"You're dead," Minnesota Homeowner Told Teen Burglar

originally posted by: TinkerHaus

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Kryties

I don't see people really arguing the legal side.


I see people saying they don't have a problem with his actions.

Actually earlier in this thread you yourself said that he wasn't aware of what "premeditated" was and you were glad he doesn't live in our country. You were absolutely discussing legality as "premeditated" is a legal term.

Yes, yes I did.

Premeditated means there is an established plane to kill a specific person(s) in a specific manner with specific times.

I never stated what he did was legal or not.

You really should read what is put, before you spout off with BS.

originally posted by: Kryties
I don't believe that the law states that 'reasonable' includes repeatedly shooting the burglars dead well after they were incapacitated on the ground.

.. a court psychologist will include the mitigating factors of an old man being victimized over and over and over, and that the cops couldn't stop the crimes, and that the man felt the only way to stop the violence against him was to be rid of the criminals once and for all. It will be brought in as 'reasonable' behavior considering the factors.

When you are an old man, and if you are the victim of in home invasion violent crimes over and over and over ... you may indeed feel that the only way to stop them is to kill the perps when they enter your home again. It's a reasonable behavior given the situation. That's what the psychologists will say. And they'll have a very good point.

a reply to: macman

It's absolutely astonishing to me how you have completely missed the point. Well done, that must be quite an effort.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Yes, well done, you may or may not have a Psychology degree - whoopee doo for you!

Stop banging on about it.

On the one hand you say his mental state in that situation may have led him to his actions, but then why is the defence team not using this as his actual defence? That he was, at the time, mentally compromised.

This, however, is not bore out in subsequent Police interviews, where he quite calmly tells officers how he set up camp in his basement, complete with supplies and ammo, waiting for burglars who he then executes after incapacitating them,

a reply to: Kryties
Already addressed. Read the previous response about two posts up.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Except for the moving of the body because he was 'so in fear of his life' that he didn't want to get blood on his carpet - and oh yeah the bit where he put the gun to the girls chin from point blank and blew her head off after they were both clearly incapacitated. Don't forget to add those bits into your belief.

You are grasping at straws Flyer.

609.06 AUTHORIZED USE OF FORCE.
Subdivision 1.When authorized. Except as otherwise provided in subdivision 2, reasonable force may be used upon or toward the person of another without the other's consent when the following circumstances exist or the actor reasonably believes them to exist:

Source


Now let's define "reasonable force" as Minnesota does:

It is very important to remember that case law has added three additional rules, for a total of four rules that must be followed.
1. Reasonably in fear of death or great bodily harm for yourself or another.
2. Must have reluctantly entered the conflict.
3. Must have no reasonable means of retreat.
4. No lesser force will suffice to stop the threat.

Source



1: I do not believe Smith had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm once both intruders lay on the floor dying of their wounds.

2: Smith obviously did not enter into this conflict reluctantly, but gets a pass considering it was his home and there were multiple break-ins committed by the same individual.

3: Does not need a means to retreat, it is his home... But once the threat was neutralized he could have retreated to call law enforcement.

4: At the point that the home intruders were laying on the floor, dying, already shot, lesser force would have absolutely stopped any further risk to Smith's life or physical well-being.


It is very clear that after the initial incident, giving a "good, clean kill-shot" under the chin was very excessive.


A murder charge and conviction is appropriate.

a reply to: Kryties

Don't forget he moves the incapacitated burglars and then executes them, so he has already established there is no threat before he fires the fatal shots.

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: TinkerHaus

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Kryties

I don't see people really arguing the legal side.


I see people saying they don't have a problem with his actions.

Actually earlier in this thread you yourself said that he wasn't aware of what "premeditated" was and you were glad he doesn't live in our country. You were absolutely discussing legality as "premeditated" is a legal term.

Yes, yes I did.

Premeditated means there is an established plane to kill a specific person(s) in a specific manner with specific times.

I never stated what he did was legal or not.

You really should read what is put, before you spout off with BS.

BS? You mean like trying to frame an argument in a way that suits you despite having already ventured into the realm of conversation you argue against venturing into? That's BS right there.

Also, do you own firearms? Did you ever bother to educate yourself on what exactly is considered self-defense and what isn't? Executing people who cannot even move, let alone attempt to harm you is most definitely NOT self defense.

You and your ilk are just as responsible for the anti-gun sentiment in this country as the criminals who use them to commit crimes.

originally posted by: stumason

Another person unable to grasp an exceptionally simple premise.

Why keep repeating the tired old adage "Don't want to be shot..."

I don't disagree with it at all, in fact, I support it.

So then, being shot regardless if they are bleeding out or standing and fighting is moot then.
It is like stating there is a humane way of killing someone. In the end they are going to die.

originally posted by: stumason

Yep, you said that but clearly lack the mental agility to grasp that I agree with you.

Okay then.

originally posted by: stumason

Just pointing out that you can't do this on the battlefield after some guy has been shooting at you,

Uhhhh, you can shoot an enemy combatant while they are on the ground after being shot before.

But, that isn't the scenario. We aren't talking about wars.

originally posted by: stumason
so why do it in your basement with two wounded, unarmed teenagers. And before you say anything, he knows they are unarmed as he is dragging their bodies around before he executes them.

