NationStates Jolt Archive

Man Kills Teen for Walking on Lawn, Police Say (http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060320205409990001&ncid=NWS00010000000001)

Man, don't we just love it when psychotically grumpy old military-worshipping men who value their obcessive-compulsive lawn a lot more than human life think shooting a kid is justifiable homicide?

His senile old ass is going to jail for the rest of his two years that he's going to survive...

Batavia? So that's where Caesars mercenaries came from...

A cowboyesque take on property.

Well now who's gunna take care of his lawn while he is in jail. He is probably having nightmares of kids playign football on his lawn while the neighbors are bringing their dog over for a bit of relief.

Payback's a bitch :p

The news here really went nuts on this story. I really love how reporters are always asking stupid questions and the neighbors always say things like: "Oh, we never expected anything like this to happen!" Or "The two argued but I never thought the guy would take it this far!" I changed the channel as local news gives all relevant info in like 30 seconds and the rest is just worthless filler.

isnt it always sad when a kid gets killed.

its always "*sob* the kid was always a nice boy, he wouldnt do anything to bother anyone *sob*" play it off like they were innocent and then all of a sudden grumpy old guy comes out of no where a shoots the kid.

i heard the 911 call on tv, the report you posted says "saying calmly: "I just killed a kid."" while on the tape, he called he sounded upset to me, it certainly wasnt "yeah theres a dead body on my lawn, come get it off"

edit: i truely have no sympathy for the boy

His senile old ass is going to jail for the rest of his two years that he's going to survive...

Has US life expectancy plummeted while I have been looking elsewhere?

edit: i truely have no sympathy for the boy
What could he possibly have done to deserve death? Even if he was pissing on the guy's lawn, it was still nowhere near a justifiable homocide.

It was just a .410 bore shotgun. It's the kids own fault for being so easy to kill. I mean really, being shot with a .410 bore shotgun is only mildly more painful than a bee sting.

What could he possibly have done to deserve death? Even if he was pissing on the guy's lawn, it was still nowhere near a justifiable homocide.

he has been told to stay off the yard many times before, he was there just to annoy the hell out of the old man, if you keep pushing and pushing someone, you have to expect them to snap someday. and the old man did. and the boy paid the price for being an asshole

he has been told to stay off the yard many times before, he was there just to annoy the hell out of the old man, if you keep pushing and pushing someone, you have to expect them to snap someday. and the old man did. and the boy paid the price for being an asshole

Call the cops FIRST.

You shouldn't ever need to shoot anyone in the first place.

Call the cops FIRST.

You shouldn't ever need to shoot anyone in the first place.
if take threaten your property they can, why would we have guns if we couldnt?

if take threaten your property they can, why would we have guns if we couldnt?
What they mean I think is that it should be a last resort. Although homicide is beyond excessive in this case. Also, phrase your posts better.

if take threaten your property they can, why would we have guns if we couldnt?
All of a sudden I feel like you don't deserve to have guns.

I'm too lazy to hunt kids who step on my lawn. I'd probably just mine it.

if take threaten your property they can, why would we have guns if we couldnt?

1) The UN abassadorship, you are a liar.

2) Your post is so badly phrased, I have a bad time reading it.

3) Imagine the following difference: You call the cops, cops come over, investigate situation, find that kid is being troublesome, deal with kid, problem solved. Anymore problems? call again and then maybe fines will start coming in. Heck, it'll probably be a lot more satisfying either a) seeing the kid start acting nicer and better OR b) seeing the family slowly go into misery because they can't act like decent human beings.

But in this case, the old man decided to act like an animal rather than a decent human being.

1) The UN abassadorship, you are a liar.

2) Your post is so badly phrased, I have a bad time reading it.

3) Imagine the following difference: You call the cops, cops come over, investigate situation, find that kid is being troublesome, deal with kid, problem solved. Anymore problems? call again and then maybe fines will start coming in. Heck, it'll probably be a lot more satisfying either a) seeing the kid start acting nicer and better OR b) seeing the family slowly go into misery because they can't act like decent human beings.

But in this case, the old man decided to act like an animal rather than a decent human being.


couldn't have said it better myself....pretty much sums my feelings up.

if the kid is a threataning punk..then have him arrested for making terroristic threats and tresspassing,and hide in your house with your gun until the cops come,and if he busts in your house to do you in or harm you,then shoot his punk ass.

this old asshat gives us lac a bad rap.

1 idiot likes this smears the hundreds of thousands of legitimate people that have guns for self defence.

but before the anti gun nuts start chiming in...he will be punished for his abhorrant actions.

the way it should be.

shame for the kid,but you cant punish people until they commit a crime.

the kid shouldn't been such an asshole either though..not to say he deserved to be killed i will add.

1) The UN abassadorship, you are a liar.

2) Your post is so badly phrased, I have a bad time reading it.

3) Imagine the following difference: You call the cops, cops come over, investigate situation, find that kid is being troublesome, deal with kid, problem solved. Anymore problems? call again and then maybe fines will start coming in. Heck, it'll probably be a lot more satisfying either a) seeing the kid start acting nicer and better OR b) seeing the family slowly go into misery because they can't act like decent human beings.

But in this case, the old man decided to act like an animal rather than a decent human being.
we just see things differently, I say shoot the kid right there

we just see things differently, I say shoot the kid right there

Can I shoot you?

I mean, I shoot liars on principle, so can I?

Man Kills Teen for Walking on Lawn, Police Say (http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060320205409990001&ncid=NWS00010000000001)

Man, don't we just love it when psychotically grumpy old military-worshipping men who value their obcessive-compulsive lawn a lot more than human life think shooting a kid is justifiable homicide?

Care to tell me where it says that he is a grumpy old military-worshipping man? Just because he has the US Navy flag doesn't make one a military worshipper.

Sorry the kid is dead but this broke today. I'll wait for more information before I make a more factual opinion. Right now though, he has been charged and is being held.

Can I shoot you?

I mean, I shoot liars on principle, so can I?


Shoot but use salt pellets, it's oh so much more satisfying.

What they mean I think is that it should be a last resort. Although homicide is beyond excessive in this case. Also, phrase your posts better.

According to the article, he tried to get the police to listen and they did nothing. Of course, I do not know what the law is in regards to people walking on other people's lawn.

Also, if you feel threatened about someone on your property, you do have the right to shoot him.

According to the article, he tried to get the police to listen and they did nothing. Of course, I do not know what the law is in regards to people walking on other people's lawn.

Also, if you feel threatened about someone on your property, you do have the right to shoot him.
He could have avoided killing him at least.

He could have avoided killing him at least.

How much you like to bet that he didn't actually ment to kill him?

How much you like to bet that he didn't actually ment to kill him?
I am entirely sure he had no intention of doing so. Yet he still ended up doing so. Also, this was not an adult, it was a kid. He could have shot into the air and scared the brat off.

I'm too lazy to hunt kids who step on my lawn. I'd probably just mine it.
Or keep attack dogs/wolverines/mongooses/lions/bears/crocodiles tethered on your lawn....

This man gives gun rights a bad name.

Of course, I do not know what the law is in regards to people walking on other people's lawn.

the safe bet is that it doesn't say "feel free to open fire on them"

Man Kills Teen for Walking on Lawn, Police Say (http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060320205409990001&ncid=NWS00010000000001)

Man, don't we just love it when psychotically grumpy old military-worshipping men who value their obcessive-compulsive lawn a lot more than human life think shooting a kid is justifiable homicide?
What fascinates me is the level of cognitive dissonance with which you can live. You can tolerate any number of demented ( even psychotic ) acts, so long as they're comitted by leftists. But let one poor, old, lonely man go over the edge and he's a "psychotically grumpy old military-worshipping" man. There was no indication that the man was ever a veteran or "military-worshipping" in any manner.

I have decided that you shall be the very first person on my heretofore non-existent ignore list. Congratulations! :)

The kid could have been a terrorist or gangmember. Going to kill the guy as part of an initiation ritual.

How much you like to bet that he didn't actually ment to kill him?
There's a good chance he didn't mean to kill the kid. A .410 bore shotgun is the smallest shotgun around AFAIK, and though the article didn't mention what ammo was used, unless it was loaded with slugs it's possible that the old guy just wanted to put a few small pellets into the kid as a punishment/warning. Not that I'm defending shooting at people for walking on one's lawn, but the death may not have been intentional.

What fascinates me is the level of cognitive dissonance with which you can live. You can tolerate any number of demented ( even psychotic ) acts, so long as they're comitted by leftists. But let one poor, old, lonely man go over the edge and he's a "psychotically grumpy old military-worshipping" man. There was no indication that the man was ever a veteran or "military-worshipping" in any manner.

I have decided that you shall be the very first person on my heretofore non-existent ignore list. Congratulations! :)
Talk about cognative dissonance. The dude shot a kid over his lawn. Where does the rest of this crap come from?

And you're not supposed to gloat about your ignore list.

What fascinates me is the level of cognitive dissonance with which you can live. You can tolerate any number of demented ( even psychotic ) acts, so long as they're comitted by leftists.
We can? Show me some examples of that and I'll believe you. Otherwise.... thanks, but no thanks.

isnt it always sad when a kid gets killed.

its always "*sob* the kid was always a nice boy, he wouldnt do anything to bother anyone *sob*" play it off like they were innocent and then all of a sudden grumpy old guy comes out of no where a shoots the kid.

i heard the 911 call on tv, the report you posted says "saying calmly: "I just killed a kid."" while on the tape, he called he sounded upset to me, it certainly wasnt "yeah theres a dead body on my lawn, come get it off"

edit: i truely have no sympathy for the boy
I heard the phonecall, too and you are absolutely wrong. He was calm and completely cool with no emotion that I could hear.

Shoot but use salt pellets, it's oh so much more satisfying.
Are there chili pepper bullets? Those would be much better.

Or keep attack dogs/wolverines/mongooses/lions/bears/crocodiles tethered on your lawn....
Where I grew up a friend of mine had a croc in his lawn. They never had a problem with trespassers. Too bad they had to give it to a zoo after it grew too large.

