" I'd do it again, says killer farmer"

[RoeBear]

http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/PA_NEWPOLITICSMartinThur10Kille?source=

It sounds like a backlash has started:
"The farmer jailed for shooting dead a burglar who broke into his isolated home has declared that he would do the same thing again in similar circumstances.
Tony Martin was commenting after listeners to BBC Radio 4's Today programme gave their backing to the idea of legislation which would authorise home-owners to use any means to defend their property from intruders."

[the_acid_one]

1. A man jailed for defending his home...

...sickening.

I admire his conviction (not legally, duh!) however. Wish there was some way I could help him out.

[iverglas]

7. nice try

"A man jailed for defending his home..."

... but a falsehood nonetheless, of course.

The man was jailed for KILLING SOMEONE. When he killed the person he killed, he was NOT "defending his home".

As I expect anyone not born yesterday knows, and anyone not willing to tell falsehoods deliberately would acknowledge.

.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

13. whatever

"We all know you would rather serve a burglar tea and crumpets rather than hurt him/her"

I don't own tea. It nauseates me. And given that I feel pretty much the same way about breakfast, and especially sticky sweet greasy things for breakfast, it will come as no suprise to you that I haven't had a crumpet in about 35 years. So I guess you're dreaming in technicolour, about moi ... how flattering. (And that's the most flattering conclusion I can draw in return.)

Oh dear -- I hate to provide grist for Benchley's mill, don't I? -- but ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/martin/article/0,2763,214336,00.html

Bleak world of the loner who killed
Even Tony Martin's best friend describes him as 'weird'. Along with his apples, he nurtured deep-seated hatreds

... Many people in the Fen villages near Emneth in Norfolk believed the "weird" farmer to be harmless. But others, who had heard him espouse his hatred for burglars and what he would do with them if he caught them, had taken to giving Martin a wide berth.

Apart from thieves, Martin's pet hate was Gypsies. Norwich crown court heard that the farmer had talked of putting Gypsies in the middle of a field, surrounding it with barbed wire and machine gunning them. Fred Barras, the boy he killed, was both of these things: a Gypsy and a thief.

... To Martin, they were nothing but "light-fingered pykies" and "bastards". A committal hearing heard that he believed "Hitler was right" in his policies towards Gypsies. His views would have pleased his uncle by marriage, Andrew Fountaine, a founder of the National Front.

Martin was a regular visitor to Fountaine's home, at Narford Hall, near Swaffham, Norfolk, not far from Bleak House. It was here that the fascist leader organised regular Aryan summer camps, which prompted the Home Office on one occasion to refuse entry permission to a number of continental fascists.

There's more. It's a fun read.

Heavens to Betsy, this can't be the England of serfs and subjects we know so well, can it? --

Guns are part of the culture in the Norfolk area. Farmers use them every day and many local people keep them not just for hunting but protection. As one woman put it: "They wouldn't hesitate to use it." Here, there is an air of paranoia, a fear of the intruder.

Here's a whole bunch o' stuff:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/martin/0,2759,214318,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/martin/archive/0,3332,214319,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/martin/article/0,2763,796305,00.html

Martin's plea - that he opened fire in self-defence - stirred fierce public controversy after he was initially convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Last October, however, three appeal court judges accepted fresh evidence that he had been suffering from a paranoid personality disorder. The original conviction was quashed and his sentence subsequently reduced to five years for the manslaughter of 16-year-old Fred Barras and the wounding of his accomplice, Brendon Fearon, 30.

Can you guys really not find a single normal, decent human being to idolize, ever?

And how about even the actual facts?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/martin/article/0,2763,583540,00.html

There were two crucial issues at stake: where Martin was standing when he opened fire on the burglars with a Winchester pump action shotgun - which incidentally he claimed he had found - and his mental state at the time.

Martin's story is that he was in his bedroom when he was woken by the sound of the raiders breaking in. He said he fired from the rickety stairs into his breakfast room after a torch was shone into his eyes.

The prosecution accused Martin of lying. It said he was waiting for the burglars in the dark on the ground floor of his home and had effectively "executed" Barras. Forensic tests concluded that at least two of the shots must have been fired by Martin while he was downstairs. But Martin's position when he fired the first shot - the one which killed Barras - is vital.

