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

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17

Usually, robbers aren't entering a home with the intent of violence..and in this case they certainly were not.

Wait right there...."robbers" says it all for me. You come into my home with the intent of "robbing" then I hope you are ready for a dirt nap. As to this old man, perhaps he is crazier then fruit loops (and some of his actions may show signs of mental illness) but if those young adults were in his home with the intent to steal then he has a right to defend himself.

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17


..


Usually, robbers aren't entering a home with the intent of violence.

And how are you exactly expected to determine that at 2AM? Wait until after you are raped/assaulted/stabbed, then shoot? Harmful intent or not, a criminal in another person's house should be shot. To avoid this is simple, don't break into houses for any reason. When the life of you and your family is on the line, you don't have the luxury of playing guessing games on the intent of the intruder.

reply to post by Jerk_Idiot


After you get them out, you call the cops and stay on alert...

So you're advocating shoot on sight, and shoot to kill?

I think that's placing too low a value on human life. Robbers are more likely desperate for money, and somewhat nonviolent, than deranged psychopaths.

Killing should be the absolute last resort, I can repeat that a million times and am having trouble understanding the difficulty with the concept.

Shouldn't assume the worst when someone enters, you should view the intruder for what they are..A HUMAN BEING...and try and get them out with as little bloodshed as possible.

The likelihood of them coming back to kill you is extremely low, and once on alert the likelihood of them being successful is nill.

If this man had shot them once and killed them, I would justify his action.

If he had shot them and let them bleed out while help was on its way, I would justify his action.

But what this man did was just plain overkill. Somebody laughing at him is not a threat.

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17


What is the difficulty? Once you enter my home without my permission, late at night, you more then likely are going to get shot.

reply to post by NavyDoc


I've probably taken my position that in this one case, the shooter was more wrong than the intruder, and taken it too far along the lines that noone should shoot if someone breaks in..

You're right, an intruder is entering at their own risk and I really can't blame anyone for shooting them..

This story just has me frustrated, and think that people should always save the kill shot for when there are no other options.

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17

This story just has me frustrated, and think that people should always save the kill shot for when there are no other options.

BANG! You're dead.

This could be you - - if you decide to wait to see who shoots first.

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
reply to post by Jerk_Idiot

 

After you get them out, you call the cops and stay on alert...

So you're advocating shoot on sight, and shoot to kill?

I think that's placing too low a value on human life. Robbers are more likely desperate for money, and somewhat nonviolent, than deranged psychopaths.

Killing should be the absolute last resort, I can repeat that a million times and am having trouble understanding the difficulty with the concept.

People have placed low values on their own lives.
If they're not worried about dying then they won't mind killing someone else.
Especially young people nowadays. They kill each other off just to impress the rest of the lunatics.
Zero regard for human life.

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
reply to post by Annee

 

Which states in America prosecute this type of crime as a capital offense?

It's ridiculous to say that people who commit relatively petty crimes deserve to dies. I would agree that they deserve to go to prison for a few years, or maybe shot in the shoulder. But there seems to be this concerning mentality in some Americans that anyone who trespasses is asking for a bullet in the head. That's a savage mentality. You call the police, fire a warning shot maybe and tell them if they don't leave they are risking their lives.

Plus, this guy seemingly killed them out of anger, and not defense.

What you don't seem to understand is that if you break into my house I have no clue what your intention is and I am not going to take any chances with my family and you will be shot! I do not need to assess whether you are just going to commit a petty crime or what. You're in my house unlawfully threatening me and my families well being you have no rights and will be shot for your troubles.

Its shame these kids were stupid and paid the ultimate price for their stupidity however the man was justified. What he did after was stupid but he was still defending his home from intruders.

reply to post by Annee


Nah, I'm not saying that you go out hands up and talk them out of there. I'm saying that if you hear activity in the house, determine that there is an intruder, you grab your gun and go out intending to get them out, but ready to kill. Not the other way around.

