Man Kills Two Teens Robbers

[Purlina]

The only non threat is a dead threat. In survival mode (which he was in) the only neutralized threat is a dead threat. If you've ever seen one day of combat and I hope you never do, you would see what neutralizing a threat really is. Two tours in Nam plus other hotspots around the world gave me a PHD degree in understanding what it feels like to know your life is in mortal danger and what it takes to put the bad guy down so he stays down. If and when you ever have to see another human missing body parts or stitched across the chest with an M60 and still trying to shoot you or toss a grenade, you'll have a better understanding of why he did what he did. I pray you never have to see or go through what I did but if and when you do, come back and talk to me on an equal basis on this topic. Also, and it makes me sick to this day to see our soldiers done this way but try having about .05 of a second to make a shoot or no shoot decision and then have someone a few days later armchair quaterback what you did when they have all day to think of handling it this way or that.

So if a cop apprehends a suspect and puts him in cuffs, the suspect is still a threat. And the cop would be justified in holding a gun to the suspects head and blowing him away?

Right?

[-aiko-]

So if a cop apprehends a suspect and puts him in cuffs, the suspect is still a threat. And the cop would be justified in holding a gun to the suspects head and blowing him away?

Right?

Oh, absolutely. I mean the suspect could be a magician that could get out of his bindings. Or he could strangle the cop with the cuffs! Or maybe he's a professional kickboxer who could kill the cop with just his lower body. Killing the suspect because of the possibility of him still being a threat, a very unlikely one, is justifiable. Right? We should just kill him right?

...Oh wait, no.

[Purlina]

Oh, absolutely. I mean the suspect could be a magician that could get out of his bindings. Or he could strangle the cop with the cuffs! Or maybe he's a professional kickboxer who could kill the cop with just his lower body. Killing the suspect because of the possibility of him still being a threat, a very unlikely one, is justifiable. Right? We should just kill him right?

...Oh wait, no.

Your sarcasm detector is broken. You may want to get it checked....

[-aiko-]

Your sarcasm detector is broken. You may want to get it checked....

I was agreeing with you.

[quras]

So if a cop apprehends a suspect and puts him in cuffs, the suspect is still a threat. And the cop would be justified in holding a gun to the suspects head and blowing him away?

Right?

Ahh but they were not in cuffs. They were shot and laying on the ground. Then the man with a gun he could have very well been under the impression intruders are a threat right up until there dead.

I could see him having that mentality given his past job.

But I also have no trouble shooting a man in cuffs if he is still a threat as you said. Being a threat gets you shot in a great many cases.

[Purlina]

I was agreeing with you.

Doh, my mistake.

---------- Post added 2012-11-29 at 09:10 PM ----------

Ahh but they were not in cuffs. They were shot and laying on the ground. Then the man with a gun he could have very well been under the impression intruders are a threat right up until there dead.

I could see him having that mentality given his past job.

But I also have no trouble shooting a man in cuffs is he is still a threat as you said.

Cuffs don't guarantee that the suspect is a non-threat. Maybe the cop thought he was still in danger! Hell the suspect doesn't even have bullet holes in him yet. Surely the suspect can put up more of a fight then someone lying on the ground with bullets in her chest.

[quras]

SNIP...

Cuffs don't guarantee that the suspect is a non-threat. Maybe the cop thought he was still in danger!

Exactly - that's why if you're still a threat, you could be in cuffs and still get shot.

[Imuhdude]

The only non threat is a dead threat. In survival mode (which he was in) the only neutralized threat is a dead threat. If you've ever seen one day of combat and I hope you never do, you would see what neutralizing a threat really is. Two tours in Nam plus other hotspots around the world gave me a PHD degree in understanding what it feels like to know your life is in mortal danger and what it takes to put the bad guy down so he stays down. If and when you ever have to see another human missing body parts or stitched across the chest with an M60 and still trying to shoot you or toss a grenade, you'll have a better understanding of why he did what he did. I pray you never have to see or go through what I did but if and when you do, come back and talk to me on an equal basis on this topic. Also, and it makes me sick to this day to see our soldiers done this way but try having about .05 of a second to make a shoot or no shoot decision and then have someone a few days later armchair quaterback what you did when they have all day to think of handling it this way or that.

