Jean Charles de Menezes verdict

After it was established that Mr Martin could not be trusted with firearms (he shot at a vehicle that was driving away), his licence was suspended. The weapon he had was illegally held because he had shown he was unable to make the correct snap judgement.

There's a couple of things that need to be said concerning this topic.You seem to be claiming that a person breaking into one's home automatically gives the right of the home owner to shoot him. You seem to claim that this is because a person breaking into someone's home gives the home owner a reason to fear for her safety.However, in most jurisdictions, for lethal force to be considered legitimate, the person defending herself needs to actually be afraid for her safety -- it is not sufficient that one can understand why someone could be afraid for her safety, she needs to be actually afraid. Now, someone breaking into someone's house does not automatically mean that the home owner is afraid -- according to the facts examined by a jury, the Martin case is a particular situation where the homeowner did not actually fear for his safety as he shot the intruders.Then you seem to be claiming that because the intruders were, in fact, burglars, there should have been no investigation of the shooting -- it should have been assumed that Martin was shooting in defense of his life and safety. Except this makes no sense -- according to the evidence, examined by a jury with the defense attempting to dispute them, it has been determined that this would have been a wrong assumption. The Martin case shows that we cannot assume that in any given case where an intruder is shot it is because the home owner feared for her safety.So this whole discussion as to whether or not a person has reason to fear for her safety (to the point of legitimizing lethal force) just because an intruder is in the house has been irrelevant to the discussion. The discussion has been about the Martin case, and it has been established that Martin did not have sufficient fear for his life to warrant the use of lethal force.Personally, and correct me if I am wrong, I think what you really want to say is that a person should simply have the right to shoot an intruder in her home under any (or at least most) circumstances. And that would be fine -- it is a view point I disagree with, but it is certainly more respectable in that it wouldn't involve making up fantasy scenarios -- it becomes a discussion about ethics, rights, and what kind of society we want to live in.Unfortunately, though, you seem to want to discuss the Martin case as a comparison to the Menezes incident, and for that you need to discuss which situations claims for the fears of one's safety should justify lethal force. However, in this case, you seem to be comparing apples with oranges, and are trying to force the orange to be an apple.Personally, I think that, even considering the question of justification of lethal force, the two incidents are too different to be directly comparable. They are each either just or unjust based on their own individual merits, and whatever conclusions we reach about one case will have little or no relevance to the conclusions we reach about the other case.In fact, you even admitted as such. You have admitted that you feel that Martin was, pretty much automatically, justified in his use of lethal force and don't feel there should have been an investigation. And you seem to feel that there should have been a proper investigation in the Menezes shooting, and that the officers involved should have been punished for their use of lethal force despite their claims that they were acting out of a sincere fear for their safety and the safety of others. So you, yourself, are saying that the two cases are not comparable, and the conclusions you reached about one have little relevance to the conclusions you reached about the other.

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

If you want to take your chances, fair enough, it's up to you. However, the law shouldn't be forcing the rest of us to take chances with our and our family's well-being, the law should protect us and ensure that we have the right to *minimize* the risk to us when faced with a clear and present danger. But we're not talking about trained professionals here, we're talking about your average Joe. In Tony Martin's case we're talking about a middle-aged farmer living alone in a remote farmhouse. You can't seriously expect him to handle such a situation like a Delta Force veteran!The DeMenezes incident only higlights the double standards : if a trained professional isn't vilified for losing his composure enough to shoot a held-down person seven times in the face, then how the hell does anyone have the gall to criticise someone like Martin for using 'unreasonable force' ?! And I'm saying that an intruder in your home in the middle of the night is a very clear and present threat, regardless of the direction in which he's moving.Once the intruder is in his car speeding away from your property then you can consider the threat stopped.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