Why do it??? I would say why not. They should not have entered the house. Should the man let them live, only to think they will retaliate once released from prison?
They poked a bear, and got the end result.

originally posted by: stumason

Then aloow me to enlighten you - you do know what I am on about though, because it gathered huge attention here on ATS - you're just playing dumb:

Pharmacist jailed for life for executing robber

Thanks for the link. Although you may have been "enlightened" to it, I don't recall having heard about it.

originally posted by: stumason

Not what I was referencing. Read the above story. The guy was getting robbed, shot one and chased the rest out of his store. He then returns, gets another gun from behind the counter, walks up the now wounded and motionless robber and puts a few in his head.

I never said it was tied to the story......I had not heard of.


But, another instance where I don't have a problem of what the guy did.

On the one hand you say his mental state in that situation may have led him to his actions, but then why is the defence team not using this as his actual defence? That he was, at the time, mentally compromised.

They will. They will bring in that he was a repeated victim over and over and over.
They'll bring in the fact the cops didn't stop the crimes. Watch.

This, however, is not bore out in subsequent Police interviews, where he quite calmly tells officers how he set up camp in his basement, complete with supplies and ammo, waiting for burglars who he then executes after incapacitating them,

Repeat victimization and helplessness or hopelessness can cause people to do things to protect themselves.



I'm reminded of the Zimmerman trial. Before the trial, people were ready to hang him. I myself said he was guilty of Manslaughter. But then the facts came out in court and I had to reverse my position. No doubt we'll find out the facts of this incident when the court trial starts. It'll be rather interesting for sure ...

a reply to: stumason

Yep, it's way beyond the ability to believe he was still fearful for his life while he is dragging their incapacitated and/or dead bodies around on a tarp.

y'all can argue over his 'mental state' all you want, but it went from home defense to murder after he'd already shot the boy coming down the stairs, drug him into his workshop and then shot him in the face. the same with the girl, he shot under the chin 'because .22s don't penetrate bone well'. she, too, had already been 'incapacitated' .... perhaps she shouldn't have laughed at him when his shotgun jammed. ... which likely precipitated his anger/frustration further so he put the .22 under her chin and 'finished her off [== murder]

they were, for all intents and purposes, already incapacitated [== threat removed].

he'll do time for murder, as he should.

originally posted by: 12m8keall2c
y'all can argue over his 'mental state' all you want, ... but it went from home defense to murder

... defense or murder ... depends on his mental state.
So we gotta' talk about it.

originally posted by: TinkerHaus

BS? You mean like trying to frame an argument in a way that suits you despite having already ventured into the realm of conversation you argue against venturing into? That's BS right there.

Yes, I stand by the statement of your crap being BS.

originally posted by: TinkerHaus
Also, do you own firearms?

Not the topic at hand.

originally posted by: TinkerHaus
Did you ever bother to educate yourself on what exactly is considered self-defense and what isn't? Executing people who cannot even move, let alone attempt to harm you is most definitely NOT self defense.

And where oh where have I stated that what he did was legal or illegal??? Hmmmm?
I am well aware of what the local and state laws are regarding this.

originally posted by: TinkerHaus
You and your ilk are just as responsible for the anti-gun sentiment in this country as the criminals who use them to commit crimes.

Who said I would shoot them??? I would rather have them disappear then shoot them.
Shooting them will only make a biological mess in my clean home.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

... defense or murder ... depends on his mental state.

His mental state includes being worried that the blood would stain his carpet.

Sorry, I'm not buying it.

originally posted by: macman

Shooting them will only make a biological mess in my clean home.

The man in question already had an answer to that - a tarp to drag them off his carpet.

a reply to: FlyersFan

only hope he's got is 'temp insanity' due to the previous breakins and his feeling victimized by it all.

??

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: TinkerHaus

BS? You mean like trying to frame an argument in a way that suits you despite having already ventured into the realm of conversation you argue against venturing into? That's BS right there.

Yes, I stand by the statement of your crap being BS.

originally posted by: TinkerHaus
Also, do you own firearms?

Not the topic at hand.

originally posted by: TinkerHaus
Did you ever bother to educate yourself on what exactly is considered self-defense and what isn't? Executing people who cannot even move, let alone attempt to harm you is most definitely NOT self defense.

And where oh where have I stated that what he did was legal or illegal??? Hmmmm?
I am well aware of what the local and state laws are regarding this.

originally posted by: TinkerHaus
You and your ilk are just as responsible for the anti-gun sentiment in this country as the criminals who use them to commit crimes.

Who said I would shoot them??? I would rather have them disappear then shoot them.
Shooting them will only make a biological mess in my clean home.

...Cannot reply intelligently. Must result to.. yes, BS!

Because that's all your responses to me have been so far. BS. Nothing researched, nothing thought out, just BS.

Your cutely appeal to those on your side is nothing more than that.. A cutesy appeal to those on your side when you haven't the capacity to intelligently argue the matter further.

You lose. Good day.

Oh and, some further education for you. Stop just parroting crap you hear or see on TV and your favorite gun websites.

newtrajectory.blogspot.com...

a reply to: Kryties
Most people do not understand copyright law (Pinterest is an example), much less the legalities of shooting an intruder--from what I've read, the homeowner appears to have been vague on the law (or perhaps he knew and chose not to be mindful of it). I certainly don't uphold the manner in which he dealt with the intruders, but I can understand one's need to protect hearth, home, and family. Imho the issue seems bigger than home defense vs two counts of murder. Perhaps I'm overthinking...but the crux of the matter seems (imho) to be a failed criminal justice system.
Peace to you, Kryties.