Is Your Home Your Castle? Apparently Not In U.K.

Great Debates
81

I’ve posted similar stuff before, but since people keep referring to the Tony Martin case, let’s have the facts:

“Eccentric, outspoken, lonely, loony and highly strung: all words used by friends and neighbours to describe Tony Martin, the farmer convicted yesterday of the murder of a 16-year-old boy who broke into his isolated farmhouse one night last August.
Many people in the Fen villages near Emneth in Norfolk believed the “weird” farmer to be harmless. But others, who had heard him espouse his hatred for burglars and what he would do with them if he caught them, had taken to giving Martin a wide berth.
Apart from thieves, Martin’s pet hate was Gypsies. Norwich crown court heard that the farmer had talked of putting Gypsies in the middle of a field, surrounding it with barbed wire and machine gunning them. Fred Barras, the boy he killed, was both of these things: a Gypsy and a thief.”

“When the jury visited the house police were forced to clear sackloads of rubble from the floor, point out booby traps on the landing and cut back swaths of the dangerous hogweed plant just to make it safe. Martin and his three rottweilers, Otto, Bruno and Daniel, lived in the middle of this chaos.
Upstairs, antiques were locked away in two rooms while Martin fixed up a TV and a small lamp that burned 24 hours a day in another. It was here that he slept fully clothed, with his boots on and his well-oiled pump-action shotgun by his bedside. Waiting.”

"Despite claims by Martin’s friends and his mother that he hated shooting, he was involved in a number of incidents with guns. In June 1976, the farmer is alleged to have gone to a friend’s house in some distress and brandished a first world war revolver: a shot was fired and a pigeon killed. In December 1987 he had an argument at his brother’s house over some property. Martin is said to have got very upset and used a shotgun to smash windows.

In 1994 he had his shotgun certificate revoked after he found a man scrumping for apples in his orchard and shot a hole in the back of his vehicle. After the shooting of Fred Barras and Brendan Fearon, police recovered an old rusty shotgun from Martin’s garage: another gun he should not have had without a shotgun certificate."

“Tony Martin, the farmer jailed for life for shooting dead a teenage burglar, could be free within a year after his conviction was reduced from murder to manslaughter yesterday.
Three appeal court judges accepted new evidence that Martin was suffering from a paranoid personality disorder when he opened fire on raiders at his remote Norfolk farmhouse.
Martin’s conviction for murder was quashed and replaced by one of manslaughter on the ground of diminished responsibility.
His life sentence was reduced to five years, making him eligible for parole in 12 months.
But the judges said the jury which convicted him was “surely correct” to decide Martin had not acted reasonably when he shot at the burglars. There could be no justification for the farmer taking the law into his own hands.”

82

And?

This is just condescending twaddle and character assassination. What does proving that the guy was a pathetic old recluse have to do with whether he was justified in his claim of self-defense?

I bet his antiques included Hummel figurines and other hopelessly naff curios. Well, then, no sympathy for his right to be left alone in his reclusive ways, right?

Honestly, what do his slovenly-old-man housekeeping skills and otherwise sad life have to do with the legal issue? Oh, that’s right: they help convince us that he’s not like us and so doesn’t have a leg to stand out.

Nothing like the Guardian for smug urban superiority. But don’t they need to be telling Ohioans how to vote or something, instead of critiquing Tony Martin’s decor?

Newsflash: Avoiding breaking into a weird old recluse’s home is a great way to avoid being shot while breaking into a weird old recluse’s home, and it has the added benefit of saving you the horrors of exposure to the dangerous hogweed plant and “chaotic” living circumstances that were Tony Martin’s chosen (if squalid) way of life. Great thing about recluses, that: they generally don’t go out looking for trouble.

83

Identifing previous breaches of firearms legislation by somebody convicted of murder by shooting is ‘character assassination’? How?

Nothing. But apparently “shot the guy in the back as he ran away” still counts as self-defence for some people. Quite frankly, I wonder what somebody would have to do to not be considered a threat, using that logic. Spontaneously combust?

Quite apart from being an antique insult, give me a single example of them doing this.

Being a weird old recluse doesn’t mean you’re above the law.

84

[QUOTE=GorillaMan]
Identifing previous breaches of firearms legislation by somebody convicted of murder by shooting is ‘character assassination’? How?

