View Full Version : ANOTHER, another stupid SOB kills some kids.
A different situation than in the other thread, but just wow. Don't even know what to say about this one
http://www.wflx.com/story/20181400/little-falls-mourns-teen-cousin-shooting-victims
I swear we are turning into England.
Two people BROKE INTO HIS HOUSE.
You shouldn't have to play stupid ****ing "Mother may I...?" games, you assume they are armed and dangerous and you shoot them.
The guys sounds like a class A dickhead and said some incredibly stupid shit but that doesn't change the fact that they BROKE INTO HIS HOUSE.
It's bad enough when somebody does that while you are gone. But when they do it when you are home it is a reasonable assumption they KNOW you are home and one has to assume they have some kind of "plan" to deal with you.
But that guy really needed to just "stop talking."
Yes they broke into his house. But it doesn't justify his actions. The guy is a walking-talking disaster and should have shut his mouth. Had he shot them and then called 911 he could be sipping his Coors lite today.
We shoot to stop the threat. Delivering a coup d' grace doesn't qualify as self defense.
I swear we are turning into England.
Two people BROKE INTO HIS HOUSE.
You shouldn't have to play stupid ****ing "Mother may I...?" games, you assume they are armed and dangerous and you shoot them.
The guys sounds like a class A dickhead and said some incredibly stupid shit but that doesn't change the fact that they BROKE INTO HIS HOUSE.
It's bad enough when somebody does that while you are gone. But when they do it when you are home it is a reasonable assumption they KNOW you are home and one has to assume they have some kind of "plan" to deal with you.
But that guy really needed to just "stop talking."
Yes they broke into his house. But it doesn't justify his actions. The guy is a walking-talking disaster and should have shut his mouth. Had he shot them and then called 911 he could be sipping his Coors lite today.
We shoot to stop the threat. Delivering a coup d' grace doesn't qualify as self defense.
I agree.
But it justifies everything up to that point. I hate to defend this particular guy because he sounds like a walking disaster, but those kids would both still be alive if they simply didn't break into his house. So I strongly, strongly want to keep in mind that THEY are the criminal here and THEY caused this situation and THEY are responsible for their deaths.
Basically when you break into a persons house it SHOULD be "at your own risk" and it should be considered "game on", especially if you do it when the homeowner is around. There is also the issue of a remote location and the assumption that they are there to kill you for your things.
He'd have been 100% justified if he hid, and shot that person point blank in the head as they walked past. I don't see any difference in outcome or big picture between that and finishing them off as they lay on the ground. Dead is dead and they invited themselves to the party.
Now I understand what the law says, but sometimes the law can be inconsistent and irrational. Of course we wouldn't even be having this discussion if this guy was able to "stop talking."
Actually I agree, to a point. Yes, they broke into his house and one can assume that he was in fear of his life. I am even cool shooting them.
What I am not cool with is that he moves the bodies, and then delivers "execution" rounds into the last perpetrator. The guy is a total idiot and I hope he goes to prison. The actions of guys like this and the idiot at the gas station does nothing but reinforce the stereotyping of gun owners by the anti-constitutionalists and the cries for more gun control.
I agree.
But it justifies everything up to that point. I hate to defend this particular guy because he sounds like a walking disaster, but those kids would both still be alive if they simply didn't break into his house. So I strongly, strongly want to keep in mind that THEY are the criminal here and THEY caused this situation and THEY are responsible for their deaths.
Basically when you break into a persons house it SHOULD be "at your own risk" and it should be considered "game on", especially if you do it when the homeowner is around. There is also the issue of a remote location and the assumption that they are there to kill you for your things.
He'd have been 100% justified if he hid, and shot that person point blank in the head as they walked past. I don't see any difference in outcome or big picture between that and finishing them off as they lay on the ground. Dead is dead and they invited themselves to the party.
Now I understand what the law says, but sometimes the law can be inconsistent and irrational. Of course we wouldn't even be having this discussion if this guy was able to "stop talking."
Magic_Salad0892
11-27-12, 16:31
I actually understand both sides of this.
However, I'm gonna have to side with Iraqgunz on this one. You don't move the body, execute the kids, etc.
That's too far, and goes beyond self defense. (Legally. If it weren't for the law, I wouldn't care too much.)
Actually I agree, to a point. Yes, they broke into his house and one can assume that he was in fear of his life. I am even cool shooting them.
What I am not cool with is that he moves the bodies, and then delivers "execution" rounds into the last perpetrator. The guy is a total idiot and I hope he goes to prison. The actions of guys like this and the idiot at the gas station does nothing but reinforce the stereotyping of gun owners by the anti-constitutionalists and the cries for more gun control.
Just so we are on the same page.
I missed the part about moving the bodies.
I agree "this guy" is a total ****tard.
And I "personally" would not have finished off somebody who is no longer an obvious threat.
But I am approaching this from a larger issue with down the road implications in mind. And I generally give deference to the "Old guy who lives in the middle of the woods" over "Two assholes who broke into old guys home when he was home" and given the two options I'm probably going to be more than generous when I place blame.
I constantly come back to "who created this situation?" And that is the two people who broke into the guys house. It's a lot like when a cop gets shot and 5 criminals are involved, they often all are charged with the murder even though only one did the actual shooting because they helped facilitate it.
As for the gas station shooting, again I come back to "who created this situation?" Given that it is not unreasonable to ask an annoying person to show consideration we cannot lay blame with the asker and consider that an escalation of aggression. So it appears the the "loud music" guy is the actual aggressor and it was he who escalated the situation into a confrontation. Had he simply turned it down, no situation would have existed.
Now the shooter in THAT case did many, many questionable things and may well prove to be the one at fault in this case. But again I an approaching it from a more general standpoint as it could apply to everyone. And I'd hate to think I'd one day be classified as a "problem starter" because I asked other people to be as considerate to me as I am to everyone else.
It is a sad state of things that many people already think like that.
montanadave
11-27-12, 17:19
Folks are free to parse these incidents any way they wish.
The bottom line is such actions are reprehensible to a majority of people (read "voting public") and when gun owners and 2A advocates come to the defense of the shooter we all get painted with the same broad brush.
If our 2A rights are going to survive intact, the gun community has to start throwing these idiots under the bus and disassociating itself from such vile behavior.
Suwannee Tim
11-27-12, 17:21
......As for the gas station shooting, again I come back to "who created this situation?" Given that it is not unreasonable to ask an annoying person to show consideration we cannot lay blame with the asker and consider that an escalation of aggression......
If I thought there was a 50% chance they would turn down the music and a 50% chance they would not I might ask them to turn down the music. I don't see the probabilities that way. I see a 2% chance they will turn down the music and a 2% chance they will just ignore me. The other 96% is a range from telling me to kiss their black ass (or whatever color it happens to be) to come at me swinging or worse. If there is one chance in a thousand of an unpredictable and uncontrollable escalation I don't want anything to do with it. I'll just put up with the minor, temporary annoyance and go my way peacefully. I can't afford to get into an altercation with a gun in my pocket. It can get very expensive at best and a lot, lot worse at worst. When I think someone is trying to provoke me and I do from time to time think that, I make a very specific point of not responding and not playing their game. The problem with playing someone else's game is I don't know the rules cause they made them up and the rules are subject to change as they see fit. I don't see a win in such a situation. The win is in not playing their game. You might have some kind of a knack or a natural talent or some magic in your smile Steyr for playing other folk's games and not loosing. I damn sure don't. The only way I win at someone else's game is not play. When I see someone trying to sucker me into an altercation I get the hell out. There are of course limits, times when I won't run, on my own property for example. These incidents are very rare. It is very rare I will see a possibility of a confrontation that I don't find my best course of action to leave, one or two, maybe three incidents in the last seven or eight years since I got out of a bad neighborhood.
......If our 2A rights are going to survive intact, the gun community has to start throwing these idiots under the bus and disassociating itself from such vile behavior.
That too.
If I thought there was a 50% chance they would turn down the music and a 50% chance they would not I might ask them to turn down the music. I don't see the probabilities that way. I see a 2% chance they will turn down the music and a 2% chance they will just ignore me. The other 96% is a range from telling me to kiss their black ass (or whatever color it happens to be) to come at me swinging or worse. If there is one chance in a thousand of an unpredictable and uncontrollable escalation I don't want anything to do with it. I'll just put up with the minor, temporary annoyance and go my way peacefully. I can't afford to get into an altercation with a gun in my pocket. It can get very expensive at best and a lot, lot worse at worst. When I think someone is trying to provoke me and I do from time to time think that, I make a very specific point of not responding and not playing their game. The problem with playing someone else's game is I don't know the rules cause they made them up and the rules are subject to change as they see fit. I don't see a win in such a situation. The win is in not playing their game. You might have some kind of a knack or a natural talent or some magic in your smile Steyr for playing other folk's games and not loosing. I damn sure don't. The only way I win at someone else's game is not play. When I see someone trying to sucker me into an altercation I get the hell out. There are of course limits, times when I won't run, on my own property for example. These incidents are very rare. It is very rare I will see a possibility of a confrontation that I don't find my best course of action to leave, one or two, maybe three incidents in the last seven or eight years since I got out of a bad neighborhood.
So basically you tolerate all reprehensible behavior UNTIL such time as it becomes inescapable, violent confrontation because you accept it as the norm.
By refusing to accept your norm, I believe I help inhibit "reprehensible behavior" from becoming more and more reprehensible until it finally develops into inescapable, violent confrontation.
Keep in mind I probably live in a more urban environment where the "bad area" is liberally distributed throughout every zip code and thanks to Section 8 housing can often end up next door to you.
If our 2A rights are going to survive intact, the gun community has to start throwing these idiots under the bus and disassociating itself from such vile behavior.
I'll do that just as soon as all the other "communities" take similar actions and start holding the problem members of "their community" accountable in a similar way.
Until then, I am not a community. I am an individual and I will not be judged by that acts or actions of other men any more than I'm going to hold Neil Tyson responsible for the actions of Mike Tyson.
An Undocumented Worker
11-27-12, 17:42
After reading the news story I am starting to wonder if they even broke into his place at all.
Shooting then executing two people then waiting 24 hrs to call the cops. I wonder if he used that time to fabricate a story and possibly evidence.
Something stinks and it aint the dog.
After reading the news story I am starting to wonder if they even broke into his place at all.
Shooting then executing two people then waiting 24 hrs to call the cops. I wonder if he used that time to fabricate a story and possibly evidence.
Something stinks and it aint the dog.
If he was intelligent enough to fabricate a story and evidence I'd hope he'd be able to come up with a better story than the one he gave.
montanadave
11-27-12, 17:46
I'll do that just as soon as all the other "communities" take similar actions and start holding the problem members of "their community" accountable in a similar way.
Until then, I am not a community. I am an individual and I will not be judged by that acts or actions of other men any more than I'm going to hold Neil Tyson responsible for the actions of Mike Tyson.
Unfortunately you are not doing the judging. The gun community at large is at risk of being stereotyped by these morons and rallying to their defense just reinforces that negative image.
An Undocumented Worker
11-27-12, 17:48
If he was intelligent enough to fabricate a story and evidence I'd hope he'd be able to come up with a better story than the one he gave.
Sometimes intelligence and crazy go together, I'm thinking he had more crazy than intelligence though.
Now if he was truly intelligent we wouldn't be hearing about this, or he wouldn't be getting charged.
Unfortunately you are not doing the judging. The gun community at large is at risk of being stereotyped by these morons and rallying to their defense just reinforces that negative image.
And HONESTLY you are a fool if you believe that any action on our part will change any opinions or actions on their part.
As an example the NFA "community" probably has a better track record than any other "community" on the planet for being responsible but if you suggest to most people that a person should be allowed to own an Uzi they will usually consider you a "dangerous individual who needs to be locked up." It won't matter that it is already legal and many people do it and those who own legal Uzi's cause far less problems than those who use legal weed.
Sometimes intelligence and crazy go together, I'm thinking he had more crazy than intelligence though.
Now if he was truly intelligent we wouldn't be hearing about this, or he wouldn't be getting charged.
And that is why I accept the story mostly at face value, I really don't think he is all that intelligent.
Belmont31R
11-27-12, 18:10
Guy is a nutbag but people confuse 'castle doctrine' with 'self defense'. The two are not the same, and there's no requirement in castle doctrine to stop shooting once the threat is over. Break into someones house, and the person inside can kill you. The odd execution thing isn't really defensable...but they were still inside his house. To me..any perp still inside the house is still a threat. The guy could have turned his back, and either one of them could have pulled out a pistol or other weapon.
Of course is 'sounds' bad he executed them but I don't really have any sympathy for people who break into people's houses...especially on a holiday. Good riddance.
And yes I know the jelly spine public won't like it, and this doesn't look good to the general public but these two would still be alive if they didn't decide to commit a violent felony in the first place. :rolleyes:
montanadave
11-27-12, 18:16
And HONESTLY you are a fool if you believe that any action on our part will change any opinions or actions on their part.
I'll concede that there are those anti-gunners to whom gun ownership is simply anathema. No amount of effort on the part of the gun community is likely to dissuade them of that opinion.
But they are not the majority. I respectfully disagree that actions on the part of the gun community do not have an impact on public opinion. Unfortunately, it is much easier to reinforce a negative stereotype than it is to rehabilitate a distorted or damaged image.
We don't need to do the anti's work for them by shooting ourselves in the foot. And when the gun community comes to the defense of reckless nut jobs, that is exactly what we are doing.
KrampusArms
11-27-12, 18:16
After reading the news story I am starting to wonder if they even broke into his place at all.
Shooting then executing two people then waiting 24 hrs to call the cops. I wonder if he used that time to fabricate a story and possibly evidence.
Something stinks and it aint the dog.
This is what I was thinking. The whole thing stinks something fishy.
If it went down how he said it did, thats pretty disturbing.
You can never tell how you'll react in that situation until it happens, but I know damn well, I wouldn't be executing anybody after they were down & wounded. Thats not what the good guys do.
Guy is a nutbag but people confuse 'castle doctrine' with 'self defense'. The two are not the same, and there's no requirement in castle doctrine to stop shooting once the threat is over. Break into someones house, and the person inside can kill you. The odd execution thing isn't really defensable...but they were still inside his house. To me..any perp still inside the house is still a threat. The guy could have turned his back, and either one of them could have pulled out a pistol or other weapon.
Of course is 'sounds' bad he executed them but I don't really have any sympathy for people who break into people's houses...especially on a holiday. Good riddance.
And yes I know the jelly spine public won't like it, and this doesn't look good to the general public but these two would still be alive if they didn't decide to commit a violent felony in the first place. :rolleyes:
That's more or less where I'm at. While I probably wouldn't do many of the things he did, nor do I endorse them, I won't condemn him or lay blame with him either.
