1. #701
    Void Lord Doctor Amadeus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    In Security Watching...
    Posts
    43,694
    Quote Originally Posted by larrakeyah View Post
    He will, it's piece of cake for a half competent lawyer.

    I don't know, i kind of wonder where his half competent lawyer was when he gave his stupid statement, I am wondering if this man even understood his writes, my guess is unless they can get his statements thrown out, he is for sure going to get convicted, but he isn't going to do much jail time outside of time served.

  2. #702
    Quote Originally Posted by araine View Post
    I can make an exception on useless POS gunowners like him that think they are above the law.
    A. It sounds like he was well within the law to do what he did.
    -And after his trial, we'll know for sure.
    B. Then you don't value life.
    C. You don't know that he's useless. He could've contributed A LOT more to society than these two #YOLO brats did. You're assuming he's useless because he's old and he killed youth.

    You're no better than he is.
    Last edited by Boogums; 2012-11-27 at 12:47 PM.

  3. #703
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealed Shut View Post
    You are incorrect. Stop being short-sighted.
    In other words you are condoning a brutal murder because of what you imagine might happen in the future.

    You don't think after being shot during a robbery that the two of them would have decided it would be safer to bring their own weapon next time?
    Or she could stop robbing. But nah, that doesn't fly with your "lets murder teenagers" philosophy.

  4. #704
    Quote Originally Posted by PizzaSHARK View Post
    It's gonna be difficult to sell a literal execution to a jury and claim it was purely in self-defense. Add to the fact that he knew what he was doing when he reacted in anger when that dumb slit mocked him when his rifle jammed and he had to switch guns.

    He went way over the reasonable, self-defense line.
    Him switching the gun to finish of the work is what will send him away for the rest of his life. He could probably have walked away from it if he just manned up and took the laughing into his face and called the authorities instead of going to get his 2nd gun and finish the job.

  5. #705
    Said it before, saying it again:
    Lets keep in mind the mans age...we do not know if hes suffering from degrees of dementia or the wear and tear on his state of mind. Obviously home invasion would be a stressful situation, no matter age, and in that environment plus other possible variables, irrational behavior is imminent.
    Not condoning it, but kids got what was coming, what else do you expect when you enter another persons home? Its pretty unfair he was put in this position in the first place dont you think? Excessive? Sure, but like I said emotions, adrenaline, fear, and confusion probably played a big part. He obviously admitted he may have over done it when he came to his senses.
    In conclusion, I think they should evaluate him before they proceed to anything.

  6. #706
    Quote Originally Posted by Broloth View Post
    A. It sounds like he was well within the law to do what he did.
    No, what he did was clearly illegal. The number of people who thinks this is allowed is scarier than the actual murderer.

  7. #707
    I support the Castle Doctrine. I can, and will shoot to kill on any threat to my life and/or property, or the lives of my loved ones, and my Remington 870 Express Magnum won't be asking questions.

  8. #708
    If they hadn't broken into someones house they'd both be alive right now(you know assuming they wouldnt have done something else stupid to cost themselves their lives which is highly likely, "lol yolo"), you face the consequences of your actions.

  9. #709
    It would be comical, if it wasn't so sad, that anyone would think murdering kids is ok just because they were in your house uninvited. Nobody deserves to lose their life over a break in. People who actually think fictional bounder are more worth hen human life's are crazy people.

  10. #710
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by PizzaSHARK View Post
    So you're objecting to the deaths of these two little shitbags by proposing the shooter gets killed, too. Logic, where is it?

    Death penalty is fucking retarded in every sense of the word.
    Logic -> Individuals are allowed to kill ppl willy nilly for crimes like breaking and entering but authorities can't sentence a murderer to die?

  11. #711
    Quote Originally Posted by Lefrog View Post
    If the guy pulled out a switchblade or kept throwing punchs and I had a weapon on me I'd be in the right to use it. Called self defense and this is what all the arguments are about.
    No, the argument was about whether he should be allowed to full on execute two teens "because they might come back and harm him for revenge". By which logic, if a guy punches you, you should rush to your assault rifle and then gun him down. Over a punch. In case he comes back for revenge. It's retarded.

  12. #712
    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    No, what he did was clearly illegal. The number of people who thinks this is allowed is scarier than the actual murderer.
    You sound like a pretty good arm chair lawyer. Find me the law that said what he did was "clearly" illegal. According to the article, the prosecutors are saying he used more force than was necessary, not a judge, and certainly not the law, since Minnesota has a pretty hardcore castle doctrine.

