Man Kills Two Teens Robbers

[Rukentuts]

lol my favorite part. HELL YEAH THEY DESERVED TO DIE AND I HOPE THEY ROT IN HELL!

I fucking love that movie.

[Doctor Amadeus]

You should read the statue I linked again pal.

609.06 AUTHORIZED USE OF FORCE.
Except as otherwise provided in subdivision 2, reasonable force may be used upon or toward the person of another without the other's consent when the following circumstances exist or the actor reasonably believes them to exist:
(3) when used by any person in resisting or aiding another to resist an offense against the person



Maybe your eyes are going bad

[Belmorn]

Unless Im reading it wrong the couple was suspected to be behind a >series< of burglary.

Also I dont think its a smart thing to taunt a man by laughing at him missing his shot when you are a burglar - thats asking for a headshot, even when its clearly overkill.

That said I think the guy went a little too far. Should be in jail for some time,but if these two where indeed behind more than a couple of burglary cases then I have no problem with them being goners.

[Rukentuts]

609.06 AUTHORIZED USE OF FORCE.
Except as otherwise provided in subdivision 2, reasonable force may be used upon or toward the person of another without the other's consent when the following circumstances exist or the actor reasonably believes them to exist:
(3) when used by any person in resisting or aiding another to resist an offense against the person



Maybe your eyes are going bad

What part of "609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE. - The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06" do you not comprehend?

[Stede]

Whether or not I agree with the events doesn't matter Minnesota does have a "Castle Doctrine" law for a reason, the kids likely knew there was a possibility of them being shot if they actually did break into the guys home but took the risk anyways.

Should they have been killed? Probably not, a warning shot likely would have been enough to scare them off(then the guy could report a B&E).

Edit: Now that I've finished reading the article, the guy should be charged for murder. The article claims that he told the cops he used more rounds than necessary and that alone should be enough to condemn him to prison for a good while.

A warning shot? This isn't an 18th century naval engagement. Maybe he should have sent his commander to discuss parlay on the battlefield, too?

You don't fire warning shots. You shoot to do the most damage you can. Finishing somebody off is going too far, but when you click that safety off, you shoot to kill - you never - never shoot to warn.

[Terridon]

609.06 AUTHORIZED USE OF FORCE.
Except as otherwise provided in subdivision 2, reasonable force may be used upon or toward the person of another without the other's consent when the following circumstances exist or the actor reasonably believes them to exist:
(3) when used by any person in resisting or aiding another to resist an offense against the person

I take you just tried to support the one you quoted, so i made it easier to read

[Themius]

there was defense of property though. i think the dude very clearly crossed the line, but i personally believe in one's right to defend one's home. i have a 2 year old, if someone breaks into my home im not going to try to guess what the person's motives are, there is way too much at stake. that said, i dont have a gun or even want one. i have no problem with responsible gun ownership, or even responsible gun use. when someone is reckless or malicious they need to be prosecuted, as is happening here

r
I don't really accept defense of property. Fuck property. flat screen tv isn't worth a life, even the life of a low life piece of scum, is worth more than a fucking flat screen, or some lap top or blender. What the fuck is it with humans that are so quick to throw one another under the bus. I mean we didn't get where we are today by being stoic lack of compassion, lack of empathy pricks. Today people are so fucking detached, it's maddening. "My tv noooo!!!!"

Defend your family, yes. Defend yourself, but fuck property defense honestly.

The defense of property is a possible justification used by defendants who argue that they should not be held liable for any loss and injury that they have caused because they were acting to protect their property. Courts have generally ruled that the use of force may be acceptable.

Was he nicking your tv and laptop when you shot him in the process? Alright that's fine. He died, but you still have your quickly depreciating laptop because it's a windows crap one, and your 32 inch flat screen off brand tv. e

[Atrea]

Is there any evidence at all that he was 'defending his home'? The article is unclear, but it seems very fishy.

These don't look like your run-of-the-mill home invaders. Why is it automatically assumed that they were?
Why were they hid in the basement for over a day? Why should we believe this guy's story? He would have had all the time in the world to make it look like a break-in had occurred.

I don't buy it, all I see here is a fucking murderer.

[Rukentuts]

I take you just tried to support the one you quoted, so i made it easier to read

Except a subsection clearly states that statute does not authorize use of deadly force.

I have already linked it twice, and suspect people are being obtuse.

[Alkin]

How would have you prevented:
29 January 2012 - Giovanni Focarelli, son of Comancheros gang member Vincenzo Focarelli, was shot dead whilst Vincenzo survived the fourth attempt on his life.[60]
28 April 2012 - A man opened fire in a busy shopping mall in Robina on the Gold Coast shooting Bandidos bikie Jacques Teamo. A woman who was an innocent bystander was also injured from a shotgun blast to the leg. Neither of the victims died, but the incident highlighted the recent increase in gun crime across major Australian cities including Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide.
22 May 2012 - A man and two young children were found dead by police in a house in Leanyer, Northern Territory. The 23-year-old man was the father and stepfather of the two children, a boy and a girl, aged 4 and 8.
22 September 2012 - Radio producer Jill Meagher was raped and killed by convicted criminal Adrian Bayley. She was abducted while walking approximately five minutes to her home from Bar Etiquette on Sydney Road in Brunswick, a suburb north of Melbourne. Her body was buried in a shallow grave along the road verge of Blackhill Road, South Gisborne.

