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

page: 31
56
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
What he describes is bad enough and murder on the literal, text book defined, face of it. It's not even debatable in legal terms. You can't execute people who are wounded, on the ground and absolutely no threat of any kind, to anyone.


It is murder but only second degree as the kids created the circumstances by their criminal acts.

I think he would have been fully justified in shooting them both (yes even the girl) the first times. Where he crossed the line was only in the final coup de gras, which is the action for which he will be judged.

I won't really lose any sleep over this - the kids reaped what they sowed; he will get his and in the end it will be a hit for the "lets grab the guns" crowd.

For all those who have opined that in no circumstances is taking of life warranted for theft/damage to property I say you are right in a sense.

However, the problem is you'd have to wait and determine a perp’s intent and to have a perfect outcome in those circumstances.

In the time it takes for you to make that determination it will be to late if they are there for any other purpose - you have lost any advantage (and likely your life).

This is the reason why the law favors the law abiding citizen with the castle doctrine. It gives the benefit of a doubt to the law abiding person instead of the advantage to the criminal. Too many cases in our society is it the reverse.




posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   
Thanks Wrabbit2000. Another astute observation from you. Too much here? Not enough force for what happened to them? Got what they deserved? Didnt deserve it at all? Right to self-defend? Excessive force for the offense?

There are no clear answers here. Its a tragedy for all involved, and sadly, a sign of our times. Thanks again Wrabbit. Point well-made.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by nenothtu
 

The exact quote from his brother earlier in the thread was:


“He was a security officer for the State Department over the past two decades and was responsible for plans and specifications of State Department buildings worldwide,” Bruce Smith said.

Who else but an expert would be handed that kind of job? I mean even if he was just a glory hound he would understand security enough to not have his place robbed 8 times before this event.


No. Anyone with the right sort of connections or the right line of patter can get that kind of job. Competence is not a requirement. I've seen incompetence on parade too many times in high stakes environments to believe otherwise. You seem to have an odd notion of glory hounds - what is it about that which would lead one to think they can take time off from themselves in order to figure out a security plan?



My wife also made the observation that he treated this incident as if he were expecting a "hit". Personally, if I expect that type of visitor, I'm going to want LOTS more options, to afford greater mobility and an ability to flank or fly. that's just me, though. This guys training and expertise seems to have been lacking if he was a security "expert".

Not if the problem was not in fact a security issue. Maybe he wasn't expecting a "hit" but waiting to carry one/two out. Since facts are lacking then anyone's idea is just as valid.


Oh, he definitely had some security "issues" - which is why I question his status as an "expert". He DID sort of act like he was expecting a hit, but the acting just isn't convincing enough - he allowed himself to get hemmed into a corner, something one should never do under such circumstance.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Indeed, which speaks directly to my question - if he were some sort of "expert" in reality, WHY did he have no TSCM measure in place at all, and ESPECIALLY after an alleged EIGHT break ins!

I stand by my assessment - no matter what kind of paper the man had to hang on his wall, he was no kind of security "expert".



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 

Did you read Advantage's post. You don't need much more than common sense to install or have someone come install a security system. Just having been around a security department would give anyone an idea of what is available.


He DID sort of act like he was expecting a hit, but the acting just isn't convincing enough - he allowed himself to get hemmed into a corner, something one should never do under such circumstance.

This is only true if you believe that he feared for his life. Actually what little information is given doesn't relly address what security measures he had implemented in his home. He sure isn't going to mention them because it would be detrimental to his claim that he felt he was in danger.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by detachedindividual
 


At no point in time have I defended what this man did.

At no point in time did I say his use of force was not excessive.

That being said, calling home invasion a petty crime is a gross misrepresentation. Like I said before, many things can and DO happen when a stranger enters your home.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 02:48 AM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


Since when is it a home owner's job to keep people out? Seriously, I don't even lock my door, it's still not my fault if someone comes in without asking. Just because I don't lock my doors and have a fancy security system. People who know me, know not to come in unannounced, someone that knows me not has no business being in my house. Not everyone can afford a fancy alarm system you know. I don't need one, my gun is alarm enough for me.

Maybe the guy did set a trap for them, so what? If they weren't breaking into his house, they wouldn't have stepped into it.

If he was a better shot, and hit them both in the head with one shot, he would be fine by law. I see it as kind of hypocricy that if you can kill with one shot, it's fine, but if you do what he did it's all of a sudden wrong. If someone breaks into my house, doubletap to the chest with HP would do the job quick and clean. Which is probably why people's houses around here never get broken into unless people are not home.
edit on Fri, 30 Nov 2012 02:54:59 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 03:11 AM
link   
So, they were "popular".....did that mean they had a right to invade his HOME, right after HIS Thanksgiving??? At this stage, they should jail the people complaining about this, in their place.


...and did I read that right? He's facing murder charges?? That's seriously not right. He had every right to defend his home. "More shots than necessary"? Really? So, I guess the people chanting that know what those criminals would or would not have done to the man, had he not defended himself as he did?



