1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. From courtside seating to loudville Amazing Tickets offers a fantastic selection of Cavs tickets at the cheapest prices found anywhere.
  3. Please select the "Splash-Mobile" style if ads are breaking your tablet/phone's browser. You can find the style chooser on the bottom left of the website. - Ben

Man Executes Two Teen Intruders

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Biw, Nov 28, 2012.

  1. Biw

    Biw The One Who Knocks

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,881
    Likes Received:
    2,277
    [​IMG]

    http://www.startribune.com/local/180853761.html?page=all&prepage=1&c=y#continue



    I can't defend breaking into someone's house, but Jesus...
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2012
    3 people like this.
  2. Earl

    Earl Situational Stopper

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,395
    Likes Received:
    476
    Only in America
     
  3. gourimoko

    gourimoko Fighting the good fight!

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2008
    Messages:
    9,010
    Likes Received:
    14,092
    I'd take what we got over what anybody else has anyday of the fucking week...
     
    18 people like this.
  4. gourimoko

    gourimoko Fighting the good fight!

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2008
    Messages:
    9,010
    Likes Received:
    14,092
    On topic, it's murder... obviously the guy is deranged. But the kids brought it on themselves. You break into a man's home, repeatedly (hell even once), you should totally expect to die if you get caught.

    I'd say the kids might have been equally as deranged as the man who executed them, especially if his account that the girl was laughing after being shot and hearing her cousin murdered is accurate.
     
    6 people like this.
  5. Mac

    Mac Slow Motion See Me Let Go

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Messages:
    10,536
    Likes Received:
    1,851
    Better hope somebody like me isn't on that jury, no way In hell I am voting guilty because he protected his home.

    You break into a man's home, you pay the price for what happens when he catches you.

    Tough luck
     
    3 people like this.
  6. SpanishCavsfan

    SpanishCavsfan Working the media

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2008
    Messages:
    777
    Likes Received:
    811
    Shooting someone in self defense is one thing, but making sure that they're good and dead in the way he did is crazy, and in no way would I want someone like that out free.
     
    12 people like this.
  7. bcort

    bcort Sixth Man

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Messages:
    1,704
    Likes Received:
    1,346
    Yeah, he should go to prison. Shooting them? I'm perfectly alright with. The problem is the second shot to the girl's head. Odd "What if"... If the shotgun didn't jam, and he simply fired another round into her (not up close), then called the cops, would he still be looking to go to jail? Probably not, but that's not what happened.
     
  8. The Oi

    The Oi Or Also Schtick

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    30,792
    Likes Received:
    44,343
    The kids are white and he's white, so this story will go away quickly. In addition to that, the guy has been very forthcoming with his motivations, so he's not leaving many questions un-answered. There really appears to be no mystery here other than whether (a) anyone really had broken into the guy's house in the past and (b) whether it was these two. So, my analysis here comes with the caveat that it's based on the facts as they're presented right now, obviously my opinion could change as more details come out.



    In my completely non-expert opinion, the (likely) applicable Minnesota statutes for authorized use of force and justifiable taking of life read:

    609.06 AUTHORIZED USE OF FORCE.
    (4) when used by any person in lawful possession of real or personal property, or by another assisting the person in lawful possession, in resisting a trespass upon or other unlawful interference with such property; or

    So he's authorized to use force in resisting the trespass according to that law. Question remains as to whether killing them was reasonable force to resist the trespass or if a lower level of action would have done the job sufficiently. Need more facts to argue either way. But based on what he himself has confessed, it sounds to me as if killing them was unreasonable force. So if I had to make a (non-expert) argument defending him, I'd say that shooting the first individual when he saw his hips would be reasonable. PARTICULARLY because seeing their hips might indicate that he was trying to inflict a wound on the lower half of their body, leaving less risk of inflicting a mortal wound. Waiting until he saw their chest and head could indicate that he intended to kill them from the beginning. If I could argue that he intended to shoot them in the lower half of the body to incapacitate them and stop the crime, I'd guess we'd have a pretty good shot to demonstrate reasonable force.

    To continue on to the next part of the authorized use of force sub-division.

    609.06 AUTHORIZED USE OF FORCE.
    reasonable force may be authorized...

    (5) when used by any person to prevent the escape, or to retake following the escape, of a person lawfully held on a charge or conviction of a crime; or


    Again, shooting them below the chest seems to be an easy reasonable force argument. It would be reasonable to expect that to stop their escape. What seems to me to be an added wrench, is that neither of the teens appeared to have been attempting to escape or even physically capable of escape after the first shot(s). I'm guessing (5) doesn't help them very much here, because preventing escape may have been moot.

    The next (likely) applicable statute:


    609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.
    The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.

    If ONLY the first part of that sentence existed, "when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonable believes exposes the actor...to great bodily harm or death," he might not get off. Reason being, the prosecution would probably demonstrate that by the time he killed them, he wouldn't reasonable believe he was exposed to bodily harm or death. They didn't have any weapons and it sounds as if they were completely incapacitated by the first shot(s). HOWEVER, the second half states, "or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode."

    At this point, it becomes cut and dry in my opinion legally. They were committing 2nd degree burglary which MN law defines as:

    609.582 BURGLARY.

    Subd. 2.Burglary in the second degree. (a) Whoever enters a building without consent and with intent to commit a crime, or enters a building without consent and commits a crime while in the building, either directly or as an accomplice, commits burglary in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both, if:
    (1) the building is a dwelling;


    Their crime satisfies the second degree burglary definition and is thus a felony. Statute 609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE authorizes an individual in their place of abode to take a life if it prevents commission of a felony.