Are there chili pepper bullets? Those would be much better.


ohhhhhhhhhh :D salt pellets soaked in habanero juice

couldn't have said it better myself....pretty much sums my feelings up.

if the kid is a threataning punk..then have him arrested for making terroristic threats and tresspassing,and hide in your house with your gun until the cops come,and if he busts in your house to do you in or harm you,then shoot his punk ass.

this old asshat gives us lac a bad rap.

1 idiot likes this smears the hundreds of thousands of legitimate people that have guns for self defence.

but before the anti gun nuts start chiming in...he will be punished for his abhorrant actions.

the way it should be.

shame for the kid,but you cant punish people until they commit a crime.

the kid shouldn't been such an asshole either though..not to say he deserved to be killed i will add.

What's a lac?

I think the family that lost their son should get thier entire family and all the people on the block to trample his lawn while someone takes pictures. Then, while the old military guy is in court, pass the pictures to him :p

There was no indication that the man was ever a veteran or "military-worshipping" in any manner.
Neighbors said Martin lived alone quietly, often sitting in front of his one-story home with its neat lawn, well-trimmed shrubbery and flag pole with U.S. and Navy flags flying.
.

What's a lac?
Liberal American Conservatives?

Are there chili pepper bullets? Those would be much better.
http://www.bellum.nu/armoury/Ferretround.html

According to the article, he tried to get the police to listen and they did nothing. Of course, I do not know what the law is in regards to people walking on other people's lawn.

Also, if you feel threatened about someone on your property, you do have the right to shoot him.

I don't know if that's correct. The way I read it, it sounded like he told the cops he'd had several problems with that after he was arrested.

This man gives gun rights a bad name.

This man gives gun nuts a bad name.

.
And your point is???

Flying a Navy flag does not a veteran make. It could have been his son, or brother, or even father who was in the Navy.

Talk about cognative dissonance. The dude shot a kid over his lawn. Where does the rest of this crap come from?

And you're not supposed to gloat about your ignore list.
From having to deal with the likes of Gauthier/UN Ambassadorship. It's a true shame that the boy was shot, but using the entire incident as nothing more than a vehicle to attack the US military once again is idiocy.

And your point is???

Flying a Navy flag does not a veteran make. It could have been his son, or brother, or even father who was in the Navy.
Still. He wouldn't fly the flag if he weren't a military supporter, no matter which of his relatives were in the Navy. If you lived in the USA and had a son who lived in France, would you fly the French flag?

I never said he was a veteran, either. That was the OP. And you still haven't addressed my other post.

From having to deal with the likes of Gauthier/UN Ambassadorship. It's a true shame that the boy was shot, but using the entire incident as nothing more than a vehicle to attack the US military once again is idiocy.
For once, I agree.

This man gives gun nuts a bad name.

Point taken.

According to the article, he tried to get the police to listen and they did nothing. Of course, I do not know what the law is in regards to people walking on other people's lawn.

Also, if you feel threatened about someone on your property, you do have the right to shoot him.
Martin was being held without bond yesterday in Clermont County Jail. Police said he told them he had several disputes about neighbours walking on his lawn. But Union Township police Lieut. Scott Gaviglia said Martin had no criminal history and last called police in 2003.
Different source (http://winnipegsun.com/News/World/2006/03/21/1497756-sun.html)

LMAO i guess im a little slow, but i just re read the title on the thread, where in the article does it say the kid was a liberal, or a commie?

Still. He wouldn't fly the flag if he weren't a military supporter, no matter which of his relatives were in the Navy. If you lived in the USA and had a son who lived in France, would you fly the French flag?

I never said he was a veteran, either. That was the OP. And you still haven't addressed my other post.
LOL! So now the US Navy is a country unto itself? [ shakes head sadly ]

It is the OP to whom I was responding and about whom I was talking. What "other post?"

I heard the phonecall, too and you are absolutely wrong. He was calm and completely cool with no emotion that I could hear.

perhaps we have a different view on emotion, but too me he sounded upset and aggrevated, btw not everyone cries uncontrolably so you can barely understand them when they are upset.

You people do realize that Gauthier = UN Ambassadorship, yes? Think about it.

Here is the 911 call (http://audio.cbsnews.com/2006/03/21/audio1425131.mp3)

You people do realize that Gauthier = UN Ambassadorship, yes? Think about it.
Considering the halucinations and outright lies you've had about me, forgive me for not jumping to agree with you.

You people do realize that Gauthier = UN Ambassadorship, yes? Think about it.

Hmmm. Yes, I'd be willing to bet twenty euro on that. Good call.

You people do realize that Gauthier = UN Ambassadorship, yes? Think about it.

You've proof of this?

Here is the 911 call (http://audio.cbsnews.com/2006/03/21/audio1425131.mp3)

very good you found a link to it, now listen to it, listen to his voice

i hope the kid's family appologizes to the man for all the trouble and pain the kid has caused him

From the local news (http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060321/NEWS01/603210334/-1/CINCI) two disturbing things come out-

Union Township police have charged Martin with murder. Police said Martin fired two rounds from a .410-gauge shotgun at the teen.

"We understand the young man was in the street when the shooting occurred," Tekulve said.
I'll take into consideration that the last one is a qualified statement.

I don't know that there is a way to not look batshit chained in the orange jumpsuit, so I won't take a shot at the photo of the man.

very good you found a link to it, now listen to it, listen to his voice
How do you think that address copy thing works, champ? Pretty much have to open the page and copy it.

i hope the kid's family appologizes to the man for all the trouble and pain the kid has caused him
I hope that was sarcasm

I hope that was sarcasm

hey, if it's good enough for cheney, it's good enough for gun nuts in ohio.

hey, if it's good enough for cheney, it's good enough for gun nuts in ohio.
Lol good I did not know weather to laugh or feel disapointed in ya :fluffle:

he has been told to stay off the yard many times before, he was there just to annoy the hell out of the old man, if you keep pushing and pushing someone, you have to expect them to snap someday. and the old man did. and the boy paid the price for being an asshole

You're a cock.

very good you found a link to it, now listen to it, listen to his voice


I listened and the guy sounded calm to me.

Another source (http://www.channelcincinnati.com/health/8126562/detail.html), again local, has more-
According to police, Martin and Mugrage had a history of arguments about Martin's yard. The two argued again Sunday, police said, and when Mugrage returned, Martin was waiting outside and shot him twice.

EDIT:It also has the complete 911 call (http://www.channelcincinnati.com/download/2006/0321/8149497.mp3)

You're a cock.

i respect your opinion, it actually made me laugh, but what i posted is true, you may not like it, but if you push someone, and you just keep pushing them, there is a breaking point where you better hide, because it most likely wont be pretty.

i respect your opinion, it actually made me laugh, but what i posted is true, you may not like it, but if you push someone, and you just keep pushing them, there is a breaking point where you better hide, because it most likely wont be pretty.


WHy do you automatically take the old guys word?

Have you ever known an old person to be irrational or blow up about something that was really nothing?

i respect your opinion, it actually made me laugh, but what i posted is true, you may not like it, but if you push someone, and you just keep pushing them, there is a breaking point where you better hide, because it most likely wont be pretty.
Possibly but any reasonable person has a higher tollarance to something as petty as this. The man obviously does not have the ability to make competent decisions on his own.

He is a threat to society and should be locked away

Possibly but any reasonable person has a higher tollarance to something as petty as this. The man obviously does not have the ability to make competent decisions on his own.

He is a threat to society and should be locked away

threat to society or threat to punk kids that wish to piss off old men with shotguns?

i dont think he went to the local supermarket and took 15 hostages, he shot a punk kid that wished to keep pissing him off

he has been told to stay off the yard many times before, he was there just to annoy the hell out of the old man, if you keep pushing and pushing someone, you have to expect them to snap someday. and the old man did. and the boy paid the price for being an asshole

Cowboy.

i respect your opinion, it actually made me laugh, but what i posted is true, you may not like it, but if you push someone, and you just keep pushing them, there is a breaking point where you better hide, because it most likely wont be pretty.

Riiiiight... Yeah, you see, there's a MINOR flaw in your impecable point there. Well, actually, there are many, because you're a babbling moron, but I'll begin with just one so your little mind can grasp it. So, I'll begin speaking to you as if you were an 8-year old, because that's what you sound like.

There's a name for people whose breaking points include "stepping on my lawn" rather than "self-defense and defense of loved ones". These people, Timmy, are called "psychopaths". Now, repeat: "Psy-cho-paths"... Yeah, that's right.

If this guy was angry enough to KILL SOMEBODY over them stepping on a piece of land, that guy is a lunatic. Unless you would like to live in a world in which anything offensive could be punishable by death, you'd better rethink your ideas. Why? Because by breathing people are already offending others. You, for instance, are offending me right now with your utter stupidity in defending a guy whose idea of something worth shooting people for includes DIRT! Now, should I shoot you? No. Why? Because, unlike this old man you so promptly defend, I'm not a psychopath!

Cowboy.
wtf?:confused:

threat to society or threat to punk kids that wish to piss off old men with shotguns?

i dont think he went to the local supermarket and took 15 hostages, he shot a punk kid that wished to keep pissing him off
Society consists of punk kids among other people.

The man killed a kid that walked on his lawn... this was either the choice of a mentaly incompetent or mentaly challanged individual. Either way it is a much safer bet then letting him possibly shoot at someone walking down the street again

threat to society or threat to punk kids that wish to piss off old men with shotguns?

i dont think he went to the local supermarket and took 15 hostages, he shot a punk kid that wished to keep pissing him off

Threat to SOCIETY, Timmy. I bet you'd be singing a different tune if it was your sister that got in an argument with someone she despises and got shot, though. THEN it'd be a threat to society, right, Timmy?

Riiiiight... Yeah, you see, there's a MINOR flaw in your impecable point there. Well, actually, there are many, because you're a babbling moron, but I'll begin with just one so your little mind can grasp it. So, I'll begin speaking to you as if you were an 8-year old, because that's what you sound like.

There's a name for people whose breaking points include "stepping on my lawn" rather than "self-defense and defense of loved ones". These people, Timmy, are called "psychopaths". Now, repeat: "Psy-cho-paths"... Yeah, that's right.

