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

reply to post by MidnightTide


S+F For mate, good post

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

They still didn't deserve to die.

I'm going to go ahead and assume nobody has invaded your home in the night.

reply to post by PvtHudson


right but nobody is arguing they shouldnt have been shot
what people are arguing is that they shouldnt have been killed
by the mans own admission he crossed the line of self defense and killed them when he knew he didnt need to

it would be an entirely different situation if he was scared and shot them dead but he had time to exchange words and change weapons

And the moral of this story is dont tan houses im afraid. I would have shot them dead on sight as i would any other thief! Not guilty IMHO.

Dont know about the hiding the bodys part. I think it would have been better to mount there heads above his front door as a warning to other would be thieves!

Haven't read all the thread, sorry.

This story reminds me of a couple of things that irk me generally. Local press is always full of obituaries for joy riders, people who've been killed in gang fights, and so on. Inevitably, there's always comments from families and friends suggesting these people are 'angles' and are now in 'hevon'. Or maybe that these people were 'characters' who never really meant anyone any harm and just loved life.

In the Tony Martin case a few years ago, where he shot and killed one of the burglars who'd been in his farm as they were leaving (he'd been burgled 10 times in recent years, apparently) and one of the thieves had been only released on bail the same day for stealing. I don't want to get in to the rights or wrongs of the case, but I remember at the time being struck by comments from Fred Barras' family and friends (he died during the incident) that he was basically a good lad and that they didn't really understand what he'd done that was so bad. In fact, I'm sure there was some compensation claim made

Similarly, there was a story in one of Onion books that parodied the way that the media always beautiful children over ugly kids. If I remember correctly, I think an ugly girl died of cancer (fictitious) or something and she wasn't seen as brave and wasn't going to be particularly missed: a stark contrast contrast to the real life stories we see.

We often place those we've lost on a pedestal: the dead often quickly become heroes and legends, and we rarely view them with an objective lens. And, to an extent, this is understandable and human nature. However, that gap between the reality of someone's character and they way we choose - either consciously, or subconsciously - to see them in a particular way.

Originally posted by Strictsum
After reading the article again there is no way this went down the way he said. He shot the boy and brought him down the stairs went and sat in his chair and then the girl came walking down the stairs after all of that. That girl would have been running away. Like she really would have laughed at him after he shot her and fell down the stairs. If anything she was laughing in relief that she wouldn't be shot again. This is so fishy I smell it from here.

Sounds more like a drug deal gone bad actually. The kids could have been buying pills from the guy & tried to snatch his pills and run. Something else happened in that house other than a break in.

Strict

Now, this theory sounds more plausible than the bulls!+ story this old guy is spinning. Some people have posted that maybe he was traumatized. Really? To methodically execute that girl with the killshot up under the chin, into the dome, and keep the bodies in a basement for a day DOES NOT sound a damn thing like someone who's been traumatized OR burglarized. Sounds to me like he was trying to buy some time to get his story together. Yep Strict, I can smell it from here too.

This is horrible and I feel bad that their young lives were cut short. As a gun owner, and property owner, I have often times come across teenagers camping out on my land, messing around in the creek, inside of my barn, and have caught people trying to steal things as well. But I have never had to ever do more than show them what I have in my hands and they are usually 1st, extremely apologetic and crapping their pants, 2nd, GONE like lightening, never to return. I have had to run off poachers, with one single shot I fire in the air and they are gone.

I think this man acted in panic and fear, or perhaps anger. But whatever the reason, he should NOT have been a gun owner. As a gun owner, you must keep a cool head and you must not use excessive force unless you absolutely have to in order to save your own life.

He was not responsible with his weapon, he reacted foolishly, and now two young people are dead because of this.

Originally posted by PvtHudson

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

They still didn't deserve to die.

I'm going to go ahead and assume nobody has invaded your home in the night.