Those are all from Australia.

I've been waiting for you to return with all of your research.
Ok, number one, police task forces to target the main biker gangs and restriction of channels of the illegal sale of firearms.
2. Same things.
3. You didn't say how they died, so i have no idea what happened.
4. There are always going to be a minority of people who kill just for the thrill of it, my argument was never that it is possible to prevent 100% of crime, but rather minimise it.

[Slummish]

The man's story makes no sense. The guy kills the boy, then the girl comes downstairs and gets shot and then laughs when he tries to shoot her again? When she's down, he feels the need to blow her skull open with a shotgun. Something here is fishy... Then he stashes the bodies and doesn't call the authorities?

That being said, these kids assumed a huge risk by breaking into someone's home. They paid the price for their crime.

[Alvito]

Now killing somebody is tragic no matter what the reason, loss of life should always be a noteworthy and sad thing. How quickly people are defending people that broke into somebodies home is also shocking. Now imagine for a moment you are in your house and all of a sudden there are two strangers in your home also. A certain amount of fear or panic sets in that instantly changes how anybody reacts. The level of overkill seems to be what most are outraged with but to me that is a completely different situation. Would it really have been okay if he only shot each with 1 killing shot? When does it go from okay to shoot them then not okay? I can say this if somehow a stranger ends up in my home after breaking in I am going to assume they are their to injure or harm my family and there isn't much I wouldn't do to keep that from happening. If this means I may or may not go to jail so be it, a loss of some of my freedom is something I will happily risk to make sure my family is safe.

[Deleted]

Everyone is missing the point.

Haven't found a single post above yours that wouldn't state what you claim to be missed by everyone...

[tiporispit]

Just sitting here wishing a plague would wipe out human life on this planet. So sick of asshats blaming the victim. I don't care how he responded. If they weren't committing a crime, they'd still be alive.

Friends and family have expressed their outrage over the deaths

Well, sane people are expressing our outrage that you raised pathetic little douche bags, then get mad at their victim. I hope you all die in a fire.

[Deleted]

They gambled and they lost. They broke in - they are dead - they will not do it again - so ------ what is the problem?

[Alkin]

Now killing somebody is tragic no matter what the reason, loss of life should always be a noteworthy and sad thing. How quickly people are defending people that broke into somebodies home is also shocking. Now imagine for a moment you are in your house and all of a sudden there are two strangers in your home also. A certain amount of fear or panic sets in that instantly changes how anybody reacts. The level of overkill seems to be what most are outraged with but to me that is a completely different situation. Would it really have been okay if he only shot each with 1 killing shot? When does it go from okay to shoot them then not okay? I can say this if somehow a stranger ends up in my home after breaking in I am going to assume they are their to injure or harm my family and there isn't much I wouldn't do to keep that from happening.

No one is defending the kids for doing what they did.

[Caddo]

Moral of the story: Breaking into someones house is always a bad idea, reason being? You don't know if you'll come out alive or not, and in this case, they didn't.

[Lochton]

Because of twisted lawyers and criminals not being happy with "just being grazed" the law involving the use of a gun is different than what you would think. If you pull a gun and use it the situation without shooting then you are now a criminal. If aim to wound instead of kill you are now a criminal. Why? Because using a gun to "intimidate" instantly makes you the aggressor. Firing to wound means you had time to aim and thus were not in extreme danger. You will be sued, and jailed for doing anything but aiming center mass and letting rip.

One of the problems in the world in my opinion, everyone is allowed to defend their home. I don't agree to just randomly shoot around when strangers are nearby, I talk about defensive use, you don't need much aim to lower a gun to the thigh really. I am not supporting violence or aggressive gun use, as said, but I am supporting that if you enter anothers home with intend to do a crime then you deserve to be stopped (And then get a punishment from the court that isn't just a few months). The court many times are too soft when it comes just anything that doesn't involve killing basicly, If they got taken alive, they would just go crying and claim they would never do it again.

People have to learn to keep their hands to themselves or suffer punishment, yes, I'm also against if people bring punishment instead of the court. But if one went in my home to commit a crime, if I had a gun, I would use it. Fire off a warning shot and hope they run. Of course your have to report to the police that you fired a gun for intimidation to defend yourself, and give your description of the intruders.

But of course what he did was way too harsh, atleast he could have called the police right away but he didn't, which I don't understand fully. But can guess the person wasn't well aware of what to do, or how he should have done.

[smelltheglove]

I don't really accept defense of property. Fuck property. flat screen tv isn't worth a life, even the life of a low life piece of scum, is worth more than a fucking flat screen, or some lap top or blender. What the fuck is it with humans that are so quick to throw one another under the bus. I mean we didn't get where we are today by being stoic lack of compassion, lack of empathy pricks. Today people are so fucking detached, it's maddening. "My tv noooo!!!!"

Defend your family, yes. Defend yourself, but fuck property defense honestly.

but you cant really think a person should have to barricade themselves into a room and just allow someone to have their way with your shit can you? what if they decide to get rid of witnesses, etc? there is a reason that night time burglary sentences are much harsher than day time, because of the vastly increased potential for conflict, initiated by either party

[Kasierith]

They gambled and they lost. They broke in - they are dead - they will not do it again - so ------ what is the problem?

The importance of removing clearly psychotic and dangerous men from society for the health and safety of others.