Man Kills Two Teens Robbers

[someotherguy]

May I ask why people keep calling them kids and children? Or boy and girl?
One is 18 year old - legally an adult, the other is 17 - legal adult in a lot of countries, though not this one.

[kjcasey]

He will never be convicted of murder you watch and see.

I think the man felt he was endangered though, it looks as though his house was frequently robbed and he was being tormented by these teenagers, his brother said that he lived in a state of panic and fear for his life and property. The children were not as innocent as the connotation of the article and you believe them to be.

[Balindra]

If he shots them and they can't fight anymore, they will run away, if they can't run, they will be fred not long after the ocasion, and as soons as they get the chance they will go back to the guy's house and just shoot him dead, or someone from his family.

Thank Zeus I never had to, but if something like that happened to me, or someone robbed me pointing a gun to my head and somehow i managed to get the robber's gun from him, I would just shot him dead so he wouldn't just come back later and do it to me. The system can't hold those people in jail forever, they will come out eventually and go back for you. Unless you want to move out because of an episode like that.

You see something is completely wrong when people have sympathy for a fucking society scum that should already be dead anyway.

[Kraenen]

Swing and a miss on the unfounded speculation, I'm afraid.

And if you consider "making sure someone's dick hits the dirt if they invade my home where me and my fiancee sleep" to be sociopathic, then yes, I suppose I do.

I'm ok with that.

Yeah, killing someone and not caring about it is sociopathic. I'm fine with that, you'll be in the psych ward soon where you can't harm anyone. And guess what, since you're in their home, they can do whatever they want to you.

Good.

No sense dwelling over a couple assholes.

[Kasierith]

Entirely dependent on the defendant being potentially still afraid for his life at the time. Again, we have not heard about whether he thought there were more upstairs or not. If he did then his actions make sense. Get the bodies out of sight. If she might warn others about where he is hiding, kill her.

So why did he drag her across the floor to kill her, an act that would have made him temporarily defenseless? And really.... multiple gun shots, and he was scared of people noticing. That does not follow in the least.

Also, again, legal precedent for delivering the killing blow outside of self defense.

[Decagon]

Legal precedent, of course. The killing blow was not delivered in self defense.

---------- Post added 2012-11-28 at 01:48 AM ----------



Which justifies the killing of the boy. The girl is, again, an entirely different situation, especially after she had already been shot multiple times.

I think it's a different situation when you're actually there. What was probably running through is mind was "Oh crap, now she's going to try to kill me" or "Oh crap, she's going to run away, get her friends and they're going to viciously torture me until I die of starvation or blood lose" or "Oh god, what do I do, what do I do!?!" He likely had only a few seconds to react and my guess would be that he was thinking the 1st and 2nd scenario were the most likely. He probably thought was going to be continually brutalized by all of their friends if he didn't take extreme action.

[iggie]

Entirely dependent on the defendant being potentially still afraid for his life at the time. Again, we have not heard about whether he thought there were more upstairs or not. If he did then his actions make sense. Get the bodies out of sight. If she might warn others about where he is hiding, kill her.

He also waited a day to report it all. Not suspicious at all?

[SirRobin]

He will never be convicted of murder you watch and see.

Yeah, I can't see it happening. I figure the prosecutor is keeping his or her fingers crossed, hoping the defendant pleas out to a lesser charge. Or that some sort of smoking gun, hehe, comes along that does actually prove he could not have still been reasonably fearful for his life at the time.

[kjcasey]

Yes if you captured someone held them as a prisoner then executed them thats murder that is not what he did

Actually it is murder. If I captured a thief and then shot him in the head when he posed no threat, that IS MURDER. Which is why he is charged with SECOND DEGREE MURDER!

[Kasierith]

I think it's a different situation when you're actually there. What was probably running through is mind was "Oh crap, now she's going to try to kill me" or "Oh crap, she's going to run away, get her friends and they're going to viciously torture me until I die of starvation or blood lose" or "Oh god, what do I do, what do I do!?!" He likely had only a few seconds to react and my guess would be that he was thinking the 1st and 2nd scenario were the most likely. He probably thought was going to be continually brutalized by all of their friends if he didn't take extreme action.

Alright, lets entertain that possibility.

Why did he spend the time to drag her across the floor? Why did he not call the police at all? Why did he leave the immediate scene to grab a second firearm, to return with the pistol to first severely wound and then kill the girl?

If he was so scared, why, when he had the time to leave the immediate scene to grab his second weapon, did he not call the police?

[mortauk]

Whether or not you think its right when you break into a house you have to realize you may be breaking into an unstable persons house and be prepared for the consequences. Its a tragic story thats for sure did they deserve to die I dont know. Did he have a right to shoot them? Yes. Did he have a right to finish them off? Depends on whether he still felt threatened. Sadly because these two made a horrific mistake their story will never be told...

[Decagon]

May I ask why people keep calling them kids and children? Or boy and girl?
One is 18 year old - legally an adult, the other is 17 - legal adult in a lot of countries, though not this one.

