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

page: 32
50
<< 29  30  31    33  34 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Either which way, there is no good on either side of the story. They shouldn't have broken in, and he shouldn't have been irrational and killed them.

Shock effects people differently, so who knows if his intent was malicious or not. I'd be scared piss-less if someone broke into my house and if I had a gun, I'd sure as hell fire a few rounds into the delinquents.




posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

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.


He may be officially innocent still; however, he admitted to the police that he executed them. And now that the SCOTUS has determined that a Miranda reading isn't necessary, his words can be used against him in a court of law. The guy admitted he ambushed them, shot and incapacitated them and then murdered them. Then he continued to hide the corpses, which he dragged around, in his basement and did not contact the authorities. Seems he dispelled any doubt of his guilt by his own admissions. What don't you folks defending this murderer get?



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 


I think half the people defending the victim of the break in's actions have not bothered to get all the available information. I think soon as they hear that people were killed they automatically think of their gun rights and want to defend them by supporting this man. Little do they realize the horrific acts this man committed after he neutralized any threat.

It's kinda scary to see what people will turn a blind eye to in order to make sure that they have easy access to guns.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


THERE IS NO PROOF THAT THE KIDS BROKE INTO THE HOUSE!

What is SO HARD to UNDERSTAND about this SIMPLE FACT?!

The only "Witness" that claims they broke in is they guy that VIOLENTLY EXECUTED them and kept their bodies in his BASEMENT!



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by SymbolicLogic
 


Their history with theft and burglary? What do you propose they were doing there? Have you been able to dig up a connection between them? Do you think he lured them in with milk and cookies? Kidnapped them by gunpoint just to kill them?



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


No, but I've actually worked in law offices before, so I actually know a bit about how this all works.

There is no *PROOF* alright? You can say they have prior history, great, that means that they broke into OTHER places but not necessarily THIS domicile.

Due Diligence

Due Process

Do you homework.

Evidence: All types of information (observations, recollections, documents, concrete objects, etc.) presented at trial or other hearing. Statements made by the judge and lawyers, however, are not evidence. 2. Any information that might be used for a future trial. 3. for types of evidence, such as circumstantial, demonstrative, direct, hearsay, parol, probabtive, real, state's, etc., see those words.
edit on 30-11-2012 by SymbolicLogic because: further examples.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   
I have been away from this thread for a while.

So I don't have to read through the last 15 pages. Could someone tell me if there is proof of these kids breaking into this mans house now ? I know they have a history but on this occasion is there proof other than the window being broken and the killers statement. Maybe fingerprints on the broken window or footprints outside the _ Have they released any of this yet ?

I've thought from the beginning there is more to this than is being told. Much more....

Strict



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrInquisitive

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

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.


He may be officially innocent still; however, he admitted to the police that he executed them. And now that the SCOTUS has determined that a Miranda reading isn't necessary, his words can be used against him in a court of law. The guy admitted he ambushed them, shot and incapacitated them and then murdered them. Then he continued to hide the corpses, which he dragged around, in his basement and did not contact the authorities. Seems he dispelled any doubt of his guilt by his own admissions. What don't you folks defending this murderer get?


No, he admitted that he shot after they were wounded. That doesn't mean "execution"; it means eliminating a threat to his home. These were probably the same punks that robbed him before. What part of them breaking in don't people get? These were not innocent kids!


Originally posted by Rockpuck
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.


So, he was worried that he'd be arrested for defending himself. Go figure..... Yes, smarter to keep shooting, but just because he was hesitant doesn't mean he's a murderer. Plus, if the law states "deadly force", and doesn't state anything about immediate threat, as seems to be the case, what he did was legal. They did invade his home. Unless someone shows him enticing them inside to kill them, that's clear, and no one has suggested he did that.


Originally posted by nenothtu

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.


Of course. I am basing my opinion on the details we have heard thus far. The law there seems to be that deadly force is authorized if someone illegally enters your home. From what I understand, there isn't (in his location) anything about a need for an immediate threat. Now, maybe people want to change that, maybe not, but if that's the case, he was legally justified to kill them. Morally, too, in my book, as they entered illegally. A lot of people are killed by burglars that are surprised to find the homeowner at home.

If we hear new information, then my opinions could change.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik

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.


Did these teens not break into his home? If someone breaks into your home, you are a victim of a crime. That he was armed quite probably prevented him from becoming the victim of a more serious crime, and the result is that those two won't be breaking into anyone's home now. Surely we are not blaming the victim for the crime here, are we?



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
Did these teens not break into his home?

Since it has not been established that they did in fact break in, we can't be sure that he was in any danger of becoming a victim.

edit on 3-12-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
Did these teens not break into his home?

Since it has not been established that they did in fact break in, we can't be sure that he was in any danger of becoming a victim.

edit on 3-12-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)


No other explanation has been offered as to why they were there. Certainly, they were not invited. If they were family friends or something, that would have come out by now.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 

Actually all that has come out is Smith's version of what happened. There is no way to know if they were invited or not. That must be part of what is being investigated, so like you said in a previous post, the facts may change and with it peoples opinions.

I think that a spokesperon for the police saying that if people knew all the facts they would not side with Smith gives a good idea of what isn't being said.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 

Actually all that has come out is Smith's version of what happened. There is no way to know if they were invited or not. That must be part of what is being investigated, so like you said in a previous post, the facts may change and with it peoples opinions.

