Tony Martin threatened with death - but still disarmed...

[Marko Kloos]

It was already the case that Martin was paranoid about people - especially gypsies - breaking into his property;

Looks like his "paranoia" was quite justified; I seem to recall that Mr. martin was burglarized on several occasions prior to the incident in question. I also seem to recall that the local Constabulary did precisely squat to solve the problem before the shooting occurred.

I'm not too surprised, though. A study from Cold War days has shown that there is such a thing as "professional kinship". A plumber in the US, for exapmle, has more in common with a Russian plumber than either of them do with their non-plumbing countrymen.

It only follows that the professional looters who make up the "progressive" solcial democratic government of the UK feel more kinship with the "traveller" freelance looters than they do with regular peons like Mr. Martin. They'll go to lengths to protect their thieving colleagues from Tony Martin, but they won't lift a finger to safeguard either Mr. Martin or his property.

Always remember that the entire problem could have been avoided by those "travellers" not repeatedly helping themselves to someone else's property. They initiated the confrontation by robbing another man of his possessions. The government failed Mr. Martin by failing to safeguard his right to *not* be burglarized. The robbers forfeited their own rights by attempting to deprive someone else of his rights by force.

 

[Powderman]

Agricola:

From what I understand, Mr. Martin was convicted of murder by your court system.

Why was he convicted of murder?

Why did he go to trial?

Could you tell me what your law states? And, could you tell me under what circumstances a victim can defend themselves legally in your country?

And, may I ask, why are you defending a system that puts good men in prison for shooting a person who broke into their home--WHILE THEY WERE THERE?

And finally, how can you defend that type of system in any conscience?



What would it take to change your point of view?

What would you do if someone broke into your home while you were there?

What if they threatened your family?

What if they grabbed your wife?

What would it take for you to realize that ANY system that prosecutes a man for defending his home, his family or himself is DEAD wrong?

Would you defend your family?

Or would you stand there and bleed?

 

[Kharn]

When you get a mini police station on your property, but they wont let you own a pistol, you know the whole country's gone to hell in a handbasket.

Which shows a larger belief by the police that someone is out to cook your goose, a pistol permit or a police station in your front yard?

Kharn

 

[Caliburn]

On-site police station

Get the feeling that the police living on the guy's property would be keeping their eagle eye on Martin instead of the travellers? Think their presence would make it possible for him to recover that other gun from his friend's house? Not a chance. They'd probably bust him if he leaves the butcher knife in the living room.

What choice is this to offer law-abiding citizens? Either (1) allow your property (the fruits of your labor) to be carried off at will by scum, or (2) fight back, go to jail, have your life threatened by other scum, AND set yourself up for a lifetime of direct personal Big Brother intrusive monitoring.

Ever hear of Bastiat's dilemma? "When law and morality contradict one another, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his sense of morality or losing his respect for the law."

The inmates are running the asylum.

 

[Preacherman]

the very substance of this case is that Martin was NOT defending himself at the time he shot Barras. We can argue over this until the cows come home, but the fact is that a jury of his peers found him guilty of the murder. That jury also had access to all the facts of the case, and one thinks that one has shown that the reporting of this case has fallen way short of objectivity.

Agricola, let me state up front that I respect your right to your opinion, even though I disagree with it. However, I think the above statement is a classic illustration of the difference between the social milieu here, and in England. Here, if a bad guy (BG) commits a felony, in many jurisdictions, you do whatever you have to do to stop him, and the general reaction is "Oh, good!". In our more urbanized, left-wing environments, the reaction is, instead, "Oh, poor dear!".

A classic example is the kidnapping of a woman in Tennessee, who was taken to Georgia by her kidnapper. He stopped to fill up with gas, and went into the building to pay. She found a loaded pistol on the back seat, and when he came out, she started shooting at him. Note that he was not at that time any threat to her: he was a reasonable distance away from her, and unarmed at that. She chased him across the parking lot, shooting all the while, and when he fell down, she shot him three times in the back. Clearly, this is illegal conduct under virtually any self-defence statute you care to mention. However, the local sheriff arrived, heard (and confirmed) the story, walked over, looked at the back-shot body of the kidnapper and proclaimed "Yep - self-defence, all right!" No further legal action was taken. I daresay if that sheriff or the local DA had tried to make anything else of it, he/they would have been tarred and feathered by their loyal constituents!

