Man Kills Two Teens Robbers

[Deleted]

Thats incorrect.

One shot is not enough to stop the need for deadly force. I bet he could have fired 3-4 rounds into each teen and if he had left it at that, there would be no trial at all unless the family just wanted to push it.

Only when the targets were nearly unconscious would they pose no threat.

Threat was there when they broke into the home unannounced. There is no room for debate there. 2 teens against one senior adult in a community that has had a rash of break ins including his home.

He had every right to fire more than once at each target. 3 at each target at a minimum I would bet is ok.

Neutralisation of a threat isn't given by a specific number of shots. It depends by the gun, the way the target is hit, the target itself. Sorry mate but that doesn't sound right.
Neutralisation is given when the target doesn't pose a threat anymore, AKA when you have the upper hand and you have him wounded, unable to move a d held at gunpoint.
Which is how these two found themselves when he shot them again.
By doing that, he shot at a target that, BY LAW AND NOT BY ANYONE'S JUDGEMENT, wasn't posing a direct and immediate threat to him, so unjustifiable use of deadly force.

[Purlina]

Let me guess you are? What a joke!!!

Yes, actually I do. I provide arguments, not just quick 1 liners with no substance.

[SirRobin]

And that's EXACTLY where the problem lies.
It is not up to him to define if he's threatened or not. That would be HELL to try and regulate by law.
Danger is an imminent threat to you. And an imminent threat is well defined.
A body lying is not an IMMINENT threat so use of deadly force on the bodies is unjustified.
Of course he can say something else but he'd be wrong and he'd go to prison.

No, it is up to him to determine whether his life was in danger or not. When that body could be playing possum, hiding firearms in its pockets, could have more comrades upstairs, and other unknowns like how well was the basement lit for him to even be able to tell whether it was moving or not? He felt the need to move the boy so it is possible that he felt it would put him in even more danger to leave the body there.

[kjcasey]

You have done nothing to contribute!!! All you have done is attack my opinion!!

Let me guess you are? What a joke!!!

[nbm02ss]

In this case the defendant was convicted after executing a robber who was actually armed:

http://newsok.com/article/3571542?hi...cted%2522%255D

I would be surprised if this guy doesn't at least get manslaughter.

[kjcasey]

No you provided a worthless opinion with no respect for law!

Yes, actually I do. I provide arguments, not just quick 1 liners with no substance.

[Purlina]

No, it is up to him to determine whether his life was in danger or not. When that body could be playing possum, hiding firearms in its pockets, could have more comrades upstairs, and other unknowns like how well was the basement lit for him to even be able to tell whether it was moving or not? He felt the need to move the boy so it is possible that he felt it would put him in even more danger to leave the body there.

Playing possum? He fired several rounds into her chest, then dragged the body around. Then held a gun to her head and executed her.

[Deleted]

No, it is up to him to determine whether his life was in danger or not. When that body could be playing possum, hiding firearms in its pockets, could have more comrades upstairs, and other unknowns like how well was the basement lit for him to even be able to tell whether it was moving or not? He felt the need to move the boy so it is possible that he felt it would put him in even more danger to leave the body there.

No man. By law, he does not have that power. Not an opinion, it's fact.

[Purlina]

No you provided a worthless opinion with no respect for law!

You mean the law that says you may not execute people? Actually I am in favor of that law. Thank you very much...

[quras]

Bang bang bang bang bang. Walk over. Drag body to another location. Bang.

That last bang is what fucked him. Being able to move the body indicated the threat was neutralized.

By the way; WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU MOVE THE BODY. Stupid people do stupid things I guess. In that situation, when you fire your weapon at a home invader, as soon as the threat is down you immediately call the police, holster or place your weapon on the ground, and make sure your hands are in the air when the police show up. (And, if the invader is still alive, you should give first aid if you are so trained, but are by no means obligated to do this). You don't execute the bleeding felon and then go stack the bodies in the corner...

That probably the only wrong he will convicted of. Delivering the final shot when it was not really needed.


