Court case: How far can people go in defending their home from intruders?

[rpfocus]

What's there to get? You can't claim protection of the law while willfully breaking it, and that's what those sympathizing with the home invaders - no matter how photogenic they may be - are demanding.

Well what's to get is that while you 'can't claim protection of the law while willfully breaking it' that works both ways. You can't use self defense as an excuse to kill someone that is no longer a threat. I didn't include the pictures of the teens for sympathy or because they're 'photogenic,' I included them because someone else was attempting to justify this by stating 'what if they were mafia/IRS agents'? I provided them so he could see the reality of this particular case vs his fantasy scenario. The fact that the shooter states the girl was laughing at him after he shot her and she rolled down the steps just goes to show he's far removed from reality. Yet some would see him free and out on the streets? Incredible.

[asurfaholic]

She broke into a house that her cousin repeatedly broke into and heard gun shots, time to run away.

I think she learned that. The hard way.


Now that this has sat in my mind all day, I wouldn't be surprised if the poor girl didnt get violated in all that time between when she was killed to when the whole thing got reported.

[thoughtomator]

Well what's to get is that while you 'can't claim protection of the law while willfully breaking it' that works both ways. You can't use self defense as an excuse to kill someone that is no longer a threat.

Self-defense is a natural right and requires no law.

[klamath]

I can pretty much assure you that if this were my house, I might go crazy enough to do the same thing. They were terrorizing an old man in his own home. Like a caged animal, this is the kind of stuff that pushes people over the edge.

Well you can hope I am not on your jury if you do it. Someone goes crazy that easily then they aren't safe on the streets. I see nothing to show fear for his life, just pure vitriol anger and the desire to get revenge.

[rpfocus]

Self-defense is a natural right and requires no law.

Then perhaps this guy will be your cellmate.

[thoughtomator]

Then perhaps this guy will be your cellmate.

And thus, you abandon the pretense of reason and resort, like the statist at heart you are, to threats of violence.

[bunklocoempire]

Self-defense is a natural right and requires no law.

And we know that the law naturally grows to ignore that.

The same law that is cool with entrapment and sting operations is surprisingly not-cool with sovereign Smith doing it. What a coincidence.

That's yer "law" right there.

Outta rep for ya.

[Danke]

And thus, you abandon the pretense of reason and resort, like the statist at heart you are, to threats of violence.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to thoughtomator again.

[Danke]

Well what's to get is that while you 'can't claim protection of the law while willfully breaking it' that works both ways. You can't use self defense as an excuse to kill someone that is no longer a threat. I didn't include the pictures of the teens for sympathy or because they're 'photogenic,' I included them because someone else was attempting to justify this by stating 'what if they were mafia/IRS agents'? I provided them so he could see the reality of this particular case vs his fantasy scenario. The fact that the shooter states the girl was laughing at him after he shot her and she rolled down the steps just goes to show he's far removed from reality. Yet some would see him free and out on the streets? Incredible.

How do you know the perpetrators were no longer a threat? You don't think perpetrators that invaded your home might have weapons, concealed or not?

[rpfocus]

And thus, you abandon the pretense of reason and resort, like the statist at heart you are, to threats of violence.

If you consider what I stated as a "threat of violence" against you, then you REALLY need to grow some thicker skin. Regardless, it indicates that you're too sensitive to make further replies to. Good luck.

[amy31416]

Killing two teenagers who have already been shot and aren't a threat is not self defense, it's an execution. I'm sure there will be people on the jury to get him off, unfortunately. I predict a hung jury due to some dope that wont convict him.

I'd call it revenge killing, and I'm not entirely against that--especially considering that these people were obviously guilty of theft, breaking & entering and terrorizing a person several times over.

If I'm going to stay consistent, I have to support him, even though I wouldn't have done what he did--I don't think I would have anyways.

[Danke]

I'd call it revenge killing, and I'm not entirely against that--especially considering that these people were obviously guilty of theft, breaking & entering and terrorizing a person several times over.

If I'm going to stay consistent, I have to support him, even though I wouldn't have done what he did--I don't think I would have anyways.