In such situations everyone's scared shitless, trust me. The news are filled daily with stories of petty thugs killing and maiming people. So it's not just my exaggerated ideas.Also, how do you know they're petty thugs and not sadistic killers? How do you know they're there to steal your silverware and not rape your wife and torture your kid? And my point is: if the situation involves an intruder into one's home then the benefit of the doubt should always be with the homeowner, not the intruder. But he should never have been put in this position! The facts were crystal clear pretty early on: two men broke into his home, he confronted and shot them. That's the essence of the case. The rest of the facts presented were prejudicial trivia, like his personal views on burglary, his eccentric personality, et al.Why should it matter if he shot them from the bottom of the stairs or the top of the stairs or sitting on the toilet having a dump? They had broken into his home, he was alone in the middle of the night and had no idea of their intentions.Why should it matter if he said that burglars should be shot or if he's a psycho or a nazi-sympathiser or whatever. We *all* should have the right to assume the worst from someone breaking into our home at night and react in the safest and most risk-free way to *us* and our family, not the intruder!That's what a just and free society should be all about.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

I train for it. Sorry, that is irrelevant. I am an old fart, not even close to middle-age anymore. If I can train for such situations, why can't someone else? Sorry, but I have not vilified Martin nor have I excused the DeMenezes. I have, in fact asked several times for specifics about the DeMenez shooting. In the Martin case, shooting someone who is running away and not posing an immediate risk IS excessive force. Yes, I know that is what you are saying, and I am saying I believe you are wrong.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The law protects you (and to some extent it protects your family from you) by requiring you to make calm, rational shooting decisions. If you can't do that, you shouldn't own a gun - you're more danger to yourself and to your family than the intruders are.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

So the essence of the case doesn't have anything to do with whether Martin felt shooting the intruders was necessary to protect his life? That it doesn't matter that Martin's reason for shooting was to teach a lesson to the bastards? Then why don't you just say so? Why do you keep bringing up whether a person is scared for their safety when confronting an intruder in her home when you don't seem to feel it's particularly relevant, and when it doesn't even apply to the Martin case?Like I said in my previous post, you appear to believe that a person should just have the right to shoot an intruder in their home. Period. Just say it. Don't keep going on about hypothetical details that aren't even relevant in the one case about which you are speaking.Martin did not shoot two intruders in his home because he felt it to be necessary to protect his safety. He shot two intruders as a lesson to future intruders. You seem to be alright with it. Fine. But this whole nonsense about fear for one's safety actually appears to be irrelevant to you. It is certainly irrelevant to this particular case.The whole point is, if belief in necessity is an essential condition for the use of lethal force, then one simply must investigate instances of homicide to make sure that the person using the force believed that lethal force was necessary. The Martin case shows that one cannot simply assume that that the killer believed lethal force was necessary just because the victims were burglars -- in the Martin case, it would have been an incorrect assumption.If belief in the necessity for lethal force is an essential condition for the use of lethal force, then Martin's use of lethal force was not legitimate. I don't know whether in British courts the prosecution has to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, but I assume they must prove their case to some level of certainty; in the Martin case the jury was persuaded that Martin did not shoot the intruders because he felt it was necessary to protect his safety; the defense was right there, responding to the evidence that the prosecution provided and providing their own evidence, and they failed to instill enough doubt about the prosecution's case in the minds of the jury.The evidence, weighed by the jury, indicates Martin did not believe that shooting the intruders was necessary to protect his safety. Since you still insist that Martin had every right to shoot intruders in his home, then this is evidently not an issue for you, either. You really seem to be saying that a person should have the right to shoot any intruder in his house just because he is an intruder. Then you should just say that. That would change the discussion, and might render it off-topic for your thread, but it appears that continued talk about fear for personal safety is just obfuscating the Martin case.-Added by edit:I've made some changes in the wording here. The issue in the use of lethal force in self-defense isn't whether or not the person defending herself is afraid -- the issue in self-defense is whether or not the person defending herself believes that lethal force is necessary for her protection.I think that anyone who is interested in the subject and is interested in the issues and peoples' opinions would probably have understood this. However, this may clarify things for those who main interest is venting indignation at anyone who has the temerity to disagree with him.Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

quote:

---

So the police shouldn't have investigated into a human death any further than that?

---

they should investigate to make sure that no punitive action was taken, i.e. the burglar, after being shot, wasn't tied to a chair and tortured for two hours.

quote:

---

They were criminals, so it was OK to kill them?

