Court case: How far can people go in defending their home from intruders?

[thoughtomator]

If you consider what I stated as a "threat of violence" against you, then you REALLY need to grow some thicker skin. Regardless, it indicates that you're too sensitive to make further replies to. Good luck.

If you are genuinely unaware that that was what you are doing, then re-examine your statement for its implications. It most certainly is a threat of force, because application of force is the only way a person gets a cellmate. I have done nothing here but advocate perfectly lawful (morally and legally) behavior, so there's no other way to read the statement you made.

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

If the old man is found guilty then there is no justice, the increasing age of legal adulthood is just another way of relinquishing responsibility for ones actions. 17/16 is more than old enough to know what's right or wrong. If anyone should be to blame it's the kids parents for not raising them to respect people. I'm surprised though the article didn't say "OLD MAN WHO MAY HAVE BEEN SMOKING POT KILLS CHILDREN"

 

[klamath]

I don't know his mindset, so I can't agree or disagree with you. I don't know the whole backstory either, from when his house was broken into--maybe he's a psycho, or maybe he's a badass who wasn't going to sit back and take it anymore. I can only see things through my own veil/prejudices--and I'd consider making sure they were dead too because I don't want to live my life in fear and let some a-hole kids dictate whether or not I can sleep or go to the store for groceries without my house being ransacked or them waiting to harm me. He may have thought that shooting them without killing them may have just made him a bigger target--I don't know.

If I think worst case scenario on the part of the kids, then he's fully justified. If I think worst case scenario on the part of the old man, he might not be. Unless he's actually a psychopath, I have to lean towards him at least thinking worst case scenario in regards to those kids. I can't blame him for that.

If he's proved to be a psychopath, perhaps he deserves to be punished. At this point, he's just a bit crazy to me because he delayed reporting, recorded the events and made some nutty statements.

I don't think you could say definitively that you wouldn't have executed them because you don't know the circumstances and if they made threats. What if one or both of them had threatened to kill him because he'd already "gotten them into trouble?" All those details make a big difference--and they did steal guns from him, right?

Like I said in my first or second post on this thread that I am only going by what I have read. If there is more evidence that can change everything. So the case here is as if both parties have rested with what we know.
Would you have thought it ok if the cops had set the case up and then done exactly like this guy did? When asked, why they executed them they said they knew the kids from the beat and knew they would terrorize the old man if they weren't dead?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

The Yahoo and ABC articles are pretty short and leave out a lot of important details.

Check out the article at the Daily Mail for a more in-depth report:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...h-shooting-dead-two-teens-broke-basement.html

Apparently the home owner made an audio recording of the event. (my opinion: STUPID THING TO DO!!)

I'm about as big a proponent of the "Castle Doctrine" as you're liable to find. IMHO, if you break into someone's house, all bets are off. That being said, I'm not sure I could vote to acquit this guy based on what he himself told the investigators.

Some of the highlights:



and...



and...

'


I mean... damn. Defending one's self and home is one thing. But the sort of cold blooded executions this guy performed crosses over into sociopathic behavior.

It's surprising that people are defending these actions. The details are important here.

It seems that some are saying that the letter of the law in terms of home defense (but not the intent!) outweighs every other consideration.

Sure, the kids were committing crimes, but does this punishment fit the crime? Where is the due process? Because he murdered them in his own home it's no longer murder? Who else can he kill? Anyone who sets foot on his property at his discretion? Can he kill someone who pees on his rose bush? What about an irritating in-law? As long as they are on his property, are they fair game for few rounds? Get the tarp ready, Xmas dinner may get a little heated...

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

It's surprising that people are defending these actions. The details are important here.

It seems that some are saying that the letter of the law in terms of home defense (but not the intent!) outweighs every other consideration.

Sure, the kids were committing crimes, but does this punishment fit the crime? Where is the due process? Because he murdered them in his own home it's no longer murder? Who else can he kill? Anyone who sets foot on his property at his discretion? Can he kill someone who pees on his rose bush? What about an irritating in-law? As long as they are on his property, are they fair game for few rounds? Get the tarp ready, Xmas dinner may get a little heated...

he could have always called the police and they walk in and shoot him instead of the real intruders!

 

[Brian4Liberty]

he could have always called the police and they walk in and shoot him instead of the real intruders!

(Even Dirty Harry didn't just execute people.)

 

[thoughtomator]

Sure, the kids were committing crimes, but does this punishment fit the crime?

Their true crime was stupidity, and death is a common result of that crime. As far as whether the punishment fits - for one break-in, perhaps not. For a sustained pattern of break-ins, perhaps so.

Put yourself in his shoes for a minute. He was unable to be at peace in his own home. He was not only certain of being violated again and again without end, but he was right - he correctly predicted this break-in! Can you imagine what it must be like knowing your home is not safe from violent intrusion? It's not like the law could or would protect him.

Where is the due process?

Where is there ever due process in a home defense scenario? You don't put the home invader on the witness stand - you put him down.

Because he murdered them in his own home it's no longer murder?

Correct, it then becomes self-defense. Keep in mind that he was defending not only from the break-in he was currently experiencing, but the entire pattern thereof - a pattern so distinct it could actually be correctly predicted to happen again.

Who else can he kill? Anyone who sets foot on his property at his discretion? Can he kill someone who pees on his rose bush? What about an irritating in-law? As long as they are on his property, are they fair game for few rounds? Get the tarp ready, Xmas dinner may get a little heated...

I think you know well that those are strawmen, and that none of those scenarios are remotely similar to the one actually under discussion here.

 

[thoughtomator]

To add a little more here...

