Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Murdered Minnesota Teens Linked to Previous Robbery

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Murdered Minnesota Teens Linked to Previous Robbery


m.startribune.com

LITTLE FALLS, MINN. - The two teenage cousins shot to death during a home
burglary on Thanksgiving were no strangers to police, who confirmed
Wednesday that the pair had committed an earlier burglary and that officers
are looking into the possibility of them being linked to more in the area.
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 29-11-2012 by geldib because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 02:03 AM
link   
This is my first post. I showed my mom the first article about this tragedy and we both came to the conclusion that drugs were probaly the motivation. It just gets on my nerves how the media trys to slant the news to make the teens seem innocent and the old man seen evil just by the pictures they use. Now there is proof they were actually robbing the place, they shouldn't have been murder for Robbery but if they hadn't of gone in they would still be alive. So how many people thought the kids were innocent of robbery? Just from the pictures.

m.startribune.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 03:59 AM
link   
It really shows how easy it is to sway the masses with a carefully selected picture. Trayvon anyone?



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 06:28 AM
link   
Just one comment here: burglary is NOT robbery. Robbery is a face to face encounter, usually with weapons. Burglary is breaking and entering, usually with an empty house - if the house isn't empty, it's a home invasion.
The old man still is a double murderer albeit second degree in the eyes of the law.

ganjoa



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ganjoa
Just one comment here: burglary is NOT robbery. Robbery is a face to face encounter, usually with weapons. Burglary is breaking and entering, usually with an empty house - if the house isn't empty, it's a home invasion.
The old man still is a double murderer albeit second degree in the eyes of the law.

ganjoa

If someone is found in your home uninvited, whatever their purpose, they can expect to get shot in Pennsylvania. You won't usually see the homeowner charged for any crime.

They are challenging the fact that your home is your castle, one of our very basic rights since the Magna Carta was signed.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 07:47 AM
link   
how many videos do we have of police emptying their magazines into people, without so much as a day in jail or a loss of a day of pay?

If this "shooter" had a badge this would be a non-issue



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by 1825114
 

Anybody breaks into my home I'll be emptying my magazines into them too.(And in my state, you can.) It'll save me the court appearances and I lowered prison overcrowding.. and maybe prevent them from breaking into your home.

Deadly force is deadly force, whether you shot somebody once in the head or throw them into a spinning wood chipper. Had this old man hesitated, and these two thug dirt bags got a hold of him, they would have simply over powered him, took his gun and we would be reading a different headline. After his attorney convinces a jury of that little niblet, he won't spend another day in jail.

We suffered no great loss to our community by dispatching those two punks, it's quite possible other burglaries/home invasions have been avoided by depriving them of wasting any more oxygen than they have already used. Live by the sword die by the gun.

Give that old man a badge then and let him go back home.
edit on 29-11-2012 by Lonewulph because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 09:08 AM
link   
LIKE I SAID , you walk into a minefield well expect to get blown to pieces!!!! when you enter a mans castle , all bets are off !!!!!! & YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR ACTIONS!!!!, shall we say they will not be doing that anymore !!



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ganjoa
Just one comment here: burglary is NOT robbery. Robbery is a face to face encounter, usually with weapons. Burglary is breaking and entering, usually with an empty house - if the house isn't empty, it's a home invasion.
The old man still is a double murderer albeit second degree in the eyes of the law.
ganjoa


Good of you to point that out, most don't realize the difference. I think Hollywood, with the typical scene of someone running out of there house shouting, "I've been robbed!", has gotten emblazoned into people's minds that way. lol



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   
If you play with fire you're going to get burned...

These two were playing with fire.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by chadderson
It really shows how easy it is to sway the masses with a carefully selected picture. Trayvon anyone?


It also shows how many people form opinions without learning all the facts. There is a very large thread with all the details I suggest you check it out. While most will agree that defending your home is a legitimate reason to shoot an intruder. I would hope that most would see that executing the intruders after they no longer posed a threat by shooting one of the intruders in the face while he was on his back already shot and by shooting the other intruder under the chin into the brain case while she had already been shot multiple times and was gasping for breath is overkill and should warrant criminal charges.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Gargamel
 
As daMod said, 'You play with fire, you'll get burned'.

You just never know what you might encounter when you break into a house to burgle it.

You might encounter an older man that is scared, or has PTSD from Vietnam.

You might just be better off by not choosing to break into a house to steal things that don't belong to you.