RogerinTPA
11-27-12, 18:50
Folks are free to parse these incidents any way they wish.
The bottom line is such actions are reprehensible to a majority of people (read "voting public") and when gun owners and 2A advocates come to the defense of the shooter we all get painted with the same broad brush.
If our 2A rights are going to survive intact, the gun community has to start throwing these idiots under the bus and disassociating itself from such vile behavior.
Agreed, however, if he would have been in FL, the act still would have been reprehensible, but he probably would have walked. That said, the man is still a dick head. These 'Tackleberry' Bubba types are the ones we have to stand against. These type of shootings are the ones the liberal media looks for to exploit. His conduct gives all legal gun owners a very bad black eye. He would have been better all around had he not moved the bodies and then STFU.
I'll concede that there are those anti-gunners to whom gun ownership is simply anathema. No amount of effort on the part of the gun community is likely to dissuade them of that opinion.
But they are not the majority. I respectfully disagree that actions on the part of the gun community do not have an impact on public opinion. Unfortunately, it is much easier to reinforce a negative stereotype than it is to rehabilitate a distorted or damaged image.
We don't need to do the anti's work for them by shooting ourselves in the foot. And when the gun community comes to the defense of reckless nut jobs, that is exactly what we are doing.
I think I still prefer the law take each instance on a case by case basis and let them handle it and let the "firearm community" confine their efforts to promoting gun safety.
"We" are not doing the antis work. Nothing we do or don't do will change their positions.
ETA: Even I'm getting the two cases confused with each other.
The felons were stupid to break into a house. The homeowner was stupid for not following good, common sense guidelines for a self defense shooting. Execution shots look bad to the public, whether it's gang violence, or by someone defending their home.
What I find particularly interesting is the homeowner is a retired security officer of the state department. Don't they have rigorous background checks and psyche evals for that job? The .gov identified this man as suitable to work for them
Guy is a nutbag but people confuse 'castle doctrine' with 'self defense'. The two are not the same, and there's no requirement in castle doctrine to stop shooting once the threat is over. Break into someones house, and the person inside can kill you. The odd execution thing isn't really defensable...but they were still inside his house. To me..any perp still inside the house is still a threat. The guy could have turned his back, and either one of them could have pulled out a pistol or other weapon.
I'd be very careful because not every state's CD law is the same. MN has one of the more restrictive laws (i.e. least protective for the resident) in that there is no duty to retreat prior to using deadly force to prevent a felony in one's abode, or if there is reasonable fear of harm to oneself or guest. Here is the actual law: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.065
In this case, the State will successfully argue that the teenagers were no longer committing felonies on the man's property once they were incapacitated. In other words, the actual act of felony B&E ended once they were laying on the ground unconscious because felony B&E requires intent or action more than simply being in the abode. They will also successfully argue that the defendant was not in reasonable fear of harm once the teens were incapacitated. He will then be convicted of second degree murder and spend the rest of his life in prison which is a good thing. ;)
Agreed, however, if he would have been in FL, the act still would have been reprehensible, but he probably would have walked.
Actually, he would also burn in FL because the CD in just about every state does not protect the homeowner once he engages in illegal activity. In this case, moving the bodies/victims is illegal in just about every state. Every shot after that point is unlawful. Here is the FL law with the pertinent portion in bold:
Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
View Entire Chapter
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27.
Moving the bodies or victims is illegal activity (FL 918.13 tampering with or altering physical evidence) and a good prosecutor would argue that shots delivered after that point were not protected by the CD because the homeowner was engaged in illegal activity. Basically, all of the shots that occurred before he moved the bodies were freebies. However, the head shot after moving the bodies is 25 to life in FL, and my bet is that most juries would err toward life on this one.
Belmont31R
11-27-12, 23:27
I'd be very careful because not every state's CD law is the same. MN has one of the more restrictive laws (i.e. least protective for the resident) in that there is no duty to retreat prior to using deadly force to prevent a felony in one's abode, or if there is reasonable fear of harm to oneself or guest. Here is the actual law: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.065
In this case, the State will successfully argue that the teenagers were no longer committing felonies on the man's property once they were incapacitated. In other words, the actual act of felony B&E ended once they were laying on the ground unconscious because felony B&E requires intent or action more than simply being in the abode. They will also successfully argue that the defendant was not in reasonable fear of harm once the teens were incapacitated. He will then be convicted of second degree murder and spend the rest of his life in prison which is a good thing. ;)
Meh. We could very well be reading a story about a couple teens who killed the old guy down the street on Thanksgiving because they wanted to see what it was like to kill someone.
Don't break into people's houses. He very well could spend the rest of his life in jail but one thing is for sure...those teenagers won't be spending another day alive, and they would be if they had made a better choice that day. Don't have much sympathy for people who commit violent felonies.
After reading the news story I am starting to wonder if they even broke into his place at all.
Shooting then executing two people then waiting 24 hrs to call the cops. I wonder if he used that time to fabricate a story and possibly evidence.
Something stinks and it aint the dog.
yeah after hearing the news today I wonder what the story is ?
from the article
The next day he asked a neighbor to recommend a good lawyer, according to the complaint. He later asked his neighbor to call the police.
according to the news he called a neighbor told them he shot two kids last night and this was the next morning and he needed a lawyer
his excuse to not call it in was he was afraid ?
and the neighbor called the police the guy did not ask for them to call the police ? hard to say news could have messed it up also
but shoot people drag their bodies around and then sleep on it till morning ? that part seems to be true
OK yeah for sure something is not adding up here
Meh. We could very well be reading a story about a couple teens who killed the old guy down the street on Thanksgiving because they wanted to see what it was like to kill someone.
Don't break into people's houses. He very well could spend the rest of his life in jail but one thing is for sure...those teenagers won't be spending another day alive, and they would be if they had made a better choice that day. Don't have much sympathy for people who commit violent felonies.
Neither do I. But I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that those teens have not yet been shown to be violent felons by committing a B&E. There is a good chance that they believed the house to be unoccupied since Mr. Smith was in his basement and they were unarmed. I will concede that the CD laws do not require that a homeowner wait for violence to act, and that the homeowner was well within his right to shoot them as they came down the steps. He could even do it "execution style" as Steyr described with a shot to the back of the head when they walk by a corner. However, that is not how I would currently choose to act in this situation (unarmed teen) due to a variety of unique professional constraints.
I'll go out on another limb and state that the FL castle doctrine laws have a glaring problem - there is no limitation on lethal force once the intruder is incapacitated and no longer a reasonable threat. In other words, a FL homeowner can come damn close to executing an incapacitated intruder and it would be hard to prosecute them (possible but hard). This is a problem since the FL legislature never intended to give homeowners the ability to execute any forced intruder. Imagine if I found Martin Downey Jr. passed out on my bed and I walked up to him, and put one through his head while he was asleep. How does FL address this since only about 5% of the population is cool with that? A simple fix would be to limit the homeowner's lethal force once there is clear indication that the threat is neutralized. I know this view is a minority opinion around here, but it is just my $0.02.
He could even do it "execution style" as Steyr described with a shot to the back of the head when they walk by a corner.
LOL. I take exception to that. You say it like it's a bad thing. When it comes to protecting myself and my family IN MY HOME I will always take the most possible advantage (always cheat, always win) and put the threat at the greatest possible disadvantage in order to eliminate that threat as quickly and safely (to me) as possible.
I'll go out on another limb and state that the FL castle doctrine laws have a glaring problem - there is no limitation on lethal force once the intruder is incapacitated and no longer a reasonable threat. In other words, a FL homeowner can come damn close to executing an incapacitated intruder and it would be hard to prosecute them (possible but hard).
Tough shit. Don't break into my house. Expect me to kill you if you do. How, when or why you died as a result of breaking into my house really is besides the point and is as irrelevant as the weapon used. People would probably be mortified if I decapitated somebody with a sword or bludgeoned them to death. But does it really matter?
Being required to play silly games like having to decide if person is "no longer a threat" just invites bad guys to "play possum" and try and get you caught off guard. With two people in the house you also don't have time to babysit one who is down while the other seeks the best possible opportunity to kill you.
If military and LE (not sure if SWAT still does this kind of thing) can fire anchor shots to protect themselves while situations are still unresolved then a lone homeowner defending himself should have as much leeway.
And it's really, really easy to prevent any of this from happening. Don't break into my house. I'd actually prefer it that way. I don't want to have to shoot anybody.
LOL. I take exception to that. You say it like it's a bad thing...Tough shit.
Don't take exception because the "execution style" comment was not intended to be good or bad. I would not personally choose that method for an unarmed teen, but would have no problem using it with multiple intruders or if I was unsure if they had weapons.
As for the tough shit, that will come only if you choose to execute someone in the manner described by Mr. Smith. That is because no matter what the law actually says, if you choose to put a bullet under the chin of an unconscious intruder, you can bet that the DA will take a crack at your ass - even in FL.
Raven Armament
11-28-12, 01:42
Yes they broke into his house. But it doesn't justify his actions.
I don't see a problem with his actions. Break into someone's home, you're at their mercy. Period.
Don't take exception because the "execution style" comment was not intended to be good or bad. I would not personally choose that method for an unarmed teen, but would have no problem using it with multiple intruders or if I was unsure if they had weapons.
I assume ALL home invaders are armed, on crack and there to kill me and my family. I don't wait until weapons are produced.
As for the tough shit, that will come only if you choose to execute someone in the manner described by Mr. Smith. That is because no matter what the law actually says, if you choose to put a bullet under the chin of an unconscious intruder, you can bet that the DA will take a crack at your ass - even in FL.
Well that solves that as I won't be getting that close. Too risky for me. From my "hopefully" concealed and protected position which should be some distance from the intruders but still close enough to effectively engage I would ambush all involved and continue to engage them until I was 100% certain they no longer presented a threat to me or my family.
I cannot stress enough how much I do not wish to shoot anybody. I have had enough "life experience" that I no longer harbor Walther Mitty notions about how cool it would be to take out a couple "tangos" and be a real life Rainbow Six type operator. I hope I live the rest of my life to a ripe old age and never have to deal with any situation like that at all and my actual shooting is confined to recreational applications only.
But if you put me in that position, all bets are off and nobody will be getting consideration from me.
something is fishy for sure with the guy moving bodies and waiting till the next day or the guy is beyond stupid
but if the kids truly did break in DUMB DUMB DUMB the old guy might go to jail but they are dead !!!
and if the kids did break in I say they got whats coming to them !!!
if every person did that to punks breaking in I bet most punks would be thinking twice about it !
I think more will come out of this one ?
just to think the opposite way what if the guy was a pervert invited the kids in for some reason then wanted them to do things sexually they said no and he shot him ?
not saying thats my story but like anything ya just never know and that would be a flip side to it ?
something is fishy for sure with the guy moving bodies and waiting till the next day or the guy is beyond stupid
but if the kids truly did break in DUMB DUMB DUMB the old guy might go to jail but they are dead !!!
and if the kids did break in I say they got whats coming to them !!!
if every person did that to punks breaking in I bet most punks would be thinking twice about it !
I think more will come out of this one ?
just to think the opposite way what if the guy was a pervert invited the kids in for some reason then wanted them to do things sexually they said no and he shot him ?
not saying thats my story but like anything ya just never know and that would be a flip side to it ?
It could be any number of things and there is a questionable aspect to many parts of the story. At this point we are only going on his version that he gave police.
That said, I once had regular access to police reports and "irrational", "illogical" and "incomprehensible" were very common themes. A lot of people do things that don't make any damn sense and they do them in ways that are even more baffling.
There were very few police reports containing incidents that had logical motivations that were carried out in an intelligent or organized fashion.
I am not sympathizing with anyone, but let's look at his rationally.
1. They broke into his house and given that he alleges he was robbed about a month before he has a right to defend his home and his life. I got that and am good with that.
2. He shoots one of the perps, then drags the body into the basement and shoots the other on the way down the stairs. If I read correctly he saw the "hips" and started shooting. So he had no idea if the person he shot was also a perp.
3. He then delivers a "finishing shot" even after the person was clearly down and quite possibly incapacitated. If he was able to get close enough to tick the gun under her chin and pull the trigger, then he could have easily searched her for any weapons and probably could have bound her hands. Then he could have called 911. Instead he waits 24 hours because he doesn't want to "bother" anyone on the holidays. WTF, over?
The fact is that this clown has seen one too many movies, is a complete and utter moron who can't keep his ****ing mouth shut and was so proud of his actions he boasted it all to the police and will probably spend the rest of his life in prison.
Had he shot them, down, called 911 and then a lawyer I would have applauded him. So yeah, the idiots who broke in were just that. But, this guy is an even bigger idiot and I hope that they baste him with Jack Daniels BBQ sauce before he gets roasted.
Guy is a nutbag but people confuse 'castle doctrine' with 'self defense'. The two are not the same, and there's no requirement in castle doctrine to stop shooting once the threat is over. Break into someones house, and the person inside can kill you. The odd execution thing isn't really defensable...but they were still inside his house. To me..any perp still inside the house is still a threat. The guy could have turned his back, and either one of them could have pulled out a pistol or other weapon.
Of course is 'sounds' bad he executed them but I don't really have any sympathy for people who break into people's houses...especially on a holiday. Good riddance.
And yes I know the jelly spine public won't like it, and this doesn't look good to the general public but these two would still be alive if they didn't decide to commit a violent felony in the first place. :rolleyes:
Well when he goes to prison for life you can join his appeal team and try and get him released. I have ZERO problem with him shooting them initially. It's the subsequent actions that are so idiotic that debating them any further is going to give me permanent brain damage.
I don't see a problem with his actions. Break into someone's home, you're at their mercy. Period.
Moose-Knuckle
11-28-12, 03:33
I have ZERO problem with him shooting them initially. It's the subsequent actions that are so idiotic . . .
Agreed.
Byron David Smith, 64, was charged Monday with two counts of second-degree murder in a criminal complaint that was chilling for the clinical way investigators said he described the shootings.
I swear when are people going to learn to shoot, STFU, dial 911 (only ask for help state name and address), then call an attorney who specializes in self-defense case law?
Couldn't help but notice the home owner used a Mini-14 that "jammed" and a .22lr revolver . . . :facepalm:
Well when he goes to prison for life you can join his appeal team and try and get him released. I have ZERO problem with him shooting them initially. It's the subsequent actions that are so idiotic that debating them any further is going to give me permanent brain damage.
I think that part of the problem is that people believe the castle doctrine laws allow a homeowner to take the mindset of, "If I catch you breaking into my home, then you die." For better or worse, that is not how the state legislatures intended these laws, or how the prosecutors will use them when reviewing a case of lethal force.