I think that a spokesperon for the police saying that if people knew all the facts they would not side with Smith gives a good idea of what isn't being said.



Well, if they have some evidence that the man lured them there to kill them, they should present it. A lot of the time, it's a case of the cops thinking no one but them should have a gun. Or, maybe, someone with the police knows the families of the teens. Even if the guy did exactly what is stated, as the law is there at this time, it would seem to be legal. What will probably happen is some law preventing people from defending themselves at all, as a result. If the facts do change, I wonder if we will ever hear them all.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by SymbolicLogic
reply to post by TKDRL
 


No, but I've actually worked in law offices before, so I actually know a bit about how this all works.

There is no *PROOF* alright? You can say they have prior history, great, that means that they broke into OTHER places but not necessarily THIS domicile.

Due Diligence

Due Process

Do you homework.

Evidence: All types of information (observations, recollections, documents, concrete objects, etc.) presented at trial or other hearing. Statements made by the judge and lawyers, however, are not evidence. 2. Any information that might be used for a future trial. 3. for types of evidence, such as circumstantial, demonstrative, direct, hearsay, parol, probabtive, real, state's, etc., see those words.
edit on 30-11-2012 by SymbolicLogic because: further examples.


I find it difficult to believe you worked in law offices (or you did and learned nothing). It is up to prosecution (you) to prove they did not break in. The fact they had priors for this, and were physically there, is evidence they did break in. You even define evidence, which should make it easy for you to see there is evidence they broke in. There is no evidence presented thus far they did not break in.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   
@defcon5

I rarely like disagreeing with a moderator because it has real bad consequences and hard feelings ... However this is my country and I can not any longer allow such misunderstandings go without at least speaking up...


Sir I completely disagree with your whole proposition...

It does not matter if the man killed them with rope via hanging

it does not matter if he mowed them down with a gatling gun

it does not matter if he spent three days passing out information about the drugs he had in his house, then he spent the time hunting them in his house

It does not matter if he put an extra bullet into their dead/ dying bodies

What does matter

How the thieves got onto the property?

If they were not dragged onto the property by the owner against their will... then guess what... Castle law comes into effect...

Castle Law




A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal 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 may in certain circumstances use force, up to and including deadly force, to defend against an intruder without becoming liable to prosecution.[1] Typically deadly force is considered justified, and a defense of justifiable homicide applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another".[1] The doctrine is not a defined law that can be invoked, but a set of principles which is incorporated in some form in the law of most states



Put point blank he has no duty to retreat...

Unless the two dead people can prove with eye witness testimony or with individual statements that they did not break in the house... it will come down to his word versus theirs

Castle Doctrines usually allow the use of EXCESSIVE and DEADLY force... Which includes hunting down bipedal animals who have violated the sanctity of your castle... ambushing them and what ever you feel necessary ... They kinda lost their civil rights and the right to share oxygen with the rest of us...


As for why he moved and his the bodies... Well look at what is happening... He is being hounded and persecuted for defending his home.. The prosecution is just trying to put a W on the scoreboard...


Please note the crux here is IF the man did not fore the two into his house... If the two criminals crossed the threshold of their own free will...

Which is what I feel it should come down to... if they crossed the threshold of their own free will, then everything that happened is fair and just... Please show me wear the Castle Doctrine requires you to notify the police that you killed two intruders...

So far I have made no note of a legal requirement that the cops must be notified with in X hours of incident or that the refuse left behind has to be left alone and can not be moved... the castle doctrine made no such reference...



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 

They can't present anything while it is still being investigated.

Honestly if it is a gun grab then we can put on out tin foil hats and run the gamut of conspiracy scenarios.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by ripcontrol
 

I think you are misinterpreting things a bit. If Smith invited them in then they were not intruders. Although they entered of their own free will, castle law may not apply and varies from state to state.

Again, the application of any law is subject to the facts of the case, which we don't have, so citing law is pointless.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   


Again, the application of any law is subject to the facts of the case, which we don't have, so citing law is pointless.


haha.

Without facts of the case, then discussion is all speculation. If it is open to speculation then discussion should be open to anything.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by SymbolicLogic
 

www.cbsnews.com... -complaint-says/

www.myfoxtwincities.com...



While we do not know what all went on, the facts and backgrounds of this case is coming out more and more. If as you say there is no evidence of the 2 dead suspects of breaking in, what all were they doing in this guys house and why did no one know about such? IN the first link, it shows that the female did have a history of robbing peoples houses, in the second link, the video shows the shooters house. Now in this video, there are no other houses around his, it states it is a private drive, so what all were they doing there? There is no evidence that the bodies were outside and then dragged inside, as there would be blood around the house, and that was not reported, so the only conclusion is that they were in the house in the first place.

Only the facts will come out in a court of law, as part of the evidence process and the motions of discovery on the part of the lawyers, presented to the jury and judge to determine the verdict of guilt or innocence.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel
haha.
Without facts of the case, then discussion is all speculation. If it is open to speculation then discussion should be open to anything.

Right like saying that the guy murdered the kids after luring them in with the offer of cake and soda pop. That would be just as valid but people want to cite law and limit the discussion as if they know what actually happened.





new topics
top topics
 
50
<< 29  30  31    33  34 >>

log in

join