Stealing things like prescription drugs. Haven't we spent a lot of tax dollars telling those young people not to do drugs?



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Gargamel
 


While i agree with you, i certainly dont feel sorry for them.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Gargamel
 

Yeah it's my humble opinion.
Believe this when I tell you it is very much fact. Break into my house and try to steal things I've worked all my life for and while possibly risking the safety of my family and traumatize them for the rest of their life, I don't think so,..

They knew the risks this time and the last times they did it. Had they given that old man a fatal heart attack, or took his gun...I don't think they would have been any less merciful. Burglar kills homeowner
Some countries have no problems executing someone for burglaries or theft and how much of a threat they posed is irrelevant. Horse thieves were commonly hung here in the 1880's
A death sentence for stealing I naturally don't agree with, but for a person's occupied home, mmmm.
Again, just mho.
edit on 29-11-2012 by Lonewulph because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   
well I can't say I am surprised.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Breaking into a home on Thanksgiving?!?!?!??? They had to have been on drugs. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. Especially since the shooter wasn't in fear for his life but made the kill shots out of anger. Considering the amount of gun owners in the USA, these two were bound to get shot in their line of work.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


We agree that one has the right to defend the home and the right to use deadly force in that defense.
We agree that one can expect to be shot and possible killed for breaking into a home, regardless of purpose.
I do not agree that the right to defend your castle is being challenged in the least.

I'm a super-advocate of home and self defense and the right to keep and bear arms and use them effectively. Just take a look at some of my writing here on ATS if you don't believe me (any forum will do).
BUT there are CONSTRAINTS that must be observed:
. if one presents a clear threat like showing a weapon, taking an attack stance or moving in your direction -
fire away!
. if one presents a verbally abusive tirade without making an assault or engaging in threatening behaviour -
better not shoot!
. if your assailant runs away when your weapon is displayed -
threat averted, don't shoot!
It is NOT legal to shoot someone that is in your yard in general - and definitely not from inside the house! We had a case a couple of years ago like that where a homeowner shot two teens in his yard after dark through the window, yet couldn't articulate the perceived threat, he just didn't want anybody in his yard.

My "estate" is gated, fenced, locked, posted NO TRESPASSING, has a sign depicting a revolver saying "Forget the Dog Beware of Owner", and then there is the large pack of eight dogs.
You're dead meat if you come into my property BUT I'm still not legally empowered to shoot you out in the yard unless:
you don't leave when I tell you to OR
you're brandishing a weapon OR
you make an overt act to inflict physical bodily injury.

I also have the right to detain a still-breathing piece of dog food that doesn't want to leave when told to, so it's not going to always be NECESSARY to shoot an intruder given MY circumstances - and what we are talking about here are very specific circumstances.

IF YOU ENTER SOMEONE'S HOUSE the rules change completely and SHOOT ON SIGHT/SHOOT TO KILL become the "orders of the day"...
- BUT -
it is STILL murder after shooting the home invader to change positions and get a better angle to finish you off "with a clean kill shot" as admitted by the home owner to the police in this case.

If I have to use my weapon to subdue an immediate threat, it will be with lethal intent - once that threat is eliminated, I have no further justification in continuing to use the weapon.

THE ISSUE regards the intentional and wanton murder of two defenceless individuals - both "victims/perps" were shot, downed, and of no possible threat before they were killed - the home owner even changed guns to shoot the female when his first gun jammed.
THE PROBLEM IS the home owner admitted to murdering them intentionally after they had been disabled and downed - THAT is the problem here.

ganjoa



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ganjoa
 




THE PROBLEM IS the home owner admitted to murdering them intentionally after they had been disabled and downed - THAT is the problem here.
Hmmmm. Maybe that is somehow connected to the fact that they broke into his home.

In Pennsylvania, your home IS your castle. The intruder need not be armed, verbally abusive, or anything more than THERE. They just need to be THERE, uninvited.

If this had happened in many different states, this young couple would have been asking to be murdered legally.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   
The dirtbags got EXACTLY what they deserved, I dont feel sorry for them, I feel bad for the poor guy whos house they broke into



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ganjoa
 


I was using robbery as a generic term for stealing, and thats what they were doing. Either way its still a sad story, they deserved to be shot for what they did by law, but not in the way it was done. He crossed a line and he should pay for it.
edit on 29-11-2012 by geldib because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join