Trixie wrote:
[quoting fixed - JB]
The only exception is if they are injured by a criminal or criminally
negligent act committed by someone else - and, because you're always
allowed to use reasonable force to stop people from committing crimes,
this rarely happens. You'd need to (e.g., props to Mr Martin, etc.)
shoot a fleeing child in the back for it to be treated as anything
other than reasonable self defence.

What child ?

In law, a 16-year-old is a child. If you don't like that, why not stand
for Parliament and try and get it changed?

Tony Martin is a hero who killed a pikey scumbag in the dark and who
shouldn't have been on his property.

Tony Martin is a sad, deluded, slighly mad person. A court of law found
that, beyond reasonable doubt, he knowingly shot a fleeing child in the
back. He was eventually acquitted of murder on the grounds of
diminished responsibility. And who cares about the ethnic origin of the
child he killed? (well, racists might, I suppose).

If you believe that the civil offence of trespassing justifies the
murder of the trespasser, then why not stand for Parliament and try and
get that enshrined in law? Or perhaps you could move to one of the
states in the US where this is already the case; don't let the door hit
you on your way out.

These two also got exactly what they deserved. Good riddance to them I hope
some more of these vandals get chopped up by trains.

Death *deserved* for minor vandalism? Why not put that in your
manifesto for Parliament too? "I support lowering the age of majority
to 16, and imposing the death penalty for tresspassing and vandalism".
I reckon you'd get loads of votes. I'm also glad that you want more
train drivers to go through the horrible ordeal of killing someone
(what proportion of drivers never return to work after a one-under
incident? It's non-trivial, ISTR.)

Overall, poor trolling, could do better, but you did get me to rise to
the bait. I'll give you a C+.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org