I've fisked the advice at

http://staghounds.blogspot.com/

Feel free to link or quote, love your work!

"it appears to have done the trick".

I have to agree. I watched the BBC breakfast news this morning (I am a glutton for punishment) and the general pitch was that we had had some sort of radical change in the law.

As I understand it, if you find burglars in your house, it is reasonable:

1. To attack them first without warning;

2. To use a weapon;

3. To kill them if necessary.

Can someone please remind me what exactly Tony Martin did wrong?

There has been a big lie that he shot a fleeing burglar in the back. This is not so. He shot one burglar in the back, and one in the leg. He was in fact firing in the dark, and the burglar shot in the back simply had his back to him when he was shot. Both burglars fled his house, and he did not chase them or shoot them as they were fleeing. One died of blood loss, one did not.

I realise that Martin did not have a licence for his shotgun, but in law you may act in self-defence even if you have to use an illegal weapon. Tony Martin could well have been charged with a firearms offence, but he was in fact charged with murder.

Do I trust Phony Tony and his spin machine? Do I balls.

JK - those are the facts *as TM stated them*.

However, the jury found that his story about being on the stairs and blindly firing in the dark was impossible based on forensic evidence about Barras's wounds; therefore the verdict was reached on the basis that TM *was* able to see Barras when he shot him.

Shooting someone in the back without warning is not only 'unreasonable', but would also be 'grossly disproportionate' under Michael Howard's formulation.

Shooting someone in the back without warning is not only 'unreasonable', but would also be 'grossly disproportionate' under Michael Howard's formulation.

But why? It is now established that "reasonable force" includes using a weapon and striking first without warning if needs be. I think a man in his 50's in an isolated location finding two burglars in his house late at night has every right, under the interpretation of the law we have now been given by the Home Office, to have done exactly what Martin did.

Personally, I do not see what the problem was if Martin could see the burglars, I feel that firing blind is a very dangerous thing to do. I imagine there was some bullshit legal reason why Martin came up with one story and then had to stick with it.

So I cannot see how Martin's actions were either "unreasonable" based on the Home Office definition, or "grossly disproportionate".

There is no doubt that the Tony Martin case lead to this controversy, and I feel that if a similar case occurred now the police would deal with it differently. If they did not this Home Office guidance would be seen to be so much bullshit. Of course it may well be just that!

Tony Martin, who lived on a remote farm in Norfolk, had been victimised, burgled and frightened by this band of gypsies for months. He had called the police so many times that had been taking longer and longer to respond, until they stopped bothering to come at all(rather than go and warn the gypsies that they were being watched).

The time Martin got out his shotgun was around the 11th or 12th time they had entered his premises and taken things.

So, he was a late middle-aged man, awakened in the middle of the night by two reckless young men in his house. Both he and the gypsies were aware that a phone call to the police would not result in a visit. It is not unreasonable to assume, when they began to come up the stairs to his bedroom floor, that he panicked. He may have shot blindly in the dark and hit lucky by killing the vicious little kid, or he may have turned on the lights and shot in a panic as the two were mounting the stairs and then turned to retreat.

Either way, he was aware that he was on his own. He was aware that these two intruders were reckless. He was aware that the intruders knew that even if he called the police, no police would come.

There is absolutely no excuse except to control the population with an iron fist for what subsequently happened to Tony Martin.

To compound official assininity and toxic currying favour with "ethnic minorities", they were then proposing, on his eventual release, to spend £500,000 of taxpayers' money to give Martin a new identity and resettle him in Australia (where he knows no one) because the gypsies had threatened that he would be murdered on his release, in revenge for killing the little asshole. This was somehow regarded as cheaper and more streamlined that going over and explaining the facts of life to the gypsies.

"Anyone can use reasonable force to protect themselves or others"

It appears to me that the entire problem in Britain is the change in political culture that caused the authorities to informally redefine "reasonable". The statement, taken at face value, would equally well describe the law in America even in "cowboy" states like Texas.

The practical difference is that in, say Texas, "reasonable" force is considered to be anything done in the heat of the moment. As long as you don't cold-bloodedly walk up and administer a coup de grace, you're usually on solid legal ground. That definition of "reasonable" is cultural, not legal. The authorities know that if even if they brought a person to court, they could not get a conviction.

In Britain there appears to have been a cultural shift wherein "reasonable" came to mean "minimal proportional response" as judge by people sitting calmly in a well lit office, after breakfast and several cups of coffee. If the new statement presages a return to the old standard then it will have the effect that many seem so hopeful about.

The test will come the very next time someone kills or injures an intruder. If the authorities pounce on the victim for defending themselves then we will know that the new stances is just a facade.

It might be interesting to compare the respective rates over the last few decade at which victims of crime were charged when they injured or killed a criminal.

That would provide evidence for whether the official story line is true or not. If the rate grew over time that would mean either (1) crime victims have gotten more violent in protecting themselves or (2) that the state has defined "reasonable force" downward.

I'm betting on (2).

Whenever the word "reasonable" issues from a bureaubot's yap, you can be completely certain that it means: "I get to summarily ignore anything you think or say for any reason or no reason at all."

It's the world's oldest hand-job.

It might be interesting to compare the respective rates over the last few decade at which victims of crime were charged when they injured or killed a criminal.

This cannot easily be done, as the CPS does not keep statistics covering cases where householders who injure or kill burglars are prosecuted.

The figure of 11 cases in 15 years was pulled out of the air by CPS lawyers who happened to remember 11 cases. There could have been 111 cases for all we know, but the figure of 11 suits King Tony quite nicely, so that's the one they will keep using.

Whenever the word "reasonable" issues from a bureaubot's yap, you can be completely certain that it means: "I get to summarily ignore anything you think or say for any reason or no reason at all."

The test of reasonableness, as should be well enough known here, is one of the fundamental concepts of the common law. It doesn't mean anything you happen to think is ok, it means what an average person in similar circumstances would consider to be appropriate and proportionate. Contrary to Shannon Love, it is not a cultural thing but is actually a concept in law.

It should perhaps be borne in mind that nobody is claiming this event to be redfinition of any law or right. It is a restatement of the law as enacted in 1967.

IMO, the principal change in recent times that is relevant to the situation is the focus on human rights. It would appear that the rights of the criminal have been emphasised at the expense of the rights of the victim. The restatement of the legal position (which has not changed since 1967) should clarify that, although people do still have certain rights even if they are criminals, the rights of the law-abiding victim of crime have a higher priority.

EG

"The test of reasonableness..." in this context turns completely on whether the subject under consideration is being faced with the arbitrary and unilateral application of force or its immediate threat.

I'm not talking about a person facing some perp at the scene.

I'm talking about presumptives with their asses firmly lodged on the altar of state.

Nevertheless, that's what it means.

EG

John K writes:

"The figure of 11 cases in 15 years was pulled out of the air by CPS lawyers who happened to remember 11 cases"

Prescisely!

This entirely fictitious figure has, however, been siezed on by the Biased Broadcasting Corporation's hand-wringing legal correspondents, who have been clucking and fussing at this story for weeks, doing their best to rubbish the very suggestion that there is any problem at all - other than that being 'whipped-up by the Right-wing press'.