Martin's defence took the "tactical" decision of going along with the theory that all the shots had been fired while downstairs, as its alternative was to have to explain why Martin had fired once from the stairs then pursued the raiders downstairs. Such a scenario did not fit with the idea of a terrified man trying to defend himself.

The jury didn't believe Martin. Do you?

Or do you just not care what he did or why he did it, and if that is the case is there some reason why anyone would give a crumpet about your opinion?

Civil discourse about public policy really just is not a matter of flinging one's personal preferences about. It normally involves offering fact and argument to explain and justify those preferences. I would welcome any effort on your part to do that.

.

[the_acid_one]

15. Oh that's just silly.

You know, as well as I that I didnt think the charge against him was was "Defense of home".

Yes, I know he was jailed for killing someone, but insofar as I have heard, he was jailed for killing someone who had just broken into his home. In my opinion, when someone violates your space to that degree they forfeit any rights they have. When criminals act like scavenging beasts I see no problem in treating them as such.

I'll shed no tears for theives. Being killed in the commission of a burglary is part of the risk. Allowing property owners to defend their property isnt going to be the catalyst that brings about the downfall of society.

Honestly, the only relevant fact I require is: Did these men break into Tony Martain's home with intent of stealing?
If yes, then that settles it.

Tony was weird? Dont care. Tony said he hates burglars? Dont care. Tony fired multiple times untill the remaining burglar was gone? Dont care. Tony might not have been "terrified"? Dont care.

You break into a house with intent to rob, you risk quick retribution at the hands of the resident.

While I dont think shooting people in the back over Ding Dong Ditch is the brightest idea, if someone has actually broken into your home it's far more then a game of "ding dong ditch"

[iverglas]

44. in your opinion ...

"In my opinion, when someone violates your space to that degree
they forfeit any rights they have."

In my opinion, the moon is made of green cheese.

Do you care?


Some things are matters of opinion. Some things are not.

If rights are "unalienable", as so many of you folks like to say at such length (and as your constitution says), how exactly does someone "forfeit" them?

You do know how definitions work, right?


"Tony was weird? Dont care. Tony said he hates burglars? Dont care.
Tony fired multiple times untill the remaining burglar was gone?
Dont care. Tony might not have been 'terrified'? Dont care."

You said it. Don't care. As in: "Kid was a burglar? Don't care." The difference is that mine reflects what those constitutions and suchlike say, and is relevant: right to life. Yours reflects personal preference, and is irrelevant.

Of course, whether Tony was a racist or anything else like that is not something that a jury should care about -- except to the extent that his previous racist statements and the like are useful in determining what his state of mind was at the time. And whether or not you care, his state of mind -- e.g., whether he was "terrified" -- happens to be relevant to the question of whether he had justification for what he did. Whether you care about that just isn't relevant to anything.


"You break into a house with intent to rob, you risk quick retribution
at the hands of the resident."

And as a statement of fact, that may well be.

Another statement of fact would be: shoot a burglar on sight, and you risk prosecution for assault or homicide.

.

[the_acid_one]

45. See, expressing opinions is fun.

In my opinion, the moon is made of green cheese.

Do you care?

Well if that was really your opinion, yes I would, and I would probably start a debate with you to try and figure out how you came to the conclusion that an astral body 250,000 miles from the nearest cow came to be made out of a dairy product. But we'll save that for later ;)

If rights are "unalienable", as so many of you folks like to say at such length (and as your constitution says), how exactly does someone "forfeit" them?

Because they're really not. The "unalienable" rights you mentioned are listed as "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". However, we take those rights away on a regular basis when someone is found guilty of a crime.

If you murder someone you can get the death penalty (life). If you steal, you can get prison time (liberty), and if sacrificing kittens to cernunnous makes you "happy" well you're shit out of luck, because you cant pursue happiness like that.

So, unalienable? Not really. Not in some circumstances.



You do know how definitions work, right?

I think I'm about as good with definitions as you are at understanding "exceptions". ;)


You said it. Don't care. As in: "Kid was a burglar? Don't care." The difference is that mine reflects what those constitutions and suchlike say, and is relevant: right to life. Yours reflects personal preference, and is irrelevant.

