Mad Dogs and Englishmen

[elfs]

This is ridiculous. Government lawyers are fighting to keep the Norfolk, England farmer Tony Martin behind bars. His "crime" is shooting at two men who entered his home while he slept with the intent of robbing him. The lawyers will apparently tell a High Court judge tomorrow that "burglars are members of the public who must be protected from violent householders."

At first, I thought Theodore Dalrymple's recent article, The victims of liberalism, was over the top. Now I'm convinced otherwise. By the by, if you you've never read Theodore Dalrymple, start now.

Two strangers, in his home, in the middle of the night, known to be out for criminal intent, and he's not allowed to defend himself? What kind of logic is that? I love the phrase "violent householders." I suspect that Mr. Martin is no more violent than anyone else out to protect his family from those who are out to flagrantly flaunt the law.

In other news (fallenpegasus, you want to see this), the magazine The New Atlantis has launched. It's supposed to be a "balanced and fair" analysis of the new techonolgies and what they mean for the rest of us, but it has a distinctly Static feel to, at least to my reading. When the flagship article is by Leon Kass, I have serious worries.

---

You should be a Scorpio, Passionate, vibrant,
magnetic, perceptive, emotional, sensual,
alert, willful, determined, resourceful,
purposeful, directed, dominant, ambitious,
fearless, committed, intense, but can be
obsessive, extreme, vengeful, jealous,
spiteful, unforgiving, bully, menacing,
possessive, arrogant

~*What is your TRUE Zodica sign?*~
brought to you by Quizilla

But I don't believe it either.

Comments

[voltbang.livejournal.com]

Some states in the US are almost as bad when it comes to self-defense, but I haven't seen anything about politicians or lawyers openly stating that burgulars need protection from their victims. It's a crazy world. I hadn't thought about how lax law enforcement encourages authoritariansm, but if it goes far enough, it makes sense. Washington DC would be the best example in the US, and people there are saying "do something, anything but make it safe" as a result of having the highest murder rate, yet again.

[kyriani.livejournal.com]

Ya know whats really funny? That is the name of my (english) Tech Lead here at work. I sent it to him and he burst out laughing and proceeded to tell me all sorts of stories along this line. ^_^
Stupid Gov't. Stuff like this makes me wish I had any interest in politics at all so I could do something about it. I think I will just stick with voting.

[fallenpegasus]

This sort of thing is one of the reasons I am glad I live in Washington State. Not only is Washington have a "shall issue" policy for weapons permits, but also it's relatively easy to mount a self-defense defense when you are forced to shoot an attacker, and best yet, if you succeed in the self-defense defense, the state actually repays you the legal costs of your court defense.

I hope I never ever have to ever draw on somebody, let alone shoot or kill them, but if I ever do, I'm glad I live here.

Ha!

[lovingboth]

This is what happens when you get a partial version of the story.

Martin had a long history of using illegal weapons, including threatening to murder any Gypsies who came onto his property.

When two people - aged 30 and 16 - broke into his house, Martin came downstairs with a pump-action Winchester shotgun - a totally illegal weapon in the UK, the possession of which will result in a mandatory five year sentence soon - and fired at the two men.

The two ran. The 16 year old was hit in the back, pleaded for his life, shouting: "I'm sorry. Please don't. Mum." He was then shot again and killed.

UK law says that every citizen is entitled to use reasonable force to prevent crime. The jury - and I agree with them - thought that shooting a fleeing burglar twice in the back was not 'reasonable force'.

The judge specifically directed that they could return a verdict of manslaughter over the killing if they found Mr Martin "did not intend to kill or cause serious bodily harm".

They convicted him of murder, which carries a life sentence. The judge said he should serve ten years of that in jail. An appeal court reduced it to five years, on the grounds of his mental health.

What's happened recently is that the Parole Board - an official body, but independent of 'government' - has declined to release him early on parole. The reason for this is simple: he's shown no remorse about what he's done.

Had he done so, I've no doubt that he'd be out.

Personally, I think the original murder conviction was right. That's what the jury decided, and they heard all the evidence.

Re: Ha!

[lovingboth]

Oh, he wasn't asleep when the two arrived at his (booby-trapped) house.

Re: Ha!

[wendor.livejournal.com]

The claims that he wasn't asleep were based on the Crown's story that he was lying in wait downstairs.
The only booby-trap alleged was him lying in wait with a gun.

