The police forces which are too spread out to do much good in protecting people’s homes and, potentially, their lives, support the court’s decision. At least those who have been quoted do.

Let’s create a situation. Let’s say you are in bed sleeping and, suddenly, you are awakened because of a sound. Being a prepared person, you have a loaded firearm. Then, a shadow is seen lurking in the door to your bedroom, a shadow. What do you do?

It isn’t much different in this country from England. Many citizens protecting their property, including their lives, have been convicted of manslaughter or have lost civil law cases in which an intruder in their homes was wounded and, in some cases, crippled for life or killed (surviving family members did the suing).

If you respond as the courts seem to think people should be able to do in the above situation, you must first establish whether the person or persons mean you harm. To do so, you must turn on the light and detect whether or not the perpetrator/s have a weapon/s. That is presumed to be a firearm if one protects oneself with an action such as that which has deemed Mr. Martin a murderer.

But, that’s not enough. What if the burglar didn’t "intend" on using the firearm as other than a fear-instilling tool? What if the damn gun he had in his hand wasn’t even loaded?

Or, what if the man has a knife? Then, you must determine the intended knife’s use is to stab you and your loved one’s to death. After doing so, you must get up, go to the kitchen, and get a knife so you may defend yourself in a like manner.

But, what if the intruder/s have tire tools. Hm, now you must get up, go out to your car or shed, and get a tire tools or quite similar object in order to defend yourself. You must physically battle the person/s and no matter you have a heart problem or are 75 years old or a person not trained in self-defense.

All of this must take place within a second or two as it does not take much time to cross a normal bedroom.

Or, do you take your firearm and shoot the unknown persons in your home? Whether the person has a firearm or not, whether the person has a knife or not, whether the person has a tire tool or not; indeed, whether the person is armed or not?

Now, let’s create another situation. You are a law enforcement officer who confronts a person who begins acting in a threatening manner. The person is in dim light and seems to have an object in his hand or seems to be reaching for an object. What does the law enforcement officer do?

Or, in the act of committing an illegal break-in on people’s homes, officers bust down doors and enter firing. Not because they know persons inside might have a weapon but because they are taught by ‘proper’ procedure to do so.

Or they bust down the door and the person inside shoots. Or just seems to have a firearm or a threatening object which immediately draws the fire of the intruding law enforcement officers.

In the cases of regular people, meaning civilian, any person defending their home by firing must prove he had to take the action. In essence, he has to prove his innocence, that he shot because he felt his life in danger. He is, in effect, presumed guilty of murder. Otherwise, cases such as Mr. Martin’s, would not even exist.

What I mean is, any person should have the right to defend his home and life. If a criminal-type (or law enforcement) has broken into someone’s home in the dark with people potentially in the home, the criminal (or cop) has assumed the responsibility for his action and, furthermore, that he will either disable or kill anyone in the home he encounters, and, particularly, should a person inside the home detect and take offense at his presence.

Thus, the person living in the home must make the assumption the unknown person is there to do him harm. It doesn’t matter whether a weapon can be seen or not. The fact the person broke into the home is, or should be, proof that the person is acting with malace towards those who live in the home. People placed in such situations by outside forces beyond their control must have the God-given right to defend themselves and their property.

In the case of law enforcement, should they have to follow the same rules as civilians by allowing several seconds go by so that proper identification of intent can be determined? In those seconds, they could be shot or hit in the head with a tire tool. However, since it is expected of civilian people coming out of a deep sleep or being surprised in their homes, it should be expected of wide-awake, trained law enforcement personnel.

But, as we all know, that isn’t what happens. What happens is the cops open fire and shoot the threatening person to death even if it takes 40 or more shots with 20-some hitting in various parts of the body as was done to an innocent African fellow who had recently moved to this country. Then, in defense of their actions, all the cops have to do is state they were threatened and feared for their lives. And, of course, they are never tried for murder.

Street lighting can even be far better lighting than in a home with all the lights out. But, woe be the person simply reaching in their back pocket for their identity. The assumption is made the person was reaching for a weapon. What a crock. In the case of the African fellow, his ‘weapon’ was his billfold which he held in hand. Probably the cops had known of several officers beaten to death with billfolds since they were supported in their murderous action.

(By the way, which of the 40-plus bullets actually disabled the person? Was it the first, the 6th, the 22nd, or the last bullet. In my opinion, shooting should have stopped as soon as the person was sufficiently slowed down for arrest, especially since he probably had a hard time returning fire with his billfold. If the defenseless man had become so disabled, for example, by the third bullet hitting him, he could not have attacked had that been his intent, then the cops clearly committed first degree murder.

At any rate, how can one possibly be expected in a second or two in the dark to determine the intent of a person who suddenly appears or comes busting in? And it is a life-threatening situation to wake up and see a person in your home when you know they aren’t supposed to be there, a more dangerous situation than when trained law enforcement people are taught to shoot in the same time span.

