Man Executes Two Teen Intruders

[Shakalu M.D.]

Because he handled it wrong. His actions PROBABLY exceeded his legal capacity. Dragging their bodies in a tarp into his shed and leaving it over night? He should of first called his lawyer then the cops. Situation could have been handled much better by him, which is why potential murder is in the question.

The murder is in question because everybody knows it stopped being self defense once the kids were both shot the first time. They were unarmed and couldn't fight back. He was no longer in danger, after the first shot just call the cops and let them handle it. He basically admitted that he executed the girl because she pissed him off. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if he ends up charged with second degree murder. At the very least I expect him to go down for manslaughter.

 

[Mac]

When people start becoming the "monday morning armchair quarterback" is when we start having problems.

This quote sums it up, IMHO:



As long as the prosecutors can prove that they (the criminals who broke into his home) didn't pose a threat after the first shots, I think this guy is going to get voluntary manslaughter...and he probably deserves it - of course I'd like to hear more about it. I have no remorse for the kids....really. You break into someone's house 6 times....you really have no clue what you're doing. I'm all for castle doctrine rights and everything and I would NEVER want to protect rights of criminals, EVER, but if the threat is over....I have to think you immediately call 911 and either leave the house (not likely) or continue to monitor the situation. If, then, the kids continued to pose a threat (who knows, maybe they did at that point and didn't care for their lives - maybe they didn't in the first place) then I would recommend further action.

PS - chick is hot...I would have saved her life...literally.

You can't prove that though. One shot doesn't put a person down in all situations. Some people die with one shot of a 22, some people live with multiple wounds of a higher caliber. Some people die with shots to the leg (the football player for a famous reference) and some people take multiple shots to the head and live to see another day.

One shot or one wound doesn't settle anything....did the guy take it too far? Absolutely. But to say the threat is over after one shot wound is absurd and shows a clear lack of understanding of gun shot wounds. (Not that I am an expert obviously...)

Especially when there are drugs involved, because depending on the drugs, one can go far past their normal capacity depending on how high they are. And this situation looks clearly drug related.


You protect your home until YOU THE HOMEOWNER feel the threat is over. A lawyer can't define a threat.

 

[Mac]

The murder is in question because everybody knows it stopped being self defense once the kids were both shot the first time. They were unarmed and couldn't fight back. He was no longer in danger, after the first shot just call the cops and let them handle it. He basically admitted that he executed the girl because she pissed him off. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if he ends up charged with second degree murder. At the very least I expect him to go down for manslaughter.

You don't know that. You have no idea of what one's capacity is just because they were shot. See my above post.

Did he take it too far? In a reasonable world? Sure. But I will always give the homeowner the benefit of the doubt, you protect your home until you feel the threat from a felon is over.

 

[Lee]

You can't prove that though. One shot doesn't put a person down in all situations. Some people die with one shot of a 22, some people live with multiple wounds of a higher caliber. Some people die with shots to the leg (the football player for a famous reference) and some people take multiple shots to the head and live to see another day.

One shot or one wound doesn't settle anything....did the guy take it too far? Absolutely. But to say the threat is over after one shot wound is absurd and shows a clear lack of understanding of gun shot wounds. (Not that I am an expert obviously...)

Especially when there are drugs involved, because depending on the drugs, one can go far past their normal capacity depending on how high they are. And this situation looks clearly drug related.


You protect your home until YOU THE HOMEOWNER feel the threat is over. A lawyer can't define a threat.

Lawyers argue cases, laws define a threat. And yes, it can be proven by medical evidence, his own testimony, and where the bodies were found that they were no longer a threat. Your attitude is as much what is wrong with this country as the punk kids that broke into the guys house.

 

[Mac]

My attitude? What? Because I feel you should be able to defend your home at all costs? That's absurd... Law abiding citizens like myself should always have the right to defend themselves against those that feel they shouldn't have to follow the law. That's a problem??

And the lawyer can argue it until he is blue in the face. At the end of the day, the guy didn't know what health status they were in, what weapons they possible had, what drugs they possibly were on, or what the level of threat was. You can eliminate the threat, up to death, in this situation for precisely that reason.

The statute that Jigo pulled up, mentioned nothing in regards to when the homeowner has to stop should he shoot or wound X amount of times.

 

[Shakalu M.D.]

You don't know that. You have no idea of what one's capacity is just because they were shot. See my above post.

Did he take it too far? In a reasonable world? Sure. But I will always give the homeowner the benefit of the doubt, you protect your home until you feel the threat from a felon is over.

We know at least that the girl was on the ground and struggling to breathe. So yeah, we do know that she was no longer a threat when he executed her.

