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.
Smith had the right to defend himself, and even to defend his personal property. He did not have the right to summarily execute two people after they had been immobilized.
The above is all its about. The execution is illegal. Done.
this seems pretty simple. It amazes me some people want to come to a viewpoint so badly that they will argue with you about the color of the sky.
next thing you know, they will argue that if you break into someones house your allowed to tortue them as your sex slave for next 10 years or death - whatever comes earlier.
if instead of using a .22 caliber weapon, the home owner could have avoided the issue of trial by using a .45acp and being done with it. or by having better gun control.
Sure he has a right to defend his home if some goons barge in. But even if they had priors, how many bullets and torture does it take to defend it one home against unarmed intruders?? A sane 65 year old man who hasn't gone berserk in panic should be able to reason well enough to just fire warning shots. Or is that not 'standing your ground' enough?
next thing you know, they will argue that if you break into someones house your allowed to tortue them as your sex slave for next 10 years or death - whatever comes earlier.
BTW, people in Minnesota (and hopefuly in more and more states) need to know that if they commit a crime that can be regarded by the victims as a threat, the perps are risking their lives and may lose them.
That's the way it ought to be. A lot fewer crimes will get committed as a result... and many more lives preserved, as they should be.
And it will be up to the criminal to decide whether the crime is worth his life.
I would be surprised if he is convicted. The last thing they want to happen in that small Minnesota town (or anywhere hopefully) is to give an encouraging "green light" to future home invaders. This was not a vigilante thing where he followed them around. He was inside his home and that will count for a lot in his favor with that jury IMO.
I would be surprised if he is convicted. The last thing they want to happen in that small Minnesota town (or anywhere hopefully) is to give an encouraging "green light" to future home invaders. This was not a vigilante thing where he followed them around. He was inside his home and that will count for a lot in his favor with that jury IMO.
If you are correct, it would be an example of jury nullification (not saying that's good or bad in general) because no law in Minnesota or any other state reflects what you are suggesting it should.
Sure he has a right to defend his home if some goons barge in. But even if they had priors, how many bullets and torture does it take to defend it one home against unarmed intruders?? A sane 65 year old man who hasn't gone berserk in panic should be able to reason well enough to just fire warning shots. Or is that not 'standing your ground' enough?
No its not. Firing warning shots just means you've given them a target for their non-warning shots.
The problem for this guy is...he shot both intruders, drug one them over to the other so they were next to each other, then decided "hey lets put this last one out of its misery" and executed her. I suspect a jury is going to have an issue with the last part.
And lets be honest OK, the fact that the second intruder was young, female, and white.....is going to matter. It shouldn't-but thats reality.
I too support the 2nd Amendment and don't agree with the execution style shot , but a cop once told my husband - if someone is breaking into your house - shoot to kill because dead men tell no lies. He also said to make sure he fell inside your property. I've seen numerous cases of criminals suing home owners for injuries received while victimizing said owner.
It's easy to criticize the man but most of us have never been in this position and really don't know what we'd do. We all know how we'd like to handle the situation but that's not always what goes down in a real situation.
Your last two sentences are so true! There is adrenalin happening (not the good type btw) and was he supposed to ask the criminals for a minute to think it through before defending himself? Decisions have to be made quickly and the benefit of any doubt goes to him as he was in his house. That is how the jury will view it IMO.
If you are correct, it would be an example of jury nullification (not saying that's good or bad in general) because no law in Minnesota or any other state reflects what you are suggesting it should.
Why even have a jury then if only a guilty charge will be accepted? I know a thing or two about jury duty (have been on a jury for a homicide case in the late 80's and a jury for a civil case four years ago).
It is if someone is in your house after baking in.
Nope.
The legal standard in Minnesota is:
1. You must reasonably be in immediate fear of great bodily harm or death to yourself or another.
2. You must be a reluctant participant.
3. You must have no reasonable means of retreat. (Exception for your home, so irrelevant here.)
4. No lesser force would suffice, lethal force was a last resort
Saying "I couldn't know, but there might have been others, and so I was oh-so-scared" falls flat on its face when the requirement is immediate.
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.
