Just come across this one and want to make sure a few 'facts' as reported here during the trial are made clear...

1) Tony Martin had been burgled several times prior to this incident, nobody had been arrested or prosecuted for these crimes.

2) His home was extensively boarded up with a heavily over grown garden to all sides.

3) He shot a 16 year old, who was found to be wounded only in the back and in the graden of the house.

4) There was no evidence of the shotgun being fired in the house, but both Martin's own testimony and physical evidence indicated it was fired from within the house out towards the garden.

5) Initially convicted of murder the conviction was reduced to manslaughter and sentence reduced to 5 years total (so according to current guidance the convicted should serve at least half of this....so 2 and a half years).

From this there are several 'facts' which are undisputed...He killed a person by firing blinding into an overgrown garden from within his house...

Now whether or not its right to view that as self defence or murder depends soley on one's own point of view. It does not matter if he shot somebody in the back, in the face, whether or not the person was armed, old, young, black, white, blue, gay, handicapped etc etc...

He simply pointed the gun outside and fired...

The law over here is, unlike the USA, easier to understand. Murder is defined as killing with intent to do so...manslaughter is killing without direct intent.

What is indisputable is that a person died as a result of Martin's actions....that is not in doubt.. its not in question and this legal standpoint has been in force for far longer than the gun ownership issue.....for example an armed robber who cause the death of a security guard whilst in the course of a robbery is guilty of manslaughter, not necessarily murder.

So, seeing as somebody was killed by the direct actions of another there is no leeway....

Where there is far more dispute is what the sentence should have been....a conviction with no sentence is the ultimate attack on the legal system being an ass....In this case the judge imposed the minimum sentence possible in the case reduction proceedure...5 years, knowing that 2 1/2 may well be all that is served..

So the liberal/ conservative arguements are somewhat moot...it boils down to a more basic issue... if laws are established...which both the US and the UK have done...then they are either respected or they are not...if 'special cases' can be made then any one can, with a good enough legal team, present a special case for not being convicted...after all we are all 'special' we are all under different pressures and constraints...if however every one is able to make up their own rules and justify their own actions we are not longer living in the same society, we are living in our own, inviting conflict and dispute...

In this case the law, being a relatively inflexible beast, made a rod for its own back... there was a killing, and some body admitted to it...hence guilt...mitigating circumstances for sure, but they should only serve to reduce punishment not absolve guilt...

If you permit somebody to kill another without guilt, unless in the course of duty (policemen) or in the field of battle, you are going against the basic tenet of 'innocent until proven guilty'...which as both the US and UK recognise is done in the court room by 12 peers...not by firing blinding to the garden.

So whilst 'defending one's home' is a massively mitigating circumstance which should ensure that punishment in done distributed, its should not be used as a justification for killing.

So whilst the sentence is abhorent, the conviction is not....to be honest the person who died; having stepped outside the parameters of 'lawful' behaviour, should have expected anything up to and including his own death.. as should any person who decides to do so.. but then Tony Martin, by his own admission made a decsion to step outside 'lawful' behaviour...and so should have ben prepared to accept the consequences of his own actions.

Hope you're willing to go to jail for murder if it turns out he has no gun in his hands or car and no armed friends nearby.

Untrained people making killing decisions in confusing, rushed, and ambiguous situations is a bad idea. Look around at the mix of dolts, freaks, and dullards you encounter daily. You want them armed and deciding whether you're the guy who ran from their house - or just the guy jogging down the street? Whether you're the tall kid in the dark hoodie and jeans who took their TV - or some other tall kid in a dark hoodie and jeans who happens to be in the wrong place?

I like the FL Castle law because it draws some pretty bright/clear lines around some pretty unambiguous situations. Someone forcibly enters your home - not too much ambiguity there.

But when you start shooting people down in the street because they might be a burglar and might be armed and might be back - or might not - then that seems like a really bad idea to me.

Thanks for the "across the pond" perspective, MFAAF. Since Pat slinked away after making a blanket disavowal of the facts I posted, I'm happy that someone besides me has validated them. The only one you didn't mention is leaving the kid there for 15 hours after shooting him in the back. I suspect that weighed heavily in the jurors' minds. I know it would mine.

You neglect to discuss the central theme here, however. You can kill someone without being a cop or a soldier, if you do it in self defense. So the real question is whether shooting a guy in the back while he is in your yard running away self defense. If you don't know he was running away, or otherwise have some reason, any reason, to think he might hurt you, maybe you are fine.

But if I hear someone in my back yard tonight, and "fire blindly" out into the yard, if I kill my neighbor's 10 year old kid, I expect to spend some time in prison.

Again, the jury heard ALL the evidence here and didn't buy self defense. Maybe he got screwed by a bad jury, as everyone here automatically assumed. Or maybe this was NOT one of the .1% of the times the jury was wrong.

Anyone particular in mind? :D :D :D

Well, cellphone-wielding soccer moms come to mind.

Many people here feel a substantial pct of their fellow citizens can't even be trusted to drive and talk at the same time. But we trust them to decide which person running down the street should be gunned down? And to hope they hit their target rather than some random neighbor?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by nostatic
[B]I was just trying to get at the bounadaries. To my mind, if you shoot an unarmed person in the back while they are running away from your house, you are out of line. While there are always other details involved, my understanding of the use of deadly force is that it is only warranted if you feel that your life is being immediately and directly threatened. Someone running away from you wihtout a weapon doesn't qualify imho./b]/quote]
Depends on what the bugger did just before he broke and ran. Murder? Rape? Theft? If he's broken into my house, the decision to use lethal force is mine and mine alone. He's given that power to me.