If this guy was angry enough to KILL SOMEBODY over them stepping on a piece of land, that guy is a lunatic. Unless you would like to live in a world in which anything offensive could be punishable by death, you'd better rethink your ideas. Why? Because by breathing people are already offending others. You, for instance, are offending me right now with your utter stupidity in defending a guy whose idea of something worth shooting people for includes DIRT! Now, should I shoot you? No. Why? Because, unlike this old man you so promptly defend, I'm not a psychopath!

well lets see, it was the old mans property, the old man says he was being destructive, the old man told him to stay off, the boy came back, the old man retaliated, the boy brought it on too himself for being an asshole

i still have 0 sympathy for the boy

well lets see, it was the old mans property, the old man says he was being destructive, the old man told him to stay off, the boy came back, the old man retaliated, the boy brought it on too himself for being an asshole

i still have 0 sympathy for the boy

That's because you're no better than the murderer, Timmy.

Threat to SOCIETY, Timmy. I bet you'd be singing a different tune if it was your sister that got in an argument with someone she despises and got shot, though. THEN it'd be a threat to society, right, Timmy?

was the boy your sister?

but anyways, of course your more upset when its your own relative, should a cop not shoot a violent gang member that shooting at them because that person is someones brother?

say this old man is your grandfather and this asshole kid has been tormenting him, your grandfather takes action and now your grandfather is in jail because an asshole kid that he was cool and didnt have to respects others property

well lets see, it was the old mans property, the old man says he was being destructive, the old man told him to stay off, the boy came back, the old man retaliated, the boy brought it on too himself for being an asshole

i still have 0 sympathy for the boy

The kid was a jerk but that certainly doesn't excuse what the old guy did. Hell, just taking it out and pointing it at the kid certainly would have sent a message to the kid that "Hey, I'm damn serious! Stay the FUCK off my yard!!" But going and killing him? Well he deserves to spend whatever few years of his life he has left in prison.

That's because you're no better than the murderer, Timmy.

very nice of you to give me a nickname, but im not timmy, and you want to claim im acting like an 8 year old, look at yourself

was the boy your sister?

but anyways, of course your more upset when its your own relative, should a cop not shoot a violent gang member that shooting at them because that person is someones brother?

say this old man is your grandfather and this asshole kid has been tormenting him, your grandfather takes action and now your grandfather is in jail because an asshole kid that he was cool and didnt have to respects others property

Yeah, see, that's the difference between us. I'd STILL think my grandfather was a murderer. That's because STEPPING ON SOMEONE'S PROPERTY WAS ONLY PUNISHABLE BY DEATH IN THE STONE AGE! We're trying to have a society here!

This could close it for the old geezer:

Martin: "He's laying in his yard."

So, if he shot the troublemaker when he was off his property, not being a nuisance, and after the argument was over, then that pretty much throws away whatever hopes of citing self-defense or trespassing he had.

was the boy your sister?

but anyways, of course your more upset when its your own relative, should a cop not shoot a violent gang member that shooting at them because that person is someones brother?

say this old man is your grandfather and this asshole kid has been tormenting him, your grandfather takes action and now your grandfather is in jail because an asshole kid that he was cool and didnt have to respects others property
Violent gang member<------->Walking on a lawn

he has been told to stay off the yard many times before, he was there just to annoy the hell out of the old man, if you keep pushing and pushing someone, you have to expect them to snap someday. and the old man did. and the boy paid the price for being an asshole
C'mon, he could've just kneecapped him or something.

very nice of you to give me a nickname, but im not timmy, and you want to claim im acting like an 8 year old, look at yourself

8-year olds are the kind of people that would NOT measure strenght against others in whatever they did. Dogs attack and sometimes kill other dogs for the piece of land they peed on, not people.

was the boy your sister?

but anyways, of course your more upset when its your own relative, should a cop not shoot a violent gang member that shooting at them because that person is someones brother?

say this old man is your grandfather and this asshole kid has been tormenting him, your grandfather takes action and now your grandfather is in jail because an asshole kid that he was cool and didnt have to respects others property
So, you have different justice systems for family and non-family.
Golly, Timmy, are you in the Mob?

So, you have different justice systems for family and non-family.
Golly, Timmy, are you in the Mob?

Hey! You're using MY nickname for him! YOU DIE! *Shoots Argesia*

Mmm... Nah. *Raises Argesia back from the dead and gives him/her a cookie*

I am entirely sure he had no intention of doing so. Yet he still ended up doing so. Also, this was not an adult, it was a kid. He could have shot into the air and scared the brat off.

I've been wondering about the shooting up in the air = safe

because, I've heard stories of people in the middle east getting killed by falling bullets. Or for that matter, that airplanes give you bullet proof vests to sit on.

I cannot confirm this, but bullets Do fall down again. They Are subject to gravity, so blindly shooting up in the air is Not safe. Shooting at the ground, however, is much safer.

Hey! You're using MY nickname for him! YOU DIE! *Shoots Argesia*

Mmm... Nah. *Raises Argesia back from the dead and gives him/her a cookie*
*slowly raises himself from the lawn, vomits blood, drops on butt, drags himself towards the cookie, takes it and eats it while blood is pouring from his throat*

I've been wondering about the shooting up in the air = safe

because, I've heard stories of people in the middle east getting killed by falling bullets. Or for that matter, that airplanes give you bullet proof vests to sit on.

I cannot confirm this, but bullets Do fall down again. They Are subject to gravity, so blindly shooting up in the air is Not safe. Shooting at the ground, however, is much safer.

At any rate, ANYWHERE BUT AT THE HUMAN BEING. :p

Dude, the guy's lawn isn't even that well kept.

*slowly raises himself from the lawn, vomits blood, drops on butt, drags himself towards the cookie, takes it and eats it while blood is pouring from his throat*

Whoops. *Casts a healing spell on Argesia, patching him up completely*

There, there. Now, you can use my nickname for him, but just for this thread, or I'll rightfully take your life. Okay?

Whoops. *Casts a healing spell on Argesia, patching him up completely*

There, there. Now, you can use my nickname for him, but just for this thread, or I'll rightfully take your life. Okay?
Deal.

Dude, the guy's lawn isn't even that well kept.

I agree with you and you probably agree with me on "no killing people over a lawn", but that's kinda beyond the point...

well lets see, it was the old mans property, the old man says he was being destructive, the old man told him to stay off, the boy came back, the old man retaliated, the boy brought it on too himself for being an asshole

i still have 0 sympathy for the boy

Unfortunately, you're completely wrong. Killing a teenage boy over your lawn is never a justified action, except to the mentally incompetent.

jesus, now they are arguing over who gets to use the strawman:rolleyes:

The man should be hung by his neck until dead. He should then be buried in a grave marked by nothing but his SSN in a prison graveyard.

His property should be given to the family of the boy he killed or auctioned off by the government with the proceeds going to the family of the boy he killed.

Any decorations as a sailor in the USN, assuming he was a sailor of the USN, should be stripped from him, as should any rank that he held. All records of him every serving in the USN or any other United States government angency should be expunged or appropriately denoted to show his exceptional lack of honor. All pictures containing him should have his face clipped or be burned.

The man has dishonored the entire nation and deserves a fate as ignomonious as can be given.

jesus, now they are arguing over who gets to use the strawman:rolleyes:
If it's an anatomically correct strawman I could understand.

say this old man is your grandfather and this asshole kid has been tormenting him, your grandfather takes action and now your grandfather is in jail because an asshole kid that he was cool and didnt have to respects others property

I would tell my grandfather to call the police, not murder the boy. Now say you cut across someone's lawn to get out of the rain, and he shoots you in the chest twice with a shotgun. Did you deserve to die?

jesus, now they are arguing over who gets to use the strawman:rolleyes:

You're a real piece of work. You're unethical enough to defend a psychopath and dumb enough not to understand irony. Also, calling you Timmy isn't a straw man, Timmy.

I would tell my grandfather to call the police, not murder the boy. Now say you cut across someone's lawn to get out of the rain, and he shoots you in the chest twice with a shotgun. Did you deserve to die?

Yes, although for another reasons. :P

jesus, now they are arguing over who gets to use the strawman:rolleyes:
The only thing close to that I can find is them arguing over who gets to call you Timmy, which would be an ad hominem (infering you're 8)...

I would tell my grandfather to call the police, not murder the boy. Now say you cut across someone's lawn to get out of the rain, and he shoots you in the chest twice with a shotgun. Did you deserve to die?

well i have been shot in the chest by a shotgun for trespassing, and yes i did deserve it, i knew i was doing something wrong and i got caught, tis a shame isnt it, i should of had the guy arrested for shooting me, thats like a robber sueing the owner of a house for cutting his hand on the glass

he has been told to stay off the yard many times before, he was there just to annoy the hell out of the old man, if you keep pushing and pushing someone, you have to expect them to snap someday. and the old man did. and the boy paid the price for being an asshole
This is about the worst excuse possible. There's no justification for killing someone because they annoyed you. The responsible and legal way to deal with this problem child, if he even was one, would be to talk to his parents. If that didn't work, call the cops. Unauthorised trespassing on private property is illegal; it's not like they couldn't do anything about it.

if take threaten your property they can, why would we have guns if we couldnt?
Guns exist for self-defence, to take out threats to your life. Trampling blades of grass is nowhere near the same.

we just see things differently, I say shoot the kid right there
Troll.

Also, if you feel threatened about someone on your property, you do have the right to shoot him.
Where does this come from? You can't shoot people because of how you "feel" especially when they're unarmed and not threatening you. This was not an act of self-defence.

There are about a thousand legitimate courses of action the old man could have taken.

LMAO i guess im a little slow, but i just re read the title on the thread, where in the article does it say the kid was a liberal, or a commie?
I think that was just Gauthier's little political bias. Shame on him, and on you for turning this into a liberal vs conservative issue. I can't believe that people can't even condemn an act of outright murder anymore. What's the world coming to???

i respect your opinion, it actually made me laugh, but what i posted is true, you may not like it, but if you push someone, and you just keep pushing them, there is a breaking point where you better hide, because it most likely wont be pretty.
Losing one's temper doesn't justify killing. You are a sociopath, even worse than Dark Shadowy Nexus.

was the boy your sister?

but anyways, of course your more upset when its your own relative, should a cop not shoot a violent gang member that shooting at them because that person is someones brother?
Was the boy shooting at the old man?

well lets see, it was the old mans property, the old man says he was being destructive, the old man told him to stay off, the boy came back, the old man retaliated, the boy brought it on too himself for being an asshole

i still have 0 sympathy for the boy
Let me guess, you think rape victims bring it on themselves too?