Mine is not just personal preferance. In some states my "opinion" is backed up by policy, if not written law. IE, Texas and South Carolina

( http://www.kc3.com/news/invade_home.htm )

So yes, in the Tony Martain case, my opinion is irrellevant. In South Carolina however, yours is irrellevant, as the AG apparently feels that when you invade someones home you are setting yourself up to be killed and thereby forfeit your "unalienable" right to life.

Or alternatively, if you're not killed, but caught and arrested and sentanced then you've forfeited your "unalienable" right to liberty. Even if you feel that burglary is covered under your "unalienable" right to the pursuit of happiness.


Whether you care about that just isn't relevant to anything.

Of course not, but then again. I never said it did. I am here to express my opinion and have discussions, not debate about whether or not those discussions are "relevant" to anything.

Do the opinions expressed on DU make a lick of differance to public figures? Probably not. But we post here anyways because we enjoy it. Pardon the wording but the "relevance" just isnt relevant. ;)


Another statement of fact would be: shoot a burglar on sight, and you risk prosecution for assault or homicide.

Your municiplaity may vary, no purchase required, see package for details.

[iverglas]

48. ah, those concepts

"Because they're really not. The 'unalienable' rights you mentioned are listed as 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'. However, we take those rights away on a regular basis when someone is found guilty of a crime."

No, we (including you) don't.

We do not take away people's rights. Regardless of what basis we use for our belief in rights (god-given, social contract, "natural", ...), we pretty much all agree that they cannot be taken away.

Not "may not be taken away". Cannot be taken away. That really IS what "unalienable" means.

What we *do* do is prevent people from exercising the rights they have.

When we put someone in prison for a serious offence, it is because we believe that we have justification for preventing them from exercising the right to liberty. We really do not "take away" their right to liberty, because we just can't do that.

When the Taliban ordered women not to venture out of their homes except on terms approved by the Taliban, it was preventing women from exercising their right to liberty. The Taliban really could not "take away" women's right to liberty. The Taliban just did not have the authority to do that. Women, as human beings, have rights that are not subject to Taliban giving or taking. It did violate that right -- what we usually call it when a person's rights are interfered with without justification.


"So, unalienable? Not really. Not in some circumstances."

So: wrong. Really. In all circumstances.


"Mine is not just personal preferance. In some states my "opinion" is backed up by policy, if not written law. IE, Texas and South Carolina"

Yup, and in Afghanistan, the Taliban's personal preference was backed up by their laws and policies.

Laws and policies that violate constitutional norms don't get to stay on the books -- at least, not after someone challenges them, and as long as the authorities vested with the power to interpret laws and constitutions do so in good faith.

Why, not so very long ago it was illegal in Alabama for people to marry people of different races. That was law. It was an unconstitutional law, in the US. But there it sat, being the law, until someone challenged it and the appropriate authority said that it was unconstitutional. The fact that it was unconstitutional did not, however, depend on that authority's say-so: it was unconstitutional before that authority said so, and the authority in question (the US Supreme Court) simply said it out loud. It is only that authority's say-so that can have the effect of making the law unenforceable, but whether a law is actually constitutional or not is, amazingly, a matter of opinion.

Some opinions on such questions are more worthwhile than others -- but the source of the opinion is of course not the determining factor (and any claim that it is, is of course simply ad personam argument).

So ...

"In South Carolina however, yours is irrellevant, as the AG apparently feels that when you invade someones home you are setting yourself up to be killed and thereby forfeit your "unalienable" right to life."

... my opinion on the constitutionality of a US state law that permitted burglars to be shot on sight would be irrelevant when the issue was the correct outcome of a case *under that law*, but *not* when the issue was whether or not the law itself was constitutional. My opinion on the latter issue might or might not be worthwhile, but that would be determined by the merits of the argument I presented in support of it.

"Do the opinions expressed on DU make a lick of differance to public figures? Probably not. But we post here anyways because we enjoy it. Pardon the wording but the 'relevance' just isnt relevant."

Certainly it isn't, to anyone who simply enjoys hearing him/herself speak. Or to anyone who enjoys reading other people's opinions without being given any reason why they might be worth adopting.

"I like blue."
"Blue is ugly."
"Is not."
"Is so."
"So's yer old man."

Not the sort of thing I spend my time on ...

.

[demsrule4life]

56. If it would make you feel any better

just think of it as a late term abortion.

[SmokingLoon]

2. Britain is repulsive

if they allow this type of thing to happen. Tony Martin is a hero.