When I was living in a huge city many years ago, my husband was working nights while I was at home with the baby. One night, some fool tried to break into my ground level apartment. I heard the screen get pulled off the window and he was inching it a long, opening it up. It was summer and very hot out. I was not a gun owner at the time, so I pretended I had one, and told the guy clearly, I had a gun trained on him and that if he came all the way through the window, he would be dead on my floor. He quickly back right out of my window and took off like a bat out of hell. But what if I did have a gun and acted like a panicked and crazy fool?

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by milominderbinder

The only "evidence" that these two kids were "robbing" anyone come from the unsubstantiated allegations of the same creepy old guy who was hiding the bodies in his basement.

So you're determined to judge the owner of the home by his appearance.

Ted Bundy anyone?

No. Of course not. Have you read any of my posts?

I've stated at least 3 separate times that that it doesn't NECESSARILY mean the creepy old guy is guilty but that only a fool takes the word of a guy hiding bodies in his basement at face value.

reply to post by MidnightTide


You will find no one more pro-gun, pro 2nd amendment, and pro self defense than I am. Having said that, the homeowner said that he fired more shots than he needed, which is an admission of excessive force. As a gun owner, I do have the right to self defense and defense of my home and property, however with that right comes the responsibility of using my firearms as a last resort, AND using only the force needed to neutralize a situation. I do agree that if these criminals hadn't broken into his house in the first place, then they would still be alive (for now), but I think the main point of the story is that he stashed the bodies in the basement, when what he should have done is call the police as soon as the threat was over.

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
reply to post by Annee

 

Well, this crime wouldn't be punishable by death in AZ..

And I view the mindset of death for anyone who trespasses to be disproportionate.

this was not trespassing, this was breaking and entering. there is a difference.
trespassing is like walking across someones propriety or being somewhere uninvited,
breaking and entering is just that, they broke in with the intent of steeling from this man.

And I view the mindset of death for anyone who trespasses to be disproportionate

well i think anybody that's been convicted of the crime would, seeing how your trying to justify yourself.
fact is you are a lucky P O S if you are a convicted felon, no matter what your age was. just because you may have fallen out of the pattern of being a repeat thief like most who go in and out of jail.

i bet you a hundred bucks, that you are not as trusted by folks as you seem to think.

The police seem to think they broke into his home. One would expect them to have some proof of that. Which is all I need to know. You don't mess about with people like this... In england murder needs to be thought out in advance, we would call this possible manslaughter... I think you call it second degree murder...

Really? The linked article doesn't say that's what the police think. What makes you think that the police are in agreement that these two kids broke in? To date, there has been no evidence presented or even alluded that suggests these kids ACTUALLY broke into anybody's house except for the verbal testimony from the guy who was hiding their bodies in the basement.

Look I know what you are saying, and I am speaking form the standpoint that they broke in... Was there any indication that they didn't?

I know. That's what's so disturbing to me. 2/3 or better of the thread are all set to give this guy a pat on the back and buy him a beer at the pub for being such a tough guy without so much as asking a single question to establish the veracity of his claims...and he could be a serial killer who drugged or abducted these two kids and shot them while they were trying to escape. And maybe not...maybe it happened just the way claims it did.

My only point is that it's downright foolish to start coming to conclusions about whether or not this guy acted appropriately without FIRST learning if his entire story is 100% nonsense. Especially when he comes out with ridiculous stories about an 18 yr old girl w/ one bullet in her and a dead cousin who is purportedly mocking and taunting him. Quite frankly...it's ridiculous. There are simply no commonly found street drugs that would produce this sort of behavior. Moreover, this is the about the fourth time I've heard somebody offhandedly state "well...they must have been on drugs" excuse. The article states that one of them had a little problem with prescription meds...but so did Brett Farve and Rush Limbaugh. If somebody shot them and then hid their body in the basement for 24 hours...do you think anybody would be just chalking it up to them being a crazed drug addict home intruder? Shouldn't we wait for a toxicology report before heaping praise on the gunman and/or coming to the conclusion that "the damn kids deserved it"?