The only time I've seen this figure questioned was by the Telegraph. The BBC, on the other hand, first swallowed it, then parroted it, over and over again.

Euan Gray,

"it means what an average person in similar circumstances would consider to be appropriate and proportionate."

Well, what an average person considers appropriate is a function of the broader cultural values.

For example, it was once considered reasonable that a husband who found his wife in flagrante delicto would lose emotional control and murder the wife and lover. A man who did so would often escape any punishment. Now days, even though the formal law never changed, it is no longer considered reasonable for the husband to act in such a fashion. The thing that changed was the general culture, not formal or even common law.

A change in culture is a change in the zeitgeist which in turn changes the practical effect of the law.

If victims are being convicted on grounds of use of unreasonable force, then juries, who represent the average person alluded to by Euan Gray, must have been convinced that their behaviour was unreasonable.

This seems somewhat to contradict the generally held view that the public is very sympathetic to homeowners defending themselves. Does the problem perhaps lie with the way judges instruct juries about the law? Is there any way of finding out what judges have said?

Bishop Hill:

Try the courts service for judgements, etc.

EG

Verity

Let's not forget the final kick in Tony Martin's bollocks, that he was refused parole because he was deemed to be 'a danger to burglars'.

This site seems to suggest that shooting or stabbing an intruder is OK so long as you get them in the chest...

It is a restatement of the law as enacted in 1967

Exactly, which is the whole point... the media is acting as if the law has changed whereas nothing has actually changed legally and the people who claim that a householder can be a a 'danger to burglars' are still in power. So like the title says, if you think this means a damn thing: ha ha, fooled ya!!

the media is acting as if the law has changed whereas nothing has actually changed legally

I don't think it is, really. Even the BBC is at pains to point out that nothing has actually changed. The Mirror article linked to by David doesn't claim anything has changed. So which media are saying it has?

the people who claim that a householder can be a a 'danger to burglars' are still in power

Perhaps so. Since you refer to the Martin case, you might care to read the judgment in which his conviction was quashed and replaced with a manslaughter sentence. Draw your own conclusions as to his nobility.

The fact that it is permissible, justifiable, reasonable and eminently right that one should be entitled to defend life and property - to the extent of killing the criminal if justifiable - does in no sense mean that the householder has an absolute right to kill anyone illicitly entering his home. The law recognises the former and punishes the latter, but this does not mean there is a conspiracy to neuter the householder.

EG

The link should be here

EG

How nice to be a 'Subject' of the Crown.

If someone were to break into my house in the backwoods of America, their life is forfiet - and they know it.

A Citizen of the Republic is a much nicer way to be, safer too.

It's the same way where I live, Rich. People around here would bury a burglar in the back yard, and nobody would ever know.

And everybody knows it. Even the ones who don't like it know that there is nothing they can do about it.

I note in the transcript supplied by Euan Gray that Martin was convicted:

"a majority of 10 to 2 of murder and wounding with intent"

In American, an unanimous decision is almost always required for a felony conviction. Martin almost certainly wouldn't have been convicted in the states on that basis alone.

It seems that the critical matter in the case was whether Martin had "lain in wait." Frankly, I don't see the problem if he had. He was alone in remote farmhouse with no confidence the police would arrive in time. The intruders could have been armed. If he did pick the best spot to ambush the burglars, so what? Why was he under any legal or moral obligation to risk his own life to protect the life of the criminals?

I can't help but wonder is Martin's public criticism of the police had something to do with him getting indicted. They couldn't have been very pleased with him.

Although it's true that the law has not been changed by this release, its benefit is that the Criminal Protection Service and ACPO have at last offered some guidance on what they consider to be "reasonable", whereas previously the decision was entirely arbitrary.

In Tony Martin's case, he was acting outside of the law because he planned his actions, laying in wait for the contemptible little scum-bags who invaded his home. To that extent, he was guilty. The larger issue is that he was driven to act as he did by the gross incompetence of the local police, who, by forcing him into that situation, should shoulder part of the blame. IMO, he should have been prosecuted for manslaughter, but he should also have been given an absolute discharge because of the circumstances.

How nice to be a 'Subject' of the Crown.

Would you rather be a subject of the British Crown or a citizen of the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic? It does not matter so much the title of the person in charge or the technicalities of how the state is organised, more important are concepts such as due process of law, the rule of law, habeas corpus and freedom of speech and assembly & how these are enforced in practice rather than in theory. There have been republics and federations (such as the USSR) where the people have in theory numerous inalienable rights and liberties but in practice are prisoners of the state and its ruling elite.

No system of government or constitutional arrangement is perfect or immutable. However well intentioned or carefully thought out, things change and with them change the views of the majority of the people, technical limits on what is and is not possible, population size versus available resources, and so on. It is fair to say the American constitution has served pretty well for over 200 years, but it has not prevented the growth of the state, intrusive regulation, welfare, etc. Much the same can be said of the British unwritten constitution.

It seems that the critical matter in the case was whether Martin had "lain in wait." Frankly, I don't see the problem if he had

It is a problem. The law in Britain permits a householder to defend his life and property, with lethal force if appropriate, but it does not permit him to premeditate an assault on a burglar. I understand, although it is hard to find unbiased evidence on the matter, that the majority of people convicted of murder, assault or criminal injury in such cases have inflicted the injury either with premeditation, from vengeance or in pursuit outside the property. The idea of "hot pursuit" is valid enough, in that one may chase and forcibly apprehend an absconding burglar, BUT the degree of force permissible is somewhat less than that justifiable in the immediate defence of home and life, because the circumstances are quite different.

IMO, he should have been prosecuted for manslaughter

I agree.

but he should also have been given an absolute discharge because of the circumstances

I don't agree.

Although there is little doubt that, in this particular case, the police were more than normally incompetent and lazy, I don't see that this of itself justifies disproportionate violence. I should have preferred to see a conviction for manslaughter for Martin and a reprimand or investigation for the police. In the event, the Court of Appeal did give Martin a reduced manslaughter sentence in consideration of, amongst others, this problem. However, given that Martin did appear to act with premeditation and did so with an illegally held weapon, it would seem that an absolute discharge would be unreasonable.

EG

Imagine being a citizen of a republic with someone like Tony Benn as president? My God, I'd be setting up the Crown Liberation Army that very night.

British subjects get to smoke the occasional Cuban cigar too. ;)

Ean: "Although there is little doubt that, in this particular case, the police were more than normally incompetent and lazy, I don't see that this of itself justifies disproportionate violence." True, but does it not justify premeditation? I wonder which of the two was the basis for his conviction.

Shannon, is it not the case in the US that a unanimous jury is required only when a death penalty is possible upon conviction?

Euan Gray continues to attack Mr Martin for killing an intruder in a "pre-meditated" fashion. The trouble is defining "premeditated" for the purpose of figuring out what sort of precautions a householder should be allowed to take in self defence.

Suppose I keep a cricket bat or a shotgun handy in case a burglar comes in. Is that "premeditated"? Under existing law it appears that there is a real danger of the courts saying it is, and undermining the effectiveness of self defence law. I hope, perhaps naively, that courts will look more favourably on those who keep an implement to use in self defence in future.

rgds

Seems to me that while Euan Gray might be right on the letter of the law, just read the judgment. Bottom line is, in laymans terms, "one scumbag waxed".