[Buffler]

59. It is practically illegal to defend your home in England

So much so that a homeowner was forced to remove barbwire he put atop his fence to try and keep out burglars as his house was robbed several times. The reason he was forced to remove the barbwire?!?!?!

IT COULD POSSIBLY CAUSE HARM TO SOMEONE ATTEMPTING TO CLIMB HIS FENCE IN AN ATTEMPT TO ROB HIS HOME!!!

The barbwire was deemed dangerous to possible burglars!


I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP!!!

[iverglas]

61. of course you're not

... "making this up".

What you're doing (I assume) is reporting on some decision that could have been expected to be made, pursuant to some very old principles of the common law.

One such principle is that it is impermissible to set traps on one's property, and that one will be liable for harm caused to anyone injured by them, even trespassers.

(Actually, the duty is usually even higher than "don't set traps" -- even in the wild mid-west of the US of A:

Traditionally, no affirmative duty of care was owed to a trespasser; "the only duty of landowner to a trespasser was not to set traps for him." However, in the opinion of the court, trespassing is no longer a complete defense to negligence; "the status of trespasser ... is just one factor in the comparison of fault." As a result, "the modern common law of Illinois makes the landowner liable for a 'willful and wanton' injury to a trespasser."

http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/ip840333.html)

I also wouldn't be surprised if there were also, say, municipal bylaws prohibiting the use of barbed wire on residential properties ... whether in the UK or in the US.

People who know and understand the relevant facts might tend not to be surprised when they read things that involve such facts. I, for instance, wasn't surprised by this report at all, and would never have suggested that you were making it up!

.

[dfong63]

3. caution needed in both sides of this debate

one thing not mentioned in the article is that the proposed legislation could increase the danger to emergency personnel (police, firefighters) who sometimes risk being mistaken for intruders.

[Superfly]

4. Maybe they should announce themselves

before entering, as is, I thought, SOP for emergency personnel entering a dwelling....

"Police! We have a warrant"
"Pizza Hut! We have a large pepperoni!"

[CO Liberal]

5. Or They Could Just Get Shot In The Back

Like that kid who rang the wrong doorbell in Florida a few months ago....

[Superfly]

6. I don't understand your response....

I take it's just one more example of the hyperbole you tend to post?

[iverglas]

9. clarify, if you would

Perhaps if you will explain what it is about the response that you don't understand, someone will help.

You're not letting on that you don't know about the Boca Raton story too, are you??

Benchley recalls the Boca Raton story

slackmaster inexplicably challenges the Boca Raton story

iverglas ... once again ... provides all the information about the Boca Raton / doorbell / teenager shot in the back story that anyone could possibly want.

So now if *you* can explain this reference to "hyperbole" and let us know what information you may be lacking that would have made everything clear to you, who knows what you too might learn?

.

[Superfly]

10. "hyperbole"

"a statement exaggerated fancifully, through excitement, or for effect"

Clearly hyperbole.

[iverglas]

12. "clarify"

make clearer

Maybe if you work on that one, we'd have some notion of what you are referring to as "hyperbole". Surely you weren't -- and certainly you aren't still -- saying CO Liberal's statement of fact about what happened to a teenager in Boca Raton was "fanciful" or "exaggerated" ... but damned if I can figure out what else you might be saying.

Here's an aid for you.

The part of CO Liberal's post that I was referring to when I said "just one more example of the hyperbole you tend to post" was _______________________________.

All you need to do now is fill in the blank.

Of course, even if you do that, you won't have established that CO Liberal "tend"s to post hyperbole, or that whatever you're talking about is "one more" example of it ...

.

[CO Liberal]

16. I Didn't Exaggerate Anything, Superfly

That asshole in Florida shot an unarmed teenager in the back for ringing his doorbell. So where is the hyperbole?

Please don't make me put you back on ignore......

[Superfly]

18. NT

NT

[alwynsw]

14. Burglar + breaking into my home + dead burglar

It's a simple equation. I figure that anyone breaking into my home is not there to play cards. I believe he would be there to rob me and/or do physical harm to my wife or me.

I have no problem dispatching a burglar in my home. I prefer my 12 gauge for in home work, but my .45 will do nicely. Barring that, I have baseball and softball bats (leftovers from my wife's teaching days) and other blunt or sharp objects that will do the trick.

