egafd.com

Get a life Warren, you don't believe that bullshit do you? Cop kills an innocent man he "truly thought was a danger to him", result, no prosecution. Citizen kills a burglar in his house, result, prosecution for murder. My point is, when a cop kills, it never even reaches a jury, the CPS always decide he feared for his life and acted in good faith, even if the victim was an innocent victim of police bungling.

BTW, can we please drop this canard that Fred Barras was "running away" from Tony Martin. He had his back to him, but he was still in his house, trying to rob him. Brendan Fearon was shot in the leg. Tony Martin was firing at people he truly believed meant him serious harm, and who had invaded his home at dead of night. They were not running away when he shot them, how could they be, they were still in his fucking house?

"They were not running away when he shot them, how could they be, they were still in his fucking house?"
Is it conceivable that they were running away to get out of his house?

Mart

No, Fearon says they were trying to get out of the window, the bottom line is they were both burglars who were in his house when he shot them. They had broken in, and they weren't planning to leave until the shooting started.

As I said, I am not trying to say Tony Martin was a saint, but the fact is his home was invaded in the middle of the night by a pair of low lifes intent on robbing him. He was in very real danger when he defended himself, but was still prosecuted. Compare and contrast when the police shoot and kill someone who was not armed, but who they thought was armed, such as Harry Stanley or Jean Charles de Menezes: they never even get to court to answer a case, the CPS always rules they were acting in what they genuinely thought was self defence, and have no case to answer. Tony Martin genuinely thought he was acting in self defence, indeed, unlike the cops in the above cases, he really was in danger, yet the law comes down on him like a ton of bricks. Why? Because this is a corrupt country with one law for the little people and one law for the cops, because the cops protect the establishment.

Obviously the English language has no effect on you, so I'll stop trying, please believe whatever comforting myths you need to believe in. For anyone else, I'll just point out again that Barras and Fearon were in Martin's house, they weren't trying to leave until he started shooting. Barras was shot in the back, Fearon in the leg, that just happened to be the way they were standing when they were shot. The house was dark, Martin did not deliberately fire at two people "running away" as is so often stated by people afraid of the truth, he shot at two burglars who had just broken into his home. He was in justified fear of his life, and acted in self defence. He was prosecuted for it, the police are never prosecuted for it, the CPS never lets their cases come to court. That's my point.

Alice you are clinging to these notions like a child to a comfort blanket.

Let me remind you, when the police killed Harry Stanley and Jean Charles de Menezes neither man was armed, and neither man actually posed a threat. Yet no policeman was ever charged, because the CPS accepted that they truly believed they did pose a threat, and therefore in law they honestly acted in self-defence.

Contrast this with the Martin case, whose house really had been broken into by two nasty pieces of work in the middle of the night. These two really did pose a threat to him, and he believed that as much as the cops who killed Harry Stanley and de Menezes did. So if anything his case was stronger than the cops, in that he believed he faced a threat, and he did, whereas they believed they faced a threat, though in reality they did not.

When you make a comment like:

"he was armed with a gun and they were not therefore it was not self defence"

or

"if it was self defence they would have had to have been coming towards him which mean they would have been shot in the front"

then you simply reveal your ignorance of the law. These two had invaded his home in the middle of the night and posed a real danger to him, whether they happened to be facing him or not

My point, which you cannot come to terms with, is not so much that Tony Martin ended up in court over this, but that no policeman ever ends up in court when he kills someone. This is because the CPS always decides it is not in the public interest to do so. Why? Well, in the Harry Stanley case, the original inquest jury returned a verdict of unlawful killing, and the Met police's armed officers said they would refuse to carry guns if that stood, so there had to be another inquest to find the "right" verdict. Can you imagine that happening for an ordinary citizen? Of course not.

The fact is the authorities need to have armed police, and these guys are all volunteers, so they have to keep them on side. That's why, de facto, no copper will ever be prosecuted for killing anyone, so long as they can plausibly claim they were acting in self-defence. But if a citizen does the same thing, the authorities could not care less about them, so they have no problem about them having to face a trial. So don't try and tell me that we are all equal before the law, because it just ain't so. It's one law for them, and one for the rest of us.