The message
from martin contains these words:

/snip/
Making the presumption that the defendant acted in self-defence any
stronger would mean sanctioning a disproportionate response,
encouraging householders to use guns, electric fences and rottweilers.
It might also fall foul of the right to life guarantee in the Human
Rights Act, which comes into force this October.

However, it is the *DUTY* of a citizen to try to prevent the commission
of a serious crime. If the intruder is trespassing with intent to steal,
this is a serious crime, and if the wording of the law hasn't been
changed since the term 'felony' was superceded by 'serious crime', he
may use 'any means at his disposal to do so'.

Assuming that wording still to be in force, I think that would have got
Tony Martin off if it had been argued, as the trespasser would still
have been in commission of the crime while he
was on private property whether he was fleeing or not.

The 'reasonable force' does not come into it as it is permitted rather
than obligatory.

Heh! I can see this thread outrunning the Wages of Sin one. Cue Rajinder!

--
Rusty Hinge
horrid·squeak&zetnet·co·uk
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/tqt.htm