In every state, the laws were intended to allow homeowners to initiate lethal force without having to first retreat - end of story. They were not intended to, and DA's will not allow them to be used for the purpose of, continued lethal force once the intruder is clearly incapacitated to affect an execution. Yes, forensic evidence can determine when a perp is incapacitated. Virtually every state including FL has enough language within their CD laws that allows the DA enough wiggle room to bring charges in cases that are far less egregious than Mr. Smith's. Sure you may get off, but do you really want to roll those dice? Even shooting a downed perp in the back Bin Laden style as you run to an exit will likely get an unfavorable view from your local prosecutor.
People may not like this, but it is a fact of our society. Anyone who plans to go Clyde Shelton on an intruder can expect to at least receive a state-sponsored colonoscopy from their local DA.
Spurholder
11-28-12, 08:34
Not trying to derail the thread, but here's a story (with video of the event) of a guy that made a couple of mistakes as well.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=12&articleid=20090527_298_0_OKLAHO764741
He was subsequently charged with murder in the first degree, and he's now serving life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Ersland
Not trying to derail the thread, but here's a story (with video of the event) of a guy that made a couple of mistakes as well.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=12&articleid=20090527_298_0_OKLAHO764741
He was subsequently charged with murder in the first degree, and he's now serving life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Ersland
I was surprised by the first degree murder charge and conviction in this case. Personally, I think that second degree murder would have been the way to go.
montanadave
11-28-12, 09:54
As has been noted by others, delivering the coup de grace is generally a bad idea and guaranteed to arouse the ire of even the most sympathetic DA.
I think first degree may have come about because after the fact he made a decision to put more rounds into him while he was down on the ground and essentially out of action.
I was surprised by the first degree murder charge and conviction in this case. Personally, I think that second degree murder would have been the way to go.
If it went down exactly like he said it did then he did society a favor...if he lured them into his Chester van with candies and puppies and used the story to cover his actions then he should fry.
Belmont31R
11-29-12, 04:13
I am not sympathizing with anyone, but let's look at his rationally.
1. They broke into his house and given that he alleges he was robbed about a month before he has a right to defend his home and his life. I got that and am good with that.
2. He shoots one of the perps, then drags the body into the basement and shoots the other on the way down the stairs. If I read correctly he saw the "hips" and started shooting. So he had no idea if the person he shot was also a perp.
3. He then delivers a "finishing shot" even after the person was clearly down and quite possibly incapacitated. If he was able to get close enough to tick the gun under her chin and pull the trigger, then he could have easily searched her for any weapons and probably could have bound her hands. Then he could have called 911. Instead he waits 24 hours because he doesn't want to "bother" anyone on the holidays. WTF, over?
The fact is that this clown has seen one too many movies, is a complete and utter moron who can't keep his ****ing mouth shut and was so proud of his actions he boasted it all to the police and will probably spend the rest of his life in prison.
Had he shot them, down, called 911 and then a lawyer I would have applauded him. So yeah, the idiots who broke in were just that. But, this guy is an even bigger idiot and I hope that they baste him with Jack Daniels BBQ sauce before he gets roasted.
2. If you just shot one person who was in the house, and another one comes down the stairs then why wouldn't he presume the 2nd one was with the 1st?
3. I don't think the law should have provisions like that because it could easily work the other way. I know we and a lot of other people here have training on how to search people, and I did that for months in the middle of Baghdad, but you can't expect the average person out there to know how to handle a 'detainee'.
I'm not going to argue what this guy did is cool or anything. I couldn't execute someone like that, and arrange them or keep them in the basement for a day. Guy has something wrong with him. I just think the law needs to be open ended enough where you don't place provisions on people's behaviors when people break into their home (violent felony).
We need to look at what led to this. Two dumbasses broke into a home, and it should not be on the homeowner to jump through hoops or whatever. The message should be clear. Break into someones house, and the person who lives there CAN kill you. It shouldn't be this debate about they were just 'kids' or the threat was over because a person was shot once.
We also need to presume that someone breaking into someones house carries the implicaton you have the most grievous of intentions. Not oh they were just going to steal the xbox and wait for the police. Where I grew up a 30 minute response time for 911 would be good. The least amount of burden should be put on the home owner, and the most placed on the perps. We're entering into where the perps become victims and the guy defending his house is the aggressor...
2. If you just shot one person who was in the house, and another one comes down the stairs then why wouldn't he presume the 2nd one was with the 1st?
3. I don't think the law should have provisions like that because it could easily work the other way. I know we and a lot of other people here have training on how to search people, and I did that for months in the middle of Baghdad, but you can't expect the average person out there to know how to handle a 'detainee'.
I'm not going to argue what this guy did is cool or anything. I couldn't execute someone like that, and arrange them or keep them in the basement for a day. Guy has something wrong with him. I just think the law needs to be open ended enough where you don't place provisions on people's behaviors when people break into their home (violent felony).
We need to look at what led to this. Two dumbasses broke into a home, and it should not be on the homeowner to jump through hoops or whatever. The message should be clear. Break into someones house, and the person who lives there CAN kill you. It shouldn't be this debate about they were just 'kids' or the threat was over because a person was shot once.
We also need to presume that someone breaking into someones house carries the implicaton you have the most grievous of intentions. Not oh they were just going to steal the xbox and wait for the police. Where I grew up a 30 minute response time for 911 would be good. The least amount of burden should be put on the home owner, and the most placed on the perps. We're entering into where the perps become victims and the guy defending his house is the aggressor...
I guess that I'm having a hard time understanding your position on THIS exact case. Nobody in this thread has taken the position that a homeowner cannot use lethal force against an unarmed intruder in their home. The issue at hand pertains to the legality of continued lethal force once the intruder is reasonably incapacitated. As it stands now, no state is going to allow continued lethal force to affect punishment or an execution.
What is "reasonable" you ask? Well, that will likely change with various situations. Your DA or grand jury gets to make that determination depending on the circumstances. However, a good place to begin questioning "reasonable" is when the homeowner repeatedly exposes themself to more danger in order to affect more lethal force on an intruder who is no longer resisting or offering a defense. IG made a great point when he noted that Mr. Smith crossed that reasonable threshold when he approached the downed intruder to deliver a head shot at close range. The pharmacist in the other video crossed it when he set his first gun down, walked away, and returned with another gun to deliver close range shots.
Is it shitty that a homeowner can be convicted of a murder due to circumstances initiated by a criminal? Yep. But you will not find a state where the laws allow a homeowner absolute power over an intruder to inflict punishment. The states reserve that power for themselves.
Littlelebowski
11-29-12, 10:09
Lot of people in this thread that are disconnected from legal and political reality. If you want to deliver a coup de grace, don't expect me to send you cigarettes and don't expect your family to do well dealing with your mistake for the rest of their lives.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
crusader377
11-29-12, 14:01
A different situation than in the other thread, but just wow. Don't even know what to say about this one
http://www.wflx.com/story/20181400/little-falls-mourns-teen-cousin-shooting-victims
Bottom line, I think this individual did commit murder and should go to jail for a long time.
Yes he was justified to shoot an intruder in his home to stop them but you are not allowed to take finishing shots to ensure that they are dead.
Second, Why didn't he report the shooting immediately instead of waiting a day and moving the bodies? I think it gives a great deal of suspicion that he is hiding something else or making up a story.
Another thing that should be considered with his story is perhaps the shooter is not a over zealous home owner at all and perhaps encouraged these teens to enter his house and that the shooter may be a complete lunatic.
Lot of people in this thread that are disconnected from legal and political reality. If you want to deliver a coup de grace, don't expect me to send you cigarettes and don't expect your family to do well dealing with your mistake for the rest of their lives.
No doubt. Wouldn't waste two seconds defending that mental patient, prior break-in or not.
RancidSumo
11-29-12, 14:44
I hope the ****er rots in prison for the rest of his life.
I can't believe there are people here defending him when he executed someone who was no longer a threat. Even if that was legal it would still be morally reprehensible.
I hope the ****er rots in prison for the rest of his life.
I can't believe there are people here defending him when he executed someone who was no longer a threat. Even if that was legal it would still be morally reprehensible.
I'm not really defending him or his actions. But just as you have zero consideration for him, I have even less consideration for those who broke in.
And IF I have to pick who was more "right or wrong" the blame ultimately lies with those who broke in.
That is if we are accepting the story "as is."
crusader377
11-29-12, 15:32
I'm not really defending him or his actions. But just as you have zero consideration for him, I have even less consideration for those who broke in.
And IF I have to pick who was more "right or wrong" the blame ultimately lies with those who broke in.
That is if we are accepting the story "as is."
How do we know for sure that the kids broke in and weren't encouraged some how by the shooter to break in? There is something very wrong with this individual and besides the over zealousness if he was truly a decent person, why did he move the bodies and wait over 24 hours before contacting the police, and seek legal representation before contacting the police.
montanadave
11-29-12, 15:45
If were trying to assign degrees of "wrongness" to the individuals in this case, two of them are unarmed thieves who didn't hurt anyone and one, by his own admission and actions, is a murderer.
Moose-Knuckle
11-29-12, 16:19
I can't believe there are people here defending him when he executed someone who was no longer a threat. Even if that was legal it would still be morally reprehensible.
I don't recall anyone in this thread defend the home owner's actions after the threat was neutralized.
It is also morally reprehensible to break into an occupied habitation with the intent to commit a felony.
How do we know for sure that the kids broke in and weren't encouraged some how by the shooter to break in?
And how do we know that this individual broke out his Pied Piper flute and lured these innocent children down to his dungeon of death?
How do we know for sure that the kids broke in and weren't encouraged some how by the shooter to break in? There is something very wrong with this individual and besides the over zealousness if he was truly a decent person, why did he move the bodies and wait over 24 hours before contacting the police, and seek legal representation before contacting the police.
That is why I said...
That is if we are accepting the story "as is."
If were trying to assign degrees of "wrongness" to the individuals in this case, two of them are unarmed thieves who didn't hurt anyone and one, by his own admission and actions, is a murderer.
C'mon now. They didn't come over to help set up his Christmas tree.
Do you understand that in many locations the simple act of breaking into a home is grounds for lethal force?
I hope the ****er rots in prison for the rest of his life.
I can't believe there are people here defending him when he executed someone who was no longer a threat. Even if that was legal it would still be morally reprehensible.
not my job to defend him ! thats a lawyers job !
if the story is true the way it is told they broke is that morally OK then ?
morality goes both ways IMHO and where is the balance ?
breaking in someones home can often take away that feeling of safety for the rest of someones life !
if someone broke into your home and you shot them and they laughed at you then said when I get better I am going to come back and torture and kill you and your family !!!!
what would you do !!!
live in fear for when they come back or finish them off then say you deserve to fry !!!
what if you let them go then find out they broke into a friends house and killed the family !!!
pat yourself on the back for being moral and letting them go !!!
or just say well good thing its not me !!!
or think I could have saved that families life ! but I let them go which allowed it to happen !
bottom line break into someones house YOU opened the box not the home owner !
something still seems wrong to me in this case and I still wonder if he was not some perv who lured them in ? dont know why ? gut feeling maybe but like others moving the bodies sleeping on it etc.. just does not sound right !
If were trying to assign degrees of "wrongness" to the individuals in this case, two of them are unarmed thieves who didn't hurt anyone and one, by his own admission and actions, is a murderer.
hahahah levels of wrongness typical left thinking !!!
I can destroy property hurt peoples lives cause I am doing more good than you !!! after all my wrongness level is better than yours !!!
just like the punks that spike trees and hurt loggers or set fire to SUVs cause they think they are polluting ! of course burning a SUV gives off no pollution !!!
let me riot and destroy private business and peoples property cause I think some make to much money and I want you to pay for my education !! so I can go make a bunch of money !!!!
sorry typical left thinking is the problem today
so if two thugs rape your wife and one only rapes her once he is less wrong than the guy that raped her 10x ? and he should get 10x less punishment
or they both equally wrong and deserve punishment ?
montanadave
11-29-12, 16:48
C'mon now. They didn't come over to help set up his Christmas tree.
Do you understand that in many locations the simple act of breaking into a home is grounds for lethal force?
Sure I do. It's legal here in Montana.
I'm not giving these kids a pass. By the account available, they were clearly up to no good.
And I'm aware that many folks would feel entirely justified in killing someone for breaking into their house. I wouldn't unless my life or my family was threatened, but that's neither here nor there. The law says folks have the right.
But this guy ceased to be a threatened homeowner exercising his right to self-protection when he started dragging dead bodies and wounded people around his basement and executing them.
Like I said before (and I realize you think very differently), two of 'em are thieves, one of 'em is a murderer. And murder trumps thievery on my scale of legal/moral/ethical transgressions.
Sure I do. It's legal here in Montana.
I'm not giving these kids a pass. By the account available, they were clearly up to no good.
And I'm aware that many folks would feel entirely justified in killing someone for breaking into their house. I wouldn't unless my life or my family was threatened, but that's neither here nor there. The law says folks have the right.
But this guy ceased to be a threatened homeowner exercising his right to self-protection when he started dragging dead bodies and wounded people around his basement and executing them.
Like I said before (and I realize you think very differently), two of 'em are thieves, one of 'em is a murderer. And murder trumps thievery on my scale of legal/moral/ethical transgressions.
You are "assuming" they didn't go there to murder him. You are "assuming" they were only thieves.
As stated before, I "assume" ALL HOME INVADERS are armed, on crack and there to kill me.
Again I come back to "who created the situation."
Except you have no idea what they were really there for unless you have powers of telepathy in which case I would like to know the winning lottery numbers.
If you break into someone's home and "invade their castle" you deserve what you get. Piont blank. But, shooting someone to stop a potential threat is not the same as pumping more rounds into them when they are down unless they are still acting aggressive.
People that own firearms and aren't willing to use them should just sell them off because they are worthless.
Based on your response I here, I don't believe that you have the proper mindset. I don't mean this in a bad way, simply that you have stated you won't shoot someone who breaks into your home if they aren't a "threat" but you don't know why they are there or what they will do when confronted. A simple screwdriver can be used as a weapon and you could be attacked instantly.
Sure I do. It's legal here in Montana.
I'm not giving these kids a pass. By the account available, they were clearly up to no good.
And I'm aware that many folks would feel entirely justified in killing someone for breaking into their house. I wouldn't unless my life or my family was threatened, but that's neither here nor there. The law says folks have the right.
But this guy ceased to be a threatened homeowner exercising his right to self-protection when he started dragging dead bodies and wounded people around his basement and executing them.