Right-wingers justifying murder, what's next? Padophilia, rape?

Dude, the guy's lawn isn't even that well kept.
Lol, yes i myself was decidedly unimpressed!

well i have been shot in the chest by a shotgun for trespassing, and yes i did deserve it, i knew i was doing something wrong and i got caught, tis a shame isnt it, i should of had the guy arrested for shooting me, thats like a robber sueing the owner of a house for cutting his hand on the glass

And yet HE says we're straw-manning. Listen up, ignorant babbling moron, the glass isn't alive or animated. It can't react nor, in this case, OVERREACT. The kid was in the man's LAWN. He wasn't PLANNING to steal anything, he did NOT damage anything but the old man's ego, and the old man KNEW it. Even assuming one can defend property with lethal force, you're way off. Unless you're willing to give the old man the same rights of a piece of glass, in which case, I'd say break him into tiny shards and toss him in the dumpster.

well i have been shot in the chest by a shotgun for trespassing, and yes i did deserve it, i knew i was doing something wrong and i got caught, tis a shame isnt it, i should of had the guy arrested for shooting me, thats like a robber sueing the owner of a house for cutting his hand on the glass

No you haven't. You're making that up to lend yourself authority. An excellent attempt, though. And were it true, you would have had every right to have the guy that did shoot you arrested and convicted for attempted murder, unless you were threatening the man or his family with bodily harm. It's not self defense if you're not threatened. Murder in defense of property is not morally justifiable.

No you haven't. You're making that up to lend yourself authority. An excellent attempt, though. And were it true, you would have had every right to have the guy that did shoot you arrested and convicted for attempted murder, unless you were threatening the man or his family with bodily harm. It's not self defense if you're not threatened. Murder in defense of property is not morally justifiable.

Even assuming it was justifiable, it'd only be in case of someone actively wanting to TAKE AWAY OR DESTROY the property, not by BEING THERE! This is like the discourse of psychopathic anime villains! "It's your fault for being there!". Heh.

This is about the worst excuse possible. There's no justification for killing someone because they annoyed you. The responsible and legal way to deal with this problem child, if he even was one, would be to talk to his parents. If that didn't work, call the cops. Unauthorised trespassing on private property is illegal; it's not like they couldn't do anything about it.


i never really said this was the legal thing, or the right thing to do, many of the people on this forum have moved to that assumption. i just said the boy shouldnt of been to surprised, he pushed and taunted, and im not sure about you, but i learnt what happened when you push and taunt people back in the early early years of my life.


Let me guess, you think rape victims bring it on themselves too?


slightly different topic

What fascinates me is the level of cognitive dissonance with which you can live. You can tolerate any number of demented ( even psychotic ) acts, so long as they're comitted by leftists.
When did Gauthier justify murder committed by leftists? How do you know this old man was not a leftist?

But let one poor, old, lonely man go over the edge...
Sympathy for criminals. What a fucking bleeding heart liberal. :p

i never really said this was the legal thing, or the right thing to do, many of the people on this forum have moved to that assumption. i just said the boy shouldnt of been to surprised, he pushed and taunted, and im not sure about you, but i learnt what happened when you push and taunt people back in the early early years of my life.
So... does being dead count as being surprised?

i never really said this was the legal thing, or the right thing to do, many of the people on this forum have moved to that assumption. i just said the boy shouldnt of been to surprised, he pushed and taunted, and im not sure about you, but i learnt what happened when you push and taunt people back in the early early years of my life.

Apparently, by your own skewed definition, no you didn't, otherwise you'd not be spouting bull here right now.

And yet HE says we're straw-manning. Listen up, ignorant babbling moron, the glass isn't alive or animated. It can't react nor, in this case, OVERREACT. The kid was in the man's LAWN. He wasn't PLANNING to steal anything, he did NOT damage anything but the old man's ego, and the old man KNEW it. Even assuming one can defend property with lethal force, you're way off. Unless you're willing to give the old man the same rights of a piece of glass, in which case, I'd say break him into tiny shards and toss him in the dumpster.

how is a reacp on a personal experince a strawman, and who says the kid wasnt planning on stealing anything, or doing damage?

When did Gauthier justify murder committed by leftists? How do you know this old man was not a leftist?


Sympathy for criminals. What a fucking bleeding heart liberal. :p

It's Eutrusca. All murder is justified for him, as long as it's someone that has been in an uniform once doing it.

So... does being dead count as being surprised?

I bet he was real surprise when the guy unloaded on him the second time.

No you haven't. You're making that up to lend yourself authority. An excellent attempt, though. And were it true, you would have had every right to have the guy that did shoot you arrested and convicted for attempted murder, unless you were threatening the man or his family with bodily harm. It's not self defense if you're not threatened. Murder in defense of property is not morally justifiable.

yep your right, it never happened, i dreamed it all up. i guess you know my life much better then i do.

well i have been shot in the chest by a shotgun for trespassing, and yes i did deserve it, i knew i was doing something wrong and i got caught, tis a shame isnt it, i should of had the guy arrested for shooting me, thats like a robber sueing the owner of a house for cutting his hand on the glass
Yeah it is. Assuming the robber was walking toward the house and the owner threw glass shards at him.

i learnt what happened when you push and taunt people back in the early early years of my life.
No, I never learned that it's OK to kill people for trespassing on my land, or for annoying me.

I learned that weapons are only used to defend myself or others from lethal forces. It's obvious that you just don't place any value on human life.

how is a reacp on a personal experince a strawman, and who says the kid wasnt planning on stealing anything, or doing damage?

I referred to the "sue the home owner for the glass cut" you said, not to your fictional autobiography tidbit. As for your second lack-of-a-point, if I ever meet your mother in the streets and kill her right there for bumping into me, I'll remember that and say "who says she wasn't planning on stealing anything, or doing damage?".

But let one poor, old, lonely man go over the edge

So murder is okay as long as it's an old man who served in the military. Got it.

Yeah it is. Assuming the robber was walking toward the house and the owner threw glass shards at him.

farmlands around here, i was in a guys field, he was pissed, the field is his property, he was threatend by me being there, so not quite the same

Is anyone concerned that all he people defending this guy vehemently oppose gun control and support carrying a gun on their person?

And they wonder why "evil" liberals support gun regulation. :rolleyes:

farmlands around here, i was in a guys field, he was pissed, the field is his property, he was threatend by me being there, so not quite the same
Who gives a fuck about your experience? We are talking about the news piece.

how is a reacp on a personal experince a strawman, and who says the kid wasnt planning on stealing anything, or doing damage?
Innocent until proven guilty. There was no evidence to suggest that he was planning to steal or damage anything.

how is a reacp on a personal experince a strawman, and who says the kid wasnt planning on stealing anything, or doing damage?
Well, by his own admission the kid was already off the property...

So murder is okay as long as it's an old man who served in the military. Got it.

Considering Eutrusca is an old man who served in the military (and didn't seem to care about human life if the skin looked a tad more yellow), it makes sense that he defends the actions...

yep your right, it never happened, i dreamed it all up. i guess you know my life much better then i do.

I do know it was far too convenient that the exact same situation happened to you. I do know that it was phrased as a deliberate attempt to lend some authority to your side of the argument, as if it made you an expert whose opinion was of more relevance. And I do know that I don't believe a goddamn thing you say. So, until you show me it did happen, I say it didn't. Prove me wrong.

No, I never learned that it's OK to kill people for trespassing on my land, or for annoying me.

I learned that weapons are only used to defend myself or others from lethal forces. It's obvious that you just don't place any value on human life.

i didnt say i learnt it was ok to shoot people, i sayed i realized what happens when you push and taunt people. they snap, they dont always kill, they dont always harm, but they do lose control

Is anyone concerned that all he people defending this guy vehemently oppose gun control and support carrying a gun on their person?

And they wonder why "evil" liberals support gun regulation. :rolleyes:
I'm willing to bet they also have lawns.

I do know it was far too convenient that the exact same situation happened to you. I do know that it was phrased as a deliberate attempt to lend some authority to your side of the argument, as if it made you an expert whose opinion was of more relevance. And I do know that I don't believe a goddamn thing you say. So, until you show me it did happen, I say it didn't. Prove me wrong.

got it, ill rewind time, invite you to come along. lets go

Considering Eutrusca is an old man who served in the military (and didn't seem to care about human life if the skin looked a tad more yellow), it makes sense that he defends the actions...
I don't know that this is particularly fair. Regardless of the political circumstance, it was a war and he was a soldier, the other guys had guns, too. I wouldn't go this far.

i didnt say i learnt it was ok to shoot people, i sayed i realized what happens when you push and taunt people. they snap, they dont always kill, they dont always harm, but they do lose control
I'm sorry, but how is this a defense?

He shot a kid who was walking on his lawn. Not his front porch, not his living room, his lawn.

i didnt say i learnt it was ok to shoot people, i sayed i realized what happens when you push and taunt people. they snap, they dont always kill, they dont always harm, but they do lose control

Newsflash, Timmy: It's still murder. And people that lose control enough to murder over THIS are psychopaths. Certifiable. As defined in the psychology books. They have MENTAL CONDITIONS, Timmy.

I'm sorry, but how is this a defense?

He shot a kid who was walking on his lawn. Not his front porch, not his living room, his lawn.

his property, he has a right to defend his property, and im still not saying that what he did was the best choice, or was right.

It wasn't even a very nice lawn.

I don't know that this is particularly fair. Regardless of the political circumstance, it was a war and he was a soldier, the other guys had guns, too. I wouldn't go this far.

Come on. Eut cries like a little girl whenever he sees people that dare disagree with the current bloodshed in Iraq. I don't think it's that much of a leap to figure that he excuses any actions anyone that is or was in the military take. He just did it with this very murderer we're talking about.

