|
I must admit that I am with 4thtimelucky here.
The problem is that Martin is "something of a nutter". He'd been burgled before and his reaction was not to improve his home security. Instead he effectively reduced the apparent security of his home to the point where it would prove a tempting target, and to the point where Fearon (I think) wasn't actually charged with burglary but with attempted theft! In effect there was no "break-in". Martin, having already had his right to hold firearms revoked due to previous behaviour then used an illegally held firearm to fatally shoot an intruder IN THE BACK as the intruder was leaving. I doubt that this scenario would even get past the law in Colorado or Texas.
Someone running away from you is not a threat to you! There is no such thing as an aggressive or threatening retreat!
Until Martin shows genuine remorse for his actions then society should be protected from him.
That said, I frankly do not understand the fact in the UK that a criminal in the act of committing a crime (which is surely a major violation of the victim's human rights) should retain his (the criminal's) human rights.
Mike.
|