[Ramrod]

I'm glad you decided to continue.

Originally posted by Graham
[BA "law-abiding homeowner" with a history of mental illness and in possession of an illegal weapon who had just shot someone in the back and thus whose word could be considered to be possibly less than reliable!

(taken from The Tony Matrin support group website)

In a judgement which was a slap in the face for law-abiding people, the Lord Chief Justice rejected an acquittal on grounds of self-defence, despite new forensic evidence which supported Tony Martin's testimony, but reduced the conviction to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.

Just because he was deemed to be mentally ill at the time dosn't necessarily make his testimony unreliable.

Whilst he may be "more credible" according to your lights, I'd point out that if the latter was 10% credible and the former 15% credible, it doesn't make either of them *reliable* witnesses whose evidence would *prove* anything.

Forensics back Martins version of events up more than Feardons

As I've said, this is such an obviously circular argument that it doesn't even need addressing.

I don't see how this is a circular argument. If you don't have a intruder on the premises you don't need to defend yourself, if you have you do need to.

It has been said too many times already in this discussion that Martin exceeded the bounds of "reasonable force", hence his conviction for Manslaughter (even though reduced from murder).

I am arguing that we should adopt a more US style to dealing with intruders, for this reason:

are householders really at risk from burglars ? Was Tony Martin being paranoid when he feared for his life as three men broke into his isolated property at night? Home Office figures supplied to the Tony Martin Support Group show that over a five year period at least SIXTY SIX householders have been killed by burglars, many of the victims being elderly. These figures are an understatement, as they do not include those killed by 'intruders'.

As regards your post #94:



You're going to have to split some hairs pretty fine to claim that this isn't "hit first and ask questions later", however I'm just not interested in playing any more. [/B]

Ah, I see now why you thought that. Sorry. I was referring to the fact that burglars shouldn't be on your premises in the first place and that if they are then their motives are extremely suspect, not that I would hit first and ask questions later. Of course I would say something (like "what you doing here?")and wait for the guilty body language before I hit them. Lets face it, your idea of the neighbour checking your house at night scenario is rather tenuous. Can you come up with another, more realistic scenario?