ErasureAcer
Banned
GAF is equating theft to murder?
What the ....?
What the ....?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Minnesota man who killed teens in break-in charged with murder
- Thread starter The Culture Vulture
- Start date
- Status
Twilight Princess
Member
i think im supposed to feel sad for the kids but i'm not 
old guy has to be locked up tho.
old guy has to be locked up tho.
Agent Unknown
Member
Nobody here is giving home invasion a pass. Stop splitting hairs and throwing around these stupid strawmen.
cat litter
Member
I agree with this, not defending his actions but, having your house broken into 8 times you could see how that fear could make you crazy.
Then again, why didnt he report all the robberies instead of just 1? i would've just moved
Good thing they're dead.
Count Dookkake
Member
Maybe they were fighting the overmedication of our population.
Agent Unknown
Member
So what's your point? Is the fact they stole meds before surprising to you?
Zoe
Member
At least one or two people here threw out the idea that he lied about the robbery.
Agent Unknown
Member
Well, that's an executable offense as per the constitution.
C'mon, was this really necessary?
IHaveCandy
Banned
We have to separate the difference between self-defense and execution.
Situation 1.
A man breaks into a home and is shot by the home owner in the head and dies. The home owner is innocent because he took prompt action to save himself. Since he had no real way to determine the real danger of the intruder, he was in his right to take the most serious measure and not put himself at risk.
Situation 2.
A man breaks into a home and is shot by the home owner in the chest but survives. He gives himself up and asks you to please call an ambulance for him. The intruder fully complies with the home-owner and is no longer being a threat to the home-owner. At this point, he just wants to have his wound attended to. The home-owner then shoots the intruder several times in the face while he is on the floor and was no longer acting as a threat. This is now an execution, not self defense. The action was not necessary because the home-owner had control of the situation and it would be easy to determine that the act was not necessary for his self-defense. You do not get to play the role of judge/jury/execution to an intruder. You are only meant to protect yourself. When you don't actually need to protect yourself any longer in this instance, your right to kill him should go away.
Situation 1.
A man breaks into a home and is shot by the home owner in the head and dies. The home owner is innocent because he took prompt action to save himself. Since he had no real way to determine the real danger of the intruder, he was in his right to take the most serious measure and not put himself at risk.
Situation 2.
A man breaks into a home and is shot by the home owner in the chest but survives. He gives himself up and asks you to please call an ambulance for him. The intruder fully complies with the home-owner and is no longer being a threat to the home-owner. At this point, he just wants to have his wound attended to. The home-owner then shoots the intruder several times in the face while he is on the floor and was no longer acting as a threat. This is now an execution, not self defense. The action was not necessary because the home-owner had control of the situation and it would be easy to determine that the act was not necessary for his self-defense. You do not get to play the role of judge/jury/execution to an intruder. You are only meant to protect yourself. When you don't actually need to protect yourself any longer in this instance, your right to kill him should go away.
I was just getting ahead of the people who would use this as justification for the old man executing these kids.
I'm okay with self defense, especially in rural areas. Cops are not going to get there quickly. That being said, I'm certainly not okay with execution shots. I find it kind of disturbing that someone would be some comfortable doing that. What the fuck. I also have issue with his description of the events. He shot them when he saw their hips? Jesus Christ. He couldn't tell if they were armed... Pretty fucked.
universalmind
Member
Look at me.
You can once again see how deeply the history is rooted in alot of American people.
And how there is nearly zero trust in the police force...
Mammoth Jones
Member
Trust is earned. Hard to trust the police when there's a good chance I'll get shot in the face and have crack sprinkled on me for my trouble.
Doubly so when the courts have decided police have no legal obligation to protect people.
At the end of the day when you invade someones home you are effectively risking your safety, your freedom, your life. They seriously should have considered the risks they were taking doing so.
Not to say dude was justified in executing them. Absolutely not. If they happened to die from the incapacitating shots then so be it but the law is clear once the threat is nullified.
Devolution
Member
Well the police get to figure just how much of a "threat" these thieves actually were. The whole thing about home invasions is that as much as someone might see them as a threat, it's not a black and white issue that you can just do whatever you want to someone on your property without your permission. Even people there to commit a crime have some rights. That's what gets lost in these arguments.
IHaveCandy
Banned
There are stipulations. For example, the people have to actually be breaking in. If you leave your door unlocked, and they just come right in, then they haven't broken in to your home. Why should the home-owner who is trying to simply be left alone and protect himself and his family take the risk of fully determining the threat of an intruder? An intruder breaking in to your home in the middle of the night is one of those few situations where you are better off shooting first, and asking questions later. Let's make a hypothetical.