Like I said before (and I realize you think very differently), two of 'em are thieves, one of 'em is a murderer. And murder trumps thievery on my scale of legal/moral/ethical transgressions.
montanadave
11-29-12, 17:49
You are "assuming" they didn't go there to murder him. You are "assuming" they were only thieves.
As stated before, I "assume" ALL HOME INVADERS are armed, on crack and there to kill me.
Again I come back to "who created the situation."
I would dispute the notion that I am "assuming" anything. I don't presume to know what their intention was. And I am not assuming facts not in evidence.
You appear to see only one "situation" in which the precipitating act absolves the homeowner from all complicity related to subsequent actions on his part.
I see two separate situations with a clear demarcation between them. The act of self defense ceased when the thieves were shot, incapacitated, and no longer posed a threat. By all rights, things are kosher (to most folks) up to this point. Then the homeowner initiated a second situation which culminated in his execution of a person. And that's no longer kosher, at least in my book.
RancidSumo
11-29-12, 17:54
I'm not really defending him or his actions. But just as you have zero consideration for him, I have even less consideration for those who broke in.
And IF I have to pick who was more "right or wrong" the blame ultimately lies with those who broke in.
That is if we are accepting the story "as is."
Had he simply shot them as they came down the stairs to defend himself I'd be right there with all of you saying they got what they had coming to them for breaking in, even if they both died in the process. However, that isn't what happened. If we look at the progression of events we have:
1. He hears someone breaking into his house and arms himself
2. He shoots the first intruder as he is coming down the stairs. The man he shot falls down the stairs and is lying on his back.
Up to that point, everything he did was fine. From then on though he crosses the line from self defense to murder:
3. He executes intruder #1 as he is lying there incapacitated by shooting him in the face.
4. He drags intruder #1 further into the basement, sits in his chair, and instead of calling the police he just sits there for several minutes.
5. He hears intruder #2 at the top of the stairs, gets up, and shoots her as she is coming down. She falls and is lying on the ground at the foot of the stairs.
6. He switches from his rifle to his pistol and shoots her several time in the chest as she is lying there.
7. Instead of running and calling the police he drags her over by intruder #1's corpse, tucks his gun up under her chin, and delivers (in his own words) a "good clean finishing shot".
8. He just leaves them there in his basement while he goes about his Thanksgiving.
9. He asks his neighbor to recommend a good lawyer before asking them to call the police.
I don't see how anyone can read the account this guy gave and think he is anything other than a murderer. I'm not making excuses for the people that broke into his house and I'm not saying he didn't have the right to shoot them in self defense but he absolutely did not have the right to execute both of them after they were no longer a threat when he could have fled and called the police. Without all his "finishing shots" one or both of these teens might still be alive and he would not be in the legal mess he so rightfully finds himself in now.
montanadave
11-29-12, 18:04
Iraqgunz: Your comment about mindset is a valid one and something I have considered. There are an infinite number of scenarios and countless ways to play them out. But at the most basic level, I'm probably gonna yell "get the **** outa my house or I'm gonna start shooting" as opposed to slipping into the closet and putting one in somebody's ear as they walk down the hall.
Different strokes for different folks. At the end of the day, we gotta be able to live with our own actions.
You need to read all of my posts. I never condoned the actions of the homeowner, nor did I recommend you take such action nor that I would take such action.
But, if someone breaks into the castle I am not going to play Chinese parliament session and debate why they came. We can point to numerous cases where people breaking in to homes have raped, robbed and murdered people inside.
The family in Connecticut comes to mind.
Iraqgunz: Your comment about mindset is a valid one and something I have considered. There are an infinite number of scenarios and countless ways to play them out. But at the most basic level, I'm probably gonna yell "get the **** outa my house or I'm gonna start shooting" as opposed to slipping into the closet and putting one in somebody's ear as they walk down the hall.
Different strokes for different folks. At the end of the day, we gotta be able to live with our own actions.
Heavy Metal
11-29-12, 18:10
Sounds like this guy was thinking about doing the last two of the three "SSS"es and chickened-out.
I would dispute the notion that I am "assuming" anything. I don't presume to know what their intention was. And I am not assuming facts not in evidence.
You appear to see only one "situation" in which the precipitating act absolves the homeowner from all complicity related to subsequent actions on his part.
I see two separate situations with a clear demarcation between them. The act of self defense ceased when the thieves were shot, incapacitated, and no longer posed a threat. By all rights, things are kosher (to most folks) up to this point. Then the homeowner initiated a second situation which culminated in his execution of a person. And that's no longer kosher, at least in my book.
You said "two of 'em are thieves."
That is an assumption.
They might have been part of a satanic cult there to murder him and make an offering bowl from his skull.
They might have been high off their ****ing asses and thought it would be funny to sneak into "Old Man's" place with no more ill intent than a prank.
Right now we don't know.
As far as the "went to far" actions of the homeowner, I agree. I'm just going back to "who created the situation" and that is where I'm placing ultimate blame for everything.
Keep in mind this doesn't absolve the homeowner of his actions. But his actions don't cancel out that these two broke into his house and some people want to do just that.
montanadave
11-29-12, 18:20
You need to read all of my posts. I never condoned the actions of the homeowner, nor did I recommend you take such action nor that I would take such action.
But, if someone breaks into the castle I am not going to play Chinese parliament session and debate why they came. We can point to numerous cases where people breaking in to homes have raped, robbed and murdered people inside.
The family in Connecticut comes to mind.
My apologies. I cited the two examples merely to illustrate my likely response as opposed to the extreme alternative. I did not mean to imply you condoned any such action.
montanadave
11-29-12, 18:26
Steyr: You're right about referring to them as thieves. They were home invaders whose intentions are unknown. But apparently unarmed.
I still draw a distinct line in the chain of events. The homeowner was defending himself. Stop. Then he murdered someone.
Steyr: You're right about referring to them as thieves. They were home invaders whose intentions are unknown. But apparently unarmed.
I still draw a distinct line in the chain of events. The homeowner was defending himself. Stop. Then he murdered someone.
Who do you blame for the incident occurring? Hone owner or home invader?
Littlelebowski
11-29-12, 19:51
I blame both. This guy is clearly a problem waiting to happen and he's a ****ing problem child for gun owners.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
montanadave
11-29-12, 20:45
Who do you blame for the incident occurring? Hone owner or home invader?
I put everything on the home invaders ... right up to the point they were shot and incapacitated. After that, it's all on the numb nuts that decided he had a free pass to execute them instead of calling 911 and waiting out front for the cavalry.
I blame both. This guy is clearly a problem waiting to happen and he's a ****ing problem child for gun owners.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
Bingo.
Belmont31R
11-29-12, 21:02
I guess that I'm having a hard time understanding your position on THIS exact case. Nobody in this thread has taken the position that a homeowner cannot use lethal force against an unarmed intruder in their home. The issue at hand pertains to the legality of continued lethal force once the intruder is reasonably incapacitated. As it stands now, no state is going to allow continued lethal force to affect punishment or an execution.
What is "reasonable" you ask? Well, that will likely change with various situations. Your DA or grand jury gets to make that determination depending on the circumstances. However, a good place to begin questioning "reasonable" is when the homeowner repeatedly exposes themself to more danger in order to affect more lethal force on an intruder who is no longer resisting or offering a defense. IG made a great point when he noted that Mr. Smith crossed that reasonable threshold when he approached the downed intruder to deliver a head shot at close range. The pharmacist in the other video crossed it when he set his first gun down, walked away, and returned with another gun to deliver close range shots.
Is it shitty that a homeowner can be convicted of a murder due to circumstances initiated by a criminal? Yep. But you will not find a state where the laws allow a homeowner absolute power over an intruder to inflict punishment. The states reserve that power for themselves.
My contention is that the focus is on this guy, and blaming him for these teens being killed when they were the ones who committed a violent felony in the first place, and broke into his house.
As far as the law goes? To me if you break into someones house then all bets are off, and you're at the mercy of the person/owner who has the right to defend the property.
I don't think its right to leave the law vague or set some arbitrary rules like if they are 'incapicated enough' then they are no longer committing a crime. Them still being in the house = still committing a crime to me. If you shoot someone, and they scurry off/out of the house then, no, but until then whatever happens happens, and the homeowner shouldn't be liable for anything.
Now these people who committed a violent felony against another are 'victims', and the guy defending his house is the criminal. I think thats sick, and unfortunately happens all too often. I'm not going to say executing someone is something I would do and I'm not saying it looks good to the general public but I don't blame the old dude for what happened. Don't break into people's houses, and you won't run the risk of getting shot and then executed.
At the end of the day no matter what the law says or what the public thinks those teens are dead because they broke into the wrong house, and like I said that old guy might live the rest of his life in a cell but he's the one still breathing while they are not.
I don't think its right to leave the law vague or set some arbitrary rules like if they are 'incapicated enough' then they are no longer committing a crime. Them still being in the house = still committing a crime to me. If you shoot someone, and they scurry off/out of the house then, no, but until then whatever happens happens, and the homeowner shouldn't be liable for anything.
Thank you for the clarification. I happen to disagree on many levels, but at least you have the balls to say what you believe.
Steyr,
Seriously? It seems as if you want to argue just to argue or maybe you just like the tit for tit. I don't think anyone is blaming the homeowner (at least here).
The issue is that he went above and beyond what is lawful. Had he popped them and then called 911 it would be a non issue.
Who do you blame for the incident occurring? Hone owner or home invader?
Magic_Salad0892
11-29-12, 22:15
I'm not sure if I could bend down and actually shoot a woman who's defenseless.
Something about it being a young woman (from what I understand) kind of bothers me.
The whole situation is ****ed.
I put everything on the home invaders ... right up to the point they were shot and incapacitated. After that, it's all on the numb nuts that decided he had a free pass to execute them instead of calling 911 and waiting out front for the cavalry.
You are sooooooo close.
Let me try and help.
Where it not for the _____________, the entire situation would never have happened.
A. Home Invaders
B. Home Owner
Steyr,
Seriously? It seems as if you want to argue just to argue or maybe you just like the tit for tit. I don't think anyone is blaming the homeowner (at least here).
The issue is that he went above and beyond what is lawful. Had he popped them and then called 911 it would be a non issue.
I agree, and I think I've even stated pretty clearly that I wouldn't have done what he did and I don't agree with several of the things he did.
I have problems with:
1. Moving the bodies - I can think of damn few legitimate reasons to do this and I don't think any of them apply. I think he moved the bodies because he was a moron.
2. Shooting the person under the chin - Again, I can think of damn few legitimate reasons to do this and I don't think any of them apply. I personally am NOT getting anywhere near that close to a person I just dropped. His reasoning for why he did it borders on the bizarre.
3. Waiting to call 911 - I can't think of a single legitimate reason not to call for help IMMEDIATELY as soon as you are able. Lots of reasons why a person would NOT call 911 and none of them are good.
4. Running his mouth - I'm just not crazy enough to be able to identify with him or most of the crap that came out of his mouth. Some squirrels have more nuts than others.
That said, the two home invaders created this situation. Were it not for there actions they would both still be alive and Cabin Crazy would not be in jail. Maybe he'd have eventually done something bad, maybe he'd have lived the rest of his life without incident if people would have just stayed the **** out of his house.
I do know this. Guys who live "out there" Unabomber style and have "treasure" they need to protect can get a little squirrley sometimes. It's generally a good idea to leave them the **** alone because sometimes they live by "cabin out in the woods" rules.
So I'm not giving this guy a pass, but if I have to decide "who is to blame", well you know my answer.
I'm not sure if I could bend down and actually shoot a woman who's defenseless.
Something about it being a young woman (from what I understand) kind of bothers me.
The whole situation is ****ed.
It can be a dangerous thing to assume a person who is down is "unarmed and defenseless." Lots and lots of people are killed by those they thought were "unarmed and defenseless."
As for killing a woman, I guess I'm a feminist.
Suwannee Tim
12-01-12, 15:54
I don't want to start a thread "Another Another Another Stupid SOB....." so here it is:
Another Another Another Stupid SOB goes to prison for killing a child. (http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2012-11-30/story/father-sentenced-accidental-2010-shooting-baby)
Notice the mug shot with five tears tattooed on his face. I think those are supposed to represent people he has murdered. I guess he can have the prison tattoo artist add one. What a scum bag.
I don't want to start a thread "Another Another Another Stupid SOB....." so here it is:
Another Another Another Stupid SOB goes to prison for killing a child. (http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2012-11-30/story/father-sentenced-accidental-2010-shooting-baby)
Notice the mug shot with five tears tattooed on his face. I think those are supposed to represent people he has murdered. I guess he can have the prison tattoo artist add one. What a scum bag.
As that story has absolutely zip to do with defending oneself, I couldn't agree more. And yeah, one fine looking citizen.
Alaskapopo
12-01-12, 16:05
A different situation than in the other thread, but just wow. Don't even know what to say about this one
http://www.wflx.com/story/20181400/little-falls-mourns-teen-cousin-shooting-victims
I read about this in another form. Self defense is one thing making an execution shot to finish someone off is another. This guy deserves the death penalty. He gives all gun owners a bad name. You shold only use lethal force when you really feel that if you don't you're going to die or be seriously injured. The same would apply when defending someone else from death or serious physical injury. That was clearly not the case here.
You should not use lethal force because the guy is running off with your TV set. This guy is pure evil.
Suwannee Tim
12-01-12, 16:27
I question the circumstances. It is unusual for a female to be involved in a burglary.
Alaskapopo
12-01-12, 16:32
I question the circumstances. It is unusual for a female to be involved in a burglary.
Not really from what I have seen. Obviously males commit more crimes like this but females are gettting involved more and more. But the home owners execution was definately wrong rather he did it to a male or a female.
Pat
Moose-Knuckle
12-01-12, 16:41
You shold only use lethal force when you really feel that if you don't you're going to die or be seriously injured.
If an intruder(s) gains access into my habitation then they have defeated/bypassed locked and secured windows and doors I WOULD "really" feel in fear of my life and or serious bodily injury. I'm not going to stand there and have the intruder(s) fill out a questionnaire so as to discover their intentions.
The same would apply when defending someone else from death or serious physical injury.
You can multiple the above by infinity when my wife and any of our future children are concerned.
You should not use lethal force because the guy is running off with your TV set. This guy is pure evil.
As you said in another thread, "you do not have a right to push your morals or beliefs off on others". Thank GOD I live in TX.
§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.
I pay to have a law firm who specializes in self-defense case law and NFA trusts on retainer for my wife and I should the need ever arise. The ONLY reason I would not use lethal force to prevent someone from stealing my TV is that the TV cost less than the court fees and subsequent wrongful death suite by the oxygen thief’s birth giver.
