Rodeo, I think you would understand my point if you had not chosen to ignore or disregard the circumstances that lead so many of us to say "yes, this was self-defense".

The burglars, indeed these two in particualr, had visited Mr. Martin on several occasions in the past. Mr. Martin had phoned the police in regards to the burglaries he had suffered and those police had refused, on every occasion, to even respond. That puts this squarely in the realm of "self defense".

You are looking at this as an isolated incident. I'm relatively sure the jury was as well. I would be surprised if any testimony was allowed to the effect that Mr. Martin had called the police on these two, on several occasions in the past, and had never received a response. We see it here in the U.S. all the time; each case is presented supposedly on its own merit, with no criminal history of the defendant allowed, so as not to "taint" the jury, whatever that means.

Mr. Martin was in a hopeless situation. Tormented by the same burglars over and over, with no official help forthcoming. Can you imagine being in that position? Did he really have any obligation to these two to "play fair" anymore? What would you do in similar circumstances, with a police force whose official position is that they no longer investigate or respond to burglaries?

You mean "any party" besides the jury?

The jury found MURDER.

I understand that the pundits here, many of them having actually read an article or two on the incident, "found" differently than the jury.

I'll go with the jury's finding, thanks.

So how many criminals are back on the streets thanks to you???

My understanding is that these two had never been there before. Indeed, they may have thought it was an abandoned building given that the windows were boarded up and the yards, by all accounts, overgrown and neglected.

So the principal point you are making would be somewhat compelling if true, but it's not. This was a 16-year-old kid that may have been a hardened criminal, or may have been.... a 16-year-old kid.

As to the alleged police inaction, I don't really know one way or the other what the true story is, nor does probably anyone else on this board. I do know that the guy is apparently not all there, and a crank. The kind of guy that elicits groans when a dispatcher picks up his 10th call of the day. But again, I don’t know and neither do you.

But even assuming your version of events is true, no, I do not believe that would justify shooting a 16 year old in the back as he was fleeing, and then leaving him to die in your yard for 15 hours.

Call me soft if you want, but it has nothing to do with that. It has to do with rules that all civilized people must live by.

You can shoot someone in self-defense, but not as a protest that the police are not doing their jobs.

Mr. Martin should have hired a backhoe. A very deep hole to be dug before any shooting. When cops find bodies it's usually a shallow grave. Dig a hole 6-8' down, save any turf that needs replacing, and rots a ruck finding bodies...

Tough guy, huh? Shooting 16 year old kids in the back.

You're a real man, I tell you, a real man.

You're also the kind of person I want to protect myself, and my kids and grandkids, against. If you actually did anything like that, I would expect you to spend the rest of your life behind bars.

At least one more criminal would be off the street.

Thank you... if punks, and many burglars are, kept hitting me over & over again, with ZERO response from the local cops? You bet your leftist ass I'd be thinking of solving the problem myself.

"Shoot, Shovel, and shut up" A motto used here, usually in reference to pesky critters that the big city liberals wouldn't like being killed.

Oh...so far so good, no shooting of 16 year olds in the back in my history...

This is the Ninth circuit's model jury instruction on self-defense.

I think it pretty much mirrors what most judges in most parts of the country would tell a jury prior to deliberations.

I have assumed, but do not know, that the jury in this matter received a similar instruction.


6.7 SELF–DEFENSE

The defendant has offered evidence of having acted in self-defense. Use of force is justified when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary for the defense of oneself or another against the immediate use of unlawful force. However, a person must use no more force than appears reasonably necessary under the circumstances.

Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is justified in self-defense only if a person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.

The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in reasonable self- defense.

It's fitting that you chose something from the 9th circuit. Isn't that the court having the most rulings overturned by the Supremes?

Here's Alaska's Model Instruction. I think this is one of the "Castle Doctrine" instructions. This would not have justified Mr. Martin's actions either.

A defendant in possession or control of any premises *** may use deadly force upon another person when and to the extent the defendant believes it is necessary to terminate what the defendant believes to be the commission or attempted commission by the other person of burglary in any degree occurring in an occupied dwelling or occupied building. The defendant’s belief must be reasonable under the circumstances. Unless the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in defense of premises as described above, you shall find the defendant not guilty.

Shooting him in the back - does not neccisarily mean he was running away. I don't know the details of what you guys are arquenig(must have missed the topic), but you can have your back to a window and still be up to no good - does not always immediately imply a person was running away when shot.

That's more in line with Oregon law. The point being to catch them inside your house or attached garage...then you have a license to kill. I would indeed shoot to kill. Shoot to wound, and then the authorities have two stories to listen to when they arrive to clean up the mess. I'd prefer that there be only one story...mine.

I think my job is done on this thread...

He was in the yard when he was shot in the back.

He stayed in the yard, dead and/or dying, for the next 15 hours because Mr. Martin didn't bother to tell anyone.

If you are saying that you would not have shot him in the back in the yard and then hidden the body, then my job is done too :)

Actually, it would have justified Martin's actions. Under Castle Doctrine, which your quote appears to be, a person could use deadly force against anyone who he reasonably believed was in his dwelling, occupied by himself. Further, if a person knew the criminals had been there previously, could take that into account when judging the level of force to be applied.

You got it right Pat, just up to the "further" part ... There is no right to go after persons that "had been [in your home] previously."

If someone is in your house NOW, and if that person is in the commission of a burglary (notice the present tense?), you can put your mighty arsenal to use Pat :)

Otherwise, it's a police matter to determine who had "been there previously," and it's the court's job to adjudge them and punish them.

That's not what I said, reread it.

Quote:

If someone is in your house NOW, and if that person is in the commission of a burglary (notice the present tense?), you can put your mighty arsenal to use Pat :)

I'm speaking of what may legally happen, not what I may or may not do. Try not to personalize this. If a person finds someone in his house, illegally, and knows this person has broken into the house more than once previously, then he may take that into account when he decides what action to take against the person that's in his house NOW.

Quote:

Otherwise, it's a police matter to determine who had "been there previously," and it's the court's job to adjudge them and punish them.

Further, you're giving the state, and the "members" of the court most of the monopoly on lethal force. From where does this power to render lethal force originate?

Rodeo, I have followed this case from its beginning. As you may be aware, I am quite active in the shooting and hunting sports. While I realize you may simply brush them aside as "biased", the shooting and hunting press here and around the world picked right up on this story. It has been covered quite well by that press.

It stands as a proven fact that these two burglars had been to Martin's home before. His boarded up windows were his pitiful attempt to keep them, and others like them, out. They were very well aware that Martin lived there and that it was not some abandoned farmhouse. He had had face-to-face confrontations with these two beforehand. The 16 year old did have a laundry list of criminal charges and convictions on his record, as did the adult mentor that accompanied him. That much is fact as well.

So what if Martin "is not all there" and a "crank". So what if he has an unkempt house and garden. These two knew he lived there, knew he was helpless, knew the police were not responding to any of their actions against Martin - they had not been arrsted, questioned, or detained in any way. They knew they were operating with legal impunity. So they return for yet another go at it, and Martin has a little surprise waiting for them. He defended himself and his property. It's pretty hard to argue with that when presented with all of the facts and the history of this case.

You started out on this thread by admitting you knew nothing about this case. You sure seem to have spooled up quickly from those humble beginnings. Spooled up with your own opinion and fantasies that you have apparently convinced yourself are fact. You are demonstratably wrong in all of your assumptions concerning this case.

Like I said, this case immediately garnered the attention of firearms enthusiasts around the world. Nary a detail has not been covered and dissected virtually ad nauseum. This case stands as a travesty of justice rarely equalled in our world. It should serve as a warning and a case study here in the U.S. and, as a matter of fact, it has. Many legal activists, lobbyists, citizens' rights groups, victims' rights groups and others have used it as a case in point when lobbying for our so-called "castle laws". There are those of us that do not want to ever see the U.S. reach this point.

It is unfortunate that we find ourselves fighting other Americans, like you, that see nothing wrong with living under the kind of law used to prosecute Martin. Maybe as a lawyer your motives are less than honest; you see a financial windfall in cases such as these. The more Americans that are prosecuted, the more guys like you make. Or maybe you have simply spent too much time in court, in the legal system, where real people with real life difficulties no longer interest you. You have lost your way; you can no longer see the forest for the trees. Laws used to be written to serve honest citizens. You, and your ilk, salivate at the possibility of the honest people reduced to serving the law. How sad. In this country, at least, we will beat you. England has lost its fight to your kind; it won't be as easy here.

Been drinking again?

It's pretty pathetic that you can go after me with such venom while extolling shooting a 16 year old in the back and leaving him to die in your yard as some sort of "American virtue."

As pointed out to you and to Pat, no law in the land allows one to shoot a fleeing person in the back. If you do that, you sir are as much a criminal as the person you take it upon yourself to execute.

Actually, if you look at the forcible felony statute in Florida, you may come to another conclusion. Check the new castle doctrine too. You may find under those laws that if you were to shoot a fleeing robber who just shot a gas station clerk in the face or a guy who just threw Molotov cocktail through someone's front door, you would probably get away with it. We had a judge in South Florida who thought that the old laws were open to some interpretation, particularly on the issue of wrongful death suits. and that is why you got the new castle doctrine law with its absolute estoppel on civil suits and its elimination of the obligation to flee if you can. There never was a flight obligation if you were in your own home or business, but now that extends to pretty much anywhere.