On what points have I blown things out of proportion?
Regarding that Martin guy, yes I admit he was unbalanced, however if you look at the history of this case it's perhaps understandable! His property was subject to continual vandalism and theft and the authorities did nothing. It would drive anyone insane!
There is no wonder 'Little Englanders' are so up in arms about crime, that's because NOTHING is ever done about it! Criminals just run riot with complete impunity.
Perhaps if people thought the authorities were on THEIR side there wouldn't be such animosity towards petty theives etc. and people wouldn't come out wielding shotguns.
I was also under the impression that the prosecution claimed that
Tony Martin (Michael Martin is the Speaker) had fired without any warning to the intruders and that also his weapon was illegal (pump action shotgun). Case precedent indicates that the property owner is justified in shooting the intruder if he believes himself to be being threatened by the intruder with a deadly weapon; This clearly is not the case here because the intruders did not know he was even there. Also in cases that are controversial in nature, such as this, the jury's personal prejudices come very much into play. The jury in this case was 6 male, 6 female.
