Family, Friends Of Dead Home Invaders Say “They Didn’t Deserve To Get Killed.”

Here is what one of the neighbors who knew the two criminals has to say about them.

sounds like the neighbor is taking a realistic version of events.

TheTruth&NothingBut • 7 hours ago

TheTruth&NothingBut • a day ago

I knew these kids and their "kind" and they weren't trying to put food on the table, That's what a JOB IS FOR! They were trying to "Come up" & get some money for "lean"/PRO-CO or whatever else to get "turned up". PERIOD! They were Young gangsters/Goons in training and would not hesitate to ROB, assault, hurt or kill anyone who stood in their way. Especially if they outnumbered you!
Imagine what type of people they would have been in 5-10 years. They would have turned into some Seriously Dangerous PPL! They would have HURT even more INNOCENT PEOPLE. They already were HURTING INNOCENT PEOPLE!!! They were not going to Miraculously Become BETTER PEOPLE! They were going to GET WORSE, NOT BETTER! If you disagree your probably high right now as your reading this...

They GLORIFIED the LIFESTYLE and IMAGE of the MODERN GANGSTER! They IDOLIZED the "SCARFACE" MENTALITY which is Summed up as follows: "DON'T MAKE MONEY, TAKE MONEY"!!! I shouldn't have to explain the problems with this kind of PERSPECTIVE. THEY WERE BAD GUYS TOWARDS GOOD PEOPLE!!!
These HOODS/GOONS were a THREAT TO THE COMMUNITY AROUND THEM! I do have sympathy towards those they left behind. Family and friends etc. Not only did they hurt those around them, but they hurt their family and friends by being a POS and then leaving everyone else to pick up the BROKEN PIECES! When your a Big Bro, you have a responsibility to provide a good example to your younger siblings. They look up to you NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO! GOOD OR BAD!
They CHOSE their LIFESTYLE! God chose their exit. I can only Speculate as to why, but maybe In HIS Divine wisdom he was saving the younger sis from growing up around their BS Choices and Influence!
TRUST IN GOD'S JUDGEMENT! Not even a sparrow falls without his approval!


sacramento.cbslocal.com...

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: nighthawk1954

Worse yet, what if one of the parents sent them?

or what if their gang leader sent them?
or what if they were schizophrenic and the evil voice in their head sent them?
or what if this was an initiation into a deeper level of gang membership?

you are almost inter-crainally constipated with trying to find someone to blame for their actions except them.


or what if these two criminals used their intelligence and went and got the things they wanted legally like you???
then they would not be dead.

criminals solve their problems illegally.

a reply to: Son of Will

You are forgetting a crucial factor in all this. The age and therefore the relative frailty of the occupant of the home. Sure, a twenty four year old former high school "football" player might be able to handle two unknown assailants, without being concerned about knives, guns, hammers, bats, shivs, and the like, but that is because he can be certain of his ability to flatten someone by running at them. He has more tactical options than a octogenarian by a very long chalk. Also, you must understand that tactically speaking, a knife can beat a gun over a short distance, assuming a fast reaction from its wielder.

If those lads had been armed with even close quarters melee weapons, then they could have beat that situation. But the reality of this situation is, that the occupant had no choice in this what so ever. They could not have been at all certain of taking these lads to task using a less than lethal approach, and they used the only tactical option available at the time, which was to fire their weapon until the threat was pacified.

There is an old saying, and I forget where it came from, but it goes something like "An old man will not want to fight. If you force him to, he will just kill you instead."

It's true, and does not only apply to the male.

Sure they didn't deserve to die.
A drunk driver or someone speeding on a bad road doesn't deserve to die either.
Death is simply the ultimate consequence of certain poor decisions.

Fact is, if they'd stayed away and not tried robbing someone's house they would be alive.

No blame should lay with the victims of this robbery. People should have the right to protect their families, homes and possessions.

originally posted by: Son of Will
...Simple. If someone acts in such a way that you feel your life to be immediately threatened (this does not include hearing a noise in a dark room, nor does this include simply observing a home intruder) then defend yourself by all means. That would be, a home intruder who makes a physically aggressive gesture, OR a home intruder with a visible weapon.

Oh - Please!
'Hearing a noise in a dark room'?
Hearing a noise in a dark room...and shooting at the 'phantom noise'...neither kills, hurts nor frightens ANY-ONE!

