More Brit bullshit...

[url]http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-12346105,00.html/[/url]

SHOT BURGLAR TO SUE

A burglar who says he cannot enjoy sex after he was shot and injured by Tony Martin has won the right to sue the jailed farmer for damages.

Brendon Fearon, 33, successfully asked a judge at Nottingham County Court to overturn an earlier decision that threw out his claim.

Fearon will sue Martin for a reported £15,000 following his wounding during a break-in at the farmer's home in Emneth Hungate, Norfolk, in August 1999.

During the burglary Martin shot dead Fearon's accomplice, 16-year-old Fred Barras, of Newark, Nottinghamshire.

Fearon claims that his injuries, which included a leg wound, have affected his ability to enjoy sex and martial arts and that he has suffered post-traumatic stress.

He claims he cannot even watch shoot-outs on television or in movies because of the memories of the incident.

Fearon was jailed for his part in the raid on Martin's home and has more than 30 criminal convictions.

He has been granted legal aid to mount his claim for damages.

Malcolm Starr, a friend and campaigner for Martin, said: "This is disgraceful and means yet more public money will be wasted on this claim.

Tony expected this to happen, because of flaws in the law that must now be addressed."

Mr Starr added: "Public opinion must be at boiling point. People will be gobsmacked that the law can be so wrong."

Earlier this year, Fearon, of Newark, was told that he had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claims that he has been unable to work because of his injuries.

But the judge who made today's ruling said the mistakes of Fearon's solicitors should not prevent him getting his case for compensation heard in a court of law.

The judge also pointed out that the case has a great deal of public interest concerning the rights of both householders and trespassers.

Henry Bellingham, Tory MP for Martin's constituency in Norfolk, said: "I feel very strongly that no criminal should have any right after he has broken into a property - all legal rights should be left outside the property that was burgled."

Hmmm. Castrating burglars.  Seems OK for rapists, I don't know about burglars.

I dunno, I believe above complaints where the very reasons for which he needed getting shot in first place? Especially the parts about PTS and being unable to work as a burglar. An ex-burglar, too scared and too hurt to break into other people's houses. Doesn't this alone show the advantage of keeping firearms to ward off criminals?

At least one of them has some sense.

OK. So what's next? A rapist suing for post-traumatic stress when his victim sprayed him?

Is [b]gobsmacked[/b] a word?

He'll be fine in the sex department once he learns to enjoy being sodomized in prison.

Wait a second, this is the UK. No prison. Nevermind.

he should have shot both the fuckers dead. but that's just my opinion. what do i know?

thats why ya dont shoot to scare, ya shoot to kill..i say practise, practise , practise..

Would he be suing if he was in a hospital on a respirator on a feeding tube in a permanent coma? Who knows. It's what burglars deserve. Another case of the law that is supposed to protect people, backfiring and hurting those it's supposed to protect. This should set an example. Hell, run some PSA's on it! "Break into home, get dick blown off."
You have any idea how fast the crime rate would plummet if every criminal got shot in the nuts?

I guess that the farmer just got confused on which head to go for in a head shot.  It is obvious that the litigious BS of liberalism is moving to the empire as well.  It is truly sad that they can actually sometimes get away with that BS.

For those of you that don't know, Tony Martin actually went to jail for killing the 16 year old burglar.  So it's no surprise that he's also being sued.

[b][red][size=6]Shakespear: "The first thing we do let's kill all the lawyers. --II Henry VI, IV:2.[/b][/red][/size=6]

Why am I not suprised??

Maybe the end of times is here, and we are just to stupid to see it.............

It is a word in British English. It means to be totally astonished, stunned, blown away, etc., as if you were hit really hard on the mouth. Yer gob is yer mouth, mate.

P.S.

Nowhere does it say he got hit in the privates...

He's just claiming that his 'injuries' prevent him from 'doing it' to his satasfaction...

There are alot of places one could be shot that can cause perminant disability...

Allthough if the farmer got a lucky shot, it would certainly make Mr Burglar think twice about his line of work...

Rules for Fending off an attack
1.  When attacked, draw your weapon
2.  If you have to draw, fire your wepon
3.  If you have to fire, make sure you kill the scumbag

I'm a little confused.  Did he get shot in the ass?

Hmmm. That seems like an anti lawyer sentiment.  However, I'd bet my AR15 that if you got rear ended and had a nice whiplash, you'd be suing whomever hit you.

I say that fucker needs to be sniped.  Can't sue if he can't breathe!

This from a country where you can actually go purchase silencers and screw them on to your Ruger 10/22 without registering them and only pay 17.5% sales tax.  Also - their 10/22 Ram Line plastic feed lipped 50 round magazines go for the equivalent of $17US.  They don't have hand guns though.

Edited to add that the majority (forgot the actual percentage - I heard it on the radio while I was over there recently) of British subjects support a national ID card if they could be certain that their privacy would remain secure.

YES absolutely - but I am not anti-lawyer, I do use them when scumbags try to take advantage of me. When I was in that theoretical rear-end crash you refer to and suffered whiplash I wasn't a criminal was I? I know I was not. I got hit in the rear, your scenario. Lawyers are necessary - but because they make a living by representing some of the scummiest rascals, I have a problem with that and often joke about my aversion to them. BTW, some of my closet friends are lawyers.  [size=6][ROFL2]