---

they were intruders, at night, in someone's remote farmhouse, so it was ok to incapacitate them.

quote:

---

Sounds foolish to me.

---

sounds very prudent to me.

quote:

---

There was reason to think that the [Tony Martin] killing wasn't clearly self defence, that another hypothesis could reasonably be put forward.

---

Other hypotheses have reasonably been put forward in the DeMenezes case too: that the police were a bunch of trigger-happy, incompetent idiots who didn't do their job properly or that they simply were prejudiced against dark-skinned people. Where is the investigation into past comments by the officers on muslims/arabs? Where is the investigation into previous case histories of operations conducted by these officers? And, at the end of the day, why weren't those officers put in front of a criminal jury and let the jury decide whether there was sufficient evidence to believe that those other hypotheses were true, just like they did with Tony Martin, and just like they would have done with me or you ?!That's what I mean by double standards!

quote:

---

I'm not asking what makes you think the police were mistaken, but wrong in the moral sense.

---

I don't think the police were wrong in the moral sense, neither do I think that Tony Martin was wrong in the moral sense. I'm pointing out the different standards by which British justice treats people who kill, dependent on whether they're part of the establishment and on the current moral climate.

quote:

---

Turning to my example in Message 77, what if it turned out that the burglars were merely seeking shelter from aggressive dogs? I'm sure you would defend Mr Martin the same, assuming his story to be true.

---

Yes, and so should you, considering you defend the police on the DeMenezes case. The scenario you just described is about someone who's wrongly perceived as a threat and shot, just like Jean Charles De Menezes. The main difference between this and the Tony Martin case is that De Menezes was wrongly perceived as a threat while Martin's burglars were rightly perceived as a threat. However, you can't jail police officers who're trying to protect the public while you can easily jail a middle-aged loner, especially if he's a bit quirky and has far-right views.

quote:

---

But what if Mr Martin's story wasn't true? What if he had maneouvered around the house, waited for the thieves to come to him with the intention of killing them out of vengeance only to find out that they weren't thieves but a lost boy and his older brother investigating an abandoned house they found whilst seeking shelter from aggressive dogs?

---

If he had set an ambush outside his house, that would be another story. If, on the other hand, he was lying awake with a shotgun by his side, because he was afraid of being burgled, as many neighbouring farmhouses had been lately, then that wouldn't change much. He certainly didn't lure the burglars into his house, he couldn't possibly foresee their intentions, numbers or weaponry and he had good reason to fear for his life and property. It's pretty valid self-defence as far as I'm concerned.If, as in your scenario, the burglars were really lost boys running away from dogs and he shot them thinking they were burglars then we would have another DeMenezes case, i.e. a 'tragic accident'. He then should be given a health & safety fine for having rusty hinges on his door and let free to get on with his life, just like the police in the DeMenezes case.

quote:

---

To answer your question of interesting analogy (Message 83), the landlord should not feel be found guilty or not guilty based on whether the people he perceived to be imminent threats to his person actually presented threat.

---

And I agree. Which is why I said that, in your example, Martin would have been right in shooting the burglars even if they had been lost boys. The fact that the intruders weren't really lost boys but seasoned burglars, one with a history of violence to boot, makes his decision to shoot them appear all the more justified.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

quote:

---

You seem to be claiming that a person breaking into one's home automatically gives the right of the home owner to shoot him.

---

Not quite, it depends very much on the circumstances. If, for example, you're holding a party to celebrate your rugby team's victory, with all 15 of your 6'6, 250 pound, teammates who are also cricket players and happen to have their cricket bats with them, and then suddenly a window breaks and a 10 yr old burglar crawls in, shooting him would be unjustified, IMO.If, on the other hand, you're a middle-aged man, living alone in the woods and two men intrude in the middle of the night, then you should have the right to start shooting until they're either incapacitated or out and away from your house (and running).If you really want me to make a generalisation, here's one: The benefit of the doubt should always lie with the homeowner and not with the intruder!

quote:

---

However, in most jurisdictions, for lethal force to be considered legitimate, the person defending herself needs to actually be afraid for her safety -- it is not sufficient that one can understand why someone could be afraid for her safety, she needs to be actually afraid.

