Man Kills Two Teens Robbers

[SirRobin]

The part where I stated its in his right to defend himself, even if that means death.

Of course the defendant has the right to self defense.

[Deleted]

Guess what the castle doctrine was made law to protect the home owner not the criminals!!!!! If there are those of you who think t here should be laws protecting felony criminals who invade your home go talk to your congressmen and see how far that gets you. This is not the place!!!!!

let me spell it for you

NOONE ARGUES THE RIGHT OF ANYONE TO DEFEND HIMSELF.
It's up to you to judge how to defend yourself.
If YOU can live with the thought of having killed someone, good for you.

What we are discussing is the butchery that he unnecessarily go through.

[Purlina]

Guess what the castle doctrine was made law to protect the home owner not the criminals!!!!! If there are those of you who think t here should be laws protecting felony criminals who invade your home go talk to your congressmen and see how far that gets you. This is not the place!!!!!

Castle doctrine stops applying once the threat is neutralized. Your not allowed to execute someone.

[announced]

heres a thought.. dont break into someones house like a f***ing retard. if the States law allows you to shoot anyone in your home.. thats fine by them. in Texas you do have the right to kill someone if they break in.. im not 100% sure about MN... but if these teenagers had any brains (that arent all over the floor) they would not have broken into his house in the first place. The world is better off without dumb people.

I do believe he may have overreacted, but sometimes fear or panic sets in and you dont react like you should. For example - when a cop is faced with a drug addict with a knife.. and the addict starts wandering toward him.. should he shoot once? or twice? lord knows how many bullets you need to take down someone on speed or meth.. better safe then sorry. cops are taught shoot to kill, dont be unsure and end up with a knife sticking out of your head.

I still believe this man might benefit from a warning.. but trying to flip a law into murder because of this is stupidity. I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6

[SirRobin]

Judgement, my friend.
Can't recognise a 17 years old girl from a 45 years old murderer from Colombia? Your fault.

Or a seventeen year old murderer from Columbia? Suddenly young people can't kill?

Darn my employed status. Takes to long to reply.

[kjcasey]

Unlike other countries our founding fathers recognized the need and the right to keep and bare arms!!!

Well when you only have 3% of the US's population, I would hope you have less than 10% of its shootings.

[SirRobin]

A little? He executed the kid. Once he had them down it should have ended.

No where that I've seen does he say execute. He killed her when he realized she was still alive. If he thought she could still kill him then his response was permissible. It depends on the context.

[Purlina]

No where that I've seen does he say execute. He killed her when he realized she was still alive. If he thought she could still kill him then his response was permissible. It depends on the context.

"He tried to shoot her again with his rifle, but the gun jammed and Kifer laughed at him, the complaint noted.

'If you're trying to shoot somebody and they laugh at you, you go again,' Smith, 64, told investigators, according to a criminal complaint filed Monday.

He then shot her several times in the chest with a .22-caliber revolver, dragged her next to her cousin, and as she gasped for air, fired a shot under her chin 'up into the cranium'."



Seems like it was safe enough to drag her around...

[Deleted]

Yes it's from the mail, but that doesn't change the story.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...st_read_module

Knowing this forum I wonder how many people see no problem with this.

I see no problem with shooting first ask questions later when someone just break in your home, you don't know if they are armed or not, better to just shoot then risk getting killed the moment you announce yourself.

But from what i have read he did used excessive force, and should get the death penalty for it.

[kjcasey]

Not execute but to use deadly force yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!! you nor I without being in that exact same position can decide from our couches his fate only a jury of his peers that is what makes America the great nation it is!!

Castle doctrine stops applying once the threat is neutralized. Your not allowed to execute someone.

[Purlina]

Not execute but to use deadly force yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!! you nor I without being in that exact same position can decide from our couches his fate only a jury of his peers that is what makes America the great nation it is!!

In this case he executed the girl.

"He then shot her several times in the chest with a .22-caliber revolver, dragged her next to her cousin, and as she gasped for air, fired a shot under her chin 'up into the cranium"

[kjcasey]

of course the families of these two are upset I would be too. But they cant escape the fact their child committed a felony home intrusion which can and most likely get you killed!

I see no problem with shooting first ask questions later when someone just break in your home, you don't know if they are armed or not, better to just shoot then risk getting killed the moment you announce yourself.

But from what i have read he did used excessive force, and should get the death penalty for it.

[Deleted]

Not execute but to use deadly force yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!! you nor I without being in that exact same position can decide from our couches his fate only a jury of his peers that is what makes America the great nation it is!!

Man you might live in a great country but you are not allowed to create your own laws.
Give me a bit of what you're having.

[quras]

A little? He executed the kid. Once he had them down it should have ended.

At the point he decided to shoot them in the head, execution may not be the right word. An execution is usually used in terms of a legal process.

You can say murder but not really execution should you want and while arrested he has yet to be convicted.


However, they had already been hit several times in the chest. Death was incoming I'm sure well before the final blow. I wonder if the US has any mercy killing laws?

[kjcasey]

As far as I can tell there has been no trial so your post means nothing but opinion.

In this case he executed the girl.

"He then shot her several times in the chest with a .22-caliber revolver, dragged her next to her cousin, and as she gasped for air, fired a shot under her chin 'up into the cranium"

[SirRobin]

Castle doctrine stops applying once the threat is neutralized. Your not allowed to execute someone.

However, you are allowed to use deadly force in some circumstances.

[Purlina]

However, you are allowed to use deadly force in some circumstances.

Sure, but we are talking about this article. Not just any random circumstance.

[kjcasey]

He did not make his own law. Here in America we have laws stating use of deadly force is ok on a home invasion. I would say to any that think home invasion is no big deal stay out of the USA and especially ones home you just might go home in a box as you should!

Man you might live in a great country but you are not allowed to create your own laws.
Give me a bit of what you're having.

[Rukentuts]

However, you are allowed to use deadly force in some circumstances.

In Minnesota you are not allowed to use deadly force once the imminent threat is neutralized. Even if it's in your own home.

[Purlina]

As far as I can tell there has been no trial so your post means nothing but opinion.

Nice try, that's what he told the police. Unless your saying the police lied.

"'Smith described it as "a good clean finishing shot",' according to the compliant, and acknowledged he had fired 'more shots than (he) needed to'."