So I'm afraid I don't have any sympathy for the criminals who were shot. I think Martin's only mistake was to have not shot them both inside the house, where a greater threat is presumed to exist. If he wants to come over to this side of the pond, I'll personally buy him another shotgun to celebrate!

 

[Don Gwinn]

the very substance of this case is that Martin was NOT defending himself at the time he shot Barras.

Upon that point, sir, we disagree.

(Agricola is an LEO, by the way.)

 

[HBK]

I would chip in on that shotgun, but I doubt Martin is the sort of man to allow ludicrous laws and legal systems to run him out of his home country.

 

[Al Norris]

Don, I was first to bring up the relation of the travelers. From the scarcity of the posts, I must conclude that 1)people here aren't aware of these crooks or 2)they don't believe there is such a thing.

I used to be in the #2 camp. That is until my aunt was murdered by a traveler. I've since done a bit of research into this group of people.

The threats to Mr. Martin, pre-trial or post-trial by travelers, are to be taken seriously.

For those of you in Salt Lake City area (and there are more than a few here) Check your back issues of the Slat Lake Tribune:

Sat. May 5th, 2001
Sun. May 6th
Obit, May 6th
Tues. May 8th
Thur. May 10th

This was a 17 yr old who killed, then raped a 78 yr old woman. His parents abandoned him when it was apparent that he would stand trial. He was convicted and given a life sentence, remanded to the Arizona authorities where he is on trial for a murder there. A murder that occured before my aunts and in which he was in custody 14 days before he murdered my aunt. Then the Montana folk want a piece of him. His parents? The father is wanted in connection to the Montana case and can't be found.

Agricola, the travelers in the UK are in fact more dangerous than those here. Here they have to contend with armed citizens. That is not a concern in the UK.

 

[HBK]

Where can you get more info on this group?

 

[seeker_two]

the answer was on TFL, ages ago.

agricola: Refresh our memories...

 

[agricola]

seeker,

its mentioned on this thread.

 

[Gray Peterson]

Where can you get more info on this group?

Ditto. It's yet another reason to increase the amount of permits I have to protect myself and my mate....'

When I mean more info, I really mean more info. I've heard how dangerous they are, and I know enough to be worried, but I don't know their entire history.

 

[Mk VII]

for an admittedly partial (and rather out-of-date) take on this subject see http://www.tonymartinsupportgroup.org/pages/persview.htm
As a convicted criminal sentenced to more than three years imprisonment Mr. Martin is subject to a lifetime ban on having anything (in the widest sense) to do with firearms, which could be reviewed on application to a Court

 

[Sean Smith]

Blah blah Martin, blah blah practically only subject Agricola posts on, blah blah blah...

 

[tyme]

HBK, I'm not sure any sane person would want to admit to England being their (new usage) "home country."

[blockquote](Don Gwinn) My students are fond of a similar trick--the Opinion Gambit. "It's my opinion, and opinions can't be wrong."[/blockquote]
That makes it easy to justify any grade you want to give. "Opinions are like ..., everyone's got one. And everyone also gets grades, though some get poorer grades than others."

 

[seeker_two]

(Agricola is an LEO, by the way.)

THAT explains Martin's dilemma...

...and Great Britain's too.

 

[WonderNine]

THAT explains Martin's dilemma...

...and Great Britain's too.

That's what I was thinking.

 

[MicroBalrog]

Didn't Agricola visit the US at some point or another?

 

[CZ-75]

Where can you get more info on this group?

http://sca.lib.liv.ac.uk/collections/gypsy/travell.htm

Irish Traveller surnames are Costello, Carpenter, Carroll, Gormon, Lewis, McNalley, Mack, O'Hara, Riley, Sherlock, Roche, Sheedy, Joy, Joyce, Hartnett

How they spend the money they steal:

http://sciway3.net/clark/freemoors/traveller.html

Comprehensive, but perhaps biased in their favor:

http://www.pitt.edu/~alkst3/USA.html

 

[agricola]

Sean,

Well that just displays your own ignorance - I only post on threads concerning the UK.