The law enforcement person’s defense - “I thought it was a gun.”, or “His quick movement caused me to think he was reaching for a weapon.”, or “We were informed it was likely the people in the home would be armed.”

And what of those who run from police only to be shot and sometimes killed or disabled. No big deal - the cop was just trying to stop a potential felon from getting away.

But, what of the civilian who in essence does the same? Never loses sight of the person who broke in and shoots either killing or disabling the thief. Hm, not treated the same. Suddenly, the person who stops a criminal has become a criminal himself in taking exactly the same action as a cop.

Some will state “Yeah, but cops are trained.” And I would ask, “Trained to shoot to kill first, then question? Isn’t that the presumption of guilt, not innocence?”

You see, the person awakened from a dead sleep is expected to question, determine degree of threat, and, depending on the degree of threat, must determine the degree of retaliatory action that may be taken.

By no stretch of the imagination can a lurking shadow in your home be “innocent”? Nor, can any sane person perceive the perpetrator’s intent as other than doing bodily harm to those who live in the home, not in the second or two in which action must be taken.

There are literally hundreds of cases in which cops did not have to make the same determinations and innocents died because of it. Were cops tried for murder? Even manslaughter? Fired? Prevented from ever being a law enforcement officer in the future? No - at least, not in any case this writer has read about or heard of.

How about cops (several at a time) beating innocent people? Always a big furor (for one or two newscasts) over it but nothing usually happens. There are a few exceptions but not enough that you can’t count them on one hand.

But, what if you in defense of your home beat a burglar nearly to death. Has his rights been violated? I think not because he gave up his rights the instant he broke into your home. No person who breaks into another’s home, including law enforcement acting on tips without investigating the tip first, has any rights. Their rights must be considered as forfeited or waived upon uninvited entry.

I will never agree that a search warrant gives any law enforcement people the right to do any other than knock on a door WITHOUT weapons in hand. The warrant must be served first, then entry permitted.

People in the home haven’t any idea when doors are broken down as to whether it is a criminal with deadly intent and should have the right to blast away with impunity against presecution should it later be found it was cops doing the forcible entry. After all, this is the more or less the reverse of cops breaking in and shooting innocents, isn’t it? And that certainly seems to be alright with the agencies and the courts.

Nor do terrorist groups such as the IRS - yes, the Internal Revenue Service - that breaks into people’s homes armed and dangerous. Or the federal troops that broke into Elian’s place of residence. Had the people been armed and had not the raid taken place when most people are presumed to be sleeping, it could have been a blood bath with all innocents in the home killed. Or another Waco with the government covering its lying ass with false charges, destroyed evidence, and burying the truth under a mountain of government BS.

Reno has stated that the troops’ fingers weren’t on their weapons’ triggers and that the guns weren’t pointed directly but, for God’s sakes, there are quick draw people who can draw and fire twice so rapidly the human eye can’t follow the action - and hit their target 100 percent of the time.

No, the feds broke in with the intent to shoot as it takes less than a hundredth of a second to move a finger to a trigger and fire. Otherwise, why did they even have the firearms? (For God’s sake, it is a civil case. Actually, that isn’t even true. Elian isn’t a citizen of this country under the laws of this country; he belongs to Castro.)

If the people inside had been armed, did they have the right to defend themselves against people suddenly crashing through a door? In that instant, would you think your life was being threatened, especially as you detect it is an armed intruder exploding through the doorway?

I would - and so would any person in Congress, in any level of government, including the so-called ‘justice system’, or in any level of law enforcement. A congressman defending himself if his door or a window was suddenly broken through by an unknown person, would be applauded for shooting and killing the perpetrator. He would be a hero of law enforcement.

In other words, Folks, the life threat is the presence of the unknown person in your home, not whether a person knows the intruder to be armed or having the intent of committing bodily harm. After all, try to prove “intent” in court. It is nearly impossible and, yet, we relaxing or sleeping in our homes are supposed to do it in the blink of an eye. To that, I must utter - BULLSHIT.

Thus, to try a person defending his property and potentially his life for murder is pure hypocrisy and defamation of justice. To prove it is NOT hypocrisy would require every cop who has shot an innocent being tried for murder and convicted (no statute of limitations on murder).

The proof it was murder by the ‘protector of the innocent’, not self-defense, requires just a bit of logic. If the person who was shot was innocent and, yet, lies dead at the feet of some cop who shot first and questioned second (just as with a person defending their property being tried for murder or maiming while defending their home and rights), then it is murder done by the cop, not a self-defense reaction.

Besides, Folks, since when are cops above the laws covering citizens? If a person perceiving himself to be defending his home must be treated as NOT being above the law, then so must every law enforcement person who has shot innocents, whether they had a search warrant or not, whether the person had an object detected as a weapon or not.

Either we all can defend ourselves or none of us can. Isn’t that fair? Isn’t it equitable treatment in the eyes of the law? Isn’t it ‘justice’?

Let me know.