    "No duty to retreat before using deadly force to prevent a felony in one's place of abode; no duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense in one's place of abode." - http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/ar...7/c8991507.htm

  13. #713
    Bloodsail Admiral larrakeyah's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Australian in NZ
    Posts
    1,155
    Quote Originally Posted by Mall Security View Post
    I don't know, i kind of wonder where his half competent lawyer was when he gave his stupid statement, I am wondering if this man even understood his writes, my guess is unless they can get his statements thrown out, he is for sure going to get convicted, but he isn't going to do much jail time outside of time served.
    Shouldn't be difficult to throw out his statements, police pressure, state of shock... I'm not talking about him going out immaculate, but he will get off lightly for sure.

  14. #714
    Quote Originally Posted by alucardtnuoc View Post
    People are claiming that they "didn't die because they were shot" Do you know that, they may have been shot in the lungs, blood vessels and arteries are all throughout the body.... He shot multiple times which means higher chance of said occurance. People claiming "they were no longer a threat" Do you have the police report in your hand, all the evidence. Do you see where it says "They were unarmed and had no weapons"

    What if the girl laughing was pulling out a gun, It's all hearsay atm.

    What we know for a fact. Two idiots broke into someones house. They got shot by owner, Owner shot them again in the head to make sure they were dead.

    As bad as that is, take it for that. Leave the police work to the people at the crime scene to get all the evidence to say what actually happened conclusively.
    Yes it's quite possible while she's been shot several times and then the man proceeds to drag her around that she was just waiting for the right time to pull out her gun, so the man saw into the future and decided to defend himself by putting his gun under her chin and firing. /sarcasm

  15. #715
    Quote Originally Posted by kazih View Post
    Logic -> Individuals are allowed to kill ppl willy nilly for crimes like breaking and entering but authorities can't sentence a murderer to die?
    No, there is no logic. You just don't value life. You want to justify your hatred through vengeance however that type of behaviour has no place in society.

  16. #716
    Quote Originally Posted by Broloth View Post
    A. It sounds like he was well within the law to do what he did.
    B. Then you don't value life.
    C. You don't know that he's useless. He could've contributed A LOT more to society than these two #YOLO brats did. You're assuming he's useless because he's old and he killed youth.

    You're no better than he is.
    Him going for the 2nd gun when his 1st weapon malfunctioned and jammed while he was safe enough to go and get that he could also go and call 911 and get the authorities to be over there ASAP. The fact he goes and get that 2nd weapon and finishes the job means it crossed the line.

    And when he have such interest in getting the job done he deserves what he gets. But since he is in Minnesota he is safe from the death penalty but if you beg hard enough i am willing to issue a waiver a scumbag like this gunowner. Since i have a feeling this person would be a death penalty supporter if asked the question so he will just get what he wants. But it is usually a too easy way out of a crime if you ask me.

  17. #717
    Void Lord Doctor Amadeus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    In Security Watching...
    Posts
    43,694
    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    In other words you are condoning a brutal murder because of what you imagine might happen in the future.


    Or she could stop robbing. But nah, that doesn't fly with your "lets murder teenagers" philosophy.


    Give me a break lets murder a Teenager, what the fuck do you think happens when you are robbed Semaphore? Do you think most people stop and think Gee, I wonder what the composition of the Stars are in Andromeda Galaxy, or Hey, I wonder what my 401k will look like in 10 years?


    Or do your do you think its possible, just possible to appreciate that maybe, just fucking maybe this man, is NOT you was in fear for his life, not acting the way you would and KILLED these two kids, and None of this shit would have happened, if like MOST Teenagers with half a fucking brain they didn't BREAK INTO THIS MANS HOME.


    HIS SANCTUARY, What part of that do you NOT GET, how can you be so Indifferent to anything other than what YOU SEE. This is why your logic fails, and you really make bad arguments, because for as much as you are trying to convey compassion and understanding, and justice, you really have no grasp of that in terms of other people at all.

  18. #718
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Broloth View Post
    No, you don't value life. You want to justify your hatred through vengeance however that type of behaviour has no place in society.
    Are you a vegetarian then?

  19. #719
    Quote Originally Posted by Horkymon View Post
    I support the Castle Doctrine. I can, and will shoot to kill on any threat to my life and/or property, or the lives of my loved ones, and my Remington 870 Express Magnum won't be asking questions.
    Wounded unarmed target already critical is not a threat to your life or property, something a significant portion of this thread can't seem to grasp. Castle doctrine does not mean you can kill as you please.

    You subdue the threat, call the authorities and let them deal with it. You don't switch to a second weapon to land a killing blow, drag a critically wounded body across the room and lay a shot under the chin.

    At these points the threat has long been prevented and you move from defending yourself and your property to a murdering criminal no better than those who broke into your property.

  20. #720
    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    No, what he did was clearly illegal. The number of people who thinks this is allowed is scarier than the actual murderer.
    I suppose it's one of the consequences of these "stand your ground" laws. People now mistakenly believe that nearly any action is legal as long as it occurs while the victim is trespassing.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •