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: 25
48
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 08:48 PM
link   


Court documents show his security system also made a video recording of the teens breaking in.
a reply to: TDawgRex

www.mprnews.org...

Also:
www.dailymail.co.uk...
e dit on 23-4-2014 by drwill because: additional link




posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 08:48 PM
link   
the more i think about this. it actually is and will be presented as 'premeditated murder' ...

think about it.

you shoot someone who has broken into your home and is coming down the basement steps, whether you're waiting for them or not, and then be of the mind to go get a tarp, roll/place them onto it, gasping. drag them to 'another room', even if it were only a few feet away, and proceed to shoot them again .... to assure their demise. [???]]

that, imho, takes an awful lot of 'thought' ... and not something that seem likely of a 'rational individiual'.

sure we can't/couldn't be in the guy's mind at the time, but ... still ...

to have already shot [incapacitated] the girl ... and then to have the right of mind to drag her, gasping body/self, and all into 'his workshop' .... only to then place a revolver under her chin 'because .22 doesn't pnentrate bone well' .... sure as hell seems a far cry form self/home defense.

he went over board and will likely pay for it with years of incarceration.

people are strange. just when you think you've figured them out they throw you a curve ball.
\



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 08:50 PM
link   
murder. are we seriously discussing this? I hope you murderous d bags receive the same sword you cut with figuratively of course



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Wow!

That's pretty damning evidence that he was a vigilante.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 09:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: DerbyGawker
What is wrong with everyone in this thread? You absolutely do not have a right to use deadly force in defense of personal property, only in defense of your life. People pulling 'MURRICA 2ND AMENDMENT WHOO arguments are just trolls. This is not what the 2nd Amendment was intended for, nor is it what it protects.

First-degree murder isn't that much of a stretch, second-degree murder is an absolute minimum possibility. And to then shoot a 'threat' after it has been neutralized is indeed second-degree murder.

His actions show he valued his carpet above the dignity of human life, those are moments he could have spent calling authorities who would have dispatched EMS who may have possibly saved the suspects lives.

He's a bitter old man who was tired of the B.S. and decided to engage in vigilante justice.

I'm not saying what the teens did is morally defensible, but this man is much worse. And by the looks of it, has a pretty weak self-defense case ahead of him.


You have not answered why the police didn't catch these thugs before they were shot? It happened multiple times? That pretty much leaves the guy on his own. The police should also be reviewed for a lack of initiative and proper investigations of the burglaries.

You are entitled to think this guy was just a bitter old man, but, you do not know him nor do you know all that facts. You only know what has been reported by a few articles in newspapers etc. that are not admissible in court, reporters quite often form an opinion and slant the reporting before they know all the facts.

Here is the Minnesota statute for use of force;

"The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode."

A felony is stealing property from inside someone's home. Also notice the word "reasonably".

You are also assuming he is guilty before proven innocent, that is not how our system works. He will face a jury of his peers, I trust they will do the right thing, what ever that happens to be, is not up to us outsiders to decide.

I have sat on three different juries, I am certainly not a legal scholar, but, in my opinion based on the law wording the state has a difficult case to prove no matter what our views are. If I were a betting man I would say the worst he would get is involuntary manslaughter if the state prosecutor offers that possible decision, otherwise he may walk.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: govmule

I don't assume his guilt at all. I'm judging ( I hate that term, but it is what it is) his own actions that were documented by himself and the local PD. And you are correct. a jury of his peers will decide his guilt or innocence.

Even if only convicted of involuntary manslaughter, chances are that it is a life sentence for him. He is 65 after all. And prison life is harsh.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 09:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: TDawgRex
a reply to: govmule

I don't assume his guilt at all. I'm judging ( I hate that term, but it is what it is) his own actions that were documented by himself and the local PD. And you are correct. a jury of his peers will decide his guilt or innocence.

Even if only convicted of involuntary manslaughter, chances are that it is a life sentence for him. He is 65 after all. And prison life is harsh.


I would agree, if found guilty of the lessor charge he would probably still die in prison. The irony of our times is astounding. Reportedly these young adults were stealing to support drug use, of course I do not know if that is true. Now our administration wants to set free people that were convicted on drug charges, it must be to make room for people who shoot them when they break into a house???



