I'm not saying my country is perfect, far from it. I'm just saying that the law that entitles you to shoot someone in your own apartment is wrong. And I can result in two young kids death. And when looking in this thread I can compare the mentality from these two countries, it just scares me, that so many people think it's okay. There's nothing more to say to it. (of course it's not representative, but it's what I got atm)
I hope you all enjoy your guns and your national debt over there in the land of the "free"
That sounds great! Obama is so wonderful he can make criminals( people known for not following laws) abide by guns laws?
Also he can make sure the police are at the scene of all crimes 100% of the time before any damage can be done to law abiding citizens and their hard earned property?
Person with guns goes trigger happy and point blank executes a girl for no perceivable reason (or was she going to get up after having a few shots put into her chest and run off with his tv) should very expressly be removed from society. But don't hope for an insanity plea. His attempting to hide evidence afterword instead of calling an ambulance/police ruined that for him.
I did stupid shit in high school too, but breaking and entering, come on. These 2 obviously weren't productive members of society if they break into peoples houses for funzies. One of them was 18, that is an adult, they should both have known better.
Where are you getting this story from? there is no way she didn't hear the gunshots. She was probably just in another part of the house. Whether she was laughing, or coughing, she is still awake and able to pull out a weapon, the laughing just made her sound like a sociopath.
I agreed that the girl could have lived, but I don't think this man should go to jail. He was just defending his home. If there were 2 people, who is to say there couldn't be a third? I would have killed both of them too, just to make sure if there was another person these 2 wouldn't be a problem.
I know being popular is irrelevant, but I think it's funny that that is what EVERYONE jumps to. "she was popular" "she was a role model" "the loved to make people smile" as if that means they can't break into peoples homes.
I think the moral of the story is;
If a person is well known to be a very crazy, gun-toting, trigger happy nervous pensioner: You probably shouldn't break in to their house repeatedly and corner them in the basement.
(alternatively, the moral could be: If you're going to break in to someones house and rob them, make sure you're young, white, and either are a girl or with a girl... then if you do get shot, you STILL won't get the blame and the media and police will actually care about you)
BASIC CAMPFIRE for WARCHIEF UK Prime Minister!
Isnt it kinda cool when you refuse to dismiss laws that were created in 1776 by your founding fathers but condone the laws of other country which are just as stupid as the right to bear arms. In example islamic laws where you can stone a woman for showing her face or something. Even tho the latter laws go way back.
I believe he did nothing wrong with the use of the gun to stop/kill them, as the law allows. Without knowing if they were armed or not, it's better to stop a burglar in his tracks and ask questions later rather than allow them to pull a piece on you.
I also believe, however, that he was in the wrong for the overkill. If the first shots killed or immobilized them, that's all that was necessary by the law. Anything more turned it into murder, and that's pretty much exactly what happened.
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.
It baffles me that you think people shouldn't have the right to defend themselves or their property.
(If you think deadly force isn't permissible, then you think that no violence is permissible, since any violence carries the risk of death.... and if you think no violence is permissible, that means you think people in your home should have free reign until the police show up, assuming you're actually able to make a call for help and they get there in time.)
I think the guy in this case clearly went too far, but I don't understand what's so evil about defending yourself or your property.
I don't have time to read the full story but I think I got the gist of it.
If they broke into his home then he has a right to defend himself and his property. In the event of their deaths he should have called the police as soon as the crime occurred though. However I know this will be controversial so that's just my take.
He was charged because as the article states Prosecutors also said Ersland obviously did not think of the boy as a threat because he walked right over the boy and has his back to the boy as he gets the second gun. This is not the case here where he said he feared for his life so while similar they won't be able to prove that he did or didn't fear for his life.
Gun laws mean that it is illegal to buy guns (with exceptions), which means you need a license etc to get a gun. So yes, it would reduce crime, or at least the use of guns, as it makes them harder to acquire. And in the end, having someone's property stolen is a lot better then dealing with a double homicide, regardless of the fact that the people are guilty.
Last edited by Sealed Shut; 2012-11-27 at 02:15 PM.
He was under great duress. Remember the head line a month ago about the girl strangling her new born and hiding the body? Did you think she should go to jail forever? People don't act rationally when under the kind of stress from taking a life. Just because he is old doesn't mean he is any different. In fact he has been victimized before and the law failed to protect him then, forcing his hand in this case.
Alright, I'll play along. Tell me. If you are fearing for your life.... do you reach down, grab the threat thus tying up your hands, and drag her across the floor? Doesn't the fact that he physically touched and moved her, and willingly got that close before finishing her off, not seem a little bit wrong for the "it was self defense" act?
---------- Post added 2012-11-27 at 03:08 PM ----------
Sorry, vigilante justice isn't legal. Stop trying to think that the world is Batman.