Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This sounds like the use of excessive force to stop the crime as well as murder for avenging the attempted robbery. As far as I know you are morally, if not legally, as this is not military combat, required to warn the intruder that you are armed and they must stop or you will shoot. If they stop and put their hands in the air you do NOT shoot. If they reach for a weapon you have the right to drop them right there. In any case you do not keep your victims around for a day or so after.
This guy is in really deep s**t with the law. That is the way it should be.
if someone is breaking into my home, the only warning they shall get is when the bullet comes out of the end of the barrel.
they are not there to take my temperature, or give me a helping hand. they are there to rob me or maybe even murder me. i do not intend to give them that chance to do either.
The thing is Floridasandy is that what separates a reasonable defense of life and property and that with being a murderer is that our actions are reasonable and not focused on just killing. The killing serves a purpose and when it stops serving a purpose (defense of life and property), then it is simply killing.
I am completely for using lethal force in defense of life AND property, but you have to be responsible about its use. In his case, from what is described, he had already shot them and they were incapacitated. The first teen, he shot and he was down, but he continued to shoot him in the face. Now... it is reasonable if he feared for his life and saw an action from the injured teen that would suggest he was armed or in the process of attacking (it is hard to tell as those details are not apparent in the story), but as it is mentioned, he simply walked up to the fallen teen and shot him in the face.
Now, you could argue over that one to an extent due to the circumstances, but keep in mind that the idea of lethal force is not to "kill", but to stop any action that would produce a threat to his life OR stop someone in the action of taking property. Did this happen in that case? It doesn't appear to be so.
Then, you also have the issue of the second teen coming down the stairs AFTER he had already sat down in his chair to which he shot and she fell down the stairs. He then continued to fire of numerous rounds into her chest to which he then placed the weapon under her chin and fired it into her head for a "kill" finish.
He did not report this until the end of the day, claiming he didn't want to bother the police.
These are not actions of a mentally stable person who acted in a reasonable manner of defending his life and property. His actions are more common to that of many killers (his actions are similar to many police reports of hardened without emotion killers).
The point is, this story does not display a reasonable intention of the lethal force law. It was designed to protect your life (giving you the best possible chance to defend yourself without bureaucracy endangering you) and your property. In this example, I really don't see a reasonable means of justification for the actions he took.
i will assume that you have never been violated in any way, and that you are just looking at this from a logical hindsight view-well, he shouldn't have done that or this, should have stopped after the first shot, etc.
maybe the men have more sympathy for a teenage girl "victim".
maybe he had no idea how many people were in his house, and whether they were armed. maybe he knew it was just 2 kids, but i sure don't know.
i would leave the details up to a jury, because we weren't there and we don't know what actually happened. all we know is what a reporter said happened at this point in time, from a secondhand account.
the bottom line is those 2 kids would STILL BE ALIVE if they hadn't picked the wrong house to break and enter. you have a situation here where those "kids" could have broken into an old person's home and given the old person a heart attack, and then the old person dies.
you just don't do these type of things without understanding that there are only negative consequences to criminal actions.
Clearly, you're the one lacking critical thinking. You can't even follow your own line of thought.
And yes, I am completely familiar with the case.
Not a single person here has said it would be easy, nor has anyone said there would be no sleepless nights.
You're just making up stuff.
You didn't argue a point.
I am familiar with the case as well, it happened in my area.
I also am a graduate of Police Officers Standards of Training (POST) and have had many classes in Administration of justice and Criminology. So far, I have explained to you the facts and law of the issue and you have simply disagreed and evaded any actual counter.
You need to wise up, you have no idea what you are talking about and are simply pushing off some ignorant bravado.
You still haven't explained how it's justifiable to murder an intruder well after they have been incapacitated and pose no threat. Your position on this is immoral and illegal.
I think it's a stupid legal gray area that to me, isn't gray at all. I'm not gonna check their pockets or put my face close to their hands to check their pulse. My obligation is to save myself and my property. I should have no obligation to check someone to see if he's still a threat. I would change every state law in one fell swoop if I could.
You know the old saying, "it's better to be judged by 12.........." In the case of this old man, he most likely would have been carried by 6 had he not completely removed the possibility of a threat. Those kids were on a high and they didn't care who or what they hurt.
When someone is in my home uninvited, as long as they're breathing, even gasping, they're a threat. Period. Remove the threat. Problem solved.
In warfare there is an old rule. Always leave your enemy with a route of escape. If there is anyway to avoid killing....you take that way. This old rule was based in noble behavior...If an enemy is in submission or wounded...you don't butcher them... For instance even if I was armed and a violent intruder entered my house...and the back door was wide open and I could escape...I would run for the door and get the hell out of there... Or in the alternative...if the intruder was in retreat or exiting the house- Let them go...why spill blood if you don't need too?
What doesn't make sense is why would she come down the stairs after hearing the gun shots?
Wouldn't you flee?
Something does not sound right.
My first thoughts as well. If she was in the house, she would have heard the gunshots. Maybe she was waiting in the car outside... and when it was taking too long, came inside to investigate? All sounds very sketchy... his description of her laughing at him after being shot is so disturbing. And for him not to call the police until the next day?
i will assume that you have never been violated in any way, and that you are just looking at this from a logical hindsight view-well, he shouldn't have done that or this, should have stopped after the first shot, etc.
I am not discussing emotional reaction, you can make such a case, but you can not excuse his actions as correct. If you want to say he was overly emotional and committed such an act under duress, without logical or moral thought, fine... I will accept that, but don't think that you can use "emotion" as an excuse of the issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy
maybe he had no idea how many people were in his house, and whether they were armed. maybe he knew it was just 2 kids, but i sure don't know.
We don't, the facts of the matter will come out in court. That said, reading his comments, I find you hard pressed to build such a defense as in his responses, he never one mentioned a "reasoning" for his actions, only that he acted. Now this may be because of the report, which is why I said this will come out in court, but as it stands, from what we both know, your position is speculation, mine is based on what we know currently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy
i would leave the details up to a jury, because we weren't there and we don't know what actually happened. all we know is what a reporter said happened at this point in time, from a secondhand account.
I am not calling for any action, or definitively pronouncing guilt. If you look at my responses, I am careful to base my assessment on what we know from the article, not what may be or may not be true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy
the bottom line is those 2 kids would STILL BE ALIVE if they hadn't picked the wrong house to break and enter. you have a situation here where those "kids" could have broken into an old person's home and given the old person a heart attack, and then the old person dies.
The bottom line is that if he was educated on the law, on proper procedure, the kids would likely have been dead with his first round of response. He did not apply a response of such, which extenuated his actions.
The kids were wrong, and their death is irrelevant here. The manner to which they were killed is relevant. That is the issue. If he had fired off a few shots per encounter to stop the threat and the result was their death, nobody who supported lethal force for home defense would have an issue. He went beyond that according to his statements. He not only stopped their ability to endanger his life and property, but decided to kill them as well. There is no defense here according to the information that we are privy to. There may be more information, but the fact is... he killed them in cold blood (killing someone who can no longer pose a threat to you is killing in cold blood).
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy
you just don't do this things without understanding that there are only negative consequences to those actions.
I have no objections to the consequences. The kids earned such a consequence, I am not objecting to them dying, I am objecting to the method as to which the died. If you think after shooting someone several times in the chest and then... placing the weapon under their chin to blow out their brains is normal, then you have some serious issues yourself.
All sounds very sketchy... his description of her laughing at him after being shot is so disturbing.
Maybe HE was the one who was laughing - he just decided it would be better to say it was the girl, WHO ALREADY HAD BEEN SHOT, who was laughing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