---

And who the hell are you -or anyone else- to judge whether someone's afraid or not and by how much??. Is there a new generation of thought crimes coming up? "Being very afraid when one should be just a little bit concerned"- that'll be 5 years in jail, thank you!If we can understand why someone would be afraid -and someone being afraid of two men breaking into his remote house late at night is very understandable- then we shouldn't get on our self-righteous horse and try to quantify his fear or take his political views and lifestyle into consideration and all sorts of other prejudicial crap. We should just give him the benefit of the doubt and admit that had it been our mum or dad in his shoes we'd have wanted them to react in a similar manner, rather than wait and pray that the intruders will just leave without inflicting any violence or torching the house down.

quote:

---

Now, someone breaking into someone's house does not automatically mean that the home owner is afraid

---

Wow, what a statement! If the homeowner is in a coma or high on drugs, perhaps. But show me someone who's woken up in the middle of the night by the sound of breaking glass and claim they're not afraid and I'll show you a liar.

quote:

---

The Martin case shows that we cannot assume that in any given case where an intruder is shot it is because the home owner feared for her safety.

---

The Martin case only shows that the law believes that homeowners should hide themselves in the closet and hope that the intruders don't find them in the half hour it will take for police to arrive. Which says more about the law-makers than it says about homeowners.

quote:

---

So this whole discussion as to whether or not a person has reason to fear for her safety (to the point of legitimizing lethal force) just because an intruder is in the house has been irrelevant to the discussion. The discussion has been about the Martin case, and it has been established that Martin did not have sufficient fear for his life to warrant the use of lethal force.

---

So....you're saying that because Martin was found guilty then he couldn't be really afraid so it's pointless talking about it ?!? It's because Martin was found guilty for a situation any of us could find themselves into, that we should talk about it.

quote:

---

Personally, and correct me if I am wrong, I think what you really want to say is that a person should simply have the right to shoot an intruder in her home under any (or at least most) circumstances.

---

I answer this in the first paragraph of this post.

quote:

---

Unfortunately, though, you seem to want to discuss the Martin case as a comparison to the Menezes incident, and for that you need to discuss which situations claims for the fears of one's safety should justify lethal force. However, in this case, you seem to be comparing apples with oranges, and are trying to force the orange to be an apple.

---

I appreciate the differences between the two cases, however, you have to appreciate the similarities and the different treatment they received by the british justice system. In both cases, men were shot dead as they were claimed to be perceived to be a threat.In one case, the police and CPS go out of their way to prove that the accused didn't really feel as threatened as he claimed, despite the clear evidence that the perpetrators had indeed deliberately broken into his house. In the other case, the police and CPS do a nominal investigation where they practically accept the police's word that they were convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was a threat, the officers backgrounds and racial views are not taken into account and no criminal prosecution is brought forward.

quote:

---

You have admitted that you feel that Martin was, pretty much automatically, justified in his use of lethal force and don't feel there should have been an investigation. And you seem to feel that there should have been a proper investigation in the Menezes shooting, and that the officers involved should have been punished for their use of lethal force despite their claims that they were acting out of a sincere fear for their safety and the safety of others. So you, yourself, are saying that the two cases are not comparable, and the conclusions you reached about one have little relevance to the conclusions you reached about the other.

---

A clarification: I don't think that the DeMenezes officers should necessarilty have been punished for what happened, but I do think they should have been treated as the rest of us. If we (the general public) kill someone we reasonably perceive to be threat we go to trial and, often, to prison. The police officers do the same and nothing happens, just a slap on the wrist. That's why comparing the two cases is not only relevant but important to anyone who aspires to live in a truly free and just society.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

calm, rational shooting decisions ??! LOL! at the fair, shooting cans of coke, perhaps. In your own house, in the middle of the night, confronted by strangers who've just broken in..? you've got another thing coming.P.S I love the "law protects your family from you" bit! I know the state regards its citizens as irresponsible, criminal morons but it's nice of you to confirm it!