Alaskapopo
12-01-12, 16:50
If an intruder(s) gains access into my habitation then they have defeated/bypassed locked and secured windows and doors I WOULD "really" feel in fear of my life and or serious bodily injury. I'm not going to stand there and have the intruder(s) fill out a questionnaire so as to discover their intentions.
You can multiple the above by infinity when my wife and any of our future children are concerned.
As you said in another thread, "you do not have a right to push your morals or beliefs off on others". Thank GOD I live in TX.
I pay to have a law firm who specializes in self-defense case law and NFA trusts on retainer for my wife and I should the need ever arise. The ONLY reason I would not use lethal force to prevent someone from stealing my TV is that the TV cost less than the court fees and subsequent wrong death suite by the oxygen thief’s birth giver.
For starters I am not pushing my beliefs off on anyone. The shooter is being charged and he broke the law. Not my beliefs.
Secondly No one is faulting anyone for shooting an intruder in their home. What the issue is going up to someone who is down and shooting them in the back of the head. That is no longer self defense and its murder. The shooter deserves the death penalty and I would gladly flip the switch.
As for killing over property yes that is wrong and if there is a God that is something someone should burn in hell for. Yes that is my opinion. Fortunately most states forbid you shooting or using lethal force unless your own life or the life of another is threatened. The only exception I can think of is Texas. It does say something about a people when they value things more than peoples lives.
Pat
Moose-Knuckle
12-01-12, 16:58
For starters I am not pushing my beliefs off on anyone.
Yes you are.
Here . . .
You should not use lethal force because the guy is running off with your TV set.
. . . and again here.
As for killing over property yes that is wrong and if there is a God that is something someone should burn in hell for.
That is no longer self defense and its murder. The shooter deserves the death penalty and I would gladly flip the switch.
So you will "gladly" execute the executioner? What would your God have to say about that?
Alaskapopo
12-01-12, 17:15
Yes you are.
Here . . .
. . . and again here.
So you will "gladly" execute the executioner? What would your God have to say about that?
Well if you honestly believe it is ok to kill someone over property we are not going to see eye to eye. Such a view is morally bankrupt but we will have to agree to disagree. Like I said fortunately most of the civilized world agrees with me on this one.
As for what the killer did in this case was not self defense by any stretch of the imagintion. It is murder prue and simple and I believe in the death penalty for murders.
Pat
As for killing over property yes that is wrong and if there is a God that is something someone should burn in hell for. Yes that is my opinion. Fortunately most states forbid you shooting or using lethal force unless your own life or the life of another is threatened. The only exception I can think of is Texas. It does say something about a people when they value things more than peoples lives.
Pat
I value many things over the lives of most criminals. Pretty sure FL has similar laws.
As for killing over property yes that is wrong and if there is a God that is something someone should burn in hell for.
That makes no sense. Just sayin'. Throughout history a thief knew he took his life in his hands by stealing. If caught in the act, the expectation would range anywhere from being killed on sight to at least a severe beating or losing a hand.
ETA: Also, if you want to bring the judicial side of divine decree into this, according to the Old Testament judicial laws, in Exodus 22:3 "...a thief must certainly make restitution, but if he has nothing, he must be sold to pay for his debt." So apparently thievery was a significant enough crime that if the s.o.b. that stole could not make the required restitution (which varied from returning the stolen property plus 20% up to plus 500% (Lev. ch6, Ex. ch22), he would be sold into slavery, which iirc lasted a minimum of 6 years. It's not the same type of slavery we think of in modern times, but it still wasn't a simple slap on the wrist.
Well if you honestly believe it is ok to kill someone over property we are not going to see eye to eye. Such a view is morally bankrupt but we will have to agree to disagree. Like I said fortunately most of the civilized world agrees with me on this one.
We aren't going to see eye to eye.
Try and steal my Grandfathers flag or my fathers rifle and see what happens. These items CANNOT be replaced and if I'm willing to risk my life to protect them, I'm willing to sacrifice the lives of those who would steal them.
I understand you don't approve.
Alaskapopo
12-01-12, 17:25
That makes no sense. Just sayin'.
What does not make sense about it. I would bet most people believe that human life is more valuable than property. Property can be replaced the thief made to pay it back and do prison time. Once you kill someone their gone.
Pat
Added a bunch to that post to elaborate.
Alaskapopo
12-01-12, 17:28
We aren't going to see eye to eye.
Try and steal my Grandfathers flag or my fathers rifle and see what happens. These items CANNOT be replaced and if I'm willing to risk my life to protect them, I'm willing to sacrifice the lives of those who would steal them.
I understand you don't approve.
Your grandfathers flag and rifle are just things. The life you take is a human being that could change and be a contributing member of society again. Property is replaceable sentimental value aside. A thief should go to prison or be made to work for the victim until the debt is paid several times over. But killed I don't think so. Your right we are going to have to agree to disagree. I believe the punishment should fit the crime. If we kill people for property crimes or allow our citizens to do it we are no better than China.
Pat
As for killing over property yes that is wrong and if there is a God that is something someone should burn in hell for. Yes that is my opinion. Fortunately most states forbid you shooting or using lethal force unless your own life or the life of another is threatened. The only exception I can think of is Texas. It does say something about a people when they value things more than peoples lives.
Pat
Most states, 30 of our 50, have a standing castle law, and most of those have no duty to retreat. So, most states do allow for it. If someone is in your house, no matter what purpose they are there for, they have already committed a felony by breaking & entering. Giving a "felon" another chance in that situation is not going to play in the homeowners favor the majority of the time.
Most thefts are crimes of opportunity. However, a breaking & entering theft in a home is not, that is premeditated. If one has premeditated this type of theft, only a fool would think they didn't prepare for the possibility of conflict. And only that same type of fool wouldn't react with overwhelming force to protect their loved ones & home/property. To avoid another argument off of this, I'm not talking about clearing a house by yourself silliness either. I'm talking about within reason.
Moose-Knuckle
12-01-12, 17:36
Well if you honestly believe it is ok to kill someone over property we are not going to see eye to eye.
Yes indeed.
Such a view is morally bankrupt but we will have to agree to disagree. Like I said fortunately most of the civilized world agrees with me on this one.
Well sir those are your opinions and you are certainly entitled to them.
Not to mention "civilized" people don't steal in the first place.
Alaskapopo
12-01-12, 17:43
Most states, 30 of our 50, have a standing castle law, and most of those have no duty to retreat. So, most states do allow for it. If someone is in your house, no matter what purpose they are there for, they have already committed a felony by breaking & entering. Giving a "felon" another chance in that situation is not going to play in the homeowners favor the majority of the time.
Most thefts are crimes of opportunity. However, a breaking & entering theft in a home is not, that is premeditated. If one has premeditated this type of theft, only a fool would think they didn't prepare for the possibility of conflict. And only that same type of fool wouldn't react with overwhelming force to protect their loved ones & home/property. To avoid another argument off of this, I'm not talking about clearing a house by yourself silliness either. I'm talking about within reason.
Castle clause has nothing to do with shooting someone over property. I agree with the Castle clause and I support peoples right to self defense in their home without being forced to retreat. Now in most states even those with a castle clause if you shoot someone running out your door with a TV set in their arms your going to jail. Now you shootnig them after they kick the door in your fine.
Lets make it even more clear cut. Say they don't enter your house. They are in your drive way trying to steal your car. In most states you will not be able to shoot them for that unless your in your car and they are car jacking you and then its because your life is in danger not because your car is about to get stolen.
Pat
Alaskapopo
12-01-12, 17:44
Not to mention "civilized" people don't steal in the first place.
I agree but in a civilized society the punishment should fit the crime. If the death penalty is ok for theft where does it stop. Is it ok for a 5 year old kid who takes a pack of gun from the local 7-11.
Pat
Moose-Knuckle
12-01-12, 18:04
. . .the thief made to pay it back and do prison time.
Which is another point of contention all unto itself. Why should my hard earned tax dollars feed, house, clothe, and provide state of the art medical care for those who choose not to contribute to society?
Once you kill someone their gone.
That's the point of lethal force.
Suwannee Tim
12-01-12, 19:17
I would not shoot someone solely for a property crime. If I caught them in my house I would be more inclined to shoot. If they were armed I would be much, much more inclined to shoot. If they were old I would be more inclined to shoot, if young, less inclined. A pretty female, any female, less inclined.
I have passed up two "opportunities" to shoot people and I have never regretted those decisions for one second. Even a good clean shoot is a nightmare. I want to be able to sleep at night, live with a clean conscience. I have shot a couple of dogs that needed shooting and it caused considerable anguish and grief to the owners and a little bit of guilt in me. They brought it on themselves but I can't say they deserved the suffering. Multiply that by 100 for a human.
Alaskapopo
12-01-12, 19:26
Which is another point of contention all unto itself. Why should my hard earned tax dollars feed, house, clothe, and provide state of the art medical care for those who choose not to contribute to society?
That's the point of lethal force.
Actually the point of lethal force is stop a lethal threat to your life or that of another.
As for prisons the point of them is several fold. Rehabilitation, Deterance, Incapacitaiton, Retribution etc. We send people to prision to correct behavior. So your not in favor of prisons at all. So you just kill everyone who breaks the law even jay walkers? Where do you draw the line?
Pat
Magic_Salad0892
12-01-12, 19:26
It can be a dangerous thing to assume a person who is down is "unarmed and defenseless." Lots and lots of people are killed by those they thought were "unarmed and defenseless."
As for killing a woman, I guess I'm a feminist.
I actually understand both points.
For the "dangerous" thing: If I can get close enough to her to stick a gun under her chin and pull the trigger without her fighting back, I'll assume she's more defenseless than not.
As for killing a woman, I can understand where you're coming from, but I prefer to not do violence against a woman if I don't have to. I'd feel bad.
But then again, I'd feel about firing a round into the brainbox of a dude who wasn't fighting back either.
And as to the issue of killing over property...
It is highly dependant. Will I use force? Absolutely. Will I kill somebody over property if they're not attacking me directly? Highly doubtful. Do I think people who would should burn in Hell?
... Nah. Most of 'em are still good people. Even if they'd make decisions I don't agree with.
Alaskapopo
12-01-12, 19:28
I would not shoot someone solely for a property crime. If I caught them in my house I would be more inclined to shoot. If they were armed I would be much, much more inclined to shoot. If they were old I would be more inclined to shoot, if young, less inclined. A pretty female, any female, less inclined.
I have passed up two "opportunities" to shoot people and I have never regretted those decisions for one second. Even a good clean shoot is a nightmare. I want to be able to sleep at night, live with a clean conscience. I have shot a couple of dogs that needed shooting and it caused considerable anguish and grief to the owners and a little bit of guilt in me. They brought it on themselves but I can't say they deserved the suffering. Multiply that by 100 for a human.
Just because you legally can take a life does not mean you should. I known several officers who made choices not to shoot when they legally could have and they don't regret that choice one bit. Lethal force should be a last resort.
Pat
Alaskapopo
12-01-12, 19:30
I actually understand both points.
For the "dangerous" thing: If I can get close enough to her to stick a gun under her chin and pull the trigger without her fighting back, I'll assume she's more defenseless than not.
As for killing a woman, I can understand where you're coming from, but I prefer to not do violence against a woman if I don't have to. I'd feel bad.
But then again, I'd feel about firing a round into the brainbox of a dude who wasn't fighting back either.
And as to the issue of killing over property...
It is highly dependant. Will I use force? Absolutely. Will I kill somebody over property if they're not attacking me directly? Highly doubtful. Do I think people who would should burn in Hell?
... Nah. Most of 'em are still good people. Even if they'd make decisions I don't agree with.
Totally agree. I see not problem with using force to stop the guy from stealing my property not not lethal force. No one says you have to let them walk off with your stuff but there are options shot of ending a life as well.
Pat
Suwannee Tim
12-01-12, 19:33
Just because you legally can take a life does not mean you should. I known several officers who made choices not to shoot when they legally could have and they don't regret that choice one bit. Lethal force should be a last resort.
Pat
Absolutely. The taking of a life is one of the serious things a man can do and absolutely irreversible. When you make the shoot / no shoot decision and decide to shoot the decision is final. When you decide to no shoot you can usually change your mind and shoot. I approach irreversible actions with caution and restraint.
I think a some officers are too quick to shoot. There was a case locally where officers shot a retarded man. The State Attorney called it clean. They still have to live with themselves. That is a subject for another thread.
Magic_Salad0892
12-01-12, 19:37
Totally agree. I see not problem with using force to stop the guy from stealing my property not not lethal force. No one says you have to let them walk off with your stuff but there are options shot of ending a life as well.
Pat
I do however, have one exception to that rule.
Firearms. You steal a gun from me, I consider you a potentially lethal threat.
Alaskapopo
12-01-12, 19:40
I do however, have one exception to that rule.
Firearms. You steal a gun from me, I consider you a potentially lethal threat.
Yea that is understandable because he could kill you with it. He has just armed himself. Then again I keep my guns locked up except for the ones I am using at that time. I always have at least one pistol with in reach. Perhaps I am still a bit naive but I am a bit saddened and dismayed that people would treat life so flippently. On these forums I figured most of us are the good guys. Different backgrounds but generally good gun loving hard working people. People are obviously entitled to what they want to believe but seeing it in print lets us know what is in the hearts and minds of other people. Killing is not something anyone should take lightly.
Pat
Suwannee Tim
12-01-12, 19:40
I do however, have one exception to that rule.
Firearms. You steal a gun from me, I consider you a potentially lethal threat.
If they steal a gun from you they are armed. An armed man in my house is all but certain to get shot.
Yea that is understandable because he could kill you with it. He has just armed himself. Then again I keep my guns locked up except for the ones I am using at that time. I always have at least one pistol with in reach.
Pat
Agreed. I don't want my own gun used against me. Also, I generally keep guns in the house and ammo in the garage. The exception is an AR out of the safe when I am home and a mag of 20 rounds in my back pocket. If they get the AR unless they brought their own ammo they still don't have anything to hurt me with.
Moose-Knuckle
12-01-12, 19:51
Actually the point of lethal force is stop a lethal threat to your life or that of another.
And in some states the protection of personal property.
As for prisons the point of them is several fold. Rehabilitation, Deterance, Incapacitaiton, Retribution etc. We send people to prision to correct behavior.
That's what people like to believe anyway. How many repeat offenders have you dealt with during your career? Criminals go to gladiator school and become bigger and badder criminals. They segregate themselves by race and have reverted back to tribalism; some of the prison gangs are now trans-national.
So your not in favor of prisons at all.
I am, just not in their current form.
So you just kill everyone who breaks the law even jay walkers? Where do you draw the line?
