---------- Post added 2012-11-27 at 03:08 PM ----------
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.
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...
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.
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.
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!
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?
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.
"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)