1. #961
    Quote Originally Posted by Kasierith View Post
    Person with guns goes trigger happy and point blank executes a girl for no perceivable reason (or was she going to get up after having a few shots put into her chest and run off with his tv) should very expressly be removed from society. But don't hope for an insanity plea. His attempting to hide evidence afterword instead of calling an ambulance/police ruined that for him.
    He was under great duress. Remember the head line a month ago about the girl strangling her new born and hiding the body? Did you think she should go to jail forever? People don't act rationally when under the kind of stress from taking a life. Just because he is old doesn't mean he is any different. In fact he has been victimized before and the law failed to protect him then, forcing his hand in this case.

  2. #962
    Moderator Kasierith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St Petersburg
    Posts
    10,501
    Quote Originally Posted by Gavril View Post
    He was charged because as the article states Prosecutors also said Ersland obviously did not think of the boy as a threat because he walked right over the boy and has his back to the boy as he gets the second gun. This is not the case here where he said he feared for his life so while similar they won't be able to prove that he did or didn't fear for his life.
    Alright, I'll play along. Tell me. If you are fearing for your life.... do you reach down, grab the threat thus tying up your hands, and drag her across the floor? Doesn't the fact that he physically touched and moved her, and willingly got that close before finishing her off, not seem a little bit wrong for the "it was self defense" act?

    ---------- Post added 2012-11-27 at 03:08 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Moadar View Post
    He was under great duress. Remember the head line a month ago about the girl strangling her new born and hiding the body? Did you think she should go to jail forever? People don't act rationally when under the kind of stress from taking a life. Just because he is old doesn't mean he is any different. In fact he has been victimized before and the law failed to protect him then, forcing his hand in this case.
    Sorry, vigilante justice isn't legal. Stop trying to think that the world is Batman.

  3. #963
    Herald of the Titans Mall Security's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    In Security Watching
    Posts
    2,758
    Quote Originally Posted by Kasierith View Post
    Than you truly need to reevaluate your sense of logic. From what I can see, although I could speculate otherwise, the murder of the boy was justifiable. The initial shooting of the girl was... tentative, but defensible. The execution and premeditated shooting of the girl was not.

    ---------- Post added 2012-11-27 at 03:00 PM ----------



    The laws in the state permitted his initial shooting of the person, even though it was in his place of business. The conviction came from the execution, not putting the person down to begin with. You're taking a very subjective interpretation of that article.



    Again according to to his account of things, which most judges would throw out with a decent attorney, unless their was a philological evaluation to go along with it. Which I am sure will come into play anyways, but either way breaking into someones home is not rational, and it isn't logical to assume they would behave any prescribed way cornered in their basement after already having shot and had felt the need to kill one.




    You're other case AGAIN NOT the same thing, and one of the main reasons for the conviction along with eye witness accounts was the video. But in any case not the same thing, the guy wasn't alone, he wasn't assume to be scared according to the evidence, and no case could be made otherwise, and personally, I am glad he got first degree murder, because i disagree with THAT sort of behavior based on the CIRCUMSTANCES of this being a business.


    But try walking stealing money from a bank, or a Armored car, you don't even need a gun, just the assumption of one and they can shoot to kill, and i find that can even debatable.



    But this 64 year old man having his property assaulted by two fully grown teenagers, after they broke in, and based on the stupidity of his account of what happened, baring no similar situations like this in his past, NO, I would give him the benefit.

  4. #964
    Quote Originally Posted by theandersc View Post
    I'm not saying my country is perfect, far from it. I'm just saying that the law that entitles you to shoot someone in your own apartment is wrong.
    I'm informing you that this isn't the case in all states; it's not a federal law, but a locally decided one.

    Quote Originally Posted by theandersc View Post
    And I can result in two young kids death. And when looking in this thread I can compare the mentality from these two countries, it just scares me, that so many people think it's okay.
    That's confirmation bias rather than having an objective look at the circumstance. I'm American and outright reject the idea that shooting someone is acceptable as anything other than the absolute last recourse. It should never, ever be a first option. This data point, and the other Americans saying the same don't register though, only the gun nuts do.

    Quote Originally Posted by theandersc View Post
    I hope you all enjoy your guns and your national debt over there in the land of the "free"
    Go fuck yourself.

    Infracted.
    Last edited by Majad; 2012-11-27 at 02:24 PM.

