The Guardian, Britain's leading left wing newspaper, unrepentent mouthpiece of soclialist "Old Labour" is now signing up readers to send e-mails to Clark County, Ohio. I have no idea where Clark County is. But this is hysterical. Best of all is the letter of Professor Richard Dawkins: "Tony Martin thinking" -- first off, most Americans have no clue who Tony Martin is. Maybe (like me) they are reminded thatnks to the helpful bracketed language added by the Guardian -- Martin is an old man who finds himself face to face in his house with two career criminals, he shots one of them dead, and he ends up in jail. Australian blogger Tim Blair is countering with "Operation Guardian". He is calling on people to adopt a Guardian writer or editor and send them e-mails. Clark County Board of Elections Chair Linda Rosicka had this to say:
This is excellent news for the President, who in recent days had been looking a little wobbly in Ohio. But there's nothing like a barrage of mail from condescending Guardian readers to send the locals stampeding into the Bush camp. If the editor of the Guardian's up for it, fifty quid says Bush will win a higher proportion of the vote in Clark County on November 2 than he did last time. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...1902.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/10/19/ixop.html
As an atheist, I must also remind people of Dawkins being the insufferable proponent of dropping the term "atheists" and changing it to 'brights." I'm not kidding. At least our insufferable liberals in America stay isolated, more or less, in their limousines and their compounds in Santa Barbara. In England, they make them Oxford Dons and knights.
Maybe I missed it, but why choose Clark county? I am pretty sure they usually always vote Democrat anyway. I'm from Champaign county, just to the north of Clark and the people around there usually either work in machine shops around dayton, factory positions in (oddly enough) non-union plants, or farmers. For the most part they lead conservative lives, but vote Democrat anyway.
Just on a matter of fact... Tony Martin was in his mid-fifties at the time, i.e. about 5 years older than I am, so he wasn't 'old' as you call him -well, as far as I'm concerned, anyway. His old semi-derelict farm-house had been broken into on several occasions. He went onto a local radio phone-in about crime and threatened to kill anyone who broke into his house again. Some time later 2 people broke in and he was waiting with his shot-gun. He blasted 16 year-old Fred Barras in the back as the boy tried to run away. Martin is a certifable loony-tune and was rightly locked up for some well-earned 'porridge' - that's prison time for you guys - of about 3 years. As a matter of interest he had also started blasting away at a car which was on his property completely innocently a few years before. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/norfolk/3009769.stm 'he had set up an elaborate network of look-out ladders and traps, even removing a stair to hinder intruders.' The guy's a nutcase.
I am sorry, but I have no sympathy for two career criminals who broke and entered into another person's house. I say this as someone who has never owned a gun, never will own a gun, and who last fired a gun over 10 years ago.
Second that, except for the part about last firing 10 years ago (make it 8 for me ) However, from an "American" point of view, Martin did deserve to go to jail -- just not for murder. The gun he used was illegal. Also, as to him being a nut-job --- I would love to see anyone not loose a couple marbles after getting "burgled" off-and-on over the last several years. I have never been robbed at gun-point, or knife-point, in the states. However, while in Russia, I was burgled; trust me, it was a pretty dramatic experience. Does this statement make anyone else sick to their stomachs?
Hey, if someone broke into my house and I had a gun, (not likely), it would only be a small matter that they were actually awake when I blast them... I'm just saying it's important to get the facts. The truth is that loonies like Martin are almost as likely to start shooting at you or I as these guys and we can't have these people running around loose. If he hadn't gone to prison then every nut-job in the country will think it's open season on anyone they don't like the look of. Years ago I used to go around delivering gates and fencing to some very fashionable neighbourhoods in and around London and found myself on more than one occasion being chased by dogs which had been let loose by some fruit-loop thinking I was a burglar when I was only delivering their fencing panels and posts... think what would have happened if they'd been armed.
And now, every burglar knows that they have the law on their side. It's bad all around when you punish a guy for defending himself like that. Now, about that guy who shot a someone ringing his doorbell on Halloweeen......