[quote]

No. Making fun of his decor and squalid house is character assassination. Referring to his (rather lame) “firearms legislation” violations (he shot a pigeon! he broke a window with a shotgun butt! (not exactly a “firearms” crime in any real sense, but so be it)) is not irrelevant to his (possible) propensity to violence. His living alone with dogs and having a rubble-filled house (and by inference, being a ridiculous old rural buffoon) is irrelevant.

Hmm. What would they have to do to not be considered a threat to him in his home? That’s a poser. Hmm. Oh, wait, I know: **Not break into his f’ing home. ** Yep, that’d just about do it.

I realize that’s too much to ask of criminal scum, but perhaps, just perhaps, that is more the fault of those who choose “criminal scum” as their occupation than those who choose “recluse.”

Well, okay.

85

So are you arguing about the specific case, or about the law? Was he defending himself, or his property? That’s crucuial to deciding which law is relevant. And you seem content to muddle them.
And, errrrrrrr, that link you gave was of replies to letters sent by people who obtained addresses in Ohio from the Guardian, long after it had become a ‘big issue’. Not the evidence I asked for, by a long shot. (And yes, I followed the whole Guardian saga from day one, and every one of their articles is archived online, so you won’t have trouble finding what you described, will you?)

86

“Other than their having done this, please provide evidence of their doing this?” WTH?

In very recent memory (like, three or four months ago), they saw fit to advise the citizens of a state in a country not their own how to vote.

Thus I asserted. And thus I proved. My suggestion that they are presumptuous superior assjacks is thus as amply documented as it needs to be.

87

No, you have not demonstrated that the Guardian advised anyone how to vote.

What happened was:

  • They gave readers the opportunity to be supplied with a (legally-available) address of a non-affiliated Clark County voter, to do with as the wished
  • They gave each address once
  • They gave no instructions as to what to say, other than to say what you feel.

Prove me wrong.

The fact that most of the letters were pro-Kerry reflected not the newpaper’s editorial stance, but the opinions of the letter writers.

When replies to the letters were received, a selection were published.

When it became an internet-fuelled nightmare, the project was pulled.

It’s all there on their website, if you want to look.
(BTW, they kept the succinct “Oh, shit” headline for the day after the election.)

88

This is a non-debate. It is unarguable that they initiated a project the goal of which was to get non-U.S. citizens to offer their unsolicited opinions to U.S. citizens as to how to vote. I’ve never told a Brit how to vote and never would, but it’s unarguable that the Guardian thought that it, and its superior breed ofreaders, had some role to play in the Ohio voting, or might know better than Ohioans what was best for Ohio or the U.S. That is my definition of presumptuous ass-jackery.

It is also unarguable, in practical terms, that the Guardian was not agnostic as to how it wanted or believed its readers should advise Ohioans to vote. If you’re suggesting that they were neutral on the Bush/not-Bush issue, you have negative credibility.

What sort of worthless legalistic argument are you suggesting, then, that they are not presumptuous Bush-hating, election-butting-into assjacks because the Bush hatred and election-butting-into that they fomented (and very clearly intended to foment) was, at the coal face, effectuated by their equally assjack readers acting upon their incitement? Do you find this a convincing argument as to any point that matters in my earlier characterizations, i.e., as to whether the Guardian is, at base, presumptuous and superior? I don’t, and I doubt anyone else would.

If you want, I will broaden my accusation of presumptuous ass-jackery to include the Guardian readers who would think that telling Ohioans how to vote was or could be any of their business, and thus took up the gauntlet thrown down by the paper, as well as the Guardian staff who came up with the idea.

89

It’s an old debate. So my replies will be curt - we did this to death months ago, as did the entire internet.

And they did so arguing that the outcome of the US elections had great importance for many non-US citizens.

They did exactly what US politicians did, which was identify key areas and target them.

If you believe that all news outlets throughout the world are as absorbed with partisan influence as you suggest, then I’m very scared indeed. But no, being fully aware of such potential criticism, the original articles (which you clearly have not read) very obviously avoided any such suggestion.

If I find a sentence in this, I’ll tackle it. I’m working on it.

If you did, you’re waaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyy too late. And it wasn’t just Guardian readers who took part anyway. (Unless you have some Patriot-act-esque access to subscription data.)

90

According to the Supreme Court (Tenesee vs Garner)

A cop can’t shoot someone merely over a matter of property. I think we should hold citizens to the same standard.

