Man Kills Two Teens Robbers

[Doctor Amadeus]

Yeah she was totally coming after him by "walking" down the stairs.


So am I.

You aren't shocked, You are pretty good at grand standing and making pointless arguments to defend your own biases. If you were anywhere near as smart as you think you are, you wouldn't be shock, you would understand humanity better than you do.

[Deleted]

Well he was allowed to shoot 2 people that fucking were trying to ROB HIS HOUSE.



He was not allowed to KILL them.

Shoot them in the arm at most so that they can buzz off and go to a hospital. Or fire a warning shot.

[Zdrasti]

He needs help. He was a functional member of society until his victimization at the hands of these two criminals.

If he was sane (which a lot of his actions indicate he was) then he is also a criminal. Both sides were in the wrong here. While it might help you internally to dehumanize someone, it doesn't make your argument stronger.

[Moadar]

Yeah she was totally coming after him by "walking" down the stairs.

What else can you see it as? She didn't belong there and certainly wasn't there by his invitation. She heard gun shots and was approaching, what else could her intentions be interpreted as other than hostile?

[Deleted]

Yes it's from the mail, but that doesn't change the story.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...st_read_module

Knowing this forum I wonder how many people see no problem with this.

there 17-18 and should known better then breaking into a guys house. I dont feel any sympathy for them or there fate but i do feel sympathy for friends and family that needs to suffer for there daft choices which cost them there lifes. The man should however only shoot them or attempt a kill if threatened by hes life however and i doubt those kids were murderers just being two teenagers doing something reckless and really stupid. After reading the whole story the man went for overkill he doesent seem to be alright in the head if he justified the kills like he did and should indeed go in for murder but if those two kids would be shoot dead otherwise (without it being overkill) then they got themself to blame really.

[smelltheglove]

personally, id consider a coup de grace a dealbreaker for a self defense strategy. luckily for him im not on the jury or he'd be fucked. unfortunately for him i suspect that enough of his jury share my view

[Deleted]

As a left leaning white male who just purchased a handgun for home defense, I don't see the sympathy here. Home invasion/robbery/burglary is one of the lowest forms of crime IMO. If a person can't feel safe in their own home, something is very wrong. Our house was burglarized when I was young and they stripped us of everything... not only material possessions, but of our sense of security as well. Luckily we weren't home at the time, but it was traumatic for me and my parents for years after.

I do think that the home owner went overboard by dragging, "executing" them, and delaying reporting this to the authorities. There were mentions of past burglaries in the home, so you have no idea what this man would have went through. He was probably pushed past his breaking point and snapped. Like I said, if a person can't feel safe in their own home, something is very wrong. When someone forcibly enters your home, you don't have time to sit and interview them. I'm sure these young kids weren't breaking into his house to cook him a nice Thanksgiving meal. If he would have stopped when he neutralized the threat and called the authorities, this would be case closed. These kids made a grave mistake and broke into the wrong house and this is what happens. This could have been easily prevented if these kids could have just respected another person's property.

tl;dr - Don't break into someone's house and you won't get shot.

[semaphore]

You aren't shocked, You are pretty good at grand standing and making pointless arguments to defend your own biases. If you were anywhere near as smart as you think you are, you wouldn't be shock, you would understand humanity better than you do.

Whooooosh~


Infracted

Don't spam.

[Sealed Shut]

It works in the civiliced world to have rules for weapons. There's a few gangs here that have weapons, but overall people don't have it.
If it's hard to come by, and you get a severe punishment for even carrying a knife, with no reason, less walk around with it, and less feel forced to carry one.
I have a bow and some knifes. Schweiz armyknife! Lethal i tell you.
The bow is because i want to hunt with it, and i sure as hell would never pull it against a human being.

I know it's hard to believe, but here theives don't carry weapons most of the time. They don't have reason to, since there's not really any risk of somebody blindly trying to kill you for the fun of it.
Yeah. I think he enjoyed his "righteous" killing of those kids.

Terridon, your thought process of 'no weapons' would make more sense if that was the law from the start and everyone and their brother didn't have one already.
How about you step into the present and realize that most do have weapons, and if there was ever a law against them, only the law abiding would be effected. Every criminal would still possess a weapon.
Besides, one of our founding rights is the right to bear arms. that will never change no matter how bad of an idea you think it is.

[Doctor Amadeus]

This is the problem with allowing random citizens to have guns in their homes...some just don't have the ability to restrain themselves in certain situations. People think that just because laws allow them to defend themselves in their home, means they SHOULD use lethal force in every situation...

