America - its all a bit odd...

endure

GCM
So wasn’t what happened to Mr Martin a miscarriage?
Yes which is why, after considering all the evidence, the Court of Appeal reduced the verdict and the sentence from murder to manslaughter.

Even then the Parole Board kept him in until the end of his sentence as they considered him to be a dangerous man.
 
Yes which is why, after considering all the evidence, the Court of Appeal reduced the verdict and the sentence from murder to manslaughter.

Even then the Parole Board kept him in until the end of his sentence as they considered him to be a dangerous man.
But the surviving retard that broke into his home and placed Mr. Martins life in jeopardy was given a lesser sentence, even though he was the aggressor and initiated the whole thing. If you don't want to potentially get shot, don't break into a persons home. If you do then you deserve whatever you have coming. The miscarriage of justice is that the criminal was viewed as a lesser threat to society at large, then the home owner who used a shotgun to defend his life and property. He did not go looking for a fight, but he did respond properly to a life threatening situation and his life was ruined for it.
 

endure

GCM
But the surviving retard that broke into his home and placed Mr. Martins life in jeopardy was given a lesser sentence, even though he was the aggressor and initiated the whole thing.
That's because Fearon (the wannabe burglar) was charged and found guilty of conspiracy to burglary. He didn't put Martin's life in jeopardy. As soon as he realised Martin was there he and Barrass tried to escape through the window. They were opportunists.

Martin was charged and found guilty of murder which carries a mandatory life sentence which, on appeal, was reduced to manslaughter which he did prison time for.

If you don't want to potentially get shot, don't break into a persons home.
American thinking again.

If you want to know what actually happened in court here's the appeal transcript. A bit long but much more informative than arrse or the newspapers at the time.

 
That's because Fearon (the wannabe burglar) was charged and found guilty of conspiracy to burglary. He didn't put Martin's life in jeopardy. As soon as he realised Martin was there he and Barrass tried to escape through the window. They were opportunists.

Martin was charged and found guilty of murder which carries a mandatory life sentence which, on appeal, was reduced to manslaughter which he did prison time for.



American thinking again.

If you want to know what actually happened in court here's the appeal transcript. A bit long but much more informative than arrse or the newspapers at the time.

This is where our thought process is going to take a sharp turn, so let me take you on a journey.

When you enter somebody's home without their consent, it is assumed automatically that the occupants lives are in mortal danger and they have the right to use whatever means to defend themselves and anybody else in that home.

They were trying to leave after getting shot. Clearly they were in the man's home and were in the wrong already.

Mr Fearon then decided to shine a torch into Mr. Martin's eyes which is not a good thing. That is a tactic that can be used to provide somebody with a momentary advantage when your night vision is compromised. I can't fault Mr. Martin for advancing upon the threat, violence of action at the right moment will help end the threat faster. You also fire until the threat is down, so three shells from a pump shotgun is not unreasonable for two intruders. HE did not chase them down and shoot them when they were outside his home. What Mr. Martin should have done is tired to contact the authorities as soon as he felt secure enough to do so and report the incident. But he was pumped up on adrenaline and it does take a bit for that high to wear off. But given the circumstances I would not vote to convict the man, but maybe take his shotgun which is illegal under your laws.
 

endure

GCM
This is where our thought process is going to take a sharp turn, so let me take you on a journey.

When you enter somebody's home without their consent, it is assumed automatically that the occupants lives are in mortal danger and they have the right to use whatever means to defend themselves and anybody else in that home.

They were trying to leave after getting shot. Clearly they were in the man's home and were in the wrong already.

Mr Fearon then decided to shine a torch into Mr. Martin's eyes which is not a good thing. That is a tactic that can be used to provide somebody with a momentary advantage when your night vision is compromised. I can't fault Mr. Martin for advancing upon the threat, violence of action at the right moment will help end the threat faster. You also fire until the threat is down, so three shells from a pump shotgun is not unreasonable for two intruders. HE did not chase them down and shoot them when they were outside his home. What Mr. Martin should have done is tired to contact the authorities as soon as he felt secure enough to do so and report the incident. But he was pumped up on adrenaline and it does take a bit for that high to wear off. But given the circumstances I would not vote to convict the man, but maybe take his shotgun which is illegal under your laws.
You didn't read the appeal then?
 

endure

GCM
Trying to read it as quickly as possible, whilst multi tasking.

We'll just have to accept that having been brought up in different countries our thought processes are different.
 
We'll just have to accept that having been brought up in different countries our thought processes are different.
I agree, but the sad thing is that Castle Doctrine concept came from the mother country. We just don't water it down and it tends to be pretty black and white here. We do not have a duty to retreat in our homes. If I want to use an MPX with 30 rounds of 9mm JHP as a home defense weapon, I am perfectly legal to do so.
 

endure

GCM
I agree, but the sad thing is that Castle Doctrine concept came from the mother country. We just don't water it down and it tends to be pretty black and white here. We do not have a duty to retreat in our homes. If I want to use an MPX with 30 rounds of 9mm JHP as a home defense weapon, I am perfectly legal to do so.
We don't have a duty to retreat in ours. We are entitled to use reasonable force in self defense. It's just that 30 rounds of whatever is considered unreasonable.
 
We don't have a duty to retreat in ours. We are entitled to use reasonable force in self defense. It's just that 30 rounds of whatever is considered unreasonable.
Then why would Mr. Martin be accused of ambushing people in his own home?? It's not like he had a neon sign offering free beer and hookers to anybody who came in, and then plugged them. These two individuals broke into the man's home when the chances of conflict were extremely high. Smart burglers, here tend to wait until people are more than likely to be out of their home to avoid conflict, they want your things not a fight. The person that is willing to break into your home in at 0200 hours are the type I would worry about, and no quarter would be shown.
 

endure

GCM
Then why would Mr. Martin be accused of ambushing people in his own home?? It's not like he had a neon sign offering free beer and hookers to anybody who came in, and then plugged them. These two individuals broke into the man's home when the chances of conflict were extremely high. Smart burglers, here tend to wait until people are more than likely to be out of their home to avoid conflict, they want your things not a fight. The person that is willing to break into your home in at 0200 hours are the type I would worry about, and no quarter would be shown.

Sorry I'm not going to go round in circles again. The jury decided that he'd committed murder. On appeal the verdict was reduced to manslaughter not because of any change in the circumstances of the night in question but because Martin was found to have paranoid tendencies and this was able to plead diminished responsibility.

It's all there in the appeal.
 
Sorry I'm not going to go round in circles again. The jury decided that he'd committed murder. On appeal the verdict was reduced to manslaughter not because of any change in the circumstances of the night in question but because Martin was found to have paranoid tendencies and this was able to plead diminished responsibility.

It's all there in the appeal.
A travesty it got to that point. But it is a good thing to see how other countries do things.
 
Yep they can be, Like you I'm from the UK as well but been here a bit longer. I used to go back once a year but stopped doing that as family preferred coming over here.

Sad to say it but there is nothing in the UK that could ever make me want to go back to live there.
1000% Agree. I miss family and food and those pub gardens....Nothing that would ever make me return.
 

Latest Threads

Top