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.
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.
That's ridiculous, callous, cold, and cruel. And immoral and illegal.
You have a right to shoot someone in self defense when they pose a threat to you. And if they die from that shot, then that's justified.
You DO NOT have a right to execute someone after they have already clearly been incapacitated and no longer pose a threat, just for your own amusement. That makes you a MURDERER. You apparently think murder is fine; I do not, not even in the case of a criminal - that is what trials and judges are for.
You can explain it a dozen times, some people just don't get it. To them it's either one way or another, there is no middle ground. Either you defend this guy or you side with lawlessness. This thread has so many strawmen you can make a village.
Truthfully, it really should be "one way or the other" .... either you have a right to use lethal force to defend yourself, or you don't. PERIOD. And that strikes at the heart of this debate .... there is just too much rationalization going on, (which is the true source of all those straw men) and too much ambiguity in the law regarding the use of lethal force in protecting one's home or one's self, which leads to these complex rationalizations that go so far as to magically transform criminals into victims.
Laws must be clear cut and definitive to be just and function properly. You cannot apply a complex set of conditions and caveats to the right to use lethal force in protecting you and your home from invasion. Either you have the right or you don't. Period. Therefore, the manner in which that lethal force is delivered must be considered immaterial and not relevant, because no one can possibly anticipate the countless scenarios that might unfold in such events. All of the possible "what ifs" can create an endless circular argument, particularly from people who don't even agree that citizens should be allowed to own firearms to begin with, let alone be allowed to use them to defend yourself.
The major focus of the argument here is about the manner and actions of the man ... and frankly, I do not agree with, nor am I defending the man's actions from a moral perspective. Personally, I find his actions to be extremely cold blooded, and I cannot imagine myself personally capable of a "finish them off" type act. I'm not even a hunter for the very reason that I cannot fathom the mindset that can kill for pleasure and entertainment. At the same time, I would have no problem shooting an intruder breaking into my home, and if it takes authorities several hours to collect all of the various scattered pieces of them afterward, such is life. I would consider such an outcome the fault of the burglar for breaking into my home.
Now, it seems that most would have no problem if the guy had shot the intruders once, right between the eyes, killing them instantly ... and that the major heartburn here revolves around the manner in which the man went about killing the intruders, to the same ultimate affect. So it all boils down to the man's marksmanship with firearms that will determine if he is just a man defending himself or a cold blooded murderer? That makes sense to anyone? Do you not see how these types of rationalizations open up such a large can of worms?
Considering just a few of the many possible hypothetical scenarios ... would it matter if the man was hiding from the intruder, and then snuck up behind him in the dark and put a bullet in the back of the head at point blank range? There would certainly be those that would claim that to be cold blooded too. Should he instead be obligated to confront the intruder head on and have a freaking gun fight dual? Is the man defending himself under some obligation to observe some set of rules that are more favorable to the burglar, like a warning shot, which could give the criminal the opportunity to flee, and then return a couple of weeks later heavily armed and more prepared to deal with the armed home owner next time? Should the man be required to just wound the criminal in an extremity, allowing the burglar the opportunity to return fire and kill the home owner instead? All of the many possible scenarios allow for rationalizing to the point that the water becomes so muddy, that the criminals can magically become the victims. And that's the real and only issue ... criminals broke into the man's home, and what happened to them afterward is a result of their criminal behavior, and not the man defending his home. That doesn't mean I or you have to agree with the man's actions ... you are free to consider his actions callous and cold blooded, just as I do. But you have to remember that as many people as there are in this world, that's about how many different versions of right and wrong there are. Now, apply all of those different opinions of right and wrong to the countless scenarios that are possible in such an event, and you have a nightmare of confusion, when the real nuts and bolts of the matter boil down to "Don't invade another man's home, lest you get your rear end killed".
The reality is, the moment you start dissecting the event in the manner people are doing here, and scrutinizing every detail of the man's behavior, and applying your personal definition of what is proper and improper conduct on his part (and not the criminal intruders), you have effectively removed the right to use lethal force to defend oneself, and now that right becomes lost in an unpredictable cloud of what ifs, would haves, should haves and could haves. And that can evolve into a countless set of "conditions" and "considerations" to be applied to the act of self defense. And even though in this case, it's pretty easy to detect an extreme over-response, when you agree to the principle that self defense requires a conditional response, it won't be long before those conditions become so restrictive as to place the defender in greater danger, unnecessarily, why? To protect the lives of the criminals? The criminals can protect their own lives by choosing not to be freaking criminals breaking into and robbing other people's homes.
