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 His shotgun licence, which would not have covered him for a pump-action, was revoked after he shot a hole in an apple scrumper's vehicle.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)

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.

And I say I absolutely trust you to kill people if they are burglars and it is only fair to exact that retribution on them. Your judgement is perfect, in fact Solomon could take advice from you.

Wow. Last raced in 2004 as far as I can see, not sure that was the best advice to offer Solomon

Would

You have a lot of faith in the jury system.

I don't share your confidence.

I also think that if you invade someone's home, then you run the risk of getting yourself killed. It goes with the territory.

I don't believe it is unreasonable to allow a homeowner to defend his home.