The point here is that in a circumstance where your house is invaded, there might be any number of outcomes, some very bad.
There are many considerations, potentially within a few seconds.

Your first priority is your own protection and that of any family involved. The bigger picture is for another day.

I doubt't anyone in a life threatening position is worrying about whether they might go to prison for defending themselves.

The police did not protect this man from multiple burglaries.

All of which is taken into consideration when deciding whether to prosecute and whether to convict, or not, by the jury.

Martin was charged and found guilty.

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.

So once again the ability of people to think is, in some strange way only known to the self-righteous, impaired by where they happen to live at the moment? Experience, knowledge and having a working brain count for nothing.

I was living in Norfolk when this happened, and in Wisbech itself, which is Martin's local town, for the years after his release. I didn't know him, but I saw him around, and I knew of him and people who knew him. So I am almost certainly better able to have formed an opinion on this particular case than most. He had a long-running battle with the traveller community. Which seems to have played a major part in what he did that night.

I am not, in any way, defending the actions of burglars. If they were threatening him with physical harm, I have little doubt his self-defence plea would have succeeded. It didn't because he shot them in the back as they tried to leave his house. They shouldn't have been there, but he had no right to shoot and kill. Everyone has the right to defend themselves, and their home, but that defence needs to be proportionate to the threat. The jury decided it wasn't.

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.

Wasn’t there the case of the scumbag who broke into a South London home, was killed in self defence and something kicked off over relatives leaving flowers outside claiming he was so lovely and this and that?

COYP

It's not a change at all, it is precisely what I have been saying all along. As for not being on the jury and hearing all the evidence, neither were you, so you agreeing with the verdicts is not really that valid is it.

Martin was the victim of an attack? Wow, you had better let his Counsel know.

Martin had an unlicensed pump barrel shotgun, which of course is fine so he could defend himself, multiple times and quickly. And as it was a Winchester he is simply a cowboy after all. His shotgun licence, which would not have covered him for a pump-action, was revoked after he shot a hole in an apple scrumper's vehicle.

The prosecution accused him of lying in wait for the burglars and opening fire without warning from close range, in retribution for previous break-ins at his home. He killed a sixteen year old boy who was hit in the back and legs.

English law permits a person to kill another in self-defence only if the person defending themself uses no more than "reasonable force".

The jury at the trial were told that they had the option of returning a verdict of manslaughter rather than murder, if they thought that Martin "did not intend to kill or cause serious bodily harm", or murder if they thought he had used excessive force. The jurors found Martin guilty of murder by a 10 to 2 majority.

Submissions by the defence that Martin had fired in his own defence were rejected by the appeal court.

His defence also submitted evidence that Martin was diagnosed with paranoid personality disorder exacerbated by depression and that his paranoia was specifically directed at anyone intruding into his home; he was also diagnosed with Asperger syndrome.

This submission was accepted by the Court of Appeal and, on the grounds of diminished responsibility, Martin's murder conviction was replaced by manslaughter carrying a five-year sentence, and his ten-year sentence for wounding Fearon was reduced to three years to run concurrently.

So there you have it, all of those people considered the evidence but others know better without having that benefit

Maybe it's because Mr Martin was born in Wisbech. He of course had the right to set himself up as Judge, Judy and - quite literally - executioner.

By the way, my experience of Travellers has been truly dreadful and these two were nasty petty criminals.

Edited by Mapletree (13 Apr 2022 1.19pm)