  5. #965
    I am astounded of how many assumptions people make. That article does not say nearly enough to conclude all that much. It does not specify (in detail) were or how many gun shots he fired, how many they were hit by or precisely were. Without that knowledge it is impossible for us to know if they would have died anyway and if it was a mercy kill or a murder. Yes several gunshot wounds to the chest could very likely be fatal, but if he had called an ambulance there is still a chance she would have survived. Without any more concrete forensic evidence it is impossible for us to say anything more specific about this incident. Everything is just assumptions in this particular case.

    What i find very disturbing is that so many people find it so easy to be judge, jury and executioner. We have laws for a reason. I really really find it creepy that someone would think that breaking and entering is equal to murder? Now i am not talking this exact case, because in this case we do not have sufficient evidence to come up with anything else than assumptions. But do all you people really think that you deserve to die if you break into someones house and steal their TV? I do not say that i think B&E is in any way justifiable, but i would not in my wildest dreams have thought that so many people (well articulated and with what seems as a lot thought put into their arguments) would mean that breaking and entering is an offense that justifies murder?

    I guess this is just difference of opinion, but i thought we had evolved or justice system for a reason. Is a human life really not worth a second chance in these cases?
    Well just my opinion i guess, feel free to answer some of the questions in my long text, i would like to try and understand your reasoning, but right now i just cannot...

  6. #966
    Quote Originally Posted by Alkin View Post
    And in the end, having someone's property stolen is a lot better then dealing with a double homicide, regardless of the fact that the people are guilty.
    orly? since we're in the realm of assumptions, how do we know that the 2 drug addicted criminals wouldnt have killed or beaten up the old man if he hadnt the chance to strike first?
    i love how most people who accuse the old man automatically assume that the 2 robbers were the "innocent popular students" that the article makes them to be.
    Last edited by Gniral; 2012-11-27 at 02:13 PM.

  7. #967
    Quote Originally Posted by Aerieadk View Post
    I don't have time to read the full story but I think I got the gist of it.

    If they broke into his home then he has a right to defend himself and his property. In the event of their deaths he should have called the police as soon as the crime occurred though. However I know this will be controversial so that's just my take.
    Well. he shot them, then when they were on the floor dying finished them off, he went into vivid detail when speaking to the police, basically he shot the girl execution style when she was virtually incapacitated.

  8. #968
    Quote Originally Posted by Wikko View Post
    Isnt it kinda cool when you refuse to dismiss laws that were created in 1776 by your founding fathers but condone the laws of other country which are just as stupid as the right to bear arms. In example islamic laws where you can stone a woman for showing her face or something. Even tho the latter laws go way back.
    If you think those are equally stupid, the problem lies on your end, not mine.

  9. #969
    Moderator Kasierith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St Petersburg
    Posts
    10,501
    Quote Originally Posted by Mall Security View Post
    But this 64 year old man having his property assaulted by two fully grown teenagers, after they broke in, and based on the stupidity of his account of what happened, baring no similar situations like this in his past, NO, I would give him the benefit.
    Give me a suitable reason for how a girl with several bullets in her chest as well as a rifle shot somewhere, who he felt safe enough to drag across the floor, constitutes an immediate threat to his life, and you *might* have a point.

  10. #970
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealed Shut View Post
    lol, look it up yourself if you don't believe me. i'm not obligated to do the research you choose not to before blurting out stuff.
    You're obgliated to provide sources for your claim. You claimed this is Minnesota's law. Then surely you can prove it by pointing to the actual section of the Minnesota code that contains what you claimed to be the law in that state.

    But of course you can't, because you didn't take that from the actual law. You copied pasted it from Wikipedia while ignoring the clarification that there is in fact a duty of retreat in the very next sentence.

  11. #971
    Pandaren Monk GeordieMagpie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    U.K,England, Newcastle
    Posts
    1,833
    Honestly, they deserved to be shot, HOWEVER they didn't deserve to die, perhaps he should've notified the police earlier and use less deadly methods of self defense but I definately understand where he's thinking, not sure how I would've reacted in said situation.
    Howay the lads!

  12. #972
    Quote Originally Posted by Kasierith View Post
    Sorry, vigilante justice isn't legal. Stop trying to think that the world is Batman.
    Jailing someone not in the right frame of mind isn't legal either. He was obviously not fully in control of himself after shooting the boy.