Well I would hope that your respective state does not prosecute the 5 year old who stole a pack of gum from 7-11 as an adult and would also hope they don't prosecute misdemeanor c offenders as felons as in the case of the jay walker.
Alaskapopo
12-01-12, 20:08
And in some states the protection of personal property.
That's what people like to believe anyway. How many repeat offenders have you dealt with during your career? Criminals go to gladiator school and become bigger and badder criminals. They segregate themselves by race and have reverted back to tribalism; some of the prison gangs are now trans-national.
I am, just not in their current form.
Well I would hope that your respective state does not prosecute the 5 year old who stole a pack of gum from 7-11 as an adult and would also hope they don't prosecute misdemeanor c offenders as felons as in the case of the jay walker.
You will get no argument from me that we need to change the way our prisons work. We will probably disagree on how to do that.
I think we should make them work on the inside not just sit around and watch TV. But I also think we should provide them with the opportunity to get a basic education so when they get back out they don't revert right back to crime.
The reason for a lot of the recidivism we have is because funding has been cut to prisons for rehabilitation programs over the years. You put someone inside and if you don't do anything to encourage them to change they will be the same person when they get out usually. I am not talking about coddling them but if they work their jobs you assign them and show a genuine interest in making themselves a better person lets give them the opportunity to get a GED or learn a basic trade while their inside.
As for the 5 year old I am glad your not ok with shooting him now how about an 18 year old stealing the same pack of gum? Just trying to see where you draw the line. Your ok with killing someone over a TV but not a pack of gum. That is good where is your line exactly?
One thing I have learned in my career is that most criminals are what I call screw ups. 90% of them were just dumb people or disadvantaged people put into bad situations that made bad choices. They are not evil by nature. About 10% of the people we deal with it seems are evil and they are a waste of O2. But the 90% can be helped.
Pat
Magic_Salad0892
12-01-12, 20:18
Your ok with killing someone over a TV but not a pack of gum. That is good where is your line exactly?
What's funny about that, is that if you shot a guy who was stealing a TV, him falling and dropping the TV would probably break the TV anyway, assuming your bullets didn't hit it.
Moose-Knuckle
12-01-12, 20:29
But I also think we should provide them with the opportunity to get a basic education so when they get back out they don't revert right back to crime.
This only works when the offender WANTS to change, all the Christian charity and good will in the world cannot change a person. It goes back to the individual's free will.
As for the 5 year old I am glad your not ok with shooting him now how about an 18 year old stealing the same pack of gum? Just trying to see where you draw the line. Your ok with killing someone over a TV but not a pack of gum. That is good where is your line exactly?.
Well the 18 year old is in a 7-11 which exists in the public domain. He did not defeat my deadbolt and gain access to me or my personal possessions. The pack of gum's dollar value is under $50 which in my state makes it a misdemeanor c theft under $50. So to answer your question no the 18 year old should not be shot by John Q. Public in the 7-11 for pocketing a pack of chewing gum.
As for the line, the line is crossed when a person gains forced entry into my domicile.
Alaskapopo
12-01-12, 20:34
This only works when the offender WANTS to change, all the Christian charity and good will in the world cannot change a person. It goes back to the individual's free will.
Well the 18 year old is in a 7-11 which exists in the public domain. He did not defeat my deadbolt and gain access to me or my personal possessions. The pack of gum's dollar value is under $50 which in my state makes it a misdemeanor c theft under $50. So to answer your question no the 18 year old should not be shot by John Q. Public in the 7-11 for pocketing a pack of chewing gum.
As for the line, the line is crossed when a person gains forced entry into my domicile.
I understand shooting someone in your home because of the implied threat to your life. (not the execution style shoot that was done in this case however once hostilites were done and over and the girl was helpless) Originally you said you were ok with shooting someone over property what if they are in your yard trying to steal your kids bike? Again you having to draw lines. For me and I believe most people no property item is worth killing someone over. Now if your trying to kill me or someone else then lethal force is justified and I will use it. I do understand the sanctity of the home. For me not to shoot someone in my house they would have to be complying with my orders to get down on the ground or they would have to be running out the door as fast as they could.
Pat
Your grandfathers flag and rifle are just things. The life you take is a human being that could change and be a contributing member of society again. Property is replaceable sentimental value aside. A thief should go to prison or be made to work for the victim until the debt is paid several times over. But killed I don't think so. Your right we are going to have to agree to disagree. I believe the punishment should fit the crime. If we kill people for property crimes or allow our citizens to do it we are no better than China.
Pat
They are things. But some "things" I am willing to risk my life over, and I value my life above those who are trying to take those "things."
You can't put sentimental value aside, that is what makes some things irreplaceable. That is why I will personally fight to protect one thing and not give a damn about a similar item. This is the difference between my grandfathers flag and one sold at Wal Mart for $6.99.
Additionally, I've had to work hard all my life for the things I've had. Nobody is going to repay that. If you work harder than the next guy for $20 you tend to value $20 more than the next guy.
As for killing people over property, who is it who can tell me an extremely SIMPLE way to never get killed over property? I've used this magic secret myself for years and years.
Moose-Knuckle
12-01-12, 21:22
Originally you said you were ok with shooting someone over property what if they are in your yard trying to steal your kids bike?
In post #87 on page 5 of this thread I said:
The ONLY reason I would not use lethal force to prevent someone from stealing my TV is that the TV cost less than the court fees and subsequent wrongful death suite by the oxygen thief’s birth giver
I do not entertain the fantasy of valuing a person's life that does not value that of my own.
Again you having to draw lines.
In the fractions of seconds that a home owner has to react to a threat the luxury of drawing lines simply does not exist. This is not a black and white world, things are not clean cut as we would like for them to be. It's in those gray areas where a man can be viciously attacked and his wife and daughters sexually tortured to death in their own home by two convicted felons out on parole as was the case with the Petit family in Cheshire Connecticut on 23 July 2007.
So you just kill everyone who breaks the law even jay walkers? Where do you draw the line?
That's quite a strawman you've built there. So you are seriously likening a discussion of whether it's morally viable to shoot someone who has chosen to break into your home and steal your possessions to killing someone for jaywalking? That's just a little absurd.
Then what if the girl was not shot in the head she came back killed the guy ?
You can draw all the situations scenarios you want and its always who knows the outcome
And she got a taste for murder went to the neighbors and killed the whole family ?
Maybe he saved other people ? We just dont know and never will
All we really know is dragging bodies around and waiting was the wrong thing
Talking about it was also stupid ?
Like my brother says often its just they got caught this time !
I understand shooting someone in your home because of the implied threat to your life. (not the execution style shoot that was done in this case however once hostilites were done and over and the girl was helpless) Originally you said you were ok with shooting someone over property what if they are in your yard trying to steal your kids bike? Again you having to draw lines. For me and I believe most people no property item is worth killing someone over. Now if your trying to kill me or someone else then lethal force is justified and I will use it. I do understand the sanctity of the home. For me not to shoot someone in my house they would have to be complying with my orders to get down on the ground or they would have to be running out the door as fast as they could.
Pat
Alaskapopo
12-01-12, 22:47
They are things. But some "things" I am willing to risk my life over, and I value my life above those who are trying to take those "things."
You can't put sentimental value aside, that is what makes some things irreplaceable. That is why I will personally fight to protect one thing and not give a damn about a similar item. This is the difference between my grandfathers flag and one sold at Wal Mart for $6.99.
Additionally, I've had to work hard all my life for the things I've had. Nobody is going to repay that. If you work harder than the next guy for $20 you tend to value $20 more than the next guy.
As for killing people over property, who is it who can tell me an extremely SIMPLE way to never get killed over property? I've used this magic secret myself for years and years.
I have worked hard for everything I have. I don't come from wealthy parents, paid my own way through college, had a job since I was 11 and I still don't think its worth killing someone over $20 or $100000.
Simply put a human life is worth more than any piece of property no matter how dear. Its just property in the end.
Pat
Alaskapopo
12-01-12, 22:49
That's quite a strawman you've built there. So you are seriously likening a discussion of whether it's morally viable to shoot someone who has chosen to break into your home and steal your possessions to killing someone for jaywalking? That's just a little absurd.
Rather it is absurd or not just depends on where your moral compass is. Thankfully you think its not ok to shoot a Jay walker. Most people also think its absurd to kill over property. Also thankfully.
Pat
Alaskapopo
12-01-12, 22:51
Then what if the girl was not shot in the head she came back killed the guy ?
You can draw all the situations scenarios you want and its always who knows the outcome
And she got a taste for murder went to the neighbors and killed the whole family ?
Maybe he saved other people ? We just dont know and never will
All we really know is dragging bodies around and waiting was the wrong thing
Talking about it was also stupid ?
Like my brother says often its just they got caught this time !
Really?
She was shot already lying on the ground wounded helpless and he excutued her in cold blood. I guess she could have been a vampire and got up and sucked his blood. (about as logical as your statements) She was an 18 girl not Jason from Friday the 13th.
The WRONG THING was to shoot the girl in the back of the head. That was murder and I hope he answers for that. I also hope that the public does not liken all gun owners to this cold blooded killer.
Pat
Simply put a human life is worth more than any piece of property no matter how dear. Its just property in the end.
Pat
I could not disagree more strongly. There are quite a few things where I will risk my own life over.
Also human life value is relative. There are quite a few that have no value to me at all. List includes:
Serial killers
Rapists
Child Molestors
Etc.
Alaskapopo
12-01-12, 23:15
I could not disagree more strongly. There are quite a few things where I will risk my own life over.
Also human life value is relative. There are quite a few that have no value to me at all. List includes:
Serial killers
Rapists
Child Molestors
Etc.
Well this kid was an 18 year old girl who screwed up. She was not a serial killer, rapiest, child molestor etc. I agree those type of folks are lower than dirt to me to. But fortunately they are a small percentage of the criminal element.
Your whole argument is based on extreme hypothetical (also known as strawmen) and apparently now also giving people a pass if they just "screwed up".
Actions have consequences. Was she part of the home invasion and robbery crew? If so, unless she was forced there against her will, how is she any less culpable and open to the consequences than anyone else in the crew, (regardless of what the consequences might be)?
What about someone who drives drunk for the first time? Is that "oops, I screwed up" and so when they kill a family in another vehicle they get a pass because oops, they just screwed up? Of course not. But that's what is implied when you say she just "screwed up" -- that she should get a pass or be treated differently.
When you're arguing what you're arguing, which is attempting to define and arbitrate justice, once you start allowing yourself to factor incidentals like age or gender or consequences into the equation, you've lost your objectivity. Justice as a theoretical construct is supposedly blind, objective. It has to be, by its very nature, else it is not impartial or equitable across the board and thus not just.
Well this kid was an 18 year old girl who screwed up. She was not a serial killer, rapiest, child molestor etc. I agree those type of folks are lower than dirt to me to. But fortunately they are a small percentage of the criminal element.
Well if we are back to the case at hand, I would have killed them both simply for being home invaders. Again, I make certain assumptions about anyone who would break into my house when I'm home and while I wouldn't "want" to kill anyone, that is probably what would happen. I'm not going to be offering much quarter.
And by the way, you are "assuming" she wasn't there to kill the guy. We have absolutely no idea what their true motives were.
Belmont31R
12-02-12, 00:01
Simply put a human life is worth more than any piece of property no matter how dear. Its just property in the end.
Pat
Then why not put that burden on the thief rather than the property owner or victim?
The thief can decide how much his life is worth.
Really?
She was shot already lying on the ground wounded helpless and he excutued her in cold blood. I guess she could have been a vampire and got up and sucked his blood. (about as logical as your statements) She was an 18 girl not Jason from Friday the 13th.
The WRONG THING was to shoot the girl in the back of the head. That was murder and I hope he answers for that. I also hope that the public does not liken all gun owners to this cold blooded killer.
Pat
did not think he shot her in the back of the head ?
also the wrong thing was for them to be in the house in the first place !!!
I sure hope all criminals liken the fact you break in you might get shot ! might slow down some crime !
about as logical as your statements ! hahahah you are the one who goes from this to shooting jay walkers !!! and talking about vampires !
fact is they were breaking in they broke the law first and they are not around now cause of the stupidity of breaking it in the first place !!!
again answer the question ! what if you shot someone then they came back and killed you and your family !!!
would you still say you did the right thing by letting a intruder live ? even though your whole family is gone now !!!
not a stupid question a serious one answer it !
Do we really need to start attacking one another over this? Can't we all just get along?
Alaskapopo
12-02-12, 01:26
did not think he shot her in the back of the head ?
also the wrong thing was for them to be in the house in the first place !!!
I sure hope all criminals liken the fact you break in you might get shot ! might slow down some crime !
about as logical as your statements ! hahahah you are the one who goes from this to shooting jay walkers !!! and talking about vampires !
fact is they were breaking in they broke the law first and they are not around now cause of the stupidity of breaking it in the first place !!!
again answer the question ! what if you shot someone then they came back and killed you and your family !!!
would you still say you did the right thing by letting a intruder live ? even though your whole family is gone now !!!
not a stupid question a serious one answer it !
You shoot to stop the attack not to kill. If they die because you had to shoot them in the head because they did not respond to shots to COM thats one thing. Its is quite another to walk up and put one in their skull as their begging for their life. (They were also unarmed)
So for your quesiton no I am not going to excute anyone just cause they might come back on me or my family. I am not God nor am I a judge or jury. I will defend myself and if they die as a result then so be it. But if they stop their attack I am not going to finish them off. The very thought of that is repugnant and fortunately illegal. Your right she should not have broken into that house and she should have gone to prison not to the graveyard not with the facts in this case. By the way if you did murder this girl and say you got away with it in the courts. What do you think the family might do if they truly are bad people. Perhaps hire someone to kill you or try it themselves. Most people can respect someone for just defending themselves. Not many can forgive giving a Coup de grâce shot to an 18 year old girls head. So if your worried about revenge killing then your plan is very flawed.
Alaskapopo
12-02-12, 01:27
Then why not put that burden on the thief rather than the property owner or victim?
The thief can decide how much his life is worth.
As a society we need to be better than our criminal element. Killing a thief over property is wrong no matter how you slice it and in most areas will get you in prison.
Pat
Alaskapopo
12-02-12, 01:29
Well if we are back to the case at hand, I would have killed them both simply for being home invaders. Again, I make certain assumptions about anyone who would break into my house when I'm home and while I wouldn't "want" to kill anyone, that is probably what would happen. I'm not going to be offering much quarter.
And by the way, you are "assuming" she wasn't there to kill the guy. We have absolutely no idea what their true motives were.
