C. D. Tavares wrote: >http://www.norwichbulletin.com/news/stories/20030904/localnews/186342.html
Some relevant background information for this case would be Connecticut's laws of self-defense. I have never managed to find a clear exposition of English law on these matters, but a point-by-point comparison would be interesting. Here is Connecticut law: http://www.cga.state.ct.us/2003/pub/Chap951.htm#Sec53a-18.htm As far as Connecticut goes, 53a(19)(a) stipulates that the use of deadly force in defense of person is justified only when the actor reasonably believes that the other person is (1) using or about to use deadly physical force, or (2) inflicting or about to inflict great bodily harm. Connecticut generally requires retreat in 53a(19)(b), except when someone is in their dwelling or place of work and was not the initial aggressor. The previous deals with defense of person, but there's also a section on defense of premises in 53a(20) which extends the right of self-defense significantly, and for this case, 53a(20)(3) seems most relevant, in that it permits the use of deadly force to the extent that the actor reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent (!) or terminate an unlawful entry by force, if this is for the sole purpose of such prevention or termination. (My parenthetical exclamation mark there is that in some other strong Castle Doctrine states, force is only permitted to terminate an unlawful entry, not merely to prevent it. Someone at your window with a crowbar actively prying is treated differently in Connecticut, apparently.) The one problem that I can see that this fellow might have, if the reporting in the article is right, is that this was not his primary dwelling. But the definition in 53a(100) is sufficiently broad that this is not likely to pose any particular problems. As far as I can tell, Tony Martin was properly convicted under the laws of England, but would be properly acquitted under the laws of most United States. This case is a nice parallel case to show this. --Jimbo
