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.
...And, having had 8 previous burglaries in a short time span...I believe his brother said w/in a couple/few years...WE do not know how he felt...WE do not know if/when he went over the edge. We do know that he was in his own home, Thanksgiving day....in his basement...Probably watching TV and cooking his bird...or planning to go to relatives for dinner. WE don't know about him, his intent....We DO KNOW THEIRS! We also know they had done the same thing to another neighbor the day before....The evidence was still in their vehicle. On a local radio show yesterday I did hear.. "that the locals were
AGAIN - we don't know that he had eight previous burglaries. There is ONE on record as having been reported.
Just because his brother said there were eight doesn't make it true.
Why are you so willing to just assume there were eight break-ins based on the words of people who are trying to justify the cold-blooded EXECUTION of two people? They have every reason to lie and to make his situation sound more desperate than it might really have been.
Why are people so willing to accept that as truth when there is no evidence to support it?
Nobody (including myself) is saying he didn't have the right to protect himself. It's what he did AFTER he had them incapacitated that is sick and disturbing.
AGAIN - we don't know that he had eight previous burglaries. There is ONE on record as having been reported.
Just because his brother said there were eight doesn't make it true.
Why are you so willing to just assume there were eight break-ins based on the words of people who are trying to justify the cold-blooded EXECUTION of two people? They have every reason to lie and to make his situation sound more desperate than it might really have been.
Why are people so willing to accept that as truth when there is no evidence to support it?
Nobody (including myself) is saying he didn't have the right to protect himself. It's what he did AFTER he had them incapacitated that is sick and disturbing.
^^^ This ^^^
Read the thread, people. Some of y'all don't seem to get the difference between self defense and execution. Nomander explained it very well, and he's a conservative.
Do you people honestly think all of us on this thread who don't think it's right to shoot (possibly already dying) people in the head to kill them feel sorry for the burglars? I feel sorry that they didn't get to go through a trial and get the appropriate punishment - and I'd bet that being shot would be a deterrent. You don't need to execute them. Or keep their bodies while you decide how many days you'll wait before you call the police.
Last edited by Emeraldmaiden; 11-29-2012 at 09:30 AM..
Reason: missed a word
AGAIN - we don't know that he had eight previous burglaries. There is ONE on record as having been reported.
Just because his brother said there were eight doesn't make it true.
Why are you so willing to just assume there were eight break-ins based on the words of people who are trying to justify the cold-blooded EXECUTION of two people? They have every reason to lie and to make his situation sound more desperate than it might really have been.
Why are people so willing to accept that as truth when there is no evidence to support it?
Nobody (including myself) is saying he didn't have the right to protect himself. It's what he did AFTER he had them incapacitated that is sick and disturbing.
You seem to have some sort of personal issue regarding other's posts. Quit targeting others opinions. I personally would appreciate being able to watch the out come of this case, and read others opinions.
If you don't believe what is in the paper....than you don't believe the old guy said those things about how he shot those burglars either...Right??
If this is not something you want to participate in...than just stop.
Yep. I'm sure I'll get crucified for my comments in the "17 year old gunned down" thread but I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for these kids either. At least in the case of the gas station shooting the shooter had virtually no defense and the kids likely were victims. In this case these little pill addicts had repeatedly broken in to homes. And yes, it was two country white kids. While I don't think the old man should get off complete, 2nd degree murder is a stretch. I think there are mitigating circumstances, including past history of break ins and his state of mind at the time. The kids were coming towards him in his own basement. I can see why he shot them.
I totally agree. And the evidence in a court room, including all the mitigating evidence will help the jury to decide this man's punishment. We mostly are just spectators....None of us know more than what is in the papers, unless we live in the area....And, there are a few locals posting.
You seem to have some sort of personal issue regarding other's posts. Quit targeting others opinions. I personally would appreciate being able to watch the out come of this case, and read others opinions.
So disagreeing with others' opinions is "targeting" them?
And as far as I can tell, the only one with issues regarding others' posts is you - you don't like it when someone disagrees with you or doesn't accept your opinion as gospel.
Oh, and I don't appreciate the lecture via the rep system.
Quote:
If you don't believe what is in the paper....than you don't believe the old guy said those things about how he shot those burglars either...Right??
For one thing, why would he lie about such gruesome details? Besides, I'm sure forensics will be able to either support all or most of what he has said (kind of hard to lie about a clean kill shot to the chin) or else forensics will debunk what he has claimed happened.