Saying that burglars now have 'the law on their side' is ridiculous. The point is that, if someone sets out specifically to murder someone with an illegal weapon regardless of who their intended victim is and what they're doing - you mention the case of the ringing the doorbell - that is wrong. In any case we are calling the burglar a criminal, well what about someone trying to kill someone ringing a doorbell on halloween or me delivering gates and fencing. That seems to imply we want to be 'soft on murderers'. The point is that we can't legislate on the basis that people will always be entirely rational because sometimes they won't - Martin's an example of that. We have to legislate and say, if someone breaks in and you are genuinely defending yourself and kill them, so be it... but if you set out to kill someone REGARDLESS of the circumstances then YOU'RE a criminal as well. The alternative is that some nutcase will think it's OK to get a gun and shoot people almost just because you don't like them. I can envisage a situation where someone may not like their neighbour and asks them to come round and then shoots them. The law has to be able to act when it thinks there is something wrong. Actually, again on a matter of fact rather than opinion, Martin's conviction for murder was overturned and reduced to one of manslaughter by the court of appeal and he has since been released.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1332041,00.html HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! What a long winded pile of dung.
Wait, so this guy shot two people who broke into his house after he had been repeatedly burgled? Sounds pretty cut and dry to me, nutcase or no. Sachin
I have argued this scenario over and over again with our neighbors across the sea. From what I've seen is a fundamental philosophy difference. In America, we will do anything to protect our family, lives, security, and property (usually in that order). When someone breaks into your home, all four of the above are threatened. Because of this, if a burgler is running away from me and a gun --- I will shoot him in the back to keep them from stealing my family's security in the future. I would imagine that someone from Britain would disagree, but I heard this from a police officer once:
The way I see it, if you enter onto my property with malicious intent, your life is forfeit to me. Sachin
I take the pre-emptive approach. I have a dog that barks at anything within 100 feet of my house. Very loud. (Of course that include squirrels feeding at 3 in the morning)
me too. there was a guy who lived across the street from me who looked like a burgler so to I shot him in his home so he would never have the chance to rob mine. Turns out it was Trevor Dion and I shot him in the ass. Couldn't sit for a month after that. We laugh about it now.
Well, that's a very interesting point, isn't it. When I was a kid my parents used to breed English Bull Terriers. We had 4 of them in our house for many months. During that period our attitude to whether we had left the back door or window open when we went out was strangely relaxed. I can't think why... This is the problem I have with nutters like Martin. There are many ways a rational person could find to avoid being broken into. As you suggest, having a dog is one very simply and obvious one. Turning your house into a trap and going onto local radio saying, 'come un punk, make my day' isn't one of them. It was obvious to the jury and everyone else that Martin had set out to dispense his version of justice. As I've already indicated, if I was faced with a burglar in my home I would tend to shoot first and ask questions later if I were in any doubt, (although I don't think I would have shot them in the back as they ran away), but, In a civilised society, we can't have people deciding for themselves what punishment will be meted out to offenders. THAT'S the point. I'm not suggesting that anyone, (with the possible exception of Martin who is clearly a few pork-pies short of a picnic), should be too heavily criticised if they kill anyone when their home is being broken into - they should be given the benefit of the doubt - I agree with that. But, for example, should we be allowed to trap someone and then torture and eat them if they break into our homes? I mean, just how far are we going to take this argument?
There was a somewhat similar case about 10 years ago in Durham, and the defendant's name was Seagrove. (Don't let Mike see this. ). In his case, some kids broke into his garage while he was home, he chased them with a rifle. He killed a kid by hitting him in the back when the kid wasn't on his property anymore. What do you guys think the verdict should be? It's a tough call. On the one hand, I have a hard time working up sympathy for a bunch of punks who break into people's homes. OTOH, Seagrove hit a 13 or 14 year old kid in the back while the kid, unquestionably, was not threat. On the third hand, I'm really pissed at the parents of the ?4? kids for doing such a crap job of raising them.
Well, murder, obviously. Like I said, in a civilised society you can't have people making themselves judge, jury and executioner. Here's an interesting question for those that disagree though. I saw a woman on TV a few years ago whose son had been killed by a drunk driver. Understandably she was upet, not to say irrational, and she said that she was going to get a gun and kill the psrson that drove the car. The police had to give her an official warning IIRC. You see, that's the problem with people making their own minds up, isn't it. Who decides? If we want to have the death penalty for breaking and entering... or driving whilst drunk... then we can elect MP's, Presidents, etc, who will enact such a law we can vote for them but, in the absence of such a situation we can't have people deciding because some people are just not irrational. Actually, I think I can save us a lot of trouble. In answer to the question 'who's going to decide' the answer is obvious... ME.