Martin did a good thing regardless of whether he was considered strange bby his neighbors.

One final thought: How can he be jailed for murder? "The farmer jailed for shooting dead a burglar who broke into his isolated home has declared that he would do the same thing again in similar circumstances." Abusing acorpse - maybe, but murder???

[Fescue4u]

17. What kind of society

persecutes the victim?

Absolutely shocking that Britain would prefer that this farmer die at the hands of a criminal, rather than kill the criminal.

Absolutely Astonishing.

[grayrace]

23. the Roma have been persecuted for thouasands of years

this court case actually shows the English have made lots of progress. If it had been a black theif in the south, and a white had shot him in the back. He might have gotten away with it. Would you want that?

[forgethell]

51. So a black man

has the right to be a burglar? Seems a little racist to me. Howabout if a black man shot a white burglar? Should the burglar be shot should be the question, not the color of his skin

[grayrace]

52. did i say that?

no, I didn't say a black man had a right to be a burgler. I'm saying that you wold let someone gt away with murder even after the criminal had surrendered was on his knees, WITH HIS BACK TURNED and begging for mercy.

[grayrace]

19. Martin shot an unarmed, fleeing, 16-year-old burglar in the back, while th

Martin shot an unarmed, fleeing, 16-year-old burglar in the back, while the burglar was begging for mercy, and left him to die. The jury decided that the shooting was not self-defence.

got that from this site

Deltoid

Also he makes the point that the survey was SELF-SELECTED, which would make it less valuable as a guage of public opinion then a well picked jury. And English juries I BELEIVE are probably pretty good.

[Superfly]

20. Wish I could say I had pity for that 16-year old

but I don't. Sorry.

[grayrace]

21. ya alot of people feel that way about the Roma

Nazis, communists, capitalists. They just wish all the Roma were somehow "gotten rid of". Point is, back turned, begging for mercy. It stopped being self-defense when the kid stopped being a threat.

[Superfly]

22. Sorry, no pity still.

The kid was a crook and he victimized an elderly man in his home. Sorry, can't feel a lick of pity for him.

[grayrace]

24. umm, maybe something happend to you recently I don't know about

From your posts it sounds like you're trying to argue something else.

[Superfly]

25. Nope, just trying to say that

the only pity I feel is for the man who had to do the shooting. Being a victim of a burglar is no walk in the park.

[grayrace]

26. Roma's have been kept in poverty by most European gov'ts for along time

if you feel no pity for a 16 year old that was killed for almost no reason then whatever. I think I'm going to terminate this pointless argument. Bit like banging my head against a brick wall.

[Superfly]

27. Yes, he was a poor, defensless CRIMINAL...

if you make that distinction, everything becomes clear.

[grayrace]

28. even criminals have rights, which is why there was case

and why the shooter was convicted. It crossed the line. He was not resisting an attack. The kid would have dropped whatever he had and waited for police if he had a gun held on him. HIS BACK WAS TURNED, HE WAS BEGGING FOR MERCY. I saw in the admin folder that you're a service member, didn't they give you rules to follow when fighting? I know my dad told me he had rules. You don't kill someone who is surrendering. Its against the law, its illegal, and immoral to most caring, feeling individuals.

[Superfly]

29. A person entering my home has suspended his/her rights

NT

[grayrace]

30. no they haven't and if you think that is a legal defense you're sadly

mistaken. Though there is a group that supports such things. The libertarians platform on property rights WOULD give you the right to kill/maim anyone on your property, as well as keep them as slaves.

[Superfly]

31. The last thing I am going to be worried about when

somebody breaks into my home (and it's happened with me inside) is the law. I am going to be worried, first and foremost with survival.

Therefore, anybody who enters my house with the intent of causing me or my family harm will be shot. And I am not going to wait around to find out what their intentions really are or if they armed or not.

[grayrace]

32. and so going to jail for mansluaghter is a good survival trait then?

there are quite a bit of deaths in jail. The law should be the first thing in your mind.

[Superfly]

33. Has it happened to you?

It happened to me twice, on the same weekend. I can most assuredly tell you tht the law was the farthest thing from my mind. Protecting my wife and family comes first, then my own safety.

I could give a shit what happens afterward, as long as my family is safe. Is that a hard concept for you to grasp?