You awaken to the sounds of intruders breaking in to your home. You cannot tell how many there are. You grab your gun and quietly listen to where they are going. You see one person down stairs. He is sacking all of your valuables. He looks very nervous. He is wearing a jacket that could be concealing a weapon. Do you take the shot or announce yourself? If you scare them off, who knows what will happen. Maybe they never come back, maybe they do. What if there is another intruder that sees you as a threat and is willing to take you out as you are distracted with the intruder you found? What if they are unwilling to wait for the police to arrive and are willing to fight back? There's too many what-ifs that the innocent home-owner must risk himself with. The intruder made the choice to invade the home. It shouldn't be up to the home-owner to attempt reason when it could get him killed.
Devolution
Member
I don't know what you're arguing. I'm arguing for the basic rights even criminals breaking into your home have. Being unlawfully detained or murdered isn't allowed simply because they broke in. There's a reason that the homeowner has to establish that they were defending their life, in most states, if the people breaking in are killed or injured.
Blackace
if you see me in a fight with a bear, don't help me fool, help the bear!
Ok you shoot the intruders they are wounded but living, then you precede to murder the now helpless intruders with multiple shots to the chest and a clean finishing move like Mortal Kombat
not psycho
Member
This is an open and shut case. "I want him dead"? "Good clean finishing shot"? He admitted he executed them, and it wasn't out of fear for his safety.
Let's even say he went crazy with fear of the intruders, and everything he did from that point is based on his fear (which does not agree with his own statement of what happened, but go with it). I don't care. Part of the responsibility of owning a gun is NOT to go crazy. After the initial shots when he had them on the ground defenseless and gasping for air, it was his responsibility not to murder them. That is a tough responsibility, true, but that is what you accept when you buy a gun.
Let's even say he went crazy with fear of the intruders, and everything he did from that point is based on his fear (which does not agree with his own statement of what happened, but go with it). I don't care. Part of the responsibility of owning a gun is NOT to go crazy. After the initial shots when he had them on the ground defenseless and gasping for air, it was his responsibility not to murder them. That is a tough responsibility, true, but that is what you accept when you buy a gun.
IHaveCandy
Banned
Who is arguing that executing once the threat is gone is okay?
Blake'sGrave
Member
fuck me, Off Topic is hilarious and horrifying in equal measure
Mammoth Jones
Member
Of course they have rights. And so does the homeowners. In this specific case considering the State in which it occurred the law outlines it VERY clearly. He had a right to shoot and stop the threat. He did not have the right to then summarily execute them, not call the cops, move the bodies, and wait a day.
So yea, the criminals have rights. But typically the right of the homeowner to protect themselves, their family and their property trumps an intruders "right" to not get hurt. Not saying that this is the case cause it's not. Dude is going to jail and he should. But he wouldn't be if he called the cops after he shot them initially.
People who are saying that he shouldn't be send to jail
Mammoth Jones
Member
Question (and I get where you're coming from completely I'm just curious and find this a great conversation):
Let's say he shot them once to incapacitate but they died. Should he be charged with murder? I would say the law is very clear: No. And most times when someone uses a firearm for home defense they do NOT want to hurt anyone and they definitely don't want to kill anyone. But being put in the position to defend themselves they take action. Sometimes the intruder lives, sometimes they don't. In this case that's not what happened and I'm pretty sure we all agree: That's murder.
It's like in my state I can't fire a warning shot. I can't shoot someone if they're fleeing. But at the same time I have no duty to retreat in my house. Outside is a different story.
Devolution
Member
I think it's completely dependent on the events. If someone is say in the process of stealing something and instead of ordering them to stop you shoot them in the back and your argument is "to incapacitate", I'm just not buying it. I think people are entitled to defend themselves though, if someone is running after you and or has a weapon themselves (which they seem ready to use) and you happen to shoot them in the face they died, well fuck 'em, you defended yourself. I also don't think some of these rules apply to all people. For example when that little 12 yr old girl shot an intruder, I didn't blame her at all.
Mammoth Jones
Member
I understand. Yea, in NYS you can't shoot someone in the back. That's a no-no. And at the end of the day I hope I never use my guns for anything other than punching holes in paper at the range.
IHaveCandy
Banned
You assume the intruder will react rationally. What if the intruder simply fires at you when you warn him? Isn't it plausible the intruders have a plan of action if they are caught? There is a good chance they won't simply comply with you and wait for the cops. How can you be certain they don't have a partner outside? The problem is you think you have the situation under control just by brandishing a gun when you don't.
Devolution
Member
That's why I said it's dependent on the course of events. Are you even reading what I'm posting? Mammoth is.
IHaveCandy
Banned
You sound like the better alternative is to order them to stop. I disagree. I think if you simply fire at an intruder with no warning, you've done no wrong. It's not your responsibility to risk it.
not psycho
Member
That is why we have investigations and (potentially) trials. They are supposed to (though do not always necessarily succeed) weed out which shootings were justified and which weren't.
In an extreme example, if the intruder is a 12 year old friend of your kid, who just wandered into your house, you would probably fail to convince a jury that shooting the intruder without warning was reasonable. If the opposite extreme, if the intruder is branishing a firearm of their own and appears to be on drugs, the investigation would probably find early on that shooting without warning was justified.
- Status