Man Kills Two Teens Robbers

[barackohmama]

How a burgler can be a popular rolemodel is beyond me. If you believe in karma this is what happens. Sometimes karma strikes back harder than you expected, so be nice ppl, dont break into other ppls home acting like jerks.

[polskifootballer]

smith did the right thing at first he shot both of them ONCE not knowing they were kids probably until after they were dead, this was self defense for them attempting to rob his house, but after he shot their bodies when they were dead, especially haile ,that was incredibly stupid and is probably why he is going to jail.

[Syro]

Stop reading the laws the way it suits you. He wasnt within his rights to use deadly force when they were no longer a threat to him. Putting a gun to a persons chin and firing, after the person is clearly not a threat is execution. Not self defense in any law.

Sure mate, right after i will read the CSI report where it says exactly EVERYTHING THAT HAPPEND and WHY.

[Waaldo]

If the mentality in the US is: I'm entitled to kill whoever enters my property without my permission. Then there's no wonder why your country is in neck deep shit at the moment.

Are you saying you shouldn't have the right to defend yourself on property you own? Here is an easy solution, don't break into someones property without their permission. Is it really that hard?
Killing people who break into your own is not the reason, AT ALL, why our country is "neck deep in shit".

[Deleted]

job hazard...

its their own fault, no pity from me

[Deleted]

Minnesota law allows people to use deadly force when protecting their homes - but prosecutors claim he used more than necessary

How can you use *DEADLY* Force more than necessary? Do people not know what deadly means?

*Edit* I did read most of the article, and even though he did shoot more than was necessary, does it really matter? They are dead anyways D:

[semaphore]

I really have to agree with this one... The girl that was shot in the leg (?) was laughing at the guy, if she had another weapon she would have had no problem pulling it out and killing this guy in his own home (be it a knife or gun).

It doesn't say it was the leg, I think you're embellishing.

And he would have been justified in shooting her again if she did pull a weapon out. But she didn't, and he shot her again, again, and again. Then dragged her around before closing in with a shot from under her chin. Making excuses about weapons doesn't fly in these circumstances.

[Boogums]

Yeah just gloss over the part where he actually have two dead bodies, and is brought up on charges, and told that story to the police. Totally the same as you lying on the internet to strangers.

He was within his right to use deadly force to protect himself. He killed them. They no longer pose a threat to him in anyway. Whether you think he killed them is right or wrong has nothing to do with what the judge will deem murder or not.

You want to say "he killed these kids?" Fine. You want to say "he murdered these kids?" You're wrong. What he did hasn't been deemed unlawful, yet.

[semaphore]

How can you use *DEADLY* Force more than necessary? Do people not know what deadly means?

Easy. You continue using deadly force when there is nothing to protect your home against = More deadly force than necessary.

[Jimer]

He should've just shot them in the legs/knees...

[Doctor Amadeus]

Some peoples rush to judgement and to subvert the law do to their own personal moral convictions are exactly why the justice system is broken, and we have millions of people in jail for soft crimes who are then turned into hardened criminals, while millions more roam free because the justice system is so backed up with nonsense like this.


This man didn't go out and KILL anybody, this was Not First Degree or Second Degree murder, at best it would be Manslaughter, and seeing as how the entire incident would have been avoided if they had not entered this OLD MANS house to rob him, NONE of this would have ever even have happened.


He isn't a danger to society, and this incident is in no way a fucking referendum on gun control or the lack of it. This is a simple case of two people who blindly decided to disregard the rules, and the law broke into this mans PRIVATE RESIDENCE his HOME, to steal from him not much unlike rape, and they paid the price, End of Story.

[Wildtree]

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.

On a "funny" note...
The picture may not be too flattering... But if one looks at the pics of the 3 ppl, not knowing anything, and one had to guess which one of the 3 is a crook...
I bet my ass the majority would choose the shooter..

To me he looks..... very creepy..

My solution to the 2nd amendment.
Everyone can apply to own a gun. Everyone has to undergo a psychological evaluation, and a personal evaluation of their current situation.
Like there are people who live in very remote locations with no one around for miles. They really need a gun, in case of intrusion by all sorts of things, like predator wildlife.
From there we go.. You pass the requirements, you get a gun. It's registered to you.. And after that, just like the drivers license in the USA, you go and renew it every so many years (2 - 4). That would take a lot of misuse off the streets.

[semaphore]

He was within his right to use deadly force to protect himself.

Which does not extend to shooting people who were already shot and lies on the floor bleeding.

[blib]

This is the usual bullshit reasoning according to which you should basically wait to be shot before firing back.
Truth is, reality is not what you you think it is in your beautiful ideal dream world situation. Most of the times you can't just "lock yourself" or see if the criminal has a gun, in fact if he has one your best chance of survival is shooting first.
Problem is, most people don't have any idea how they would behave in a real life-endangered situation.

First off, I have been in a combat zone, so no I do not live in a dreamworld. It is you, who think confronting someone instead of retreating is protecting your own life and not putting it in danger. And no, if someone is pointing a gun at you feel free to shoot, but in 90% of the cases you will only get a gun pointed at you if you confront them. If you retreat into a room, lock it, and stay in ther with your gun until the police arrives you will be 100% safe. Certainly much safer then you would be running at the intruders with your gun firing.

[Girlyman]

I would have shot, then got rid of the bodies.

[semaphore]

WEll he'd already shot her in the chest and she still laughed at him, guess he was just being cautious

He tried to shoot her again and it jammed, and then she laughed. Don't distort the order to justify his actions.

[Boogums]

Which does not extend to shooting people who were already shot and lies on the floor bleeding.

Actually, you see, it does. Whether you agree with the law or not is a different story.

[Deleted]

First off, I have been in a combat zone, so no I do not live in a dreamworld. It is you, who think confronting someone instead of retreating is protecting your own life and not putting it in danger. And no, if someone is pointing a gun at you feel free to shoot, but in 90% of the cases you will only get a gun pointed at you if you confront them. If you retreat into a room, lock it, and stay in ther with your gun until the police arrives you will be 100% safe. Certainly much safer then you would be running at the intruders with your gun firing.

Reading the article the man was in his basement, so most likely he had no further chance to hide or escape somewhere else.

[FusedMass]

It's a law that if someone is trying to break into you're place. You can shoot them legally dead called Self Defense. They're is also the "Stand you're ground" where in public if you feel a threat. You can defend yourself with being reasonable force. The problem was the man shot dead two young popular teens. I doubt it'd get half as much attention. If the kids were not, young and attractive.

I can understand shooting the guy. That's yanking the trigger once. But pulling a gun on a female. That's cold blooded to shoot them down. Obviously they're is more to this story that's left out of the details when they interviewed him.

[lockedout]

Yes it's from the mail, but that doesn't change the story.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...st_read_module

Knowing this forum I wonder how many people see no problem with this.

This seems like a ridiculous editorial slant - how about a headline that goes like this: Drug addicted youths that enjoy preying on the elderly, looking to make another easy score, get what they deseve. A quick word of caution - if you break into my elderly parents house, they will shoot you first and ask questions later.