I would like to make one final point here, since it appears that Tim is basing his entire position on the fact that the 16 yo had burgled the house before, and the police for some unknown reason were not interested in catching burglars.

I would like you to ASSUME that (1) this was just a "regular" 16 year old doing something stupid (someone like, say, my or your son), (2) that he thought because of the boarded up windows and overgrown yard that this was an abandoned building, not somebody's house, and (3) as soon as he realized it was somebody's house, he high-tailed it out of there, getting as far as the yard.

Under those facts, was it justified to shoot him in the back and leave him to die in the yard for 15 hours?

Unless people here are more callous than I think, the answer to this question has to be no. Of course you can't do that, we're not animals. We don't shoot kids who do dumb things. (if we did, I'd be long dead)

So the question becomes, how then does a homeowner distinguish between who you can shoot in the back and who you can't? As you are sighting the guy's back, do you have to make the determination of whether and how many times he has been there in the past? Do you have to calculate how many times you have called the police without satisfaction? Is one call enough, or does it have to be 2 or 3 or 4 calls before you can take matters into your own hands and kill the kid?

Ok, go ... you have 1/2 second to decide all these things ... oh, and make sure this kid doesn't just look like the kid that has given you trouble in the past.

Isn't the better rule that you can shoot someone if they are in the commission of a crime on your property, but not someone trying to run away through your yard?

Ah yes, yet another tail-between-his-legs, Rodeo-esque evasive manouver. Rather than address the facts concerning this case that have been presented (repeatedly) over the years, you choose to wine and snivel about my "venomous attack". Ironic that you choose to do so on a thread where you repeatedly implored others to "quit whining". Anyway, then you continue to build your own little fantasy world, clouded by your assumptions that have, for you, taken on the aura of fact.

"I would like you to ASSUME that (1) this was just a "regular" 16 year old doing something stupid (someone like, say, my or your son), (2) that he thought because of the boarded up windows and overgrown yard that this was an abandoned building, not somebody's house, and (3) as soon as he realized it was somebody's house, he high-tailed it out of there, getting as far as the yard."

I'm sure you would like to assume all of this. It's the only thing that bolsters your position. No matter that all of these assumptions are incorrect. Please don't let the facts get in the way of a truly heart-felt assumption; you would be in danger of gaining a measure of respect on this forum.

So, to re-state the question you slinked away from, putting your erroneous assumptions aside: Pretend for a moment that the story as carried around the world, for years, is true. What would you suggest Martin have done?

As I stated earlier, I've followed this case since before Mr. Martin's trial. There is no fact brought into evidence that points to Mr. Martin's defending himself and his property from a couple of repeat offending hoodlums.

The thing that I'd like to emphasize most strongly is that anyone depending on government to protect themselves, their families, or their property is on a fool's errand. Additionally, defense of all of the above is what makes humans civilized, defending the actions of and the persons of thugs is uncivilized.

There's another case involving defense of property on your curtilage. Around about 1910, in a small town in Wyoming, or Montana, there was a drunk who also had a mean streak when he was really "in his cups". He had been arrested numerous times for fighting (almost anyone who walked across his path) and wanton property destruction, all to no avail. One day he's at his worst and walking down a street and happens to spy a relatively young pear tree planted in a front yard. No one knows why he took a dislike to that tree, but he did. Climbing over a fence, probably split rail, he proceeds to assault the tree, tearing off the limbs, then pulling the remainder out of the ground. Right about that time, a single shot rang out, catching said drunk squarely in the chest, killing him instantly. Seems the owner of the tree was the wife of a man who'd saved his extra hard cash, not easily come by in those days, and given the tree to his wife for her birthday. His wife had wished for a pear tree for years and they finally had one. No charges were filed, and no hard feelings were held by anyone in the town. Thee drunk's body was carted away like the trash that it was.

That's why that old western town is much more civilized than almost any large metropolitan city you can name today.

I guess you won't answer my question. Nuance is not your thing.

I've already answered yours. If you shoot someone in the back while they are running away from you, you are a murderer.

And by the way, you are wrong on your facts ... no evidence that the kid had been there before. NONE.

But don't let that stop you from attacking anyone that disagrees with you.

A long time ago, upon learning that I had walked into someone's house (at about age 8 or 9) simply because the door was open, my father had what one would call a "strongly worded" one way discussion with me on why that was not just stupid, but dangerous, and why I was never to do anything like that again for the rest of my life.

I remember it well to this day.

If you don't want your child harmed for "doing something stupid", it's your responsibility to prevent that, not government's responsibility to prosecute someone because of sympathy for the criminal due to age. Additionally, almost any 16 year old knows better than to break into any place. Any notion that they're too young is wildly misplaced.

Of course a 16 year old should know better.

The question is whether they should be sentenced to death if they don't.

For your reading pleasure:

http://www.edp24.co.uk/Content/News/Index/TonyMartin.asp

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/hagin/031027

http://www.issues-views.com/index.php/sect/24000/article/24041

http://www.guncontrolnetwork.org/uk7.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/719895.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2074077.stm

Information on this case is not hard to find. And no, Rodeo, you have not even tried to answer my question. Try reading some of this before you make an even bigger fool of yourself. Then try to answer my question.

I tried to have a civil discussion with you, but the name calling has gotten out of bounds ... good thing I'm not in your presence, I get the feeling you'd shoot me in the back for agreeing with the the jury and disagreeing with you.

I guess being a bully in real life has worked for you, at least on some level ... it won't work with me, on-line or in person. See ya.

If the goernment is involved, no death sentence. If apprehended by the owner, the intended victim, that's should be entirely up to the victim. With few, if any, questions asked.

We must return to the notion of private property being just that, completely private, and I'd advise you and everyone else with children (of any age) to impress upon them the core idea of private property.

That's difficult to do when government, at all levels, tells you what to do with your property, what color to paint your home, what trees you can and cannot chop down, what cars you're allowed to have in your driveway; but do it you must.

LOL....notice how he conviently ignores posts that quote specific law or facts which appear to contradict any of his very general opinions, which are, of course, always couched in terms of gospel truth that we misguided, uneducated ignorant redneck laymen should accept as such? Old lawyer trick.....present the postion that you have already settled on as if it had come from a burning bush, present only those limited facts that seem to support it and then sit back and put on your best smug all knowing grin....been there, done that.:D

Just a question here - but what is the proof that he was actively running away at the time?

Generally, when people have their back to you, in your yard, having just left your house rather hastily, they are running away.

But the best evidence is that the jury found the man guilty of murder.

While the mouth breathers around here assume that the jury must therefore all be liberal, whiny, criminal lovers that would do well to find a boot up their collective asses, I don't make that assumption.

I assume that they were responsible people that listened carefully to the evidence presented and did their job the best they could.

And Pat, you are one scary dude ... Hope no one gets caught stealing apples from your place. As the property owner, maybe you'll decide that death by extreme torture is appropriate. I guess if you do, society has nothing to say about your choice.

As I've stated, your way is the path to uncivilized behavior because you place no value on property.

I do.

And, since you've only a smattering of an idea of my domicile, you really have no idea about what such a theft would entail. Most people just stop at the numerous fruit stands within 5 miles of my farm and buy their apples. That's what I recommend to everyone.

In other words you did not, and will not, read the background material on this. You are simply wrong in everything you assumed concerning this case and are not man enough to come to grips with that. So once again, Rodeo avoids, deflects, and runs. I have lost track of how many times you have taken this tack when you have lost an argument.

And I'm just a mean bully. I guess; I have rather relentlessly beat you over the head with the facts concerning this case. They still don't seem to sink in. So, once again on the very same thread that you implored us conservatives to "quit whining", you slink off whining that I'm being mean to you. Rather than face, and address the facts surrounding this case, you take your ball and go home. I'm seeing a pattern here. Classic Rodeo in every sense.

I just place a higher value on human life than I do apples.

Call me crazy.

No, in actual fact, you don't place a higher value on human life. That's the sad truth here, devaluing private property devalues human life almost entirely.

I'm sorry that you can't or won't see the truth here, but you apparently do not.

Like the "fact" that the kid had burgled the house before?

You need therapy or something ... either that or go "beat" someone else over the head, I'm sure you have friends, lovers, coworkers, kids, etc. that respond to that kind of treatment. I don't.

Duck and run Rodeo, duck and run. You are unable to answer Pat nor I concerning this case. So Pat becomes a "scary dude" and I become a "bully" in need of "therapy". Again, classic Rodeo.

Please read the material available on this case. It is truly sad; truly a travesty of justice regarding the way in which Martin was treated. While I realize your need to be right far outweighs the facts surrounding this case, read the material anyway.

Yep, the 16 year old burglar in the case might have just been a "regular 16 year old kid" like your kid or my kid....NOT!

Fred Barras and Brendan Fearon were experienced criminals who had amassed 62 convictions between them.

The pair, along with a third man Darren Bark, who was involved in the burglary expedition to Tony Martin's isolated farm house, were well known to Nottinghamshire Police.



He was a thief but he didn't deserve this

Ellen Barras, mother
All three men had convictions for violence and had all served custodial sentences.

Barras, 16, a gypsy who was born in Wakefield, West Yorkshire, had 29 convictions, including assault, six for fraud and seven for theft.

His first court appearance came when he was only 13 years old.

He was found guilty of two assaults, obtaining property by deception and forgery offences.

On bail

By the age of 15 he was sentenced to two months in a young offenders' institution after being convicted of assaulting police, theft and being drunk and disorderly.

In April last year he was ordered to spend 24 hours at an attendance centre after being convicted of burglary and theft.

Brendan Fearon
Brendan Fearon: 33 criminal convictions
When he was shot by Martin he was on bail having been accused of another theft.

The bail notice was found on his body.

Barras had even been arrested a week before his death and charged with stealing garden furniture.

He was released on bail by magistrates in Newark despite police objections.

Another point: Rodeo is trying to make the leap that because the jury convicted Martin of murder, then he MUST have chased down the poor innocent 16 year old, shot him in the back and then left him to die. A heartwrenching story for sure, but just not consistent with the facts of the case.

If you research anything about this case, it is clear that (1) the house in question was in poor repair, poorly lit and overgrown with vines and weeds. (2) Mr. Martin shot from the top of the stairs (at night) and then shot from his front door into the night, shooting THROUGH very thick vines into his front yard. The second shot appears to be the one that killed the burglar. Mr. Martin did not venture into his front yard after the shots were fired, instead he retreated back into his house. Thus, he possibly didn't even know that he had hit anyone at all. (3) Mr. Martin is indeed eccentric, to say the least. This doesn't, however, give him any less right to defend his home from intruders.