Man Kills Two Teens Robbers

[Deleted]

She was 18, he was 17, in lots of places that qualifies as an adult. The world actually DOES work that way, in many other countries those "kids" would have fared less well than here had they lived and committed the crime. My point in posting that was that this isn't the first time this has happened, the girl's own cousin reported her breaking into her place. By your own argument, you think it's ok for the kids who go through school rampages shooting multiple innocent kids to be given a second chance since that is "definitely" not the person they will be for the rest of their life either? Tell that to the victims' families, I'm sure it would comfort them.

EighTEEN and sevenTEEN so still in their TEENage years.
Are you really comparing a psychotic mass murderer to a pair of teenage robbers?

[Chrysia]

Have you ever been attacked in your own home? Have you ever felt threatened or afraid for your life? Those events could have happened in matter of seconds, from initial gunshot to "execution", we simply dont know, he might have seen something that in that moment made him thing they are still a threat, then after an adrenaline rush ( and im 100% sure during those moments you do get an adrenaline rush ) and after he realised what he did, he simply panicked.

The way you live paves the way to your death, its simply as that. I also bet that 90% of ppl who are saying he deserves jail, death and who knows what would do the same thing if they were in the same situation, when they felt afraid for life of their loved ones.

The way he told the story, in the official statement to the police, it was most certainly not only a few seconds. He even directly stated that he fired several of the shots because he thought she was laughing at him, and that the final shot was to make it "a clean kill." I also doubt a 65 year old man quickly dragged a girl off his stairs and into another room.

[Lahlah]

EighTEEN and sevenTEEN so still in their TEENage years.
Are you really comparing a psychotic mass murderer to a pair of teenage robbers?

So you're argument is that they are teens and thus just by the nature of them being TEENS because they are between the ages of 10-20 they are immune from their own stupidity and the consequences that may result from their stupid actions? I'm sure I don't need to remind you of some of the horrendous actions teenagers have committed against others. I'm not comparing the old man to the robbers, I'm saying they brought this upon themselves by committing a crime. It does not mean that the old man is not at fault for excessive use but you don't put yourself in that position as a burglar in the first place. You seem to miss the point, you make such a huge point of saying they are TEENS, and I mentioned other teens who commit crimes in order to point out that your argument that they are TEENS is irrelevant and faulty because TEENS commit all types of crimes and their age alone should not make them immune. These "teens" are right on the cusp of adulthood, 18 and 17, don't be ridiculous.

[markos82]

I am 100% wholeheartedly in favor of shooting first and asking questions later when someone breaks into your house.

This, however, was a case of shooting first, switching weapons and shooting many more times at point blank range, dragging a limp body across the room and then shooting one more time to make absolutely certain she's dead.

Even I think that's excessive. Way, way excessive.

Im not going to deny that this was an execution, some states in USA still have a death penalty, he simply acted as a judge, jury and executioner. This is even more humane than putting someone on electric chair.

And tell me would you have shoot the guy at point blank in the face? Would you have emptied a revolver on a wounded girl's body? Would you have dragged the body and execute her with a bottom top head shot (what a mess)?
Cause that is what this is all about. Excess of self defence.
No one argue the right of a man to defend himself (even though in this particular case he should have shouted "I'm here and in armed" like anyone would have done).

Shooting in head insures ( in like 99.99% ) a fast death, would i shoot someone in face, yes depending on a situation. Would you shoot a child molester, rapist in a head from blank point? Yes again depending on situation, wounded ppl can still be a threat. Killing someone is a messy job no matter where you shoot them.
Those kids were repeated offenders, the man stopped them, was it excess use of self defense? Probably.
How do you know that everyone would do it, shout that is? You watched to movies or it happened to you?

---------- Post added 2012-11-28 at 11:08 AM ----------

The way he told the story, in the official statement to the police, it was most certainly not only a few seconds. He even directly stated that he fired several of the shots because he thought she was laughing at him, and that the final shot was to make it "a clean kill." I also doubt a 65 year old man quickly dragged a girl off his stairs and into another room.

