I'm not questioning how you feel he should have been dealt with them, like I said I have no sympathy for what happened to them. You asked should he go to jail. What he did was too far under the circumstances and very much illegal.
Chilling response. He isn't a doctor, people have survived incredible things and he initially shot BOTH of them below the waste. That is according to him. He said he shot the first girl, she fell down the stairs and shot her in the head, dragged him to the chair, waited for the next person, shot him "below the waste," dragged him next to his dead cousin, and then shot him under "up" to the cranium. Had he stopped at the waste, yes, this would be justified. However, he didn't. He shot them both multiple times, in the head, after they were disabled. Murder.
Having sympathy and being aware of what the law is are two different things brah. He is going to go to jail, he is going to serve time, he broke the law, I'm sorry if your emotions are getting in the way of your ability to reason.
I read it completely backwards. It seems he shot the guy first, below the "waist", then he shot the chick up the cranium.
The pulp fiction analogy doesn't work well because those guys fell into a store. They didn't break into a home. This is pretty much the same argument that sprung from The Stranger (Albert Camus) when the dude shot the guy on the beach in self defense bc he was about to get robbed by that man who had a knife. After he incapacitated him with a shot, he went on to fire a few more shots. I think it's a French book and aside from the morality play, it was something about existentialism or something...don't really remember cause it was years ago that I read it. Point it, I remember thinking to myself that the book is dated and that the main character (who got convicted of murder and then got executed - kind of ironic) would have not been charged in today's society. Maybe I'm wrong. In looking at this case, at what point did the homeowner change from being a victim to being a murderer? Is it just his callous attitude that whored himself? I mean, what if he told the cops that he was afraid and had to empty his gun to make sure no one was alive so that he could protect his family and own life? So he didn't do that, but perhaps his fear standard is just lower than most other people. Basically, is he being prosecuted for being a twisted mean ass? Inside, I feel like this guy did morally wrong, but that I would be morally right in the same situation if I just killed those two people because I have a lower fear threshold. But should that really be the standard of legal murder? How a shooter feels about his/her own level of fear or safety determines whether or not it's a legal killing? That leaves a lot of inconsistency and interpretation. People who overreact can have a lower legal threshold; people who under react can end up victimized because they didn't do enough. Shouldn't the law just be consistent and universal? While I feel what he did was wrong, it's a lot to do my me seeing this guy as not having the same morals as me and being a twisted psycho. But ultimately, those intruders broke into his house, and if the law allows intruders to be killed, then shouldn't that be the end of it? I mean, I know there's a limit. And if we do agree that intruders give up their right to life, it doesn't mean they can be caught and tortured. But again, I would have killed those fools too, and the difference between me and that guy is he's a little psycho, but that doesn't make him in the wrong for killing intruders. Waiting to report just makes him more psycho, but does it make the shooting more illegal?
That's fair. And if you do that, you take the risk of spending the rest of your life in jail. Everyone gets to make their own decisions and deal with the consequences. Of course, it's also a pretty stupid strategy, given that you have no idea if there are other intruders in your house, and you've now emptied your gun killing the one intruder multiple times.
And how about all those shots that you missed that are now free to fly around the neighborhood. If they hit someone you are responsible for their injuries/death.
For those of you OK with this, are there any rules on what is acceptable in your mind? Person A commits a crime Is there anything Person B is not allowed to do in response? Let's say a 90 year old naked woman enters your house by accident, clearly unarmed (since she is naked). She is trespassing. She might be a thief. Are you allowed to shoot her since she has committed a crime on your property? Are you allowed to beat her to death with a baseball bat? Assuming there are limits, where and how do you draw the line?
Not that it really matters, but you kinda have the story mixed up. Start with the "In the complaint," paragraph. The first kill is more justified than the second, and he probably wouldn't be arrested if that was the only person. That one sounded like it happened quick and he very well might not have known if there was a gun or not, and still felt threatened. You said he "waited" for the second person. He didn't say that. It sounded like he was again surprised there was a second person, who he again shot without seeing her completely. The execution-style, "clean kill" of the girl was the one that crossed the line. But the first one appears more justified.
I think the rationale here goes out the window the minute he walks over to a guy laying on the ground and shoots him in the face multiple times on the second shooting, i think it goes out the window when he walks over to her laying on the ground [i'm assuming] defenseless and puts the gun up under her chin and executes her There is self defense murder and then there's murder. I don't blame the guy for pumping them full of lead but the second you walk over and look for a kill shot like it's a video game, you've crossed the line. Any rational Jury i'm sure will feel the same way. Also, said this guy worked for the state dept. What is that, CIA, military? Will he be held to a different standard? Maybe the psycho'ness' comes from prior work in a past life like Liam Nelson in Taken.
This is CLEARLY murder. If you think otherwise......you are a danger to society and should NEVER be allowed to own a firearm.
I agree with his arrest, but where does it say he shot the boy in the face multiple times. This is clear murder of the girl, from our read. So let's not exaggerate the first kill. Are you reading a different article? The OP does not say that the boy was shot multiple times in the face. Based on the article, I would say that I don't have enough information to judge the first kill (as it sounds like it happened quickly). That is, shoot intruder who is at the top of your basement stairs and you are in the basement, and intruder then falls down the stairs into your basement where you are, and you shoot him again. When I read the article about that kill, I assumed he shot him the second time, quickly, as soon as he landed down the stairs where the homeowner was. It's the second one that is indefensible, if I'm reading this correctly. But boy was that dumb to walk down those stairs after you just heard two gun shots. You got to believe the homeowner thought a second person who would walk down those stairs after gunshots must have a gun. But yeah, offing the girl crossed the line.
^^Bolded it [so maybe he only shot the guy one time in the face while he was on the floor?] the article reads funny It actually mentions the girl getting shot first, then tells about the boy being shot first chronologically then back to telling how the girl came down and how she died
The bolded part doesn't mention multiple shots to the face, like you said. When I read it, it sounded like the homeowner shot once, then quickly again when the boy landed in his basement where he was located. I don't think we have enough information from that article to say whether the homeowner studied the boy enough to know if he was incapacitated; rather, he just shot him again -- which we could say was justified....depends how quick it was and we don't seem to know from the article. The boys kills sounds more rapid. The girls kill crossed the line for sure. imo, it does not read funny. It just starts with the girls death, because the quotes are more shocking about her death. But the "In the complaint" paragraph clearly has another time line.
Ok, reread it a 3rd time. I'll reserve judgement on the first guy though he was shot while he was on the floor in the face. More facts needed [like was he up close or far away? was he conscious from the fall? how many rounds fired? was he hit?]. 2nd death of the girl seems pretty brutal with the 'kill shot' and def crosses a line. Hope I'm never on a jury like this.
All of these threads seem to inevitably tie back to the fact that Republicans are a very fearful, reactionary lot.
He told the police they had broke in multiple times but only reported it once. The brutality of this does not sound reactionary at all. It sounds like he was fed up with the break ins and had been waiting for these kids, possibly for days. I mean, he's sitting in his basement alone on Thanksgiving? Is the basement the best place for your guns if you are worried about somebody breaking in? Is it possible that he didn't report it because he was trying to figure out how to take care of the bodies himself?
