(June 1, 2016 at 9:46 pm)dom.donald Wrote: Is stealing some furniture to fuel a drug habit worthy of the death penalty?

One would not want to try. However, because of changes in Texas laws, the intruder has no right to sue, so disabling the intruder until law enforcement arrives works.

(June 1, 2016 at 9:50 pm)dom.donald Wrote:

(June 1, 2016 at 9:47 pm)Bella Morte Wrote: Tony Martin didn't possess a basic shotgun certificate, or the extended certificate which allowed him to keep a gun that stores more rounds. I sympathise with him in regards to protecting his property, but he kept illegal weapons. That's wrong.

Um.. he was done for murder.

And possession of a firearm with the intent to endanger life.

Quote:Martin did not hold a valid shotgun certificate (licence), let alone the more restrictive Firearms Certificate he would have needed to possess the Winchester pump-action shotgun that held a maximum of five rounds.

That's what I was referring to. It may not be what he was sentenced for, but in my eyes, he deserved his sentence just for the above. I know what he was done for.

(June 1, 2016 at 9:47 pm)Bella Morte Wrote:

(June 1, 2016 at 9:38 pm)IATIA Wrote: Fortunately, Texas laws protect the homeowner.

Tony Martin didn't possess a basic shotgun certificate, or the extended certificate which allowed him to keep a gun that stores more rounds. I sympathise with him in regards to protecting his property, but he kept illegal weapons. That's wrong.

He was also arrested in 2015 again for suspicion of illegal weapons.

I do not need a "certificate" to keep a shotgun in the house. The round limit is only for hunting. But if the laws where he lived dictated a fine for his indiscretion, that is fine, but three years in prison is wrong.

(June 1, 2016 at 9:51 pm)Bella Morte Wrote:

(June 1, 2016 at 9:50 pm)dom.donald Wrote: Um.. he was done for murder.

And possession of an illegal firearm.

yes, but you wilfully failed to mention the bit about him being found guilty of murder, and focused on your concern that he kept illegal firearms. Even if the firearms were kept legally, it would still have been murder. So he tried to protect his property by murdering someone. It was murder because his actions were not considered a proportionate response, which is how it should be. There have been plenty of examples, one a few months ago, where US citizens have deliberately put themselves into situations so they would have the chance to use their weapons in self-defence, when there were plenty of other more reasonable actions they could have taken (such as following the emergency dispatcher's advice).

---

(June 1, 2016 at 9:54 pm)IATIA Wrote:

(June 1, 2016 at 9:47 pm)Bella Morte Wrote: Tony Martin didn't possess a basic shotgun certificate, or the extended certificate which allowed him to keep a gun that stores more rounds. I sympathise with him in regards to protecting his property, but he kept illegal weapons. That's wrong.

He was also arrested in 2015 again for suspicion of illegal weapons.

I do not need a "certificate" to keep a shotgun in the house.  The round limit is only for hunting.  But if the laws where he lived dictated a fine for his indiscretion, that is fine, but three years in prison is wrong.

As I said, the prison sentence was for murder. He lay in wait and shot the burglar in the back as he fled.

---

(June 1, 2016 at 9:51 pm)IATIA Wrote:

(June 1, 2016 at 9:46 pm)dom.donald Wrote: Is stealing some furniture to fuel a drug habit worthy of the death penalty?

One would not want to try.  However, because of changes in Texas laws, the intruder has no right to sue, so disabling the intruder until law enforcement arrives works.

That's nice in theory. What are the chances of having a loaded gun at the ready the moment you feel your life or property is in danger, and then what are the chances of you merely 'disabling the intruder until law enforcement arrives'. I don't share the view that a burglar is making (or should be making) a choice to live or die when he decides to steal something. Even with trained firearms users, it's hard to hit a moving target accurately from a few metres away.

The minute you break into someone's property, you deserve whatever is coming to you. I don't agree with the murder charge but agree with some kind of punishment for illegal weapons.

Admittedly, he could've have shot the guy in the back of the knees or something instead of the back and restrained him until the authorities came. But shit happens.

No sympathy for the burglar and a teeny-weeny bit for Tony.

One less burglar to worry about. I imagine 'if' he was truly laying in wait, it was probably not the first time the burglar had struck.

I can come into your house and take anything I want and there is nothing you are allowed to do about it. Call the cops, I'll be long gone. If you do injure me I will sue you and get everything else you own, legally.

Not in Texas!

(June 1, 2016 at 10:02 pm)IATIA Wrote: One less burglar to worry about.  I imagine 'if' he was truly laying in wait, it was probably not the first time the burglar had struck.

I can come into your house and take anything I want and there is nothing you are allowed to do about it.  Call the cops, I'll be long gone.  If you do injure me I will sue you and get everything else you own, legally.

Not in Texas!

I've always wanted to visit Texas.

Sounds like paradise.

(June 1, 2016 at 9:55 pm)dom.donald Wrote: That's nice in theory. What are the chances of having a loaded gun at the ready the moment you feel your life or property is in danger, ...

Real fucking good.

(June 1, 2016 at 9:55 pm)dom.donald Wrote: and then what are the chances of you merely 'disabling the intruder until law enforcement arrives'.

Real good.  I was taught how to shoot properly.

(June 1, 2016 at 9:55 pm)dom.donald Wrote: I don't share the view that a burglar is making (or should be making) a choice to live or die when he decides to steal something.

And that is your prerogative.  I do not share that opinion.  What's mine is mine.  I worked hard to get it and I am going to keep it.

(June 1, 2016 at 9:55 pm)dom.donald Wrote: Even with trained firearms users, it's hard to hit a moving target accurately from a few metres away.

It is not hard, but shit happens.  That is why one should get a job rather than steal.  Be a productive member of society rather than a leech.

(June 1, 2016 at 8:59 pm)dom.donald Wrote:

(June 1, 2016 at 8:47 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: I couldn't draw down on someone over stuff. My life would have to be in jeopardy, imminent danger.

But you'd have to carry the gun around with you at all times, and readily accessible and loaded too! So that's not gonna work.

Why would I have to carry a gun at all times?

(June 1, 2016 at 10:01 pm)Bella Morte Wrote: The minute you break into someone's property, you deserve whatever is coming to you. I don't agree with the murder charge but agree with some kind of punishment for illegal weapons.

Admittedly, he could've have shot the guy in the back of the knees or something instead of the back and restrained him until the authorities came. But shit happens.

No sympathy for the burglar and a teeny-weeny bit for Tony. But not much.

I think you'll find it's not possible to shoot a burglar in the dark at that distance with a shotgun in the back of the knees..
Why do you think you deserve "whatever is coming to you" the moment you 'break in' to someone's property? What if you left the door open? Why stop at burglary? What about other civil or (relatively) minor criminal transgressions? If someone steals some bread from a shop, why not open fire and blast the guy to bits?

Crimes are not all punished equally for a reason - because the level of harm and consequence are not equal. If your life is not threatened, why do you think (a) you have the right to kill someone and circumvent the justice system, and (b) the other person deserves to get killed, when the punishment by law would otherwise be relatively light?