The law is not about justice apparently, and this case proves that.

Suppose I keep a cricket bat or a shotgun handy in case a burglar comes in. Is that "premeditated"? Under existing law it appears that there is a real danger of the courts saying it is, and undermining the effectiveness of self defence law.

No, there isn't.
Long quote - sorry:

In Attorney-General's Reference (No 2 of 1983) [1984] 2 WLR 465, the defendant made ten petrol bombs, during the Toxteth riots after his shop was damaged and looted, "to use purely as a last resort to keep them away from my shop". The expected attack never occurred. He was then charged with an offence under s4(1) of the Explosive Substances Act 1883 of possessing an explosive substance in such circumstances as to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he did not have it for a lawful object. It was a defence under the terms of the section for the defendant to prove that he had it for a lawful object. The Court of Appeal held that there was evidence on which a jury might have decided that the use of the petrol bombs would have been reasonable force in self-defence against an apprehended attack. If so, the defendant had the bombs for a "lawful object" and was not guilty of the offence charged. However, it was assumed that he was committing offences of manufacturing and storing explosives contrary to the Explosives Act 1875. The court agreed with the Court of Appeal in N. Ireland in Fegan [1972] NI 80, that possession of a firearm for the purpose of protecting the possessor may be possession for a lawful object, even though the possession was unlawful, being without a licence.

In other words, even if you have an unlicensed machine gun by your bed, this is not grounds to invalidate your common law self-defence defence (although clearly you still risk jail for unlawful machine gun possession).

This page has some actual relevant caselaw, rather than baseless speculation.

Regardless of what the liberal regime's "law" says, if someone enters your property illegally for the purpose of commiting a crime against you or your property then you have the moral right shoot that person.

True, but does it not justify premeditation?

No. Premeditated homicide is called "murder" - you may have heard of the term. Premeditation does not mean thinkng ahead and taking reasonable precautions - it means (in this sense) actively planning to do bodily harm to someone.

The trouble is defining "premeditated" for the purpose of figuring out what sort of precautions a householder should be allowed to take in self defence.

Sleeping with, say, a baseball bat or a golf club beside the bed is one thing & seems like a reasonable precaution. Lying on your bed, waiting, fully clothed, wearing your boots and with a loaded shotgun to hand seems a little bit more than this. Evidently the jury in the murder trial agreed, and the appeal justices didn't seem to disagree either.

Suppose I keep a cricket bat or a shotgun handy in case a burglar comes in. Is that "premeditated"?

No, of course not. However, if you knew, or strongly suspected, that someone was going to burgle your house and you waited up for him, gun or bat in hand, with the intention of inflicting serious harm, then that is premeditation. Perhaps you remember the old legal phrase "with malice aforethought" - same thing.

just read the judgment. Bottom line is, in laymans terms, "one scumbag waxed"

"Bottom line" is, in layman's terms, defend yourself but remember that pre-emptive attack is not defence and vengeance is not an excuse.

EG

if someone enters your property illegally for the purpose of commiting a crime against you or your property then you have the moral right shoot that person.

Unfortunately moral rights don't stand up in court for a very good reason - your view of what is moral may be very different from mine. This type of argument was addressed by the appeal in the Martin case & you may wish to read the judgment.

Under British law at present, you do have the right to use a firearm against an intruder. In the Martin case, the firearm was illegally held, which didn't help his case. However, having the right to shoot an intruder (in self defence) is not the same thing as having a duty or obligation to do so.

EG

However, if you knew, or strongly suspected, that someone was going to burgle your house and you waited up for him, gun or bat in hand, with the intention of inflicting serious harm, then that is premeditation. Perhaps you remember the old legal phrase "with malice aforethought" - same thing.

So you can only plan to defend yourself against the unknown possibility of a threat to life or property, but not against the known threat?

So you can only plan to defend yourself against the unknown possibility of a threat to life or property, but not against the known threat?

The idea is that you take reasonable and prudent precautions against potential threats. If such a threat becomes a reality, you are perfectly entitled to defend yourself.

However, the idea also is that if you become aware of a specific threat against your person or property, you are supposed to inform the police. This does not absolve you of any need to take precautions, nor does it mean you should not take any.

The practical upshot is that:

(a) if you defend yourself against a surprise attack, perhaps even killing the intruder in the process, you are extremely unlikely to be prosecuted PROVIDED your use of force was not disproportionate;

(b) if you inform the police of a known threat and take reasonable precautions (including any specific police advice) accordingly, but the police don't do anything and you are confronted with the intruder(s), see (a) above;

(c) if you wilfully fail to inform the police of a known threat, then lie in wait and ambush the intruder with excessive force (whether you kill him or not), you probably WILL be prosecuted;

(d) even if you do inform the police, but you lie in wait, etc., & use excessive force, you likely will be prosecuted.

The Martin case really came under (d). Most home defence cases, as far as I can gather, come under (a) or (b).

EG

So ... it seems under Euan's Law Tony Martin, having informed the Police on a great many occasions of burglaries without receiving satisfaction was supposed to ... run away and surrender his property to a pair of scumbags? Excuse me, bollocks. You may well deem it satisfactory that the State sets the parameters of your self defence, others will look after themselves. Justice and the law parted ways a long time ago in Britain and only a fool puts the law above justice. If justice were served in Tony Martin vs Two Thieving Bastards (One Dead) the Judge would have thrown out the case and ordered the Chief Constable before the court to apologise to TM and consider his position.

Euan Gray,

Perhaps I am to unfamiliar with the details of the case. What kind of timeframe are talking about for Martin's premeditation? Was it days, hours, minutes or seconds? It almost sounds as if the prosecution alleged he built a duck-blind in his parlor and crouched there every night hoping someone would break in.

It sounds to me that Martin's premeditation consisted of the decision to shoot suddenly from the dark without giving any warning. He seized the tactical advantage. Does the law require him make a target of himself first?

The only evidence I see in transcript of premeditation is his long standing publicly stated belief that he had a right to shoot burglars. Is a philosophical belief that you have a right to use lethal force to defend you life and property sufficient grounds for establishing premeditation?

Approached another way, how should he have handled the incident such that the shooting would not have been premeditated? Obviously, he could have barricaded himself, hid or fled his home rather than fight but given the circumstances was there actually anyway he could have fired the weapon with being charged?

As regards Tony Martin's 'premeditation', while I do not have the transcript in front of me, I believe that evidence was presented at his first trial that showed that he had repeatedly, publicly stated, prior to the shooting, that he would shoot the next intruder he found in his house. Apparently, he was given to expressing this position down at his local boozer.

Given that that is true (and if anyone has better data, that would be fine), and given that his account of what happened could not be squared with the forensic evidence, manslaughter seems to fit the bill just right. He killed a man without reasonable justification (no reasonable threat to life or limb) but also without specific intent. The murder charge was a stretch, but I could see it - his prior statements said something about his intentions and state of mind, which I think it might be considered proper to put before a jury to decide. They speak to a recklessness for the life of another which might go to the point of specific intent to kill.

