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.
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.
I understand your point Little-Acorn, but keep in mind that with the example of the officer, the intent is to kill the person. That is, the objective was not completed by the first attempt, so the second attempt is not extenuating action.
The intent of lethal force laws are to allow maximum defense of a given goal, in the case of this it is to defend life and property. Once those goals are met, lethal force is not justified. So, once the man achieved the defense of life and property with the victims being "reasonably" incapacitated to which they are no longer a threat to life and property, the mans use of such force becomes unwarranted. That is, he is no longer protecting his life and property, rather he is executing judgement as he sees fit.
What's with all the people here defending these punks?
What goes around comes around.
If somebody is seriously that surprised that they commit a felony with the intention to harm another person and then have a felony committed against them that harms them, they deserve whatever it gets.
And there are people on this thread that can't read when they say the girl "pleaded for her life".
The article clearly states that she was laughing at the old man while she was bleeding because his rifle was stuck.
Who's the real sicko here???
It really makes you wonder doesn't it.
It also makes you hope that those who think it was just fine that these two drugged up teens were terrorizing some retired man in his own home never have children. And what ever happened to all the anti-bullying campaign? Now a victim must suffer in silence and accept being bullied and robbed. Your home is not really your home, drug addicts looking for their next fix have every right to break in.
Some idiot family member calls them role models and star students and people immediately fall for it. The family should have gotten these punks in drug rehab -- if they had really cared anything for them.
I have conflicting feelings on this but in the end, I don't want to live in a state where you can basically execute two human beings in your house and not go to jail.
This man is going to jail. How long is for a jury to decide.
While I disagree with the mans excessive actions, let us not forget that these were criminals, committing a robbery. They had no respect for the man, his property, or his safety when they decided to break into his home. They are the true instigators here, regardless of the excessive actions of the man. It would be a travesty to excuse the actions of the true criminals in this situation. None of this would have happened (based on the initial evaluation of the statements of admission) if they hadn't committed the crime in the first place.
You can argue against the excessive punishment here, but you can not ignore the true fault of actions.
There is alot that we need to investigate but I do not think that happened. If he had shot them elsewhere, why would he drag the bodies to his own residence? It would make more sense to hide or bury them somewhere else or just leave them dead where they are and get rid of the gun.
The fact is. We don't actually know the all facts. Should it turn out he is deranged as well the throw logic out the window.
What's with all the people here defending these punks?
What goes around comes around.
If somebody is seriously that surprised that they commit a felony with the intention to harm another person and then have a felony committed against them that harms them, they deserve whatever it gets.
And there are people on this thread that can't read when they say the girl "pleaded for her life".
The article clearly states that she was laughing at the old man while she was bleeding because his rifle was stuck.
Who's the real sicko here???
I am not defending them, I am defending what is just and reasonable action as opposed to not. A reasonable person does not do what this man did. It is not the issue that they were shot, or even killed in his actions of defense, it was the means to which he applied such.
A reasonable and just person doesn't kill because they want to, they kill because they need to. There was no need for him to kill (unless more information comes out that can reasonable show he feared for his life and property required further shots as he did), he killed without purpose and that is an action of a murder, not a reasonable and just person.
If he would have killed them with the first shots, or they continued to show a threat after the first shot, he would be reasonably justified. There is nothing just about this (again based on the initial evaluation), it is purposeless killing.
The fact is. We don't actually know the all facts. Should it turn out he is deranged as well the throw logic out the window.
If he was deranged, then that will only help him. His actions were just until he did the execution shots. If he shows to be mentally unstable, his sentence will likely be reduced due to his state of mind.
This case is somewhat similar to the pharmacist who stopped the robbery in his store. His initial actions were just in shooting the robbers, his execution of the robbers after they were incapacitated was not.
There is a line between a killer and a just defense. Those who do so without reasonable purpose are killers.
In most states, applying deadly force is legal only if an individual is in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm.
Looks like the old guy in this case went way over that line.
He's in deep.
Do you think the little thugs were bringing the old man Christmas tea and cookies?
Or maybe you think the old man should have offered the little thugs Christmas wishes and Santa Claus cupcakes?
They got exactly what they deserved. The old man deserves accolades.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
Or in the case of Texas, to protect the loss of property.
This case does not show either to be the case so far.
What? You think the little thugs went into the old man's house just to look at his property?
It doesn't take a very high IQ to know they were going to TAKE his property. Hence: LOSS of property. Maybe you think he should have waited until they had his property and were leaving the premises. Then he could have shot them in the back as they were fleeing!
You can't have it both ways.
Good God. It really is rocket science for some folks.
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.
Man executes teens that broke into his home
