"You're dead," Minnesota Homeowner Told Teen Burglar

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: DerbyGawker

According to the supreme court decision, a cop can shoot you in the back if they think that you constitute a risk of serious harm to others or themselves.
If they roll up on the scene of a shooting and see someone running away, they can shoot them in the back and get away with it....... Even if you are not the person that committed any crime there. They can assume that you are involved because you are running away.

You're misinterpreting the SCOTUS decision. They don't get away with it if they can clearly articulate they felt the individual posed a risk of great bodily injury or loss of life.

e.g. If they attempted to enter a home to shelter and the officers had belief the home was occupied, if they attempted to unlawfully enter a vehicle to escape, if they flee in their own vehicle and are driving dangerously.

Simply fleeing does not grant probable cause for use of deadly force.

You created an ill-conceived, hypothetical scenario devoid of any real-world aggravating circumstances.

a reply to: Morningglory

Let's not forget about the vibe that was going rampant throughout usa at that time. Does anyone remember the whole 2012 end of world demons and aliens invading at that time.

originally posted by: DerbyGawker

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: DerbyGawker

According to the supreme court decision, a cop can shoot you in the back if they think that you constitute a risk of serious harm to others or themselves.
If they roll up on the scene of a shooting and see someone running away, they can shoot them in the back and get away with it....... Even if you are not the person that committed any crime there. They can assume that you are involved because you are running away.

You're misinterpreting the SCOTUS decision. They don't get away with it if they can clearly articulate they felt the individual posed a risk of great bodily injury or loss of life.

e.g. If they attempted to enter a home to shelter and the officers had belief the home was occupied, if they attempted to unlawfully enter a vehicle to escape, if they flee in their own vehicle and are driving dangerously.

Simply fleeing does not grant probable cause for use of deadly force.

You created an ill-conceived, hypothetical scenario devoid of any real-world aggravating circumstances.

They are shooting at someone that is fleeing the scene of a crime.
They have no way to determine if that suspect had anything to do with the crime.
That's getting away with something.

e.g. If they attempted to enter a home to shelter and the officers had belief the home was occupied, if they attempted to unlawfully enter a vehicle to escape, if they flee in their own vehicle and are driving dangerously.

With the above part, you are interpreting their decision. You are excluding plenty of factors that constitute probable cause.

a reply to: butcherguy

They aren't shooting merely for fleeing. It's apparent you don't understand the necessity of aggravating circumstances. I don't know how else to explain it to you.

They don't shoot for fleeing. They shoot for fleeing plus reasonably articulable circumstances that lead the officers to believe the suspect whom they have probable cause to arrest, poses an immediate threat of great bodily injury or loss of life.

If they don't even have probable cause to arrest you, they lack standing to use deadly force.

However, if you wish to find a real-world example where police lacked probable cause and shot an innocent individual in the back while fleeing who had no relation to the crime, I would enjoy reading it.

Did they attack him on previous break ins? Was he defending himself, or his property?

Murdering teenagers/children isn't the next step I would take to protect my home. I'd pick up the phone and call the police.

I'd rather a kid take my spare change in the ashtray and my laptop rather than blow their brains out.

I could live with their sin, not mine of murder. This man seems deranged when you read into it.

I broke into what we thought was an abandoned home when I was a kid, we got a fright when a man came out and threw a brick at us, no ill intent from us, just kids being idiotic and remember kids DON'T have adult decision making abilities. Glad he wasn't lying in wait to execute us like this guy.

@zazzafrazz

Great points.

I think it's important to reiterate the fact that new evidence suggests that brain maturity may now extend to as late as age 25.

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
Did they attack him on previous break ins? Was he defending himself, or his property?

Actually, it seems like they were waiting for him to leave to break in.

He seems to have tricked them into believing that he wasn't home by heading out in his truck and then doubling back on foot to wait for them.

One more interesting tidbit is that he had a cellphone jammer in his home.

originally posted by: crazyewok


Outside house = outside my jurisdiction

If you are articulate that you feared for your life, and believed they were going to get additional means to do you harm, either weapon and/or person, it is very much inside the realm.

