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.
What I find really disturbing is that there are some posters on this thread who seem to be almost gleeful over what this man did.
On the other hand, though, I have been pleasantly surprised at how many on the more conservative side have condemned this man's actions.
Yeah, it's strange. People who I thought would be elated are actually condeming the killer. Others on the other hand seem to have this bloodlust. I read one post where one guy expressed eagerness in doing what this guy did. What kind of sick and depraved person would want to be put in that situation?
It's extremely sad. He executed them. That's well beyond protection/self preservation. It appears he was targeted. 10k in cash and multiple weapons... I'm questioning whether he's got some shady dealings.
What I find really disturbing is that there are some posters on this thread who seem to be almost gleeful over what this man did.
On the other hand, though, I have been pleasantly surprised at how many on the more conservative side have condemned this man's actions.
I agree; the blood lust is just chilling. Fortunately, there have been some sensible posters, too, both conservative and liberal. I am glad to see that we can agree on some things.
Look, it's been explained by numerous people on the thread - if they indeed broke into his house, he was justified in shooting them. Okay? Where it breaks down is the part where he decides to execute them when they were lying bleeding on his floor. That's the point where you call in the police, not shoot people in the head. THAT is what makes him a murderer, instead of someone merely defending himself.
Read Nomander's posts on this thread - he has explained it very well. The man went too far, and now it's murder.
That is exactly why he has been charged. Many neighbors did not want him charged. The Sheriff himself is a staunch defender of folks being able to defend themselves MN has the castle doctrine...But, this man crossed the line. It's gonna cost him.
Suppose Susie Homemaker goes out and murders six people in cold blood.
She gets caught, thrown in jail. She gets a lawyer, they prepare the case, and they go to trial. Evidence for both sides is presented, all the correct court procedures are followed, the jury gets the case. They go out, deliberate for a while, then come back in and announce theri verdict: Guilty of Premeditated Murder, six counts. They recommend the death penalty, and that's what the judge sentences Susie Homemaker to.
Half a dozen appeals come and go, Susie Homemaker loses them all. Finally she loses her last appeal.
The big day comes. They strap her to the Chair, the officer throws the switch, Susies Homemaker collapses. After the required times, the officer releases the switch, and the doctor checks for signs of life. He detects a heartbeat, notices her limbs twitching. Steps back, the officer throws the switch again. After the required time, he cuts off the switch again. The doctor checks, this time detects no heartbeat, verifies that she is dead.
Should the officer who threw the switch a second time, be charged with a crime for doing so? I say he should not be.
Minnesota has a law saying a homeowner can use lethal force against someone who breaks in. That is, they can legally kill the person who break in. If he shoots the invader more than once to kill him, should he be charged with a crime for the second shot? I suggest he is in the same situation as the officer who threw the switch a second time on Susie Homemaker.
No I don't, but I can understand why he did it. A man should be able to feel safe in his own home. A person shouldn't be dealing with punks because the area is out of control. I can understand how someone would become frustrated and say not this time.
It sucks that anyone can see these punks as the victims and it explains why it is becoming more and more common.
I can understand why he did it too but that doesn't make it right. If someone molests my child, my first instinct would be to kill them. People would understand why I did it but that wouldn't make it right.
if he had shot once and killed them it wouldn't have been a big deal but to continue to shoot is crazy.
This is even worse than those cases where people claim they stabbed someone 101 times because they "thought they were going to come after me if I stopped" because he seemed pretty calm (based on his description of the events) about finishing them off.
This is like, if someone attacks you outside a bar, and you kick there *** and knock them unconscious, incapacitating them, and then you drag them over to a curb and stomp their skull in. You were justified in eliminating the threat in that you won the fight. What you did AFTER however, is not okay.
There's self-defense, and then there is THIS.
Sure, they shouldn't have broken into his house, but I don't think that someone breaking into your house suddenly means well, you're mine now, I'm gonna shoot you in both legs so you can't run, and then I'm gonna get that saw over there and cut your head off.
I mean that's not what he did, but would it be okay to have done so? I mean lets say he shot them and they survived and he ran out of bullets. Would he have free reign to finish them off in whatever means he wanted? No one ever said "self-defense" had to be painless.
I think this guy is sick in the head.
Last edited by KnownUnknown; 11-28-2012 at 12:10 AM..
I don't feel bad for those kids at all -- they were predators, and those who break into peoples' homes are very dangerous criminals, very often prepared to kill the homeowner for his possessions.
Indeed so!!!!!
That guy had no way of knowing WHAT THEY WOULD DO!! (He shouldnt have gone to the extreme he did though)
It's extremely sad. He executed them. That's well beyond protection/self preservation. It appears he was targeted. 10k in cash and multiple weapons... I'm questioning whether he's got some shady dealings.
Well it took a little while, but you whiners finally made the homeowner the perpetrator instead of the victim.
Since when is it against the law to keep cash and guns in ones home?
Look, it's been explained by numerous people on the thread - if they indeed broke into his house, he was justified in shooting them. Okay? Where it breaks down is the part where he decides to execute them when they were lying bleeding on his floor. That's the point where you call in the police, not shoot people in the head. THAT is what makes him a murderer, instead of someone merely defending himself.
Read Nomander's posts on this thread - he has explained it very well. The man went too far, and now it's murder.
The homeowner has been charged.
Now let's let the jury decide his guilt or innocence.
If he is guilty of murder he will be punished.
Some on here are insinuating that the homeowner was at fault for having guns and cash in his home, and others are calling the criminals "kids" and "young adults" instead of labelling them as criminals.
The situation is unfortunate, because two people los their lives and the homeowner stands to lose his freedom all because two criminals decided to steal from a house while the homeowner was present. Had there not been a break-in, this would not have happened.
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.
