It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"You're dead," Minnesota Homeowner Told Teen Burglar

page: 19
48
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Kryties
Genuine Question: Did you get your insatiable bloodlust from the army, or were you born with it?

Genuine Question: Didn't you just complain over and over about people supposedly 'demonizing' you?


Yes, and now I'm fighting back.

Got a problem with that?

Why are you so worried anyway? Oh that's right, it's just another attempt on your part to troll and derail the thread.
edit on 23/4/2014 by Kryties because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: 12m8keall2c
only hope he's got is 'temp insanity' due to the previous breakins and his feeling victimized by it all.

THAT is impossible to say. The stress around what happened on top of the repeated victimization ... only a court appointed shrink would know. He could be seriously impaired now. I hope he's under psychiatric care. With all that's happened, he should be. IMHO.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Antigod

His mistakes were

1) Installing cams

2) Not putting the second shot in a place less suspicious



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Kryties


I will proudly disregard any law when some punk disregards the law about breaking into my house.

Bottom line is they got what they deserved.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: 1MrMarc

From a concelaed-licensed carrier:

Defend you or your loved ones IN that home? Absolutely. But, your stuff is just "stuff". You do have a right to assume you'd be harmed when confronted inside your home. These clowns were inside and shouldve expected anything. I'd have shot in a minute.

Someone stealing your car? Nope. Cant shoot them. Someone trying to carjack you IN it? Yep. Draw and fire. See someone in your house while you are outside? Nope. Cant shoot them. Not as long as you have a chance to get away.

It a fine line between could he get away? Was he stuck with them between exits? Probably...I think his problem witht eh 1st degree premeditation was he stood his ground yelling "youre DEAD!"...and that to me means he was gonna kill them as soon as he saw them coming.

In retrospect...I would think those idiots shoulda heard that and got the hell back out!



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan

Agreed.

As far as I am concerned, the moment those kids broke into this guys house, their fates were forfeit, and his to decide. They easy way the kids could have avoided this would be by not breaking into houses. It's not rocket science.

If he wanted to crucify them, it was his prerogative.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: Kryties


I will proudly disregard any law when some punk disregards the law about breaking into my house.

Bottom line is they got what they deserved.



I hope you would just as proudly serve the murder sentence you would get, and deserve, for so proudly ignoring that law.

Methinks you'd be crying for your mother actually.


edit on 23/4/2014 by Kryties because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf


If he wanted to crucify them, it was his prerogative.



Not according to the law, only according to your sense of bloodlust.

The LAW states that he may shoot them but he may not continue to shoot when they are already incapacitated. He admitted to doing this so therefore he should be punished.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Self edited ... I"ll try not to get sucked in ...

Some interesting stories that talk to victims revenge ...

Man Who Attacked Priest in Revenge for Molestation 'Not Guilty' of Felonies

Failure of victims to feel safe via the court system is acknowledged
Journal of Conflict Resolution

n the latter part of the last century, American society began to question whether the criminal judicial system faltered in creating a complete system of justice. One significant concern was that the criminal justice system’s central focus on punishment and retribution did not satisfy the overall needs of society.[2] Many argued that the system overlooked a crucial element—the victim.[3] In our current criminal justice system, the victim has nearly no role or control in the judicial process and is frequently left feeling unsatisfied.[4] In addition, the courts often fail to create a sense of security that individuals, as well as communities, so desire.[5] The recognition of these flaws in our criminal judicial system creates an impetus to find other forms of justice.


And some psychology - How Stuff Works - 10 Big Cases of Revenge

The concept of revenge is as old as history. Almost since the dawn of the written word, humans have had the desire to exact vengeance on others who have wronged us. For example, The Code of Hammurabi, the code of law from the sixth king of Babylon, was implemented about 1760 B.C., making it the oldest recorded set of laws in human history. The code is rooted firmly in the belief in an eye for an eye; in fact, that's almost exactly how the concept was phrased.

