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. Taking California as a relevant sample jurisdiction, and quoting from John Machtinger's excellent layman's introduction to the relevant laws, _How to Own a Gun & Stay Out of Jail_, California, 2001. First, the basic rule of self-defense, which is modified by the castle doctrine afterwards: "In order to use deadly force to defend yourself, you must have an honest and reasonable belief that you are in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury from an unlawful attack, and that your acts are necessary to prevent the injury." Machtinger points out that every element of this is important: the belief must be actual (honest) and reasonable. You have to believe that you are _at risk_, that there is _imminent_ danger, that the attack is _unlawful_, and that the action you take is _necessary_. The castle doctrine establishes a rebuttable presumption that the conditions permitting deadly force in self-defense are met whenever: "1. An intruder unlawfully and forcibly enters your residence, or has unlawfuly and forcibly entered your residence. 2. The intruder is someone who is not a member of the family or the household. 3. You know or have reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry has occurred." Applied to the Martin case, it would thus be up to the prosection to show that Martin did *not* believe as outlined in the basic rule of self-defense. This would be possible if, for example, Martin had bragged later that he wasn't in any danger, or that he killed them purposefully even though he knew it wasn't necessary, etc. But barring that sort of thing (which isn't present in this case), Martin clearly goes free. Tim, could you give us an explanation of how you think such laws should be amended? --Jimbo
