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

a reply to: Kryties

Not sure what I would do if this happened in my house but one thing for sure you break into my house we will play by my rules.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Its not premeditated murder. In his shoes I would have done the exact same thing. No hesistation. Vote not guilty.

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: Kryties

Not sure what I would do if this happened in my house but one thing for sure you break into my house we will play by my rules.

And you should and would be tried for murder, exactly as you would deserve.

a reply to: th3dudeabides

You might want to reread the article again. Smiths action were done with forethought, hence premeditated.

And if you would do the same thing, than maybe we do need a pre-crime since you so freely admit that you would do the same as Smith.

If he shot the kids a couple of times and then called the cops, he would be a free man. No muss, no fuss.

a reply to: Kryties

For protecting my life?

You can live your life on your knees but I will never bend to criminals.

a reply to: TDawgRex

And if he did just shoot the punks one time and they still died is he still guilty of murder?

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: Kryties

For protecting my life?

You can live your life on your knees but I will never bend to criminals.

You clearly read nothing I posted, either that or you're some kind of psychopath.

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: Kryties

For protecting my life?

You can live your life on your knees but I will never bend to criminals.

How is killing someone who is incapacitated and possible already mortally wounded "protecting your life?"

No offense, but you are not thinking about this clearly, or you don't understand the chain of events, or you are just dense. I'm not sure which it is, but it's definitely one of those three.

If you had ever taken a concealed carry class, or a class about the laws regarding self-defense, you would see that there are some very clear guidelines one must adhere to when using a firearm for self-defense in order for that self-defense claim to stick.

My firearms instructor is a city police sergeant. His advice is to shoot to kill the first time, but to immediately stop firing when the threat has been eliminated. Why? Because when you kill someone who is lying there dying they will get your for murder every.single.time.

Again, if you stop to think about it it makes a lot of sense... But most people just want to live in a movie and rarely stop to think.

a reply to: Kryties

I'm not going to say that the situation didn't get extremely out of control, the old guy obviously wanted to kill them and his actions were pre-planned but his plan required those two criminals to come into his house and that is something he had no control over. It was premeditated but I wouldn't put it in the same class as someone who plans a murder and carries it out no matter what. In this case no B&E, no murder.

a reply to: Goteborg

He had a tarp ready to contain the blood and he shot them in the head after they were down, just to be sure.

Premeditation. Simple.

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: Goteborg

He had a tarp ready to contain the blood and he shot them in the head after they were down, just to be sure.

Premeditation. Simple.

Even if you take away the fact that he was obviously waiting in ambush.. which may be justifiable depending on the circumstances.. Take in to consideration that he executed the intruders after they had been incapacitated - this alone is enough for a premeditated murder charge.

personally, I think he was in the right.... right up until he reloaded and shot again.

the 'kill shot' nullified any self-defense defense he may have had in the first place.

not necessarily 'premeditated' but still murder nonetheless.

I am disturbed by the coldness I see from people who say they too would turn the defensible act of protecting their homes from a threat into the indefensible act of executing a wounded child who can no longer be considered a threat.

BUT instead of trying to reason with you ethically I'm going to be disgustingly practical, because back when I was a conservative it seemed to work on me.

So these kids had no value and no rights once they broke glass and stood in the lines that were marked out for only someone else to stand in, granted. They were enemies of the state and a plague on their community, let's just be glad they are gone. However, they were also repeat offenders.

That means that there are as of yet unresolved crimes about which these thugs had information. Out of his own sense of machismo and not wanting his glory days as a state enforcer to be over, this crazy old coot DESTROYED EVIDENCE. Those criminals were effectively government property waiting to be picked up by the police. He destroyed those inhuman objects and thereby made it impossible to answer questions that could restore stolen property, give closure to other victims, and raise the police department's percentages thereby strengthening people's confidence in the government.

a reply to: TDawgRex
Beowulf lol.

I use the little bullets for coyotes, not intruders.

a reply to: thesaneone

If you shot and wounded said person would you come up to them while laying in their own pool of blood, call them a Bitch and then put your gun up under their chin and blow their brains out?

If you say yes that would make you a murder just like him... He will do jail time for this for sure.

This is not about shooting an intruder it's about what happen after he shot them.

I could not for the life of me shoot a 17 year old female unarmed and at the top of the stairs far away from me to cause harm.

originally posted by: TinkerHaus

Even if you take away the fact that he was obviously waiting in ambush.. which may be justifiable depending on the circumstances..

I deliberately left that out as it could be justified under certain circumstances. The tarp and the killshots are all the proof a court needs to find him guilty of premeditated murder

This guy sounds like a cold killer lol... I'm No virgin when it comes to kills but this guy should be in solitary for life, with huge rats....

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: TDawgRex

And if he did just shoot the punks one time and they still died is he still guilty of murder?

Just one word to that question.

No

a reply to: Kryties

To be shamefacedly honest, I didn't read the article.

Thanks for pointing those things out. Yeah, that sounds like hiding in a bunker and having decided ahead of time what to do. I thought it was simply being caught on video.

I'll shut up now.
Although I will add that a person with PTSD - which I have no idea if this man was suffering from - like my veteran husband, would conceivably set up an ambush if he'd been pushed too far. These kids pushed too far. Don't corner a frightened or injured animal (or a mother bear), and stay out of its den.

Could I have done it? No. Like I said: "Hands on your head. Get on your knees. Now don't even move. I'm calling the police." I just hope I never have to find out if that works. As for moving the bodies, not calling, etc. , no - I'd most likely throw up and call the police immediately.
And probably need to be institutionalized for a while afterwards.

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: Goteborg

He had a tarp ready to contain the blood and he shot them in the head after they were down, just to be sure.

Premeditation. Simple.

I know, you've posted that many times in this thread already and it was in the news. They shouldn't have been in his house. I don't think this is the same thing as for example a wife who hires a hitman to kill her husband or someone who decides to rob and kill a drug dealer. If I were on that jury I'd vote to convict him, just not of anything that would have him serving serious time.