Well you're making the argument as to whether his fears and subsequent actions were reasonable. I contend they were not. In fact I contend this man knew there were 2 people and only 2 people that entered his home and laid in wait for them. Him pulling the first youth downstairs and then shooting the other one then not calling the police incase there were more lingering around seems to indicate he had knowledge and intent before those kids even entered his house.

[Purlina]

Exactly - that's why if you're still a threat, you could be in cuffs and still get shot.

Exactly, so you agree. Cops should shoot suspects in the head at point blank range, even when they have cuffs on.

[quras]

Exactly, so you agree. Cops should shoot suspects in the head at point blank range, even when they have cuffs on.

If they are still a threat I have no trouble with a center mass shot. If that shot goes to the head so be it.

The less indulgence we give to those breaking the law the better.

EDIT: Especially those that are appended in the case you're making up and are still a threat.

[Panoramixe]

I'm just wondering a few things after reading the story:
1) Why do people prefer a gun in their home over proper protection like burglar-proof windows and doors? I feel it would be a lot more prudent to make sure to prevent (clearly non-professional) burglars from entering than to massacre them in cold blood.
2) If you are claiming to be threatened by the burglar why go meet them gun loaded instead of calling the cops first?
3) Why do some people deem protecting stuff more valuable than human life? Of course you shouldn't just let them clean your house, but going in mob style is just sickening. The use of deadly force seems unnecessary in pretty much any case of home protection. If you can get a gun, you could get something to incapacitate people without killing them too couldn't you? I'm not much of a weapons lover but a taser or dart gun sound like proper alternatives to me.

Yeah yeah I'm a soft-hearted liberal who'll get screwed by life, I can live with that.

[SirRobin]

I'm just wondering a few things after reading the story:

I'll take a swing at it.

1) Why do people prefer a gun in their home over proper protection like burglar-proof windows and doors? I feel it would be a lot more prudent to make sure to prevent (clearly non-professional) burglars from entering than to massacre them in cold blood.

A firearm is a tool. A multipurpose tool. If you are attacked outside your home. Strong windows and doors won't do you any good. You can't go hunting or to a range and use strong windows and doors instead of a firearm. Well you could but it would be a lot more challenging. What if they trick you into opening the door. Strong windows and doors won't do you any good there. You have more options with a firearm.

2) If you are claiming to be threatened by the burglar why go meet them gun loaded instead of calling the cops first?

Well he supposedly stayed downstairs when he heard them breaking in and we don't know if he had a phone downstairs to call the police with.

3) Why do some people deem protecting stuff more valuable than human life? Of course you shouldn't just let them clean your house, but going in mob style is just sickening. The use of deadly force seems unnecessary in pretty much any case of home protection. If you can get a gun, you could get something to incapacitate people without killing them too couldn't you? I'm not much of a weapons lover but a taser or dart gun sound like proper alternatives to me.

They may not be just protecting their stuff. They may feel they are protecting their lives as well. He didn't go in "mob style" either. Supposedly he stayed downstairs and only fired on them when they started coming downstairs. His home had been broken into before and we don't know if the intruders "knew" he was home or not this time. Their "intentions" were, at the time, not known. A taser or dart is an alternative but they are hardly long range weapons.

Yeah yeah I'm a soft-hearted liberal who'll get screwed by life, I can live with that.

Hardly, I'm actually quite a conservative myself and your positions are valid. However, his decisions were valid ones as well. It will be up to the courts to decide if they were justifiable ones.

[Panoramixe]

I'll take a swing at it.

A firearm is a tool. A multipurpose tool. If you are attacked outside your home. Strong windows and doors won't do you any good. You can't go hunting or to a range and use strong windows and doors instead of a firearm. Well you could but it would be a lot more challenging. What if they trick you into opening the door. Strong windows and doors won't do you any good there. You have more options with a firearm.

