I guess you missed the word "ASSUME" in my post, which I put in all caps.

See, it was an exercise ... an exercise to determine what the boundaries are ... and how one makes a split second decision whether this is a "regular" dumb 16 year old, or the kind of 16 year old that "deserves" to be shot in the back.

If you dare, go back, read my post with the ASSUMPTION that this was a regular kid, and try to answer the question.

And yes, anyone that would kill someone for stealing an apple is a "scary dude."

Um, why would we do that? We are discussing THIS case. Not some made up case that you think supports your position. You can talk about hypotheticals all you want, it has no bearing on THIS case.

That would be like me saying "Hey Rodeo, let's ASSUME that Saddam Hussein DID have WMD and WAS involved in the 9/11 attacks, what do you say THEN?" It's a silly and specious argument which has no bearing on the discussion.

No, it's a time-honored and useful exercise to flush out the boundaries of a proposed action.

If Saddam had WMD and was involved in 9/11, his regime should have been toppled. See how easy?

How odd, I find anyone who would not take action to protect their property to be scary.

I think a reference to Jeff Snyder's A Nation of Cowards is appropriate. In it you will see the philosophical tenants of what makes defense of property so important, and why anything less is morally reprehensible.

See also: http://www.accuratepress.net/noc.html

I would take action to protect my apple, Pat. I'd run the kid off my property.

You'd shoot him. That's why you're scary.

Yeah, that sure is easy. What does it have to do with the ACTUAL invasion of Iraq though? If we are discussing the ramifications of that invasion, what does the hypothetical change? Nothing. How about we discuss THIS case and the merits of THIS case, instead of a make-believe Rodeo-Special?

Go back and answer the question of whether you'd shoot a "regular" 16 year old kid.

If the answer is no, then go back and consider how you would make the split second decision whether he was a "regular" kid or not.

Then go and consider the ramificaitons of making the wrong decision.

Then consider whether society should err on the side of allowing you to shoot the kid or not allowing you to shoot the kid.

No, it is a pattern exhibited by our one and only Rodeo. Lose an argument, duck and run, change the topic. Rodeo, your position on this, based on uninformed assumptions, did not hold up. So let's try to change the topic to scary dudes and bullies. Failing that, there are always WMD's. Anything but coming out and admitting you may have been wrong.

Still waiting for the proof of the "fact" that the kid had burgled the house before that night.

Um, no, I've not said what "I" would do. I've stated to what extent a person's action might be. That's what everyone needs to consider. To what level might the response be for his (illegal) activity. The worry that death might be the result is the civilizing influence.

You really don't get this concept, that much is plain. I'd say you need a much more thorough grounding in philosophy than you're demonstrating here.

I'll grant you that point.

But it is far outweighed by the "uncivilizing" influence of allowing citizens to kill other citizens for stealing.

That's the part you are missing.

Having an "execution stall" outside every Wal Mart would not be a high water mark for civilization.

I cannot find that referenced, so I may be wrong on that fact. Dang it, you got me there. Now the whole case is falling appart.:rolleyes:

With that behind us, can you address the other facts presented in this case? I'll give you a moment to actually go back and read them. Like the fact Martin had been repeatedly burglarized, police had not responded, the three burglars had extensive criminal records, he initially fired from his staircase inside, etc.

I disagree

First, there is no "allowing" available to the state. Where do you think the state gets its authority from? The state gets it's power to arrest, try, and convict criminals from me. The state gets it's power to shoot threats to anyone from me. The power isn't granted from the state to me, it flows the opposite direction that you've postulated above. No wonder you don't understand, you've a basic flaw in your knowledge base.

Quote:

That's the part you are missing.

No, I'm missing nothing, see the above information.

Quote:

Having an "execution stall" outside every Wal Mart would not be a high water mark for civilization.

There is nothing in my writing that indicates I would support such a thing. Clearly, you do not have any firm philosophical tenets in hand.

I read them dude. I actually read the high court's opinion upholding the jury's decision. Not press reports. I read the case.

You are correct about one thing, and one thing only. The jury could have found him not guilty of murder. Had they, had they interpreted the facts the way you so desperately want, my opinion is that verdict would have been a reasonable one (unlike, say, the O.J. verdict, which I find to be unreasonable).

That you posted that biased, half-assed, incomplete story to start this thread (a story that does not even bother to mention the kid was shot in the back, found in the yard, and left dead of dying for 15 hours), shows me that your mind is closed. Tight as a drum.

I read things, not having any bias one way or the other (except that were I a juror, I'd give the homeowner every benefit of every doubt), and came to the conclusion that the evidence supported the verdict.

So did the trial judge, the prosecutor, the appellate court, and ultimately I guess the Parole Board.

So there's basically two choices here:

1. They are all crazy, stupid, ignorant, and all the other things you have called me here.

2. You are wrong.

No Pat, the state does not get its power from you ... it gets its power from US, acting democratically through majority rule.

Right now, thank God, there are more people against apple executions than for.

And yes, the logical result of your position is exactly that at Wal Mart. What's to stop it?

Full circle once again. Once again, for Rodeo's benefit. The question is not whether Martin was guilty under British law. The question is whether that law is just.

So, that's enough for me. We have beaten this dead horse long enough. Rodeo, you are simply unable to grasp the basic tenets that Pat, myself, and others have presented before you. I'm unsure whether it is simply stubborness, ignorance of the facts, or an innability to process this information. And I don't really care. It's probably some combination of the three. Anyway, it is pointless to discuss this any further. You have attempted to lead us around the block on this several time, ignoring compelling arguments from others and presenting your uninformed, ignorant point of view.

Spoken like a true winner ... I bet you were Capitan of the debating team.

On Saturday Night Live.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1158078021.jpg

So how many criminals have you put back on the streets??? My parents taught me right from wrong and at age 16 I would have never considered breaking into a home or business. They is a very easy way that the 16 year old kid could have avoided dying, by not committing a crime, but since it has been pointed out that he already had a record, it is no loose of life, but saving others whom he surely would have robbed maybe killed. I also noticed that the fact that Mr. Martin was closing in on being a Senior Citizen, and in FL. we take a very dim view people abusing or robbing them. So, once again, how many criminals have you put back on the street??