Thanks Toad.
(I was being facetious about the chain of causation being started by Mr Marting obtaining the gun). Nevertheless, the question before the court was not whether the kid who got shot was a burglar and deserved it. The question was whether Mr Martin had acted in self defence.
I think your perception that he would have been convicted anyway had the burglar been approaching him is partly correct (although we shall never know and the precise circumstances would count for much).
It is certainly the (curious) case that although the law in the UK and the US (apart from the 'castle doctrine') appear to me to be largely identical, what the Americans would define as 'reasonable' compared to the Brits in terms of whether the force used was reasonable, vary enormously.
My impression about the Martin case (I havn't read the transcripts) is that the prosecutor managed to convince the jury that Martin was not actually defending his home and property when he shot the burglars, but was exacting revenge (they had robbed Martin before). I believe the prosecutor did a good job in painting Martin as some sort of vigalante and if this were the case, I could understand why the jury chose to convict.
I entirely agree with you, Toad, that society tends to forget the victim and looks towards the welfare of the accused. However it is not the primary function of the courts to protect the victim, but to ensure that the accused gets a fair trial. Don't forget that the surviving burglar in the Martin case was put away for burglary.
The question as to whether a burglar deserves a summary death sentence for entering someone's home is, I think, quite a complex one because there are so many scenarios which might occur. For example, I'm sure you would agree that it would be wrong for you to shoot dead an impoverished ten year old who popped into your hall through an open door to steal a pair of rollerblades.
The difficulty with law making is that there will always be a spectrum of situations which will arise which may not always fit neatly into the laws we make.
Otto,
Your actions do not sound 'macho' or 'cold blooded' at all, but quite sensible. What is interesting is that 'it goes without saying that you would be in fear of your life'. Is that because most burglars in the US are likely to be armed themselves? Maybe that would explain the difference between the UK and the US in applying the law of self defence in this area.
