"Clayton E. Cramer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim Lambert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I don't believe any such expectation was placed on Martin. A jury of > > his peers, possessed of better knowledge of the facts than you or I > > decided that Martin's actions were not reasonable under the > > circumstances. Possibly the fact that he shot them in the back while > > they were fleeing had something to do with it.
> Doubtless. But I read in British papers of cases much less > egregious than the Martin case, where the resident gets convicted > because the burglar died. I suspect that those, like the Martin case, prabably have important details missing and will prove to be reasonable convictions. I believe that juries are unlikely to have much sympathy for burglars. In looking on the web for details on the Martin case I kept finding commentator after commentator who left out *every fact* that reflected badly on Martin. For instance: http://GlennReynolds.com#030509 I suspect that those stories will prove similar to British farmer Tony Martin is a political prisoner. He's currently serving a five-year sentence for shooting a burglar, and now he's been denied parole on the ground that he might be a danger to future burglars who break into his home: ... So why is Martin a political prisoner? Because self-defense is a threat to the political notion that the state enjoys a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. If your goal is a populace that is dependent on the government, then keeping it dependent on the authorities for even the most basic of necessities, personal safety, is an important step toward that goal. And people like Tony Martin are a threat to that program. That's why people who favor an overweening government, whether in other countries or this one, invariably oppose the right to self-defense. And it's why people who favor freedom should be appalled at the Tony Martin case. So why hasn't Amnesty International weighed in? > And again, Hill's book _Weapons Law_ claims that there is no lawful > use of an offensive weapon under British law. No, he doesn't claim that at all. I don't think that there is much point in rehashing our arguments on that point. http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/archive/ukdgu/hill.html if anyone wants to see what Hill actually says. -- Tim