I doubt you will ever have to face it, I'm sure any perpetrators stay way away from you.

[ghengis86]

Well you can hope I am not on your jury if you do it. Someone goes crazy that easily then they aren't safe on the streets. I see nothing to show fear for his life, just pure vitriol anger and the desire to get revenge.

There's a big difference from being in the street and being repeatedly broken into in your home. The "crazy" is directly related to the location; if you can't lay your head in peace in your own home, you'll get pretty upset too.

[amy31416]

Stupid hillbilly internet....

[amy31416]

I doubt you will ever have to face it, I'm sure any perpetrators stay way away from you.

Not if they don't know any better...you know better, I like that about you.

[rpfocus]

How do you know the perpetrators were no longer a threat? You don't think perpetrators that invaded your home might have weapons, concealed or not?

Based on his admissions, it seems pretty clear they were no longer a threat before his 'kill shots'. But seeing as he thought the girl was laughing at him after firing a few shots into her, I find it hard to trust his statements.

[klamath]

There's a big difference from being in the street and being repeatedly broken into in your home. The "crazy" is directly related to the location; if you can't lay your head in peace in your own home, you'll get pretty upset too.

He intentionally tried to bait them into his home by hiding his car. That shows no fear at all. Drunk driving teenagers are a far greater risk, even though they are WELL informed it is wrong and can kill people however I don't suggest executing them when caught.

[Danke]

Not if they don't know any better...you know better, I like that about you.

I have posted this fact on a lot of social media sites.

[Danke]

He intentionally tried to bait them into his home by hiding his car.

And the perpetrators took the bait. So?
They are still perpetrators. Looking to invade and steal property. And use violence as their past behavior shows.

[klamath]

And the perpetrators took the bait. So?
They are still perpetrators. Looking to invade and steal property. And use violence as their past behavior shows.

You are my hero. Execute them brats..

[Danke]

You are my hero. Execute them brats..

No, you are my hero. By god you "served" in Bosnia.

[2young2vote]

Short of selling them into the slave trade, he should be able to do whatever he wants to the intruders. If they find that he is a danger to other people in PUBLIC (in other words, NOT his own private property), then they can do something about him. From my perspective, one that does not pity people who make decisions that are so obviously bad, he didn't do anything wrong. Prison time should be about protecting the people, not punishing those who act in a way that we might find offensive.

[aGameOfThrones]

He intentionally tried to bait them into his home by hiding his car. That shows no fear at all. Drunk driving teenagers are a far greater risk, even though they are WELL informed it is wrong and can kill people however I don't suggest executing them when caught.

She intentionally tried to bait him into her vagina by wearing those clothes. That shows no fear at all.

[klamath]

She intentionally tried to bait him into her vagina by wearing those clothes. That shows no fear at all.

poor straw man.

[amy31416]

poor straw man.

Those cute little a-holes were obviously waiting for him to leave again, the old man knew it, and the cops were doing nothing. What would you do if you knew this, but had to go get a gallon of milk and these "kids" just wouldn't stop and leave you alone? One or both parties eventually had to resort to violence, and the kids lost their cute little game of terrorizing an old man. This is an even more clear-cut case in many ways than the Trayvon Martin fiasco. If the kids were minorities, the dems would be shrieking for your guns...that said, his case will probably be decided by a few factors, some of them fair, some unfair:

1. How good the lawyers are.
2. Public opinion.
3. The Castle laws where he resides.
4. The jury's prejudices.
5. The old man's age, his past.
6. The kid's criminal history, if at all admissible.

Probably missing a few other factors, but I can't condemn this guy entirely--even though he seems rather sociopathic (at worst), clueless (at best). Personally, I would have tried having a chat with their parents prior to setting them up, but that may not have been an option.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

And the perpetrators took the bait. So?
They are still perpetrators. Looking to invade and steal property. And use violence as their past behavior shows.

Exactly, unless he called them over for cake and coffee, then murdered them, he's not guilty. How is preparing ahead of time the defense of your home against invaders any worse than defending against invaders unprepared?

