Perhaps they were running to get weapons or to bring reinforcements!
Perhaps they only wanted to sell Martin some lucky heather or clothes pegs?
They broke into someone's home, not for the first time, and sufferred the consequences. If he had not been armed, Martin would possibly have been beaten to death.
It would not be a bad thing if a few more burglars got their comeuppance.

Edited by georgenorman (12 Apr 2022 6.55pm)

The other day, you were making a case for historical slavers and those that benefitted from it being retrospectively vilified for what was a legal trade.
That doesn't really fit with the rigidity of your assertion regarding shooting burglars and nicking homosexuals.

Surely, a man should be allowed to shoot someone who has invaded his home in the back, front or where ever.
He has lost no matter what. The scum who did it would probably hound him forever and maybe kill him no matter what he did.

What would you do?

She's a shape shifter, but if you look closely you can tell it's the same person.

You need a pair of specs from the Sci-fi Classic 'They Live'! to really see what's going on.

I don't wish to be rude, but you are being ridiculous. The law requires that any response be proportionate. You might think what he did was, but the jury, and the appeal judges did not.

If he had been physically threatened then, perhaps, a claim of self-defence would have succeeded. Shooting them in the back whilst they were running down the stairs to get away didn't.

What your opinion of that might be is an irrelevance. It's a fact.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

It started yesterday after I compared an event that Macron commented on, which has been picked up by the right in similar fashion to here, to what Tony Martin was convicted for.

The barometer is clear. Any response needs to be proportionate to the perceived threat. People under pressure may not act rationally, and that is a legitimate defence. In Martin's case he obviously failed to convince the jury, whilst the appeal judges decided he did not intend to kill he still acted illegally.

I realise how nasty it was for him, but the alternative of him "getting away with it" were potentially nastier. If we ever accepted what he did as a legitimate defence of property, the floodgates could open.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.