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

I've probably taken my position that in this one case, the shooter was more wrong than the intruder, and taken it too far along the lines that noone should shoot if someone breaks in..

You're right, an intruder is entering at their own risk and I really can't blame anyone for shooting them..

This story just has me frustrated, and think that people should always save the kill shot for when there are no other options.

Well, I can see what you are saying, however, we have two discussions going on: this particular story and the concept of home defense in general.

In general, if someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night, you have to assume the worst because that defensive decision must be made right there and then, not later. Later is always too late. The burdon of responsability lies with the intruder.

In this case specifically, I have to admit that the hiding the bodies for 24 hours (if I got that correct) makes the B&E story very suspicious. It may not have been B&E, it could have been a drug deal gone bad, which makes the man a murders and the kids not innocent either. In a normal B&E situation, the first thing the honest citizen does is call the authorities, not wait a day. This makes me suspicious, I have to admit.

The damning issue is the finishing shot. Even in a legitimate case of self defense, if you get another gun and finish off a person lying on your floor bleeding out, you become a murderer.

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
reply to post by Annee

 

Nah, I'm not saying that you go out hands up and talk them out of there. I'm saying that if you hear activity in the house, determine that there is an intruder, you grab your gun and go out intending to get them out, but ready to kill. Not the other way around.

Who said anything about hands up?

You shoot or they shoot. Simple.

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17

Um, I'd hate to see what your insults sound like....

It is an insult to say to someone that defends burglars that they wouldn't have the fortitude to stand up to one themselves? You sympathize with them, it could get you dead some day...

And yeah, nice job finding a bunch of extreme examples and generalizing people who rob houses incorrectly. The individuals in the OP had no violent history, and the people in all of your examples would be more aptly described as rapists, not robbers.

Yeah sorry I am discriminating against the poor little burglars... Are you for real? It doesn't matter what you call them, they broke into someone's home to do what they did! Some of the burglars actually tortured people too! The point is how do you know you are not dealing with people like THIS when you have an intruder... "Erm excuse me poor little robber man, are you here to rape me or torture me, or you just here to take some of my stuff? Oh and are you armed by any chance?

Here's some more accurate information:

More accurate than WHAT? The stories I posted are FAKE?

You quote states for ROBBERIES which could mean a bank robbery or a shop or street robbery etc... And anyway you think 50% is GOOD? So you will take the 50/50 risk of dying will you, good one!

Besides you are speaking AFTER the fact... YOU know they were only robbing him, did he? My point was they could have been there to do anything! You still don't really know their intentions, cos he shot em first and he was right to do that... Should he have shot them on the ground? Why not? Who's to say they were not armed? Did he know?

I can't find any statistics on the number of robberies that also include rape/homicide, but rest assured it is very low. Sure

You don't know the stats but you will tell me it is low anyway... Good one..

someone enters your home they might be the worst possible person. But they probably aren't, and if you are armed you can probably get them out of your house without killing them

Maybe but my point is why take the risk with your own life for someone that doesn't give a damn about you or anyone?

Usually, robbers aren't entering a home with the intent of violence..and in this case they certainly were not.

Oh that's just fine then... Cos you have the stats for that too right? I take it you have a sign on your door that says, "All non violent robbers welcome"

And despite your attempt to backpedal, I'd reccommend not stooping to insulting those who disagree with you. Just not a real likeable quality

What backpeddle? I merely fleshed out my original comment, and I still do believe that if it came to it you would cower in the corner and sob... Where is the backpeddle? You think these people are just misunderstood or something.. These people are dangerous thugs...

Tell me, can you imagine the mindset you would need to brake into someone else's house? Hmmmmm maybe you do? Is that it? Are you a robber?

Edit: Check this out...



Brave lady doing a public service...

Role model?

The article states she was 17 and had a pill problem?!?! Since when are these types of kids role models? What because they are the "bad" ones. Oh yea tv shows make it cool to be a "bad" kid as long as you look good and are popular. Society is so screwed up.