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 09:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: TDawgRex
a reply to: govmule

I don't assume his guilt at all. I'm judging ( I hate that term, but it is what it is) his own actions that were documented by himself and the local PD. And you are correct. a jury of his peers will decide his guilt or innocence.

Even if only convicted of involuntary manslaughter, chances are that it is a life sentence for him. He is 65 after all. And prison life is harsh.


I would agree, if found guilty of the lessor charge he would probably still die in prison. The irony of our times is astounding. Reportedly these young adults were stealing to support drug use, of course I do not know if that is true. Now our administration wants to set free people that were convicted on drug charges, it must be to make room for people who shoot them when they break into a house???



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: govmule
To say this is premeditated murder is a stretch, the man was defending his property and life against multiple intrusions that had no support from the police department. Saying he had a tarp in the basement is no big deal to me, where do most people keep tarps if they are not in a garage or out building, its not the kitchen I suspect.


The facts so far indicate that it was premeditated

He hid his truck down the street so it would look like he wasn't home and laid in wait in his basement with two guns and energy bars. He was the very definition of 'lying in wait'

Not to say that he didn't do the world a favor but he did think out his actions.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: TDawgRex

I was once a bad kid, me and my friends made mistakes but we all ended up doing some time for one thing or another, years later we are all family people and have kids. Kids make mistakes, they dont think of what can happen, this od fart only lost stuff, he never lost someone he loved to these kids, now he has killed two people who have loved ones, two kids who may have gotten strait some day, he had no right to take the law into his own hands, the old fart should be jailed for life to set an example.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 09:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Darkmask
Why does it seem in this day and age, that the career criminals have more rights than their victims?


To condition us to being robbed and brutalized.

It's worked, now many people are standing up to out of control cops or over the top fines.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Generally speaking, in most states persons only have the right to use reasonable force to protect their property. So if you are at the supermarket and walk out and see someone trying to break in to your car, for example, you cannot shoot them. With a person's home, it may depend on whether they fear great bodily harm or death. In other words, it is to protect their body, not their home. So if you get home from work one day and see someone fleeing out another door with your stereo, you cannot shoot them.

And legalities aside, from a moral point of view, it seems to me that many in this thread speak without a conscience. Killing or infliction of serious bodily harm should only be used as a last resort ... period. In this case, according to the story, this person knew in advance and was planning for their return and could have taken other measures to prevent anyone from getting hurt while protecting his property at the same time. Stuff in your home is not more important than human life.

edit on 23-4-2014 by nextone because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: govmule

not exactly; he's going to jail because he coup de graced them.

its the coup-de-grace part that isn't permitted, and makes him worse than those drug users.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Two wrongs don't make a right.
This guy belongs behind bars for his actions.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 09:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: wissy
a reply to: TDawgRex

I was once a bad kid, me and my friends made mistakes but we all ended up doing some time for one thing or another, years later we are all family people and have kids. Kids make mistakes, they dont think of what can happen, this od fart only lost stuff, he never lost someone he loved to these kids, now he has killed two people who have loved ones, two kids who may have gotten strait some day, he had no right to take the law into his own hands, the old fart should be jailed for life to set an example.


I also knew bad kids when I was young. One friend was shot in the leg trying to steal a three wheeler (in 1979), he eventually grew up to be a drunk, in 1984 he was out driving drunk while on drugs and killed two children with his car waiting for the school bus, he is spending the rest of his life in prison, right where he belongs. Not everyone changes.

Breaking into someone's home is a very risky business, if they are lucky they get away with it, if they are partially lucky they are caught and put in jail, if they are not lucky they end up dead. Nothing gives anyone the right to break into someone's house illegally. They paid the ultimate price for their actions, right or wrong it was their decisions that led to it.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 09:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: govmule

originally posted by: DerbyGawker
What is wrong with everyone in this thread? You absolutely do not have a right to use deadly force in defense of personal property, only in defense of your life. People pulling 'MURRICA 2ND AMENDMENT WHOO arguments are just trolls. This is not what the 2nd Amendment was intended for, nor is it what it protects.

First-degree murder isn't that much of a stretch, second-degree murder is an absolute minimum possibility. And to then shoot a 'threat' after it has been neutralized is indeed second-degree murder.

