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

reply to post by ripcontrol

Life is never as simple as we'd like it to be, is it? This case is enough to give people debating in good faith a good migraine, IMO.

The kids were wrong. Absolutely. However, Residential Burglary isn't a case for capital punishment. If a cop ran into one of these kids during a house search and simply shot them once in the chest, killing them ...unarmed...people would call for his head. Perhaps that would be right to do, too.

I think this guy crossed that line to becoming worse. Does someone have the right to shoot on sight for intruders? Yes...and my state is among the Castle Doctrine states that say I can. I can, if I find an intruder, open fire without warning and without attempt to retreat.

What I can't do ....is set up in a shooting nest, with all the advantage of ambush and patiently wait for the "threat" to come to me like a duck to the hunter. I mean this was demented. The law ABSOLUTELY draws the line on "coup de grace" shots. That is not defense. That is murder. Wanton, cold murder.

So I'd have liked to see the kids do a few years on residential burglary to be sure....but how far into the land of homicidal maniac this guy went makes him good for 25+ IMO. I wish it could be natural life, for his own description of it.

* I'd also add that this sick man looked her in the eye as he murdered her by the sound of his own words. Not to get all mystical...but he's got some bad Ju-Ju coming his way for a loong..and I mean loooong time to come in the karmic sense. Sick... just sick...

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by MidnightTide

 

(especially to a teenage girl?)

Why "especially to a teenage girl"? Are teenage girls more valuable than teenage boys?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Is that beyond a reasonable doubt? Based on clear and convincing evidence? Or based on the preponderance of the evidence?

Do any of you know what these things mean and the distinctions between them? Do any of you know what HEARSAY is?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


you yourself stated it... without the duty to retreat...

Think about the full meaning of that statement... That means you have no legal requirement to stop and fall back..

means you can advance and do what ever you feel is necessary

without the duty to retreat setting up the duck hunt so to speak is legal... You do not know who is in the house and who isnt.. one against X is very scary.. so no offense, I myself agree with the tactic of ambush on someone who breaks into the house... I also approve of the extra bullet putting down the threat... both of which are part of no retreat...

You have no clue the number of people on the property.. self defense in this situation requires taking no chances and being more ruthless then the competition... You have to behave this way against superior numbers

reply to post by BriggsBU


I think it implies that teenage girls are no threat. People that think that way should go meet some latin queens.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by daskakik
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.

If they can't prove anything yet, they should not have accused this man of a crime, which they have done. They can't have it both ways.

Uh...yes, a person can be accused of a crime before the investigation is completed. What do you think happens when a person is arrested for something, or is arraigned for a crime?

Moreover, ONCE AGAIN, in this case the homeowner has already admitted to murder if we are to believe the news reports of what the told the police. So yes, this guy can be condemned for what he did, assuming he didn't falsely incriminate himself. Given that he had would seem to have no reason to do, it seems reasonable to take him at his word. He said he killed both of these teenagers after he had clearly incapacitated them, and then he hid the bodies in his basement until the police came calling. Where's the possibility of doubt here?

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Go back and read the thread from earlier on.
He is being charged with homicide, which should be enough to tell you that he had no right to do what he did.

He laid an ambush, had a preset kill zone, and executed those kids. That is not home defense, its premeditated murder, and he's being charged as such. He lost his privilege of claiming “home defense”, when he “cleared his kill zone” to entice the other person into his trap, when he started double-tapping his victims, and when he attempted to hide the bodies.

No one, not even the NRA reps are defending what this guy did as appropriate or home protection.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

The man stated that they entered his home uninvited. He waited in the basement till they showed up, and he shot them. he shot again, to make sure they could not do this again, down the road. THEY broke in. His having a plan to defend his home isn't murder. The way he talked about it was a bit off, but shooting them? Not wrong at all. Not one single person can explain any good reason they were in his home. The castle laws mean you can defend your home, and they don't say you can't have a good plan to take out in invader.

In Florida, George Zimmerman is being charged with homicide, as well. That doesn't mean he's guilty, or that he didn't have a right to defend himself. If this fellow had lured them into the HOUSE, that might be different. Into the basement, after they broke in? They engaged him, when they entered illegally.

Well, that's my stand on the case. Can understand your point of view, but have to respectfully disagree. According to this site - link - the Minnesota law states the following:

The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.

According to this site - link - breaking and entering is a felony in Minnesota.

So, from a legal standpoint, he seems to be within his rights. I could see the case being used to further define the laws, but I don't believe tossing the law aside is the right thing to do. That he seemed to enjoy killing them is a bit sick, but that doesn't erase his right to home defense, does it?

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
*snip*
He sounds like a guy who'd been dreaming of killing people and finally got a couple kids up to no good, walk right into his little kill zone. I can't help but feel for the girl. The helplessness of knowing 100% you are GOING to die. You don't HAVE to ..but you are GOING to..and NOTHING you do or say to this man will stop him from the "finishing shot" SHE STILL MAY HAVE SURVIVED PRIOR TO. I can't imagine executing two people that way.
*snip*

Maybe he's a really sick dude. From all indications, he probably is. That said, please see the links I posted above. Legally, he had a right to defend his home. They committed a felony by breaking and entering. However, from what the law states there (near as I can tell looking online), he's covered legally. They could change the laws, but that takes legislation, not just tossing it out on one case. Maybe a judge could require a mental evaluation, and treatment, but jail? They did break in. I agree he's sick in the head, but even a crazy person has a right to defend their home.

