Man Kills Two Teens Robbers

[Uennie]

It was fine with me until he killed them. If he hadn't killed them they'd be hoodlums but now they're martyrs. It's a hard situation, you want to be sad for them (or empathize a little), but they were robbing a house. These teen "role models" were robbing a home, and everyone's overlooking that to turn them into some kind of heroes. Everyone involved should be ashamed. They're victims of a bad circumstance that yes admittedly they placed themselves in. Everyone's at fault here, just the old man moreso because he went berserk.

[Kasierith]

As far as what he's told police? Well that's where the "shock" part comes in. It can set in quickly and last for a couple of days. He may not be remembering clearly. Let's not forget police officers tendency to, how shall we say, "lead" suspects during questioning? I don't see anything about an attorney being present during questioning. Nor how long it lasted. For an old man who has just been through a traumatic experience? I suspect there are a lot more details that will come out as he mentally recovers.

Did either article indicate anything involving shock?

[Silhouette of Seraphim]

Come on...you think I'm more of a sociopath than you when you don't give a shit when people are killed? "captaining the USS Makeshitup" LOL

Sure. You're actively hoping something bad happens to another person.

I just have a casual indifference.

[SirRobin]

So let's get this clear right now.

Woman breaks into mans house. Man captures woman, ties her up, locks her in basement, rapes her repeatedly, then tortures her to death. You'd be like "whatever she shouldn't have broken into the house"

Wow people like you are a real problem.

In my opinion, if he rapes her, there is no reasonable way it could be concluded that he would still be justifiably afraid for his life at that point.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

I personally think he shouldn't of shot them even if stealing. I wouldn't use a gun but if someone has to tell them to back off and call the police. If they don't back off better give a warning shot and all that and if one really feels *justified* well...do what you must even if I disagree with it.

Sure. You're actively hoping something bad happens to another person.

I just have a casual indifference.

Or apathy.

[Kasierith]

In my opinion, if he rapes her, there is no reasonable way it could be concluded that he would still be justifiably afraid for his life at that point.

But he was in "shock."

[SirRobin]

Did either article indicate anything involving shock?

Nope. Nor any indication of a defense attorney being present. Nor any indication of how long the interrogation lasted. Quite a few unanswered questions.

[Deleted]

99% of the posters defending the actions of mr smith here simply ignore how law works in cases like this.
There is such thing as EXCESS OF SELF DEFENCE.

Not many argue the right of defending your own family and house.
The thing is, this man stopped being the victim after the first shot.
If someone wants to punch you and you give him a right hand, he falls down, you hit him again while he's down, the SECOND PUNCH is where the problem lies. It's not necessary once the target is NOT A THREAT to you anymore. The defence could build up a case of how the two robbers on the floor were still a threat but i cant see this being accepted.

He also went as far as dragging bodies, changing weapon, hiding them for a day and whatnot so he really stepped PAST that line big time.
He's definitely guilty.

[ovm33]

It would have been manslaughter if he just kept shooting after she was down. It became murder when he shot, his gun jammed, so he GOT ANOTHER, dragged her over to her cousin, shot her in the head. That's not manslaughter.

What, in my non-legal expert opinion makes it manslaughter as opposed to murder are the mitigating circumstances. Circumstances he did not create. The guy had just been involved in a shootout and adrenaline alone would have him not thinking as clearly as he should be. That being said, he still did kill someone who he didn't need to, or could be reasonably expecting to think he needed to. Once again, he moved the girl before delivering the Coup De Grace. He knew she was no longer a threat but killed her anyways.

But it's not murder IMO due to the mitigating circumstances.

[Mister K]

This is not the part we're justifying with shock.

You are talking about the "shock" when you act without thinking, something happens you are in the shock and boom you snap and shit goes down. Right?

[Kasierith]

Nope. Nor any indication of a defense attorney being present. Nor any indication of how long the interrogation lasted. Quite a few unanswered questions.

If you're assuming that he was denied his rights as a US citizen to be legally represented, than I'll have to call that a facetious argument. You're also basing your entire discussion on a subjective hypothetical.

As for entering no plea... perhaps its a measure of guilt.

[SirRobin]

But he was in "shock."

Rape wouldn't normally be covered by shock.

[Uennie]

Themius I'm just going to say that your rape analogy is absolutely awful, sorry. Doesn't work here.

EDIT: I typed someone else's name by accident, I don't know why sorry eep.

[SirRobin]

Shock covers his behavior after the trauma, not before or during. Shock is the result of the trauma, specifically "detachment."

[Mister K]

This all reminds me of burglary which happened few years back, not that similar but a man was charged who defended him self.

A kid or two broke into a house, a man and his son chased them and beat the shit out of them and caused brain damage. I believe the robbers got away while the ''defendants'' were prosecuted.

[Porcell]

What, in my non-legal expert opinion makes it manslaughter as opposed to murder are the mitigating circumstances. Circumstances he did not create. The guy had just been involved in a shootout and adrenaline alone would have him not thinking as clearly as he should be. That being said, he still did kill someone who he didn't need to, or could be reasonably expecting to think he needed to. Once again, he moved the girl before delivering the Coup De Grace. He knew she was no longer a threat but killed her anyways.

But it's not murder IMO due to the mitigating circumstances.

Actually, it's murder BECAUSE of the circumstances surrounding how they died. He killed them with malice and intent. It wasn't a self defense killing. It -COULD HAVE BEEN- a self defense killing, but it wasn't. It was an execution.

If it had been a simple self defense killing (Intruder, bang bang they are dead) then I'd be 100% behind the homeowner. "Putting them down" and "executing a kill-shot" after they are down is murder.

[Decagon]

Did either article indicate anything involving shock?

No, but I get the feeling that the article is much more biased than you think it is. It almost certainly leaves out key points and puts VERY important points at the very end, where people are less likely to read it.

But he was in "shock."

REALLY? No, that's not shock, don't EVER say that I justify things like this with shock, I justify things that happened because of shock with shock. Don't skew mine or anyone else's words just to make us look like immoral assholes.

[Kraenen]

Sure. You're actively hoping something bad happens to another person.

I just have a casual indifference.

Since when is you getting psychiatric care something bad? And comparing it to you being a sociopath, no wonder you can't understand why killing someone is bad.

[kjcasey]

Why in the heck are we talking about rape this is stupid. These kids even though its horrible what happened were in the wrong. Felony Home Invasion can result in death

[Kraenen]

This all reminds me of burglary which happened few years back, not that similar but a man was charged who defended him self.

A kid or two broke into a house, a man and his son chased them and beat the shit out of them and caused brain damage. I believe the robbers got away while the ''defendants'' were prosecuted.

That's exactly how it should be in this case. The person has no right to do that.