[Ramrod]

Originally posted by Graham
Do you really think that Tony Martin blasting someone in the back with a shotgun *after* he had already fired several shots and the burglars were running away was a "split second decision"?

Yes, it was dark, how do you know that he knew they were running away. He just started blasting away in a panic, thats why he was done for manslaughter and not murder. Or are you presuming to know better that the court?

I don't want to live in a country where the Lynch Mob deals out "justice" (ie a good kicking), do you?

Why are you mentioning lynch mobs? I disapprove of them. Are you saying that Martin was a one man lynch mob? There is a difference between a mob going out and finding someone that may or may not have commited a crime and someone defending himself in his house at night.

Martin was denied parole because he refused to show remorse for what he had done, something which is generally considered to be an important part of a parole hearing.

and because he was deemed to be a "danger to burglars"

Tell me, which Tabloid newspapers do you read?

The Times and The Telegraph, are they highbrow enough for you? (and don't try to get personal)

And I say we should string them all up from the nearest lamp-post! - Signed Angry of Andover.

As I already said, that is not the right course of action. Mob rule gets paediatritians confused with paedophiles!

So write to your MP. That's what he's there for.

rotflmao

If you have to break the law to uphold the law there is *NO LAW*.

That's rather black and white...possibly the law is wrong and needs changing?

He didn't *need* to shoot someone in the back, but he did, out of a desire for revenge, nothing else.

You seem to have remarkable insight into his motives and thinking....(and in direct contrast with what the appeal court thought had happened)

Wake up and listen to the baying of the Lynch Mobs...

You are the one who is confusing a homeowner protecting himself with lynch mobs. They are two totally different creatures.