearby (even in your own home), with the
intent to use it as a weapon (whether defensively or not), is illegal. Clearly,
the Law is failing the UK householder.
Mr Tony Martin
Persecuted by a twisted Legal System
The Case
of Tony Martin
A reminder to those who have already forgotten, the case of Tony Martin, a
householder from the Fens of South East England.
Late one night, Mr Martin realises he has intruders in his house. Naturally, he
has no firm idea on what they want. Do they want to murder him, to torture him,
to steal, to harass ? The guy must be out of his mind with fear. All alone, in a
very rural area, the police are no where local to him. It is up to him to defend
both himself and his property from these evil intruders.
There are in fact two intruders in Martin's home this night....Fred Barras - 16
yrs of age, and Brendon Frearon, late 20's.
Martin loads a shotgun, and waits. He comes to shoot Fred Barras in the back.
Barras, is a mere 16. Yet at 16, he is well aware of the heinous crime he was
attempting to do. Barras dies of his wounds, but Fearon survives.
So, you'd think that was the end of this little story. Martin defended his home
and protected himself from 2 of societies scum. But no, the Police soon come to
arrest Martin on the basis of him using a gun against the intruders (which they
couldn't tolerate as 'reasonable').
Is the Law really Balanced in favour of Criminals ?
The insult of the Law
Martin is initially convicted of Murder, and as standard, gets life
imprisonment. After an Appeal court ruling, the sentence is reduced to
manslaughter, which worked out at a 5 year term. Martin ended up serving 2/3's
of his term. He could have been out after just 1/3, but according to the parole
board, Martin failed to show adequate remorse for his crimes. Great huh, because
Martin 'failed' to show 'guilt' he is forced to serve more of his sentence than
if he had showed faked regret over the fact he defended his home.
The Law being an Ass'
Brendon Fearon - the piece of villainous scum that survived that infamous night,
later attempted to launch a prosecution against Mr. Martin, for the 'ill
effects' that he has suffered as a result of Mr Martins 'crime'. So, the
Criminal scum that has probably stolen from hundreds of people, now wished to
claim money from the very person he tried to Steal from. Am I the only one that
not only finds this shocking, but feels like this is worse than even the most
twisted nightmare any of us could experience in our sleep.
Anyway, as of writing (summer
2004), it looks like Fearon will not in actuality be able to sue Mr Martin, but
the fact that it was even considered by a UK judge is still worrisome, and shows
that the law needs seriously updating to reflect the views of the UK people.
A New
Concept: 'The Castle law'
Most people have heard of the phrase 'An Englishman's home is his castle'. In
years long past, this was indeed the law of the land. If someone broke into your
home, the person would be able to defend their property. Yet now, if you so much
as even touch the intruder, you... the defender of your family and possessions
are the one in violation of the law.
The UK legal system is now at a point in time where things are so twisted, so
corrupted by the drive for 'human rights', that people are now no longer
permitted to defend themselves and their homes in the manner in which we all
deserve.
The Castle Law : Protecting the rights of the UK Householder
So, what is the 'Castle Law' in
practice?
- Any unauthorised intruder into another person's home loses (by default) ALL
their human rights. The intruder as such becomes 'worthless' the moment they
attempt to steal, attack, threaten, etc.... in a property which they do not
own.
Specifics....
-Castle law, will permit the householder to use 'ANY' (and I mean ANY) response
of defence/attack to evict/ method to deal with the intruder. If the intruder is
killed in the process, so be it - the intruder who enters a property with the
intention to commit a crime, will lose their human rights.
-In determining whether an a person was 'intruding' a property or not, the onus will be on the Police/Prosecution to 'prove' that the householder invited the said 'intruder into the property. For instance, showing supporting evidence of the prior association between householder and said 'intruder'.
* Now, some of you may wonder,
what about the 'human rights act' and other related world justice laws. Frankly,
I'm sick of hearing how criminals have rights. I'm tired of seeing grown men in
their 20's and 30's who ransack pensioners homes, get off with a community
service order. These scum are well aware of what they do, and they should be
aware that if they enter another's home with intent to commit a crime, they are
forfeiting their human rights. Its that simple.
The question I find myself asking sometimes, is what sort of person would
disagree with such a straight forward and logical philosophy ?
Conclusion
As things stand, the concept of 'reasonable force' is not a workable legal
concept. Why should a householder have to be forever worried about violating the
'human rights' of a person who has broken into their home? What instead is
required is a simple 'Castle Law', whereby the householder has no restrictions
on what they can do to defend themselves and their home from intruders.
It is time for UK citizens to have the legal protection they deserve, to
have the right to defend themselves from the scum that are allowed to roam the
UK streets late at night. Any criminal breaking into someone's home, should by
default forfeit their human rights.
Or do we want to see more people be jailed for protecting their family and home
?
Links
The Tony Martin
Case : Special legal/News section, from the Guardian UK (useful to keep up
to date)
Tony Martin - Victim or
Criminal : BBC news section
Return to
Political Home
Page last updated :
26/10/2005
