It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Outrage after popular students are found murdered in man's basement after 'they robbed his home on

page: 12
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 11:13 AM
reply to post by PatrickGarrow17

A) The term “students” implies youth but these are young men – 17 & 18 years old.
B) If they got killed by playing Russian roulette or driving while drunk everyone would say “it’s a shame but a consequence of their bad decisions”.
C) If you invade someone’s home and get shot, dismembered, cannibalized, raped, tortured etc. “it’s a shame but a consequence of your bad decisions”.

Home invaders can look like “Justin Bieber” but a homeowner doesn’t know their intentions and they deserve the most extreme, inhumane, horrifying result possible.

posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 11:18 AM
I just hope that people with children can use this as a teachable moment. When stories come out like this, I grab my 16 y/o boy a show him that this can happen if he makes the wrong choices in life. I cannot watch him 24/7, I just have to hope that he is listening and will do the right thing. It is sad.....but these two children picked the wrong house and paid the price. As for the man that killed them, he admitted that he went too far. A jury of his peers will decide his fate.

posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 11:21 AM

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
reply to post by mee30

Take a position of advantage, around a corner for example, fire a warning shot and tell them to get out, call the cops if possible before the standoff...

"Warning shots"? Do you realize how dangerous "warning shots" are? This is why people are no longer trained to fire "warning shots" - they are actually trained NOT to nowadays. That bullet has to go somewhere, and innocent people quite a distance away can be and have been killed or injured by "warning shots" when they were doing nothing wrong.

Besides, a "warning shot" is a far more credible warning when it drops the offender in his tracks.

Killing an intruder should be the absolute LAST resort, it wasn't in this case.

If he runs away, he's no longer an intruder, hmmm? Otherwise, he's still a credible threat. Neutralizing credible threats is a FIRST resort, if you yourself plan on living to old age.

edit on 2012/11/27 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 11:23 AM

Originally posted by EyesWideShut
Please don't confuse my hesitation to instantly shoot someone on sight before assessing the situation with my ability or willingness to do so. Personally, certain boxes have to be checked for me to squeeze the trigger, namely there must a "Percieved Threat". Simply because legally it's a good shoot, doesn't mean it's a morally good one.

All that said, as an LEO you know that the laws (castle and no retreat) were written to protect the rights of the untrained and uninitiated resident/homeowner from having to make those very assessments under duress and in a semi-aware state (perhaps darkness and just awakened).

The standard for those of us trained (I am not an LEO but an SF Operator) to deal with hostile confrontations if different than those for a citizen protecting his home and or family. Here in MO the intruder need not make any threatening statements or gestures or even be armed for the resident to have complete immunity from prosecution and civil liability for shooting and killing them in the act. Further, if they are in the process of the act (i.e. attempting to enter) you can shoot them though the door and be just fine. It is one of the reasons I chose to retire here.

Originally posted by EyesWideShut
Proximity, Ability , Intent & Opportunity are all things that I'd take into account before exercising deadly force. For me to shoot, I'd have to believe I was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. Two unarmed teenagers don't check enough of those boxes for me.

While I agree with your sentiment and personal standard during the performance of duty - I can tell you when my daughter and wife's safety are in question I am going to play the part of a very upset citizen most effectively because I will not hesitate or assess the lethality of the situation before I shoot.

I will only identify, aim and squeeze....

Personally, I am glad that the law protects the citizen from meeting the standard you describe...

ETA: Semper Fi! and thanks for your service to the nation and the community as an officer/deputy.
edit on 27/11/2012 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 11:35 AM

Originally posted by acmpnsfal
Oh jeez "anti gun members" give me a break. People should be able to defend their property but guns should be a last resort. On the story, this guy should not have had a gun. He was goaded into murder because he was mocked and clearly lacked the self control a gun owner should have; lethal force was unnecessary as these kids were not out to harm him. He deserves to rot and jail and these kids did not deserve to die.