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 04:48 AM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


Innocent until proven guilty.

And how do you know the old man is telling the truth?



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by SymbolicLogic
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


Innocent until proven guilty.

And how do you know the old man is telling the truth?


Why were they in his home? He's innocent until proven guilty, too, and every single person has a right to defend their home, with lethal force if necessary. I don't even see the story claiming that they were not there to ROB him. "Popular" isn't an excuse for criminal behavior. Besides, all of the dead bad guys were "popular", or "model students", etc, after the fact, even when the record proves they were no such thing. He didn't shoot them after inviting them over for coffee. He shot them because they invaded his home. Lesson here? Use hollow points, for more stopping power in one shot.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


He was dragging wounded bodies around his home and killed the girl execution style long after having wounded her. While making absolutely no attempt to contact the police. It's pretty much murder.

The smart thing to do would have been to unload the magazine ensuring they die instantaneously. Then he would have been completely justified.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 


Number one: You do not know me so do not go on pretending that you do.

Number two: Do not pretend to understand my motivations in labeling myself as a proud gun owner.

Number three: I label myself as a proud gun owner because I am. Both of my grandfathers and many uncles fought for my right to own my firearms. By owning them, learning how they work, and learning how to be responsible with them is honoring their sacrifices in foreign theaters of war. It is my small "thank you" to them all.

Now on the topic of this thread: nobody, and I mean nobody (including keyboard judges *ahem*) have the right to call this man a murderer. That is up for a jury of 12 to decide. Not keyboard judges.

This man had a right to shoot intruders in his home. He went overboard, but none of us but the man himself know the motivations behind his excessive force. That is for a jury to decide. My opinion is that he should see some sort of punishment for hiding the bodies, but he should not be charged for defending his home from intruders. Material things or not, the invasion of what is supposed to be a safe zone is not right and should be dealt with harshly.


I said it before, but I'll say it again: anybody caught breaking into my house will be shot on sight, no questions asked. That is my right and the right of everybody in my state.



-TS



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by daskakik
 

Since when is it a home owner's job to keep people out? Seriously, I don't even lock my door, it's still not my fault if someone comes in without asking. Just because I don't lock my doors and have a fancy security system. People who know me, know not to come in unannounced, someone that knows me not has no business being in my house. Not everyone can afford a fancy alarm system you know. I don't need one, my gun is alarm enough for me.

Guess you missed the point. He had the know how and according to his story he had the need but he decided to become a victim 8 times before taking this action. Doesn't add up.


Maybe the guy did set a trap for them, so what? If they weren't breaking into his house, they wouldn't have stepped into it.

The law will answer that one.


If he was a better shot, and hit them both in the head with one shot, he would be fine by law. I see it as kind of hypocricy that if you can kill with one shot, it's fine, but if you do what he did it's all of a sudden wrong.

Not if there was no break-in to begin with.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeker1984
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 

Now on the topic of this thread: nobody, and I mean nobody (including keyboard judges *ahem*) have the right to call this man a murderer. That is up for a jury of 12 to decide. Not keyboard judges.

Well it is a forum for discussion and people are just giving their opinion on the case. Other keyboard judges also don't have the right to automatically declare the guy inoccent and throw the case out.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by nenothtu
 

Did you read Advantage's post. You don't need much more than common sense to install or have someone come install a security system. Just having been around a security department would give anyone an idea of what is available.


Of course I did. I read my own as well. What is your point here? Do you not realize that you are making my point for me - that Mr Smith did not have the common sense to qualify as an expert anything? One could take your argument here so far as to indicate that he's never even been around a "security department", much less qualified for expert in one.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by SymbolicLogic
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


Innocent until proven guilty.

And how do you know the old man is telling the truth?


Aye.

"Innocent until proven guilty".

Are you willing to apply that evenly to BOTH sides of this? If you're not, then it doesn't mean a damned thing. It's just hot air escaping your lips, and nothing more. no value at all.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   
i wonder if drugs and or alcohol and letting their effects wear off had anything to do with the homeowner waiting til the next day to report the crime?
also the fact that he executed the girl after she was already wounded, smells of getting rid of any potential witness testimony besides his own.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
I caught some black kid about to rob my house this morning and I didn't see the need to kill him. I'm not sure how he would've done it anyway, all he had was his bike and his bag was already full of newspapers.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
Of course I did. I read my own as well. What is your point here? Do you not realize that you are making my point for me - that Mr Smith did not have the common sense to qualify as an expert anything? One could take your argument here so far as to indicate that he's never even been around a "security department", much less qualified for expert in one.

The point is that he may very well have had the qualification but that this whole case isn't about security. He could have secured his home and for all we know it could be a fortress but he is playing the helpless victim role because it helps his case.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Death during home invasion.

It comes with the territory.





top topics
 
56
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join