Man Kills Two Teens Robbers

[Puck]

> 2 kids gets killed. Sad, very sad indeed.
>Correction, 2 POPULAR kids gets killed.
>Media: OMIGAWD!!!! SO SAD!!! YOU SHOULD ALL BE SORRY, WHAT DO WE DO!!!!!!! EVIL MAN!

amanda todd and other similar stories all over again. Don't give a fuck, and neither will i ever.

and i'm dead serios.

Not all of us feel empathy for a loss of life, especially when that death has certain circumstances that paint the individual who died negatively. It's just how our society is. Nobody is going to begrudge you for being an unfortunate product of our screwed up society.

[Rhiziana]

If you are so "dead serios," why did you bother posting? It appears you do, in fact, care to a degree.

by telling my oppinion, i apparently care, about a case that happened on the other side of the earth, where shit like that most likely happens on a daily basis

[Gavril]

The shooting part was fine and if he had killed them so be it , the execution though will get him charged with something - if it's not written off / explained by some mental condition that occurs when put in those situations.

[slvlol]

Nah, I read it 3 times, bro. Someone laughing after being shot doesnt sound like they were incapacitated to me. To him, it might have sounded like "Ha ha, you missed." or "Ha ha, that didnt hurt." and might have retaliated back with their own weapon. They story said she laughed, not "laugh/sigh with relief". Read it again.

The human mind has a strange way of dealing with dire situations. Being someone whose rode along with law enforcement and EMT's, I'll tell you first hand that the reaction you would expect from something like being shot or wounded isn't always a sigh, shriek, cry, etc. Sometimes laughter in the face of danger is a person's way of coping. We'll never know her side of the story.

I understand the point you're arguing. The article claims she fell down the stairs after being shot and then laughed. Regardless, the man deserves to be charged if evidence supports his claim of execution style shots to finish them.

[Themius]

While i love your taste in music, stay in your own country. In America we have a right to own weapons, for whatever purpose we should decide, get used to it.

Why are you so hostile to your little pow pows?

They do nothing but cause trouble. I mean are you going to need to uprise against Obama or something?

[semaphore]

I think it's an interesting argument, and I like to consider many sides. Why refute it from the get-go? I'm just thinking about this in separating the self-defense portion from the killing-blow portion. However much he intended to finish them off, I have to wonder if the fact that they were (assumedly) already dying would have any legal bearing on his culpability for murder.

If I fire a gunshot randomly and it kills a man, I'm guilty of manslaughter, but if he's falling off a building to his death (a la Ronald Opus)? Although in that story, the killing blow was the one that determined the culprit.

Because it's an argument that has no leg to stand on. Killing someone with malicious aforethought is murder; it doesn't matter at all if they are already dying. I mean, we're all technically going to die (barring some miracle soonish). No one has the right to take my life even if I have terminal stage cancer or something; bleeding potentially to death is no different.

Ethically, the fact that their deaths could not be gauraunteed without the killing blow also makes the argument incredibly weak.

[Kasierith]

by telling my oppinion, i apparently care, about a case that happened on the other side of the earth, where shit like that most likely happens on a daily basis

If it happens on a daily basis, why is it being posted in this thread sparking such a reaction? One would think it would have become a habituated experience by now.

[Auloria]

No. Even if they were already dying, his actions were the murdering blow. In a legal sense, whether they were going to die from their injuries or not was irrelevant. In fact, if he had left them there to bleed out instead of calling an ambulance, he would have been charged with murder as well.

The possible technicality had occurred to me. Thanks for actually addressing my point.

[dokilar]

I have not seen anyone express a desire for vigilante justice beyond what the courts have charged him. I personally believe the method of execution constitutes a conditional increase to 1st degree murder, but even with what he has been charged with (which is strong enough to assume correct even from a biased site) I am agreeable to the decision of the court.

My personal distaste currently is directed at several of our fellow posters.

so you would convict this man without seeing a lick of evidence save for this one article? you say you see no one expressing a desire for vigilante justice yet you yourself are seeking it. you have not been given any evidence in this case whatsoever other than what youve read from this article. this article could be pure poppycock and all of it made up and you would agree with convicting this man of murder?

let me make it clear that i dont believe the article is fake or that any of the statements written in the article are made up, im just saying it seems a little presumputous to pass verdict on someone before the man has even went to court

[Rhiziana]

If it happens on a daily basis, why is it being posted in this thread sparking such a reaction? One would think it would have become a habituated experience by now.

i dont care about the specific incididence, but i care about how the media reacts

[Airwaves]

While i love your taste in music, stay in your own country. In America we have a right to own weapons, for whatever purpose we should decide, get used to it.