I think some people on this thread watch too much tv. How much of a threat can you be after you've been shot and fall down the stairs? Maybe he was thinking it'd be like Kill Bill and she'd suddenly stand up after being shot multiple times in the chest and snatch his eye out or something.
Truthfully, it really should be "one way or the other" .... either you have a right to use lethal force to defend yourself, or you don't. PERIOD. And that strikes at the heart of this debate .... there is just too much rationalization going on, (which is the true source of all those straw men) and too much ambiguity in the law regarding the use of lethal force in protecting one's home or one's self, which leads to these complex rationalizations that go so far as to magically transform criminals into victims.
The only ambiguity in the law is in your imagination, since you rely on using the word "protect" which is about as unambiguous as it gets. To protect is to guard against, once the object (your life or property) ceases to be endanger your actions in protecting either must cease. It really doesn't get any simpler to understand than that. This concept is universal and is part and parcel of British common law and international laws of armed conflict. It is the same legal concept in all 50 states of this union, and it applies to law enforcement and civilians a like.
Unlike cases such as Trayvon Martin where there is a reasonable conflicts regarding who was the aggressor, the legality of the parties right to "stand their ground". There ground this is a case where by the defendants own statements indicate that once the threat was neutralized that then proceeded with malice and forethought stepped beyond defending himself and his property to then execute the two offenders. That is impermissible under any statutory interpretation of self-defense.
If you are still confused about this issue, I suggest that you listen and re-listen to Morrison County Sheriff Michel Wetzel's closing statement where he points out that Mr. Hicks under Minnesotta law was well within his rights to used deadly force, and points out that there is no bright line on how many shots can be fired or how long it takes to neutralize a threat, but that once the threat is stopped (which is why no one uses the term shoot to kill but rather shoot to stop) so must the application of deadly force.
To walk over to a semi-conscious offender, to stand over them and to fire into their body until they are dead, is not self-defense. To drag the body of another offender and to then place the barrel of a gun under their chin, an act that the offender was incapable of stopping, and to fire that gun, putting a bullet into their brain is not by any standard anything other than murder.
This is a uniformed standard through and accepted international law, and the laws of all 50 states supported by the Supreme Court in numerous decisions including Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985).
The reality is, the moment you start dissecting the event in the manner people are doing here, and scrutinizing every detail of the man's behavior, and applying your personal definition of what is proper and improper conduct on his part (and not the criminal intruders), you have effectively removed the right to use lethal force to defend oneself, and now that right becomes lost in an unpredictable cloud of what ifs, would haves, should haves and could haves. And that can evolve into a countless set of "conditions" and "considerations" to be applied to the act of self defense. And even though in this case, it's pretty easy to detect an extreme over-response, when you agree to the principle that self defense requires a conditional response, it won't be long before those conditions become so restrictive as to place the defender in greater danger, unnecessarily, why? To protect the lives of the criminals? The criminals can protect their own lives by choosing not to be freaking criminals breaking into and robbing other people's homes.
The only definition that I apply is that of accepted law.
Every criminal case is weight upon the facts as presented, an attempt to devine the intent of the accused, and a questioning of their individual actions.
As for your slippery slope nonsense, the problem that we are being confronted with isn't a restriction of the right of self-defense but an idiotic movement which is turning the idea of self-defense into a mockery.
If your concern is the protection of criminals, hell why don't we just do away with the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments and we can then just split the 1st and 2nd between liberals and conservatives.
I think some people on this thread watch too much tv. How much of a threat can you be after you've been shot and fall down the stairs?
Depends on the type of bullets used, and what drugs they may have in their system already. One of the reasons a lot of police officers have stopped carrying 9mm pistols in some jurisdictions. And why a lot more use the "double tap" method of firing.
Not saying that what he did was right, but in the heat of the moment, adrenaline pumping, having had to deal with this again and again... can anyone honestly say that they may not unthinkingly do the same when your body goes on autopilot?
He should absolutely still answer for his crime here. That is part of being a responsible gun owner.
Not saying that what he did was right, but in the heat of the moment, adrenaline pumping, having had to deal with this again and again... can anyone honestly say that they may not unthinkingly do the same when your body goes on autopilot?
We don't KNOW that he's had to "deal with this again and again."
There is a report of ONE break-in; just because now they say there was E I G H T doesn't mean squat if only one was reported.
For people to use the excuse that he had had to "deal with this again and again" as some kind of rationale for what he did is somewhat dishonest because we have no way of knowing for sure how many times he was broken into.
E I G H T times or ninety times - they can say whatever they want, it doesn't make it the truth.
Besides, I'm pretty sure that I have enough humanity and compassion in me not to execute two people who are no threat to me - under any circumstances.
Last edited by Cinebar; 11-28-2012 at 12:52 PM..
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.