91

Conversely, how valuable does something have to be for you to kill over it? Would you shoot someone trying to steal a stick of gum?

92

I certainly wouldn’t argue that it’s reasonably to shoot someone to prevent your property from being taken.

However, once someone is in your house, it is reasonable to assume that your life is in danger. People who are willing to break into homes that may be occupied are way out there on the criminal spectrum. It is totally reasonable to assume that if you confront the person, you may be killed.

Also, in the close quarters of a home, it’s suicide to wait until you see the gun, or to attempt a negotiation, unless you’re yelling at the guy from another floor. Things happen too fast.

As I said before, if a burglar enters my house and I hear him, my plan is to go rescue my daughter, hightail it back to our bedroom, lock the door, announce that we are there and armed, and wait for him to take whatever he’s going to take and leave.

However, if on my way to my daughter’s room I encounter the burglar, and he’s not running for the exit, I will shoot him without a second thought. If we make it back to the bedroom and he comes through the door, he’ll be met with a volley of lead.

It has nothing to do with property, and everything to do with protecting my family. And the burglar lost the benefit of the doubt the minute he entered my home.

93

Your repeated eagerness to portray events of October, 2004 as absolutely ancient and without relevance to the current slant, if any, of the Guaradian bespeaks a certain discomfort and desire to distance yourself from what was a deeply misguided act of meddling on the part of a paper that, I’m assuming, you admire.

Only difference being, that, um, the U.S. politicians “identify key areas” in jurisdicitions of which they’re citizens, and have a vote, and aren’t complete interlopers. Yeah, next election I’ll be focusing like a laser on preaching the Reykjavik suburbs and Irian Jaya – these folks need to hear my views!

Look, if a person finds himself (let us say) in a country so irrelevant that he’d rather direct his political nattering at the domestic politics of a relevant country not his own and 3500 miles away, I’d suggest his energy’s better spent in making his own country’s elections less of a non-event than in sticking his nose into others’ elections.

Er . . . no one said anything about “all news outlets throughout the world.” We’re talking about one particular outlet, which can’t by any conceivable notion be called favorably-disposed to Bush or editorially inclined to do anything but harm his campaign.

Often, in English, they begin with capital letters and end with periods or “full stops” as one might say. These are valuable tips, and I offer them gratis!

Now, back to the real issue I raised: What was the Guardian’s point in describing (or your point in quoting with apparent approval the description of) Mr. Martin’s reclusive old man persona, or his slovenly housekeeping? I suggested it was the kneejerk reaction of a condescending journalist who coulldn’t imagine anyone being such a weird old hick, and that this patronizing attitude arguably infected the entire analysis of Martin’s “crime.” Isn’t the first step toward marginalizing and discounting people to “other” them, in the language of the liberal? The Guardian quite clearly regarded Tony Martin as the Other, just as it and its readers viewed Ohioans as, at best, wayward children who needed some pointers from the land that brought us such triumphs of democratic maturity and cultural sophistication as David Blunkett, Peter Mandelson, and eating mushy peas while watching Corrie and humming Boyzone.

94

Gosh. :rolleyes:

Nothing. Why would you think that?
But if you read the articles, you’ll find:

  • In 1994 he had his shotgun certificate revoked after he found a man scrumping for apples in his orchard and shot a hole in the back of his vehicle.

  • After the shooting of Fred Barras and Brendan Fearon, police recovered an old rusty shotgun from Martin’s garage: another gun he should not have had without a shotgun certificate.

  • A committal hearing heard that he believed “Hitler was right” in his policies towards Gypsies.

  • Three appeal court judges accepted new evidence that Martin was suffering from a paranoid personality disorder when he opened fire on raiders at his remote Norfolk farmhouse.

  • But the judges said the jury which convicted him was “surely correct” to decide Martin had not acted reasonably when he shot at the burglars. There could be no justification for the farmer taking the law into his own hands.

So court reporting is ‘condescending twaddle’ to you, is it?

I don’t understand where you get these irrelevant notions from.
We all think burglars should be arrested and tried.
Apparently you think a man with illegal guns, suffering from a paranoid personality disorder, who already has fired on someone stealing apples and who then shoots an unarmed burglar in the back, is some sort of hero and an example to us all.

Well that may be how you think. Some of us have more tolerance.

