Homeowner faces murder charges after 2 teens shot, killed in Dayton garage (ruh-roh..shot in back..)

WHIO ^ | November 21, 2019 | Cornelius Frolick

[dangus]

>> Victor Santana <<

Uh-oh. “White Hispanic”?

[Dusty Road]

I’m in Texas and have past military and LEO experience and I’m not too sure I could charge with what evidence I know of now. I still haven’t read whether the car in the garage was his or theirs. With that said I’m going to go with it being his car. I walk into my garage and find three individuals who I do not know sitting in my car, I have probable cause. I might add that at that point myself and anybody else in that position is going to experience a fear of life. In what I can only imagine was quite a melee once the shooting started pretty much throws all the rules out the door. At this point you don’t know who’s armed and who’s not and I’m not going to wait until I’m shot or stabbed to find out. It’s kind of like past Military ROI’s demanding one must be shot at before engaging. People get shot for allot of stupid things and it’s not up to me to determine their IQ.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Rut rho! Back shooting is no no.

[BradyLS]

Folks put their lives in someone else’s hands every time they trespass and root through other people’s property. Is it worth going to the morgue even if they know the property owner is going to jail?

[DoodleBob]

I've been observing the replies. Everyone agrees the BGs were guilty of trespassing (at a minimum) and were in the wrong place. So nobody is claiming they were choirboys.

Early in the morning, almost everyone thought it didn't matter that the BGs were shot in the back. The sentiment was basically that they deserved to die.

I *do* agree that there are some issues with this case that give me pause, i.e. Maybe the BGs weren't in total retreat given the wounds and there may have been things that happened in the garage that need to come to light in Court.

Nonetheless, I applaud you all for basically (thankfully) stating that you CANNOT LEGALLY shoot BGs in the back. There ARE rules of engagement - we may not like them, and again the BGs aren't saints, but we either have the rule of law or anarchy. Indeed, if the law (and training) is "no shooting in the back" then to argue otherwise is comparable to supporting illegal aliens.

[SuperLuminal]

Were I to sit on his jury, I'd vote only for awarding him a "good citizen" medal... If criminals invade your property and you just chase them away, they will, in 90% of such cases, be back with retribution in mind...

[Gay State Conservative]

Bottom line...when young punks enter the dwelling of a person 60-years-old-plus that person is *absolutely* justified in being in serious fear for his/her life. You may,or may not,know that at least some states have laws that make the assault of a person over 60 more serious than the exact same assault would have been with a 40 year old as the victim.There's a reason for that...and it has nothing to do with "being kind to old folks".

Trespassing? Yah,sure! Now let's talk about the Easter Bunny! We all know why they were there!

Ten bucks says that neither of those punks had the first clue who their father was.

As I said earlier...as a juror I *might* be willing to find the guy guilty of *something*...but nothing even within a hundred light years of "murder".

[Big Red Badger]

Room temperature,,,

[flamberge]

it was quite clear then, and it’s quite clear now when you look at all the facts that the homeowner is in fact guilty of murder...

The law needs to be changed.

And that homeowner needs to be pardoned. He performed a community service by removing those two individuals from the community. Yes, they should have been in jail - but dead will do.