    That's what he did. And that's why I think he'll get off.
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2012
    1 person likes this.
  9. Spectre

    Spectre Playin' for keeps...

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,868
    Likes Received:
    2,697
    There's a big difference between defending yourself and firing "more shots than I needed to" followed by a coup de grace on an 18-year old girl gasping for air. This guy is fucking nuts and should be put away... and I say that as someone who believes in gun rights and the right to self-defense.
     
    1 person likes this.
  10. Soda

    Soda Bania'd

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2008
    Messages:
    8,364
    Likes Received:
    6,453
    Retarded. Kids should've gotten into trouble. You just justified shooting someone under the chin into the brain. That is execution. Internet hard-ass.
     
    2 people like this.
  11. ChicagoCavFan

    ChicagoCavFan Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2005
    Messages:
    6,725
    Likes Received:
    5,927
    Something about the story does not add up. One goes down the stairs, he shoots a couple times. Then the girl goes down the same way, and gets shot. WTF? Were they not together?
     
    4 people like this.
  12. CardiacCavs

    CardiacCavs A Dream of Spring

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2009
    Messages:
    3,720
    Likes Received:
    2,306
    The man will probably be set free, but I feel like some sort of penalty should be arranged. What happened with the girl shows that he took it a step further than self defense. She was laying there, probably bleeding out, harmless and he shot her in the head. Completely unnecessary and pretty brutal. Of course the two kids are not in any way innocent, but I'm not sure I would want this kind of guy living in the same town as me (with only 8000 people I think it said). I mean, if my neighbor came to my house asking if I knew any lawyers because he just killed two teenagers, I would be a little unsettled...
     
  13. KI4MVP

    KI4MVP formerly LJ4MVP

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,078
    Likes Received:
    8,998
    I'm not sure your conclusions are right. They would be right had he killed them with the first shot. He probably wouldn't even be charged. But what he did here

    is quite clearly murder, for which he should be convicted.
     
    2 people like this.
  14. Chris

    Chris Welcome to the Future

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Messages:
    23,435
    Likes Received:
    13,233
    And starts laughing after she falls down the stairs? What? Weird story, to say the least.

    Anyone defending this guy is just as much of a psychopath as him, but I question some of the "facts" of this case. I am one of those people that is all for the use of deadly force when people break into your home, because there is NO way for you to know what their intent is, what sort of weapons they have, etc. If you don't want to be on the business end of a shotgun, don't break into peoples' homes.

    On the other hand, there is ZERO- and I mean zero justification for cold blooded execution as described in this case.
     
    1 person likes this.
  15. Chris

    Chris Welcome to the Future

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Messages:
    23,435
    Likes Received:
    13,233
    I don't see how people think this guy will be set free. Do you all know a ton more about the legal system than me? Probably, but he blatantly describes how he executed two kids in cold blood. I mean, come on.
     
    1 person likes this.
  16. The Oi

    The Oi Or Also Schtick

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    30,792
    Likes Received:
    44,343
    I wonder at which point there's a cut off in what you can do to someone committing a crime on your property. Surely, you can't bind and torture someone to death.

    KI just read your post. That's the part I'm questioning too. I don't see anything in the law indicating that he can't shoot her again when she's laying there gasping. Surely there's some kind of time cut-off or incapacitation cut off or something though.

    I'm not sure how you could say my conclusions are incorrect. My conclusions are based on the law I cited. My conclusions probably aren't incorrect until someone can demonstrate that we did is considered cold blooded murder under the law.
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2012
  17. The Oi

    The Oi Or Also Schtick

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    30,792
    Likes Received:
    44,343
    Did you read the last part of my post above? I looked up the statutes. The last paragraph is why I think he'll get off.

    And "defending" him doesn't make me, his attorney or anyone else a psycopath if they're using the law to argue it. And "defending" him is not what I'm doing either. I'm citing the law and stating my guess as to what his attorney will argue.

    I personally think the guy is crazy. It's a matter of how the law is used to demonstrate whether his supposed craziness is relevant or enough to overturn what, on the surface, appears to be a case that COULD be argued to suggest he's within his rights.
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2012
  18. Chris

    Chris Welcome to the Future

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Messages:
    23,435
    Likes Received:
    13,233
    Call me fucking naive, but I'd be shocked if he got off on cold blooded execution. Legalities bore me to tears and I'm not about to go searching through pages and pages of laws and statutes but this guy is going to get serious time.

    Seriously, when the perp is on the ground choking on their own blood, I think the "commission of a felony" has been prevented. There is nothing in there that should get this guy off for putting a gun under a person's chin (a person who is dying and will die without medical help) and squeezing the trigger. I don't see what you see, apparently.
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2012
  19. Chris

    Chris Welcome to the Future

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Messages:
    23,435
    Likes Received:
    13,233
    I wasn't saying you were defending him. I know you are simply trying to analyze the law and see where he stands, legally. The guy is clearly nuts as is anyone else defending his actions.
     
  20. KI4MVP

    KI4MVP formerly LJ4MVP

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,078
    Likes Received:
    8,998
    he had already prevented the crime, those shots were allowed. The law doesn't allow for the subsequent execution.
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2012

Share This Page