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

Okay, it's just as I feared. The problem is the use of the word "fear". I've been using the term as a shorthand for the relevant conditions for self-defense:

quote:

---

5. In judging whether the defendant had only used reasonable force, the jury has to take into account all the circumstances, including the situation as the defendant honestly believes it to be at the time, when he was defending himself. It does not matter if the defendant was mistaken in his belief as long as his belief was genuine.

​

6. Accordingly, the jury could only convict Mr Martin if either they did not believe his evidence that he was acting in self-defence or they thought that Mr Martin had used an unreasonable amount of force. These were issues which were ideally suited to a decision of a jury.

​

7. As to the first issue, what Mr Martin believed, the jury heard his evidence and they could only reject that evidence, if they were satisfied it was untrue. As to the second issue, as to what is a reasonable amount of force, obviously opinions can differ. It cannot be left to a defendant to decide what force it is reasonable to use because this would mean that even if a defendant used disproportionate force but he believed he was acting reasonably he would not be guilty of any offence. It is for this reason that it was for the jury, as the representative of the public, to decide the amount of force which it would be reasonable and the amount of force which it would be unreasonable to use in the circumstances in which they found that Mr Martin believed himself to be in. It is only if the jury are sure that the amount of force which was used was unreasonable that they are entitled to find a defendant guilty if he was acting in self-defence.

---

Since I don't want to quote this entire passage every time I want to talk about the necessary conditions for a plea of self-defense, I was using the word "reasonable fear". That, I see, is confusing.I pretty much rephrased my point in the subsequent post, where I use the longer phrase "belief in the necessity of lethal force" instead of the misleading word "fear". I'll let you read that post and comment on it; to prevent misunderstandings and quibbles over the meaning of words, keep in mind that I am using the phrase "belief in the necessity of lethal force" and similar phrases as a shorthand for

quote:

---

5. In judging whether the defendant had only used reasonable force, the jury has to take into account all the circumstances, including the situation as the defendant honestly believes it to be at the time, when he was defending himself. It does not matter if the defendant was mistaken in his belief as long as his belief was genuine.

​

6. Accordingly, the jury could only convict Mr Martin if either they did not believe his evidence that he was acting in self-defence or they thought that Mr Martin had used an unreasonable amount of force. These were issues which were ideally suited to a decision of a jury.

​

7. As to the first issue, what Mr Martin believed, the jury heard his evidence and they could only reject that evidence, if they were satisfied it was untrue. As to the second issue, as to what is a reasonable amount of force, obviously opinions can differ. It cannot be left to a defendant to decide what force it is reasonable to use because this would mean that even if a defendant used disproportionate force but he believed he was acting reasonably he would not be guilty of any offence. It is for this reason that it was for the jury, as the representative of the public, to decide the amount of force which it would be reasonable and the amount of force which it would be unreasonable to use in the circumstances in which they found that Mr Martin believed himself to be in. It is only if the jury are sure that the amount of force which was used was unreasonable that they are entitled to find a defendant guilty if he was acting in self-defence.

---

- You should actually look at the law itself before you make comments about it. Here is a summary of the law:

quote:

---

5. In judging whether the defendant had only used reasonable force, the jury has to take into account all the circumstances, including the situation as the defendant honestly believes it to be at the time, when he was defending himself. It does not matter if the defendant was mistaken in his belief as long as his belief was genuine.

​

6. Accordingly, the jury could only convict Mr Martin if either they did not believe his evidence that he was acting in self-defence or they thought that Mr Martin had used an unreasonable amount of force. These were issues which were ideally suited to a decision of a jury.

​

7. As to the first issue, what Mr Martin believed, the jury heard his evidence and they could only reject that evidence, if they were satisfied it was untrue. As to the second issue, as to what is a reasonable amount of force, obviously opinions can differ. It cannot be left to a defendant to decide what force it is reasonable to use because this would mean that even if a defendant used disproportionate force but he believed he was acting reasonably he would not be guilty of any offence. It is for this reason that it was for the jury, as the representative of the public, to decide the amount of force which it would be reasonable and the amount of force which it would be unreasonable to use in the circumstances in which they found that Mr Martin believed himself to be in. It is only if the jury are sure that the amount of force which was used was unreasonable that they are entitled to find a defendant guilty if he was acting in self-defence.

