----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Lambert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 5:51 PM Subject: Re: [inbox] Re: UK refrain "Better a victim than a defender be."
> "Clayton E. Cramer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> At 8:59 PM +1000 3/28/04, Tim Lambert wrote: > >> > >> >Here we go again. Just like in the Tony Martin case, the version of > >> >the story propgated by pro-gunners omits the facts that show that the > >> >killing was not done in self defence. Lindsay stabbed Swindells FOUR > >> >TIMES in the back while Swindells was fleeing. > > > > I think the bigger question is what the circumstances were surrounding this > > killing. There are circumstances where stabbing a person who is fleeing > > is clearly wrong, and perhaps this is such a case. I would not assume that > > this is always the case. Outnumbered four to one, at least one of whom > > had a gun, it might well have seemed appropriate to kill in order to reduce > > the number of those engaged in a tactical and temporary retreat. > > They has already fled his home. He could have slammed the door > instead of chasing Swindells down and killing him. The Scotsman article didn't provide this information. Instead, it said, "A man who stabbed to death an armed intruder at his home was jailed for eight years today. "Carl Lindsay, 25, answered a knock at his door in Salford, Greater Manchester, to find four men armed with a gun. "When the gang tried to rob him he grabbed a samurai sword and stabbed one of them, 37-year-old Stephen Swindells, four times." The Scotsman account was incomplete on the details and I would argue actually misleading in how it portrayed the circumstances. Although the account from This is Lancashire also suggests that the death took place while chasing the bad guys out of his flat. Do you have another source that indicates that the killing took place outside? > > Did the jury convict in this case because the actual circumstances > > of Swindells' death were criminal? Or because they were expressing > > disapproval of the victim's occupation as a drug dealer? > > Looks like the first one. So far, I haven't seen any news coverage that clearly states the first one. Can you provide such a source? > > > On March 24th, I posted the original version of what happened from > > the Scotsman on my blog at > > http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2004_03_21_archive.html#108015360613714145. > > Within a couple of days, I received additional information about the > > circumstances, and updated that entry with the additional > > information. > > > Mr. Lambert needs to be aware that not everyone who read the Scotsman's > > story saw other accounts. The Scotsman, of course, is the well-known > > pro-gun newspaper of Britain. :-) > > I made it quite clear that all the dozens of outraged bloggers were > relying on the account in the Scotsman. This account was ambiguous -- > you couldn't tell for sure whether it was self defence or not. But Ah, no. The Scotsman account might be incomplete, but to conclude that it was self-defense based on that account is not leaping to conclusions. > all these people leapt to the conclusion that it wasn't. That was my > point. The additional information did not contradict anything in > the Scotsman's story. Nor have I seen any information (except from you) that contradicts the Scotsman's story. Clayton E. Cramer [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
