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: 35
48
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: TDawgRex

But is it not the same thing If you let them bleed out after you shot them or "execute" them? You still let them die.



There were no "Loved ones" in Mr. Smith's home at the time. Just him. Letting them bleed out is cruel, I will give you that. But sticking a .22LR pistol into a girls eye who cannot do anything about it because she has already been shot, is not considered merciful in the eyes of the law.




posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: TDawgRex

That's why a good shotgun is the top choice for home protection.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: TDawgRex

But is it not the same thing If you let them bleed out after you shot them or "execute" them? You still let them die.

There is nothing cold hearted about protecting yourself and loved ones.



Please tell, how is one 'protecting ones self' by executing someone that is already dying?

Seriously?



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

obviously, you are correct. If they are still moving, keep shooting.

And once they are laying there on the floor, bleeding out, call 911.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: TDawgRex

That's why a good shotgun is the top choice for home protection.


I agree. If you are going to stroke the trigger in the event of a home invasion...shoot to kill.

But it's Mr. Smith actions afterward and the fact he himself recorded it and further incriminated himself to the police that have led me to the stance I take now.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 06:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone

With that attitude how are any of us going to ever come to some kind of agreement?


Considering it would be a cold day in hell before I ever agreed that executing someone who is already dying is the right thing to do, then I fail to see how my attitude is going to change things



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: thesaneone

With that attitude how are any of us going to ever come to some kind of agreement?


Considering it would be a cold day in hell before I ever agreed that executing someone who is already dying is the right thing to do, then I fail to see how my attitude is going to change things


Actually all humans are dying to begin with already. Remember w e all have a shelf life and one day we expire. Your attitude being such as it is if it was more agreeable might actually influence some one elses attitude to change too.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Being convicted is up to the jury. They decide if a conviction is appropriate.

If I were on the jury, he'd walk, unless a satisfactory answer was provided for this question:

Since his house was broken into on multiple occasions, resulting in the theft of property including firearms ... how were the police able to find the stolen property after Mr. Smith took the law into his own hands, but not before?

The judge would be very wise in developing his instructions to the jury. OJ walked, Zimmerman walked, Smith might too.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl

The judge would be very wise in developing his instructions to the jury. OJ walked, Zimmerman walked, Smith might too.


There was reasonable doubt in the previous two cases. This one will be harder as Mr. Smith himself recorded it for prosperity...and the trial. Not to mention his own confession.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 06:31 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

Maybe the police are too busy trying to stop people from getting shot to comb the swap meets for some crap you didn't lock up well enough?

So yeah, when you shoot somebody the case becomes more important and the police put more manpower in it and are more likely to get results. Is it therefore justifiable to shoot someone just because you want the police's attention or because they aren't doing their job to your satisfaction?

I don't understand how you think stolen property is relevant to shooting an unarmed child as they lay wounded and defenseless.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 06:38 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 06:42 PM
link   


So ... is the man justified for shooting the two repeat-offender thieves who were breaking into his home again?
a reply to: FlyersFan

Not guilty...I would have shot them as well. It's a sad day when a law abiding citizen can't protect himself and his home. What was he supposed to do?....call the police and wait? Given that the police always shoot first and ask questions later....the homeowner would have likely been shot to death by the cops. I have literally read 100's of stories that end up that way.

These two thieves paid for their theft with their lives...the little bast%ds got what they deserved IMO...perhaps it will be a lesson to others that think about invading someones home.

I hope the poor fella gets off.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: butcherguy

obviously, you are correct. If they are still moving, keep shooting.

And once they are laying there on the floor, bleeding out, call 911.

I fully agree with that plan of defense.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 07:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: The Vagabond
a reply to: Snarl

Maybe the police are too busy trying to stop people from getting shot to comb the swap meets for some crap you didn't lock up well enough?

So yeah, when you shoot somebody the case becomes more important and the police put more manpower in it and are more likely to get results. Is it therefore justifiable to shoot someone just because you want the police's attention or because they aren't doing their job to your satisfaction?

I don't understand how you think stolen property is relevant to shooting an unarmed child as they lay wounded and defenseless.

They had to break a window to invade his home on their last foray. I'd say he exceeded any requirement necessary to 'lock up' his property. IMVHO, closing your door should be a good indication that your home is not 'open' to strangers.

Quite disturbing that Mr. Smith felt some desire to finalize his dealings with those despicable thieves. Maybe he didn't feel the Rule of Law was very balanced at all. Maybe he thought the application of law favored the community's golden children to his detriment. Maybe that community is very lucky Mr. Smith didn't show up at the local high school, dressed out in tactical gear, intent on leveling the entire playing field. Maybe that's why this case is going to trial at all.

Have you considered why the girl would approach an area where she'd just heard gunfire emanating? Do you think ... maybe .... that she thought old Nicky Boy was possibly the guy behind the trigger and had put an end to Mr. Smith?



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl
Have you considered why the girl would approach an area where she'd just heard gunfire emanating? Do you think ... maybe .... that she thought old Nicky Boy was possibly the guy behind the trigger and had put an end to Mr. Smith?


I wondered the same. But anyone with common sense would run at the first sound of gunfire. Maybe this was a case of life imitating Hollywood.. You know, those movies were you are thinking to the character, "Don't open the door!".



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

It's a sad reflection on society that some people genuinely believe that stolen property is worth taking human life over, and not only that but not stopping when the threat was neutralised but also summarily executing them with "clean kill shots" is an acceptable thing to do.

How disgraceful.




posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 07:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl

Have you considered why the girl would approach an area where she'd just heard gunfire emanating? Do you think ... maybe .... that she thought old Nicky Boy was possibly the guy behind the trigger and had put an end to Mr. Smith?


She heard the shots, assumed her cousin was in trouble (as she knew herself and her cousin didn't have guns, so it must have been someone else in the house) and went to render assistance to her family member. How is that not blindingly obvious?



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: TDawgRex

originally posted by: Snarl
Have you considered why the girl would approach an area where she'd just heard gunfire emanating? Do you think ... maybe .... that she thought old Nicky Boy was possibly the guy behind the trigger and had put an end to Mr. Smith?


I wondered the same. But anyone with common sense would run at the first sound of gunfire. Maybe this was a case of life imitating Hollywood.. You know, those movies were you are thinking to the character, "Don't open the door!".

I've followed this thread with morbid interest, even though the back-and-forth has been tedious. There have been three or four posts that were very insightful ... and lend a bit of an air of conspiracy.

What's going to happen in court is beyond our control. There's no doubt this guy, Smith, is a done Tom Turkey. He picked the wrong community to live in.

Smith executed that girl. I would have done FAR worse.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl

Smith executed that girl. I would have done FAR worse.


That has to be one of the more disturbing comments in this thread, and that's saying something given the bloodlust practically dripping from some posts.







 
48
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join