Whether an 'elderly lady', living by herself ; a young lady, living by herself... WHATEVER the scenario... If you are awakened, or startled by sounds and noises in your home...when your sanctuary has been invaded before (multiple times) - AND...there's no-one else in the house to call out to, for help... AND ...you do not know if the threat is misdemeanorish or malevolent in intent... AND ...those YOU TRUST have given you a weapon because of the previous/prior invasions, and instructed you on how to use it...and...TO USE it...should such a situation arise again (presumably, for self-preservation) - at what point do you think said elderly lady is going to choose to become a psychologist, and start 'assessing' the intent of the intruders?
"Excuse me, young men who've decided to break into my home, once again - but - are your intentions merely 'for profit', or do you intend harm to/for me? My aim will depend on your answers, so, be honest... ... ..."
"Oh - merely for profit...? Well, then...Please, if you are armed, would you lay your weapons on the floor, and sit on the sofa 'til the police arrive?"
Or...
"Oh - you're here to rob me, and make sure you don't get caught by the police...and, since I've been roused from my slumber by your clumsy entrance...you'll have to do what you have to do to ensure that you get away with this...? Well - would you please hold still, while I take aim to disable you, without inflicting lethal injury with this gun I've never shot before? - - - - - Thanks!"
Bang! Bang!

Just doesn't seem to fit with real life scenarios...

a reply to: spirited75

inter-crainally constipated

So nothing solid is loose inside my skull. Who makes up
crap like that? And partner I made no attempt to blame anyone
when I presented the possibility that you refer to so mockingly.
In your obviously drastic attempts at confirming your higher
intellect. That you can't seem to let go of, even for the sake of
conversation. So hey, thanks for the annoying conversation.

Good day

a reply to: randyvs
sounds like you need a cookie,
and maybe a glass of milk??

a reply to: randyvs


then what do you mean by saying
"what if one of their parents sent them?"

they are old enough to disobey.
they probably disobeyed as far as
school attendance went, and
as far as drug and alcohol use went.

Therefore they could have disobeyed mom or dad.

Its laughable but not funny that some here are actually trying to focus the blame for this event on the homeowner..give your heads a shake..here is a tip..dont do home invasions

a reply to: Son of Will

Here is what one of the neighbors who knew the two criminals has to say about them.

sounds like the neighbor is taking a realistic version of events.

TheTruth&NothingBut • a day ago

I knew these kids and their "kind" and they weren't trying to put food on the table, That's what a JOB IS FOR! They were trying to "Come up" & get some money for "lean"/PRO-CO or whatever else to get "turned up". PERIOD! They were Young gangsters/Goons in training and would not hesitate to ROB, assault, hurt or kill anyone who stood in their way. Especially if they outnumbered you!
Imagine what type of people they would have been in 5-10 years. They would have turned into some Seriously Dangerous PPL! They would have HURT even more INNOCENT PEOPLE. They already were HURTING INNOCENT PEOPLE!!! They were not going to Miraculously Become BETTER PEOPLE! They were going to GET WORSE, NOT BETTER! If you disagree your probably high right now as your reading this...

They GLORIFIED the LIFESTYLE and IMAGE of the MODERN GANGSTER! They IDOLIZED the "SCARFACE" MENTALITY which is Summed up as follows: "DON'T MAKE MONEY, TAKE MONEY"!!! I shouldn't have to explain the problems with this kind of PERSPECTIVE. THEY WERE BAD GUYS TOWARDS GOOD PEOPLE!!!
These HOODS/GOONS were a THREAT TO THE COMMUNITY AROUND THEM! I do have sympathy towards those they left behind. Family and friends etc. Not only did they hurt those around them, but they hurt their family and friends by being a POS and then leaving everyone else to pick up the BROKEN PIECES! When your a Big Bro, you have a responsibility to provide a good example to your younger siblings. They look up to you NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO! GOOD OR BAD!
They CHOSE their LIFESTYLE! God chose their exit. I can only Speculate as to why, but maybe In HIS Divine wisdom he was saving the younger sis from growing up around their BS Choices and Influence!
TRUST IN GOD'S JUDGEMENT! Not even a sparrow falls without his approval!

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: uncommitted
The person with the gun APPEARS to have made the decision to kill, not disable or use their gun to keep the kids from doing anything. That person didn't, they made the choice to kill them.

Honestly, who comes up with this crap?

Shoot to disable or wound? Shoot the gun out of someones hand. Warning shots?

Is this all you have?

I don't have anything, where did I say shoot the gun out of someones hand or where is it listed the perpetrators actually had a gun? You are making facts up and suggested I said them....

