While the sins of the father are most definitely not the sins of the son, they do provide evidence, in combination with the sins of the son and grandmother, of a family with a questionable lifestyle.
Perhaps. It may be that their lives of crime were due to external reasons, such as lack of jobs, prejudice against gypsies, etc., or it may not. But the point is, whatever their "questionable lifestyle" may have been or may still be, it still isn't right to summarily execute any one of them. Vigilante justice is not justice.
The Independent seems clear that they were shot on their way in the window
Uh, read http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=102391 again. I quote: "Fearon turned and shone his torch, spotting Martin, 55, seconds before he heard a loud bang and Barras shout: "He has got me. I am sorry. Please don't. Mum." Barras had been hit in the back." I also quote "The prosecution insisted he had been lying in wait" which the forensic evidence does suggest is true (there's been a *lot* of coverage about this). After shooting Barras, he continued to search for the burglars. Re-read the article again.
and that, rather than for "shooting at people for no reason the instant they stepped on his property," Martin lost his shotgun license because he fired at thieves stealing apples from his yard.
As you can see from the first Guardian article cited above, there were plenty of other times Martin had discharged his gun(s) inappropriately. Besides, it is it really okay to shoot at people for *taking apples*?
They also reported at the time that not all judges looked at similar cases with similar minds.
Nor would I. I don't know enough about the case you just cited to make a judgement, or about any other similar case; I don't think they can all be tarred with the same brush. I expect that I would have no qualms defending someone who defended themselves in many other cases, and in general I'm for the ability for one to defend thrmselves. I am not, however, on the side of Tony Martin because I don't believe he was acting out of self-defence.
Something tells me that this debate is not solely about Tony Martin. So, what *is* it about? From other posts in this discussion I wonder if it's about guns in general, or possibly the limits of gun ownership and the amount of control over them in the UK, or the fights between the pro and anti gun lobbies in the US; is that it? If any of that is true, then that's an entirely different discussion, one which it sounds like you'd be very surprised of my opinions on it.
no subject
Perhaps. It may be that their lives of crime were due to external reasons, such as lack of jobs, prejudice against gypsies, etc., or it may not. But the point is, whatever their "questionable lifestyle" may have been or may still be, it still isn't right to summarily execute any one of them. Vigilante justice is not justice.
The Independent seems clear that they were shot on their way in the window
Uh, read http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=102391 again. I quote: "Fearon turned and shone his torch, spotting Martin, 55, seconds before he heard a loud bang and Barras shout: "He has got me. I am sorry. Please don't. Mum." Barras had been hit in the back." I also quote "The prosecution insisted he had been lying in wait" which the forensic evidence does suggest is true (there's been a *lot* of coverage about this). After shooting Barras, he continued to search for the burglars. Re-read the article again.
that Martin was not new to being burglarized
It is debatable on whether he was burglarised before. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/martin/article/0,2763,214336,00.html. I would recommend reading http://www.guardian.co.uk/martin/article/0,2763,214334,00.html as well.
and that, rather than for "shooting at people for no reason the instant they stepped on his property," Martin lost his shotgun license because he fired at thieves stealing apples from his yard.
As you can see from the first Guardian article cited above, there were plenty of other times Martin had discharged his gun(s) inappropriately. Besides, it is it really okay to shoot at people for *taking apples*?
They also reported at the time that not all judges looked at similar cases with similar minds.
Nor would I. I don't know enough about the case you just cited to make a judgement, or about any other similar case; I don't think they can all be tarred with the same brush. I expect that I would have no qualms defending someone who defended themselves in many other cases, and in general I'm for the ability for one to defend thrmselves. I am not, however, on the side of Tony Martin because I don't believe he was acting out of self-defence.
Something tells me that this debate is not solely about Tony Martin. So, what *is* it about? From other posts in this discussion I wonder if it's about guns in general, or possibly the limits of gun ownership and the amount of control over them in the UK, or the fights between the pro and anti gun lobbies in the US; is that it? If any of that is true, then that's an entirely different discussion, one which it sounds like you'd be very surprised of my opinions on it.