>>Another article that misrepresents the case. Why do all the >>pro-Martin articles carefully leave out all the facts that show the >>shooting was not self-defence? > >Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure you will), but wasn't the burglar inside >the dwelling when he was shot? If so, how could it be anything other than >self-defense?
You know the answer to that, Ron (e.g., if you got the drop on them, and they surrendered, and then you executed them). The misrepresentation here, however, is Tim's. Hitchens never says that Martin shot in self defense. What he says is that Martin would never have been prosecuted in a country not ruled by namby-pambies who a) want to help criminals and b) want to punish anyone who might encourage others to follow the older rules of engagement. Hitchens also levels charges of bias and incompetence at the prosecutors, judges, and juries of today's Britain, and for some strange reason, Tim feels that these charges can be dismissed because the prosecutors, judges, and jury in the Martin case condemned Martin's actions. Tim is using circular logic. Peter