You ever hear the adage of "you can't prove a negative"? While this may not be wholly accurate in the most strict philosophical sense, it DOES prove to be a good rule of thumb more often than not. The "evidence" that they DIDN'T break in is simply the LACK of evidence that they DID break. In short, the best way to prove that they DIDN'T break in is to not find any evidence that they DID break in.

You are preaching about not judging but already calling him creepy and nutty etc...

Perhaps...but that's not "judging" whether or not he's GUILTY OF MURDER or if he "DESERVED TO DIE". Quite frankly...he DOES look pretty creepy to me. I find his statements as quoted make him seem like a lunatic. However...AT LEAST I haven't already advocated the death penalty for him...HAVE I?? That's certainly more than you can say for yourself.

So you are telling me that when you hear footsteps above you that you know the age, weight, gender, and whether the person is armed or not? In this kind of situation it is fight or flight... He chose to fight and good on him... The guy is not psychic so he had no way to know their intentions or whether they were armed or not so this is irrelevant...

OK. That explains the first the gun shot. It doesn't explain the rest of the gunshots or executing an incapacitated teenage girl.

At the end of the day if you want to live don't brake into peoples houses! The police seem to think they did... I didn't read anywhere in the article where that fact was being questioned...

...and we come full circle. You have NO EVIDENCE that they DID break in. While the article doesn't "question it"...it ALSO doesn't come out and say that the "police are in agreement". Read it again. The ONLY evidence being presented to the public is the "testimony" of the guy caught hiding the bodies in his basement. I'm sure it's 100% objective, right? I mean...he wouldn't have any incentive to lie or bend the truth to save his own ass, right?

How do you know that the old man wasn't on drugs, drunk off his rocker, or in earlier stages of dementia and thought the two kids who knocked on his door to ask directions were trying to attack him?

I just think that burglars are low lives...

I agree. However, I think that someone who executes an18 yr old gasping for breath is an even bigger low-life. Christ...don't you people have insurance in the UK? If somebody breaks into my house and they can have every single material item in it. Why would I care? It just means that the insurance company buys me brand new stuff, right?

Originally posted by Jerk_Idiot
reply to post by milominderbinder

 

Yes it does sound likely if she was like the girls I grew up with. You must have grown up in a nice neighborhood.

Nonsense. Laughter is not a normal response from an 18 yr old girl with a dead cousin and a bullet in her in any country on planet earth...much less NEIGHBORHOOD.

The bloodlust of some people in this thread is disgusting.

this was not trespassing, this was breaking and entering.

No. It wasn't "breaking and entering". It's ALLEGEDLY breaking and entering based solely upon the verbal testimony of the guy who was hiding bodies in his basement.

Am I the only person here who doesn't think we should ask a couple more questions before buying the gunman a beer and a complimentary NRA membership?

Yes...we all know that us 'merican's just love our guns and burglars are scary. But before coming out and more or less just stating that "these kids got what they deserved", shouldn't we pause just for a second?

This is the EXACT same mentality that got us into a pair of unwinnable wars under false pretenses. The newspaper prints a single article citing a completely unverified verbal allegation and us good ol' 'mericans are loading up the shotguns and already making excuses for how the "bad guys" deserve whatever they get...WITHOUT EVER FIRST ESTABLISHING THAT THERE EVER REALLY WAS A "BAD GUY" IN THE FIRST PLACE.

God Bless America. Land of the Dumb, Home of the Reactionary.

Having read the aritcle, and the posts the following can be stated:

The facts, based off of the artcile are as follows:

1) These teenagers break into a persons home.
2) The owner was in the basement and startled by the sounds of breaking glass, grabbed a weapon.
3) The first teen walked down, only to get shot, and then shot again, to ensure he was dead.
4) The second teen comes down the stairs and then finds that the person holding the gun, can not fire, due to it being jammed. Person pulls out a second weapon and fires, hitting her. After she collaspes, puts a bullet into her ending her life.

