"justified" is subjective. as i've said from the beginning, who are we to judge how any particular individual's mind works and reacts when faced with a circumstance such as people breaking into your home and threatening your safety? they broke in, he killed them. everything in between is extraneous details, in my opinion.
I don't think he snapped. He called the police the next day and was apparently pretty proud of what he did. Or if he did snap, it was a long-term snap. Regardless, "he snapped" does not make a good defense. Many crimes are committed when people snap. We still send people to jail for it.
yeah, except we are talking about a "crime" resulting from criminals getting killed after breaking into somebody's private residence. although surely you already knew that before you grasped at those straws.
Oh, I see. How noble of him. But let's see the definition: "Premeditated murder is the crime of wrongfully causing the death of another human being after rationally considering the timing or method of doing so, in order to either increase the likelihood of success, or to evade detection or apprehension" After reading the above, the only thing he didn't do is grab a cold beer while he "sat down on his char".
Yes, I did know that. We don't suddenly make criminal activity legal just because it's in response to other criminal activity. And the issue is not remotely with the criminals getting killed, though I'm sure its much easier to create that strawman to make your view sound better.
You sir, probably don't live in the ghetto. That mentality could get you mugged or worse. In an ideal world (or the suburbs) you can sit at home worry-free. By the way, I do agree that he's a psycho and should be punished, but not sure about the sentence.
Honestly . . . at this point. I am not very strong in my belief in the shooter's story Hell, he could have killed WITNESSES and made up any story Rocket River
I am not saying you need to learn some for of martial arts, but this is the way to handle a situation once the danger is gone. http://www.chron.com/news/houston-t...disarms-intruder-with-karate-chop-4090572.php
Do not break into someone's house unless you can handle getting shot. This guy made four major mistakes though: 1. Executing a wounded person after the threat was nullified 2. Moving the bodies 3. Waiting a full day to report the crime and most importantly 4. Talking WAAAAY too much to the police. Never tell the cops anything! Do not speak with police.
The guy had every right to do what he did.... If you don't kill the people breaking in your house they could very well come back after you or get someone to do it. It's creepy how much detail the guy gives on the whole situation as if he enjoyed what he did. Too bad for the kids... sometimes you don't get 2nd chances and thats how the cookie crumbles. I agree with a lot of poster on here as if someone breaks in my home they are getting what ever comes there way. you should know better.
I am not aware of high profile defense attorneys rushing in to defend this guy. According to MN law this seems like a pretty open and shut case. The fact he admitted to shooting them while incapacitated, rearranging the bodies and then waiting a day to call the police is pretty damning. It will be ultimately up to a jury but it would have to be a pretty bad MN prosecutor if he isn't convicted.
Except couldn't killing them, particularly in the cold blooded manner that he did, also inspire their friends to get revenge?
Grew up in a bad neighborhood. Live in a pretty poor one now, but not as much bad stuff going on. Statistically speaking, you are more likely to have that gun stolen then actually using it to protect yourself from getting robbed. My mentality is unlikely to get me mugged. People don't know if I have a gun or not. Those willing to shoot an unarmed person are going to shoot me before I could access a gun and fire a clean shot.
If you shot somebody in self defense, would you describe your action as "A good clean finishing shot?" Who says that sort of thing? I know. Somebody who had it out 'to teach them a lesson.' Or, somebody who is highly trained and whose training should make him evaluate the safety of his situation much further than the average person. I just read that statement of his and the guy sounds like a trained machine lacking emotion about the whole deal.
The likelihood of someone coming back seeking retribution are pretty low. Incapacitating someone often results in their death and such is life. But executing someone is completely different. Its easy enough to pretend to be a badass and say you will drop an intruder, but if your conscious allows yourself to intentionally kill someone, you have issues. Discharging a weapon at someone should be the very last option.
Ok, hypothetical time. What if they broke into house, he shot them, disabled them, and then raped them before skinning them alive and finally executing them? The in between details are not extraneous at all, criminally or morally. Just because someone breaks into your house does not give you the right t
That's an excellent premise, there is very much discretionary factors that must be consider. Shooting someone to protect your family is one instance, proceeding to excessive violence when a person is immobilized or of special circumstance (elderly, youth, and mentally disabled).
They chose the wrong house. Instead of being a thief they could have took time to get a job. Times are already hard than to have someone come and take from you. If others were already being rob he refused to. He was in HIS house minding his own business they made him their business and he made them his. Let the man go but he does need counseling. The call the next day is much but we were not in his head and I don't want to be. If the roles were reversed then what, another home invasion. Thanksgiving of all days.
