in a country with the "gold standard" of gun control law.
-~-
In 1999 Tony Martin, a 55-year-old Norfolk farmer living alone in a shabby farmhouse, awakened to the sound of breaking glass as two burglars, both with long criminal records, burst into his home. He had been robbed six times before, and his village, like 70 percent of rural English communities, had no police presence. He sneaked downstairs with a shotgun and shot at the intruders. Martin received life in prison for killing one burglar, 10 years for wounding the second, and a year for having an unregistered shotgun. The wounded burglar, having served 18 months of a three-year sentence, is now free and has been granted £5,000 of legal assistance to sue Martin.
-~-
I did read about the case as it happened, back in 1999. It was quite an issue, I recall. I did not know the outcome of the case, but now I do.
Am I the only one who sees a gross miscarriage of justice? How can the citizens of that country (UK) stand by and allow such a thing to happen?
Why aren't there mass protests to set him free? Can anyone who lived in the UK in 1999 help answer that question?
Possessing the means of self protection is dangerous, but completely giving up the right to do so and leaving it in the hands of the police isn't much better or smarter. The police aren't there 24 hours a day to hold your hand, and in the end, you can only rely on yourself. Think about it, it's not like the police are going to be there when you get robbed - the robber will just bide his time and wait for another day.
6 comments:
The man killed an unarmed 16 year old boy. He shot him in the back.
His sentence was appealed, and taken down to 5 years, for the manslaughter. I don't see a gross miscarriage of justice here. The defence submitted evidence that Martin suffered paranoid personality disorder specifically directed at anyone intruding into his home.
Martin was released in 2003 on good behavior. He wasn't allowed parole because he said he would do exactly the same thing again if faced with the same circumstances. (i.e. shoot people for stealing furniture).
Martin has since gotten into politics, and has been quoted as saying "There are things that want doing today, right now. A dictator is the way to go. For instance, we must keep out of Europe. We are a unique island people"
there was a gross miscarriage of justice in that he was originally sentenced to life imprisonment while the (surviving) burglars got off much lighter.
i will admit the information i provided was as biased as possible to one point of view without being factually wrong.
we could also justifiably present the information as you have "shooting a fleeing, unarmed, boy, in the back", which would have been perfectly correct.
but put yourself in his shoes for a moment.
you do not know your attacker's age. you do not know if he is unarmed (maybe he has a pistol?). you do not know if he is fleeing, or merely drawing you out into the open where his comrades can circle round, ambush and kill you. you don't even know how many there are.
you must never, ever assume that because you don't see a weapon, that there isn't one. you don't assume that because you only see 3 attackers, there isn't a 4th and 5th waiting in the shadows. you don't assume that because they ran away, they won't be back in the next 20 minutes to finish the job.
i made those mistakes. i have never walked the street the same way again. and in a sense, i am grateful for the enchanced sense of danger i have.
if i believe my life is in danger and i am outnumbered, my only chance of survival is to immediately disable or if necessary kill the closest assailants as quickly and efficiently as possible.
it could easily have been robbers with weapons and the intent to kill. nobody knows. when the stakes are as high as this, i would have to say the end justifies the means. the fact is, regardless of whether you, me, or the courts think he's right or wrong, he is alive today.
it is possible that a few of the ones who made the wrong choices, aren't alive to tell us how much they support gun control laws.
*thanks for your post anonymous*
well shooting an unarmed 16 year old fleeing - in a sense Mark is right. You can't tell the number, the danger or the intention of the intruders.
Personally though, I feel I am missing a lot of information on the case. For example, how many shots were fired? Was it possible he did realise that it was an unarmed fleeing 16 year old? In what state was the boy shot? Was he running away from the house? Was he still in the house? Did the boys attack? Did he call out a warning?
Too much information missing. But generally if your house is being broken into and you fire into the dark, life sentence is a miscarriage of justice. (Of course in the UK vandalism is a common thing and most people breaking in are juvenile delinquents - though you wouldn't know for certain it's not Jack the Ripper who climbed through your window. In Malaysia breaking ins are often by foreign workers or drug addicts whom many do not have qualms killing, raping or hurting - hence the possible difference of view)
You're right vepser.
It is an terrifying cirucmstance to wake up in the middle of the night and hear someone breaking in. Not knowing if they're armed or how many there are, their intentions or anything.
Interesting choice of words "when the stakes are as high as this". It really comes down to judgement. Whether you really believe your life is in danger. His defence had to convince the court that he had a paranoid personality disorder which made him see more of a threat there than was justified.
To me... the fundamental question here is, was this a legitimate display of self-defence? It does not sound like this farmer dude was in fear of his life so much as protecting his property; additionally, shooting to kill is, as I see it, an excessive use of force in this situation (he could have easily fired a shot into the air or threatened the burglars without shooting them)- thus I find this to NOT be a legitimate display of self-defence. Thus, manslaughter is an appropriate sentence.
The other fundamental question here is whether we accept vigilante justice as a legitimate part of modern-day civilised society. Vigilantes may indeed cause adequate punishment to be meted out in situations where it is justified and where the police and judicial systems cannot or will not act (a good example is in the case of rapists- less than 5% are convicted). However their idea of justice and who deserves which punishment is, essentially, easily called into question. Do we really want to live in a society where justice is arbitrarily meted out, where generational feuds dominate our families and where no-one examines the evidence?
There are arguments for and against, really. I think vigilante justice makes MUCH more sense in small communities where everyone knows everyone and it's obvious what the circumstances are (though clearly you'd still find examples like the Salem Witch Trials where people are being burnt at the stake for being slightly different). In modern-day society, however, I do not know that there is that much of a place for it.
Hehe. The funny thing of course is that vigilante justice occurs every day in one way or another. People get the crap beaten out of them for being assholes all the time ;).
Oh, and BTW, my personal opinion wavers when it comes to vigilante justice. Sometimes I'm for, sometimes against. Depends on my mood :). I think the farmer was wrong, but that sometimes there are examples where the vigilantes are right.
Post a Comment