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.
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?
He said he shot her wife a rifle. She fell down the stairs. He tried to shoot her again but the rifle jammed. She laughed at him. That apparently said him off even further.
So then he pulled out his .22 and shot her several times in the chest. Then he dragged her to his workshop, put the gun under her chin and shot at her.
I stand by my original statement. If she had a weapon on her, he probably would have noticed it and mentioned it as he was detailing his action. I also think it's pretty safe to assume that after she was shot with a rifle, fell down the stairs, shot multiple times in the chest that he was in a safe enough situation to call 911.
We agree that after the initial shot(s) he was in the wrong. I am not defending his actions.
Where I differ is the Boolean approach taken by many here. I can condemn his actions and still think the "role models" were thugs who got what they deserved. Some think the kids were victims. I don't. If you break into a house you risk getting shot. The shooter may not follow the rules.
We agree that after the initial shot(s) he was in the wrong. I am not defending his actions.
Where I differ is the Boolean approach taken by many here. I can condemn his actions and still think the "role models" were thugs who got what they deserved. Some think the kids were victims. I don't. If you break into a house you risk getting shot. The shooter may not follow the rules.
Oh well then we are in agreement. I never felt bad for the kids. They made a choice and it didn't work out in their favor. If he'd killed them with the first shot this would have been a whole different story.
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.
And who are you to say when a threat is no longer a threat? If a wounded person can move an arm, they can retrieve a concealed pistol and shoot you while you're dialing 911. So whatever threat may or may not exist is best left judged by the person being threatened, and not some know it all sitting safely behind their computer keyboard.
And secondly, this universally accepted concept of common law for which you refer is universally ignored by authorities when THEY are the shooters .. be they US military or local police. You cannot go a week without hearing about an apprehended suspect in handcuffs being tasered to death ... or a vehicle being riddled with bullets from several police officers, let alone the almost daily murders of innocent civilians which are casually and routinely dismissed as "collateral damage" by unmanned drone attacks weekly killing dozens of innocent civilians by order of your "Murderer-In-Chief" that you worship like a God. So, spare us your righteous indignation and selective morality which never seems to affect you when someone questions the authorities you consider above reproach.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
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.
I'm not confused at all, and I have yet to discover a topic for which I might require your explanation. I get what the law is, I simply disagree with it, and I disagree with the premise that someone else is a better judge of when a threat is no longer a threat, as opposed to the person face to face with that threat. If the intruder is still moving, they still could pose a threat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
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).
Once again for good measure ... I am not defending the actions of this man in this specific instance and under the circumstances as defined, assuming the story is true as told. I have already stated that I thought the actions were extreme and twisted, and speculated that the man may have just reached a psychological breaking point if the claims of repeated burglaries were also true. Nevertheless, my main point is that it presents a dangerous affront to the right of self defense of one's home to allow authorities to determine after the fact, whether specific circumstances (in their judgement) represented the lawful use of lethal force. The fact that there were burglars should be the beginning and end to the inquiry, and not whether the home owner exercised proper restraint in dealing with them.
And who are you to say when a threat is no longer a threat?
Perhaps when a person has been shot multiple times, who has been dragged down a flight of stairs, has remained motionless for a period of time, and who can only utter the sounds made when blood begins to either fill their lungs or airway. That would be my guess.
If I have to explain that much to you, I really don't see much point in trying to explain anything else that is do bleeding fracking obvious. Live is too short and I'm just not into these idiotic C-D debates like I used to be. So, I'm done here.
Perhaps when a person has been shot multiple times, who has been dragged down a flight of stairs, has remained motionless for a period of time, and who can only utter the sounds made when blood begins to either fill their lungs or airway. That would be my guess.
If I have to explain that much to you, I really don't see much point in trying to explain anything else that is do bleeding fracking obvious. Live is too short and I'm just not into these idiotic C-D debates like I used to be. So, I'm done here.
Well that, and the fact that he felt safe enough to stand over her to position the gun at the base of her chin and pull the trigger execution style.
Perhaps when a person has been shot multiple times, who has been dragged down a flight of stairs, has remained motionless for a period of time, and who can only utter the sounds made when blood begins to either fill their lungs or airway. That would be my guess.
There ya go, making up stuff and writing your own story again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
If I have to explain that much to you, I really don't see much point in trying to explain anything else that is do bleeding fracking obvious. Live is too short and I'm just not into these idiotic C-D debates like I used to be. So, I'm done here.
Nevertheless, my main point is that it presents a dangerous affront to the right of self defense of one's home to allow authorities to determine after the fact, whether specific circumstances (in their judgement) represented the lawful use of lethal force.
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? 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.
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.
There ya go, making up stuff and writing your own story again.
Dale, learn how to read.
Several minutes later, he told police, he heard more footsteps and waited until he saw Kifer's hips as she descended the staircase.
"After shooting the person, she tumbled down the steps," according to the complaint. "Smith stated that he tried to shoot her again with the Mini-14 but the gun jammed."
At this point, he told police, Kifer laughed at him, describing it as a short laugh because she was in pain. But he said it "made him upset," the complaint said.
"If you're trying to shoot somebody and they laugh at you, you go again," he told police, according to the complaint.
As Kifer gasped for air, Smith dragged her body next to Brady's, according to the complaint, and placed a handgun under her chin and fired what he told police was a "good clean finishing shot" that went "under her chin up into the cranium."
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.