Quote:

Now if they are in your house and you don't know if they are armed? Much higher probability that it would be justifiable. But even then, I don't think it is black and white. You turn on the lights, see a perp, you show your weapon, they put up their hands. Can you put two in the chest, one in the head?

Can you, certainly; should you, probably not. If anyone thinks killing another, even in clear cases of justification is either easy or without sequela, better think again.

Quote:

All situations I hope to never face. But some people seem to value their stuff and "castle" over the life of another human. To me it just isn't that clear cut. If I can determine that myself or a family member is in grave danger, then yes, I would not hesitate to use deadly force. But I think living with the consequences, even justified, would be horrific.

Again, theft from another is a form of slavery; slavery is intolerable.

And to Rodeo; since the gate to my house is open, that's authorization for someone to knock on my door under common law. If my gate is closed, there is no authorization to be on my property under common law. The JW's are well aware of that. Edit: The exception is if I've posted a "no trespass" or "no soliciting" signage, then that has limited the authorization. Words have meaning.

Good to hear from MFAFF.

Am I the only one surprised as ***** that Pat is a gun owner?

Finally I find something I can agree with him on!!!

What makes you surprised? I'm more conservative than most of the folks that post on this forum. Compared to me, all Bush'ists are flaming liberals.

Once again: The question here is not whether he was guilty under the law. The question is whether it is a right, just, and valid law. It is not. The question is whether that law makes the law-abiding citizens of England safer, or the criminals of England safer. It is the latter.

Sure this will become another thread. 51 old female Nurse returns from work, Burglar armed with hammer in her house ..they scuffle..she over-torqued his neck.... that is funny. She had few pounds on him..but hey he had the hammer.
Rika

No one is talking about a random neighbor walking down the street, just one one who broke into your house.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1157752456.jpg

Unfortunately, Byron, the "dolts, freaks, and dullards" of this forum cannot understand that.

What "many" people feel isn't relevant nor important; what is important is the law.

Let me explain my view using an example.

Think of the biggest dolt of a neighbor you have. The irresponsible loudmouth who you really wish would move away before he runs over a neighborhood kid with his SUV.

His house gets broken into one day. He sees someone in dark clothes escaping out the window. The law says that he may chase down the burglar and shoot them in the street. He grabs his gun and gives chase.

So the neighbor comes pounding out of his house, finger on trigger, looking for the guy in dark clothes. Your son is hanging out with his friends on the corner, you're on your evening run, your wife is in the side yard taking out the trash.

Unfortunately, you all happen to be wearing dark clothes . . . and even if you aren't, your neighbor is too excited to notice . . .

That's precisely why common law does not allow strict "hot pursuit" rules. What's the difference between you, your neighbor, or the cops in the same scenario?

Amwwer: Nothing. Under the law, all are equal.

Interesting point Jeff, but it not relevant to this case..

Self defense implies a imminent danger...which even with the most open minded view was not present in the Martin case..as both his testimony and evidence demonstrated.. the fatal action occured at a time after the burglars had left the building...and thus the threat was diminidhed wrt to the time Martin actually got up and fetched his gun...

Had the shooting occcured within the house, face to face.. it would have been more understandable...and the outcome of the case would have been very different.

Perhaps 'self-defense' does extend to action after the people have left he building but it would appear not to..

In anycase the law, whether or not it is an ass is the law...my point was if you only respect laws that 'you' feel is right then we do not live in a society.. and if you are not happy with the laws as they exist there is nothing stopping you getting involved to change them..

As for whether or not the citizens or criminals in the UK are safer I would suggest its a topic on which is more appropriate for those who live here to define....certainly I was subject to far more crime and personnal danger in the 5 years I lived in Old Town Alexandria than in the last decade in London...or the previous two decades in the UK..in fact the only time I have been threatened with a weapon ( a Colt 1911 was when it was pointed in my face at a stop light.).. in Alexandria; within Virginia, not exactly known for being averse to guns.....and to be honest carrying my own weapon would have been totally useless..it would not have detered the pereptrator of this incident nor changed the outcome..

As to the relevance to the case posted by pwd72....under UK law the nurse would charged with either murder or manslaughter...and as its strangluation there is a greater intent involved...Guilt, depending on the evidence presented would not be surprising.. a sentence however would be as controversial as in the Martin case..

What is similar is that a person was killed by another...and even if the reasons are clear and undeniable. So does the law create a whole list of situations in which this killing is 'justifiable'...or do you leave the jury to administer the verdict....

I know which system I would prefer..

This thread is much better with half the *****s on the ignore list ;)

"If you only respect the laws you feel is right"

If (I understand the original article is not the most unbiased piece, but it is what I have to go on) the government is intentionally ignoring burglary even when it is illegal, is not British law enforcement just as guilty of this as those who are suggesting that Martin was justified in his breaking the law? What responsibility does law enforcement have to enforce the law in order to maintain a society? Both the burglary and the shooting were equally against the law, the value of laws and their enforcement is to prevent this type of vigalante justice in a society.

It appears, from all of the evidence, that these two had visited Martin on several occasions in the past. It appears Martin called the police on those several occasions. The police did not respond. The police, by their own admission, will not respond to a burglary. Just how many times should he have called an unresponsive police? What other recourse was available to Martin? These people were a threat to him, and a threat that had continued to return unnabated by the police.

Should he have waited until these two were in his home once again before firing? Should he have waited until they were a more "imminant danger"? Would that have been more appealing to the British sense of "fair play"? Give me a break. Martin was clearly not being served by the system in place to protect him from criminals such as these. He had no choice, other than to continue to live in fear of these two criminals. Maybe that is acceptable in England these days.