I have no problem with you shooting to stop the threat and the fact your a good shooter they have a good chance of dying. They took that risk. However if they break the attack off or are unable to fight because your shots dropped them, walking up and murdering them makes you worse than they are from a moral standpoint and from a legal standpoint. Stealing/Burglary vs Murder. Simply put this started off being a good shoot but went bad when he did the Coup de grâce shot.
Pat
Alaskapopo
12-02-12, 01:41
Your whole argument is based on extreme hypothetical (also known as strawmen) and apparently now also giving people a pass if they just "screwed up".
Actions have consequences. Was she part of the home invasion and robbery crew? If so, unless she was forced there against her will, how is she any less culpable and open to the consequences than anyone else in the crew, (regardless of what the consequences might be)?
What about someone who drives drunk for the first time? Is that "oops, I screwed up" and so when they kill a family in another vehicle they get a pass because oops, they just screwed up? Of course not. But that's what is implied when you say she just "screwed up" -- that she should get a pass or be treated differently.
When you're arguing what you're arguing, which is attempting to define and arbitrate justice, once you start allowing yourself to factor incidentals like age or gender or consequences into the equation, you've lost your objectivity. Justice as a theoretical construct is supposedly blind, objective. It has to be, by its very nature, else it is not impartial or equitable across the board and thus not just.
Never said she should get a pass. She should have gone to jail. She was wounded and no longer a threat when he killed her, he pretty much admitted as much. "Minn. man says he 'fired more shots than I needed'"
Of course you factor in age, gender, size of the attacker, defender etc when your deciding to use force and the Jury will be looking at those factors too. That is the way the law works all those factors are looked at to determine if the persons actions were reasonable by a "reasonable person standard".
This man is a murderer simple as that and he deserves the death penalty or at least life in prison.
From the article.
Minnesota law allows a homeowner to use deadly force on an intruder if a reasonable person would fear they're in danger of harm, and Smith told investigators he was afraid the intruders might have a weapon. However, Smith's actions weren't justified, Morrison County Sheriff Michel Wetzel said.
"The law doesn't permit you to execute somebody once a threat is gone," he said.
END OF QUOTE
He is going away and hopefully this will be a warning to those out there who are obviously a bit on the trigger happy side.
I have no problem with you shooting to stop the threat and the fact your a good shooter they have a good chance of dying. They took that risk. However if they break the attack off or are unable to fight because your shots dropped them, walking up and murdering them makes you worse than they are from a moral standpoint and from a legal standpoint. Stealing/Burglary vs Murder. Simply put this started off being a good shoot but went bad when he did the Coup de grâce shot.
Pat
I actually covered this earlier. I wouldn't do it simply because I wouldn't approach somebody who is down that closely. I'd rather hold my cover and wait for the backup if possible.
But just as you recognize that all human life isn't automatically valuable "those type of folks are lower than dirt to me to", please understand that I simply apply that concept to more criminals than you do.
Anyone who breaks into my home and makes me fear for myself and family automatically qualifies.
That doesn't mean I'm gonna walk up to them when they are down and "finish them off", not because I find it morally objectionable to kill somebody I intended to kill at first contact, but because tactically I'm not gonna take that risk.
And that is also why I don't have much sympathy for the home invaders in this case (assuming the story "as is" is about how it actually happened). I think the shooter has a few issues and he did some things I'd never do, but to me that doesn't suddenly make the home invaders innocent victims.
I probably have a harder Castle Doctrine philosophy than most. I think all home invaders should be shot. Then the rest of us could simply go on about our business without having to worry about such things.
Alaskapopo
12-02-12, 01:56
I actually covered this earlier. I wouldn't do it simply because I wouldn't approach somebody who is down that closely. I'd rather hold my cover and wait for the backup if possible.
That is actually smart and how most cops are trained.
But just as you recognize that all human life isn't automatically valuable "those type of folks are lower than dirt to me to", please understand that I simply apply that concept to more criminals than you do.
Anyone who breaks into my home and makes me fear for myself and family automatically qualifies.
I understand that and don't fault someone who is in fear for their life firing on an intruder I would too.
That doesn't mean I'm gonna walk up to them when they are down and "finish them off", not because I find it morally objectionable to kill somebody I intended to kill at first contact, but because tactically I'm not gonna take that risk.
This is where we differ. If you did go up and finish them off you are committing murder simple as that. I am glad you don't plan on doing that even if your reasons are not the right ones.
And that is also why I don't have much sympathy for the home invaders in this case (assuming the story "as is" is about how it actually happened). I think the shooter has a few issues and he did some things I'd never do, but to me that doesn't suddenly make the home invaders innocent victims.
She was a victim of murder. The home owner was the victim of a burglary. Murder is worse than burglary.
I probably have a harder Castle Doctrine philosophy than most. I think all home invaders should be shot. Then the rest of us could simply go on about our business without having to worry about such things.
I think you should do what you can to avoid having to take a human life if possible. I will shoot only if I truely feel I am in danger of death or serious physical injury. I will do my best to use tactics so I can hold the offenders at gun point until the police arrive.
It seems some posters on here are basically ok with committing Murder.
Pat
GeorgiaBoy
12-02-12, 02:08
One thing I like about Georgia's Castle Doctrine is that while we don't have a retreat-first policy, we can't shoot a home invader unless they are posing imminent danger to us. So if I go searching my home after I hear a glass break and I come up on two unarmed kids, I can't just shoot them for being in my house. They have to be armed or be charging me or taunting me for me to shoot them legally. Much less a coup de gras to finish them off.
I would never just shoot someone for breaking into my house. Nor would I shoot someone over any property I own. I shoot to protect my or other's lives. Not inanimate objects, sentimental or not.
The problem lies there in that if there are only 3 of you, and you shot both of them and you told the police they tried to charge you. Who is to argue that point? If you want to sit down and have tea and ask why they came in uninvited that's your prerogative. I am surely not.
Especially if both of them can't speak. What if one survives? Who has more credibility, you or the guys that broke in?
As for shooting someone over "property" my personal feeling is I am not going to play 20 questions to ask why they broke my window, door, etc... I am going to respond and let the chips fall were they may. I will however not be delivering any "death blows" to anyone while they are down unless I can articulate this.
One thing I like about Georgia's Castle Doctrine is that while we don't have a retreat-first policy, we can't shoot a home invader unless they are posing imminent danger to us. So if I go searching my home after I hear a glass break and I come up on two unarmed kids, I can't just shoot them for being in my house. They have to be armed or be charging me or taunting me for me to shoot them legally. Much less a coup de gras to finish them off.
I would never just shoot someone for breaking into my house. Nor would I shoot someone over any property I own. I shoot to protect my or other's lives. Not inanimate objects, sentimental or not.
You shoot to stop the attack not to kill. If they die because you had to shoot them in the head because they did not respond to shots to COM thats one thing. Its is quite another to walk up and put one in their skull as their begging for their life. (They were also unarmed)
So for your quesiton no I am not going to excute anyone just cause they might come back on me or my family. I am not God nor am I a judge or jury. I will defend myself and if they die as a result then so be it. But if they stop their attack I am not going to finish them off. The very thought of that is repugnant and fortunately illegal. Your right she should not have broken into that house and she should have gone to prison not to the graveyard not with the facts in this case. By the way if you did murder this girl and say you got away with it in the courts. What do you think the family might do if they truly are bad people. Perhaps hire someone to kill you or try it themselves. Most people can respect someone for just defending themselves. Not many can forgive giving a Coup de grâce shot to an 18 year old girls head. So if your worried about revenge killing then your plan is very flawed.
thanks for answering :)
I understand the law :)
since you feel so strongly under any circumstance should someone be shot for stealing thats all :)
just saying what if on this ?
its impossible to say IMHO since what any of us would do does not really matter until we are there faced with it !
as you know most of that goes out the window and often things impact our decisions :)
another stupid what if ? what if we find out the week before one of his best friends in life was shot by home intruders ! and turns out it was some kids that had broken in before and he called the police on them ?
yeah wild out their idea ! but WHAT IF !!! but that could explain some things ! maybe not all but some
(and not asking you to answer that)
a lot of what he was doing or had done recently is going to have to come into play for sure !
its impossible to say what the outcome was in his mind ? which is whats going to be focused on just what was this idiot thinking !!!! and have to wonder if its some way of insanity plee ?
very good point though about the family for sure ! and one I do think about and in this case I think for sure this would be a prime example of someone coming back for vengeance ! almost a damned if you do damned if you dont kinda thing ! but if she was the sweet innocent girl then the parents might be to ?
especially home invasions with gangs etc..
and I still wonder if the kids were lured in ? something is just wrong in so many ways the way he said things what he did etc..
my problem with your its not worth shooting someone over a theft is we don't know that persons state of mind ? and most assume the worst not the OH he is just after my TV !
if they are in the house ? and kids/family are in the house you have to assume the thief must be thinking OK if something gets in the way of me stealing this TV I will kill them ? why else would he be in the house ?
he does not care about breaking and entering I would assume he does not care about any laws ! and that includes murdering my family !
GeorgiaBoy
12-02-12, 02:46
The problem lies there in that if there are only 3 of you, and you shot both of them and you told the police they tried to charge you.
The law doesn't really require that much proof. If I say that they charged me, most juries are going to believe it. Especially when there is a broken window or door in between them and me.
Who is to argue that point? If you want to sit down and have tea and ask why they came in uninvited that's your prerogative. I am surely not.
I'm not inviting them to tea. I'm going to order them to either sit down and I call the police or they run out. But I'm not going to fire on unarmed persons who aren't posing a threat to me. It's a moral thing.
As for shooting someone over "property" my personal feeling is I am not going to play 20 questions to ask why they broke my window, door, etc... I am going to respond and let the chips fall were they may. I will however not be delivering any "death blows" to anyone while they are down unless I can articulate this.
So will I. But that response will be deemed according to their actions. Simply smashing a window or picking a lock isn't that forceful or violent of an entry. I'm not going to shoot someone for breaking into my home that planned on stealing my TV's. If they are armed or posing a threat to me, then the chips will fall.
I think you should do what you can to avoid having to take a human life if possible. I will shoot only if I truely feel I am in danger of death or serious physical injury. I will do my best to use tactics so I can hold the offenders at gun point until the police arrive.
It seems some posters on here are basically ok with committing Murder.
Pat
I am with you on this and I am not OK with murder !
I dont read it as some are OK with murder I just read we all have dif levels of what we see as a threat and what is worth protecting
I think ALL of us agree moving bodies dealing clean death shots etc.. waiting a day eating your turkey with dead kids in the basement is beyond comprehension and maybe insane ? and none of us are going to do that or something else is up and like me and others we think something is fishy about this and it might not be a break in !!!
and most all of us agree if they did break in its the kids fault they are in the ground rather than out for breaking in !!!
just like a bar fight ! you dont know what the guy is going to do to you so avoid it at all costs !!!! some might hit you once some might take out a knife and stab you ? who knows ! same thing for breaking in thieves take that risk the kids rolled the dice and lost !
The problem is this. Your mindset has and will affect the way your respond and all it takes is some hesitation on your part and you may find yourself on the losing end.
I know this first hand from having been in a gunfight. Also, people seem to think that the window is going to break or the lock is going to be picked and it will be 530 PM and everyone is gathered around the kitchen table playing Yatzee.
Do you always have a firearm within arms reach in your house? If not are you going to yell at them to leave and then run to retrieve it?
I am not going to tell you how to act or what to do. But, there are plenty of street smart criminals out there and they won't hesitate to move at the first sign of weakness.
The law doesn't really require that much proof. If I say that they charged me, most juries are going to believe it. Especially when there is a broken window or door in between them and me.
I'm not inviting them to tea. I'm going to order them to either sit down and I call the police or they run out. But I'm not going to fire on unarmed persons who aren't posing a threat to me. It's a moral thing.
So will I. But that response will be deemed according to their actions. Simply smashing a window or picking a lock isn't that forceful or violent of an entry. I'm not going to shoot someone for breaking into my home that planned on stealing my TV's. If they are armed or posing a threat to me, then the chips will fall.
Moose-Knuckle
12-02-12, 02:58
It seems some posters on here are basically ok with committing Murder.
So it's okay to shoot to stop a threat but if they die its murder? I know this is not what you meant but it is exactly what you are saying.
That's like saying because you are on the polar opposite of the debate from me that you would give a free pass to all breaking into your home and victimizing you and your family any way they seem fit. Absurd is it not?
From the article:
Minnesota law allows a homeowner to use deadly force on an intruder if a reasonable person would fear they're in danger of harm, and Smith told investigators he was afraid the intruders might have a weapon. However, Smith's actions weren't justified, Morrison County Sheriff Michel Wetzel said.
So either Mr. Smith was afraid or he wasn't? He had firearms stolen in a previous burglary. Where they the same perps returning to the scene with the stolen firearms to finish the job?
What Mr. Smith did wrong was he moved the bodies. Why did he do this, did he make necrophilia love to the corpses or was he just a dumb old man who didn't want them to bleed out and stain the rug? Why didn't he call the police (according to the linked article he had a neighbor call for him the next day)? Was he trying to hide something or maybe he doesn't have phone in his rural home?
The only fact I know until more information has been released is that he talked himself into trouble. After he made contact with LE by whatever means he should have STFU and hired an attorney who specializes in self-defense case law in his home state.
A couple of you keep talking about this girl as if she was there to sell some cookies for a brownie troop, well this 18 year old WOMAN was laughing after being shot! This is a clear sign she was high on a narcotic. If you read the original article linked then you would have seen this little nugget of information about your sweet little "girl".
From the article:
Brady's sister, Crystal Schaeffel, told the Star Tribune that Kifer had stolen prescription drugs from her home before. Little Falls police records show Crystal Schaeffel reported a theft Aug. 28. . .
This as they say is a CLUE.
Moose-Knuckle
12-02-12, 04:05
One thing I like about Georgia's Castle Doctrine is that while we don't have a retreat-first policy, we can't shoot a home invader unless they are posing imminent danger to us. So if I go searching my home after I hear a glass break and I come up on two unarmed kids, I can't just shoot them for being in my house.
Note to self, if I ever embark on a career as a home invader MOVE TO GEORGIA.
I would never just shoot someone for breaking into my house. Nor would I shoot someone over any property I own.
Good for you, criminals prefer it that way.
I'm going to order them to either sit down and I call the police or they run out.
Or they (more than one) will rush you and do to you and those who trust in you for their personal protection whatever they damn well please.
But I'm not going to fire on unarmed persons who aren't posing a threat to me.
"Hello McFly! Hello anybody home?" The very fact they are in your home IS the threat.
Simply smashing a window or picking a lock isn't that forceful or violent of an entry.