Time is relative in those situation, if he watched on the clock and said it was 60min then Ok, but if he is speaking from his point of view then you cant take that into consideration. I said it might be an execution but you simply dont know how his mind worked at that time. Well my fater is 66 and he goes to gym, drives bicycle and runs, he probably has better condition then most ppl who sit 12 hours in front of computers playing games.

[Vuljatar]

we simply dont know, he might have seen something that in that moment made him thing they are still a threat

That's why my viewpoint is that the second shot to the boy and (at least some of) the multiple shots to the girl may have been justified. This doesn't change the fact that when you've dragged a girl's limp, bullet-ridden body across the room and the only sign of life she exhibits is weak, labored breathing, NO SANE PERSON would consider her to be a threat of any kind.

I also bet that 90% of ppl who are saying he deserves jail, death and who knows what would do the same thing if they were in the same situation, when they felt afraid for life of their loved ones.

In the same situation, I, personally, would have yelled "I have a gun and I know how to use it. You have 10 seconds to get off my property or I will kill you." If after that the boy had come down the stairs, I would have fired the first shot, same as he did. If I believed that the boy was reaching for a concealed gun, I would have fired a second shot, depending on how injured he seemed I would probably have shot him in the arm. I would have fired the first shot at the girl, same as he did, and if I believed she was reaching for a concealed gun I would have shot her again ONCE, again probably in the arm. After very briefly checking them for weapons, I would have checked upstairs to make sure they didn't have anyone else with them, and then I would have shut and locked the basement door and called the police.

But that's just me.

[Deleted]

So you're argument is that they are teens and thus just by the nature of them being TEENS because they are between the ages of 10-20 they are immune from their own stupidity and the consequences that may result from their stupid actions? I'm sure I don't need to remind you of some of the horrendous actions teenagers have committed against others. I'm not comparing the old man to the robbers, I'm saying they brought this upon themselves by committing a crime. It does not mean that the old man is not at fault for excessive use but you don't put yourself in that position as a burglar in the first place. You seem to miss the point, you make such a huge point of saying they are TEENS, and I mentioned other teens who commit crimes in order to point out that your argument that they are TEENS is irrelevant and faulty because TEENS commit all types of crimes and their age alone should not make them immune. These "teens" are right on the cusp of adulthood, 18 and 17, don't be ridiculous.

I did not say any of the things you mention. I said "so you kill em in their teen" because that's the proper wording.
Teenage goes up to nineTEEN my friend. Teenage years are 13-19. So to call them teens is perfectly right.
By the way not once did I make my argument to be that young ones should be untouchable.
I really don't know what you want.
Are you really saying that someone at 18 doesn't have a chance to change?

[Chrysia]

I did not say any of the things you mention. I said "so you kill em in their teen" because that's the proper wording.
Teenage goes up to nineTEEN my friend. Teenage years are 13-19. So to call them teens is perfectly right.
By the way not once did I make my argument to be that young ones should be untouchable.
I really don't know what you want.
Are you really saying that someone at 18 doesn't have a chance to change?

Didn't you know that hyperbole makes you more right by default?

[Deleted]

Shooting in head insures ( in like 99.99% ) a fast death, would i shoot someone in face, yes depending on a situation. Would you shoot a child molester, rapist in a head from blank point? Yes again depending on situation, wounded ppl can still be a threat. Killing someone is a messy job no matter where you shoot them.
Those kids were repeated offenders, the man stopped them, was it excess use of self defense? Probably.
How do you know that everyone would do it, shout that is? You watched to movies or it happened to you?[COLOR="red"]

Yes that's what happened to me. Heard noises grabbed my hurling stick (kinda like an hockey stick) and slowly walked down the. stairs shouting AAAAOOEEEAAAAAARGHH giving my wife a heart attack and waking up all the neighbourhood. Then the sound of people rushing away.