Is that all you have, cowboy?

Shooting to disable is basically the same, within the real world, as trying to shoot the gun out of someone's hand.

It was an extension of a bad suggestion from you.

No, it was a poor analogy based on your assumption. Hey, I made it clear that I have little sympathy for anyone who invades someones property - that though does not give you the right to be an executioner (based on the information provided in the link to gunporn.com

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: Rodinus

An example over here is the simple fact that even if you point an unloaded firearm at intruders they can file a complaint and you are the one that gets arrested.

But... saying that, this would still not stop me from defending my loved ones and my home.

Kindest respects

Rodinus

Hi Rodinus,

Thanks for your perspective.
I have a question.

Instead of pointing an unloaded gun, would bludgeoning the intruder to the point of death in self defense with a bat or ax still get you arrested in France? To me, it seems crazy that a robber in your own house could file a complaint about you trying to defend yourself with unloaded gun and get the homeowner arrested.

My apologies Pav but was away for a couple of days for some quality family time.

To answer your question : I would not use the term "Bludgeoning" as this can play around with certain peoples emotions...

However... If I did not have a gun, then I would use whatever is handy at the moment (Fists, Head, plank of wood etc etc...) to stop the people (after warning of course...) from intruding... "raping" my family home.

If you KILL someone over here in France, then without a REAL legitimate reason of self defense then yes... you are guilty of manslaughter... No matter what the consequences might have been beforehand.

Kindest respects

Rodinus

originally posted by: Son of Will
Killing someone without being utterly necessary is absolute cowardice. It's extremely ironic that those most prepared to murder a non-threatening home intruder are those who brag the loudest about how badass they are. I would like to think I'm not alone in seeing that instead as a measure of how cowardly one is.

Absolutely right, I applaud you for saying that. I think such people are probably keyboard cowboys.

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Son of Will
Killing someone without being utterly necessary is absolute cowardice. It's extremely ironic that those most prepared to murder a non-threatening home intruder are those who brag the loudest about how badass they are. I would like to think I'm not alone in seeing that instead as a measure of how cowardly one is.

Absolutely right, I applaud you for saying that. I think such people are probably keyboard cowboys.

what you think is important ---to you.

home invasion means that the person or persons have
1. decided to illegally enter a location without an invitation
2. illegally stayed there while the location was occupied
3. illegally entered with the intention of criminal activity
within the location and or against the occupants.
4. caused fright to occupants via their uninvited and unwelcome presence

the occupants are permitted to employ lethal deadly force upon the criminals who invaded their location.

originally posted by: spirited75

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Son of Will
Killing someone without being utterly necessary is absolute cowardice. It's extremely ironic that those most prepared to murder a non-threatening home intruder are those who brag the loudest about how badass they are. I would like to think I'm not alone in seeing that instead as a measure of how cowardly one is.

Absolutely right, I applaud you for saying that. I think such people are probably keyboard cowboys.

what you think is important ---to you.

home invasion means that the person or persons have
1. decided to illegally enter a location without an invitation
2. illegally stayed there while the location was occupied
3. illegally entered with the intention of criminal activity
within the location and or against the occupants.
4. caused fright to occupants via their uninvited and unwelcome presence

the occupants are permitted to employ lethal deadly force upon the criminals who invaded their location.

Could you cite the law that says lethal force without fear of death will not be held as manslaughter at the least, murder at the worst? Just curious, that's all. In certain circumstances a bailiff or law enforcement officer may enter a location without invitation, does the law state that killing them is ok?

originally posted by: uncommitted

Could you cite the law that says lethal force without fear of death will not be held as manslaughter at the least, murder at the worst? Just curious, that's all. In certain circumstances a bailiff or law enforcement officer may enter a location without invitation, does the law state that killing them is ok?

Before Stand Your Ground, the right to use deadly force was strictly limited.
A person had to show that it was reasonable to believe that the use of such force was “necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.” Unless a person was “attacked in his home by a person not having an equal right to be there,” he had a duty to retreat if he could do so in absolute safety. Florida was unequivocal in protecting human life: “ ‘[A] person under attack [has] to “retreat to the wall or ditch” before taking a life.’ The “one interposing the defense . . . must have used all reasonable means in his power, consistent with his own safety, to avoid the danger and to
avert the necessity of taking human life . . . .’ ” Stand Your Ground dramatically expanded the right to use deadly force. It removed the duty to retreat outside the home. As long as a person is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in a place where he has the right to be, he is allowed to “stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”


lawreview.law.miami.edu...