Posted Via ATS Mobile:

When 2 burglars enter your home do you :

.Interview them to re-assure yourself they are no danger to you ?
.Trust them and conclude that they are not out to harm you ?
.ask them nicely to put the stolen goods back in their place and then send them both off with a cookie followed with a phone call to their mommy and daddy ?

Or do you bring your gun when you with the means to use it when you notice that 2 strangers entered your house covertly who's intentions are unknown to you.

Think about it,really . You stand there and your gun jams. Not only are you alone with 2 uninvited strangers in your house ( 1 vs 2 ) but right then you are also suddenly unarmed in front of them and one of them shows a total lack of fear by laughing at you. Don't you think the house owner may have panicked a bit at that time ?

I can tell you without a doubt that when someone points a gun at me and he tries to fire it at me and it then jams that i would still have a healthy respect/fear of it and the person holding it (considering that he already tried to fire it at me and all). Laughing into the barrel of a gun is nothing short of psychotic, i would feel threatened by his lack of fear AND being without a working weapon at that very moment if i was the house owner.

It is really simple. They both broke into his house knowing full well about the dangers of being shot for it and with that they forced that man into the position he was in, nothing more nothing less.

posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 11:40 AM
We all know that breaking into a house and stealing is wrong.

However I think that the 64 year old man that shot those 2 teenage people; is the worst offender here.

He should have just called the police; fired a warning shot into the ceiling; and let the police handle it.

Because one of the robbers laughed at him; he kept firing the gun. You would think that at 64 years old; he would have known better.

This is a total lose-lose situation; and it is very sad.

posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 11:41 AM

Originally posted by milkyway12
If you are in my home, without me knowing, I'm going to shoot you until I no longer feel you are a threat. I'm not going to ask you to freeze so you have time to run into another room and possibly draw a weapon. I'm going to shoot you, most likely, 3 or 4 times.

I use a 1911 ( for home defense ) and use hollow points. If I hit you center mass, chest, neck, or head you ain't going to make it. One round is overkill.
edit on 27-11-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)

Same here primarily because it’s the weapon I have the most experience with and in the night (half asleep) I think my muscle memory will kick in.

I; however, use MAG safe rounds since I don't know where the shots will be in the home and I don't want over penetration. I carry my 1911 (concealment is not really an issue since I live rural and no one seems spooked by a chance view of a weapon) all day with .45 +P 230 Federal HST and change to the MAG Safe rounds at bed time.

edit on 27/11/2012 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 11:44 AM
reply to post by Rubic0n

You're assuming the guy is telling the truth.

That is the problem with this thread. Everybody is forming opinions based upon incomplete information.

edit on 27-11-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 11:49 AM
I like to look at multiple approaches...

1) Teens break into old guys house... he shoots... moves them to the basement...but doesn't cal the cops? hmmmm

2) The guy is a sick pervert, probably get the teens inside the house for whatever sick reason, they don;t cooperate, he kills them... have they done tests on those teens? rape tests etc?

3) Teens and him have a confrontation for some reason, old guy pulls the trigger, kills, possibly kill other to cover his ass, bring bodies inside house to make it look like break/enter.

Or we can all cry how the only possible scenario is this innocent man, was attacked by belligerent teens and he had to defend his house against these ruffians in order to save his life...

I think the whole debate would be interesting if people leave emotions and laws/bias outside the door.

posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 11:51 AM

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
Ok, they shouldn't have robbed the house.

They still didn't deserve to die.

Why not?

Now they won't rob anybody else's house.

Killing each other over possessions eh?

I say: Wipe out the human race.

posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 11:53 AM
reply to post by MidnightTide

First he was defending his life and property, so I don't see a problem with that. I don't even care that he may have fired more shots than needed. At some point, you're just wasting bullets because the person is dead. Who cares if you put more lead into an already dead person?

What I do have a problem with is the fact he tried to hide/cover up the killings.

posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 11:58 AM

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by Rubic0n

You're assuming the guy is telling the truth.