Newsflash, Timmy: It's still murder. And people that lose control enough to murder over THIS are psychopaths. Certifiable. As defined in the psychology books. They have MENTAL CONDITIONS, Timmy.

there you go on that timmy thing again, How old are you?, taken any philosophy classes? how about debate? you will learn what that whole timmy thing does to your arguement

got it, ill rewind time, invite you to come along. lets go

Or, you could stop being sarcastic and post some medical reports and pictures of the huge scar on your chest and the inevitable police report. Don't like the burden of proof? Don't make up ridiculous claims.

Or, you could stop being sarcastic and post some medical reports and pictures of the huge scar on your chest and the inevitable police report. Don't like the burden of proof? Don't make up ridiculous claims.

didnt contact police, and sure as hell dont have medical records, i dont keep my own medical records for stuff i dont go to the hospital for, it was a salt round, which is what this old man should of used, breaks the skin, and stings, but doesnt kill.

there you go on that timmy thing again, How old are you?, taken any philosophy classes? how about debate? you will learn what that whole timmy thing does to your arguement

You see, I KNOW what it does to my argument. Guess what, I don't care. I can afford an ad hominem, simply because I know that my argument is far stronger than yours. I study linguistics and literature. Logics included, and took several courses in discourse analysis and arguing. I'm 24, and I know that I can afford to call you Timmy, to be rude, whatever, simply because you have nothing else on your side aside from my rudeness and my ad hominems.

*shakes head*
people are actually defending a guy for shooting a kid that walked on his lawn.
If this guy really snapped, he should be put in a nice secure mental hospital. If it was more calculating, he should be in jail. Either way he needs locking up....

there you go on that timmy thing again, How old are you?, taken any philosophy classes? how about debate? you will learn what that whole timmy thing does to your arguement

You should pay attention in one of those classes yourself. You will learn what improper grammar does to your argument.

didnt contact police, and sure as hell dont have medical records, i dont keep my own medical records for stuff i dont go to the hospital for, it was a salt round, which is what this old man should of used, breaks the skin, and stings, but doesnt kill.

Yeah, it's JUST LIKE IT. No, wait, no, it isn't. By golly, where are some salt bullets when you need them?

You see, I KNOW what it does to my argument. Guess what, I don't care. I can afford an ad hominem, simply because I know that my argument is far stronger than yours. I study linguistics and literature. Logics included, and took several courses in discourse analysis and arguing. I'm 24, and I know that I can afford to call you Timmy, to be rude, whatever, simply because you have nothing else on your side aside from my rudeness and my ad hominems.

its not being rude and quite frankly i dont care, i have grown far beyond the crying over a name thing, but i guess you havnt, as you seem to expect me to.

You should pay attention in one of those classes yourself. You will learn what improper grammar does to your argument.
Argumentum ad hominem.
It's very unlikely you were paying attention in class.

Yeah, it's JUST LIKE IT. No, wait, no, it isn't. By golly, where are some salt bullets when you need them?

its not salt bullets, you use normal salt, you load yourself

its not being rude and quite frankly i dont care, i have grown far beyond the crying over a name thing, but i guess you havnt, as you seem to expect me to.

Ooo, nice non-causa-pro-causa there. However, no. I don't expect you to cry over it. Considering your statements in this thread, I'd expect you to KILL over it, but not cry.

didnt contact police, and sure as hell dont have medical records, i dont keep my own medical records for stuff i dont go to the hospital for, it was a salt round, which is what this old man should of used, breaks the skin, and stings, but doesnt kill.

So you got shot in the chest with a shotgun and didn't go to the hospital or the police?

Unless you've proof, you didn't get shot. Simple.

Argumentum ad hominem.
It's very unlikely you were paying attention in class.

I paid attention quite well, thank you. I simply responded with a similarly constructed argument. It's not as if I did not realize it was ad hominem, thanks.

Come on. Eut cries like a little girl whenever he sees people that dare disagree with the current bloodshed in Iraq. I don't think it's that much of a leap to figure that he excuses any actions anyone that is or was in the military take. He just did it with this very murderer we're talking about.
Make no mistake, I have more than my share of problems with Eutrusca's, let's call it 'thought process.' And his attack on Gauthier was more than a little glass houses considering what he is able to excuse vs. what he is willing to accuse 'leftists' of. He self-admits his own bias towards military.

But I wouldn't de-humanize him for his involvement in Vietnam, which is how I read that statement. It just seemed a step too far. Ultimately that will be between the two of you-and lord knows he'll accuse me of having said what you did next time I disagree with some e-mail he got that he decided to make a thread about, so I'm not keen on hijacking this thread to discuss it-it just struck me as a stretch too far is all.

its not salt bullets, you use normal salt, you load yourself

Nice shot in the foot you just did there. You just said that the man likely had salt avaiable to fire at the kid, hurting, but not killing, yet he chose, yes, CHOSE, to kill.

Make no mistake, I have more than my share of problems with Eutrusca's, let's call it 'thought process.' And his attack on Gauthier was more than a little glass houses considering what he is able to excuse vs. what he is willing to accuse 'leftists' of. He self-admits his own bias towards military.

But I wouldn't de-humanize him for his involvement in Vietnam, which is how I read that statement. It just seemed a step too far. Ultimately that will be between the two of you-and lord knows he'll accuse me of having said what you did next time I disagree with some e-mail he got that he decided to make a thread about, so I'm not keen on hijacking this thread to discuss it-it just struck me as a stretch too far is all.

Meh, okay, let's agree to disagree. And agree to agree on the parts in which we agree.

So you got shot in the chest with a shotgun and didn't go to the hospital or the police?

Unless you've proof, you didn't get shot. Simple.

salt round, still not sure if you understand this, SALT ROUND, you dont have to go to the hospital, you pretty much just suck it up and soak in a tub to disolve any salt in you. stings like hell and very effective to scare trespassers off your land

Is anyone concerned that all he people defending this guy vehemently oppose gun control and support carrying a gun on their person?

And they wonder why "evil" liberals support gun regulation. :rolleyes:
I oppose gun control and so do many people. This man is a prime example of irresponsible gun ownership, he gives responsible, legitmate gun owners an undeserved bad name.

I wonder if the people defending this murderer (surely a new low on NS) are the people Syniks referred to as "gunz r teh 0nli anzer!!!" trolls in another thread.

farmlands around here, i was in a guys field, he was pissed, the field is his property, he was threatend by me being there, so not quite the same
No, assuming you were not pointing weapons at him, you were not threatening him. He may have felt threatened, but that depends on how paranoid and insecure he was, not on reality.

i didnt say i learnt it was ok to shoot people, i sayed i realized what happens when you push and taunt people. they snap, they dont always kill, they dont always harm, but they do lose control
Yeah, they snap. But they still bear responsibility for their actions. If all the kid got was a mild beating I might be agreeing with you, but there are three factors.

1. The idea that the boy repeatedly taunted the old man "over the edge" is pure speculation on your part.

2. Lethal force was beyond excessive.

3. Minors aren't expected to be as smart and responsible as adults. Old men are.

Considering Eutrusca is an old man who served in the military (and didn't seem to care about human life if the skin looked a tad more yellow), it makes sense that he defends the actions...
Eutrusca didn't defend the criminal, but he did express sympathy for him. For being an old man. Also, the situation we're discussing was nothing like a war.

Nice shot in the foot you just did there. You just said that the man likely had salt avaiable to fire at the kid, hurting, but not killing, yet he chose, yes, CHOSE, to kill.

once again, i never said the old man did the right thing, i never said he made the right choice, and i never said i would do the same thing.

his property, he has a right to defend his property, and im still not saying that what he did was the best choice, or was right.
Proves my suspicions that right-wingers place the right to private property above the right to life.

This whole debate here
1.Makes me feel sick.
2.Makes me feel frightened, since you, americans, are usually considered as (atleast somewhat) civilized people.
3.Makes me wonder what are those "common values" USA and Europe share.

I read the 4 first pages, and I saw this over and over again;

"No, it wasn't nice to kill the boy but off course you can shoot when you feel threathened"

or

"sure, it is pitty that he got killed but he was annoying the old man, this is what you get when you annoy someone" .

Just incredible. Not that this happened, we have crazy people everywhere, but that so many of you over there thought this was actually not that bad. What the kid was a 3-years old? And the old man still says he felt threathened? Or if someone was drunk and flickered to his courtyard?
Several people here seem to think that if someone has a weapon and someone makes him feel uncomfortable, it is actually OK to point, not to mention to ACTUALLY USE a deadly firearm against the person.

My already unflattering opinion about the american society has, not because of the accident but the horrible answers it has brought up in this thread, is now even clearer and stronger in its discust.

once again, i never said the old man did the right thing, i never said he made the right choice, and i never said i would do the same thing.

Then what's your point, prithee?

*shakes head*
people are actually defending a guy for shooting a kid that walked on his lawn.
If this guy really snapped, he should be put in a nice secure mental hospital. If it was more calculating, he should be in jail. Either way he needs locking up....
I think at this point it's a case of People Without Names fighting to the death (metaphorically) before admitting that he was wrong.

salt round, still not sure if you understand this, SALT ROUND, you dont have to go to the hospital, you pretty much just suck it up and soak in a tub to disolve any salt in you. stings like hell and very effective to scare trespassers off your land

So, in other words, you haven't been shot in the chest twice by a shotgun like this kid was. You were making shit up to lend yourself credibility. Also, there was a nonlethal method available for this old man to use, and he instead shot to kill. Got it.

there you go on that timmy thing again, How old are you?, taken any philosophy classes? how about debate? you will learn what that whole timmy thing does to your arguement
Do any looking into law?

This whole debate here
1.Makes me feel sick.
2.Makes me feel frightened, since you, americans, are usually considered as (atleast somewhat) civilized people.
3.Makes me wonder what are those "common values" USA and Europe share.

I read the 4 first pages, and I saw this over and over again;

"No, it wasn't nice to kill the boy but off course you can shoot when you feel threathened"

or

"sure, it is pitty that he got killed but he was annoying the old man, this is what you get when you annoy someone" .

Just incredible. Not that this happened, we have crazy people everywhere, but that so many of you over there thought this was actually not that bad. What the kid was a 3-years old? And the old man still says he felt threathened? Or if someone was drunk and flickered to his courtyard?
Several people here seem to think that if someone has a weapon and someone makes him feel uncomfortable, it is actually OK to point, not to mention to ACTUALLY USE a deadly firearm against the person.

