There are property rights, and then there are PROPERTY RIGHTS

Fifteen year old Larry Mugrage walked across the yard of 66 year old neighbor Charles Martin. In turn, Martin shot him dead.

He then called 911, officials said.

Martin: "I just killed a kid."
911 Operator: "You just killed a kid?"
Martin: "Yes, ma'am."

Later, the operator asked Martin to explain what happened.

Martin: "Kids just been giving me a bunch of (expletive), making other kids harass me in my place, tearing things up."
911 Operator: "OK, so what'd you do?"
Martin: "I shot him with a (expletive) 4-10 shotgun twice."
911 Operator: "You shot him with a shotgun? Where is he?"
Martin: "He's laying in his yard."

Martin has been charged with aggravated murder.

For supporters of property rights, this case raises some questions. Regardless of what the law actually says -

1) Was the victim, prior to being shot, guilty of anything?
2) Should Martin be guilty of a crime?
3) Even if we agree that property rights are a Good Thing, how should the appropriate delineation of those rights and the privileges that go along with them be decided?

Share this

1) Being inconsiderate, but

1) Being inconsiderate, but nothing worth getting the law involved over provided he didn't do any damage.

2) Absolutely.

3) Common law.

Generally we now think life

Generally we now think life trumps property rights.
Under the law you don’t have to shoot. You call the police or file a law suit.
The good thing about government is you don’t have to defend your property with a shotgun.
The bad thing about government is that if you do so, you will be locked up.
We ought to have private laws and police to mediate this sort of thing??? I am still trying to understand this idea.

"4-10 shotgun..." Tsk, tsk.

"4-10 shotgun..."

Tsk, tsk. Any self respecting libertarian should have added a (sic) or just translated it to ".410 shotgun."

Proportionality. Any tort,

Proportionality.
Any tort, such as violating someones property, is cause for demanding retributions, but any retribution given or otherwise obtained must be proportional to the crime, as established by the judicial practices of that community.

Death is not proportional retribution for going into someones yard.

We can go into details but I imagine this is the most one can say without trying to establish a True ratio of proportionality or fixed "prices" for various torts and other misguided approaches.

1. Trespass - civil action

1. Trespass - civil action until the trespass order is breached, then it becomes a police matter. Shoot with a camera, not a gun.

2. Hell, YES!!! Everything from stupidity to murder.

3. The problem seems to be more a matter of "the law exists already - some people just don't see that it applies to them".

It is the same (in many respects) as the attitude that some drivers have to speed limits.

Gabriel, the term you want

Gabriel, the term you want is "restitution."

My mom has a neighbor who shot someone's dog for walking across the corner of his driveway. At some point, you have some responsibility for taking measures to protect your property, i.e. putting up a fence. A mere claim is not enough. Also, someone's mere presence on someone else's property does not necessarily cause harm.

In general, I'm pretty

In general, I'm pretty supportive of people who kill criminals in the act, even if the act is a property crime. A criminal's life isn't worth much to me, and you never know how many more people they'll go on to victimize. Better to play it safe.

But shooting someone for trespass, when he obviously poses no serious threat, is a bit much, even for me. That said, it sounds from Martin's statements as though he perceived it (rightly or not) as part of a long-running pattern of deliberate and malicious harassment and vandalism. I am curious as to why no legal action was taken prior to this. Or maybe the guy's just crazy and there was no basis for legal action.

Thank God we have the "Stand

Thank God we have the "Stand Your Ground" Law here in Florida. If some criminal (kid or adult) illegally gains entry to a person's home OR Car, we can shoot 'em dead! The case above about the kid is too extreme, I doubt the kid was a threat. If the guy didn't feel a life-threatening and/or G.B.H. then he broke the law by killing the kid who was simply walking in the yard. BTW, There's no Capitalism in Anarchism. The two are opposites. Anarchism is Libertarian Socialism, because you CANNOT have LIBERTY in an Authoritative system such as capitalism or communism.

I'm hard pressed to believe

I'm hard pressed to believe that shooting your gun into the air isn't enough to keep these kids away. And even if the kids highly suspect that the old man isn't crazy enough to kill them, and thus be subject to imprisonment, they can't be absolutely positive that he isn't psycho, and willing to go prison just to stick it to em' once and for all. Thus, this Martin guy was most certainly in the wrong, going to the extreme when he didn't need to.

