Comments on: Tony Martin and English Self-Defense Laws

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:49:13 +0000

What a sad, cowardly country Britain has become when people regard defending themselves as a crime. No wonder the world doesn’t take Britain seriously anymore.

By: j huettl

j huettl — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 18:19:12 +0000

The old COMMON LAW vs CIVIL LAW and the Legal Eagles playing ROCK PAPER SCISSORS.

Common Law..Jury is instructed to find a verdict.

Civil Law..Judge tells Jury what it may or may not do and tells the jury how to decide.

Common Law…Jury votes once. (If it voted twice, then double jeprody steps in.)

Civil Law…Jury votes and votes untill the Judge of the Court is happy with the verdict, if the Judge of the Court is unhappy with the indecision of the JURY, the Judge of the Court will end the Trial with a hung jury and dismiss the case as Without Prejudice allowing the matter to be retried at a later date.

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 16:34:21 +0000

FYI, there is no fifth amendment in England.

There isn’t, but the right to not be a witness against yourself is common law. When you read the account of Martin’s interview, you’ll note the interview being done “under caution” which means the police suspect you may have committed a crime, and they will advise you of your right under those circumstances. Same as here. You can refuse to answer police questions.

By: Philbert

Philbert — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 15:26:06 +0000

“Don’t talk to the police!”

FYI, there is no fifth amendment in England.

By: FatWhiteMan

FatWhiteMan — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 15:01:18 +0000

No one in the case disputes the facts that the men were in Mr. Martin’s home to commit a crime. Martin’s home had been robbed several times before and both of these men had long rap sheets. No matter where Martin was standing in his house and no matter when he loaded his gun, there should never have been any charges filed. The only thing the cops should have said after investigating and determining the facts was “thank you for helping us take out the trash, have a pleasant evening”. If blame needs assigned for the death it should fall upon whatever government stooge let the dirtbag out of jail. If they had been serving their sentences for the crimes they had already committed, they wouldn’t have broke into Martin’s farmhouse. Perhaps Great Britain did not err on English law when they convicted Martin but then that is just one more reason why Great Britain is no longer great.

By: Turk Turon

Turk Turon — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 14:37:01 +0000

Tony Martin wasn’t a vigilante, but he WAS an eccentric loner, and not a sympathetic defendant. But the worst legal problem he had was the statement he made to the police. Same problem Bernard Goetz had. Ditto Martha Stewart.

Don’t talk to the police!

By: Wolfwood

Wolfwood — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 05:36:38 +0000

Minor quibble: criminal jury verdicts in America need not be unanimous. 10/12 has been upheld by the Supreme Court as okay.

By: Ronnie

Ronnie — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 05:20:08 +0000

I read a Daily Mail article a few months back about the Tony Martin story. It was an update on the case which was not all that sympathetic toward Mister Martin. The article referred to him as an “eccentric vigilante” and claimed that he now prefers to live in seclusion so that the police will not be able to record a fixed address for him in their records. Here’s a link to this one:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1207880/I-dont-regret-shooting-dead-teenage-burglar-says-remorseless-farmer-Tony-Martin.html

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 21:08:35 +0000

The one everyone should read is the link to the appeal, which has all the facts of the case. The Wikipedia article doesn’t.

By: Andy

Andy — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 21:01:06 +0000

Up front, I admit to not getting into all the supporting research links. I’ll have to read them tonight, got to get some chores done shortly.

But, I did get to scan the Wikipedia article on Tony Martin. From that (and that alone, I admit this is not supported) I gathered that Tony shot the burglars as they were fleeing. Even in Castle Doctrine as defined by most states, would that not be unjustified use of force, due to the alegation that the burglars were fleeing instead of advancing with intent to harm?

IANAL, etc. Off to get kids ready for holiday travel.