My already unflattering opinion about the american society has, not because of the accident but the horrible answers it has brought up in this thread, is now even clearer and stronger in its discust.
Actually it's the same couple of people defending him and more Americans calling those people batshit for doing so, to be fair.

This whole debate here
1.Makes me feel sick.
2.Makes me feel frightened, since you, americans, are usually considered as (atleast somewhat) civilized people.
3.Makes me wonder what are those "common values" USA and Europe share.

I read the 4 first pages, and I saw this over and over again;

"No, it wasn't nice to kill the boy but off course you can shoot when you feel threathened"

or

"sure, it is pitty that he got killed but he was annoying the old man, this is what you get when you annoy someone" .

Just incredible. Not that this happened, we have crazy people everywhere, but that so many of you over there thought this was actually not that bad. What the kid was a 3-years old? And the old man still says he felt threathened? Or if someone was drunk and flickered to his courtyard?
Several people here seem to think that if someone has a weapon and someone makes him feel uncomfortable, it is actually OK to point, not to mention to ACTUALLY USE a deadly firearm against the person.

My already unflattering opinion about the american society has, not because of the accident but the horrible answers it has brought up in this thread, is now even clearer and stronger in its discust.

Make no mistake, most Americans here are frying the idiots that defend the fossil. I'm Brazilian, but I bet there are at least SOME Americans here with basic decency.

I think at this point it's a case of People Without Names fighting to the death (metaphorically) before admitting that he was wrong.

Ahh, right, thanks.

So, in other words, you haven't been shot in the chest twice by a shotgun like this kid was. You were making shit up to lend yourself credibility. Also, there was a nonlethal method available for this old man to use, and he instead shot to kill. Got it.

no

i was still shot by a shotgun, by the guy shot me with a salt round.

a salt round thorugh a shotgun, what type of gun did he use to shoot me?

and yes, there were other choices this man could of made,

1. assuming he had rock salt, he could of used that
2. he could of even not shot at all

I think at this point it's a case of People Without Names fighting to the death (metaphorically) before admitting that he was wrong.

where was i wrong, i never said this guy did the right thing, i never said this guy should not be charged.

i said this kid pushed the guy to do it
the guy took action
i have no sympathy for the kid

Actually it's one or two people defending him and more Americans calling those people batshit for doing so, to be fair.

Those few are more than you could ever get in anywhere in Europe, to defend those actions. And, as I said, my reaction was based on the few first pages.

and yes, there were other choices this man could of made,

1. assuming he had rock salt, he could of used that
2. he could of even not shot at all

In that case...

WHAT THE FUCK IS YOUR POINT?

That the man isn't crazy? He is, people don't kill over this.
That the man was within his rights? He wasn't, it's unreasonable to kill when you have other options, and it's illegal as well.
That it was morally acceptable? It wasn't, with all the other one-hundred-and-fifty-fuck options avaiable.

no

i was still shot by a shotgun, by the guy shot me with a salt round.

a salt round thorugh a shotgun, what type of gun did he use to shoot me?

That's dishonest. You didn't die. Your life was never really threatened by that injury. It just hurt a lot. It's not the same as being shot like this kid was shot. So, what happened to this kid did not, even remotely, happen to you.

Those few are more than you could ever get in anywhere in Europe, to defend those actions. And, as I said, my reaction was based on the few first pages.
I think you're kidding yourself, but I'll leave it at that.

That's dishonest. You didn't die. Your life was never really threatened by that injury. It just hurt a lot. It's not the same as being shot like this kid was shot. So, what happened to this kid did not, even remotely, happen to you.

i never said it did, someone asked me what if i was shot by a shotgun, and i replied

i never once said my life was in danger

A truly sickening thread.

i never said it did, someone asked me what if i was shot by a shotgun, and i replied

i never once said my life was in danger

If you were interested in playing a fair game, you'd have clarified this when you first posted it, Timmy.

I think you're kidding yourself, but I'll leave it at that.

You're right. I'm too tired to write my thoughts in English well enough to make myself understood in the way I'd wanted. :(

My point was that should anything like this happend in GBR, France, Finland, Poland, Greece, the reaction and interrest towards this thread would be much, much greater since it would be a devastating shock and something enough to make people very worried about their society, especially should anything like this happen more than once.
In here, most of the people say it was a bad thing, some say it wasn't, and that's about it. The fact that it is not taken as something really incredible and utterly discusting and frightening is the thing that makes me most worried. But nevermind. I should speak no more tonight.

Joanne Ritchie, 46, said Mugrage was known as "a good kid," but she always also considered Martin to be friendly.

I love that bit. It's like the sentence writer meant to end with "... so what the hell does she know?"

I love that bit. It's like the sentence writer meant to end with "... so what the hell does she know?"
Just once I want to read one of these stories where the neighbor says, "That guy? Oh yeah, he was a total dick. I mean, shame that he got killed and all, but what an ass..."

isnt it always sad when a kid gets killed.

its always "*sob* the kid was always a nice boy, he wouldnt do anything to bother anyone *sob*" play it off like they were innocent and then all of a sudden grumpy old guy comes out of no where a shoots the kid.

i heard the 911 call on tv, the report you posted says "saying calmly: "I just killed a kid."" while on the tape, he called he sounded upset to me, it certainly wasnt "yeah theres a dead body on my lawn, come get it off"

edit: i truely have no sympathy for the boy

Wow, kill two birds with one stone:

Teach pesky teenagers respect for people's property AND combat overpopulation at the same time!

I don't have much sympathy for the kid either. I didn't know him personally but if he's anything like the teenagers I know (and I'm only 16 myself) he probably did it out of spite, knowing that the old guy treasured his lawn and purposely annoying him, especially as the article says he had had disputes with the family before for this reason.

Wow, kill two birds with one stone:

Teach pesky teenagers respect for people's property AND combat overpopulation at the same time!

I don't have much sympathy for the kid either. I didn't know him personally but if he's anything like the teenagers I know (and I'm only 16 myself) he probably did it out of spite, knowing that the old guy treasured his lawn and purposely annoying him, especially as the article says he had had disputes with the family before for this reason.

Yeah, that should teach people that it's OKAY TO MURDER OTHERS OVER A PIECE OF DIRT! You're a moron. Read up the thread and consider what I said applied to you. Only, instead of Timmy, call yourself Jimmy.

i never said it did, someone asked me what if i was shot by a shotgun, and i replied

i never once said my life was in danger

Mmm. This is some Corneliuesque backpedalling.

Wow, kill two birds with one stone:

Teach pesky teenagers respect for people's property AND combat overpopulation at the same time!

I don't have much sympathy for the kid either. I didn't know him personally but if he's anything like the teenagers I know (and I'm only 16 myself) he probably did it out of spite, knowing that the old guy treasured his lawn and purposely annoying him, especially as the article says he had had disputes with the family before for this reason.

Surely the kid was being a prick, but does that really condemn him to death? Further, if the man was having such problems with the kid, why did he never call the police?

Mmm. This is some Corneliuesque backpedalling.

I flew once!

(I was in a plane that flew, but, hey, wouldn't it be cool? :p)

no

i was still shot by a shotgun, by the guy shot me with a salt round.

a salt round thorugh a shotgun, what type of gun did he use to shoot me?

and yes, there were other choices this man could of made,

1. assuming he had rock salt, he could of used that
2. he could of even not shot at all

Im sorry, but do you know anything about shotguns?
You cant just drop something down the barrel and *bang*. He could not have just 'chosen' to fire salt.

Im sorry, but do you know anything about shotguns?

I know of the mythical invocation of their name when you wish to ride by the driver's side of a vehicle.

where was i wrong, i never said this guy did the right thing, i never said this guy should not be charged.

i said this kid pushed the guy to do it
the guy took action
i have no sympathy for the kid
"Al-Qaeda were totally wrong to blow up the Twin Towers, but I have no sympathy with the Americans who died."

People who say the above usually go on to talk about how Americans are responsible because they did something equally bad to al-Qaeda or the Middle east or something. It's total apologetics.

You're saying that the boy committed some awful deed equivalent to murder. Walking on a lawn repeatedly is not equivalent to murder. Annoying someone is not equivalent to murder. Being a little prick is not equivalent to murder.

My point was that should anything like this happend in GBR, France, Finland, Poland, Greece, the reaction and interrest towards this thread would be much, much greater since it would be a devastating shock and something enough to make people very worried about their society, especially should anything like this happen more than once.
I agree. Something like this should be condemned unanimously.

Still. He wouldn't fly the flag if he weren't a military supporter, no matter which of his relatives were in the Navy. If you lived in the USA and had a son who lived in France, would you fly the French flag?

I never said he was a veteran, either. That was the OP. And you still haven't addressed my other post.

I never said he was a veteran either. Just military-worshipping.

It's great and you should support the troops. But when you worship them to the point of elevating them above the common man as Forrest with his borderline personality perspective has been documented on NS General as doing, it's unhealthy and leads to things like justifying this cold-blooded murder. And anyone who read that the geezer called the police to pick up the kid's body like Animal Control sent to scoop up roadkill and still doesn't think it's cold-blooded, has some serious issues.

The fact that Forrest took it so personally as to finally put me on an Ignore List- and made this breakthrough announcement to the world (and he calls Cindy Sheehan an attention whore?)- just amuses me to no end. Little surprise he's defending this basket case. You know what they say about birds of a feather...

...Read about this on the way in to work this morning.

Wow, he sure showed that unarmed neighbour boy whose lawn it was, by Gum.

And USians don't think gun-culture is totally insane, eh?

Go figure.

Guns don't kill, people do. Yeah right.

Bah. Kid probably deserved it.

Bah. Kid probably deserved it.
So, if I spill coffee on some USian homeowners' wall-to-wall carpeting, is my life then forfeit?

So murder is okay as long as it's an old man who served in the military. Got it.
Never said that. Never even implied that. Murder is wrong and illegal. The guy should be either executed or incacerated for a long, long time. I was just trying to point out how innane and disengenuous the OP was. Nothing more.

