Training Risky
I imagine all of the posters here who trash the idea of defending themselves at home, have not had the trauma of crime coming to their homes.
I am not sure that anyone has in fact said that. (I certainly have not.) The right to defend
oneself, even by use of deadly force is part of the law - in most countries. Defending one's VCR by killing the thief is an overreaction which is frowned upon in most civilised societies.
Their was a story in one of our papers recently (included as a light-hearted piece) about a 34 year old bloke who, after a night on the town, returned home to the house he knew and loved - having grown up in it with his parents. He staggered to 'his' room and promptly fell asleep. What he had forgotten in his stupor was the fact that he and his family had in fact moved out 7 years previously. The 18 year old who discovered him called his dad, who woke sleeping beauty and told him off - resisting the apparently justifiable urge to blast holes in him with whatever firearms might have been handy.
It's simple: defend your life (or your family's lives) against a real threat at
any cost. In all other cases, exercise restraint and proportionality.
I admit to knowing nothing about the Martin case except what I have read here. Judging only by what has been said, it seems that the jury decided that there was no real threat to Martin and thatb his his actions did not amnount to self-defence, but were motivation by other factors. Motives such as anger, revenge or retribution are not defences against a charge of murder.