[angelatc]

Well you can hope I am not on your jury if you do it. Someone goes crazy that easily then they aren't safe on the streets. I see nothing to show fear for his life, just pure vitriol anger and the desire to get revenge.

Easily? Seriously?

[amy31416]

Exactly, unless he called them over for cake and coffee, then murdered them, he's not guilty. How is preparing ahead of time the defense of your home against invaders any worse than defending against invaders unprepared?

Since the police aren't obligated to protect ordinary citizens, I think the notion of premeditation (as being automatically wrong) is what needs to be debated in this particular case. Perhaps we need a separate thread with a poll.

[klamath]

Those cute little a-holes were obviously waiting for him to leave again, the old man knew it, and the cops were doing nothing. What would you do if you knew this, but had to go get a gallon of milk and these "kids" just wouldn't stop and leave you alone? One or both parties eventually had to resort to violence, and the kids lost their cute little game of terrorizing an old man. This is an even more clear-cut case in many ways than the Trayvon Martin fiasco. If the kids were minorities, the dems would be shrieking for your guns...that said, his case will probably be decided by a few factors, some of them fair, some unfair:

1. How good the lawyers are.
2. Public opinion.
3. The Castle laws where he resides.
4. The jury's prejudices.
5. The old man's age, his past.
6. The kid's criminal history, if at all admissible.

Probably missing a few other factors, but I can't condemn this guy entirely--even though he seems rather sociopathic (at worst), clueless (at best). Personally, I would have tried having a chat with their parents prior to setting them up, but that may not have been an option.

I don't have a problem with him shooting them as they came in it was the whole set up. From what I have read and talked to people that have been involved in this type of thing, is multiple gunshots wounds in the intruders is a better case of self defense than a single gunshot wound. A person in a panic and in mortal fear will empty their weapon into a intruder however everything this guy did from the recording to the .22 under the girl's chin shows no fear nor panic. There was way too much aforethought. Once they were down and not a threat then it is up to a jury to decide their fate.
I would have shot however I would NEVER have executed them once down, especially since they were kids that are known to do some incredibly stupid sh*t while they are trying to find themselves. I wouldn't support a cop that hide out in a convenience store, shot and then executed kids breaking in.

[amy31416]

I don't have a problem with him shooting them as they came in it was the whole set up. From what I have read and talked to people that have been involved in this type of thing, is multiple gunshots wounds in the intruders is a better case of self defense than a single gunshot wound. A person in a panic and in mortal fear will empty their weapon into a intruder however everything this guy did from the recording to the .22 under the girl's chin shows no fear nor panic. There was way too much aforethought. Once they were down and not a threat then it is up to a jury to decide their fate.
I would have shot however I would NEVER have executed them once down, especially since they were kids that are known to do some incredibly stupid sh*t while they are trying to find themselves. I wouldn't support a cop that hide out in a convenience store, shot and then executed kids breaking in.

I don't know his mindset, so I can't agree or disagree with you. I don't know the whole backstory either, from when his house was broken into--maybe he's a psycho, or maybe he's a badass who wasn't going to sit back and take it anymore. I can only see things through my own veil/prejudices--and I'd consider making sure they were dead too because I don't want to live my life in fear and let some a-hole kids dictate whether or not I can sleep or go to the store for groceries without my house being ransacked or them waiting to harm me. He may have thought that shooting them without killing them may have just made him a bigger target--I don't know.

If I think worst case scenario on the part of the kids, then he's fully justified. If I think worst case scenario on the part of the old man, he might not be. Unless he's actually a psychopath, I have to lean towards him at least thinking worst case scenario in regards to those kids. I can't blame him for that.

If he's proved to be a psychopath, perhaps he deserves to be punished. At this point, he's just a bit crazy to me because he delayed reporting, recorded the events and made some nutty statements.

I don't think you could say definitively that you wouldn't have executed them because you don't know the circumstances and if they made threats. What if one or both of them had threatened to kill him because he'd already "gotten them into trouble?" All those details make a big difference--and they did steal guns from him, right?