So, if I spill coffee on some USian homeowners' wall-to-wall carpeting, is my life then forfeit?
Hell, your life is forfeit if you bend a blade of grass.

I don't get lawns and people who love them...

Yeah, that should teach people that it's OKAY TO MURDER OTHERS OVER A PIECE OF DIRT! You're a moron. Read up the thread and consider what I said applied to you. Only, instead of Timmy, call yourself Jimmy.

If history teaches us nothing else, it teaches us that the most acceptable reason for killing another person is over dirt.

Romulus killed Remus. Over dirt.
William the Bastard killed British (and French). Over dirt.
The Teutonic Knights killed Russians. Over dirt.
The Russians killed Teutonic Knights. Over dirt.
The French killed the Knights Templar. Over dirt.
The British, French, and Spanish killed Amerinidians. Over dirt.
The United States killed even more Amerindians. Over dirt.
Unionists and Sucessionists killed each other off. Over dirt.
Palestinians and Israelis kill each other off. Over dirt.

And so on and so on....

When did Gauthier justify murder committed by leftists? How do you know this old man was not a leftist?

Sympathy for criminals. What a fucking bleeding heart liberal. :p
Surely you aren't that challenged! I have sympathy for the old guy because he obviously has problems, not because he's a criminal. Pleast read my last post, above.

And Gauthier hasn't tried to justify murder, that I know of. However, he does take every opportunity to rail against America and her military personnel. That's what I was taking issue with. Get real.

It's Eutrusca. All murder is justified for him, as long as it's someone that has been in an uniform once doing it.
Dude. You have zero credibility with me. Zip. Nada. None.

You're obviously so eager to rant against me for (1) having been in the military, and (2) for being old, that anything you have to say on either subject is automatically suspect and justifiably disregarded. Go play in traffic.

Surely you aren't that challenged! I have sympathy for the old guy because he obviously has problems, not because he's a criminal. Pleast read my last post, above.
I don't. John Wayne Gacy "had problems" as well.

Oh, and I have already criticised Gauthier for politicising this event.

Killing a teenage boy over your lawn is never a justified action, except to the mentally incompetent.
Exactly.

I never said he was a veteran either. Just military-worshipping.

It's great and you should support the troops. But when you worship them to the point of elevating them above the common man as Forrest with his borderline personality perspective has been documented on NS General as doing, it's unhealthy and leads to things like justifying this cold-blooded murder. And anyone who read that the geezer called the police to pick up the kid's body like Animal Control sent to scoop up roadkill and still doesn't think it's cold-blooded, has some serious issues.
Thing is, Eutrusca didn't justify this murder.

That old man may have been military-worshipping (it's called militaristic), but that didn't have anything to do shooting teenagers on his lawn. There are thousands of people much more militaristic than that who don't do anything illegal.

Exactly.

I do believe that hell just froze over, sir. :D

Here is the 911 call (http://audio.cbsnews.com/2006/03/21/audio1425131.mp3)

sounds pretty cut up about it to me. not that remorse excuses the crime. you point a gun at someones chest and pull the trigger i dont think you can claim you didn't intend to kill the person even with a small gauge shotgun.

sounds pretty cut up about it to me. not that remorse excuses the crime. you point a gun at someones chest and pull the trigger i dont think you can claim you didn't intend to kill the person even with a small gauge shotgun.
Especially if you fire again.

Only in America...


In any other country, an angry old person would have called the police.

Only in America...


In any other country, an angry old person would have called the police.

Uh dude. I don't know if you bothered to actually read the link but he has called the police over this many times.

I do believe that hell just froze over, sir. :D
LOL! Not really. I tend to agree with you more often than not. I just think we tend to approach things from different directions. :)

Especially if you fire again.
That was a new piece of information that I didn't have access to. Makes it even worse for the "OLD, MILITARISTIC" guy.

Which reminds me of a sign I saw once: "Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again!"

You people do realize that Gauthier = UN Ambassadorship, yes? Think about it.

what, even though they seem to have completely opposing arguments? one saying shoot the kid, the other railing against the militaristic gun-culture that contributed to the killing.

Uh dude. I don't know if you bothered to actually read the link but he has called the police over this many times.
Uh, dude, I don't know if you've been keeping up-but this was covered. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10613806&postcount=52)

Dude. You have zero credibility with me. Zip. Nada. None.

You're obviously so eager to rant against me for (1) having been in the military, and (2) for being old, that anything you have to say on either subject is automatically suspect and justifiably disregarded. Go play in traffic.

Oh right, it has nothing to do with your constant assaults against civil rights and political freedoms, nor anything to do with your lack of ability in logical thinking and the fact that anything military = nice, clean and justifiable in your mind.

what, even though they seem to have completely opposing arguments? one saying shoot the kid, the other railing against the militaristic gun-culture that contributed to the killing.
Puppet trolling where someone creates a nation to lampoon an idea isn't new 'round here. The grand champ being Jesussaves...

Uh, dude, I don't know if you've been keeping up-but this was covered. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10613806&postcount=52)

Actually it goes back further than page 52 but I was quoting Nu Leonstine who stated in post 205 that in any other country, the angry old man would call the police.

what, even though they seem to have completely opposing arguments? one saying shoot the kid, the other railing against the militaristic gun-culture that contributed to the killing.
Ah! But that would be the primary reason, yes? What better way to illustrate your "point" that all Americans are mindless cretans than to come on as one and be exceedingly stupid? You never see them on here at the same time, the styles of writing are very similar, etc. I vote for Gauthier as the mysterious UN Ambassadorship. :D

Oh right, it has nothing to do with your constant assaults against civil rights and political freedoms, nor anything to do with your lack of ability in logical thinking and the fact that anything military = nice, clean and justifiable in your mind.

Stop attacking follow poster Keikoku. It is considered impolite.

Now can you discuss the thread in a civilized manner?

Puppet trolling where someone creates a nation to lampoon an idea isn't new 'round here. The grand champ being Jesussaves...

and here I thought it was MKULTRA :D

Actually it goes back further than page 52 but I was quoting Nu Leonstine who stated in post 205 that in any other country, the angry old man would call the police.

Oh - you will say - but he did call the police. Right.

In 2003.

Plus, does it make it all ok now? Police isn't doing anything about the guy that's standing on the territory I marked with my pee, I mean, fence, so I'm entitled or at least it'd be expected for someone reasonable to KILL HIM?

Stop attacking follow poster Keikoku. It is considered impolite.

Now can you discuss the thread in a civilized manner?

I wish you were in the last thread I discussed with Eutrusca, to, you know, enforce this politeness when he's the one flaming.

Actually it goes back further than page 52 but I was quoting Nu Leonstine who stated in post 205 that in any other country, the angry old man would call the police.
That's post 52, Speedy. And the angry old man didn't call the police, hadn't since 2003. He loaded a gun, waited, and shot a kid-twice-after the kid had passed off his lawn. Your statement was incorrect.

Oh - you will say - but he did call the police. Right.

In 2003.

He constently called the police about this. Police did nothing. The kid walked on his lawn. He was tresspassing. The Old man shot him and killed him (more than likely his death was an accident) and he is currently in a jail.

Plus, does it make it all ok now?

Nope but then, I have to look at why the kid was tresspassing on his lawn. Where there sidewalks to walk on? If not then why wasn't he walking along the road? Why walk through other people's lawns?

Police isn't doing anything about the guy that's standing on the territory I marked with my pee, I mean, fence, so I'm entitled or at least it'd be expected for someone reasonable to KILL HIM?

If its your property and someone is on it and you felt threatened, then fire away

That's post 52, Speedy. And the angry old man didn't call the police, hadn't since 2003. He loaded a gun, waited, and shot a kid-twice-after the kid had passed off his lawn. Your statement was incorrect.

So, wait, let me get this straight: The kid was already OFF THE LAWN? He had done NO DAMAGE? He had LEFT?

Okay, for all you murder apologists there, try to explain this one, if you please. Come on, I wanna take you down...

Oh right, it has nothing to do with your constant assaults against civil rights and political freedoms, nor anything to do with your lack of ability in logical thinking and the fact that anything military = nice, clean and justifiable in your mind.
And this is precisely why you have no credibility with me. I want you to find a thread where I have "assaulted" civl rights and political freedoms. I dare you to prove what you alledge.

And simply defending my beloved Army against unjustified attack does not equate to "anything military = nice, clean and justifiable."

You're reading what you want to read. Nothing I can do about that.

I wish you were in the last thread I discussed with Eutrusca, to, you know, enforce this politeness when he's the one flaming.

From what I'm seeing, if he started it, you are fanning it. With each angery comment, another one will come at you. and it will go on and on till you both are warned from the mods. However, I have been reading the thread and I do not believe he started it.

However, I am asking politely that everyone reframe from attacking other posters.

So, wait, let me get this straight: The kid was already OFF THE LAWN? He had done NO DAMAGE? He had LEFT?

Okay, for all you murder apologists there, try to explain this one, if you please. Come on, I wanna take you down...
That's infered from the prosecuter and his 911 statement about where the kid was.

If he called the police three years ago, I don't think that justifies saying that he tried everything and took the last possible option. And besides, that kid would have been thirteen then.

He could also have simply taped the kid walking over the lawn and then giving the tape to the police.


Instead, he had to play lone ranger, defending his glorious property by any means necessary. And that's what I feel is pretty unique to America - the idea that it is okay to take the law into your own hands.

He constently called the police about this. Police did nothing. The kid walked on his lawn. He was tresspassing. The Old man shot him and killed him (more than likely his death was an accident) and he is currently in a jail. (etc) Nope but then, I have to look at why the kid was tresspassing on his lawn. Where there sidewalks to walk on? If not then why wasn't he walking along the road? Why walk through other people's lawns? (etc) If its your property and someone is on it and you felt threatened, then fire away

He hadn't called 911 since 2003.
If you shoot and AIM AT someone, as the guy did, YOU CAN'T CALL THEIR DEATH A FRIGGIN' ACCIDENT! For CRYING OUT LOUD! This argument looks like it came right out of "Married with Children"!
The old man knew the kid. He might dislike the kid, but, to dislike, he had to know. And, knowing, he could tell that the kid was not a threat. Not only that, there's something called "reasonable person". Killing someone for standing in your lawn, nay, HAVING STOOD there, without making any attempts to attack or even preparing an action, is murder, and is unreasonable. Or else a paranoid maniac could fire at everyone, because, guess what? He feels threatened by everyone!