His actions show he valued his carpet above the dignity of human life, those are moments he could have spent calling authorities who would have dispatched EMS who may have possibly saved the suspects lives.

He's a bitter old man who was tired of the B.S. and decided to engage in vigilante justice.

I'm not saying what the teens did is morally defensible, but this man is much worse. And by the looks of it, has a pretty weak self-defense case ahead of him.


You have not answered why the police didn't catch these thugs before they were shot? It happened multiple times? That pretty much leaves the guy on his own. The police should also be reviewed for a lack of initiative and proper investigations of the burglaries.

You are entitled to think this guy was just a bitter old man, but, you do not know him nor do you know all that facts. You only know what has been reported by a few articles in newspapers etc. that are not admissible in court, reporters quite often form an opinion and slant the reporting before they know all the facts.

Here is the Minnesota statute for use of force;

"The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode."

A felony is stealing property from inside someone's home. Also notice the word "reasonably".

You are also assuming he is guilty before proven innocent, that is not how our system works. He will face a jury of his peers, I trust they will do the right thing, what ever that happens to be, is not up to us outsiders to decide.

I have sat on three different juries, I am certainly not a legal scholar, but, in my opinion based on the law wording the state has a difficult case to prove no matter what our views are. If I were a betting man I would say the worst he would get is involuntary manslaughter if the state prosecutor offers that possible decision, otherwise he may walk.


You should go back and read the thread.

Even a veteran defense attorney agrees that the law is clear and that Smith is in fact guilty of murder.


"I think the law is clear for the prosecution, but the facts -- and the way people feel about it -- might lead them to disregard the law, frankly," Degree said.


Source

I can only hope that the jurors are reasonable people. This was definitely not as cut and dry as self defense during a home invasion. This went far beyond what was necessary and prudent to defend one's self in one's home.

I also already pointed out in this post Minnesota's statute for self defense/castle laws, and in another link from the same post showed that certain criteria must be met before a violent act is considered self defense.


edit on 23-4-2014 by TinkerHaus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 09:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: The Vagabond
a reply to: FlyersFan

Yes or no, Nick Brady was 17 years old, was unarmed, and was shot by a man who had time to deliver a shoot em up movie line along the lines of "you're dying B****" before completing the execution?


So I love guns, I have a lot of guns, I also have concealed in about 45 states, but there is something a little off with this guy. At what point did he not fear for his life? When he stuck the gun under the girls chin and said your dead bitch as he pulled the trigger, or the coup de grâce he pulled on the other kid first?



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Many of you in this thread need to adjust your views on home defense. You don't shoot first and ask questions later. Gun ownership requires a certain level of critical thinking ability that, unfortunately, many people lack.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 09:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: VforVendettea

originally posted by: govmule
To say this is premeditated murder is a stretch, the man was defending his property and life against multiple intrusions that had no support from the police department. Saying he had a tarp in the basement is no big deal to me, where do most people keep tarps if they are not in a garage or out building, its not the kitchen I suspect.


The facts so far indicate that it was premeditated

He hid his truck down the street so it would look like he wasn't home and laid in wait in his basement with two guns and energy bars. He was the very definition of 'lying in wait'

Not to say that he didn't do the world a favor but he did think out his actions.


Like I said, the jury will decide. Do you have a sworn testimony court document link or reliable evidence that the car was parked down the street? At this point everyone is making assumptions. The last thing I would want is for two young adults to be killed, but when you play with fire you can get burned. I hope other burglars can learn from this tragedy.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 10:01 PM
link   
It's saddening for me to sit here and read dozens of comments from persons who think it's okay to kill a person because they've been stealing your stuff.

There are worse offenses, and it's still not okay to kill for it. For example, there are kids in high school who are routinely bullied, harassed, roughed up, humiliated and traumatized from their experience. And at that age, these experiences could very well alter the victim's personality and partially ruin them for life. I don't recall reading a bunch of people here supporting the victim one day murdering a group of people responsible for it. Maybe it's because they can't identify with it, is that it? I mean, just about everyone has had something stolen from them before. We all know how 'that' feels. And surely that feeling justifies setting a trap for someone and ending their life the next time they attempt it? That's not to mention that family members and friends would be devastated by it. What kind of a society do we have?
edit on 23-4-2014 by nextone because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join