Man Kills Two Teens Robbers

[Deleted]

And who's to say two assholes looking for their fix wouldn't have beaten an old man to death for his prescriptions?

Old man, on some sort of medication, hanging out in his basement, and their immediate thought was "man, I should go check that out!"

Also, if you have time to be a cunt and laugh at the guy who just shot you for not being able to shoot you more when one gun jams, you have time to take another bullet when he pulls out another one.

But they didn't! Let's look at what was done, and not what might have happened.
My point is: The concrete of democracy is the tripartition of the power, that's created to stop people from abusing the powers they are entitled to. But when to teens, who enters his property, he takes the law into his own hands and becomes the judging and the executive. Don't you think that's wrong, that the law doesn't apply, just because it's a private property.

Just because they might have been drug abusers, they didn't deserve to die.

Here is an interesting article, that all you "pro-firearms" hillbillies should read: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...crime-us-state

EDITED: put in an article

[semaphore]

That that we do not know is irrelevant here. If I can't call it mercy - you can't call it murder.

Yes I can. His described actions fits the definition of murder. You have to assume a bunch of crap to make it mercy. You can't call it mercy. But it is a fact that it's murder.

You still refuse to look at it in HIS perspective.

The whole article is in his perspective. You're making up lies to rationalise the murder and pretending it's his perspective.

No. Self-defense. He saw her going down the stairs. Just her hips. And he shot her - in full right to do so.

You're just deliberately ignoring the facts to make him look better. I'm talking about AFTER he shot her and he fell down the stairs. Then he shot her even more times, dragged her next to her dead cousin, and executed her. None of that is legal.

No link no trust.

Lol what's this babytalk? You only trust something if you see an internet link? How pathetic.

I gave you a full citation: (Unusually low mortality of penetrating wounds of the chest. Twelve years' experience. Mandal AK & Oparah SS. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011 Sep;142(3):563-8.) If you are going to pretend you can't trust a scientific article then that's just your problem. Clearly you're dismissing scientific evidence because they disagree with your desperate attempts at twisting reality to justify two brutal murders.

[Boogums]

Wounded unarmed target already critical is not a threat to your life or property, something a significant portion of this thread can't seem to grasp. Castle doctrine does not mean you can kill as you please.

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.

[Horkymon]

No, the argument was about whether he should be allowed to full on execute two teens "because they might come back and harm him for revenge". By which logic, if a guy punches you, you should rush to your assault rifle and then gun him down. Over a punch. In case he comes back for revenge. It's retarded.

If it's legal to grab your assault rifle and gun down anyone that punches you, by all means, do so. However, in this case people had broken into his home, and were a threat as long as they moved. Assert your statement as hard as you like, but the burglers (regardless of age, popularity, or anything else) were in the wrong and were a threat, downed or not, and he was in the right to rid his abode of such threat.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Wounded unarmed target already critical is not a threat to your life or property, something a significant portion of this thread can't seem to grasp. Castle doctrine does not mean you can kill as you please.

Castle doctrine specifically suggest you can use lethal force to defend your life, if you don't feel you can reasonably seek any other option or exhausted them. You don't know what he was thinking, and it wasn't your home being broken into, he didn't chase these kids, he hide out in his basement, and did the thing he knew how.

[Deleted]

While I don't agree with the death penalty (not because some people do not deserve to die, but because the system is inherently flawed and too many innocent people get executed), I do agree with laws that allow you to use lethal force to protect your home.
However, this is not what happened in this case, and people saying otherwise have clearly not read the article. The girl was executed, after being shot several times, the guy put a gun on her chin, and shot her through the cranium, and the boy was shot after he laughed that the owner's gun jammed. That's not defending anything, that's a man that lost it and went completely overboard with his reaction, it's an execution, and that is absolutely not right, no matter how many rhetoric you spin.

[PizzaSHARK]

Logic -> Individuals are allowed to kill ppl willy nilly for crimes like breaking and entering but authorities can't sentence a murderer to die?

You realize it costs the state a LOT more to execute someone than to keep them behind bars for the rest of their life, right?

[Deleted]

While it is sad that these kids had to resort to this, you can't blame the 64 year old guy for protecting himself. I doubt these kids were robbing his house wearing their Sunday best and I doubt he even knew they were teenagers. That does not matter...in the heat of themoment you have to protect yourself, you aren't thinking clearly in these situations...for all he knew they were there to kill him, there could have been more coming. I'm sure he feels bad, but better them than him and I probably would have done the same thing.

I absolutely agree. He's probably sorry for having to resort to deadly force, but when you are in your house and your life is in danger, what he did was right.