On the other hand, he and those around him have every reason to lie about what may or may not have led him to do what he did.
Quote:
If this is not something you want to participate in...than just stop.
Um......since I am posting in this thread, I would think most people would assume that I want to participate.
And that's the second time you've tried to tell me what I should or shouldn't say in this thread and I've seen you do it with at least one other poster as well (I don't read all of your posts, though, because they tend to be hard to follow at times, so there may be more). I'm not sure who put you in charge?
This pretty much sums up what the real issue is here. Note that the people quoted here are ardent property rights/castle doctrine folks.
[SIZE=3]"The fact of the matter is, if people have all of the facts, they would not be quite so divided in their opinions," he told The Associated Press, noting that many details have not been made public. "It's not as controversial or as unclear an issue as people might think at first blush."[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]State Rep. Tony Cornish, a former police officer who sponsored a bill last year that would have expanded circumstances in which people could use deadly force, said he believes Smith would have had a legitimate defense if he would've stopped firing after his first shot.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]"After that first shot, when it turned into a grisly execution, he lost any hope he had of not being prosecuted," Cornish said. "He lost all my support."[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Rich Collins, a Morrison County commissioner, said that as a National Rifle Association instructor for basic home protection, he is a firm believer that everyone has a right to protect their property — but that they must also make attempts to retreat and call law enforcement.[/SIZE]
"These young kids should not have been in this guy's house. That's a given. Nobody can deny that," Collins said. "Did he have the right to shoot them? Yes he did. ... But in the manner in which he used that right, I think, was excessive."
Regarding Minn law and the Castle Doctrine:
[SIZE=3]Minnesota law gives homeowners the right to protect themselves and their property, but Wetzel said they don't have the right to execute an intruder once the threat is neutralized.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]How much more short of dead did they need to be for him to consider them neutralized? He was angry about the last break in, and decided at that moment these two people -- no matter who they were or how old they were -- were gonna die. [/SIZE]
Hell then why the frack have laws to begin with since it is such an affront to have the law, the courts or anyone else review our actions?
Laws are important when they serve their true and correct and legitimate purpose .... to facilitate ONE END .... to protect liberty. As it stands now, we have something on the order of 50,000 to 75,000 laws on the books, with the vast majority of them a direct attack on liberty, which renders those laws an affront to to freedom. For Christ sake, no human being can even begin to memorize such a volume of laws ... not even the courts, judges, lawyers, police, or even the freaking stuffed suit bribe takers that write those laws. To say there are too many of them would be perhaps the greatest understatement ever uttered. But your suggestion that we need someone to "review our actions" is bone chilling big brother blather. You left wing statist collectivist authoritarians are a living example of a bi-pedal form of cancer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
I mean after all the two teenagers could claim that they were invited into the home and the dirty old man tried to rape and kill them, so they shot him dead in self-defense. Or maybe we'll just shoot the spouse because we thought they were burglar and who is anyone to judge whether our fear of death or bodily harm was real or just a cover a murder because... well they weren't there so who are they to judge.
I don't know WTF you are driving at here .... I previously stated that the ONE element needed to be determined ... were those individuals shot actually burglars who broke into the home, and if so, then that should be the end of the investigation. Criminals broke into a home ... the home owner shot them. End of story. And that fact has clearly been determined. Now, if the crazy home owner shot the paper boy who was simply trying to deliver the morning newspaper, that's an entirely different matter. If, as in your rather wild imaginings ... the man shot his wife, and tried to claim he mistook her for a burglar, I think that would obviously garner scrutiny and investigation from police. And yes, when someone is harmed, that type of event most certainly demands investigation to determine if the "harmed individual" was actually an innocent victim of a crime. If that individual is determined to be a criminal which was harmed in the act of threatening someone else's safety or security ... then by definition, that person was not an "innocent victim" ... he was a criminal intruder that reaped what he sowed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Your argument is not only facilely ridiculous but it flies in the face of nineteen centuries of jurisprudence. Unfortunately your argument above is symptomatic of libertarianism not only run amuck but passing into the realm of the insane.
Nineteen Centuries of jurisprudence? PULLLLEEEZE ..... what fracking planet are you from? Here on planet Earth ... in just the last 100 years, official governments have murdered over 200 Million people, with over 100 Million of those murders committed by communist governments cleansing their own undesirables, who found their leanings toward liberty to be a threat to the "law makers". Nothing comes remotely close ... not disease, crime, anything that even begins to approach the volume of cold blooded murder committed by the "Law Makers".