It also felt very instinctive. I was scared as hell and it just came up like that, spontaneously.
I think the question you should ask is not if anybody would shout, but if anybody would wait with a shotgun for the robber to walk down the stairs, like a hunter hunting its prey.

I think you have the right to defend yourself with lethal force if you can't do otherwise.
But I think this guy could have prevented all of this from happening.
Of course they could have prevented this as well by NOT BREAKING THE LAW but its his actions we're discussing arent we.
I'm pretty sure he was guided by revenge. And that's no good.

[Vuljatar]

I think the question you should ask is not if anybody would shout, but if anybody would wait with a shotgun for the robber to walk down the stairs, like a hunter hunting or it's prey.

I think you have the right to defend yourself with lethal force if you can't do otherwise.
But I think this guy could have prevented all of this from happening.

I'm pretty sure he was guided by revenge. And that's no good.

There is a valid, practical reason for not announcing yourself. If you think it's likely that they would not be scared away by your proclamation, then announcing yourself would serve only to tell them where you are and the fact that you are aware of them, which would deny you the element of surprise in a shootout.

I think if he had announced himself he would have scared the kids off, and that would have been a better outcome, but not announcing yourself is not a crime nor should it be, and on this aspect I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

[Lahlah]

I did not say any of the things you mention. I said "so you kill em in their teen" because that's the proper wording.
Teenage goes up to nineTEEN my friend. Teenage years are 13-19. So to call them teens is perfectly right.
By the way not once did I make my argument to be that young ones should be untouchable.
I really don't know what you want.
Are you really saying that someone at 18 doesn't have a chance to change?

Lol, of course people can change but there is no guarantee that they will change for the better and this is irrelevant to this particular case anyway, it's for another discussion. I mentioned that this wasn't the first time this girl had burglarized and that she was a repeat offender and useless to society. Your ridiculous comment was to ask me "so we kill them in their teen?" when you know straight up no one condones that, so let's be a bit more reasonable here. My point was that the girl was a repeat offender and there are consequences to your actions and when you repeat them, it might eventually come back to bite you in the ass. They did not deserve to die, but they put themselves in a situation where that possible outcome was significantly increased and one which they could have easily avoided by not being losers. Anyway, I'm going to sleep.

[Deleted]

There is a valid, practical reason for not announcing yourself. If you think it's likely that they would not be scared away by your proclamation, then announcing yourself would serve only to tell them where you are and the fact that you are aware of them, which would deny you the element of surprise in a shootout.

I think if he had announced himself he would have scared the kids off, and that would have been a better outcome, but not announcing yourself is not a crime nor should it be, and on this aspect I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I think that by law, in any occasion you should be trying your best to prevent things from happening. Under any circumstances. I know cause I got charged for excessive self defence for defending my kids. I know it's silly at times, but thats the law and it kind of makes sense as well. Not many robbers would risk a gunfight for whatever it is they are trying to rob.
Also laws here that regards that particular situation might be different than yours but I'm not sure.

[markos82]

That's why my viewpoint is that the second shot to the boy and (at least some of) the multiple shots to the girl may have been justified. This doesn't change the fact that when you've dragged a girl's limp, bullet-ridden body across the room and the only sign of life she exhibits is weak, labored breathing, NO SANE PERSON would consider her to be a threat of any kind.

Considering that, you cant put him on trial as you would do to sane person....

In the same situation, I, personally, would have yelled "I have a gun and I know how to use it. You have 10 seconds to get off my property or I will kill you." If after that the boy had come down the stairs, I would have fired the first shot, same as he did. If I believed that the boy was reaching for a concealed gun, I would have fired a second shot, depending on how injured he seemed I would probably have shot him in the arm. I would have fired the first shot at the girl, same as he did, and if I believed she was reaching for a concealed gun I would have shot her again ONCE, again probably in the arm. After very briefly checking them for weapons, I would have checked upstairs to make sure they didn't have anyone else with them, and then I would have shut and locked the basement door and called the police.

