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

Thieves if you hear a shot start praying i seldom miss twice.

I would have turned out the lights and then shot the thieves with my 12 gauge. Then claimed that with the light out i saw something that looked like a gun.

Then again i might not have even called the cops just bagged them and dropped them in the river or buried them deep in the woods.

just look at the number of teens with criminal records that have been missing for years.

Being a ex firefighter i still have a couple body bags.

originally posted by: macman
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.

There is no guarantee they were going to die - they were certainly wounded enough they posed no threat as he was able to move them prior to executing them.

originally posted by: macman
Uhhhh, you can shoot an enemy combatant while they are on the ground after being shot before.

Er, no you can't. If an enemy is wounded and poses no threat or has surrendered, he is entitled to medical help under the Geneva conventions. If you are or have been in the Military and think it is ok to just execute a wounded enemy, then you're no better than an SS officer in WW2.

Royal Marines on trial for "field execution"

originally posted by: macman
Why do it??? I would say why not.

because it is a callous act of a vengeful person, not to mention murder.

originally posted by: macman
They should not have entered the house. Should the man let them live, only to think they will retaliate once released from prison?

As I have said, however, I don't disagree with defending oneself, but this isn't an example of that. The first shots were justified, the executions were not.

And you're making a massive assumption that

a) they would have gone to prison at all

b) they wouldn't have actually learnt a lesson. I know I would if I got shot, I'd think, "Sod that"

originally posted by: macman
They poked a bear, and got the end result.

Using your analogy, they poked a bear, got a good paw-swipe which took them down and then the bear proceeded to drag them into his cave to chew their heads off while they were unconscious.

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

It's a good example of where the line of "self defence" is.

I want the right to defend my property.

And it's guys like this who will loose me that right. He murdered them.

Article states plainly he set up "recording devices" so in reality all he needed to do was what use a camera? Wildlife cams are 79.99 at walmart and work in the dark, our system once you have someone on tape isn't draconian enough? 2 Felonies, can't vote, can't own a gun, time in jail with the father rapers and other psychos, wont go to university, jobs for LIFE limited to things like shoveling manure... sounds like the death penalty to me... in a way.

And then if you had to shoot them, laying on the ground? finish an execution... that's the step too far and frankly just for sheer stupidity, if your going to get all up in arms about it why the hell use a noisy gun? And then... it's not exactly Manhattan, thinking about the fact that your in a small town you might want to realize that the story of "repeatedly robbing stupid old man winter" probably got passed over to friends and when they turn up missing other kids would know where they went...duhr

This guy was crackers... if he recorded sound he could have recorded voice and nailed them in a better way, went way over the top executing one of them at least, and then, was just plain stupid and didn't think it through.

originally posted by: Kryties

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.

And I would state that is a great way to make sure the carpet doesn't get dirty. I applaud that action.

Last thing I would want to do, is clean up some POS biologicals from my floor.

originally posted by: igor12675
a reply to: FlyersFan

The fact remains in a country where people have guns its pretty dumb to break in to someones home.
a tragic waste of young lives though

'Waste of young lives', do you mean the thieving or the death. Being a thief at a young age is a waste, they could have actually contributed to society, but the chose not to. Since they were thieves it wasn't a waste of bullets.

a reply to: FlyersFan

If you perceived "snarkiness", then it is because you appear to be waving the fact you have a degree in everyone's faces as if you're somehow superior and therefore shouldn't be argued with because you know better.

Whether you have a Psych degree or not is neither here nor there and is irrelevant. I personally don't hold much stock in Psychology anyway - lots of talking, lots of bollocks and endless analysing of every action and thought with the end result of, well, not much but yet more talking and analysing.

Hmm, having read the transcripts I'm not comfortable with this being labelled 'justified burglar shooting', and I'm generally pro shooting burglars. I laughed so hard I peed when I saw the police tell the story of the two home invaders who ended up the wrong end of a huge calibre gun (one was almost bisected).

I can't see how the shot girl on the floor was any kind of threat to him or his property when he killed her. The boy was forgivable and he probably deserved it, but no 2 was lying on the ground shot and injured and he executed her.

That's murder. I'd say murder two. They did after all give the poor old guy a reason to be holding a gun in self defence initially, but she was no longer a threat when he killed her.

originally posted by: TinkerHaus

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

Sounds like a personal problem then. The fact that you cant reply is a sad state to live in.

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

And that is why you can't reply to it??? Interesting.

originally posted by: TinkerHaus
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.

Are you hitting on me? Calling me cute isn't going to get you anywhere with me. May I suggest a nice steak dinner.

originally posted by: TinkerHaus
You lose. Good day.

Are you seriously quoting Charlie and the Chocolate Factory?
So, I loose, (not lose) therefore you leave?

Okay then.

originally posted by: TinkerHaus
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...

And what crap would that be???