Dave says "Generally we now think life trumps property rights". Can this be taken to mean that taxpayers should be forced to keep Terri Shiavo alive if no one is willing to do it voluntarily?

To whom was Terri Shiavo the

To whom was Terri Shiavo the property of? Why does the State make moral decisions and then enforce the decision as if it's a legitimate law?

BTW, There’s no Capitalism

BTW, There’s no Capitalism in Anarchism. The two are opposites. Anarchism is Libertarian Socialism, because you CANNOT have LIBERTY in an Authoritative system such as capitalism or communism.

A wise man once said: "You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."

"Inconcievable."

"Inconcievable."

Make that, "Inconceivable."

Make that, "Inconceivable."

Yeah, I believe there are

Yeah, I believe there are different degrees of "Libertarian" politics. When I speak of capitalism I'm referring to multinational corporations globally dominating the markets while hording almost the entire means of production, thus bankrupting the small-business owners. As an anarchist, or rather, libertarian socialist, I advocate the syndicalist co-ops of factories. Thus, profit (pl) is distributed to the “workers” and not to the industrialists (capitalism) nor to the state (communism).

And how do you suggest you

And how do you suggest you are going to MAKE us work in syndicalist co-ops? Just proclaiming that us free-enterprisers don't really own our property doesn't change the fact that we and others keep defending it as such.

For supporters of property

For supporters of property rights, this case raises some questions.

Only for someone as dumb as you Wilde. If you think libertarianism implies it's ok to shoot people walking on your lawn then there's nothing I can do. Don't quit your day job... :stupid:

And how do you suggest you

And how do you suggest you are going to MAKE us work in syndicalist co-ops?
_______________________________________________________________

:stupid: WOW! Who said anything about MAKING people do anything? I'm referring to a co-op of mutual aid workers. It's been attempted several times, however this fascist government has a history of stopping progressive movements from doing their own thing.

I'm not entirely sure that

I'm not entirely sure that crossing someone's property without their consent, but also without causing damage, should be criminal.

Ah. So when you say

Ah. So when you say “capitalism,” you mean “not capitalism.” Wonderful.
________________________________________________________________________

Ummm... I guess for somebody who only thinks in terms of "Black & White" that's how you perceive it. :twisted:

I’m not entirely sure that

I’m not entirely sure that crossing someone’s property without their consent, but also without causing damage, should be criminal.

_____________________________________________________________________

I guess it depends on their motive or intent. A gun-owner should have enough of a mind given to reason to determine if the person is threatening to the property or property-owner. If the trespasser is stealing your car then shoot the bastard. If the trespasser is having a picnic in your back yard then join him for lunch.

1) The evidence offered for

1) The evidence offered for this is inconclusive.
2) This seems certain.
3) When retaliation for aggression is disproportionately large it becomes aggression. In judging a case I'd grant a property owner significant discretion in securing his property rights but not infinite discretion. If his life could credibly be thought to be in danger I'd grant him a lot more discretion.

There's no hint that his life was in danger, the response seems wildly disproportionate and thus aggressive.

Is it possible that Mugrage

Is it possible that Mugrage had a history of tearing up Martin's property?

I'm going to back off on my judgment of Martin somewhat. I need to know how routine the destruction of his property was and what steps he'd taken in the past to secure his property.

I'm not nearly ready to convict him on the basis of what's been offered.

What about possible

What about possible distinctions between property that is in use (like the grond surrounding a house) and property in infrequent use (such as woods in the middle of nowhere). Historically land which was understood to be the latter would generally be open to outsiders (and in many areas still is I suppose). Does someone have a right to defend boundaries which are not generally understood or well-defined?

"WOW! Who said anything

"WOW! Who said anything about MAKING people do anything? "

Excellent. So, we help you smash the state, and you leave us to develop private money (probably gold based) and build a free-market world the likes of which the world has never seen!
But your people must respect our private property, and we'll respect yours (just make the deed out to everyone in the co-op and everything should be fine).

Oh, and raising up a mob to assault people with-whom you have disagreement won't work, you need to go through proper channels, whenever they get set-up (private courts, private law enforcement).

Ah. So when you say

Ah. So when you say "capitalism," you mean "not capitalism." Wonderful.