 

[Mac]

We know at least that the girl was on the ground and struggling to breathe. So yeah, we do know that she was no longer a threat when he executed her.

People can't pull a trigger if they are struggling to breath?

You do NOT know she was no longer a threat at that point.

 

[Pick6]

The statute that Jigo pulled up, mentioned nothing in regards to when the homeowner has to stop should he shoot or wound X amount of times.

exactly. The law says you can use "reasonable" force. The jury will decide whether it was reasonable or not.

 

[Shakalu M.D.]

People can't pull a trigger if they are struggling to breath?

You do NOT know she was no longer a threat at that point.

She was unarmed, what trigger was there to pull? She was defenseless enough that the guy felt comfortable walking over to her, grabbing her head and lifting it, sticking his gun under her chin, and then pulling the trigger. If he was truly concerned that she was a threat he would have shot her from a distance rather than getting close and giving her an opportunity to pull a gun on him.

 

[Mac]

She was unarmed, what trigger was there to pull? She was defenseless enough that the guy felt comfortable walking over to her, grabbing her head and lifting it, sticking his gun under her chin, and then pulling the trigger. If he was truly concerned that she was a threat he would have shot her from a distance rather than getting close and giving her an opportunity to pull a gun on him.

You don't know what she has, that is the point.

And the jury will figure it out, I am sure.

But until then, this message board seem likes a perfectly reasonable place for people to banter about it, no?

 

[Shakalu M.D.]

You don't know what she has, that is the point.

And the jury will figure it out, I am sure.

But until then, this message board seem likes a perfectly reasonable place for people to banter about it, no?

I didn't say we shouldn't discuss it. I'm just saying that executing them is going to far. That's my opinion and the one that I'm defending.

Again, if he's concerned that she may have a weapon, why would he walk up to her and shoot her point blank? It would be safer to put another bullet in her at a distance, no?

Not to mention he basically admitted that he did it because she pissed him off.

 

[Mac]

Most would agree that he took it too far. I am just on the side of the fence that they got what they asked for and there is no way in hell I would ever convict a man for protecting his home...to clarify my stance.

I have no remorse for thugs. Once you commit a felony, you have lost all of your given rights.

 

[The Oi]

Lawyers argue cases, laws define a threat. And yes, it can be proven by medical evidence, his own testimony, and where the bodies were found that they were no longer a threat. Your attitude is as much what is wrong with this country as the punk kids that broke into the guys house.

Yes, but the jury is going to have to determine whether HE felt they were still a threat. His attorney better do a kick-ass job of showing that he was a scared, frustrated old man who feared nothing more than supernaturally strong druggies.

 

[Gimme Some Mo]

If someone breaks into my house and I have a gun... I shoot them until they are dead. I don't want those motherfuckers coming back for me after they get out of prison.

Obviously this guy sounds crazy... but just sayin.

I haven't read through every post, but since this guy sounds so insane, shouldn't his whole story be questioned? Even the part about the kids breaking in? With the way he dragged them around the house and didn't call the police it seems perfectly reasonable to me that this dude kidnapped these kids or set them up and somehow got them to come to his house and he murdered them and then set it up to make it look like they broke in.

 

[Chris]

You can't prove that though. One shot doesn't put a person down in all situations. Some people die with one shot of a 22, some people live with multiple wounds of a higher caliber. Some people die with shots to the leg (the football player for a famous reference) and some people take multiple shots to the head and live to see another day.

One shot or one wound doesn't settle anything....did the guy take it too far? Absolutely. But to say the threat is over after one shot wound is absurd and shows a clear lack of understanding of gun shot wounds. (Not that I am an expert obviously...)

Especially when there are drugs involved, because depending on the drugs, one can go far past their normal capacity depending on how high they are. And this situation looks clearly drug related.


You protect your home until YOU THE HOMEOWNER feel the threat is over. A lawyer can't define a threat.

What the fuck are you on about?

The girl was on the ground gasping for air. I don't know if you're familiar with firearms and gunshot wounds, but generally that means you are down for the count. I honestly can't think of ANY situation where you can try to tell me she was still a threat if this douchebag was able to drag her next to her cousin, put a revolver underneath her chin and then squeeze the trigger. Really, let's use some common deductive skills here.

As for defining a threat, that's for the jury to decide. I have this inkling that a jury is probably not going to find an 18 year old girl with a gaping gunshot wound (or multiple) much of a threat to the grown ass man armed to the teeth that dragged her into the next room and blew her brains out while she gasped for air and choked on her own blood.

Just an inkling.