Seeing as that the article you provided is about the statement of "Molon labe" and I have that under my screen name, and that I have yet to state it within this thread, please explain to me how that is parroting?
I don't think you understand the term "parroting".

originally posted by: stumason

There is guarantee they were going to die - they were certainly wounded enough they posed no threat as he was able to move them prior to executing them.

I have seen wounded people still fight.

originally posted by: stumason

Er, no you can't. If an enemy is wounded and poses no threat or has surrendered, he is entitled to medical help under the Geneva conventions. If you are or have been in the Military and think it is ok to just execute a wounded enemy, then you're no better than an SS officer in WW2.

If you are engaged in battle, shooting a wounded enemy combatant is not against anything.

If you are not actively engaged, then no, shooting them further is not allowed.

Here are a couple of hints.
This is not the topic and maybe when giving scenarios to back your statement, you be detailed.

originally posted by: stumason

because it is a callous act of a vengeful person, not to mention murder.

And I don't have a problem with it.

originally posted by: stumason

As I have said, however, I don't disagree with defending oneself, but this isn't an example of that. The first shots were justified, the executions were not.

Well, then it is defense for possible future actions against him.

originally posted by: stumason
And you're making a massive assumption that

a) they would have gone to prison at all

b) they wouldn't have actually learnt a lesson. I know I would if I got shot, I'd think, "Sod that"

I do believe this whole thread is filled with assumptions.

originally posted by: stumason

Using your analogy, they poked a bear, got a good paw-swipe which took them down and then the bear proceeded to drag them into his cave to chew their heads off while they were unconscious.

Yep.
We have no problem with that, when people mess with the bear, and the bear kills the person.

originally posted by: stumason

It's a good example of where the line of "self defence" is.

Well, thanks for "enlightening" me.

originally posted by: knowledgedesired
a reply to: FlyersFan

I wonder if the recording device picked up an words like...

STOP

I AM ARMED

LEAVE BEFORE I SHOOT

Probably not....

I'm sure the robbers did not announce they were breaking into his house either. You want to enter someone's house to burglarize it, I have no sympathy and side with the owner.

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: Kryties

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.

And I would state that is a great way to make sure the carpet doesn't get dirty. I applaud that action.

Last thing I would want to do, is clean up some POS biologicals from my floor.

Genuine question: Did you get your insatiable bloodlust from the army, or were you born with it?

a reply to: mugger

Or how about basically stating "Hey, bad guys in my house unlawfully. I am over here in the corner with a 6 shot revolver. Please don't sneak up on me while one person distracts me".

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: Kryties

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.

And I would state that is a great way to make sure the carpet doesn't get dirty. I applaud that action.

Last thing I would want to do, is clean up some POS biologicals from my floor.

Genuine question: Did you get your insatiable bloodlust from the army, or were you born with it?

I was never in the Army.


So, it must have been when the Koch brothers delivered me and vowed me to a life of Conservatism.

Or maybe it was studying under Genghis Khan.

I really don't recall at this point.


I have to go though. Must feast on some virgin albino hippies.

a reply to: macman

I only asked because you clearly couldn't give a damn about actual intruder laws, only the fact that the man shot two people and you get to fantasise about it.

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: TinkerHaus

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

Sounds like a personal problem then. The fact that you cant reply is a sad state to live in.

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

And that is why you can't reply to it??? Interesting.

originally posted by: TinkerHaus
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.

Are you hitting on me? Calling me cute isn't going to get you anywhere with me. May I suggest a nice steak dinner.

originally posted by: TinkerHaus
You lose. Good day.

Are you seriously quoting Charlie and the Chocolate Factory?
So, I loose, (not lose) therefore you leave?

Okay then.

originally posted by: TinkerHaus
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...

And what crap would that be???

Seeing as that the article you provided is about the statement of "Molon labe" and I have that under my screen name, and that I have yet to state it within this thread, please explain to me how that is parroting?
I don't think you understand the term "parroting".

It's spelled "lose."

www.dictionary.com

Had I known in the first place this was the level of intelligence I was dealing with I would have just abstained from getting involved.

Thanks though, this actually made me laugh.

Your response really highlights exactly what I was referring to. It's actually pretty sad.

lol, my Grandpa beat the crap out of 2 Burglers that came in off his fire escape in Brooklyn when he was 83 (and yes guys that come in off your fire escape in Brooklyn are way more hardcore than teen age athletes from bumbledebumb mid America)

He used his cane and it had a big bronze knob at the end and was quite enough at 82 a bronze knob to someones head is still a Bronze knob to the head, you don't need much power the arc of the swing generates all you need... just sayin

Must feast on some virgin albino hippies. = Play Call of Duty

self edited .... not getting sucked in.

Self edited ... not getting sucked in.

Basically what I'm seeing in this thread is one side using facts and logic to further their argument versus the other side which only seems to want to salivate over the fact that a homeowner killed two burglars regardless of its legality.

In a nutshell it's Facts vs Bloodlust.