[grayrace]

34. what happened to you?

and before you say that the gun saved your life. Do a project and tell me ALL your doors and windows were locked like they should be, also what you may have done to enourage crime. Did you flaunt what you had. Like setting your high-end equipment right in front of the window where EVERYONE can see it. Or leaving doors/windows unlocked regularly.

[Superfly]

35. Oh yeah, like a woman wearing a mini-skirt invites rape?

Get a clue, man.

[grayrace]

37. a lonely woman walking down a dead end alley with NO street lights in full

view of a gang of kids. Hey, just cus its a useful cliche, doesn't mean it can't happen atleast once. You know we were having this WONDERFUL discussion of Popper's Falsifiability theorem in GD that would really fit with this turn of the discussion.

[iverglas]

41. there's a difference

... between responsibility and blame. It's a distinction that USAmericans don't tend to be real familiar with. An opportunity for a good blamefest is seldom passed up.

When I was abducted and raped, and very narrowly (and cleverly) escaped being killed, I had been engaging in a risky behaviour. I bore some responsibility for what happened to me; I could have prevented it. However, I was not to blame for what happened to me; the person who committed the offences against me was to blame for that.

When someone walked into my house and stole my purse (twice in 6 months, same moron), I bore some responsibility because I'd walked in and gone upstairs briefly without locking the door. I could have prevented the theft. That doesn't mean I was to blame for it.

If I'd set my purse down in the middle of my driveway and left it there overnight and it was stolen, I'd bear rather a lot of responsibility for the loss. That doesn't mean that a crimnal offence, for which the thief was to blame, wasn't committed.

If I'd set my purse down in the middle of my driveway and then hidden in the bushes and waited for someone to walk onto my property and try to take it, and shot her, well, the person who was shot would indeed bear some responsibility for what happened to her, but I would be to blame for her death, and criminally liable for it.

Such complex concepts, eh?

.

[alwynsw]

55. Let's go hide all the good stuff so we won't lead a poor soul to crime?

What a load of manure!

It is not the fault of the victim in any crime. Poor judgement may be the fault of the criminal, but not the victim.

Are you saying that I deserve to lose my money simply because I leave it on my nightstand? Are you saying that rape is excusable because a woman wears what the 80's pop pshrinks called "Come f*ck me clothes"? That I deserve to have my new car stolen simply because I can't conceal it?

Sounds like a little double standard there.

[iverglas]

57. sounds like ...

... you (and a lot of other people) must be pretty determined to lose your stuff.

"Are you saying that I deserve to lose my money simply because I leave it on my nightstand?"

What evidentiary foundation do you have for this question? What basis do you have for holding someone up to public ridicule and contempt by suggesting (in clever question form) that he *was* saying this?

I'd say (hey -- in fact I said, but I see you didn't answer that one) that if I left my purse in the middle of my driveway overnight, there's a pretty damned good chance that it won't be there when I wake up. (And nobody at all said anything at all about leaving one's money on one's bedside table.)

Have I just said that I deserve to lose my purse if I leave it in my driveway overnight? I don't thiiiink so.

I've said that I should not be surprised if I lose my purse if I have left it in my driveway overnight. But hey, for all I know, *you* might say that I deserved to lose it; would you? Care to answer candidly?

Normal, decent people do not say that people *deserve* to be hurt or suffer loss when someone takes advantage of their own stupidity or carelessnesss or accidental failure to take precautions. They really don't even say that people deserve to be hurt or suffer loss when someone takes advantage of their own complete and utter foolhardy recklessness.

(And normal, decent people do not impugn other people's character by suggesting to the world that other people have done something that normal, decent people do not do.)

But normal, decent people also do not pretend to be shocked!! when they suffer a foreseeable loss that they could have prevented by taking reasonable precautions.

NO ONE has said ANYTHING about ANY CRIME being EXCUSABLE. And no one has said anything about someone who has committed a criminal offence not being assigned blame (and held accountable and liable) for the crime committed.

Use that dictionary. Look up "culpability". Look up "responsibility". Learn the difference. And stop pretending that anyone has assigned culpability -- blame -- when what s/he has done is raise the issue of responsibility -- the link in the causal chain forged by anyone who had an opportunity to prevent the chain of events from occurring.

The person who steals my purse from my driveway at 3 a.m. will be just as culpable as the person who steals it from the trunk of my locked car in broad daylight. And I will be no more culpable for the loss, but I will certainly be more responsible for it, and look a whole lot dumber if I am seen weeping and wailing about it.