Ah, another fine debating point. :rolleyes: If you don’t like the facts, make acusations about the messenger.

95

You’ll forgive me for editing out your irrelevant rant at the end, there.

The (long) article as a whole, rather than your selective quotation, is an attempt to portray Martin’s life, and the wider community in which he lives. Significantly:

Now, what was that about ‘otherness’?

96

Did, thanks much.

Right, and I conceded many posts back that the firearms violations (lame as a couple of them were) had some relevance. His sloppy house (featured in the portion of the article quoted), didn’t.

You’re reading this, right? My question was why his litter-strewn or his goofy antique collections had any relevance. I do question your apparent notion that a court could never be condescending itself, but as that’s not what I was ever talking about, we can skip that.

Right, that would be hard to understand, if I knew what “irrelevant notions” you were describing. Fortunately, they don’t exist, and I’ve strived long but in vain to find the slightest suggestion in my posts that Martin was a “hero or example to us all.” Instead, I’ve consistently characterized him as a weird old recluse. My only point has been that being a weird old recluse, having a naff, sloppy house, or even believing that gypsies may rob you (and then being robbed by a gypsy) are not highly relevant to the reasonableness of a person’s response to a home intruder, but the Guardian nonetheless saw fit to parade such evidence of Martin’s not-terribly-likable-or-enviable way of life before readers, with the “othering” effect I’ve suggested (and no, I don’t doubt there was “othering” all around in the community, but he’s the only member of the community who was on trial and facing prison).

Just as you might be surprised by the fact that (after criticizing how the Guardian ran its U.S. Presidential campaign), I don’t care for Mr. Bush, let me enlighten you (hey, why not, that’s what progressives do, as I learn from the Guardian) on my actual substantive views of the Martin event (which I’ve not expressed yet here, contrary to what you seem to think): I suspect that proving up a case under English law against Martin for what he did would be relatively straightforward, even uncontroversial (as a legal matter). It’s precisely because I believe he could have been convicted without the need for a lot of derogatory reflections on his backward character and eccentric housekeeping style that I questioned the motives of the Guardian (and the OP quoting the indicated portions) in portraying Martin as some benighted hillbilly with a trash-strewn house.

Well that may be how you think. Some of us have more tolerance.

Ah, another fine debating point. :rolleyes: If you don’t like the facts, make acusations about the messenger.
[/QUOTE]

97

But that Guardian article is intending to give some background. It doesn’t claim that his run-down house should or did have any bearing on legal proceedings.

Would you be equally scathing of a background article about a city businessman accused of fraud, which described his immaculate appearance and fabulous house? Would that be equally irrelevant?
And in any case, Martin’s loner status and hoarding instincts are relevant to the story, because they’re what made him such an attractive target to theives in the first place.

98

If I were his counsel, I’d certainly argue in court that it was irrelevant and inflammatory and meant to tar him as living lavishly off the fruits of his alleged peculation, and I might or might not succeed. I’d hope to do the same in the court of public opinion (didn’t Martha Stewart’s lawyers go to great lengths to portray her as a regular gal making cookies for staffers?). The relevance you suggest is lessened in Martin’s case because while the businessman’s lifestyle could be a direct result of spending his ill-gotten gains, no one really thinks that Martin’s failure to clean his house caused the shooting, or vice versa.

Can you re-phrase this? I’m assuming it’s nothing as crass as implying that some burglary victims are more understandably chosen as victims than others, but it sounds rather like that . . . .

99

It’s nothing to do with what would be applicable in court. Stop dragging that into it. You chose to talk about that newspaper article, which has nothing to do with the legal aspects of the case.

Some people are more attractive targets to theives than others. Surely we can agree on that?

And I’m saying that a loner, in a run-down property in the middle of nowhere, stuffed full of antiques, is a prime target. And it was because he had become such a target that he was in a situation where he decided to break the law by shooting a burglar in the back.

100

I’d say you’re missing the most important parts of the profile. There are indications there that the old coot was a repeated gun law offender and that he had a long-standing intent to murder. He was just waiting for someone to break into his house and he was salivating over the opportunity to snuff someone in that situation. That goes a long way to show that it was not purely self-defence that motivated the guy. The rest of the profile is just interesting from a voyeuristic point of view. So long as it’s not untrue, the Guardian is fully justified in printing it.