He was all about saving taxpayers future expenditures. NOT guilty....unless it is my boy, then GUILTY. Sarcasm intended...
Of course they would arrest the home owner for shooting people for committing a felony on his property. The argument is that his life was not in danger. Yeah right. How long would he have lived if he was unarmed and they attacked him. He’s not guilty. And two of the perps will not commit any more felonies.
“Four” counts of murder?
Something tells me the deceased individuals were criminals, commiting a crime or crimes, had been criminals for a number of years, and were headed for a lifetime of criminal acts.
Those darned teens...
With me on the jury, the homeowner would either get a hung jury or be declared not guilty.
Not Guilty. I hate thieves. Private sector or official government.
Mama said it was heartbreaking her son was shot in the back. I think it was heartbreaking he was committing crimes and other problems and his own actions led to his death.
I’m on my phone right now. So I don’t have time to go and research the original thread from several months ago about this very subject. But 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. If someone wants to take the time to look up the original thread and post a link, I would appreciate it.
As much as we might like to dismiss this, as much as we might write this off as just another case of teens being teens, this is not the case. This was not a justifiable shooting.
Eff the American "Jesters" System.
Not guilty.
The shooter should just self identify as a coo and all will be forgiven, with pay.
Inside a building on the private property of a homeowner.
Who believes these kids were there to tidy up the place? They were in the act of committing a felony. Dindunuffin’s did do something. Did they deserve the death penalty for stealing? Obviously not but when they decided they could go on someone’s private property and steal (or worse) then they assumed the risk they might get killed in the process.
If I were on the jury: Not Guilty. If found guilty then other dindu’s will think they can do what they want and assume no risk when committing these breaking and entering crimes. Definitely not guilty. Just because they were shot in the back didn’t mean they didn’t have intent to do bodily harm to the homeowner.
In a county with home invasions, living at the end of a narrow half mile driveway with multiple No Trespassing signs, on a farm, with a Ruger MiniRanch, this 67 year old man is going to shoot in front, in back, anywhere i can, because i may have a stroke or heart attack and i may not be able to fight back a second time if they turn around. I have others to protect here. And then , i’ll hire a good attorney.
This case raises a lot of interesting issues that have also been seen in other “self defense gone wrong” cases.
Everybody who has taken any self-defense class knows that you can’t shoot the perps in the back.
Everybody with half a brain knows that “murder” is a deliberate act either planned or reasonably foreseeable as the result of illegal acts by the murderer.
Homeowners who are victimized by violent crime and who, in fear of death are serious harm arm themselves with a firearm, and who then in many cases are confronted by disparity of force (age, sex, multiple perps, etc) really do not have the necessary mental state to commit murder.
Now, if you shoot your daughter’s boyfriend or someone who you argued with earlier in the day, sure, there’s work to be done by the DA.
But shooting strangers who have already made a serious threat by breaking in and awakening you from sleep? I can imagine scenarios where that would be manslaughter (shooting them in the back while fleeing the scene is one). But “murder”?
That’s going too far.