From: "Paul & Ann Isherwood", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<QUOTE>
I have no issue with the self defence angle - what I do have issue with is
the prima facie presumption that
Martin killed in self defence without any sort of public hearing to confirm
this.
<END QUOTE>
Neil is right on the money with his comments, but I always believed that we
had Coroners Courts for this very purpose. So that we didn't have to drag
people into High Courts and lock them up in prison in the meantime ... just
in case there was a case to answer.
The Coroner holds Court, with the benefit of a jury (usually in a very short
time after the incident and certainly faster than any criminal case I'm
aware of), to establish IF there is a case for someone to answer, IF the
Coroners Court finds that there is ... then that person or persons ARE
brought before the Criminal Court to answer for their actions or lack
thereof.
In this country no case of death, whether by act of self defence or some
other cause, goes un-examined therefore we do have a system of checks and
balances to protect society. So there is no need for a _heavy handed_
approach in circumstances where there is some indication that criminal
intent was not part of the equation on the part of the _surviving party_.
Comments anyone ?
Regards,
Paul Isherwood
--
If ever there was an argument for bringing back Grand Juries, this is it.
Steve.
-------[Cybershooters contacts]--------
Editor: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Website & subscription info: www.cybershooters.org
