I see the mouth breathers are out in full force today.

Look who is doing the name calling. Why do you put criminals above the victims??

Jeff,

I'm still struggling with your notion of whether or not the law was 'right'....

In the UK, unlike the US, murder and manslaughter are the only options....

Perhaps another category should be introduced... a 'justified killing' section... and then the question is who defines the justifiable?

Rodeo,

In the UK the Police do not define the cases.. its the Crown Prosection Service who actually put them together and define what the exact charges are levelled.
Again, they have limited options...see above.

In the case of a death in this fashion there are two sides to the legal issue...
1) The death
2) The manner of that death.

It works in the following way...

Police investigate a death and seek a perpetrator..using clues, evidence statements etc.

The Coroner examines the body and determines the cause of death.. in this case it is an 'unlawfully killing'. This is the root of the legal case against Martin....the Coroner's verdict was set the moment Martin pulled the trigger...no other outcome was possible...

In the case of an unlawful killing the police is obliged to seek out the person who carried this out and as its unlawful a charge must be leveled....to not do so enables the family of the victim to pursue either a private or civil prosection, with legal aide (ie the state pays for it) against Martin, for murder. (In this case he would have been found guilty and sentenced according to this....)

Martin never denied the fact he had fired the weapon...so his responsibility for the death was never in question...

In such circumstances the Judge must direct the jury to find guilty...he or she has no choice...they have no options to chose from...no easy way out, nor do they have the power to increase or change the charge...they only set the penalty if guilty is delivered, again following guidelines established by the Government.

The only possible area of debate is whether or not there should be a wider selection of 'killing' charges possible and penalties associated with them..or not as the case may be.

This debate is also totally irrelevant.. the UK system went down the route of murder and manslaughter a long time ago...making the gun ownership issue totally irrelevant, whilst the US has chosen to try the far more difficult task of trying to establish what could and should constitute a justifiable killing...

Two different approaches, neither suitable or relevant in the other's situation.

MFAFF,

I'm a bit confused. Are you saying that by British law a "not guilty" verdict was never even possible? The way I read your post is that once the death is deemed "unlawful", the shooter must be found guilty of one cause of death or another. In this case the only two options were murder and manslaughter.

Am I understanding you correctly?

MFAAF, I appreciate your attempt to shed some light on this, but you are not correct in stating there were only two options under English law -- murder or manslaughter.

A third option was "not guilty by reason of self-defense."

The appeals court framed the issue this way:

There was no dispute that Mr Martin had shot the two men. Mr Martin's defence to the principal offences with which he was charged was that he was acting in self-defence. When this defence is raised, the prosecution has the burden of satisfying the jury so that they are sure that the defendant was not acting in self-defence. A defendant is entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself, others for whom he is responsible and his property. (See Beckford v R [1988] 1 AC 130).

In judging whether the defendant had only used reasonable force, the jury has to take into account all the circumstances, including the situation as the defendant honestly believes it to be at the time, when he was defending himself. It does not matter if the defendant was mistaken in his belief as long as his belief was genuine.

Accordingly, the jury could only convict Mr Martin if either they did not believe his evidence that he was acting in self-defence or they thought that Mr Martin had used an unreasonable amount of force. These were issues which were ideally suited to a decision of a jury.

The issue in this case, as in all other self-defense cases was (1) whether Martin was threatened, and (2) did he use "reasonable force" in response to that threat.

There are some here that argue this is "bad law," but offer no alternatives.

Well, no alternatives besides "shoot and kill whomever the hell you want as long as he or she is on your property without your permission."

For reasons that I have hopefully made clear, I do not consider that an acceptable alternative in a civilized society.

No, you are incorrect. The state gets it's power from me, and you, as individuals. There is no magic level of people that suddenly grant extraordinary power to the state, because I cannot as an individual grant powers to the state, nor can you, that you do not have yourself. You must grasp this fundamental truth to be able to understand fr9om whence state power originates. You are speaking of government itself granting itself power, and not only does that not happen (at least it didn't prior to about 1820-30) that I, or you, as an individual do not have. That cannot be.

Quote:

Right now, thank God, there are more people against apple executions than for.

Youi've created a mythic scenario out of whole cloth, I've not talked about this mythic power at all.

Quote:

And yes, the logical result of your position is exactly that at Wal Mart. What's to stop it?

Your statement is further proof that you don't know where state power comes from. You're lost, philosophically, until you do.

Jeez, are you guys still talking about this?

At least liven it up a little. Either broaden the discussion to boobytraps (if Castle laws let you shoot someone who forcibly enters your house, then why can't you have a tripwire trigger a shotgun - that way you don't even have to get out of bed) or explain why this is / isn't all Bush's fault.