But that's just me.

How many times have you actually been in situation like that? 10x, 100x or never? Something tells me you have never been in that kind of situation, i'm i wrong? What if that same boy has some more powerful weapon that could go right through whar ever you are hiding? You would have probably shoot him in the arm, please man, do you know how hard is to shoot at moving target, even more considering situation you are in... And again the arm, you watch to much movies...

[Deleted]

Lol, of course people can change but there is no guarantee that they will change for the better and this is irrelevant to this particular case anyway, it's for another discussion. I mentioned that this wasn't the first time this girl had burglarized and that she was a repeat offender and useless to society. Your ridiculous comment was to ask me "so we kill them in their teen?" when you know straight up no one condones that, so let's be a bit more reasonable here. My point was that the girl was a repeat offender and there are consequences to your actions and when you repeat them, it might eventually come back to bite you in the ass. They did not deserve to die, but they put themselves in a situation where that possible outcome was significantly increased and one which they could have easily avoided by not being losers. Anyway, I'm going to sleep.

No one is useless to society at 17.
Especially that cute. Anyway goodnight and don't shoot any night time robbers, shout first

[Vuljatar]

How many times have you actually been in situation like that? 10x, 100x or never? Something tells me you have never been in that kind of situation, i'm i wrong? What if that same boy has some more powerful weapon that could go right through whar ever you are hiding? You would have probably shoot him in the arm, please man, do you know how hard is to shoot at moving target, even more considering situation you are in... And again the arm, you watch to much movies...

Don't patronize me. There is absolutely no call for it. It looks to me like you skimmed my post and saw "...I would have probably shot him in the arm" and you responded to that alone.

No, I've obviously never been in that situation. Neither have you. The vast majority of people have not. And in order for someone in the basement to hit me while I'm upstairs, they'd need one hell of a big gun and the ability to see through walls.

And it's not very hard to shoot someone in the arm when you are standing over them at point blank range. Obviously I wouldn't initially try to shoot someone who broke into my house in the arm, everyone knows you're supposed to aim for the center of mass (as I have stated at least once in this very thread!).

If I have shot someone in the chest and they are lying on the ground and I see them reach for something in a pocket/waistband/whatever, I will assume they are reaching for a weapon and shoot again. If I am standing directly over them, shooting them in the arm would be very easy and very effective. If I am not standing directly over them, I will aim for center mass as I did in the first place.

[Deleted]

Im from England so I will never get why half of Americans carry guns but I guess that's for another thread. You see if that crime would have happened in the UK those 2 teenagers would have been (or had a high chance of being) caught and arrested for the crime, especially if the home owner seen and ID'd the 2 robbers.

You're joking, right? In the UK it would take the police about three days to respond to the crime (literally), then tell him they can't do anything because he doesn't have any solid proof it was them. Heck, they'd probably sue him for emotional abuse by putting them through the stress of questioning or some such. Even if they were caught they'd probably get a fine at most.

Anyway, I love all the internet heroes preaching about just "shooting them in the leg" and stuff. Getting a solid hit on a specific body part is difficult, even the police are instructed to go for body shots because hitting a specific limb is unlikely to happen unless they're using trained, positioned, marksmen. It was apparent he paniced. He didn't just walk in, have a chat and shoot them. Seems to me he ran into them, knowing they were in his house somewhere and opened fire.

About the laughing thing, if the story was true they were probably off their heads anyway.

[Sinister Knight]

All I care about this is that other teens realize they SHOULDN'T BREAK INTO PEOPLE'S HOUSES. Idiots. I won't say they got what they deserved, I won't say what he should be charged with. I will say it's 2 less idiots on the planet, and others should take heed to not follow in their footsteps.

---------- Post added 2012-11-28 at 11:27 AM ----------

No one is useless to society at 17.

Wrong wrong and wrong. Your ignorance of certain 17 year olds is a testament to the continued failing of society.