Look at it another way - if Martin had shot and killed the local constable, who was checking on his house, found the door open and came inside to check on his well-being - should he go scot-free? No, he should go to jail for manslaughter, because that would be what he did. Martin claimed that he shot blindly and was confused about what was going on, who was in his house, where they were, and why. Ergo, he did not have reasonable grounds to use the level of force that he did. We can have sympathy for the victimization that he had previously suffered, but that is no mitigation for what he did on this occasion. What he did was assume that the people who were in his house were the same people who had burgled him before, assign them the guilt for all previous burglaries, and then take his vengeance on them what he had suffered in the past. Judge, jury, executioner.

llater,

llamas

Ean: Premeditated homicide is called "murder". Nbot necessarily. Are you saying that no act of self-defence can be premididated? Premeditation does not mean thinkng ahead and taking reasonable precautions - it means (in this sense) actively planning to do bodily harm to someone. Premeditation *does* mean thinking ahead and taking precautions. The question is which precautions are considered reasonable. Are you saying that no precautions that end in bodily harm can ever be considered reasonable, even when there were no effective alternatives available?

Well, seeing Llamas' comment now, my last comment should be viewed as a general one, not about this specific case.

... it seems under Euan's Law Tony Martin, having informed the Police on a great many occasions of burglaries without receiving satisfaction was supposed to ... run away and surrender his property to a pair of scumbags? Excuse me, bollocks

Patently you need to read my comment again. I am saying no such thing, and if you read what I've written without looking through the lens of what you'd like to object to, you will see this.

If justice were served in Tony Martin vs Two Thieving Bastards (One Dead)

The point of having law is to avoid this type of attitude having force. A similar concept was addressed in the judgment on appeal & you probably should read it. It was also addressed by me above in reply to Shawn on "moral rights." Essentially, this type of argument fails because the concept of "justice" or "morality" being touted is the subjective opinion of the speaker. Taken to its logical end, this would mean (as was stated by the court) that nobody would ever be guilty of anything and thus no redress for wrong would be possible. This is not a sound basis for a system of law, to say the least.

The same argument applies to "natural rights" or "natural law" - no two people have the same idea of what these phrases mean. It doesn't work.

Approached another way, how should he have handled the incident such that the shooting would not have been premeditated?

It is hard to say sitting in relative tranquility in front of a keyboard. However, some might say a warning shot, a verbal demand to leave, etc., followed up rapidly if this didn't work with a shot? Perhaps a shot fired at the breakfast room doorway from the top of the stairs? There are no hard and fast rules, simply the concept of what the average person might think was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.

The facts of the case in question appear to be that Martin fired at least three times (probably five) at close range (ca. 12-15') and hit each intruder at least once with in one case fatal results. The jury found that this was unreasonable and disproportionate. Coupled with Martin's either conscious or unconscious mendacity, his oft-expressed intention to shoot the next people burgling his house and the fact that the evidence did not support his version of events, a majority conviction for murder resulted - subsequently quashed and replaced with a conviction for manslaughter.

It seems clear enough that Martin intended to at a minimum inflict serious harm. It seems clear enough also that he was prepared and waiting - in bed fully clothed complete with boots on, and a loaded shotgun at his side. Premeditation seems obvious.

Having said that, it seems Martin is not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed (by a long chalk). Whilst not quite the author of his own misfortune, he certainly contributed a couple of chapters. Manslaughter does indeed seem a more sensible conviction.

Premeditation *does* mean thinking ahead and taking precautions

In the context of a murder case, it doesn't.

Are you saying that no precautions that end in bodily harm can ever be considered reasonable, even when there were no effective alternatives available?

Of course not. If you kill or wound someone burgling your house, then provided the force used was reasonable and proportionate to the situation you found yourself in you would not be prosecuted. The force considered "reasonable" is going to depend on the threat you face - someone pointing a gun at you is obvious a much greater danger than an unarmed spotty youth stuffing your CDs in his pockets. The law and the recent statement seem to be pretty clear on this.

However, disproportionate or unreasonable force will likely result in prosecution (and probably conviction) - I think an example given is beating up someone who is already unconscious. Another example was the man who (at an industrial site) lay in wait for a burglar, knocked him unconscious, dumped him in a hole in the ground and set fire to him. These would be considered unreasonable, and in the second case clearly premeditated.

So, depending on the circumstances, you can kill with justification, or you can bruise and be arrested.

EG

"The point of having law is to avoid this type of attitude having force."

No it isint. The point of having law is to defend the life liberty and property of citizens. In this case the law failed, and as a result Martin was within his moral to act in his own defense.

"Unfortunately moral rights don't stand up in court for a very good reason - your view of what is moral may be very different from mine."

Only after 50 some years of liberalism. Are you suggesting we surrender our rights to the moral relativism iof the liberal regime? No thanks.

"Manslaughter does indeed seem a more sensible conviction."

No it doesnt. He will rot in jail for defending his property. That is not justice. He had the right to shoot the scumbag. End of story. I dont give a damn what the "law" in this case says, nor do I care what some liberal judge says on the issue. The criminals in question had, lets be clear about this, REPEATEDLY violated his property. On that basis alone he had the moral right to shoot first and ask questions later. If the so called "law" does not allow this, change it.

Take back your country.

I agree that Tony Martin made a lot of mistakes, and his case was not entirely straightforward. However, he did not in my opinion act in premeditation, or in revenge. He had no way of knowing he was going to be burgled that night, and he also knew that the police were not interested in his problems even if he reported them.

He may well have taken to going to bed fully clothed and with his shotgun readily to hand. To me that speaks of the level of desperation he had been driven to, both by the amount of crime he had suffered, and the inability and/or unwillingness of the police to do anything about it. He may well have given it large down the pub that he would shoot the next burglar who came into his house. God forbid that any of us should be judged by the rubbish we spout in the boozer.

If OJ was innocent then Tony Martin got a bad deal!

No it isint. The point of having law is to defend the life liberty and property of citizens

Well, not really. It IS in fact to have a common set of rules by which all citizens (or subjects, or whatever) abide. This is what makes society. All societies have a commn set of rules the citizenry need to obey, EVEN IF they personally object to them. You don't get to pick and choose which laws you will obey. However, since we have a more or less democratic system, you do get to state your case for changing the law. If you don't get the support necessary, you need to accept this.

In this case the law failed, and as a result Martin was within his moral to act in his own defense

Correct up to a point - it was not the law but the enforcement thereof that failed. However, Martin had no right in law to use excessive and disproportionate violence, and this is why he was charged, tried and ultimately convicted by a jury of citizens.

Are you suggesting we surrender our rights to the moral relativism iof the liberal regime? No thanks

Are you suggesting that we all accept your version of morality, whether we like it or not?

This is the problem with legislating morality - your morality and mine may differ considerably. Which of us has the right to impose our will upon the other? If you consider it wrong for the "liberal regime" to impose its morality (or lack thereof) upon us, you must surely accept that it would be equally wrong for you to impose your moral code on everyone else. The law should steer clear of moral positions, except where these are so widely accepted as to be near-universal truths.

For example, almost everyone agrees murder is wrong and must be punished. Some people think murderers should be executed. Others don't. Many others probably do but would change their mind pretty quickly if they had to be the executioner. What to do?