You make some good points, it's just hard for me to see the world as such a dangerous place and a gun certainly doesn't seem like the solution. In Belgium owning a gun comes with a lot of rules, I believe even in your own home you can't keep both a gun and the ammo at the same place. Guns are not deemed a proper tool for self-defense here, let alone having one out on the street (which is probably a criminal offence) So from my point of view a burglar-proof home and avoiding stupid places at stupid hours seem like the only options and quite effective ones actually. It's just interesting how America evolved in a completely different direction. Although I'd feel more threatened by half the population carrying guns on the street (There probably won't be nearly as much, but hey if they are concealed it might as well be everyone.)

I just wonder what would happen in a crowded area when something "had to use their in self-defense".

Well he supposedly stayed downstairs when he heard them breaking in and we don't know if he had a phone downstairs to call the police with.
They may not be just protecting their stuff. They may feel they are protecting their lives as well. He didn't go in "mob style" either. Supposedly he stayed downstairs and only fired on them when they started coming downstairs. His home had been broken into before and we don't know if the intruders "knew" he was home or not this time. Their "intentions" were, at the time, not known. A taser or dart is an alternative but they are hardly long range weapons.

This part of the story is quite hazy which is nearly always the case with both journalism and eye witnesses. The article says he was in the basement and shot the buy who fell of the stairs, it didn't mention whether this was in the basement or if the dude went upstairs (which I figure most likely). This for me makes a huge difference between defending your life and going in for the kill because they be taking your stuffs.

Hardly, I'm actually quite a conservative myself and your positions are valid. However, his decisions were valid ones as well. It will be up to the courts to decide if they were justifiable ones.

It's great to meet conservatives who can make valid points in an eloquent manner, I tip my hat to you sir.

[Arkie]

Well you're making the argument as to whether his fears and subsequent actions were reasonable. I contend they were not. In fact I contend this man knew there were 2 people and only 2 people that entered his home and laid in wait for them. Him pulling the first youth downstairs and then shooting the other one then not calling the police incase there were more lingering around seems to indicate he had knowledge and intent before those kids even entered his house.

Again, if those two had been minding their own business and not doing a home invasion, they most likely would be alive today. Doesn't make a damn what he was doing according to your theories, if those two had been minding their own business and not been in his home then he would have never crossed paths with them. Those two had a history of break ins and this time was one time to many.

Should he have called the cops immediately, yes. Was he thinking straight and acting in what would be a considered a normal manner, no. Not after what had just transpired. Also, he should have made no statements to the cops without his lawyer present and excercised his right to remain silent. Those two teens weren't youths. One was 18, which is plenty old to join the military, the other 17 which means he could be charged as an adult. Bottom line is, don't do home invasions and don't get shot by homeowners.

[Imuhdude]

Again, if those two had been minding their own business and not doing a home invasion, they most likely would be alive today. Doesn't make a damn what he was doing according to your theories, if those two had been minding their own business and not been in his home then he would have never crossed paths with them. Those two had a history of break ins and this time was one time to many.

Should he have called the cops immediately, yes. Was he thinking straight and acting in what would be a considered a normal manner, no. Not after what had just transpired. Also, he should have made no statements to the cops without his lawyer present and excercised his right to remain silent. Those two teens weren't youths. One was 18, which is plenty old to join the military, the other 17 which means he could be charged as an adult. Bottom line is, don't do home invasions and don't get shot by homeowners.

This isn't an argument as to whether these two shouldn't be committing a crime and the fact that the end result can be death, nor is it an an indictment against anyone who has shot and killed someone defending their home. This man wasn't committing an act of defense. He intentionally laid in wait for these two in order to kill them. This was his intent to punish these two and he waited for them to burglarize his home again to do so. Vigilantism is against the law, you are not the police, shoult it be considered acceptable it will lead to anarchy which will result in the opposite effect of the purpose of having law and order.

[Deleted]

This isn't an argument as to whether these two shouldn't be committing a crime and the fact that the end result can be death, nor is it an an indictment against anyone who has shot and killed someone defending their home. This man wasn't committing an act of defense. He intentionally laid in wait for these two in order to kill them. This was his intent to punish these two and he waited for them to burglarize his home again to do so. Vigilantism is against the law, you are not the police, shoult it be considered acceptable it will lead to anarchy which will result in the opposite effect of the purpose of having law and order.

