We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Tony Martin is free! Tony Martin, a farmer jailed five years for the “crime” of shooting two burglars – but only managing to kill one – has been set free.
His case is so notorious even the present government is considering changes in the law. On tonight’s news there was intimation of a new law to ban nonsense suits by criminals against defending homeowners. There may even be a broadening of the UK legal definition of self-defense.
Under current standards in the UK, self-defense is almost non-existent, so anything is a vast improvement.
Lift a jar or three to the heroic farmer Martin tonight! Later, when you visit the bog and return them from whence they came, do so in remembrance of the unmanned and unfortuneately surviving second thief.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Didn’t the croaked burglar’s family threaten Tony’s life? If the threats were more than just posturing for the cameras, this may not be over.
I was listening the the BBC World Service “NewsHour” show earlier today.
They mentioned that Mr. Martin was freed and then talked with an American who edits a gun publication, and some utter and complete twat from the UK “Liberty” group.
Said twat stated that if you have a loaded gun in your house, you are only encouraging criminals to arm themselves in response.
Goddamn! What has happened to the once great British Empire?
It’s a sad fact that Tony Martin will never be free again. The sick judicial system that incarcerated him in the first place is the same system that allows the scumbags that caused the problem in the first place to go around threatening his life.
The man has my respect not only for the way in which he handled the original incident but also for the way in which he stuck to his guns and would not apologise for his actions.
I hope he gets the support he needs now from like minded individuals.
After examining the facts of the Tony Martin case, how can anyone still seriously argue that the state is an effective provider of security, let alone deserving of holding a monopoly in that area?
This becomes all the more outrageous once one discovers that the government admits *no* responsibility to protect its citizens whatsoever. Not only are the police not able to protect everyone (or even a tiny fraction of us), but they have *no* legal duty to protect you from crime at all. In most states they do not even have a duty to come when you call!
Just sit back and think about that for a moment. The British state forces you under threat of jail to disarm. Then, having eliminated your ability to protect yourself, it refuses to take *any* responsibility for defending you. If you are attacked by a criminal for the second or third time, like Tony Martin, then despite warning the police that the crooks threatened to do this, they can simply twiddle their thumbs and there is absolutely no legal remedy for you.
If you or your family are killed or maimed, you cannot sue for so much as a penny. You might if lucky get compensation for criminal injury, but this is awarded regardless of gross negligence on the part of the authorities. And if you successfully defend yourself, you are liable to be hauled up for “excessive force”, despite the fact that by definition, winning a fight *requires* an excess of force over your opponent.
Quite how anyone can trust the state to protect them, under such restrictive circumstances, is beyond me. And for the state to criminalise self-defence, whilst itself failing in its claimed duty to protect, simply beggars belief.
You know, the real problem here is this: Self-defense is essentially outlawed, on the premises that the state has a monopoly on the use of lethal force and, more importantly, that it can and will protect you. This is problematic enough. But the fact that the government can’t be held liable for failing to protect you in the event you are a victim of violent crime–THAT fully illustrates the insanity of it all.
“The Press Complaints Commission said yesterday that it would investigate the Daily Mirror’s decision to pay Tony Martin a six-figure sum for his story.”
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/07/29/nmart329.xml
Also
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,542-760304,00.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-760229,00.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-760230,00.html
http://argument.independent.co.uk/regular_columnists/deborah_orr/story.jsp?story=428487
So – are the relatives of the burglar going to be prosecuted for their death threats?
It seems unlikely anyone’s going to be prosecuted for threats to kill, because the most illiterate member of the criminal classes is legalistic to a fault and understands the distinction between saying he’ll kill someone and implying with utmost menace that a third party is likely to do so.
Traditional protection rackets are founded on the idea: “It would be a pity of your shop were to burn down. Pay us 200 a week and we’ll make sure nothing happens to it. If you don’t–why anything might happen. There are a lot of vandals in this area.”
I’ve blogged a bit on the TM case today, having set up the first TM site three years ago and having visited him in Gartree.
You can see his Support Group site at
http://www.tonymartinsupportgroup.org
We had some effort like that in California a few years back; judicial efforts to penalize homeowners that used deadly force against an intruder; usually by subjecting the homeowner faced with a knife or gun wielding intruder to unbelievable after-the-fact second guessing about “whether” less force could have been used. In response to howls from voters, the State Legislature finally had to enact a new law limiting the courts’ ability to second guess the homeowners use of deadly force. Every burgular has to worry about an armed homeowner. And every judge needs to understand–a homeowner faced with a nightmarish decision can’t be unreasonably second guessed; or penalized; they have the RIGHT to be where they are; the intruders are in the wrong and have forfeited their right to be free of potentially deadly force in defense of the persons in the home.
I’ll be sure to drink a toast to Tony Martin after I clean my guns this evening!
Self Defense Is A Basic Human Right!