The Code of Hammurabi marked the official beginning of standardized revenge. It informs our way of thinking today. Indeed, our modern legal system is based on society's ability to carry out revenge against those who break its laws.

Yet our thirst for vengeance goes far beyond the social contract. The desire to see harm befall those who wrong us begins on a very personal level, within the brain of the victim. Neuroscientists have found that the dorsal striatum, a part of the brain responsible for reward, also governs revenge.

What follows, in no particular order, are 10 examples of people where someone's dorsal striata kicked into overdrive, leading to some of the biggest cases of revenge in human history.





edit on 4/23/2014 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Just A Reminder....



even as a site administrator i'm not able to action posts in a thread I've participated in, but i do have to say some are straying quite close to 'focusing on their fellow member[s] as opposed to the topic itself'.

let's perhaps focus further efforts and contributions on the Actual topic itself.... and not one another.

???

m'kay!?

thanX!



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Kryties
Yes, and now I'm fighting back.

Dude ... YOU started it. "Delusional' ... 'psychotic' ... over and over.
Go read the thread. Deal with reality.

it's just another attempt on your part to troll and derail the thread.

- It's MY thread and MY topic. And I"m 100% on it.
Folks going around insulting others for posting what they disagree with ... them, not so much.
Now if you are done tossing the tired ol' screams of 'blood lust' ... wanna address the actual topic ....

Some interesting stories that talk to victims revenge ...

Man Who Attacked Priest in Revenge for Molestation 'Not Guilty' of Felonies

Failure of victims to feel safe via the court system is acknowledged
Journal of Conflict Resolution

n the latter part of the last century, American society began to question whether the criminal judicial system faltered in creating a complete system of justice. One significant concern was that the criminal justice system’s central focus on punishment and retribution did not satisfy the overall needs of society.[2] Many argued that the system overlooked a crucial element—the victim.[3] In our current criminal justice system, the victim has nearly no role or control in the judicial process and is frequently left feeling unsatisfied.[4] In addition, the courts often fail to create a sense of security that individuals, as well as communities, so desire.[5] The recognition of these flaws in our criminal judicial system creates an impetus to find other forms of justice.


And some psychology - How Stuff Works - 10 Big Cases of Revenge

The concept of revenge is as old as history. Almost since the dawn of the written word, humans have had the desire to exact vengeance on others who have wronged us. For example, The Code of Hammurabi, the code of law from the sixth king of Babylon, was implemented about 1760 B.C., making it the oldest recorded set of laws in human history. The code is rooted firmly in the belief in an eye for an eye; in fact, that's almost exactly how the concept was phrased.

The Code of Hammurabi marked the official beginning of standardized revenge. It informs our way of thinking today. Indeed, our modern legal system is based on society's ability to carry out revenge against those who break its laws.

Yet our thirst for vengeance goes far beyond the social contract. The desire to see harm befall those who wrong us begins on a very personal level, within the brain of the victim. Neuroscientists have found that the dorsal striatum, a part of the brain responsible for reward, also governs revenge.

What follows, in no particular order, are 10 examples of people where someone's dorsal striata kicked into overdrive, leading to some of the biggest cases of revenge in human history.






How do historical acts of revenge set any legal precedent whatsoever?

There are historical accounts of genocide and socially acceptable pedophilia, does that justify it?


Let me give you a hypothetical..

You are out shopping late at night. You are a concealed carry permit holder and you are armed. Someone approaches you wielding a knife - they don't say anything about their intentions. You draw your firearm and shoot the would-be attacker twice in the chest.

The attacker falls to the ground. He is obviously critically wounded and not going anywhere. You have enough time to remove the knife from his hand. He is lying there in a growing pool of blood, obviously about to die..

At this point is it justifiable to shoot him in the head? If you flee the scene and don't report these events for 24 hours is that a criminal offense?


I'm genuinely curious how you would answer these questions. Please respond.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan

I'm over your nonsense mate. You are dead wrong and the law says that I am completely right in saying that.