On that basis alone he had the moral right to shoot first and ask questions later. If the so called "law" does not allow this, change it

And what if the majority of people don't want it changed? Are they wrong? Stupid? In need of "appropriate" guidance? And what makes your guidance any better than anyone else's?

In any event, he did not have the legal right to do what he did. The law does not judge one's morals, only one's obedience to the law.

It appears that if you have a gun, you may indeed use it and "shoot first, ask questions later" as you put it. However, you must accept that you will also have to answer questions. The law would be on your side if you shot an armed burglar you reasonably apprehended was going to shoot or threaten you. It would not be if you shot an unarmed burglar as he was running away.

It is fair to say that in Britain the vast majority of people support the right to defend life and property. Probably almost as many would think it reasonable to use lethal force if the circumstances warranted. The law permits this. However, it is also fair to say that public opinion is decisively against the general private ownership of firearms. Whether this is a sensible opinion is another matter, but that is the fact.

EG

Just curious: does anyone know whether the burglars he shot were the same ones that had previously broken into his house?

Euan: "Unfortunately moral rights don't stand up in court for a very good reason" Not directly, they don't. But they in no way can be ignored, as the law is directly based on precisely the moral rights that the majority of a community subscribe to at the time that particular law is written. "...your view of what is moral may be very different from mine." Not very likely if we live in the same community at the same era. Problems arise when either the morals change while the law does not, or the law was originally written in a way that yelds it to interpretation.

There is, however, a third possibility, and that is when the morals are changed following a change in laws. After all, if some actions are deemed illegal for long enough, and enough people grow up knowing they are illegal, there is a good chance that enough people will begin to view them as immoral.

Not very likely if we live in the same community at the same era

Were that true, there would be little debate on moral issues at all. There are in reality a great many issues on which public moral opinion is sharply divided to a greater or lesser extent - abortion, homosexual marriage, drug use, to name but three. People of the same age within the same communities can have radically different views on these subjects.

It is because of this that law generally isn't framed on an overtly moral basis. Which moral code should be used? That of Citizen A, who thinks all three are fine? Or B, who thinks all three are terribly wrong? Or C, who cares passionately about one but not the other two? You see?

Having said that, I think it's reasonable to assert that the growth of the human rights industry in recent years has distorted the picture by an unwarranted and counterproductive focus on the rights of the criminal at the expense of the victim. To a large extent, the present clarification appears to be due to patent public disquiet on the issue, so to that extent the public morality is strong enough to force, if not a change in the law, then at least a clarification of what the law actually says.

EG

Euan Gray, llamas,

Thanks for your input. I think that reading your post I can safely conclude that under British law.

1) Tony Martin had a legal responsibility to place himself at risk in an attempt prevent injury or death to his attackers. He had to announce his presence and declare that he was armed and/or fired a warning shot before taking further action. If his attackers had in fact been armed themselves and his announcement made him a target, then well to bad for Tony Martin.

2) Tony Martin was legal required to assume that the intruders, who were mere blobs in the dark, presented the minimal level of threat i.e. they would turn and flee immediately upon being challenged. Only after he saw clear evidence that the intruders presented an elevated level of threat for example after they shot him could he elevate the force he used in turn.

This standard is exactly the opposite of the American one. An American is not required to place themselves at risk to protect the life of an intruder. An American can presume that the intruder presents the maximum level of threat i.e. armed with intent to kill, and respond accordingly. An American is only required to de-escalate his response after he is presented with clear evidence the intruder doesn't present a threat.

The American system does have it drawbacks. Every once and a while somebody gets roaring drunk, goes "home" to the wrong house, finds their key doesn't work in "their" door and then breaks into the house through a window. The homeowner, having the right to presume maximum risk, shoots the drunk dead. Very rarely will such a case result in any charges against the homeowner. The drunks death, while a tragedy, is his own responsibility just as if he had driven drunk and plowed his car into an embankment.

The British system is clearly weighted to put the homeowner at risk in order to protect the safety of the intruder. No wonder people are outraged.

Personally, I think this attitude springs from an elitist mindset that views the state as a wise adult who most mediate the childish squabbles of the citizenry. The homeowner and the intruder share nearly equal responsibility for any violence that results from a break-in just as two children are nearly as equally responsible for a playground scuffle.

No wonder law abiding Britons are about to blow a gasket.

Euan, I don't know if Tony Martin knew for sure that he was going to be burgled on the night his house was attacked. I doubt it. It is therefore rather bizarre to imagine that he was lying in wait for the folk concerned. What is clear to me is that he became so frightened that he lived in a state of siege. But I don't think this means he deliberately set out to kill in advance, which seems to be your argument.

The trouble with your view, Euan, is that you seem to be applying a very strict rule to what counts as legitimate self defence which suffers from the fact that householders in certain circumstances will have different levels of fear about their circumstances. That has to be taken in account.

For what it is worth, I think Martin is a flawed character, but his jailing for manslaughter was wrong. The reaction of the local police was, and remains, contemptible.

"Well, not really. It IS in fact to have a common set of rules by which all citizens (or subjects, or whatever) abide. "

In other words it doesnt matter what the content of the law is? Rubbish. That is not an accurate view of Western Christian civilisation and its legal foundations, let alone a rational way to think about law. The moral content of the law DOES matter. And in the case of the Anglosphere the law is supposed to be there to protect life, liberty and property. Your saying than any old laws are fine so long as everyone is forced to obey them?

"However, Martin had no right in law to use excessive and disproportionate violence,"

And he didint.

"Are you suggesting that we all accept your version of morality, whether we like it or not?"

Thats exactly what the liberal regime does. I am forced to live by laws wich are grossly immoral. ALL laws are based on moral principles, therefore you and I are both currently being forced to obey the laws of the liberal regime.

"This is the problem with legislating morality"

ALL laws legislate morality. Why do you think we have laws against murder? Becuase the blood might make a mess?

" If you consider it wrong for the "liberal regime" to impose its morality (or lack thereof) upon us, you must surely accept that it would be equally wrong for you to impose your moral code on everyone else."

Again, ALL laws impose a moral code, including libertarian versions of the law. Thats not the issue. The issue is WHICH moral code.

"The law should steer clear of moral positions"

For the reasons stated above, it cannot do this by its very natue, as all laws take a moral position.

Legal moral nuetrality is a liberal myth.

"And what if the majority of people don't want it changed? Are they wrong? Stupid? In need of "appropriate" guidance? And what makes your guidance any better than anyone else's?"

Two thousand years of culture, civilisation, Faith and Tradition.

"Whether this is a sensible opinion is another matter, but that is the fact."

Many things are facts. That does not mean we should accept them.

"This is what makes society."

No, it doesnt. What makes society is family and tradition, not forced obedience to evil.

"You don't get to pick and choose which laws you will obey."

Yes I do. Thousands of Christian martyrs died under Roman rule for refusing to obey Ceaser. My loyalty is to God, not the liberal regime.

"However, since we have a more or less democratic system, you do get to state your case for changing the law. If you don't get the support necessary, you need to accept this."

No I dont. If the law means that I cannot defend my life, family and property, then I not only can but must oppose it, peacefully if possible, but through armed resistance if necessary.