The Castle Doctrine is a common law doctrine that designates a person’s abode (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as a car or place of work) as a place in which the person has certain protections and immunities and allows such a person in certain circumstances, to attack an intruder instead of retreating. Typically, deadly force is considered justified homicide only in cases when the actor reasonably feared imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to oneself or another. The doctrine is not a defined law that can be invoked, but is a set of principles which is incorporated in some form in the law of most states. Forty-six states, including Connecticut, have incorporated the Castle Doctrine into law.

www.thesurvivalistblog.net...

1) Neither California’s constitution nor its statutes contains a stand-your-ground law. They have what’s known as a “castle doctrine” (California Penal Code Section 198.5), granting a justification for deadly force inside one’s residence. If someone forces his or her way into your home, and you have a “reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury,” then you would be justified in using deadly force to defend yourself.

2) Even though it’s not in the law, the California Criminal Jury Instructions (CALCRIM) do allow a jury to acquit someone based on a stand-your-ground defense. The instruction appears in CALCRIM #505 and #506, both of which deal with justifiable homicide:

“A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of (death/great bodily injury/) has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating.”

So in California, not only could you stay and fight, you can even chase your attacker if it will neutralize the threat to your life.

3) California’s stand-your-ground defense as part of the justifiable homicide rules has several conditions. Aggressors are not eligible for this — you must be defending, not striking first. You, as a reasonable person, would have to believe the danger is imminent and not a threat at some time in the future. Also, you had to have believed that deadly force was necessary, and you had to have used just enough force to defend yourself. However, a defendant does not have to be correct about having actually been in danger. A jury can acquit if they think the defendant reasonably believed that mortal danger was truly there.

4) The legal precedents that established this jury instruction are very old: cases like People v. Hecker in 1895 and People v. Newcomer in 1897. Hecker says you may stand your ground if it’s safer than retreating, but Newcomer changed that by removing the need to retreat (or “fly,” as the ruling said). These precedents have been cited over and over, but the state has never actually settled the question of whether stand your ground is legal in the modern era.

“Over a hundred years ago, the California Supreme Court said, ‘no duty to retreat if you’re in your home,’” says UC Hastings Law Professor Rory Little. “‘We’re going to leave open whether there’s such a duty if you’re outside of the home.’ That little leaving-open has never been firmly answered by the California Supreme Court. They simply repeat the same broad language over and over again.”

5) To those assessing stand-your-ground laws based on the Zimmerman trial, some have complained that Zimmerman never actually invoked the law, even though it seems to have helped his acquittal. In California, as in Florida, a defense team does not have to actually invoke it: the judge is responsible for giving the jury this instruction on his or her own if the facts of the case warrant it.

blogs.kqed.org...

a reply to: nighthawk1954You can't just kill a person in cold blood just because they're inside your home. This is where American logic is so twisted. What if these kids were drunk and just daring each other to do something stupid? We all did dumb things as kids. A friend and I once broke into an old barn to see what was inside when I was a teen. In the US, presumably I'd have been shot and killed. But I'm no criminal, it was just a silly thing to do. This shoot first, ask questions later makes me sick to my stomach, and is indicative of American society and politics in general. You know what the problem is? Everyone in America is scared. Scared of each other. Scared of other countries. So they arm themselves to the teeth. Guns in houses. Guns in schools. Guns on police. Guns on security guards. Missiles pointed at every other country.

Scared.

a reply to: spirited75
Hi, that was a really interesting read, thank you. Thing is, even with stand your ground you have to prove a risk to life and limb, don't you?

a reply to: uncommitted

no.

California allows a PRESUMPTION on the part of the homeowner that allows for fear of bodily injury or death.
the prosecution would have to prove that the intruders were not going to cause bodily harm or death. The homeowner just needs to articulate that they had that fear.

originally posted by: spirited75
a reply to: uncommitted

no.

California allows a PRESUMPTION on the part of the homeowner that allows for fear of bodily injury or death.
the prosecution would have to prove that the intruders were not going to cause bodily harm or death. The homeowner just needs to articulate that they had that fear.

Interesting, thank you. So logically you can invite a - oh, let's say religious representative who is cold calling into your house and kill them with fairly much a good chance of getting away with it? You haven't mentioned proof of break and enter, the 'assailant' having anything resembling a weapon etc, is that because no such proof is required?

ETA, seeing as the 'assailant' would at this stage be dead and the only other probable witness is the person that killed them....... hmmmm