From the jurisprudence that sentenced Jesus to crucifixion, to the English Common Law courts that declared every parcel of land that the British Navy were able to travel to and plant a Union Jack flag on, the sovereign property of the current inbred blue blood King ... oh yes indeedy, we've seen "jurisprudence" prudence, haven't we? Here in the United States, we've had our share of prudence, from the declaration of Black Africans as non-humans, to the Native Americans pure savages to be exterminated. In more modern times, the advent of intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons and aircraft carriers have made the world our jurisprudence playground in order to continue the British tradition of owning the planet and all life on it. Yay Jurisprudence!!
Of course, I understand that to you left wing collectivists, libertarian values (LIBERTY) of any measure is "insane", which is a product of your weak minds that have been indoctrinated and molded by authoritarian dogma. You believe your fellow citizens are your true enemies, and that your government is your best friend that you need to protect you from them. But the poor malfunctioning mind that can reach such conclusions is what defines insane. With history replete with countless examples that would lead any person possessing a modicum of basic common sense to the opposite conclusion, you defy the laws of mathematics, and get it wrong every time, even when the law of mathematical possibilities would predict that you should get it right once in a while, if only due to accident.
And I'll have you know that there is one basic tenant of common law and every other legitimate version that has ALWAYS existed ... that is the individual's right to defend themselves and their property from harm and theft. And it wasn't very long ago that the common response in this country to a thief stealing a horse, was a rope and a tree ..... no long drawn out trials and investigations .... no cry baby excuses for why he stole the horse, or that he was just borrowing it and planned to return it .... a rope and a tree, and consequently, that was the best way to keep horse stealing to a very minimum. And it worked quite well ... with the additional benefit of eliminating repeat offenders ... thereby eliminating the need for laws dealing with habitual offenders. You only got caught ONCE stealing a man's horse ... not twice, not three times ... just once.
In simpler times, before nitwits decided it would be wise to protect criminals, people universally understood the common right to defend themselves from criminals and tyrants. Sometimes that took on the an element of harshness that might offend modern liberal "sensibilities", but it worked, and the nation didn't need to house and feed 6 Million convicted criminals, payed for out of the pockets of the victims of those crimes. And we didn't tolerate government criminals telling us it was against the law to collect rain water, or grow a freaking plant on our property, or chop down a tree because an Owl sat on one of it's branches.
We need less laws of that insane type, and swifter and harsher laws dealing with miscreants who choose to rob, rape and murder. No more of this insane nonsense of sentencing a pot smoker to 10 years in prison for a damned plant, while sentencing a child molester to 2 years, and letting him loose on the public to molest more children. Put them on a list, you say? Baloney ... what nonsense this is to create lists of child molesters to let the neighbors know when a child rapist just moved in next door ... what the hell is wrong with you people? You have one reason to have a list of child molesters ... and that would be to use that list to collect them up and keep them away from the rest of us.
This is "Liberal Insanity" run amuck. Protect criminals and disarm the law abiding citizens, leaving them defenseless and at the mercy of those criminals. This is your logic and your "jurisprudence". And had that man been unable to own a firearm, we'd be reading about his dead body laying in the basement of his home, while the "Kids" were out there right now terrorizing others.
You liberal lug nuts will never learn. You run a stop sign and have a car crash ... the lesson you all learn is the next time, you drive faster through it, rather than just stop.
It appears that he was "lying in wait" for the second person, since he decided to sit down and put his feet up (after he rolled up the corpse and tucked it away) instead of calling the police. Who doesn't call the police after they shoot someone?
That's just plain funny. Lying in wait in his own basement, minding his own business.
What did you expect him to do? Run through the house with his hair on fire?
That's just plain funny. Lying in wait in his own basement, minding his own business.
What did you expect him to do? Run through the house with his hair on fire?
Lying in wait................/sigh
Yeah ... amazing isn't it? Apparently we all need to adopt the "Queensbury Rules" of victimhood .... curl up in a fetal position clutching your ObamaPhone ... dial 911 and wait 30 minutes while the criminals safely have their way with you. It's only fair, right? It's shameful to stalk criminals in your own home for goodness sake ... exercise some decency ... criminals are people too, and they have rights and feelings like anyone esle, damn it!
What's this world coming to when a decent burglar just exercising his chosen profession can't safely rob and pillage a home, without fear of being accosted by some nut home owner with a gun.
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.