  13. #973
    Quote Originally Posted by kazih View Post
    You made no relevant points there.
    You seriously have to be kidding me. This guy is 64 years old, virtually helpless to defend himself against 2 teens. You have to put yourself in his shoes. When I was 17 or 18 I knew damn well what is right or wrong. If you are breaking into someones house you are not innocent, and most likely prepared to protect yourself or do bodily harm to someone. This guy knew that. i knew that. I am sure the 2 were dressed in their robbing house outfits. He had no idea if they were armed or not. How would he know if there are others in the house as well?

    Is a 64 year old guy supposed to tie them up one at a time while holding a shotgun on them simultaneously? Or have them stand in a corner and point the gun until the cops came?

    He probably saw sets of feet about to walk down the stairs where his light was probably on meaning they knew someone was there.

    Are you going to wait for these sets of feet to come down and shoot you? I can't even believe the lack of street savvy almost all of you have.

    Is he supposed to pat them both down and read them their rights?...or maybe ask them why they did it and try to offer drug counciling?

    So again, if you were a 64 year old, home alone and 2 strangers were there AGAIN to rob you what would you do? He has been robbed several times in a few months for shit he worked for. If you can't be safe at home or keep you hard earned shit safe...what else is there to call this country great?

  14. #974
    Quote Originally Posted by darkwarrior42 View Post
    It baffles me that you think people shouldn't have the right to defend themselves or their property.

    (If you think deadly force isn't permissible, then you think that no violence is permissible, since any violence carries the risk of death.... and if you think no violence is permissible, that means you think people in your home should have free reign until the police show up, assuming you're actually able to make a call for help and they get there in time.)

    I think the guy in this case clearly went too far, but I don't understand what's so evil about defending yourself or your property.
    I think it's okay to defend yourself IF you are being assaulted, but in this case the old man was the violater since he attacked them, when he WASN't being threatened, when he could have just called the police? Isn't it the authorities duty to protect us?

  15. #975
    Well bottom line is, everyone is in the wrong here and even the old man realized it as he tried to stash the bodies initially.

    Breaking into a house, you run the risk of getting shot/killed. The kids gambled and lost; they've received their punishment. But once they were incapacitated, the old man had no business executing them. Now it's time for him to receive his punishment.

    The only question in my mind is whether he should go to the slammer or the loony bin.

  16. #976
    Quote Originally Posted by Mall Security View Post
    But try walking stealing money from a bank, or a Armored car, you don't even need a gun, just the assumption of one and they can shoot to kill, and i find that can even debatable..
    But can they continue to shoot them in the head when they're down. No

  17. #977
    Quote Originally Posted by Moadar View Post
    Jailing someone not in the right frame of mind isn't legal either. He was obviously not fully in control of himself after shooting the boy.
    Yes that must be why he sat on a chair waiting for the girl to show up before shooting her too.

  18. #978
    Quote Originally Posted by theandersc View Post
    I think it's okay to defend yourself IF you are being assaulted, but in this case the old man was the violater since he attacked them, when he WASN't being threatened, when he could have just called the police? Isn't it the authorities duty to protect us?
    Authorities take time to arrive, especially in a rural setting it may be too late. Everyone, including the old man, has the right to defend themselves. The problem is, the old man did not stop at self defense.

  19. #979
    "2 drug addicts, get shot, after repeatedly breaking into frail and nervous pensioners house, in a State where you're allowed to use DEADLY force to protect your own home"

    Is it just be thinking that if one of these 2 wasn't a girl, this wouldn't have been such a huge issue in the media? (I really hate to say it, but if they weren't white I don't know if it would even have made the papers)

  20. #980
    Quote Originally Posted by Gniral View Post
    orly? since we're in the realm of assumptions, how do we know that the 2 drug addicted criminals wouldnt have killed or beaten up the old man if he hadnt the chance to strike first?
    i love how most people how accuse the old man automatically assume that the 2 robbers were the "innocent popular students" that the article make them to be.
    I don't care if they were popular or psychotic and in need of mental help. Also what assumption did i make, I made a statement. Money should be invested in reforms which work in a preventative manner to educate and rehabilitate potential criminals, rather than letting people deliver vigilante justice and unnecessary violence.

Posting Permissions

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