Sorry but "Right to bare arms" is for civil war period and is far far out of date. It's not something that is needed in the 21st century.

[DaNoob2]

by telling my oppinion, i apparently care, about a case that happened on the other side of the earth, where shit like that most likely happens on a daily basis

Actually violent crime is pretty bad in Europe in modern days. I think you are thinking of 30 years ago. Here is a writeup of it, but to summarize: as much as I hate the industrial prison system in the US it does seem to be segregating violent criminals from society.

http://www2.dse.unibo.it/zanella/papers/crime-EP.pdf

[A Day to Remember]

Why are you so hostile to your little pow pows?

They do nothing but cause trouble. I mean are you going to need to uprise against Obama or something?

Gun collecting is a great hobby, and shooting a gun is great fun. What do you have against my rights? My guns have not caused an ounce of trouble lol.

[Northern Goblin]

Once you've employed reasonable force and disabled them, anything else is GBH and upward.

Right in the first instance to defend himself, severely wrong after that.

[Pendulous]

Come on people. This isn't even a "gun control" issue, so please don't turn it into one.

[Jokerfiend]

I condone this man's actions, though, brutal and unnecessary.

If you come into my house with the intent to break in, possibly harm my family, I will kill you. I don't care about the ramifications.

People here in their cushy chairs. Very few have any real education, on what adrenaline does to someone. In that moment, especially certain cases, you might not be thinking clearly. This is a case. Sometimes, that Ape comes out in us. The primal need to finish what has been started. It might be sickening to some, with cushy lives and never been in real danger. Yet, people that have seen some shit. React differently.

Face it people. If this man goes to prison, for a crime of passion. Then Fuck the US of A.

[Radoria]

Hmmm...I'm kinda on the fence on this one. The guy was an idiot who almost seemed to be bragging to the cops about his kill which is why he is in this predicament. The girl was an idiot too for watching her cousin get shot dead, and then laughing at the man when his gun jammed. She also should have immediately surrendered upon hearing gunfire in the house. The guy is an idiot again for waiting until the morning to call a lawyer. From what the article said...I suppose I don't think the guy should be charged. It was probably dark and you can't be too careful when you know someone is robbing you. If someone breaks into my house tonight I'm not going to make sure they're unarmed before I shoot them with my gun.

[A Day to Remember]

Sorry but "Right to bare arms" is for civil war period and is far far out of date. It's not something that is needed in the 21st century.

Im sorry was there a time limit on the constitution? Last i checked it hasent been amended, and it wont be.

[Alixie]

We live in a country were you can't just go around killing people that break into your homes. You can't just execute them. WHICH IS WHY HE'S FUCKING ARRESTED.

Let's get this straight people he is IN CUSTODY BECAUSE THEY FOUND HIM TO OVER REACT FOR FUCK SAKES.

Hes charged with murder, not convicted yet.

Im curious what kind of laws your country has that protects the homeowner. Even more, if youve ever been the victim of a break in. Ive had 2 break ins before, one in the basement where they thankfully left after hearing my dad walking upstairs, they did take our tv though. The second time someone broke into our garage, my dad caught them, kicked his ass, and held him til the cops came.

While I was grateful to have a dad that will defend his family, I was mad at him for fighting the guy because he could have had a knife or something, and you cant tell in the dark. Which is kind of the point of being allowed to use lethal force, you dont fucking know if the intruder(s) have weapons on them or not.

[Kasierith]

so you would convict this man without seeing a lick of evidence save for this one article? you say you see no one expressing a desire for vigilante justice yet you yourself are seeking it. you have not been given any evidence in this case whatsoever other than what youve read from this article. this article could be pure poppycock and all of it made up and you would agree with convicting this man of murder?

let me make it clear that i dont believe the article is fake or that any of the statements written in the article are made up, im just saying it seems a little presumputous to pass verdict on someone before the man has even went to court

A conviction according to the presented evidence is exactly what a jury does. Do you think a court magically knows everything about the case? That it magically appears before them? No, it is given to them in as full a manner as possible, which even to its highest extent is not the entirety of the truth. If anything, what we are doing is exactly like what happens in a court, because overall it is very rare that the entire truth comes out. Also, vigilante justice is justice outside of the law. If I say I would want to see him convicted by the legal system for his crimes, that is very specifically not vigilante justice. Learn your definitions.

The only difference between what we're doing here and what the jury will be doing will be the presented evidence. If the evidence from the case is different from that of the article, than the verdict will be different from ours. If that is the case, than while I do hope they made a call based on truth and facts, it will have been the decision made by the legal system and therefore the lasting decision on the matter.