Pure and simple: Minnesota law allows for shooting a home intruder only until they are no longer a threat. the homeowners actions, of dragging the bodies around on tarps first THEN finishing them off with "good, clean kill shots" (his words) shows that he clearly believed that they were no longer a threat and yet chose to execute them anyway. In the eyes of the law he was wrong and he should be punished for murder. Full stop. Period. End of discussion.

All this other talk in this thread is either deliberate derailment or a show of insatiable bloodlust - neither of which I wish to entertain further.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: 12m8keall2c
but i do have to say some are straying quite close to 'focusing on their fellow member[s] as opposed to the topic itself'.

Noted. Thank you for the reminder. It's useful.



You brought up temporary insanity ... Here's a bit of a definition

temporary insanity n. in a criminal prosecution, a defense by the accused that he/she was briefly insane at the time the crime was committed and therefore was incapable of knowing the nature of his/her alleged criminal act. Temporary insanity is claimed as a defense whether or not the accused is mentally stable at the time of trial. One difficulty with a temporary insanity defense is the problem of proof, since any examination by psychiatrists had to be after the fact, so the only evidence must be the conduct of the accused immediately before or after the crime. It is similar to the defenses of "diminished capacity" to understand one's own actions, the so-called "twinky defense," the "abuse excuse," "heat of passion," and other claims of mental disturbance which raise the issue of criminal intent based on modern psychiatry and/or sociology. However, mental derangement at the time of an abrupt crime, such as a sudden attack or crime of passion, can be a valid defense, or at least show lack of premeditation to reduce the degree of the crime.


I don't know if premeditation (which there was) will reduce the degree of the crime.

Victims have fought back and been found not guilty in the past.
But also sometimes they are found guilty.

This is going to go like the Zimmerman trial, I think. People are going to have their pre-trial thoughts and then the information will really come out in the trial and everyone will have to adjust their positions. With Zimmerman, I thought he was guilty of manslaughter ... but then during the trial I had to change my mind. The prosecution had nothing. I"m wondering if this trial will be the same ... information in the trial will come out and we'll finally get the truth ....

Perhaps everyone should wait until the trial to make up their minds.

We should have learned from the Zimmerman fiasco ....



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: mugger

You do realize that after the teen was laying in their own pool of blood immobilized and a non threat he offered up a nice finishing shot and blew her brains out? He will go to jail for murder.

You people kill me with your lust to take another persons life...In a situation where my life was in danger I would not hesitate to take another persons life but shooting a teen at the top of the stairs unarmed without giving them the option of giving up or leaving is insane IMO.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: knowledgedesired

How would you know if they were unarmed if they are at the top of the stairs?

Do you take their word?

edit on 23-4-2014 by thesaneone because: Yea



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan

Pleas of Temporary Insanity are typically complete crap, and are mostly seen right through by juries and courts.

In cases where Temporary Insanity is claimed only 26% of are successful.

Of those cases that do succeed with this plea, over 90% of defendants have been previously diagnosed with some mental disorder.


This guy wasn't temporarily insane, and his own testimony to police (which will be played in court) seems to reveal that. He was in complete control of his facilities and knew exactly what he was doing. Getting all ramped up and shooting someone in the head because they laugh (probably a result of shock) is not temporary insanity.. it is rage.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 04:41 PM
link   
This is bad news peeps. Do you not realize that some of you sound like cops now?!

"If I can get away with it, I'd do it to"

How can we demand justice for ourselves, when we fail to practice it?

Lawlessness works BOTH ways.

Be careful.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: thesaneone

You use the senses you were given like sight and speech and if they started to come down the stairs after the warning pop them.

Or you could just shoot them at the top of the stairs and kill them.

I would chose to make sure they were in need of killing before shooting.
edit on 23-4-2014 by knowledgedesired because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: TinkerHaus

Those are some stats, do you have a link for those or are you just throwing numbers around?



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: TinkerHaus

Those are some stats, do you have a link for those or are you just throwing numbers around?


Source



new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join