As a 17 year old, my personal belief is that the vast majority of people aren't truly adults at 18. In light of the adults (or children's) actions make me believe further that they really aren't mature enough to be considered an adult, even if there are adults that act worse than they do. Plus, it's easier to refer to them both as children than, the other adult and the teenager.

He will never be convicted of murder you watch and see.

At very least he'll be convicted of some sort of manslaughter, which personally, I feel is just.

[kjcasey]

with the connection

You... don't agree with their conviction in the article I linked? Or you don't agree with the connection. You'll need to clarify for me.

Also the argument of "she deserved it because she went there willingly" is completely nonsensical in a legal sense and shall never hold up in court. Castle doctrine and related laws has limitations.

[Themius]

I think the man felt he was endangered though, it looks as though his house was frequently robbed and he was being tormented by these teenagers, his brother said that he lived in a state of panic and fear for his life and property. The children were not as innocent as the connotation of the article and you believe them to be.

He felt endangered after shooting up the girl and then dragged her over to her cousin and blown her brains out? He was endangered that whole time? Where do we draw the line lol?

[Kraenen]

Yes, assuming the story the old man is telling is true, they did deserve to be shot. (Not executed as the story is making it sound.)

I foresee the old man pleading on ONE count of manslaughter for the execution of the second kid. It doesn't matter if the kid was going to die anyways, or he was doing it out of mercy or whatever the other speculation is about right now. He had no right to kill the second kid once they were obviously disabled, he was able to move the body prior so he KNEW they weren't a threat at that point. Everything up to the point he put the pistol under the kids chin and pulled the trigger is perfectly justifiable. (Even shooting the one on the ground, as the man couldn't be certain they were neutralized.)

The old law school story is: A man jumps off the top of the Empire State Building. Another man shoots him in the head 50 stories from the street. The man who shot the jumper is still a murderer. Even though he took only 5 seconds off the guys life.



Nobody is suggesting you can "do whatever you want." At least I should hope they aren't. They are however suggesting, and correctly so, that it's a inherent right to protect ones self and ones property. If this means using deadly force then so be it. The one protecting their home / lives were not the ones that created the situation, thus morally and legally they are absolved of blame in the use of that force.

Slightly off topic: A fun fact about where I live. (It's an extremely rural area, nearest house is over a mile away.) My property is zoned A1 agricultural. And because of this, according to state law, I'm legally allowed to kill ANYONE who steps foot on my property for ANY reason after dark. Doesn't matter if they are just there asking to use the phone because their car broke down. I can kill them for just being on my property.

Guess how many times it's happened in my county? Try zero. Why? Well, a.) it's a rural area, not many people. b.) The law is well known. c.) Gun owners aren't bloodthirsty savages as some on these boards would have you believe.

No, the kids weren't dangerous. They didn't have guns and they didn't show the will to harm another human being. If anything they only showed they were going to steal something. They didn't deserve to be shot dead.

Read through the thread. There are quite a few people advocating you can do ANYTHING to someone while they're in your home.

On a side note I wonder if people who advocate this man's actions are pro-life or pro-choice. You could argue that the womb is the woman's property that a fetus is invading, giving her the right to kill it if she wants.

[KevyB]

camwhore no more.

Infracted. Constructive posts please.

[Kasierith]

with the connection

Both fell under either castle doctrine or Minnesota's equivalent which is functionally analogous to castle doctrine. The difference is in that other state, castle doctrine extends to all areas where the individual is allowed to be, not only to the home.

[Themius]

Also people are you forgetting the fact he went about his day NORMALLY. Showed no remorse and he didn't even call the cops it was his neighbor that was suspicious of him. On top of this took relish in a clean kill. None of this points to. "Maybe that guy has issues.." in your lots heads?

[Decagon]

Alright, lets entertain that possibility.

Why did he spend the time to drag her across the floor? Why did he not call the police at all? Why did he leave the immediate scene to grab a second firearm, to return with the pistol to first severely wound and then kill the girl?

If he was so scared, why, when he had the time to leave the immediate scene to grab his second weapon, did he not call the police?

Panic. It's the same reason that hid the bodies after the whole thing went down, he likely thought that everyone would side against him, whether or not he was in the right or not, and it seems that he was right. I'm not justifying all of his actions, yes he should have called the police and he shouldn't have gotten a second firearm, but he was still in the right for the rest of the time. Which again, I think should put him in prison for a few years at worst.

[SirRobin]

He also waited a day to report it all. Not suspicious at all?

If he had attempted to hide it? Absolutely.

From: http://www.kare11.com/news/article/9...eged-intruders

According to the Morrison County Sheriff's Department, someone called authorities on Friday afternoon reporting suspicious activity. When police arrived at the home on the 1400 block of Elm Street, north of Little Falls, the man immediately told them he had fatally shot two people around noon on Thanksgiving Day.

He didn't try to hide the murders. It was only a day and he very well may have still been in a state of shock considering what he felt the need to do. In fact, who knows how long he was in that basement afterwards. If he thought more were upstairs he may have been downstairs all night staring at the staircase.