From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Ignoring the usual rhetoric of under funded policing, useless goverment,
> totalitarianism, anti-democratic establishments and society sinking into
> its usual pit of depravity there is still the massive assumption
> being made
> that Martin actually did act in self defence. Never mind the USA - do
> members of Cybershooters actually believe that Martin should not have been
> tried for the killing of a burglar on his premises? That is, or was, the
> issue here and the answers that seem to be coming back from this question
> are worrying.
Firstly, I would like to say that I have checked the majority of posts on
this topic and have yet to find a single one which advocates the release of
Mr Martin without trial. Secondly, there is more than one way of
interpreting 'self defence'. In many cases, it can be taken to mean
defending oneself when physically attacked (i.e. after the instigator of the
attack has struck the first blow). However, I imagine most people would not
wish to wait until they'd been stabbed or shot or beaten up before they hit
back (see the case of the man who was stabbed in the neck and stomach with a
screwdriver - if he had killed the burglar before the burglar stabbed him,
would it have been self defence or murder?)! I would rather get the first
punch in and walk away alive, thanks very much. I don't think that it's a
massive assumption that Martin shot in self defence, unless you believe that
the only valid definition of self defence is defending oneself when
physically attacked. I would like to have the right to defend myself from
the *threat* of violence, rather than waiting to be attacked.
Lastly, I don't believe that Martin being released *without trial* was ever
an issue on Cybershooters until you mentioned it yourself!
> To condone a system in which any member of the public can kill any other
> member of the public then simply claim self defence and in no way be held
> answerable in law or show any moral or legal responsibility for
> this action
> is also disgusting and decadent. I have no issue with the self defence
> anngle - what I do have issue with is the prima facie presumption that
> Martin killed in self defence without any sort of public hearing
> to confirm
> this. That hearing happened, the jury heard the facts of the case, and
> found Martin guilty of killing unlawfully. Unless you were a member of the
> jury, or have read a full transcript of the case I cannot see how anyone
> else can offer alternative judgements on _this_ case.
Judgement, no. Opinion, yes. Do we no longer live in a free country, that we
may not express opinion? One of the greatest things about Cybershooters is
that it is a forum for free expression. I would be terribly disappointed if
anyone sought to advocate the suppression of the opinions of individuals...
Mr Francis, lots of people disagree with your views. On the other hand, many
agree with you. Why do you constantly seek to silence those who oppose you?
You're like some kind of one-man Labour party. Sure, I disagree with a lot
of what you say, but that doesn't compromise its validity as an opinion.
Neither does it grant me the right to be patronising and aggressive toward
you, as you have been to those with whom you disagree.
I am fully aware that certain individuals may be encouraging you. However,
if your outrage at being dubbed a 'student' is anything to go by, you're old
enough to know better. (note to Cybershooters: this was from an off-list
discussion)
> Time and time again I see this on Cybershooters (and elsewhere). I see no
> particular interest in this case for shooters
Quite aside from the fact that the case is about a shooting incident?
Considering that it's the biggest news story in the country at present and
at least 260,000 Sun readers have a 'particular interest' in it, why
shouldn't shooters?
> so the only conclusion I can
> draw is that shooters who post to this list take an interest from
> the 'self
> defence' angle. This is a dangerous road to go down and it takes only a
> small leap of imagination to draw the conclusion that shooters also hold
> their firearms for the purposes of killing people, dressed up as self
> defence, to fulfill some weird fantasy about their version of a just and
> free society.
I am sadly aware that you have been accusing at least two Cybershooters
(including myself), off-list, of making sweeping generalisations and making
undue assumptions about people, and thereby 'ruin(ing) your credibility'
(your words). Why, then, do you persist in doing the same thing yourself?
You say 'the only conclusion I can draw'...are you really so incapable of
thinking laterally that the above really is the ONLY conclusion you can
draw? Why the hell shouldn't we expect to live in a just and free society?
Is it a 'weird fantasy' to wish never to be burgled, raped, persecuted,
victimised, etc.? It may take you 'only a small leap of imagination' to come
to the very bizarre conclusion you detail above, but hundreds of thousands
of your fellow countrymen, whether they are shooters or not, are demanding
the right to self defence. I shouldn't imagine that they are all calling for
this simply so that they can all go out and randomly kill people.
> I'll also have to remind myself in the future that if ever I get into
> trouble, and need help, in the outback of this country lets hope that I do
> not bang too hard on the wrong door of a farmhouse, appear too unshaven to
> be a legitimate caller, or maybe just drive the wrong type of car into the
> farmyard. After all it may be one of you guys inside with your guns ready
> just waiting to demonstrate your right to what you can later call self
> defence.
Whilst you accuse others of treading on dangerous ground, I would like to
point out that you do the same thing yourself. Furthermore, your style of
writing is one of the most aggressive (needlessly so) on Cybershooters,
especially when challenged. I would be more worried about venturing onto
your property than you should be about venturing onto mine! You have moved
from mere debate into unfounded accusation, and I find this worrying. If you
knock on my door, no matter how loud, I'll answer it. But if you smash my
window in the middle of the night and enter my house for whatever reason you
might see fit, I might just be tempted to attack you before you get the
chance to kill me, rape me, beat me senseless, or whatever you are planning.
But I'm not psychic, and I can't guess whether or not an intruder means me
harm. Better safe than sorry? I've been sorry more than once. Believe me,
I'd rather be safe.
I am deeply saddened by the way you persist in twisting other people's words
to the extreme and then having a go at them for something they didn't say.
I'm sure you'll have great fun misinterpreting this entire post.
Kate Cormack
-------[Cybershooters contacts]--------
Editor: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Website & subscription info: www.cybershooters.org
