[tonycavanagh]

re :Original sin. But what I'm talking about is not "crime," but the British insistence that for a law-abiding citizen to defend himself against crime is somehow unacceptable.

No that is wrong, you are entitled to defend your self.

Tony Martin is always brought up and is always proved to be a bad example.

When Tony Martin shot those two intruders, they were running away from his house. Both were shot in the back.

Therefore it was deemed not self defense but revenge.

If he had shot them, in his house and claimed that they had surprised him, he would probably of got away with it.

Self defense is if you believe you or someone else is under attack.

I belted a bloke who was running at me with a bottle in the face with a metal dustbin lid, he went down nothing happened to me.

But if I then decided to give him a further lesson by battering him when he was on the floor I would of been done.

[Campion]

If he had shot them, in his house and claimed that they had surprised him, he would probably of got away with it.

"Probably" is the word I have trouble with.

If you don't have the right to defend yourself in your own house against an intruder, your other rights aren't worth very much.

Where I live, the law is that you have the right to use deadly force to defend yourself or an innocent victim against an attacker who intends death or great bodily harm. The law further presumes that an intruder inside your house intends death or great bodily harm, no matter what he does.

[Little Ray]

Sorry.
If you have been robbed repeatedly, then shooting the @$$holes is just a little common-sense prevention. Since the law will do nothing about them, Martin would be at their mercy when they decided to return. Martin was engaged in self-defense against potentially violent invaders who repeated invaded his home.
The fact they fearlessly invaded his home while he was there is, by itself, proof that he was justified.