Micro,

No, I've never been to the US.

rest:

I think we are moving into dangerous territory equating "traveller" with criminal - dont forget that the demented Austrian from last century considered them on a par with Jews in the extinction stakes.

 

[KC]

"I don't approve of calling the British as a people "retrograde" or "degenerate." "

Degenerate is unkind and untrue. Retrograde is. The Engilsh used to have an absolute monarch, wich was transformed into a constitutional monarchy by a revolution of the political elites. Though it was their blood that was spent to create that situation, no power was turned over to the general populace. The elites kept it for themselves. Now, instead of having one head to the Dragon, St. George (were he still allowed to arm himself) must contend with a multi-headed Hydra. Centralized control of English society has done nothing but constrict tighter and tighter around the polity's neck since the bloody debacle that the aforementioned political elites allowed WWI to become, and the again in their failure to contend with the repulsive ideology that was Nazi Germany.
Oh wait, I forgot; England had some of the same habits. The Jews had been expelled a while earlier, the Irish had been encouraged to kill each other off, and then die in famines. Slavery was not permitted in the Home Isles, because there were laws against allowing negros in. Then, at the last gasp of empire, Victorian England led the West in strict societal contols over the private life of it's citizenry. Maybe degenerate isn't so inaccruate a word after all...


"Your government, though, is repressive and statist, and the people did, after all, elect it. They certainly share some responsibility, just as I have to take some responsibility for our problems over here."

Not exactly; certain branch heads are repressive and statist. Ashcroft is truly one of the greatest dangers to (American) civil freedoms since Hoover was allowed to run the FBI as a personal fiefdom.
Second, the people didn't elect the current head of the executive branch: an archaic system labelled the Electoral College allowed that particular mess to happen. in 2000, it worked in the Republican's favor, as it had for the Democrats in 1996. At least the US allows some input from the demos to select it's executive, unlike the arbitrary and secretive coalition building that remains outside the control of the electorate and legal system in the UK.
Lastly: yes, there are unwelcome elements in government, as there always have been. There is, however, a finite lifespan to all of their terms in office. While they may have debts to labor unions, the petty tantrums of socialized labour is unlikely to strangle the life of this country, nor hold it hostage.

 

[agricola]

KC,

Rarely have I seen a less well reasoned argument. A critique:

i) At least the US allows some input from the demos to select it's executive, unlike the arbitrary and secretive coalition building that remains outside the control of the electorate and legal system in the UK.

Aside from a smattering of Lords, each and every minister of State is an MP and, as such, can and frequently are removed from office by the people at General Election time - Portillo, Rifkind et al all know this. This includes the head of the modern British executive - the Prime Minister. There is also no "coalition building" - the party which has the most seats in the House of Commons above a certain point is the Government and all Ministers come from that party. The system whereby the great offices of State have their shadow counterparts means that, prior to an election, voters have a good idea who will form the administration should that party get elected. IMHO this is a much better system than the US, for whom (aside from Bush) noone is accountable to the electorate.

ii)The Engilsh used to have an absolute monarch, wich was transformed into a constitutional monarchy by a revolution of the political elites. Though it was their blood that was spent to create that situation, no power was turned over to the general populace. The elites kept it for themselves.

Actually, no. The two revolutions - the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution - were in a sense a change of elites. However, from about 1815 onwards one sees in English history increased organization of the "lower" classes, usually along social, workplace or community lines. These various movements were extremely successful at gaining rights, removing abuses in the workplace and generally improving the lot of the common man. This extraordinary success has meant that like organizations - Unions, and indeed the Labour Party itself (together with "socialism") are more popular here than they are in the US.

iii)Oh wait, I forgot; England had some of the same habits. The Jews had been expelled a while earlier, the Irish had been encouraged to kill each other off, and then die in famines. Slavery was not permitted in the Home Isles, because there were laws against allowing negros in. Then, at the last gasp of empire, Victorian England led the West in strict societal contols over the private life of it's citizenry. Maybe degenerate isn't so inaccruate a word after all...