---------- Post added 2012-11-28 at 11:30 AM ----------

People describing the teens as "out-going and really great people" obviously didn't know about their desire to break and enter people's homes and rob them. Ignorance is bliss eh? Oh and one of them had an addiction to pills? And the other stole stuff he didn't need? Mmm, overprivileged teens thinking they're gods and can do what they want. This time, they were *sunglasses*....dead wrong.

[CptEgo]

I did, every poster promoting the guy in OP's article are the kind of people who have no qualms over ending another persons life "Because they were on my property"

It's not that simple, this guy apparently had been harassed for years by these teenagers. He had 8 burglaries in a short time, and when he saw those two in his home, he just snapped. There's only so much a person can take.

[Hyve]

The rules of self-defence in property should be as such:

1) You're allowed to act in self-defence and offense when an intruder enters your property. If this results in the intruders death or maiming then that is okay.

2) You're allowed to use weaponry to disable any threat they may pose. The weaponry should be used to disarm and remove any threat, and not to murder.

3) You must report the incident, including the weapon used and any important information about the incident to the Police immediately when safe to do so. You must no longer have the weapon armed, loaded or present on you when the police arrive and present them the weapon when requested.

4) When the threat of the intruder has been neutralized, you must stop any attacks. Breaking the skull of the intruder in the first attack is deemed okay in self-defence, continuing you bash their skull in with a brick when your bat has broken to not okay.

5) At no point should you act in anger, hatred or rage in these situations. You must remain calm, act only to disarm the situation and prevent their escape. Do not act in hatred and start actions that could kill the intruder.

I'm sick of living in a world were the people who are innocent are totally shit on. If someone breaks into my home, they best be prepared to die or be disabled for the rest of their life. I work damn hard for my future, I have a fantastic life ahead of me and I don't want to have that ruined by some drugged up idiot who wants to steal from me for their addiction.

We can't tolerate these actions or people that let them get off freely. Prison is a total joke and we're far to sensitive and kind to these people. We either have a system that rehabilitates them, or have a system that is harsh and just. You can't have 50:50.

[Deleted]

You must remain calm

this part made me lol.
realistic behaviour to be expected in situations of extreme stress.

[Deleted]

The rules of self-defence in property should be as such:

1) You're allowed to act in self-defence and offense when an intruder enters your property. If this results in the intruders death or maiming then that is okay.

2) You're allowed to use weaponry to disable any threat they may pose. The weaponry should be used to disarm and remove any threat, and not to murder.

3) You must report the incident, including the weapon used and any important information about the incident to the Police immediately when safe to do so. You must no longer have the weapon armed, loaded or present on you when the police arrive and present them the weapon when requested.

4) When the threat of the intruder has been neutralized, you must stop any attacks. Breaking the skull of the intruder in the first attack is deemed okay in self-defence, continuing you bash their skull in with a brick when your bat has broken to not okay.

5) At no point should you act in anger, hatred or rage in these situations. You must remain calm, act only to disarm the situation and prevent their escape. Do not act in hatred and start actions that could kill the intruder.

I'm sick of living in a world were the people who are innocent are totally shit on. If someone breaks into my home, they best be prepared to die or be disabled for the rest of their life. I work damn hard for my future, I have a fantastic life ahead of me and I don't want to have that ruined by some drugged up idiot who wants to steal from me for their addiction.

We can't tolerate these actions or people that let them get off freely. Prison is a total joke and we're far to sensitive and kind to these people. We either have a system that rehabilitates them, or have a system that is harsh and just. You can't have 50:50.

I think the 5 points you have written sum it up pretty much.

---------- Post added 2012-11-28 at 11:55 AM ----------

this part made me lol.
realistic behaviour to be expected in situations of extreme stress.

Point 1 says if death occurs while defending yourself you're in your right.
If you can't control yourself though and keep bashing someone's head on the wal after you hear his skull crack for 3 minutes that means you can't control your anger, you are as sick as the robber, and you need rehabilitation.