Both have now been shown to have been untrue (as acknowledged by the forensic scientist for the crown who originally testified to the proof that he fired from downstairs) with the evidence showing that he fired from the stairs and was, therefore, upstairs as he claimed. (he claimed to have been in bed upstairs, asleep or nearly so)
http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/10/17/nmart17.xml

[fallenpegasus]

How many homes had these 10 times losers burglerized?
What is the burglery rate in that part of England?
What is the "hot" burgler rate in that part of England?
What is the effort level undertaken by the police in that part of England for solving burgleries?

Take a guess what the hot burglery rate is in the Seattle area?

The fact that you think that the murder conviction was good is exactly the cultural point being made. If that's the bed you want to sleep in, fine, but don't dare ever look down your nose at the parts of the world who have made a difference choice wrt the value of the life of a criminal.

The only value I place on the life of someone who broke into my house with the purpose of stealing is the headache of the paperwork.

[lovingboth]

Every society makes a choice. Mine fully supports reasonable self-defence, but a jury of Martin's peers thought that this went way beyond that.

How many Seattle kids are killed with their family's weapons?

The only value I place on the life of someone who broke into my house with the purpose of stealing is the headache of the paperwork.

Oooh inni butch Jules?

[elfs.livejournal.com]

It's not "butch." It's simply life in the United States. Unlike the lawyers arguing for the Crown, the citizens of the United States almost uniformally believe that if you invade another person's home with criminal intent, you have forfeited many of your rights, including the right not to be shot at. This paradigm is intended to actively dissuade people from chosing to invade persons' homes with criminal intent. It works quite well.

As for the "kids killed..." question, it's not relevant to the discussion. Like the home invader fails to understand his moral responsibility, those responsible for failure to secure their weapons should bear the brunt of that failure. Tragic? Sure. Completely avoidable? Absolutely, with a little responsibility.

[fallenpegasus]

Fewer than accidentally drown in swimming pools and bathtubs.

Actual gun accidents involving children (as opposed to 17yo gangmember thugs shooting at each other) are down in the "struck by lightning" levels of risk.

Are you calling for a ban on bathtubs?

Re: Ha!

[wendor.livejournal.com]

Seems like you ALSO have only a partial version of the story.

Let's take your statements in order:

1. Martin did not have any history of "illegal weapons" at all. He did have his weapons license revoked, however, for improperly discharging his shotgun (the same one used in this shooting) when he fired at burglars who were attempting to run over his dogs with their car.
http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/2000/04/20/nmar20.html

2. Evidence now shows that he did indeed fire the first (and fatal) shot from the stairs, not from downstairs. (The QC told the jury that he "lain in wait" downstairs waiting for buglars)
http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/10/17/nmart17.xml

3. Both the forensic scientist for the Crown and Martin's defense agree that the first shot killed Barras, so Barras could hardly have been running or pleading for his life when shot. Also, all allegations of that nature are the testimony of Fearon....the other buglar in the case. (who has now admitted that they broke in to burgle the house....at trial he claimed to have "accidentally" broken in while trying to escape Matin's dogs....of course he had to climb a dike and a hedge to even get to the dogs)
http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/10/17/nmart17.xml

3. The jury felt that "lying in wait" downstairs and shooting the burglars was not "reasonable force". Not only has the evidence now shown that Martin was not lying in wait downstairs, two members of the jury have now stated that they were intimidated into voting for guilt....defense witnesses also claim to have been intimidated into not testifying.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/2000/04/22/nmart22.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/2000/04/27/nmar27.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/2000/04/28/nmar28.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/2000/04/30/nmart30.html

4. Martin's murder conviction was overturned on appeal and reduced to that very same manslaughter verdict.
http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/10/31/nmart31.xml

5. The appeals court did not reduce his sentence for murder. They overturned his muder convictiond and changed the verdict to manslaughter...then applied a sentence for manslaughter.
http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/10/31/nmart31.xml

[antonia-tiger.livejournal.com]

Thanks to folks for the detail on the story...

Modern English law doesn't actually have a crime called "burglary" (neither does it have felonies as a category), but it amounted to breaking into a house at night, so this incident would have been classed as a burglary.

The police certainly pay little attention to break-ins these days. And I don't think I've seen a live policeman this century...

[dougs.livejournal.com]

His appeal has now been turned down.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3010949.stm

[stighemmer.livejournal.com]

I come from Norway, which seems to be similar to the UK in this respect.

I person entering another persons house at night in Norway does _not_ give up the right not to be shot at. Just breaking and entering is not enough to assume _violet_ intent on behalf of the criminal. Of course, actual harm or threats will mean self-defence is justified.

I kind of like it that way, though I certainly understand the opposite point of view.