Does anyone think that this man is a threat to society or any other individual in any way? Does anyone think he would have killed - or, if freed, would kill - any other person?

If not, what exactly is the point of locking him up? If revenge and/or punishment is the motive to do so, doesn't that justify his actions, which were partially born of the same motive? Isn't the revenge/punishment factor in his behavior precisely why some want him convicted?

Putting this man in jail is insane. There is no public safety motive at all in locking him up. There is no benefit to anyone but the prison industry by doing so.

 

[leverguy]

Jesus christ people, these lowlife bastards were in his house!

Is there anyone seriously defending the supposed "kids" who broke in with intent to harm?

Anything else besides a self-defense argument is nothing more than mental masturbation. You break into my house and I'll waste your ass, intellectual bullshit be damned! Survival trumps so called "civilization" every time.

Anyone who thinks otherwise deserves to have his own children raped in front of him.

For fuck's sake, people...

 

[amy31416]

Like I said in my first or second post on this thread that I am only going by what I have read. If there is more evidence that can change everything. So the case here is as if both parties have rested with what we know.
Would you have thought it ok if the cops had set the case up and then done exactly like this guy did? When asked, why they executed them they said they knew the kids from the beat and knew they would terrorize the old man if they weren't dead?

If the old man were a cop it would be a totally different story.

1. Nobody would be allowed to terrorize a cop/former cop, and he would be protected.
2. He would have known to keep his mouth shut and hide evidence of any perceived wrongdoing.
3. If he slipped up, other cops would have covered for him.
4. Cops are "allowed" to execute almost anyone they want for almost any reason. This would have been a no-brainer in the cop world, so to speak.
5. Cops would never make the effort to set anyone up in order to protect an ordinary civilian. There's no money in it.

Comparing cops to citizens isn't legitimate anymore.

 

[jclay2]

Jesus christ people, these lowlife bastards were in his house!

Is there anyone seriously defending the supposed "kids" who broke in with intent to harm?

Anything else besides a self-defense argument is nothing more than mental masturbation. You break into my house and I'll waste your ass, intellectual bullshit be damned! Survival trumps so called "civilization" every time.

Anyone who thinks otherwise deserves to have his own children raped in front of him.

For fuck's sake, people...

lol, my thoughts exactly. + rep

 

[dillo]

how did he premeditate them breaking in? Thats some dumb shit

 

[Madison320]

If someone broke into his home again? Or do you think he would go on a killing spree? And even if you think that, does that make him guilty or worthy of being put behind bars to preemptively stop some possible outcome that might be thought up?

I'm envisioning the neighbor's kid accidental hitting his baseball into the guys yard and then the kid gets blasted for trying to retrieve it.

 

[FloralScent]

I don't think a lot of people posting here have actually read the article. The girl had been shot 3 times, 2 of those to the face after she was already down, and was laying on the tarp still gasping for air when he put the gun to her chin and killed her. That's not okay, it's murder. He also shot the boy in the face after he was down.

The first shots were completely justified, but after they were down, not so much.

 

[Madison320]

It's surprising that people are defending these actions. The details are important here.

It seems that some are saying that the letter of the law in terms of home defense (but not the intent!) outweighs every other consideration.

Sure, the kids were committing crimes, but does this punishment fit the crime? Where is the due process? Because he murdered them in his own home it's no longer murder? Who else can he kill? Anyone who sets foot on his property at his discretion? Can he kill someone who pees on his rose bush? What about an irritating in-law? As long as they are on his property, are they fair game for few rounds? Get the tarp ready, Xmas dinner may get a little heated...

A few years ago my 5 year old grandson was visiting and he accidently went into my neighbors house because both our houses look similar. I'm glad this guy wasn't my neighbor.

 

[erowe1]

A few years ago my 5 year old grandson was visiting and he accidently went into my neighbors house because both our houses look similar. I'm glad this guy wasn't my neighbor.

Well put.

That situation's not the same as the one in the OP. But it still gets to the heart of this mantra that your home is your castle, so under no circumstances could killing a trespasser be murder.

 

[Madison320]

Well put.

That situation's not the same as the one in the OP. But it still gets to the heart of this mantra that your home is your castle, so under no circumstances could killing a trespasser be murder.

Exactly. I wish it was an easy call, but it's not. There's a lot of gray area in this situation. I hate gray areas, but that's reality sometimes. This case is somewhere in between an innocent kid wandering into the wrong house and a group of heavily armed gangsters breaking down the front door. I'm still trying to figure this one out.

 

[Danke]

A few years ago my 5 year old grandson was visiting and he accidently went into my neighbors house because both our houses look similar. I'm glad this guy wasn't my neighbor.

Did your 5 year old repeatedly burglarize that home previously and violently?

 

[Danke]

I don't think a lot of people posting here have actually read the article. The girl had been shot 3 times, 2 of those to the face after she was already down, and was laying on the tarp still gasping for air when he put the gun to her chin and killed her. That's not okay, it's murder. He also shot the boy in the face after he was down.

The first shots were completely justified, but after they were down, not so much.

If the boy put his hand up for the second shot, he wasn't "down."

He could have just as well pulled a gun on the old man. Injuring someone with a bullet wound doesn't mean they can't pull out a gun and shoot you. Does he know no more perps are coming down after him, two already did.

 

[klamath]

A few years ago my 5 year old grandson was visiting and he accidently went into my neighbors house because both our houses look similar. I'm glad this guy wasn't my neighbor.

My wife had her house broken into by a couple of teenagers because there was a bed in the basement they needed to satisfy their raging hormones.