There are more questons than there are answers, and the article only gives some clues as to the why, but the invesitgation and trial will have to go out and give more of a clear cut answer as to what all is going on. While the article does show that the dead teens did do drugs, it leads one to ask, were they on any substance at the time? After all one does not laugh if a weapon is jammed and there is blood. How many times before had both of these individuals done such, and ultimately how many times has the suspect been the victim of burgulry or had been robbed?

What is the neighborhood like and is there this kind of problems in the area? Too many questions that need to be answered before judgement can be passed, and the law has to be blind.

What this man did, and we shall focus on him, is act as judge, jury and exocutioner to the situation, he did fire too many shots, he did kill them yes, but if he had not, the question then arrises, what would have happened if these 2 teens were armed? What if it was your home, or your elderly parent?

The laws in that state are very clear cut, and ultimately do define what can and can not be done. But ultimately does not entitle the person to act as judge, jury and exocutioner.

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
The bloodlust of some people in this thread is disgusting.

No doubt.

All while everyone glazes over the fact that nobody in their right mind would feel "threatened" by these two kids.








And yet when a cop executes a dog like this



...everyone throws a hissy fit because they claim it's just not credible that a grown man would truly feel intimidated by such an animal to warrant putting a bullet in it.

And we wonder why so many countries think Americans are stupid.

I wonder what kind of outrage and candle light vigil would have been held if he got shot breaking into one of their homes.

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
Having read the aritcle, and the posts the following can be stated:

The facts, based off of the artcile are as follows:

1) These teenagers break into a persons home.
2) The owner was in the basement and startled by the sounds of breaking glass, grabbed a weapon.
3) The first teen walked down, only to get shot, and then shot again, to ensure he was dead.
4) The second teen comes down the stairs and then finds that the person holding the gun, can not fire, due to it being jammed. Person pulls out a second weapon and fires, hitting her. After she collaspes, puts a bullet into her ending her life.

There are more questons than there are answers, and the article only gives some clues as to the why, but the invesitgation and trial will have to go out and give more of a clear cut answer as to what all is going on. While the article does show that the dead teens did do drugs, it leads one to ask, were they on any substance at the time? After all one does not laugh if a weapon is jammed and there is blood. How many times before had both of these individuals done such, and ultimately how many times has the suspect been the victim of burgulry or had been robbed?

What is the neighborhood like and is there this kind of problems in the area? Too many questions that need to be answered before judgement can be passed, and the law has to be blind.

What this man did, and we shall focus on him, is act as judge, jury and exocutioner to the situation, he did fire too many shots, he did kill them yes, but if he had not, the question then arrises, what would have happened if these 2 teens were armed? What if it was your home, or your elderly parent?

The laws in that state are very clear cut, and ultimately do define what can and can not be done. But ultimately does not entitle the person to act as judge, jury and exocutioner.

Two noteworthy corrections.

#1 The article does NOT establish that the teens broke into this guys house. That idea is based SOLELY off of the verbal statements of the guy who was hiding bodies in his basement.

#2 The girl already had 1 bullet in her and a dead cousin when she supposedly "started laughing" at his jammed gun.

Sounds mighty fishy to me.

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
reply to post by mee30

 

I nearly want to say that I would love you defenders to actually be robbed while you are in the house, but I really wouldn't wish it on anybody..

No, I think you said it.

And that is the mindset that annoys me in this discussion..The idea that an offender of a relatively small crime should receive ultimate justice.

It causes me to speculate that some would welcome an intruder, just to satisfy their bloodlust.

Neither party in this deserves to be defended. But it is the two dead that deserve it more.

That may be why he didnt call the cops right off.....he knew what he did.

At any rate when a home intrusion gets to the point of a conversation?