Jimmy Wales <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tim Lambert wrote: > >>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? > > Ron Moore wrote: > > 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? > > In many or most U.S. jurisdictions with "castle doctrine" enshrined in > either statutory law or judicial precedent, this shooting was clearly > a "good shoot" even under the prosecution's version of events. > Apparently, Tim has a philosophical disagreement with whether or not > such laws should exist. > > Rather than debating whether the facts of the matter properly support > a conviction under current British law, perhaps it would be more > enlightening if Tim could outline for us the moral and/or legal > principles that he feels ought to be used in such cases.
I don't think that shooting a fleeing burglar in the back is usually self-defence. Other things relevant to judging Martin's intent were the fact that he lied under oath about where he fired from, the fact that he left the burglar to die, the fact that he told people that if he caught burglars he would blow their heads off, the fact that Barras had pleaded for his life and the fact that Martin had told police that Gypsies should be rounded up, put in the middle of his field and machine-gunned. In general, I don't think you can make any hard and fast rules about this (such as "shooting a burglar is always self-defence"), you have to let the jury hear the evidence and decide whether the killer had acted reasonably. The evidence here suggests that it wasn't self-defence. -- Tim