That's post 52, Speedy. And the angry old man didn't call the police, hadn't since 2003. He loaded a gun, waited, and shot a kid-twice-after the kid had passed off his lawn. Your statement was incorrect.

As I stated back EARLIER IN THE THREAD he did call the police and did they did nothing. The statement sir is not incorrect as it is fact.

As I stated back EARLIER IN THE THREAD he did call the police and did they did nothing. The statement sir is not incorrect as it is fact.

Even if it mattered, again, the last time he called the police was in 2003. We're in 2006.

And this is precisely why you have no credibility with me. I want you to find a thread where I have "assaulted" civl rights and political freedoms. I dare you to prove what you alledge.

And simply defending my beloved Army against unjustified attack does not equate to "anything military = nice, clean and justifiable."

You're reading what you want to read. Nothing I can do about that.

Let's see...
"peaceful protesters is an oxymoron", "protests as hate crime", and several others. You also have a penchant for the idea that being against the bloodshed in Iraq means hating America.

He hadn't called 911 since 2003.

I don't care if it was 1993, the fact is he did call the police and they did nothing about it.

If you shoot and AIM AT someone, as the guy did, YOU CAN'T CALL THEIR DEATH A FRIGGIN' ACCIDENT!

Actually, yea you can. I can aim and hit something without meaning to kill something. You can aim at people with the intent to injure but still kill them. So yes you can accidentally kill someone. It happens all the time. Don't believe? read up on the deaths of children from an accidental discharge of a firearm.

For CRYING OUT LOUD! This argument looks like it came right out of "Married with Children"!

Don't drag entertainment into this.

The old man knew the kid. He might dislike the kid, but, to dislike, he had to know. And, knowing, he could tell that the kid was not a threat.

Care to back that statement up?

Not only that, there's something called "reasonable person". Killing someone for standing in your lawn, nay, HAVING STOOD there, without making any attempts to attack or even preparing an action, is murder, and is unreasonable.

Once again, if someone is tresspassing on your lawn and you perceive him as a threat, you are cleared to fire.

Or else a paranoid maniac could fire at everyone, because, guess what? He feels threatened by everyone!

Actually, that will not hold any water in court. Unless the people are tresspassing on his property and he perceived them as a threat. Then he is cleared to fire.

...he did call the police and did they did nothing...
The details on what exactly happened would be necessary for us to make that judgement.
What sort of laws are there regarding a thirteen year old kid trespassing over someone's lawn?

I know I trespassed people's lawns occasionally when I was thirteen...

Even if it mattered, again, the last time he called the police was in 2003. We're in 2006.

Doesn't matter boyo.

Actually, yea you can. I can aim and hit something without meaning to kill something. You can aim at people with the intent to injure but still kill them. So yes you can accidentally kill someone. It happens all the time. Don't believe? read up on the deaths of children from an accidental discharge of a firearm.
Two shots with a shotgun in the chest? I don't think you can call that accidental, no matter how hard you try.

Once again, if someone is tresspassing on your lawn and you perceive him as a threat, you are cleared to fire.
That sort of law, combined with firearms for everyone...:rolleyes:

A threat to what, by the way? And does it have to be established in court afterwards?

The details on what exactly happened would be necessary for us to make that judgement.

Its rare I agree with you but in this case, I agree with you 100%

What sort of laws are there regarding a thirteen year old kid trespassing over someone's lawn?

none. If ya tresspass and the owner perceives you as a threat, then the owner can protect his property by any means.

I know I trespassed people's lawns occasionally when I was thirteen...

Luckily, I was brought up not to walk across other people's lawns. I was brought up that if there is no sidewalks, walk along the sholder of the road.

Once again, if someone is tresspassing on your lawn and you perceive him as a threat, you are cleared to fire.

Actually, that will not hold any water in court. Unless the people are tresspassing on his property and he perceived them as a threat. Then he is cleared to fire.
No, you're not allowed to kill trespassers. That won't hold up in court. This guy is going to go to jail for murder.

There is no legal justification for this, let alone moral justification. Read through the thread for refutations of these arguments (PWO put them up before you) and suggestions of more legitmate paths the man could have taken.

I know I trespassed people's lawns occasionally when I was thirteen...
Then by rights you shouldn't even be alive today! :sniper:

;)

As I stated back EARLIER IN THE THREAD he did call the police and did they did nothing. The statement sir is not incorrect as it is fact.
First-He had not called the police since 2003, three years ago. The article does not mention what he called the police about.

Second-There is no record or mention of what the police did, or didn't do.

Finally, you state that he called the police several times. This is not supported by the evidence. Further, the last call to the police and the event are three years apart. This means that the last time he called the police the victim was 13. Think about that for a second. Your statement, and the argument that he had tried and tried to get the police to do something is in fact false.

Corneliu:

PROPERTY RIGHTS DO NOT SUPERCEDE PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO LIFE.

Two shots with a shotgun in the chest? I don't think you can call that accidental, no matter how hard you try.

I didn't say that he discharged his weapon accidentally. I said the boy's death was probably an accident. We'll have to wait and see just what the investigators turn up.

That sort of law, combined with firearms for everyone...:rolleyes:

Luckily, these types of incidences are rare.

A threat to what, by the way?

I'm not a property owner.

And does it have to be established in court afterwards?

these things are always settled in court. Unless of course it was justifible then the case is tossed out. If not justifible then we have a thing called a trial with a jury.

Corneliu:

PROPERTY RIGHTS DO NOT SUPERCEDE PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO LIFE.
Well in a perfect world, but in the real world sometimes they do. In this case, however, it's unjustified to shoot the kid.

I don't care if it was 1993, the fact is he did call the police and they did nothing about it. Actually, yea you can. I can aim and hit something without meaning to kill something. You can aim at people with the intent to injure but still kill them. So yes you can accidentally kill someone. It happens all the time. Don't believe? read up on the deaths of children from an accidental discharge of a firearm. Don't drag entertainment into this. Care to back that statement up? Once again, if someone is tresspassing on your lawn and you perceive him as a threat, you are cleared to fire. Actually, that will not hold any water in court. Unless the people are tresspassing on his property and he perceived them as a threat. Then he is cleared to fire.

So, you actually believe you live in a society in which:

1- Anyone can argue that they didn't intend to kill when they shoot somebody, or even poison somebody and it kills them ("but officer, I was just trying to get him under for a few hours, I didn't know that much diazepan would kill him").

2- Someone can fire at a sworn enemy, as long as said person stepped in their lawn, and plead self-defense, and WALK.

3- If someone bumps into a person, they'd better pray the person isn't a paranoid with a gun, else they get killed and the guy walks, having perceived a threat?

Corneliu, the definition of threat is way more narrow than the one you apply, or else your society wouldn't work. At all. Same goes for the definition of murder one being way wider than you think.

Corneliu:

PROPERTY RIGHTS DO NOT SUPERCEDE PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO LIFE.

And what about the property owner's life? What if he felt his life was in jeapordy and kills someone because of it?

No, you're not allowed to kill trespassers. That won't hold up in court. This guy is going to go to jail for murder.

Actually, more like involuntary manslaughter if the boy's death was accidental. That's the first thing the investigators have to look at.

There is no legal justification for this, let alone moral justification.

We'll see what the courts say.

And what about the property owner's life? What if he felt his life was in jeapordy and kills someone because of it?
Since this is clearly not the case here it is irrelevant.

Actually, more like involuntary manslaughter if the boy's death was accidental. That's the first thing the investigators have to look at.



We'll see what the courts say.
That will probably be a quick investigation when they take into consideration that he fired twice.

And what about the property owner's life? What if he felt his life was in jeapordy and kills someone because of it?
WALKING ACROSS A LAWN CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS A THREAT.

And what about the property owner's life? What if he felt his life was in jeapordy and kills someone because of it?
No, you got it wrong. He feared for his lawn's life. In fact, I saw another report that says the teenager had attempted to trape and maim the grass. The guy came out of the house weapon in hand when he heard the lawn scream.

none. If ya tresspass and the owner perceives you as a threat, then the owner can protect his property by any means.
No, he can't. Feel free to link to where it says this in the law.

Luckily, I was brought up not to walk across other people's lawns. I was brought up that if there is no sidewalks, walk along the sholder of the road.
Lucklily I was brought up to believe that killing is only justified in self-defense where there is an immediate and direct threat to my life or the lives of others.

Actually, more like involuntary manslaughter if the boy's death was accidental. That's the first thing the investigators have to look at.

Two. Rounds. In. The. FRIGGIN' CHEST! He shot TWICE! IN THE CHEST! AIMING FOR IT! Where the hell do you live that that would even remotely have a chance of being seen as manslaughter??

So, you actually believe you live in a society in which:

1- Anyone can argue that they didn't intend to kill when they shoot somebody, or even poison somebody and it kills them ("but officer, I was just trying to get him under for a few hours, I didn't know that much diazepan would kill him").

Actually, that isn't what I said. I said IN THIS CASE the boy's death was probably accidental. That is what the investigators are for. You have to investigate, gather the evidence, then present the evidence in court. This is how due process works.

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY! It is up to the prosecutor to put this guy away. Hopefully he'll have the evidence to do it too.

2- Someone can fire at a sworn enemy, as long as said person stepped in their lawn, and plead self-defense, and WALK.

Not quite accurate but close enough.

3- If someone bumps into a person, they'd better pray the person isn't a paranoid with a gun, else they get killed and the guy walks, having perceived a threat?

That would be perceived as murder.

Corneliu, the definition of threat is way more narrow than the one you apply, or else your society wouldn't work. At all. Same goes for the definition of murder one being way wider than you think.

At least I know the difference about walking across other peoples lawns.

No, you got it wrong. He feared for his lawn's life. In fact, I saw another report that says the teenager had attempted to trape and maim the grass. The guy came out of the house weapon in hand when he heard the lawn scream.
Did you read the stories that mention that the man used to measure the blades in the lawn?