I can't wait to hear what this does in court though. So many ways the defense and prosecution lawyers can go and then you add in 12 different people on a jury all with varying opinions such as we have.

There have been plenty of cases where the defendant gets nearly nothing and done worse than kill 2 teen felons.

You mean the law that says you may not execute people? Actually I am in favor of that law. Thank you very much...

Actually it will be up to the 12 jurors and if they believe him or not. The law is not specific enough.

I love the way people keep saying execute instead of murder which is what they mean. Execution is something done through a legal process. Maybe you mean "execution style murder"...?

[SirRobin]

Playing possum? He fired several rounds into her chest, then dragged the body around. Then held a gun to her head and executed her.

Fired several rounds into her chest from what range? Point blank? Across the room? How many hit? How many were fired? Then moved the body and killed her after realizing that she was still alive. Execution implies trial and conviction. He just killed her.

No man. By law, he does not have that power. Not an opinion, it's fact.

And that's where you get into extenuating circumstances.

[kjcasey]

If in fact a jury says he acted in a manner of which went from protection to murder I will support that. But until a jury decides I will not sit here and say he was wrong. The cold hard truth is those kids committed a felony home invasion.

You mean the law that says you may not execute people? Actually I am in favor of that law. Thank you very much...

[Purlina]

If in fact a jury says he acted in a manner of which went from protection to murder I will support that. But until a jury decides I will not sit here and say he was wrong. The cold hard truth is those kids committed a felony home invasion.

Well to counter your point. Did a jury convict the kids of felony home invasion?

Guess it's not a cold hard truth then...

[Deleted]

Fired several rounds into her chest from what range? Point blank? Across the room? How many hit? How many were fired? Then moved the body and killed her after realizing that she was still alive. Execution implies trial and conviction. He just killed her.

If he knew she was dead, how would he shoot her again? That's just defiling a corpse.

He killed her yes, murdered her. I don't care how many times he shoot before dragging, I don't care about that, it was done in self defense, or so he thinks, the problem here is that he dragged her, meaning that it was safe to do so(meaning that she posseded no danger to him) and then proceed to shoot her, in the head, I'd say that's murder, whether it's on the street or in your house.

[Purlina]

Fired several rounds into her chest from what range? Point blank? Across the room? How many hit? How many were fired? Then moved the body and killed her after realizing that she was still alive. Execution implies trial and conviction. He just killed her.

You know what I mean by execution, don't be so coy. And it doesn't matter what the range was, he shot her several times in the chest, and then dragged her around. The point is she was done, no longer a threat, finished.

[kjcasey]

Anytime you break into a home which as far as I can tell that issue is not in debate. He had the right to use deadly force. Now the question is did he go to far and that cant be decided until all and I said all the facts are brought out. Not what is said in a news clip!!

Well to counter your point. Did a jury convict the kids of felony home invasion?

Guess it's not a cold hard truth then...

[Purlina]

Anytime you break into a home which as far as I can tell that issue is not in debate. He had the right to use deadly force. Now the question is did he go to far and that cant be decided until all and I said all the facts are brought out. Not what is said in a news clip!!

Prove that they broke in. Jury didn't convict them of it.

I am simply using the same logic you are applying to the shooter.

[Deleted]

If the girl was shot several times in the chest and was gasping for air, he may have just thought to spare her the agony of bleeding/drowning to death. To save his own hide, he would have had to let her suffer a long, agonizing death that would have likely fucked him more in court.

[Purlina]

If the girl was shot several times in the chest and was gasping for air, he may have just thought to spare her the agony of bleeding/drowning to death. To save his own hide, he would have had to let her suffer a long, agonizing death that would have likely fucked him more in court.

Or maybe call an ambulance / police? But I guess he wanted that extra day to think about where he could find a good lawyer.

[kjcasey]

That fact is not in question so your logic does not work. What is in question is his use of excessive force

Prove that they broke in. Jury didn't convict them of it.

I am simply using the same logic you are applying to the shooter.