From: "Derek Bernard", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> and have yet to find a single one which advocates the release of
> Mr Martin without trial. > Kate Cormack
>
Well, I would firstly advocate a new statute law granting a clear and
unambiguous presumption of innocence to the victim, or would-be victim, or
someone who comes to their aid, who wounds or kills someone who was in the
process of escaping after committing, committing, or about to commit, a
crime such as burglary, robbery, assault, rape etc. This new law would
eliminate the nonsensical concept of "reasonable force", making it clear
that the victim is entitled to use whatever force or implement that seems
likely to stop the criminal activity (including escaping); and replace it
with a requirement that the victim, would-be victim, or Good Samaritan must
have had reason for believing that the dead or injured person(s) had just
committed, were committing, or were about to commit, one of the relevant
crimes.
Secondly, I would like to see every such case brought before either a "Grand
Jury", or a Coroner's Court, in the first instance, not to try anyone, but
to establish whether the death was "justifiable homicide", or whether there
are sufficient doubts to warrant a trial.
Only if this initial Inquiry finds that the victim or would-be victim is
clearly not entitled to the presumption of innocence, would they be charged
and tried. I would certainly wish for the proposed new law to be
sufficiently clear-cut to ensure that victims that find themselves in the
unfortunate position of Mr Martin (ie. where the dead/injured were clearly
in the process of committing a relevant crime), are cleared at the initial
Inquiry and do *not* go to trial.
Derek Bernard
-------[Cybershooters contacts]--------
Editor: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Website & subscription info: www.cybershooters.org