If your take on the law had been held by most people in the colonies in the late 1700's, then the American Revolution would never have occured. Disobediance and armed resistance to tryanny and evil is a legitimate moral right.

Martin excersised that right, and the right to defend his property.

Just curious: does anyone know whether the burglars he shot were the same ones that had previously broken into his house?

Who knows? They were never caught, indeed we do not know if the police ever made any serious effort to catch them.

Euan, I don't know if Tony Martin knew for sure that he was going to be burgled on the night his house was attacked. I doubt it. It is therefore rather bizarre to imagine that he was lying in wait for the folk concerned. What is clear to me is that he became so frightened that he lived in a state of siege

That's basically how he lived. I think the poor guy was at the end of his tether. Thieves had already stolen just about everything he owned, antiques, furniture et al. He was left with very little apart from his clothes and his shotgun.

Tony Martin was not perfect. Who is? But he did not seek a confrontation with these burglars. They broke into his house in the middle of the night to steal whatever few possessions he had left. He did not give them the benefit of the doubt, he shot at them. But once they fled his house he let them go. He did not follow them. Barrass was badly hurt, he crawled into some undergrowth and died. Fearon was shot in the leg and buttock, he limped to the nearest house and asked for help. If Martin had had a mind to, he could have followed Fearon and shot him down. That would indeed have been murder. He did not do it.

Tony Martin acted like a once respectable man whose life had been ruined by the depradations of criminals, who had been abandoned by the police, and who had lost almost everything valuable he owned to burglars. The only time the police showed an interest in his plight was when he fought back, then they swarmed around his house, but only when it was too late, and only when they had decided that he had become the villain.

Cynical, moi?

John: well, wasn't Fearon questioned as to whether he had previously burgled Martin? Strange.

Euan: " Not very likely if we live in the same community at the same era

Were that true, there would be little debate on moral issues at all."

I was obviously refferring to the most basic moral values, such as the value of life, property, and truth. "The 10 commandments" type of thing. The vast majority of us agree that killing, stealing and lying are immoral, and that, in most cases, even includes people who do kill, steal and lie. Homosexuality and abortion are not good examples, because they are not included in that basic set of moral values. I think the reason is that homosexuality does not cause actual harm to anyone. The problem with abortion is different, and that is the disagreement as to whether a fetus should be considered a human being.

I'd just like to point out that there should not necessarily be an argument between Euan and others here, since his assertions are mostly factual, while the others' are moral. This still does not mean that Euan's moral views are different from the rest here (although they certainly can be). It seems to me that you guys are not arguing about the same thing.

Just curious: does anyone know whether the burglars he shot were the same ones that had previously broken into his house?

It wasn't proven that the Two Thieving Bastards who broke into TN's home that night had previously made his life a misery but the Police and CPS said it was virtually certain they came from the same gypsey camp/group/clan/commune/whatever they call them.

The Two Thieving Bastards didn't just happen upon YN's isolated farmhouse, they travelled IIRC some 50 miles specifically to his place.

Shannon Love

Personally, I think this attitude springs from an elitist mindset that views the state as a wise adult who most mediate the childish squabbles of the citizenry.

This describes the paternalistic Tory view which has done so much to destroy Britain in the last 50 years.

The homeowner and the intruder share nearly equal responsibility for any violence that results from a break-in just as two children are nearly as equally responsible for a playground scuffle.

There's the other great villain of the piece, the liberal's view.

Neither one will be consigned to history while Euan and others continue to bend the knee to the great God known as 'the State'.

Shannon Love wrote:

'This standard is exactly the opposite of the American one. An American is not required to place themselves at risk to protect the life of an intruder. An American can presume that the intruder presents the maximum level of threat i.e. armed with intent to kill, and respond accordingly. An American is only required to de-escalate his response after he is presented with clear evidence the intruder doesn't present a threat'

and, for the 117th time here, I must again point out that this statement is, largely speaking, incorrect. Laws vary from state to state, but in virtually all places, the use of force against an intruder, including deadly force, is based in a 'reasonable man' standard and upon a reasonably-held belief of threat to life and limb. In most places, an American CANNOT presume 'the maximum level of threat . . . and respond accordingly'. Even the famous Oklahoma 'make-my-day' law, which expressly includes the presumption which Shannon Love describes (the only state law which does), also makes that presumption rebuttable by contrary evidence.

So, while there is no doubt that American laws generally favour the rights of homeowners to use force against intruders to a much greater extent than they do in the UK, claims that American law gives citizens carte-blanche to use deadly force against intruders are just hogwash. I wish people would stop repeating this hogwash here, since it has to be rebutted every single time. It is a prime example of what Mark Twain described as 'things we know, which just ain't so'.

llater,

llamas

Shawn wrote:

'Take back your country.'

Well, that's fine, but before we do, could you please describe just how far back you want to take it?

Oh, wait - after reading your subsequent posts, I think I see how far back you want to take it.

No, thanks, We did away with the death penalty for theft quite some time ago, and I for one don't wish to return to that particular moral mindset.

llater,

llamas

Tony Martin had a legal responsibility to place himself at risk

Incorrect.

The householder is entitled to use force to defend himself. He may use lethal force where justifiable. He is not expected to put himself at risk.

Tony Martin was legal required to assume that the intruders, who were mere blobs in the dark, presented the minimal level of threat

Incorrect.

He was entitled to assume there was a degree of threat, since people had broken into his house. The actions taken subsequently to address this threat must be proportionate to the reasonably apprehended degree of threat. If you see an armed intruder in your house, you are entitled to assume that your life may be at risk. You are entitled to use force to defeat this risk, and if (for example) you shoot and kill an armed intruder in circumstances where you reasonably believed he was likely to wound or kill you then you are VERY unlikely to be prosecuted for doing so. However, if you see a clearly unarmed intruder having it away with your CDs and by the time you see him he is already half way out the window in escape you most certainly DO NOT have the right to shoot him - because the threat of violence to you is in this case minimal.

Is this really so hard to understand?

An American can presume that the intruder presents the maximum level of threat

I'd echo llamas' comments. As I understand it, US law on the matter is generally very similar to British law, with a (slightly) less restrictive approach to deadly force and a presumption in favour of the victim. I am not aware of any legal entitlement to assume maximum threat or to, with impunity, kill intruders.

Two thousand years of culture, civilisation, Faith and Tradition.

Essentially, the thrust of this argument is that we should frame our law around Christian morality. Antiquity does not confer authority, however. Were that the case, why would we not adopt the ancient Egyptian law - the cult of Osiris dates back to about 4,000BC and is reputed to be still observed in some areas.

It is unreasonable to seek to impose your own moral world-view on everyone else. Whilst I do not personally have any problem with Christian morality, I also recognise that many others do not share this view.

Western civilisation is based largely (but not exclusively) on Christian ethical and moral guidance. However, Christianity is a rather ascetic religion, and strict adherence to all its moral precepts is for all practical purposes impossible for most people. Compromise must be made, and this is where it becomes impossible to have a legal system based on a moral code. For example - do you approve of abortion? If you don't, and ban the practice, then you will make enemies of the feminists and drive abortion underground (you won't stop it). If you do, and permit it, you will make enemies of the many people who object. So which morality has the right to impose itself on the other? And what of Islam?