[Boogums]

Are you a vegetarian then?

HAW. I mean, it's not like anything you said had any credibility or any bearing on what I thought of you to begin with, but this is just funny. It's almost the perfect strawman.

To answer your question, no. However, I don't eat out of vengeance or hatred.

[Lodreh]

I think people are missing the point here... in a place deadly force may be used in defense of a home you still break in... you kind of forfeit your life on entering. Weapon of choice shouldn't be the issue... what if he used a shotgun and killed them with one blast each... does it matter... they are still dead and he was within his rights... I do not believe victim rights apply to someone while they are committing a crime.

[semaphore]

I suppose it's one of the consequences of these "stand your ground" laws. People now mistakenly believe that nearly any action is legal as long as it occurs while the victim is trespassing.

I guess it is. Common decency and morality replaced with a kill everyone bloodymindedness because people think they can hide behind the law... even when the law disagree with them.

[Horkymon]

Wounded unarmed target already critical is not a threat to your life or property, something a significant portion of this thread can't seem to grasp. Castle doctrine does not mean you can kill as you please.

You subdue the threat, call the authorities and let them deal with it. You don't switch to a second weapon to land a killing blow, drag a critically wounded body across the room and lay a shot under the chin.

At these points the threat has long been prevented and you move from defending yourself and your property to a murdering criminal no better than those who broke into your property.

You misunderstood me. I'll be firing deadly rounds at the target, as fast as I possibly can. I will not be aiming to subdue the target, else I would be using the butt of my shotgun.

[Boogums]

You people also have to stop using murder. Murder is specifically, unlawful murder, and at this point, since no trial has happened, you don't know whether or not what he did was murder or self defense.

---------- Post added 2012-11-27 at 06:58 AM ----------

You misunderstood me. I'll be firing deadly rounds at the target, as fast as I possibly can. I will not be aiming to subdue the target, else I would be using the butt of my shotgun.

Or rubber bullets.

[Spectral]

I absolutely agree. He's probably sorry for having to resort to deadly force, but when you are in your house and your life is in danger, what he did was right.

I really doubt he's sorry. The bulk of people like this seem to be assholes that were looking for an opportunity to gun someone down with plausible deniability.

[Doctor Amadeus]

While I don't agree with the death penalty (not because some people do not deserve to die, but because the system is inherently flawed and too many innocent people get executed), I do agree with laws that allow you to use lethal force to protect your home.
However, this is not what happened in this case, and people saying otherwise have clearly not read the article. The girl was executed, after being shot several times, the guy put a gun on her chin, and shot her through the cranium, and the boy was shot after he laughed that the owner's gun jammed. That's not defending anything, that's a man that lost it and went completely overboard with his reaction, it's an execution, and that is absolutely not right, no matter how many rhetoric you spin.

According to the article and his statement, this does NOT qualify by any burden this is exactly what happened, there is no instance where a judge or jury is asked to judge someone based on their own account, regardless to how in the defendants favor it may or may not be.

[semaphore]

I think people are missing the point here... in a place deadly force may be used in defense of a home you still break in... you kind of forfeit your life on entering. Weapon of choice shouldn't be the issue...

You are the one missing the point. Nobody thinks the weapon was the issue. The issue is that he murdered them, execution style, after they ceased to pose a threat to any reasonable person.

[Spectral]

I do not believe victim rights apply to someone while they are committing a crime.

As both a moral and legal matter, you're just plain wrong.

[Horkymon]

I guess it is. Common decency and morality replaced with a kill everyone bloodymindedness because people think they can hide behind the law... even when the law disagree with them.

You keep acting like everyone in here wants to play Call of Duty deathmatch with everyone else, in real life. This does not pertain to any premeditated bloodlust the old man had, only what happens in a very short amount of time.

Please, be in that kind of situation and think of common decency and morality vs. the lives of you, your loved ones, and possibly your whole livelihood at stake if you just let the robbers do what they will with you and yours.

[semaphore]

You people also have to stop using murder. Murder is specifically, unlawful murder, and at this point, since no trial has happened, you don't know whether or not what he did was murder or self defense.

It's pretty damn clear that it wasn't in self defense.

What, you find a girl lying on the floor, dying from multiple gunshots, that intimidating?

Murder is specifically, unlawful murder,

What a great definition.

[Deleted]

To answer your question, no. However, I don't eat out of vengeance or hatred.

-> both of us have similar view for life then I suppose.

You realize it costs the state a LOT more to execute someone than to keep them behind bars for the rest of their life, right?

I am and that's why I wouldn't vote for death penalty in my area, but If your laws allow it then it's the reasonable sentence for 2 murders.