---

However much you may disagree with it, it certainly says nothing about hiding in closets.

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

Pay attention. I said that if you can't make calm, rational shooting decisions, you have no business owning a gun - because you're more likely to hurt yourself or your family than whatever "threat" you're shooting at.Being calm and rational is for your benefit and your family's. Shooting willy-nilly at perceived threats is not. That's not what I said. I said that irresponsible morons shouldn't own guns.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Right - so if they find anything that might indicate the incident might have been punitive, they should bring charges. In Mr Martin's case there was evidence it was punitive. Maybe, but using lethal force to incapacitate the burglars warrants further investigation. If it wasn't out of self-defence, but out of vengeance killing...it is murder. So if I want to murder someone, I just need to buy a remote place that has been often burgled and then sit and wait with an illegal firearm for someone to break in so I can blow their heads off whoever they are. 'Legend's Law' opens up a massive loophole by allowing people to become vigilantes.If you think that is prudent, so be it. Yes - that is another hypothesis. The CPS investigated, found insufficient evidence to support such a case that would warrant the money spent on a court case. That separates the two cases of Mr Martin and the De Menezes case. I'll let a representative tell you:

quote:

---

I asked them to carry out some additional enquiries, which they have done, and I am now satisfied that I have sufficient evidence to reach a decision in this matter.

​

The offences I considered included murder, manslaughter, forgery, and breaches of health and safety legislation.

​

All cases are considered in accordance with the principles in the Code for Crown Prosecutors, which states that before a prosecution can commence, there must be a realistic prospect of conviction.

​

I concluded that while a number of individuals had made errors in planning and communication...... no individual had been culpable to the degree necessary for a criminal offence

​

If there is not sufficient evidence then a case cannot proceed, no matter how important or serious it may be.

​

After the most careful consideration I have concluded that there is insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against any individual police officer.

---

and

quote:

---

At the time of Martin’s arrest, this case generated a great deal of public discussion on the amount of force a householder should use to protect their property. The law allows for reasonable force in defending yourself in the prevention of crime from attack but it was clear when we reviewed the evidence in this case that Martin had gone far beyond the amount of force which the ordinary person would consider to be reasonable.

​

After careful consideration of all the facts, we felt that there was clearly enough evidence for a case to go before a court and that there was an overwhelming public interest that it should do so.

---

They were both investigated, and different conclusions were reached based on the evidence. Ah, evidence, how wonderful you are. The two cases are different, so the outcomes are. These are not different standards. It had already been established that lethal force was reasonable in dealing with a potential suicide bomber, there is no reason to suspect that the officers did not think De Menezes was a suicide bomber based on what evidence there is. Self-defence is viable only if it can be shown you perceived a threat to your life or others, and what is reasonable depends on the situation.The entire point was that Mr Martin was not fearing for his life when fired those shots, that he killed the burglars out of vengeance for a spate of burglaries and the perception that police were not doing anything. That is not self-defence. If Mr Martin did fear for his life, given the situation, walking towards and then firing at a burglar who was bending over, then aiming at a second intruder and firing, and once the intruder was wounded, shooting him again as he fled through a window would not be considered reasonable by ordinary people.Given either of the two situations (either it wasn't self defence or it wasn't reasonable force given the threat) were supported by sufficient evidence, there is good reason to have a trial.In the De Menezes case the officers sincerely believed they were using reasonable force to take down a serious threat to public safety. There was no evidence to suggest otherwise.That's the difference. The burglars were not rightly identified as a threat - they were singled out to be killed in vengeance for previous crimes they hadn't committed but which they served as an adequate scape goat for an angry man (rightly angry, wrongly expressed). He might have been scared, but he told lies to cover up what had happened because if people knew what really happened they would know he had committed murder - not acted purely in self-defence, but with malicious aforethought acted to seriously injure or kill. Neither of which happened. He wasn't lying awake with a shotgun by his side - that story was falsified by the evidence. He deliberately waited and acted with the intent of killing criminals that were pissing him off. He shouldn't have been done for health & safety. Had it been shown that he acted reasonably and in self defence regardless of who the intruders were, he would have at worst, been charged with possession of an illegal firearm.If they had been lost boys that had broken in, and he was waiting for the break in so that he could kill some intruders...that would be murder regardless of who the intruders actually were. Only if he was acting reasonably in self-defence. There was enough evidence to suggest he was not acting in self-defence nor was his action reasonable - so a jury was asked to decide. They did. There was not enough evidence to suggest that police officers were acting in any way but out of interest to public safety within the guidelines they were given.There is a difference in the two cases, that's why they aren't analogous. That's why you can't conclude one rule for them and one rule for us...unless you are implying the CPS are corrupt - which will require evidence. I'd be interested to know if you know of any legal authority that thinks there was enough evidence to warrant putting the officers on trial, or that there wasn't enough to put Mr Martin on trial.