So... he should have let them burgle him? In America, people own guns so they can defend themselves. If I was downstairs, and had a gun, and heard two people break in, I'd have likely done the same. I wouldn't rish being shot or stabbed by these thieves by revealing where I was by trying to call the police.

[Lilfrier]

Did he NEED to kill them? Absolutely not.

Do I think he went to far with it? Absolutely.

HOWEVER, the children (read: classmates) trying to paint these two in a positive light is ridiculous. No, they didn't need to die, but they didn't need to be breaking and entering. The article said that the girl was a former (or current, because you never know) drug abuser. The guy apparently wasn't the cleanest-cut of people either. People are kind of taking the wrong approach to this, saying that because the man went too far with his defense, the robbers (I don't want to say victims, and I wouldn't call this murder, because they weren't just innocent people killed for no reason) are being painted as at least SOMEWHAT upstanding, friendly people, as if that excuses their actions and should factor into the punishment for this man.

What would I give as punishment? I really have no idea. It's a very tough gray area here. On the one hand, he unnecessarily killed those two kids, and deserves to be punished. On the other hand, I don't want to put those defending themselves in a position where they endanger themselves wondering how much trouble they will get in for trying to defend themselves from robbers or general attackers. Maybe 5 years per kid, 10 years total would suffice. I wouldn't give him life or try him for murder, more likely a low-level manslaughter charge or something.

[Silhouette of Seraphim]

3) Why do some people deem protecting stuff more valuable than human life? Of course you shouldn't just let them clean your house, but going in mob style is just sickening.

The majority of the things I have represent the time I've spent by working to obtain them.

My time is worth more than their shithead lives.

[SirRobin]

You make some good points, it's just hard for me to see the world as such a dangerous place and a gun certainly doesn't seem like the solution. In Belgium owning a gun comes with a lot of rules, I believe even in your own home you can't keep both a gun and the ammo at the same place. Guns are not deemed a proper tool for self-defense here, let alone having one out on the street (which is probably a criminal offence) So from my point of view a burglar-proof home and avoiding stupid places at stupid hours seem like the only options and quite effective ones actually. It's just interesting how America evolved in a completely different direction. Although I'd feel more threatened by half the population carrying guns on the street (There probably won't be nearly as much, but hey if they are concealed it might as well be everyone.)

I just wonder what would happen in a crowded area when something "had to use their in self-defense".

It is definitely "different" on this side of the pond. Couldn't say for sure whether "better" or "worse" could be used, but "different?" Absolutely. Whatever the causes might be, gun ownership and even use are apparently viewed more positively by a much larger percentage of the population over here than in Europe in general. Since the won't likely change dramatically any time soon. Its more a "then make lemonade" scenario.

The home owner possibly using his guns inappropriately being the reason he has been charged with murder. So "firewalls," so to speak, do exist in our legal system. Personally I would prefer more gun ownership, not less. And more accountability when those weapons are used, not less.

This part of the story is quite hazy which is nearly always the case with both journalism and eye witnesses. The article says he was in the basement and shot the buy who fell of the stairs, it didn't mention whether this was in the basement or if the dude went upstairs (which I figure most likely). This for me makes a huge difference between defending your life and going in for the kill because they be taking your stuffs.

There are quite a few unknown details which would affect whether or not he could still justifiably feel his life was in danger. Hopefully the trial, if it happens, will explore those details.

It's great to meet conservatives who can make valid points in an eloquent manner, I tip my hat to you sir.

Thank you for the compliment but I am by no means a "republican" type conservative. So I may not be actually be part of the group you are thinking of.

[Panoramixe]

The majority of the things I have represent the time I've spent by working to obtain them.

My time is worth more than their shithead lives.

You're completely entitled to that opinion, heck I'd write a boldly worded letter to protect your rights to voice said opinion.

Sadly I can only respond by saying it sickens me.