That is typical of what I would expect to read in a tenth rate publication like the Guardian. It seems to forget that:
1) He had been done over several times before
2) The police had done b*ggerall to protect him because, let's face it, all they are interested in these days is meeting their targets laid down by the spineless politicians for speeding fine revenue.
3) The real criminals in this case were not exactly your schoolboy apple scrumpers - 115 convictions between them
4) When forced to make the decisions that I sincerely hope none of us ever have to make he did not know a) how many burglars he was dealing with b) how well armed they were
As I said before and will say as many times as I have to Mr Martin acted quite correctly and it is absolutely outrageous that he even had to justify himself in court never mind be found guilty.
For all those that disagree, What would you do in the same situation?