No, the answer is to reach a consensus on the more contentious issues. Moral prescription will not work, whether it is the ascetic Christian morality or the contemporary liberal morality.

Homosexuality and abortion are not good examples, because they are not included in that basic set of moral values

In which set of "the most basic moral values, such as the value of life, property, and truth" did abortion cease to feature? These are in fact valid issues to raise in this context, and here is why:

All the monetheistic religions unambiguously and explicity condemn homosexuality (whatever the weasel words of the politically correct modern clergy). It is simply not logically consistent to be a practising Jew, Christian or Moslem and at the same time a practising homosexual. The moral basis of our civilisation rejects it, but for a variety of reasons the law and much of public opinion does not. One of these views (the moral or the legal/public) must be wrong. Which one? Why?

Depending on your views on when an unborn child becomes "human," abortion can be considered as murder, and therefore contrary to any reasonable moral code. However, the law permits it under specified circumstances. Again, one view is wrong. Which one and why?

How do you decide which moral precepts to include and which not? How do you justify this? How do you justify imposing it on everyone?

EG

Hiya, Euan. Why not answer the point about all laws being based on moral principles? Would you agree that they do, or not?

Euan .... your defense of a morally undefendable law ... is exaclty why you are at odds with most of the folks in this forum.

Your interpretation of the existing statute is absolutely correct.

But it ignores the fact that the politicians who created it, and the judges who are enforcing it need to be horsewhipped, and the statute radically altered.

Any law that does not give any homeowner the absolute right to use deadly force, in a manner that most effectively safeguards the homeowner from physical harm ( yes ... including laying in wait and shooting through a locked door at assholes trying to break in ) is completely and totally counter to what should be an absolute human right of self-defense.

Yes, your interpretation of the existing law is correct.

But this law is still absolutely evil.

Why not answer the point about all laws being based on moral principles?

Why not read what I've written and discover that I have already answered that question?

is exaclty why you are at odds with most of the folks in this forum.

This does not, however, mean that I am wrong.

Any law that does not give any homeowner the absolute right to use deadly force

Tell me where at present a homeowner has an ABSOLUTE right to use deadly force.

But this law is still absolutely evil.

Hyperbole.

The law states that you can use deadly force without facing prosecution IF it is a proportionate and reasonable act in the circumstances. AIUI, the same applies in most if not all states of the US.

The fact that the law does not allow one to blast the crap out of intruders with impunity in any way one sees fit does not mean it is "evil."

EG

Euan, you seem to be displaying a rather heroic defence of the indefensible. You try hard but you are not convincing anyone. You need to prove that Martin was deliberately intent on killing intruders and that he knew they were coming into his house on the night he acted. You have not done so.

Of course I agree that premeditated killing is murder. I do not believe Mr. Martin was guilty of that, although I do believe that he is a character who made himself vulnerable to charges of being reckless.

Enough said. It is pretty clear to me that Mr Gray, and millions of other Britons, will the end of homeowner security, but are unwilling through their natural squeamishness to will the means. The result of that mindset has been the mayhem of housebreaking we have seen over the last few years.

Of course, there are many other things needed to reduce crime, of which scrapping the insane war on drugs, increasing punishments for burglarly, and improving policing methods, are but a few. But allowing the individual to defend himself or herself is not something that is in the gift of the State. It is an inalienable right, as was recognised in the Glorious Revolution of 1689. It is time to reclaim it.

You need to prove that Martin was deliberately intent on killing intruders and that he knew they were coming into his house on the night he acted. You have not done so.

I don't need to at all, unless I wished to suggest murder. Which I don't.

Considering the evidence at trial and the judgment on appeal, it is fairly obvious that Martin had no scruples about shooting and killing intruders. That he was the victim of long series of prior burglaries explains his frustration, and although a mitigating factor does not entirely excuse his conduct. The further fact that Martin is of somewhat limited intellectual capacity and appears to have suffered from some form of emotional disturbance (mental illness is too strong a term) might go some way to explaining some of his actions and attitudes, but again does not excuse his conduct (it would if "diminished responsibility" was successfully argued).

There may be many good reasons for sleeping fully clothed with one's boots on and keeping a loaded shotgun at the side of the bed, but it raises suspicions in the mind of a reasonable person. There may be good explanations for why Martin shot two retreating burglars at close range, but there are none consistent with both his version of events and the evidence.

Whilst it would be manifestly wrong to argue that Martin planned the shooting of two people he knew were going to burgle his house, it is equally manifest that he had a pretty clear intention of what he was going to do if he was burgled again. Gicven the evidence, this is persuasive of manslaughter, but not of murder.

It is pretty clear to me that Mr Gray, and millions of other Britons, will the end of homeowner security

I dunno. I have lost count of the number of times I have said on this blog, in language which should be transparent to the meanest intellect, that I support the right of householders to defend themselves and their property, and indeed to do so with guns if they wish. And yet still people make comments like this.

many other things needed to reduce crime, of which scrapping the insane war on drugs

Given that a great deal of crime is in fact related to drug use - including much petty burglary - I'm not convinced that legalising or decriminalising their use is going to help. Unemployable drug users will still need money to buy their fixes, even if it is legal. Since they can't work, and since welfare won't pay for it, they resort to crime.

It is an inalienable right, as was recognised in the Glorious Revolution of 1689. It is time to reclaim it.

It has not been taken away. You cannot reclaim something you never lost.

EG

" Antiquity does not confer authority,"

Antiquity is not the issue. Truth and who we are as a people is. Europe is the Faith and the Faith is Europe. That still remains true despite the inroads and propaganda of the Enemy.

"Essentially, the thrust of this argument is that we should frame our law around Christian morality. "

No. The thrust of my argument is that we should frame our law around traditional European civilisation, which is inseperable from the Christian Faith.

"Were that the case, why would we not adopt the ancient Egyptian law - the cult of Osiris dates back to about 4,000BC and is reputed to be still observed in some areas."

The Egyptians were not Europeans.

"It is unreasonable to seek to impose your own moral world-view on everyone else."

That is exactly what you are trying to do, force YOUR concept of morality on me, in this case YOUR interpretaion of the case at hand. I know your not a liberal Euan, but in this instance you sound like one. Liberals are the only people to believe that they are not trying to impose their morals on anyone. Moreover as I said, ALL LEGAL SYSTEMS IMPOSE MORALITY BY FORCE.

"Whilst I do not personally have any problem with Christian morality, I also recognise that many others do not share this view."

So? Not everyone shares your beliefs about liberty. Dont you think a Marxist would object to your desire to impose your libertarian beliefs on him?

"Western civilisation is based largely (but not exclusively) on Christian ethical and moral guidance. However, Christianity is a rather ascetic religion, and strict adherence to all its moral precepts is for all practical purposes impossible for most people."

Different issue, but utterly false. That millions do so proves the opposite of your claim.

"Compromise must be made"

Why?

"and this is where it becomes impossible to have a legal system based on a moral code."

For your education. ALL LEGAL SYSTEMS, AND ANY YOU CAN COME UP WITH, ARE BASED ON MORALS AND ARE IMPOSED BY FORCE.

"For example - do you approve of abortion?"

For example - do you approve of theft?