I am sure if this guy had pulled the gun on them and told them to get down, they would have complied, the old man should have called the cops and let them handle the situation. It seems he didn't even give the teens a chance to surrender themselves.

I don't condone the teens behavior, but death was not an appropriate sentence for them. Going to prison would have been much more satisfying.

Spoken like a true narcissistic sociopath, what others are allowed, what ethics and morals you place on other peoples safety and what you see as fit for how to defend their life, you are superior or more thoughtful than anybody else.

[Moadar]

If he was sane (which a lot of his actions indicate he was) then he is also a criminal. Both sides were in the wrong here. While it might help you internally to dehumanize someone, it doesn't make your argument stronger.

His actions including the bravado about the shooting makes me believe he was anything but sane. I am not dehumanizing anyone, the home owner is the victim in a home invasion, and this guy has been victimized multiple times.

[Sorshen]

Disgusting to see so many people trying to justify and defend execution-like second degree murder, like it's "punishment for stealing, yo!"

[semaphore]

What else can you see it as? She didn't belong there and certainly wasn't there by his invitation. She heard gun shots and was approaching, what else could her intentions be interpreted as other than hostile?

Gee, I don't know, maybe she heard gunshots and came to check if her cousin is alright?

[Jeleh]

Not sure about Horkymon, but I don't think that I'd be able to make a judgement call like that in a split second when trying to defend my family. Good on you for being such a super human though.

Unarmed, already shot several times, doesn't require very much judgement at all. Problem is people see castle doctrine as they can freely kill. It all goes back to idiots with guns at the end of the day.

[Alkin]

your assumption was that without the house owner's reaction they would have simply stolen something, leaving the house quietly without doing any harm to the old man. you think it is a " property stolen vs double homicide" case, how do you know that it wouldn't have been a single homicide/beatup case if the 2 criminals weren't stopped?

You have, unsurprisingly completely ignored my point. I recognize the fact that he was in potential danger, I am not standing up for the kids, im pointing out the fact that there are serious flaws in public perception if a man can use unnecessary force, killing two people, one of them a minor, simply because they were trespassing. There was a similar story where a young Chinese boy was trick-or-treating, he didn't know much english and was shot by a trigger happy guy. I'm talking about the issue on a larger scale rather than this particular story.

[Holofernes]

Yet another case where the Castle Doctrine claimed innocent lives.

Calling drug addicted burglars, who robbed this guy for the 9. time, as innocent is hard stuff.

[Zdrasti]

Well he was allowed to shoot 2 people that fucking were trying to ROB HIS HOUSE.



He was not allowed to KILL them.

Shoot them in the arm at most so that they can buzz off and go to a hospital. Or fire a warning shot.

Hell, shoot to inflict maximum damage. If it kills, so be it.

But once they're no longer a threat you no longer have the right to continue injuring/killing them. He could have used a pillow to smother them for all it matters, at that point he was no longer defending himself but executing two people.

[Terridon]

You aren't shocked, You are pretty good at grand standing and making pointless arguments to defend your own biases. If you were anywhere near as smart as you think you are, you wouldn't be shock, you would understand humanity better than you do.

You are pretty good at grand standing and making pointless arguments to defend your own biases. If you were anywhere near as smart as you think you are, you wouldn't be shock, you would understand humanity better than you do.

Se what i did there?

[Horkymon]

Really, I have a different recollection of this bunch of people who incorrectly cites the Minnesota castle law because they think the Wikipedia description is the same as the actual law; ignores scientific evidence to claim that gunshot victims are doomed to die, and argues that it wasn't murder because... he's not convicted yet? Or something.

---------- Post added 2012-11-27 at 02:05 PM ----------


No law allows him to kill them like this.

You have a recollection of people that directly cite the Minnesota law, yet try to snub your nose at them as you'd rather not read information but demand it be spoon-fed to you while you stand on your soapbox spewing your opinion over and over again.

Grats on having the loudest voice in the thread. /golfclap peace.

[Deleted]

If you were in his shoes, and you knew there were potentially dangerous people inside of your home, do you wait downstairs, killing them execution style as they come down the stairs, or do you leave the house, call the police, alert a neighbour? And don't use the whole 'he wasn't thinking clearly, it was all very traumatic for him' defence, because when it comes to killing someone in cold blood that defence doesn't really hold up.

Obviously you have never been in a situation like that... it's not like the movies and clear, rational thought goes out the window.