You kids stay off my lawn!Follow

that'll teach you youngins to listen to the crazy old man from now on

Reminds me of a guy I know who had a problem with Snowmobilers cutting through his property. Even after talks with local snowmobile association, putting up signs and yelling at trespassers nothing happened.

So he made a snowbank blocking there trail through his property. Which they gladly just drove over. On the other side though was some good ole vietcong trap which completely fubarred any treads that went over it.

A couple people complained but in the end the judge said something along the lines "If you werent trespassing nothing would have happened".


Not shooting anyone in the chest with a gun but still very hilarious.

It sounds like he had been dealing with them for years, and they just didn't take him seriously. I can't say I approve, but if they were trespassing, he may have been within his rights to do so.

What a stupid thing to become a murderer over, much less to die over. Poor kid.

The bit I trimmed from the article read:

Martin, 66, allegedly told police he had several times had problems with neighbors walking on his lawn. He remained jailed without bond Monday. His jailers said no attorney was listed for him.

Tell that to Jake The Snake

If the guy had built a fence, been threatened when confronting the youth, repeatedly reported the kid for trespassing or any number of things it might be easier to defend the guy.


However it seems clear that this didn't. That it was just a continuing problem and the guy snapped and killed the kid with no warning. Which kind of makes it hard to defend the guy.

Oh sure, if the kid was weilding an axe and rushing across the turf towards the guy, I could say "shoot 'im" but then you're not really shooting him for "being on your lawn".

I disagree with DSD's fixing which implies deadly force is never appropriate. But it sure as hell wasn't appropriate in this instance.

Well certain people are like "it was a continuing problem and it was on his property the kid had it coming" which I disagree with. What I am saying that a)the problem must be continuing b)the man must have done near everything in his power to deal with it peacefully c)the need for self defense must be met.


Not saying the kid had to be wielding an axe and chopping down the guys door. If the kid and family had history of threatening violence and harm when the guy told them to get off his property or if kid was like "if you go to call the police I will f'ucking beat the sh'it out of you and kill your dog" then I would be more inclined to side with the guy who did the shooting.

Irregardless of circumstance, if this was in Canada, the old man would be getting aquainted with his lifer cell mate rather shortly.

Pretty much what I think. It's a stupid, unnecessary act, but in some places the law may favor him in some way of which I'm unaware, like it does in FL. There are a great many laws that don't seem to make sense, and I'm sure his court-appointed lawyer will avail himself of whichever ones he can. Of course it was idiotic to shoot a child just because you feel he isn't listening to you, but it also stands to reason that this shotgun blast wasn't the first time he'd expressed his stance on the 'folks on my lawn' issue.

Don't know the particulars (no more then's been posted here), but a couple things stick out.

First off. The kid was 15. While that's still a minor, I think the term "child" is a bit inaccurate since it brings up images of someone much younger and less responsible for his actions.

Second. We don't know what steps the man took to prevent this kid from walking on his property. We don't know how long it had been going on (except his claim of "several years"). Clearly, this was something he'd had a problem with in the past. What we don't know is how many times he'd spoken to the kid and his parents about it, and what their response was.

While I agree that shooting someone is a bit harsh, it's quite possible that the law will be on his side in this case, depending on the particulars. One of the key rights in modern western society is the right of property. We can argue over whether someone *should* shoot someone else just for tresspassing, it's not so clear as to whether what he did was actually illegal. Protecting your property does not just mean your house and the contents within it. It means *all* the property, including your lawn and yard. It is just as illegal for someone to walk across your yard as it is for them to walk into your house. The only difference is that in the law, you have to know your on someone elses property to be in the wrong. This is clear if someone has to enter a building, but not always clear when walking across a patch of ground. In this case, if we're to believe that this was an ongoing problem, and if we assume that the man had communicated both that the area was his property and that he didn't want this particular kid to be on it, then the question of whether the kid knew he was violating someone else's property is resolved. He knew it, and knew he wasn't allowed to do it.

Assuming that's the case, then the man is technically within his rights to react to this exactly as he could if someone illegally and knowingly entered his home. So yeah. He may very well be completely within his rights and the law to have shoot the kid.