I re-read your Message 97 post. I appreciate you re-writing it though I still disagree with it.

quote:

---

Martin did not shoot two intruders in his home because he felt it to be necessary to protect his safety. He shot two intruders as a lesson to future intruders.

---

Again, neither you or I can judge what Martin did or didn't feel at the time. If we do that we venture dangerously into thought-crime territory, i.e. judging people for what they might have thought instead of how they acted.As it's perfectly reasonable to fear two intruders in your remote house in the middle of the night, especially if you're an older man living alone, then we have to give Tony Martin the benefit of the doubt and accept that he was in fear for his safety, like most of us would be.

quote:

---

The whole point is, if belief in necessity is an essential condition for the use of lethal force, then one simply must investigate instances of homicide to make sure that the person using the force believed that lethal force was necessary.

---

Agreed. If it's clearly evident in the particular case that the person was confronted by two intruders, at night, in his own house then the 'belief in necessity for lethal force' should be justified and accepted. If it's also obvious that the person is a middle-aged man living alone in a remote location, where help wouldn't be quickly forthcoming, then the 'belief in necessity' should be doubly justified.

quote:

---

The Martin case shows that one cannot simply assume that that the killer believed lethal force was necessary just because the victims were burglars -- in the Martin case, it would have been an incorrect assumption.

---

No, the Martin case simply shows what the jury thought based on the 'evidence' they were presented with, the choices they were presented with and their own bias. Please see my post to Modulous (to follow).The Martin case should never have gone to a criminal trial, just like the DeMenezes case shouldn't -in principle- go to trial. If however one has and the other won't, that exposes the double standards of British justice.Tell me, do you think shooting a restrained man seven times in the face constitutes 'unreasonable force' ?

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

Is that it...? Is that all? He 'carried out some additional enquiries' and now all is fine ?!He says there isn't sufficient evidence. Did he even look for it? Where are the interviews with the officers' friends/colleagues/wives/neighbours ? Have they ever made some incidental comment about muslims/arabs/foreigners? Where is their case history? have they ever bungled any other operations, especially when arabs were involved? Where is the investigation into their lifestyle, club memberships, political affiliations, etc ?If I was someone like the Tony Martin prosecuting lawyer I'd certainly want to see all that. I would then pick out:- all incidental comments that might indicate prejudice, I'm sure they must have said, at some stage, that terrorists deserve what's coming to them or something to that effect.
- all incidents that might indicate racial hatred, maybe they had an argument with their Pakistani shopkeeper over wrong change or something similar.
- the recent fights/arguments they had with their wives and girlfriends. That would suggest they were in a 'fragile mental state'.
- any statements of support for they might have made for anti-immigration parties, e.g. "I think that UKIP might be a viable proposition at the next election"I reckon I could make a pretty good case that the officers were a bunch of trigger-happy xenophobes who shot DeMenezes as vengeance for the July 7th bombings while blinded by racial prejudice and hatred. My piece-de-resistance would be the *fact* that they shot a restrained man seven times in the face at point-blank range, some 'unreasonable force' that surely proves that they were not merely neutralising the threat but applying vengeance, motivated by racial hatred.I would then lay out all the above 'evidence' in front of a jury and let them decide.After all, if juries are so objective and un-biased as you seem to think, then the officers would have nothing to fear, don't you think ?

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."