Kesper North (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
kespernorth) wrote2002-05-23 02:58 pm
kespernorth) wrote2002-05-23 02:58 pm
On Europe
Now, I must admit I'm a big fan of Europe.
But this whole self-defense thing...
If a burglar breaks into my home, and I am not permitted to thrash him within an inch of his life for daring to tread upon my sacrosanct territory, I shall be very cross.
I am not psychologically capable of standing by and letting someone try to kill me or my loved ones, or perpetrate other such violent crimes, if I know it's going on. It's just not going to happen.
It is not right to send someone to jail for trying to defend themselves, their home, or their loved ones. I don't see how one is supposed to stand blithely by and just let it happen.
I do not understand what made the Europeans -- the British especially -- have such an ass-backwards ideas about self-defense. "Oh, sure, Mister Serial Killer, you're welcome to castrate me and choke me with my own testicles while I wait for the police to arrive; after all, it simply wouldn't be sporting if I defended myself! Why, I should go to jail for even thinking about it! Oh, dear, terribly sorry, did you break a nail? Here, let me get a file for that for you; can I lick your boots while I'm at it? I'm sure we'll have plenty of time, the police are unionized and probably having a nice cup of coffee..."
What the fuck do they expect? That offering your would-be killer a nice cup of tea will solve everything? For fuck's sake, people.
But this whole self-defense thing...
If a burglar breaks into my home, and I am not permitted to thrash him within an inch of his life for daring to tread upon my sacrosanct territory, I shall be very cross.
I am not psychologically capable of standing by and letting someone try to kill me or my loved ones, or perpetrate other such violent crimes, if I know it's going on. It's just not going to happen.
It is not right to send someone to jail for trying to defend themselves, their home, or their loved ones. I don't see how one is supposed to stand blithely by and just let it happen.
I do not understand what made the Europeans -- the British especially -- have such an ass-backwards ideas about self-defense. "Oh, sure, Mister Serial Killer, you're welcome to castrate me and choke me with my own testicles while I wait for the police to arrive; after all, it simply wouldn't be sporting if I defended myself! Why, I should go to jail for even thinking about it! Oh, dear, terribly sorry, did you break a nail? Here, let me get a file for that for you; can I lick your boots while I'm at it? I'm sure we'll have plenty of time, the police are unionized and probably having a nice cup of coffee..."
What the fuck do they expect? That offering your would-be killer a nice cup of tea will solve everything? For fuck's sake, people.
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.