Unless someone can show that he lured them to the house, I don't see how they can charge him with murder, as the law stands.

It isn't easy sticking for someone like that, believe me, but if we toss out a law for one case, what else do we toss them out for?

I have to add something here. The question seems to be, at what point does the law say you no longer have a right to use deadly force? That's the key. If he knew that they could no longer come after him, then there would be no further threat to himself or his home, and IF that's the case, then yes, he's guilty of murder. That means that the prosecution has to prove that he knew they were not armed, and could not take a shot at him, even though wounded. There, things will probably depend on his statements. If they can get him to admit he felt no further threat, then they have him. If not, he could walk.

I really don't want to defend his attitude. He did have a right to defend his home, and if they broke in, then they were criminals. It all boils down to the way the law is written, and how things come out regarding the shooter's state of mind at the time. I don't want to defend someone that is in the wrong, but I also don't want other homeowners there to lose the right to defend their homes, or to face murder charges, because of one man's actions. That's my concern here.

I completely understand the feelings about his statements. He's surely sick in the head. The other thing that bugs me, though, is how they are called "popular students" from the start, as though that is an excuse for criminal behavior.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
Not one single person can explain any good reason they were in his home.

It's kind of hard when we have not been given the details. Not one single person can prove that they they were not invited to enter which makes the if in the following

if they broke in, then they were criminals.

a very big if.

reply to post by daskakik


He doesn't have to prove they broke in, the state has to prove they didn't.

Rudyard Kipling


The Law of the Jungle

(From The Jungle Book)

"Now this is the Law of the Jungle -- as old and as true as the sky;
And the Wolf that shall keep it may prosper, but the Wolf that shall break it must die."

Two little bastards break into an old mans house to rob him of all he has.
He kills them in fear, and makes sure they wont come back to rob him again.

Something wrong with this story?? Why yes..
The fact that it's even gone to court is morally wrong.

Is anyone else outhere sick of seeing the perp receive more sobs than the victim,

reply to post by TKDRL

I never said he had to do anything but that doesn't change the fact that we don't know what really happened.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
Not one single person can explain any good reason they were in his home.

It's kind of hard when we have not been given the details. Not one single person can prove that they they were not invited to enter which makes the if in the following

if they broke in, then they were criminals.

a very big if.

I read an article earlier, which states that the man claims to have video of them breaking in, and audio of the actual shooting. If he's got that, then there is proof. Plus, I haven't heard anyone stating that these teens did not break in.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

I read that there is video of the teens outside the house and audio of the killings that the police found but I don't know if anything else has been made public and I don't think the police have made an official statement that the two actually broke in. This may be the reason for not calling the police right after it happened, he needed time to erase footage from his surveillance system.

One thing that this information adds is that he knew much more about who and how many there were and that he wasn't just some poor old man trembling in fear.

I little more information has come to light in this case. A third teen has been charged with 2 counts of burglary at Smith's home prior to the shooting. According to the defense attorney both he and Brady, the guy killed last thanksgiving, had worked on Smiths property last summer.

Doesn't look good for Mr. Smith. He had video surveillance and could have easily pressed charges and picked these guys out of a line up but instead set up a trap.

Boy accused of burglary before Little Falls deaths

while i fully support gun rights against tyranny, and am all for proper justice
this topic begs someone to be debbils advocate

so...i guess its safe to shoot shop lifters too?
woohooo!
the other day a shmuck walked off with my pen right off my desk
gonna plug that effer too

and lighter kleptos?
BANG!

oh yeah
damn beatch stole my dignity...and she won't give me the remote for the TV
Pop Pop.......lol hey Pop...get off my ...pop pop pop ....rug
heres one for your lawyer too...

death penalties are supposedly for capital crimes.
after proper jurisprudence
without that...you have NOTHING

oh, you are breathing my air you bastid
here:
eat this drone...



everybody is guilty of something...so get your target tattoo here

a reply to: ripcontrol

If they are on the ground bleeding profusely and clearly no threat then you would look for other offenders and shoot them as well. When a young woman is shot it is generally assumed if she is not armed as she wasnt that she is minimal threat to life. When he executed her it was not for protection but to finish the job. He executed her. In my opinion you are deluded in seeing multiple scenarios as one. The distinction is clear in the eyes of the law.

a reply to: andy1972

So when a woman is shot and bleeding on the ground you tremble in fear? In australia we have a saying in regards to weak men (piss weak).

a reply to: Bilky

In this you are wrong

Women are the most dangerous creatures on the planet

deadly as they are beautiful

Cross a woman and you will find out


Again he had no duty to retreat
Criminal no longer a threat during commission of crime when dead

You sound gender biased
Do you think women are the weaker sex