These kids were trouble. It's sad they died but you don't rob people's houses they might shoot you!! If these kids were robbing at this age who is to say what they wouldn't move on to next!


If these weren't two teens but two adults in say their 20s would the out cry be so big? NO it wouldn't. Just because someone is young doesn't make them innocent of being a criminal. They were old enough to know better!

reply to post by NavyDoc


Yeah, I am disgusted by this guy. And then in my position of sympathy for the kids someone said my response to an invasion would be sobbing in a corner..I got worked up and ended up in a position that I'm not really sure about.

I have no real problem with firing on an intruder, but I think someone defending their home shouldn't necessarily be doing so with the intent to kill.

It's highly situational, you might be able to ward off an intruder without being lethal. But that's as ideal as it gets. In most cases, shooting is justified.

Once again, though. Just because someone intrudes I don't think the first thought should be "I've got to kill them."

reply to post by mee30




You're a giant among men, I hope your post gave you a deep sense of satisfaction.

I'm not defending all burglars, I'm defending these two. They did not deserve to die. And my point was that you used the most extreme cases to justify killing any intruder. An d me not being able to find statistics for certain assertions doesn't make them false...

And killing should still be a last resort at all times.

ETA:

Tell me, can you imagine the mindset you would need to brake into someone else's house? Hmmmmm maybe you do? Is that it? Are you a robber?

I said in my first post in this thread that I got caught burglarizing when I was 16. So yes, I can imagine the mindset and I know that young people who break and enter don't always end up living their lives out as useless thugs.

And a large majority of the time it's about money, not violence.

Originally posted by hangedman13

How many 18 year old girls do YOU KNOW that would get shot...fall down the stairs...then LAUGH at Captain Creepenstein when his rifle allegedly "jammed"? I would think "pleading for her life" or "sobbing at would could only be the trail of blood left on the floor from her dead cousin" would be a more natural response than "laughing".

reply to post by milominderbinder

 

I'd be willing to wager one on drugs. It would fit as to why they were breaking in to his house. But all we have is a bit article and not actual facts, so we will have to wait and see what is what with this.

What the hell kind of "drugs" do THAT??

The only one I'm familiar with is PCP's...and they both look a bit too healthy-looking to be PCP freaks. Certainly there is no prescription drug on the market which causes this kind of behavior.

Maybe instead of looking for wild and far-out hypothetical scenarios to explain this very, VERY, odd story we should just look at what's directly in front of our faces instead.

wow, im amazed at the sympathy the bad guys are
getting.... im surprised.

i agree with most, dont want shot to death, dont break
into someone else s house.. kind of simple...

you can guarantee anyone that breaks into my house
is going to meet their maker, no questions asked.

You break into my house and I find you... You're screwed. You are more likely to get run through with a katana than shot with a gun. I would attack the devil himself if it meant protecting my children. With that said, once the person was no longer a threat, if not already dead, I would contact emergency services including the police. If the intruder was dead, I would still call the police. Either way I wouldn't keep shanking or shooting like a maniac.

Everyone has the right to defend themselves and their home, and use deadly force if necessary, but he turned a home invasion into a unnecessary horror film..... And if he were truly in the right, he would have called the police. He knew what he did was beyond reason and hid the bodies.

What innocent man hides bodies?

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by MidnightTide

 

Did they deserve to die? Had that been the initial reaction of the homeowner, yes, they deserved to die. But ... reading how the homeowner killed them is a little but ... excessive. It does indeed go well beyond self defense. The threat to him had passed after the first shot, which they likely would have survived.. but doing thing like shooting someone, conversing with them, shooting them several more times, dragging their body across the room then executing them with a close range shot "under the chin and threw the cranium" (especially to a teenage girl?). Yeah.. that's murder.

Correct. At the very, VERY least this guys own statements seem to indicate that he is of questionable sanity.

...and that's at a MINIMUM.