***** And now I shall wait for someone to tell us (as we have oft been told here) how Amurrican citizens have a RESPONSIBILITY to carry arms to protect themselves, their womenfolk, their chillun and their stuff. (Where's jody when you need him?) You can imagine what I'll be asking. C'mon -- who'll have the guts to do it? *****

.

[Superfly]

58. You just answered your own question

"how Amurrican citizens have a RESPONSIBILITY to carry arms to protect themselves, their womenfolk, their chillun and their stuff."

Yes, I have a responsibility (as a loving husband, not as an Amurrican, thank you very much) to carry arms or to arm myself in an appropriate manner (a manner in which I, as an adult, will determine for myself) to protect all of the above.

[alwynsw]

49. What did Jeff Cooper say?

The consequences of not shooting are often far more severe than the consequences of shooting (an intruder/assailant)? paraphrased because I don't remember it verbatim - even after 3 weeks of Gunsite Raven Ranch.

[Buffler]

60. It is better

It is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

[iverglas]

39. welcome

I see someone nice already welcomed you in another forum, but allow me to be presumptuous and do the same. ;)

I see you can't receive PMs yet (I don't know when that kicks in), but I'll give it a shot another time.

First they came for the burglars, eh?

.

[grayrace]

40. hey hows it going

I actually register FOR THIS thread. got Roma as well as Irish blood, so I gotta "represent" as the kids say.

[iverglas]

42. yes ...

But the blood isn't outing in your spelling. "Gray"? Tsk!

And you just don't seem to have absorbed the Amurrican way of things. Roma in Europe, African-American in L.A. ... anybody can become President, or at least a multi-millionaire.

.

[grayrace]

43. born in N.C.

try an Irish/Roma/Souhtern accent that sounds wierd. And family gatherings like a mix between the Quiet Man and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Honestly I think all the BS helped to give me a more "scientific" view of things.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[grayrace]

47. ok philoosophy then if you prefer

maybe its a form of low-wage, no benefits, no social securiy, no public healtcare kind of slavery. Seems close enough for me to use the word.

[iverglas]

36. what I can confidently say is

"Wish I could say I had pity for that 16-year old but I don't. Sorry."

... (again) -- who cares?

You do understand the difference between personal preference and public policy, right?

(Let's take this step by step. Maybe you would just answer that question first.)

"The kid was a crook and he victimized an elderly man in his home.
Sorry, can't feel a lick of pity for him."

Allow me:

The woman was black. So what if the bus driver wouldn't let her on the bus? Black people have no claim to my sympathy, and no right to get on buses. I don't feel a lick of pity for her.

The couple was gay. So what if the government won't let them get married? Homosexuals have no claim to my sympathy, and no right to get married. I don't feel a lick of pity for them.

The kids were Muslims. So what if the other kids beat them up? Muslims have no claim to my sympathy, and no right to pray in the schoolyard. I don't feel a lick of pity for them.

The man was a gun-owner and he kept guns on his property. So what if those ATF agents shot first and asked questions later? Nobody has a right to own guns. I don't feel a lick of pity for him.


Now of course *I* don't think any of those things.

But some people do.

Do we care? Do we expect the legal outcomes of any of those situations to be determined by what those people think?

Well, I sure don't. I expect the legal outcomes of those situations to be determined according to the law, and I expect the law to be consistent with the constitution.

The constitution -- both yours and mine, and in the UK the European Convention on Human Rights and British statute law -- says that everyone has rights. EVERYONE. And the fact that everyone has THE RIGHT TO LIFE means that it must be illegal to kill people, intentionally, unless there is justification for doing so.

"She was black" is not justification for killing someone. "They were homosexual" is not justification for killing someone. "They were Muslims" is not justification for killing someone. "He owned guns" is not justification for killing someone.

And neither, whether you like it or not -- and under English law (and under any modern understanding of fundamental, constitutional, human rights, regardless of what any of your provincial little laws may say) -- is "he was a burglar".

That is fact.

Your preference -- your personal opinion that it is just fine, it is perfectly justifiable, to kill burglars -- is also a fact. It just happens to be one that is irrelevant to the issue of whether someone who kills a burglar without the justification that is required by the law (and constitution) has committed culpable homicide.