Jews were expelled across Europe at various stages in history, so England is nothing unique. The treatment of the Irish was no different to any of a dozen other losing sides of wars, including the American Indians at your own countries hands. Any slave who set foot on English soil was a free man, and by 1807 that evil trade was outlawed.

 

[Al Norris]

agricola wrote:
I think we are moving into dangerous territory equating "traveller" with criminal - dont forget that the demented Austrian from last century considered them on a par with Jews in the extinction stakes.

It is not criminal to rob and steal from all who are not "travelers?"

Beating those who would protect themselves from your nefarious activities, is not criminal?

Raising your children to believe that all who are not "travelers" are fair game for your scams, is not criminal?

Teaching your children to shoplift by bringing them with you into various stores, is not criminal?

But then again, I'm biased.

 

[KC]

Agricola--

You are right; I did not present a perfectly reasoned arguement. Nor did I intend to. A poorly reasoned arguement, on the other hand, would have been more along along the lines of "Go teach your grandmother to suck eggs." Mine was neither.


"...the party which has the most seats in the House of Commons above a certain point is the Government and all Ministers come from that party. The system whereby the great offices of State have their shadow counterparts means that, prior to an election, voters have a good idea who will form the administration should that party get elected."

Ah. So, the electorate does not know who they are voting for; they simply vote a party ticket, and get what pops out. Delightful. Regardless, coalition building, as you seem to apply the term, does not necessarily function only between political parties, but in them as well. This is (my understanding at least) how Margaret Thatcher worked her way into power, and back in, and in again.


"The two revolutions - the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution"
Yes, I am aware there were a number of fraticidal wars in England. The Civil War of the mid 17th century that got rid of an absolutist monarch, and replaced him with an absolute dictator. This dictator died, and the inheritors of the country ran off and got the whelp of the monarchist to come back. After more futzing around, the elites wound up inviting a bunch of germans over, because no one in the country was capable of envisioning a non-monarchial government. So, then we get three kings; one never visits the country, the nexts goes there a couple of times, but doesn't like it. The third *does* wind up living there, but he becomes the basis for the movie "The Madness of George III", after he and the oh-so-democratically elected Parliment loose the then jewl of the Empire's crown, the American Colonies (outside of English Canada and formerly French Quebec). Oddly enough, this little spat does *not* seem to be called a civil war, outside a few contemporary English sources and a few American ones who either change their tune in surprisingly short order or move to Canada.


"...in a sense a change of elites. However, from about 1815 onwards one sees in English history increased organization of the "lower" classes, usually along social, workplace or community lines."
Yes; some figured out how to make money as if they had a mint, but could only think of getting approval by and from imitating the old nobility. Nowadays, rather than getting knighthood or other title of nobility for actually doing something of martial or mercantilist legerdemain, it instead is an award for penning the best song by which the masses are entertained. Bravo.


"removing abuses in the workplace and generally improving the lot of the common man. This extraordinary success has meant that like organizations - Unions, and indeed the Labour Party itself (together with "socialism") are more popular here than they are in the US."
Yes...is that why coal was still being dug from Newcastle LONG after it had ceased to make the least bit of fiscal sense? Why English cars became reknown for their sterling (no pun intended) reputation? (Especially Lucas.) Is that why the country was flushed down the fiscal toilet by the Labour governments during the 1950-70's?


"Jews were expelled across Europe at various stages in history, so England is nothing unique."
Perhaps better: unlike Spain, the jews were able to leave with more than just the clothing on their backs, and had a little more than 30 days in the late 15th century to do so on pain of execution. Better unless you were a Jew, I suppose.

"Any slave who set foot on English soil was a free man, and by 1807 that evil trade was outlawed."
So 'English Soil' was carefully defined as being only those islands in the near vincinity of continential Europe. (Ignore for the moment the entire concept of "debtors prison".) That evil institution was indeed outlawed, on paper. There were attempts to curtail the slave trade, so long as it inconvenienced the US or Spain. Brazil always had a far greater appetite for human chattle than N.America did, but that wasn't a concern for oh so altrustic England--there were Indians to pacify and Chinese that hadn't been introduced to opium.

 

[HBK]

I pretty much agree with Al on the traveler issue.