1. #3401
    Quote Originally Posted by Ducon View Post
    This all 2 pages in. I do suck at english so might be a reason why I fail to see explanation here.
    I doubt it's a problem with English seeing as I already simplified it so much in that post. More like you're just desperately trying to find something to attack me with by trawling over a bunch of week old post.

    Either way, the explanation was that the killer himself made statements to the police, describing actions that constitute murder. So the idea that "all you can take away" is "two teens... got dead" is ridiculous. It ignores everything that old man actually said about the case.

  2. #3402
    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    I doubt it's a problem with English seeing as I already simplified it so much in that post. More like you're just desperately trying to find something to attack me with by trawling over a bunch of week old post.

    Either way, the explanation was that the killer himself made statements to the police, describing actions that constitute murder. So the idea that "all you can take away" is "two teens... got dead" is ridiculous. It ignores everything that old man actually said about the case.
    But your making assumptions as to how the court will rule base on your understanding and interpretation of the law by calling it murder. he made statements that could be considered murder. its not murder until a judge renders a verdict. until then i think its self defense. you think its murder. i say he suffered a psychotic break as a result of shooting two intruders. need an evaluation by a psychiatrist on the shooter to determine anything more. Till then hes innocent till proven otherwise

  3. #3403
    Quote Originally Posted by tombstoner139 View Post
    But your making assumptions as to how the court will rule base on your understanding and interpretation of the law by calling it murder. he made statements that could be considered murder. its not murder until a judge renders a verdict. until then i think its self defense. you think its murder. i say he suffered a psychotic break as a result of shooting two intruders. need an evaluation by a psychiatrist on the shooter to determine anything more. Till then hes innocent till proven otherwise
    Innocent of what? He's not innocent of actually killing the teens for he actually did kill the teens.

    So if a man walks up to 10 people in the street randomly and kills them all is it self defense if he says it is? Remember he is going to have a case and all but there is a video of him just killing 10 random people including kids and his claim is self defense.

  4. #3404
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristeus View Post
    Innocent of what? He's not innocent of actually killing the teens for he actually did kill the teens.

    So if a man walks up to 10 people in the street randomly and kills them all is it self defense if he says it is? Remember he is going to have a case and all but there is a video of him just killing 10 random people including kids and his claim is self defense.
    i'll go with your argument (the because i say it's self defense defense), but its really bad since your extrapolating from a completely different situation. 1 man home alone vs. 10 random street killings.

    in your example, i don't think a because i say self defense plea would hold up because he approached the victims. assuming he's a mentally ill paranoid schizophrenic as a reason for killing 10 random people. theirs a good chance he was diagnosed prior to the incident and when it goes to trial, the preexisting medical condition will be a factor in the case. a mental fitness hearing will be held before the trial. If found unfit ... no trial. chances are the person will be in an institute for the rest of there lives. if however he/she is found fit then you can try the because i said defense, but in your example the video tape would be very damming. kind a what they call an open and shut case.

    vs.

    one man home alone and 2 intruders dead. A court will determine guilt with all avalabel evidence, such as the victims blood work and the shooters mental health. until then i say he did nothing wrong, but once found guilty of murder as opposed to manslaughter, i say crucify him. i will defend anyones right to a speedy good quality trial. until then i re guard them as innocent even if the facts that i have available say otherwise.

  5. #3405
    Grunt
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Orgrimmar
    Posts
    10
    I support him defending his home, but I don't think he needed to kill them. Even if he just shot one of their feet, they would both get the point that this guy is willing to defend himself, and that we shouldn't have done this.

    Then, he should have called the police.

  6. #3406
    The Patient
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    The State Of Tennessee In The U.S
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    Or they could explain to you why the prosecutors are correct. You are allowed to use deadly force in self defense. When the threat ceases to exist, further use of deadly force becomes "more than necessary". He shot them, they were down, and offered no more immediate threat. However you spin it, that final execution style shot from under the girl - whom he felt safe enough to drag - was execessive use of force that became prima facie murder.
    Dude, I just wanna say that we have no effect on what happens or happened. This isnt a debate about what will happen. Its a debate about what SHOULD happen. It doesn't matter what the law is. Laws can be unjust. The debate is not about what the law is. Its about what it SHOULD be.

    Legality does not = Morality

    I do NOW believe that this man should be charged somewhat but still dude...Stating what laws are is irrelevant in an argument of morality.

    ---------- Post added 2012-12-11 at 06:37 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Revox View Post
    I support him defending his home, but I don't think he needed to kill them. Even if he just shot one of their feet, they would both get the point that this guy is willing to defend himself, and that we shouldn't have done this.

    Then, he should have called the police.
    I believe he should be charged BUT not because he killed them. Because of the dragging thing and the not calling the police thing. When you are in panic and fear you do not think "hey i will shot them in the feet herp derp" You just SHOT! Good God!

    ---------- Post added 2012-12-11 at 06:40 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by tombstoner139 View Post
    i'll go with your argument (the because i say it's self defense defense), but its really bad since your extrapolating from a completely different situation. 1 man home alone vs. 10 random street killings.

    in your example, i don't think a because i say self defense plea would hold up because he approached the victims. assuming he's a mentally ill paranoid schizophrenic as a reason for killing 10 random people. theirs a good chance he was diagnosed prior to the incident and when it goes to trial, the preexisting medical condition will be a factor in the case. a mental fitness hearing will be held before the trial. If found unfit ... no trial. chances are the person will be in an institute for the rest of there lives. if however he/she is found fit then you can try the because i said defense, but in your example the video tape would be very damming. kind a what they call an open and shut case.

    vs.

    one man home alone and 2 intruders dead. A court will determine guilt with all avalabel evidence, such as the victims blood work and the shooters mental health. until then i say he did nothing wrong, but once found guilty of murder as opposed to manslaughter, i say crucify him. i will defend anyones right to a speedy good quality trial. until then i re guard them as innocent even if the facts that i have available say otherwise.
    Well no because that is clearly NOT self defense. Not everything is about math and proof. Ever heard of "Logic" or "Common Sense"? You may want to look it up. Anyone that has either of those things would be able to see that there is a HUGE difference between a guy killing ten people in the street and a guy killing two intruders.

    EDIT: Oh and despite what some people seem to think Math and Logic are not the same thing or remotely close to being the same thing.
    Last edited by wowfunny251; 2012-12-11 at 06:41 PM.

Posting Permissions

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