All this means is that the homeowner finally made a correct decision. Lawyer up if you have to deal with the police for any issue, ESPECIALLY if you are innocent. I am not implying that this homeowner is innocent. He clearly broke the law.
Do they have proof that the kids broke in? Im sure they did but with how far he took it with moving the bodies and everything, he seems crazy.
People. Really? Someone is defending this. Read his quotes. The guy is nuts. He shot the girl and she laughed a little as she went to the ground. (Nervous laugh, fear reaction, who knows) and by his own admission he shot her again because "If you're trying to shoot somebody and they laugh at you, you go again" Then he puts the bodies together and she is gasping for air and he put the gun under her chin and shot her to give her "a good clean finishing shot." The man is insane. He should be found guilt of murder and he should get the death penalty.
Is there stats to back this up? Many families I know that have guns only the husband has direct access to it. Also one problem with keeping multiple guns in a house easily available to all family members is the dangers of accidents. Just yesterday a 4 year old in Minneapolis accidentally killed his 2 year old brother when he got hold of his father's gun.
There is evidence tying the two teens to other break ins so it does seem likely they were breaking in. That said I don't know how much the break in is being investigated.
Something I am very afraid of. If I had a gun I'd probably lock it up tighter than Fort Knox and it would take me much longer to access it then it would for a potential robber to have made it to me.
I'm taking it at face value, because the guy was so brutally honest. He doesn't seem to be holding back any facts, like he could have. Like, "I will tell the police I executed this girl in the basement because she broke in, to throw them off track to the real truth -- which was how these kids are meth dealers and they discovered my Meth Lab and wanted a piece of the action, so I had to off them. I can't let the cops know about my meth lab." or, "These kids have stolen before (stealing from their relatives even) and will again, so I had to find them and execute. But I don't want the cops to know I am Dexter, so I will say I executed the girl because she broke in."
I don't think anyone should doubt they broke in. I mean if the guy wanted to lie about what happened I think he would have held back the "I shot her because she laughed at me" part and the part about slowly executing her as she gasped for breath.
I could counter by say . . .his statements don't paint him as exactly a sane clear thinker Rocket River
I'd counter by telling you that I agree with you. He's not sane. Not sure what that has to do with whether or not they broke in. They have a history of breaking in. One of the family members of the girl even admitted that they stole from her.
let me change the scenario and add some details. your 18 year old daughter is leaving a movie theater and walking to her car. a 30-year old gangbanger grabs her, pulls her into an alley, and begins to rape her. during the rape, your daughter reaches a brick on the ground, and knocks the rapist out cold. full aware that he's out cold, for whatever reason, she decides to reach into her purse, grab her handgun, stick it under the rapist's chin, and give him a nice clean finishing shot. do you think your daughter should be put away for life/given the death penalty for the murder that she committed?
You are attempting to draw moral equivalency between things that aren't the same thing whatsoever. In your example someone was violently attacked. In the real story that didn't happen, nor did the homeowner, by his own admission, have reason to fear violence.
You're comparing breaking into someone's home with breaking into someone's ass. The home owner took it too far...plain and simple. He has the right to defend his home, but the details make it murder.
Since we're playing this game and now you're OK with alternative scenarios, let me change the scenario and add some details. Your 21 year old drunk daughter is leaving a bar and sneaks into a 30yr old gangbanger's house, unarmed and with no intent to do anything but yell at him. He gets his gun and shoots her. While she's unconscious, he rapes her and then then shoots her a few more times, including a nice clean finishing spot. Do you think the gangbanger should walk away scott-free because "she broke in, he killed her. everything in between is extraneous details" ?
