Personally my sympathies lie entirely with Mr Martin. As I understand
it he fired downwards intending to injure one burglar in the legs, with
no knowledge that the other was crouching there. People who break into
other people's houses (or factories, locosheds, etc) with criminal
intent deserve all they get, and the law should be on the side of the
burgled, not the burglar.

While it seems nice on the surface, the Daily Mail answer to crime is a
dangerous one.

At the moment we have a system where after committing on average about 10
burglaries, the person is bundled before the courts and receives a
punishment, usually of a hundred or so hours unpaid work first time round,
custodial later on. The punishment is not currently death.

Anyone using force is required to show that it was reasonable in the
circumstances - e.g. if Tony Martin had been threatened with a knife, firing
a lethal weapon in their direction might have been reasonable.

If you move to a system where minor crimes are subject to unlimited
punishment, things quickly escalate.

E.g. domestic argument, visitor pushes householder, householder responds
with murder?
E.g. ambulance called to house, paramedics killed by 'anti-burglar' measures
or over-enthusiastic neighbour
E.g. person lost and trespasses on land, shot as a 'possible burglar'
E.g. police able to use unlimited force without checks, easily exploitable
by corrupt officers
E.g. person able to kill and pretend they were defending their own property
at the time

This kind of disproportionate reaction is justified only in very rare
circumstances, e.g. by the government in protecting order, and you can see
the dangers of its introduction, for example, by looking at the effects of
its use in Northern Ireland.

Tony Martin belongs in one place until the end of a typical murder sentence,
and that is prison.

Richard