(If we were talking Texas, *my* opinion that shooting a burglar is unjustified would be irrelevant to the outcome of the case, unless and until people there smarten up and join the rest of the civilized world in recognizing that the right to life prevails over property interests. My opinion would be about what the law should be under the US constitution as it now stands, of course, and that isn't quite as irrelevant as an opinion that is in complete conflict with both the law and the principles that govern that law.)

Your personal opinion may be a matter of fascination for you, and of some interest to others, when the discussion is about personal opinions -- say, of what the law should be (under the existing constitution) or what the constitution should guarantee (if you think it should not guarantee what it does now).

But when the issue is how the law as it stands applies to an actual fact situation, your personal opinion about what the law should be, or what the constitution should guarantee ... or who's a good guy and who isn't ... just is not relevant.

It would be nice if, occasionally, you would recognize that this here is not the Jerry Springer show, and that a contribution to a discussion that consists of nothing more than "my opinion! my opinion! my opinion!" is nothing more than tediously pointless.

If you think that your opinion should be made law -- that English farmers, and farmers everywhere, should be entitled to shoot burglars on sight without risking prosecution -- then I'll ask you the same question I ask the anti-choicers who think that they should be entitled to compel women to endure pregnancies/deliveries/parenthoods that they do not want.

How's it gonna work?

If you were permitted to shoot a burglar on sight, why exactly would I not be permitted to drown someone carrying a concealed weapon on sight? Or a KKK member not be permitted to strangle a black person on sight? Or Fred Phelps not permitted to beat a gay man to death on sight?

The burglar is putting your property at risk? Well, Muslims praying in the schoolyard are putting someone's kids' eternal souls at risk. Surely your property is not more valuable than their eternal souls.

It's the old old problem. Whenever you propose to make it lawful to treat someone else as if s/he does not have rights, there's gonna be someone proposing to do the same to you.

Of course, if you're a securely employed, able-bodied, English-speaking, more-or-less Christian, heterosexual white guy with a gun, you probably don't have to worry too much about that happening, eh?

(typos edited)

.

[grayrace]

38. great lengthy post

now fit in the part were libertarians actually WANT that to be public policy. Where they can do anything to anyone on THEIR property. Thats my fav argument to make.

[RoeBear]

53. "The burglar is putting your property at risk?"

Do you think burglars are only putting your property at risk?

That would be like saying rape is only about sex.

Burglars not only steal property they steal your right to fell secure in your home. They steal your right to sleep soundly.

It's not about the DVD player.

[iverglas]

54. so many stray words

"Burglars not only steal property they steal your right to fell secure in your home. They steal your right to sleep soundly."

Hmm. Is "theft of the right to sleep soundly" a capital offence in some US state I'm not familiar with?

And is sentence permitted to be passed and executed on the spot by the (alleged) victim, without bothering with one of those pesky trial thingies?

"Do you think burglars are only putting your property at risk?"

I don't take a purely Proudhon-ian ("property is theft") view of all private property.

The thief who broke into my car and stole a few dollars a few years ago also left my car door open. When I went out to get into my car to drive to the other end of town in order to act as the representative of my party's candidate at an election polling station, I discovered what had happened. Had the car break-in taken place a few hours later, my battery would have been dead, and it might have taken me an hour to get where I was going. In that time, an election fraud might have taken place that I would not have been present to challenge. Or, in order to get to my post in time, I might have had to skip voting at my own local polling station. The car break-in, in that case, would have interfered in the democratic process.

The people who not infrequently steal the tulips from my garden are not just taking a few cents worth of flowers. They are stealing my labour -- the hours I (and the little neighbour girls) spent in the rain and cold planting bulbs. They are diminishing not only my property and my quality of life, but the quality of life of everyone on my neighbourhood block, which I try hard to improve by greening the little space available. The theft of my tulips is an offence against my community.

And those are all things that can be taken into account if the person who committed the offence is sentenced for it, just as is the loss of a victim's feeling of security in his/her home.

They are not justifications for homicide.

.

[YNGW]

50. Good for him.

I figure anyone who decides they're going to break into someone's home has already determined in his/her mind that's there's a chance they could die by carrying out the act. If they aren't willing to take the chance that they may get killed by breaking into a home, then they should strongly reconsider not breaking in.