"If you don't, and ban the practice, then you will make enemies of the feminists"

If you dont, and ban the practice, then you will make enemies of thieves

"and drive abortion underground (you won't stop it)."

and drive stealing underground (you wont stop it you know)

Are you starting to get the picture yet? Because you keep repeating yourself on this point which I have already shown to be a non-issue.

"And what of Islam?"

Islam is not the historic faith of the European peoples.

"No, the answer is to reach a consensus on the more contentious issues. "

Reaching a "consensus" will involve MAKING A DECISION ON WHAT IS RIGHT OR WRONG, EVEN IF ITS A COMPROMISE POSITON, AND THEN IMPOSING THAT ON THOSE WHO DO NOT AGREE WITH YOUR CONSENSUS.

In other words, your "consensus" is no different to mine.

But 100% consensus is not possible, and therefore you are still going to end imposing your "consensus" by force one way or another.

"Moral prescription will not work, whether it is the ascetic Christian morality or the contemporary liberal morality."

Again, all laws are based on moral prescription and therefore your statement is a total contradiction.

( by the way, all forms of ethics and morality, wheher Christian, Utilitarian, Objectivist, or even liberal, have a component of discipline and ascetism to them, and millions practice such ascetism. Try living with a left wing Vegan aniumal rights activist sometime)

"In which set of "the most basic moral values, such as the value of life, property, and truth" did abortion cease to feature? "

It doesnt. Or at least should not. Abortion is muder and should be treated as such.

"All the monetheistic religions unambiguously and explicity condemn homosexuality (whatever the weasel words of the politically correct modern clergy). It is simply not logically consistent to be a practising Jew, Christian or Moslem and at the same time a practising homosexual. The moral basis of our civilisation rejects it
but for a variety of reasons the law and much of public opinion does not."

Actually for one reason. Liberalism and decades of liberal indoctrination.

"One of these views (the moral or the legal/public) must be wrong. Which one? Why?"

Exactly. We must choose. One way or another, we must choose. Thats my point. on what basis do you choose yours?

"How do you justify this?"

Hopw do YOU justify it?

"How do you justify imposing it on everyone?"

How do YOU justifying imposing your "consensus" model on me?

By the way, you will find answers to many of your questions here:

The Conservative FAQ: http://jkalb.org/?q=node/3

Euan: "Why not read what I've written and discover that I have already answered that question?'

No, you havent. You have repeatedly ignored it. What you dont seem to realise is that, in saying that the statute is correct, and that the sentence imposed on Martin is right, that you are making a moral judgemt about the laws goodness and rightness, and then agreeing that it should be imposed on Martin, and that he should be deprived of his liberty because of that. You keep asking about me imposing my morality, but your depriving a man of his liberty because of your moral OPINION that the law is right.

You think your just stating what the law is in this case . But your not. Your saying that ACCORDING TO YOUR MORALS THE LAW IS MORALLY RIGHT AND NEED NOT BE CHANGED., AND IT SHOULD BE IMPOSED ON MARTIN BY FORCE.

Can you see this small point? Martin is in prison not for the letter of the law, but because of a moral decision that this law is good and right.

Why not read what I've written and discover that I have already answered that question?

I already read what you've written, so I don't need to discover that you haven't, that you dodged the point entirely. But when I read the above, I discovered that you're a liar who thinks that he can fool people by being ever-so-subtly condescending.

Antiquity is not the issue. Truth and who we are as a people is

"Truth" is an unwise argument to use in the context of religion. The Christian religion may be true - but you cannot PROVE it is true, therefore you cannot claim truth for it.

The most the Christian can say is "I believe it is true," which is not at all the same thing. You, as a Christian, have presumably persuaded yourself of the truth of your faith, but this in no sense means that it is in reality true.

There is no difference between this aspect of your argument and that of the Islamists - which is why I asked "what of Islam?"

we should frame our law around traditional European civilisation, which is inseperable from the Christian Faith

Well, that's not as persuasive as you might think. Much of European law (especially Dutch and Scots) is based on Roman law. Indeed, precedent from ancient Rome can be and has been cited in Scottish courts. If you go back beyond about 1500 years, the "traditions" of European civilisation are not Christian. European civilisation has existed in a meaningful form for rather longer than this, perhaps the more important date being the foundation of Rome in 753BC.

If any culture has shaped European civilisation in a lasting way, it is that of Rome. The effects of the fall of Rome - Christian for less than 200 years before its final collapse, or less than 1/6 of its life - are still felt today, over 1500 years later. Many European legal and moral concepts orginated in Roman culture, not Christianity.

This is not, of course, to deny that Christianity has heavily influenced European civilisation, but it is not the only influence, nor IMO necessarily the most important one.

The Egyptians were not Europeans.

Neither were the first Christians. Christianity, as I am sure you are aware, was a Jewish sect orginating in Palestine. The form of Christianity ultimately adopted by Rome was heavily influenced by the Graeco-Roman ideas of Stoicism, and was grafted on to the Roman state religion of the Capitoline Triad, to the extent that many Christian traditions and festivals are actually Roman ones with the names changed. This does not necessarily detract from any truth the Christian faith has, but equally it does not make it a European faith.

I suppose you could say Roman Catholicism is a rather more (west) European form of Christianity, and Protestantism even more so, but Orthodoxy is rather closer to the Middle Eastern roots of the faith, despite the very heavy Greek influence even it contains.

"Compromise must be made"

Why?

Because not everyone accepts the veracity of someone else's religious-moral point of view.

This is why I gave the examples of abortion, homosexual marriage and drug abuse. Christian morality would condemn all three. From an entirely personal point of view, I object to all three, and therefore would not particularly have a problem with Christian-based laws forbidding them.

BUT...

Abortion happens. Whilst I agree that it is in principle murder and therefore most objectionable, there are circumstances where many people would consider it justifiable. Neither you nor I might necessarily share this point of view, but a great many people do. The law is pragmatic on the issue, although it is a very serious moral matter. Were the law to be an enforced morality on a Christian basis, abortion would be illegal - but it would still happen. On this issue, the law does not impose a moral point of view, but permits abortion in the circumstances where a great many people would consider it justifiable. That it is not forbidden does not mean it is compulsory, of course.

You raise the issue of theft. Theft is morally wrong, but it is also pratically a very bad thing. The basis of society is respect for property, and this is why (from a legal point of view, and it surprises many people) theft is one of the most serious crimes possible. All western societies have comprehensive legislation on the subject - not because it is morally wrong (although it is) but because permitting widespread theft undermines the principle basis of civilisation. It is pragmatic, not moral, and in fact has little to do with any religious/moral strictures against theft.

But 100% consensus is not possible, and therefore you are still going to end imposing your "consensus" by force one way or another.

All systems of law are imposed by force, otherwise they don't work. There will always be someone who breaks the law, and it will be necessary to punish him. This needs force.

However, an arbitrary code of law imposed without taking heed of what the people are actually prepared to accept - however moral it may be - will not work. People will, and indeed do, ignore laws they disagree with. Where laws are generally unpopular or flatly contradictory to practically attainable standards of general human behaviour, they will be widely ignored. A single law more honoured in the breach than the observance brings the entire legal system into disrepute and leads to people cherry-picking the laws they will obey.

Where a set of laws are