Report – Tony Martin arrested again

Re 48

That’s nonsense – even by your abysmal standards

Which part – your abysmal reply just paints the whole post without actually pointing out which part does not fit with your narrow world view, but let us examine it anyway.

Does this case involve weapons and a convicted killer? Yes. As I said, manslaughter is still a killing conviction, and there was a weapon involved.
Does Martin have previous? Of course – hence the interest in this event.
Did he make claims about possession of a weapon? That was what got the police involved and what was confiscated from him. Whether he was forbidden from possessing an air weapon (possibly not in working order – who knows?) as part of his conviction I do not know, but he has had an illegal weapon in the past.
Should he have been detained? No. Of course not… The police should never have followed up on the report and should have left him in peace. After all, it’s not like he has a history of involvement with guns or of using them in an illegal manner, is it?
John’s dream world? Ah, maybe this is the nonsense he is abysmally referring to…

Re:50

He got off the murder conviction because he demonstrated a paranoid personality disorder and so the conviction was reduced to manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility.

Re 48

That’s nonsense – even by your abysmal standards

It couldn’t be a charge of murder Kev because it was dark in the house and outside, so it could not be proved that Mr. Martin had intent to kill. Hence the reduction to manslaughter. That is the account of the affair that I’m familiar with.

Martin lied in court stating that he shot at Fearon and Barras from halfway up the stairs which was proved to have been a lie. He shot at them again, twice, as they were trying to escape through the kitchen window. They were clearly leaving the property and hence the majority verdict was murder which is precisely what it was.

I have no real sympathy for Fearon or Barras, they were repeated offenders (although Barras couldn’t have been a particularly effective criminal with 29 arrests by the age of 16) but by the same token I have no sympathy with or for Martin who was also a convicted criminal.

The problems lay and still lie with a criminal justice system which allows criminals like Fearon and Barras to accrue such lengthy criminal records.

Regards

Kev35

You don’t first arrest the subject, remove him/her to the nick and then look for evidence, unless of course, there are other rather compelling circumstances.

Can anyone see a rather obvious flaw in this view?

Quite apart from anything this case involves weapons and a convicted killer, manslaughter or not. The knowledge that Martin had at least one weapon and the claims he had made, together with his previous history and events that have occurred elsewhere, in the past, would mean that the suspect would be detained and removed from the scene so that a search could be safely undertaken without the suspect hiding or destroying evidence, running away or turning violent.

That’s the correct sequence.

In your dream world, maybe.

A weirdo with a cache of weapons living in isolation in a remote farm house… and he didn’t have a cockpit collection?

One month on and the question still stands. That guy must have a Lightning cockpit under a tarp somewhere.

Follow it up by all means but, do it properly, not in apparently slipshod fashion.

Knock on Mr. Martin’s door until he answers. Three coppers should be quite enough with one of them being a firearms specialist. Ask Mr. Martin for the weapon in question or, any other. Inspect it. If the weapon is a lethal weapon and is capable of injury and/or killing, the Police will have their evidence.

If the weapon is not capable of use, and is just a piece of junk, then the Police have no evidence of illegal ownership and cannot arrest Mr. Martin. You don’t first arrest the subject, remove him/her to the nick and then look for evidence, unless of course, there are other rather compelling circumstances.

That’s the correct sequence.

However, if the suspect has ‘form’ and Mr. Martin, by all accounts is not a sophisticated or worldly person, then the Police perhaps thought that they could push the boundaries a bit.

Trekkie, if someone had a history of not buying a car parking ticket and had been fined innumerable times, in your world, it would be reasonable of someone concerned, to assume that every time they saw this person get into their car and drive off, that it would be, yet again, to not buy a car park ticket and therefore traffic wardens should be alerted.

Just about as daft an example as the one you quoted.

There’s always a right and wrong way of going about these matters.

He had a weapon, it wasn’t until it was examined that it proved to be ‘unviable’

If you followed the argument that you shouldn’t arrest someone (who don’t forget in has history of owning an illegal firearm, using it to kill and had boasted to a reporter he had another weapon) with what looks like a gun because it may be a toy or unviable then no one would be arrested.

He is still a convicted criminal after all. The manslaughter charge still stands. In my view, clearly not shared universally, the police would have been negligent not to follow up the report.

Hope he sues for ‘wrongful arrest’ ‘unlawful detention’ and anything else that might be in the offing. Maybe that will encourage the Police to establish credible and effective evidence.

Now that’s a surprise.

Norfolk farmer Tony Martin, who was arrested for the possession of a firearm in December, will face no further action, police said on Friday morning.
The 71-year-old, who served three years in prison for shooting dead Fred Barras, 16, at his home in Emneth Hungate in 1999, was arrested and bailed in connection with firearms offences after a police operation in December last year.

Police said officers, who carried out searches on Thursday December 31, “acted on credible intelligence of illegal firearms” at a property.

Mr Martin was arrested in Wisbech and taken into police custody, where he was questioned.

He was the bailed until February.
Detective Chief Inspector Andy Coller said: “Public safety is paramount and Norfolk Constabulary takes all reports of firearms seriously.

“Following the arrest a thorough search, under Section 18 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), was conducted and officers seized a firearm, which was believed to be an air weapon. However following further enquiries, it was deemed not to be a viable weapon due to its condition.”

Mr Martin was initially found guilty of murder following the shooting of Fred Barras in 1999 but this was reduced to manslaughter on appeal.

Beermat,

I think that your response should be directed to Nostalgair2 not me, unless he’s also named John !

Diluted by whom?

John, you’re confused again. Not condemning whole sections of society out of hand because the Daily Mail told you to is not the same as not taking responsibility for oneself. Two different things.

For once Moggy we agree on something, I may be a fool, but if i’m confronted by anyone I put my my head down and I fight, its what made us Brits great! before we were diluted !

John, why not answer my questions rather than avoid them and start asking your own.
What has my location got to do with anything – unless you are implying that I live in a caravan and charge home owners megabux to badly Tarmac their drives whilst sizing up their homes for a ‘later’ visit…

Snafu, where are you ? Let’s all read your excuses and justifications for the actions of this downtrodden and socially deprived section of the human race. C’mon, entertain us !

Traveller? the only travelling most seem to do is set out from the site(from their possibly stolen home*) to rob and trick honest taxpayers out of their hard earned cash in vehicles of dubious origin.
The word for them is Pikey. The word traveller seems to add a semblance of respectability to this scum.

*http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2385116/A-stolen-caravan-Travellers-human-rights-And-betrayal-makes-blood-boil.html

I don’t have to defend my opinions. That is all they are – opinions. You can take them or leave them as you please. You don’t seem too keen on the idea of personal responsibility. On the other hand, not a bad idea – always shift the blame !

That’s great – you can carry on ignoring your opinions and I shall carry on avoiding personal responsibility. (You will explain exactly what personal responsibility I am avoiding at some point, won’t you? And also what blame I m shifting – that would be nice!)

That’s a pretty dangerous path to start walking down isn’t it?

Well, if you give them the opportunity then they will seize it with both hands and make off down the street with it. QED don’t give them the chance to seize the opportunity then they won’t take it.
Simples.

…and giving a kid the opportunity to break into a house or car by making it easy (not hiding expensive stuff in your car, not getting alarms or good locks for your home, etc) does make a difference.

That’s a pretty dangerous path to start walking down isn’t it?

I don’t have to defend my opinions. That is all they are – opinions. You can take them or leave them as you please. You don’t seem too keen on the idea of personal responsibility. On the other hand, not a bad idea – always shift the blame !