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.
Parents should teach their kids not to be criminals- to have morals and be upright---when YOUR kid breaks into someones home to steal and is killed by the home owner - It is not the home owner that has killed your child- It is YOU that killed your child by not bring them up right...In order to raise a criminal child a parent must have a criminal mind.
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.
Location: planet octupulous is nearing earths atmosphere
13,621 posts, read 12,730,207 times
Reputation: 20050
this guy is clearly a gun toting zombie nut case
but it is a good lessen to be learned that if you plan on breaking and entering and parting with some homeowners belongings with out permission, be ready to die!!
but it is a good lessen to be learned that if you plan on breaking and entering and parting with some homeowners belongings with out permission, be ready to die!!
Because he had a chip on his shoulder and took joyment in doing it. I am one of the most out spoken 2nd amendment supporters on this forum but those that give no remorse to these kids and side with this guy I don't agree with.
This was more than just defending yourself
This!
There is a difference between defending yourself and your property, and being judge, jury and executioner once it is no longer about defense, but anger or any other reason.
When a person is incapacitated after a gun shot that rips through their flesh and vital organs- that is it..the job is done. For this home owner to lean over that injured person and "finish them off" is wrong. It appears to be a punitive act..an act of uncontrolled rage and passion. Kind of like having a street fight and kicking an unconscious person in the head as they lay there. It is barbaric and a horrifically cowardly act.
In the alternative getting back to the parents of the those that were killed...My kids know the difference between right and wrong..They would never consider committing a crime..They learned by example. Yes I had a wild youth and was out of control..but in my core there was a moral compass that was instilled in my by my parents...Good and proper values are inherited...It is the most valuable inheritance that a parent can pass on to their child...Some parent have no values..They are barbaric survivors and the kids pick up on that THINKING it is normal.
There is an older woman that I know and she is a nasty corrupt person...I often wondered why...I found out after her father passed away that there was a family secret...That the father had done time for bank robbery. It all made sense to me when I found that out...A father who walks into a bank and declares "Give me the money or I will kill you" - Has no values...How could he possibly set a good example for his daughter? It's impossible...Criminal parents raise criminal kids. It is such a dis-service to the child..to damn them to a life of suffering....a life where they suffer and make others suffer.
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.
Different situations that can't be compared. The person flipping a switch is a sanctioned executioner after the person has had a right to trial. Home owner taking it upon himself to be executioner after he has neutralized the threat is murder, just because lethal force is allowed in self defense doesn't mean the law says you are justified in a "kill shot" after you have stopped the threat. And if you are going to reply that " the only way to make sure they aren't a threat any more is to make sure they are dead" then given the face value description of events it seems they were no longer a threat and that head kill shots as they lie already probably dieing was excessive and murder.
We'll see what transpires but my instinct tells me this guy might have even been premeditated and that the supposed intruders were not burglars. I can't get past the fact that he could hear her foot steps from his basement after firing a .223 indoors and even other several suspicious explanations he made.
And a moment of common sense people, girl is shot and she is going laugh? There is not just one suspicious element to the home owners story but several.
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.