This could just be the most naïve thing you have typed in this sub-form to date. Might as well put a sign out front inviting them in to rape and pillage at their leisure. :suicide:
I'm not going to shoot someone for breaking into my home that planned on stealing my TV's. If they are armed or posing a threat to me, then the chips will fall.
Just how do you know what their plans are for breaking into your home, did you ask them? How do you know they are armed? Do they have a handgun or knife concealed about their person? Even if they didn't bring a weapon with them are you familiar with the concept of weapons of opportunity, i.e. knives from your butcher block, hammer from your own tool box, pool cues, floor lamps, coo-coo clocks, et al.
I would never just shoot someone for breaking into my house. Nor would I shoot someone over any property I own. I shoot to protect my or other's lives. Not inanimate objects, sentimental or not.
so you come home and you see some tweaked out thugs and they have some of your guns in their hands ?
do you let them just run out the door with your guns ! and who knows where they end up ?
do you attempt to stop them by asking them to sit down wait for police ?
do you use force ? if so how much since they are just inanimate property !
montanadave
12-02-12, 08:16
So it's okay to shoot to stop a threat but if they die its murder?
No, it's murder when the threat no longer exists and a person decides to drag the injured and incapacitated home invader across the room, tuck a handgun up under their chin, and execute them.
You shoot to stop the attack not to kill. If they die because you had to shoot them in the head because they did not respond to shots to COM thats one thing. Its is quite another to walk up and put one in their skull
No question, but you continue to act as if people here are advocating such a thing when I don't believe anyone has.
(insert long list of quotes made by you throughout this thread stating things like "some here are advocating murder")
No one here is advocating murder. No one here is even advocating "finishing someone off" the way this clown did in the actual event.
You need to stop running off into extreme hypotheticals (strawmen) and start honestly representing the perspective of the folks you're engaging with if you want to have a reasonable conversation with them. Unless of course your goal is simply to troll them.
On another note, it's amusing seeing anyone here say things like "I'd NEVER shoot someone who breaks into my home". Those absolutes have a way of biting you in the butt. Scenarios exist where you most certainly would, unless you're an extreme pacifist (in which case you wouldn't even be here or own any firearms).
I think you should do what you can to avoid having to take a human life if possible. I will shoot only if I truely feel I am in danger of death or serious physical injury. I will do my best to use tactics so I can hold the offenders at gun point until the police arrive.
It seems some posters on here are basically ok with committing Murder.
Pat
My goal is not to avoid taking human life. My goal is the eliminate the threat of home invaders as quickly and safely as possible.
The ABSOLUTE LAST THING I'm gonna try is some cowboy shit like "hold them for the cops." That is dangerous and reckless.
Again, I have to assume that anyone who breaks in while I'm home is there to kill me and my family. I have no idea if there are four more outside in the car or not. And every second the home invaders are alive they are a present and viable threat.
They are putting me and my family at risk so they simply won't be getting ANY consideration.
GeorgiaBoy
12-02-12, 16:36
Note to self, if I ever embark on a career as a home invader MOVE TO GEORGIA.
I wouldn't. There are a lot more wealthier states who have much more lax, stupid, or non-existent castle doctrines. GA simply doesn't let you shoot someone just for standing in your house or yard. You have to feel in danger, or they have to be committing a felony or attempting to commit a felony.
Good for you, criminals prefer it that way.
Thanks!
Or they (more than one) will rush you and do to you and those who trust in you for their personal protection whatever they damn well please.
Since they will already be at gun point, rushing won't be to easy or smart for them. Or if they are ordered to sit down and stay put, and they decide to get up and run, I'm not going to shoot them in the back running away.
This could just be the most naïve thing you have typed in this sub-form to date. Might as well put a sign out front inviting them in to rape and pillage at their leisure. :suicide:
Thanks for the compliment. :)
Just how do you know what their plans are for breaking into your home, did you ask them? How do you know they are armed? Do they have a handgun or knife concealed about their person? Even if they didn't bring a weapon with them are you familiar with the concept of weapons of opportunity, i.e. knives from your butcher block, hammer from your own tool box, pool cues, floor lamps, coo-coo clocks, et al.
You are using fringe hypotheticals to prove your point. Look, my method is pretty simple here. I'm not going to shoot someone because they are standing in my living room. If they aren't posing a lethal threat or are likely to pose a lethal threat, I'm not going to use lethal force.
I honestly don't care if you guys pump a whole magazine into a person for standing in your house, unarmed. That's on you and the courts. I'll stand by my simple policy - I'm not shooting you until you threaten me.
I wouldn't. There are a lot more wealthier states who have much more lax, stupid, or non-existent castle doctrines. GA simply doesn't let you shoot someone just for standing in your house or yard. You have to feel in danger, or they have to be committing a felony or attempting to commit a felony.
Is breaking & entering not a felony in GA?
RancidSumo
12-02-12, 21:18
Would everyone defending this idiot please answer these two simple questions? That way I know who I should just not waste my breath on.
1. Would you execute an incapacitated home invader after they were no longer a threat?
2. Do you honestly not see the difference between execution after they are down and them dying from your initial gunshots?
I'm a little scared to read the answers...
RancidSumo
12-02-12, 21:23
So it's okay to shoot to stop a threat but if they die its murder? I know this is not what you meant but it is exactly what you are saying.
That's like saying because you are on the polar opposite of the debate from me that you would give a free pass to all breaking into your home and victimizing you and your family any way they seem fit. Absurd is it not?
Actually, that isn't what he is saying at all and I think you know that. I guess it is much easier to argue with a straw man than a actual opponent.
Interesting what passes for logic with some people.
I think everyone in this thread that supports shooting a home intruder has made it very clear that:
A) This clown committed murder by finishing them off.
B) See A.
RancidSumo
12-02-12, 21:38
I would say that Moose-Knuckle and a few others don't seem to have any issue at all with his finishing shots. I find that disturbing.
Would everyone defending this idiot please answer these two simple questions? That way I know who I should just not waste my breath on.
1. Would you execute an incapacitated home invader after they were no longer a threat?
2. Do you honestly not see the difference between execution after they are down and them dying from your initial gunshots?
I'm a little scared to read the answers...
1. I would not, for the reasons already stated.
2. I understand some people's objections.
All I'm saying is philosophically I don't see a huge distinction.
If I plan to eliminate the threat completely upon first contact I don't see a huge distinction between that and what this guy did with his finish shot. The outcome is the same.
So along those lines I'm not going to condemn the guy. I'm not going to defend his specific actions either so maybe it's a fine line distinction.
What if the "old guys" Mini 14 hadn't locked up and he instead shot her 6-8 and then went hunting for the second bad guy and shot him 6-8 times.
Would that really make you feel a lot better about the situation?
Magic_Salad0892
12-02-12, 22:22
1. Would you execute an incapacitated home invader after they were no longer a threat?
Yes. But only if the situation wasn't resolved, and I needed to be 100% sure that the downed intruder was no longer a threat. I believe in anchor shots.
I'll just say this. Ask how many LE personnel have tried to gain compliance at gun point only to see the perp do something stupid or run away because they knew that the person couldn't shoot them LEGALLY.
I wouldn't. There are a lot more wealthier states who have much more lax, stupid, or non-existent castle doctrines. GA simply doesn't let you shoot someone just for standing in your house or yard. You have to feel in danger, or they have to be committing a felony or attempting to commit a felony.
Thanks!
Since they will already be at gun point, rushing won't be to easy or smart for them. Or if they are ordered to sit down and stay put, and they decide to get up and run, I'm not going to shoot them in the back running away.
Thanks for the compliment. :)
You are using fringe hypotheticals to prove your point. Look, my method is pretty simple here. I'm not going to shoot someone because they are standing in my living room. If they aren't posing a lethal threat or are likely to pose a lethal threat, I'm not going to use lethal force.
I honestly don't care if you guys pump a whole magazine into a person for standing in your house, unarmed. That's on you and the courts. I'll stand by my simple policy - I'm not shooting you until you threaten me.
I hate to use the analogy because it has become cliche.
But my role as home defender is that of watchdog. It's my job to protect the sheep from the wolves.
I do this first with practical barriers that keep the wolves from having access to the sheep. This includes locking doors and things like that.
But just as it isn't practical to build an 8 foot tall brick wall around the entire property where the sheep graze it isn't practical to turn my home where my family is into a fortress.
As a result wolves sometimes get past the fence and home invaders might get into my house.
When that happens I have NO DUTY regarding the welfare of the wolves or home invaders. My only obligation is to eliminate the threat they pose to me and my family or the sheep.
I'm not a police officer so it is not my responsibility to arrest, detain or capture the wolves. I'm not going to put myself at undue risk for the benefit of wolves or home invaders, I'm not going to allow them to pose a risk to my family.
It may be Machiavellian logic but I have to assume anyone who would break into my home while I or my family is there must be armed regardless of whether a weapon is visible or not and therefore poses a lethal threat. And if a person should happen to actually be unarmed then I am forced to conclude they must be insane and therefore pose an identical threat to myself and my family.
And I will continue to engage threats until I am 100% certain that the threat has been eliminated. If it makes everyone feel better, I am likely to do that from a distance.
Alaskapopo
12-02-12, 22:43
thanks for answering :)
I understand the law :)
since you feel so strongly under any circumstance should someone be shot for stealing thats all :)
just saying what if on this ?
its impossible to say IMHO since what any of us would do does not really matter until we are there faced with it !
as you know most of that goes out the window and often things impact our decisions :)
another stupid what if ? what if we find out the week before one of his best friends in life was shot by home intruders ! and turns out it was some kids that had broken in before and he called the police on them ?
yeah wild out their idea ! but WHAT IF !!! but that could explain some things ! maybe not all but some
(and not asking you to answer that)
a lot of what he was doing or had done recently is going to have to come into play for sure !
its impossible to say what the outcome was in his mind ? which is whats going to be focused on just what was this idiot thinking !!!! and have to wonder if its some way of insanity plee ?
very good point though about the family for sure ! and one I do think about and in this case I think for sure this would be a prime example of someone coming back for vengeance ! almost a damned if you do damned if you dont kinda thing ! but if she was the sweet innocent girl then the parents might be to ?
especially home invasions with gangs etc..
and I still wonder if the kids were lured in ? something is just wrong in so many ways the way he said things what he did etc..
my problem with your its not worth shooting someone over a theft is we don't know that persons state of mind ? and most assume the worst not the OH he is just after my TV !
if they are in the house ? and kids/family are in the house you have to assume the thief must be thinking OK if something gets in the way of me stealing this TV I will kill them ? why else would he be in the house ?
he does not care about breaking and entering I would assume he does not care about any laws ! and that includes murdering my family !
I don't play the what if game. What really matters is your state of mind were your scared for your life or were you angry that the person you just legally shot is not taunting you.
I don't expect the average home owner to hesitate when they are threatened inside their home. Myself personally I will do what I can to avoid killing someone if possible.
Pat
Alaskapopo
12-02-12, 22:44
I'll just say this. Ask how many LE personnel have tried to gain compliance at gun point only to see the perp do something stupid or run away because they knew that the person couldn't shoot them LEGALLY.
Only once for me on a felony stop did someone not respond to the gun being pointed at them. It was obvious they were un armed and I ended up going hands on with them and cuffing them up. It was a drunk 17 year old kid who could have got himself shot.
Pat
Alaskapopo
12-02-12, 22:47
I would say that Moose-Knuckle and a few others don't seem to have any issue at all with his finishing shots. I find that disturbing.
Me too and since this is a public forum I hope no one uses these type of comments against gun owners. A fair share of the public already believes we are trigger happy. They could use statements like these to demonize gun owners in the public view leading to more of our rights being taken away.
Pat
Me too and since this is a public forum I hope no one uses these type of comments against gun owners. A fair share of the public already believes we are trigger happy. They could use statements like these to demonize gun owners in the public view leading to more of our rights being taken away.
Pat
Only once for me on a felony stop did someone not respond to the gun being pointed at them. It was obvious they were un armed and I ended up going hands on with them and cuffing them up. It was a drunk 17 year old kid who could have got himself shot.
Pat
Gee I hope nobody is reading these forums uses these type of comments and suggests that all police officers think they are within their rights to shoot an "obviously unarmed" drunk 17 year old kid for nothing more than failing to comply with lawful orders.
Alaskapopo
12-02-12, 23:52
Gee I hope nobody is reading these forums uses these type of comments and suggests that all police officers think they are within their rights to shoot an "obviously unarmed" drunk 17 year old kid for nothing more than failing to comply with lawful orders.
Did you read what I said? I holstered up and went hands on once I determined he was obviously unarmed. Not sure how you could have miscontrued my words so badly except .
Pat
Did you read what I said? I holstered up and went hands on once I determined he was obviously unarmed. Not sure how you could have miscontrued my words so badly except .
Pat
I understand what you DID. I also understand what you said.
It was a drunk 17 year old kid who could have got himself shot.
And what you said implied you had the OPTION of shooting a drunk 17 year old kid for non compliance with orders but CHOSE not to.
Alaskapopo
12-03-12, 00:26
I understand what you DID. I also understand what you said.
And what you said implied you had the OPTION of shooting a drunk 17 year old kid for non compliance with orders but CHOSE not to.
You took quite a LEAP. Yes if you fail to follow orders and come at an officer on a felony stop you can legally get shot. I did not say you can shoot obviously unarmed drunk 17 year old kids. You reading comprehension was lacking in this case.
Pat
I had 3 separate incidents of my own. For a homeowner it only has to happen one time.
Only once for me on a felony stop did someone not respond to the gun being pointed at them. It was obvious they were un armed and I ended up going hands on with them and cuffing them up. It was a drunk 17 year old kid who could have got himself shot.
Pat
You took quite a LEAP. Yes if you fail to follow orders and come at an officer on a felony stop you can legally get shot. I did not say you can shoot obviously unarmed drunk 17 year old kids. You reading comprehension was lacking in this case.
Pat
I missed the felony stop part. My error. My apologies.
Alaskapopo
12-03-12, 00:53
I had 3 separate incidents of my own. For a homeowner it only has to happen one time.
Your work in a more dangerious and buisier area of the country.
Pat
Actually it was when I was up in Washington state.
Your work in a more dangerious and buisier area of the country.
Pat
Moose-Knuckle
12-03-12, 04:26
No, it's murder when the threat no longer exists and a person decides to drag the injured and incapacitated home invader across the room, tuck a handgun up under their chin, and execute them.
I said this in response to Alaskapopp's continued accusations that everyone who is on the other side of the debate here condones murder.
So it's okay to shoot to stop a threat but if they die its murder? I know this is not what you meant but it is exactly what you are saying.
It's time to end the vicious cycle of round and round. Let's start a new thread when the next moron does something.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.