Now, there is a difference if they are running out from your house, and already outside and say, running down the street.

originally posted by: TDawgRex

Haha. It's called "For the good of the Service." To many whack jobs already leak through the system as it is because leaders fail to do the paperwork. MAJ. Hassan ring a bell?

That is an interesting reason. Give me a few and I will check with several buddies still in, retired and a couple of JAG people I know.
Never heard of such a thing. Neither has my brother who was an NCO in the Army.

originally posted by: TDawgRex
And nowhere in the 2nd Amendment says that you have the right to execute at your will a downed opponent. Go back to school. You're really showing your ignorance of the US Constitution here.

I never said it did.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: crazyewok

Just because someone is running out of your house, does not mean they are no longer a threat.

words insecure and coward come to mind.

Call it what you like.
There are cases where people have done just that, run out of a house, only to come back with a buddy waiting outside or to retrieve a weapon.

originally posted by: TDawgRex
a reply to: macman

Lets have a hypothetical here.

I'm walking down the street and your dog, which you love, makes threatening moves towards me. I think that he is preparing to attack. But being a CCW holder, I shoot the dog, severely wounding, but not killing it. Seeing the dog in pain, I put a bullet in it's head to put it out of it's misery.

Now accordingly, you come out of the house armed and angry. I see you have a weapon and put you down as well. Should I walk free? Of course not. But I should be put on trial.

THAT'S THE CONSTITUTION!

It all depends. When I came out, did I point my weapon at you? Did I come out screaming "My dog!!!" or "I'm going to kill you".
You are leaving out many many significant items.

Now, if the dog is in fact hostile towards you, you fear it can and will attack you, you have the right to defend yourself.

originally posted by: macman

Call it what you like.
There are cases where people have done just that, run out of a house, only to come back with a buddy waiting outside or to retrieve a weapon.

I think it all call for discretion and using ones brain.

In some instances you MAY be right buts it all a case by case baisis.

You wouldn't just open fire on a 5 year climbing over your fence to fetch a ball right?

originally posted by: macman

Now, there is a difference if they are running out from your house, and already outside and say, running down the street.

That was more my meaning.

Inside my house or land its something that to me would be case by case.

a reply to: emeris

Although i could just as easily turn my viewpoint around from the one looking down the barrel to the one on the otherside and say that if i shot and killed those kids without it being ABSOLUTELY necessary and justified and even then if i took any kind of personal pleasure in the act even an undetectable smirk then i would also be in the wrong to some degree and whether it be external or internal some kind of suffering is inevitable when mistakes are made. The word "mistake" having man-made definitions and nature-made definitions..The two not always in conflict but not always in Harmony either and the ratio between the two determines the state of both.......so to speak of this one isolated event you could say both parties had a portionof "Right" and "Wrong" on their sides and the only good you will get out of discussing and contemplating this story is by using it as a light to shine on your own "self" and to uncover the disharmony within yourself and harmonise it. Do I have some other agenda for writing this, reading this....thinking this? Thats my first question before asking about the"other"

a reply to: emeris

they were not kids they
were young adult criminals.

a reply to: spirited75
He can refer to them as kids if he wants to.

We are all aware of what they did.

a reply to: daskakik

thanks emeris needs
all the assistance he can get.

a reply to: daskakik

he outsmarted the dumb criminals.

originally posted by: spirited75
thanks emeris needs
all the assistance he can get.

Didn't do it for emeris.

he outsmarted the dumb criminals.

But landed in a pickle.

originally posted by: Morningglory

It's a serious problem. It's getting worse as more are desperate to fund drug/alcohol habits. What both this man/teens did is a symptom of a society running amok.

That is what it comes down to really.
A society run amok where greed, murder and theft at all levels are qualities to be looked up to.
All the way at the top with the Banker thefts with the Governments blessing and all the way to the bottom as well.

Religious or not, and laws aside, what would Jesus do in this situation?