Almost took a page from the Outlaw Josey Wales:
"They were decently fed, and then they were decently shot."
Posted on 04/30/2014 7:13:29 AM PDT by armydawg505
So five shots to one kid and two to another is simply protecting yourself? Wounding one, having a misfire saying “oops I am sorry”, then walks up to an obvious non-combative girl, says “You’re dead...b$tch” and then kills her is protecting your life and property?
Sorry but there is reasonable and non-reasonable. Execution is not reasonable.
I am not sure that is always true. If someone shoots and wounds a criminal and the criminal is moving around who is to say that the criminal isn’t trying to get to his gun to shoot back.
_______________
I was not directly addressing this case, I said I wasn’t sure this was always the case.
I am not sure that is always true. If someone shoots and wounds a criminal and the criminal is moving around who is to say that the criminal isn’t trying to get to his gun to shoot back.
_______________
I was not directly addressing this case, I said I wasn’t sure this was always the case.
Almost took a page from the Outlaw Josey Wales:
"They were decently fed, and then they were decently shot."
I read his friends Mr Andersons opinion, and while I sympathize with what the man went through leading up to the murders he still murdered them, fact. The man only reported ONCE after 13 or so break ins that he was a victim of robbery, he never confronted the kids that he knew it was them or suspected them of the burglaries just asked them to stop coming over. Yes the man obviously tripped and had a high paranoia. But there is something called common sense. Your opinion on this is extremely extremely disturbing.
Or, we could look at the big picture. Burglars got what they had coming and a dangerously demented guy will rot in prison. Why take sides?
There’s no question the guy is sick and that he committed murder. But they came into his house. They were not entering or in a doorway, they were well inside his home and going into his cellar. He didn’t roam the streets looking for them. He didn’t go to their house kick in the door and blast them. He didn’t hide in their house. He didn’t hide in their basement. He didn’t jump out of the bushes outside his home. No. They came into his house and they came with bad intent. That got what they deserved, except for the finishing shot, which is murder.
Which, is probably illegal. MN has some screwed up laws.
Your opinion on this is extremely extremely disturbing.
Why? Because I don't like criminals? Why are you so intent on coddling them? I find THAT disturbing...
I am not a soft-hearted liberal. I am tired of our laws variously being ignored while bad laws get enforced twice victimizing the law abiding. If those we entrust to protect us from criminals FAIL to do so, then it is our RIGHT to do so ourselves.
We can quibble for days over methodology, by I think it is safe to say there will be ZERO recidivism from these two drug addicted thieves.
In Texas no self respecting DA would have taken this to a grand jury.
My problem isnt self-defense. He had every right to sit and wait, to prepare himself and to shoot them. He stopped two felons from robbing other people, and who knows maybe elevating to armed robberies or murder to get their next fix. Commendable. But my problem with your viewpoint is that he was within rights to execute them. No he wasn’t. Once the kid was down and he was able to walk up to him and do a spot inspection he should have stopped. Heck on the boy he shot him through the hand between the eyes AFTER he loaded him up on a tarp and dragged him off the carpet so he wouldnt stain the carpet. Thats completely unreasonable. I think if he would have gotten off it would have done more harm to the right to self defense in the home in Minnesota than if he was convicted, otherwise in a state like Minny it would be used as evidence that the law is broken and needs fixed. Now we can say the law works.
In my eyes, it breaks down to what is moral.
Non-initiation for force, fraud, or theft. The only real crime involves a real perp, a real victim, and real damage done. No other laws can claim legitimacy as they are only one persons attempt to get everyone else to follow some arbitrary edict where the only damage done is to yourself or your own property.
So what does that have to do with this?
This initiated force on his property in an attempt to thieve. Anything he does in retaliation is THEIR fault.
End of story.
Every case stands on its merits and this guy is a murderer (and probably a bit insane). My point is more along the lines of using lethal force in defense of your property is a right.
>> Heck on the boy he shot him through the hand between the eyes AFTER he loaded him up on a tarp and dragged him off the carpet so he wouldnt stain the carpet. Thats completely unreasonable.
Dragging him off the carpet is irrelevant. The finishing shot is the crime.
Entering a home is more serious than other property crimes. It’s a level of violation that can not be tolerated.
You’re right, the guy is a murderer and a little insane. Lethal force in defense of your home is a right. Other property, not really.
Sorry, but that’s not the law my friend, and if you believe that, you go do exactly what this guy did and you will find yourself convicted of murder as well.
Ignorance here is just beyond astounding.
If you approve of the current state of what passes for “law” these days, you are no friend of mine...
Sorry, but when you set up a mantrap that defacto shows premeditation. If I have my car stolen multiple times, then I decide to put in a device that would electrocute anyone who broke into my car, and someone breaks in to my car and is electrocuted to death, I’ve just committed premeditated murder... I created a man trap with the intent full well to kill someone, whether or not I knew at the time of that decision who that person would be.
This guy planned to kill, there is no doubt about premeditation, he may not have known who his victims exactly would be, but he planned to kill. That’s premeditation.
Not sure what you are trying to prove here, my comment was in response to someone trying to justify him shooting them again after they were clearly incapacitated because they were going for a gun argument. I was pointing out the fact he clearly knew they were no threat to him when he shot them again they were incapacitated, he had already dragged them somewhere else and shot again.
In a case where the threat is unknown yes, you have an argument, in this case however, he had already shot them, then physically dragged them somewhere else so they wouldn’t bleed on his carpet and then shot them again, by the time he delivered those other shots he knew they were no threat to his person, they were not only subdued but he was able to physically move them without resistance to another part of the home for the kill shot. Murder, pure and simple.
This is not a case where you shoot, the person goes down, you have no idea what threat they still may pose they start to get up and you shoot again, making that argument in this case is not remotely what happened here.
His fear for his life justification is nonsense, he committed premeditated murder, the verdict was the right call, its not remotely up for debate, there is no grey area in the law for this guys actions.
Trying to equate the actions of this man as just some home owner minding his own business and defending his property is either complete ignorance, or just a willful disregard of reality.
Any plan was to deal with those who violated the sanctity of his home and was only active within his home. The only thing arguably premeditated was to shoot intruders, which is not necessarily lethal - to wit the finishing shot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.