That is the problem with this thread. Everybody is forming opinions based upon incomplete information.

edit on 27-11-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

Yes but the person who i replied to was responding to the same story that i and everyone else have to go by for at the moment. Even if the official story changed it would not have changed his stance on it as it is currently so this in no way invalidates my response to his.

edit on 27-11-2012 by Rubic0n because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 11:59 AM
And who knows really what happened.

This 65 year old man might have been a creepy pedo and invited the kids inside with candy and beer. When they didn't want to play hide the hot dog, maybe he got mad and killed them.

Maybe he has a grandkid that was bullied by these kids? From the OP's article there are to few details for us to speculate for pages and pages. A million things could have happened, and the only one who really knows is the old man.

posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 12:01 PM
reply to post by Rubic0n

We're all responding to the same story or what little has been made public.

It doesn't change the fact that the only thing we have is the homeowner's story and therefore incomplete information.

edit on 27-11-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 12:01 PM
Coming from the UK, I am unsure of the laws in the USA......when someone breaks into your property are you allowed to use reasonable force.....or are you allowed to execute the intruder when he/she no longer poses a threat?

posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 12:03 PM
reply to post by johneffendoe

Actually what kind of sadistic world do you live in?????

They were practically KIDS, not some crackhead who benches 200 lbs !!!, they posed NO immediate danger, Read The OP again!

They did NOT deserve to die in such cruel fashion and it could have been avoided if the 64 year old actually gave a warning shot!

Even a swat team that is armed to the bone, that approaches a hostile 200lb man with an AK47 will request that he drops the weapon first and put his hands up in the air.......they wont shoot first like its a video game???

Jeez, i think you need to get your head examined.

posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 12:14 PM
Something seems a bit fishy to me. Of course they should not have broken into his home, what idiots were they! What their popularity has to do with this befuddles me. Obviously they were not such great kids or they wouldn't have been robbing the guy.

But as for the guy sounds like he got mad and kept on shooting when he shouldn't have and then freaked out and hid the bodies instead of just calling the cops to tell them that he had shot intruders who broke into his home. Hiding the bodies made it much much worse.

posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 12:15 PM

Originally posted by Argyll
Coming from the UK, I am unsure of the laws in the USA......when someone breaks into your property are you allowed to use reasonable force.....or are you allowed to execute the intruder when he/she no longer poses a threat?

I was always under the impression that you are allowed to use reasonable force to get them out and protect not only yourself, but your home. Each state has slightly different variations on the laws though I think. I don't think that there is the right to execute someone who doesn't pose a threat though.

posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 12:17 PM
I'm sorry but as a second amendment supporter, i have to say this guy made a really poor choice. So many times people think that crime is 100% black and white, when it's not. If two young kids break into your house and your first impulse is to grab your gun and shoot them, you need to seriously rethink your position on the matter.

There's a difference between a couple guys that are armed, that pose an immediate threat to you, and two kids that are simply misguided in life, for whatever reason. I hear so many times, first time gun buyers that are so quick to act tough, saying they'll shoot anyone who breaks into their house. Killing someone is not something you shake off overnight, it lives with you. The effect it has on your mind, it's not easy at all to deal with. Although sometimes when your life is threatened, and force is justified, you have to make that call. I don't see this case as being one.

Just because you do right, doesn't mean you get to feel right.

posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 12:27 PM
People that support this guy and his story without thinking and asking question about his story scares me...

Those are the people that would kill 2 people, drag their bodies into house and scream self defense....

All we have is this guys killed 2 kids... that HE SAYS "broke in"..

used excessive bullets and did it in a executive style and then hid the bodies.... and look at all these brainless morons that buying into this.. wow seriously, some of you need serious help... taking the murder who hid the bodies story as the absolute one...

Maybe the old guy was smart enough to know people in this country would support him if he used a story like this...

This story is not making sense. And this discussion is not going anywhere because more than half the people are not looking at the fact he HID THE BODIES!....but instead focusing on gun laws and their rights....


I'm feeling a bit calm that there were few people in this thread that questioned the story...

top topics

<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in