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

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I totally agree that the kids shouldn't have been breaking into peoples houses, but from the sounds of it the owner made sure that the last time they did, they were walking into something akin to the "Saw" or "Hostel" movies.

Doesn't matter how wrong the kids were, they clearly weren't a threat when he put killshots into their heads.

originally posted by: The Vagabond
executing a wounded child who can no longer be considered a threat.

- Loaded language. An 18 year old man who is in great shape from playing sports, and who has a criminal mentality, and who is a repeat offender, is not a 'wounded child'.

- Wounded thieves can still be a threat. Just because someone has a bullet hole in them doesn't mean they aren't still capable of being a threat.

Out of his own sense of machismo and not wanting his glory days as a state enforcer to be over,

You assume to know his motivations and so project 'machismo' and 'glory days' on him. I could just as easily assume 'scared old man who was repeatedly victimized'. We know my statement is true. We don't know your psychological assessment is.

this crazy old coot DESTROYED EVIDENCE.

He shouldn't have moved the body ... But keeping in mind that he was the victim of crime after crime after crime ... and the cops did nothing to stop them ... people do things when they are in deep fear that they wouldn't normally do.

I find your terminology interesting. The victim of repeated crimes is a 'crazy old coot with machismo and looking for glory days'. The repeat offender thieves who carried out some of the crimes are just 'wounded children' (even though one of them was an adult). You should get a job with the MSM ... you have a great talent for loaded language. (and I say that will full respect for your mod-hood).

originally posted by: FlyersFan

- Wounded thieves can still be a threat. Just because someone has a bullet hole in them doesn't mean they aren't still capable of being a threat.

If the owner thought the kids were still a threat then why walk up to them, place a gun literally to their heads and pull the trigger? If he was SO afraid of them wouldn't he have at least shot at them from a distance? Wasn't he putting himself at extreme risk by putting a gun directly to their heads?

I call major BS.

a reply to: Kryties

Well, a person needs to know what they're getting into. These kids really did push the guy.

Just wanted to add that if it'd been me, I'd probably, knowing myself, have started lecturing them and yelling at them while we waited for the cops to get there. And called them "punks" and "losers" and "brats" and told them they should be ashamed.

But that's just how I am.
My kids' father used to say I needed a whistle to take with me to the park playground when they were toddlers....I was always 'monitoring' the other kids.

And if forced to shoot, I'm one of those who would shoot to disable, not to kill. My husband says that's stupid.
I say it's my style.

a reply to: FlyersFan

- Loaded language. An 18 year old man who is in great shape from playing sports, and who has a criminal mentality, and who is a repeat offender, is not a 'wounded child'.

- Wounded thieves can still be a threat. Just because someone has a bullet hole in them doesn't mean they aren't still capable of being a threat.

Very valid points.
Like my husband says, never assume they don't have a knife or other weapon hidden. Just take them out.

Still, I would only try for 'unconscious' if I could.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I agree. At the VERY LEAST I would have waited until I could get a clear look at the thieves, and whether they were armed or looked to be a threat, before I either started yelling at them or put a bullet in their legs - followed by immediately calling the relevant emergency services.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Unless your shooting a Hollywood movie, shooting to disable is next to impossible. People survive being gutshot all the time, and others bleed out in seconds after being shot in the leg or arm due to a severed artery.

If you have to shoot some one, aim center mass.

But back to topic, you also don't walk up to a downed perp and finish them off. Even those Marines in Fallujah got into trouble for doing that. And they were in allout combat.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

this crazy old coot DESTROYED EVIDENCE.

He shouldn't have moved the body ...

Nor delivered calculated killshots directly under the chin when they were on the ground gasping for breath. Methinks you forgot this bit.

... people do things when they are in deep fear that they wouldn't normally do.

So in fear of his life that he:

1. Had a tarp ready to move the body so it didn't mess up his carpet, and...
2. Walked up to the girl, placed a gun under her chin while she was gasping for breath and uttered insults as he pulled the trigger.

Yep, he sounded REAL afraid.

a reply to: Kryties

Having tarps and dropclothes in a workshop area is not all that uncommon.

a reply to: TDawgRex

Unless your shooting a Hollywood movie, shooting to disable is next to impossible. People survive being gutshot all the time, and others bleed out in seconds after being shot in the leg or arm due to a severed artery.

That may be true - but still - being shot is going to hurt. I know adrenaline can overcome pain in extreme circumstances, and one needs to consider a wounded human to be a 'wounded animal'.

But yeah, Hollywood was where I first learned. Husband had to teach me not to come around corners with the weapon out in front of me.....nono, hold it next to your chest.

THEN put it out in front of me, teacup hold, aim and shoot. And I'm a VERY good shot.
But....
yes, people survive being gutshot, but it's still a possibly lethal injury. My cat was gutshot with a pellet, and nearly died. Peritonitis is awful, and many gutshots or gut-stabs also result in death.

I would want the kids to learn a lesson and have permanent 'scars' to remind them of their stupidity....
but wanting them dead, well...
messy subject. There are some people that should be taken out. There are others who can learn from adverse consequences. They were still pretty young....
they had a chance at rehabilitation. In my opinion.

The issue is.. yes he has the right to defend his home, even to a lethal means.

But what about the execution style killing? i guess people here think that is okay as well?

Even after the target is on the ground bleeding?

originally posted by: TKDRL
a reply to: Kryties

Having tarps and dropclothes in a workshop area is not all that uncommon.

Whoopdy doo. He still used it to move the body of the boy because he didn't want his blood messing up his carpet - because he was in fear for his life.

The way I see it is a 65yr old man who had been a victim in his own home more than once snapped and had enough. How many times is it ok to be victimized in your own home? He prepared against any further break-ins in what he thought was the correct way to go about it, albeit a skewed way of thinking to some. I believe he thought he was doing the right thing to protect himself and his home or he wouldn't have used recording devices. All the man wanted was to retire in peace, instead little thugs made living in his own home unsettling. After the 1st break-ins I'm sure paranoia seeped in causing a somewhat creepy over-thinking and premeditated behavior should the issue arise again.

None of this would have occurred had those punks been working or in school or even at home making out instead of torturing some retired old dude. They brought it on themselves.

a reply to: Kryties

Maybe he thought it was a lone nutbar at first and it was over?

originally posted by: TKDRL
a reply to: Kryties

Maybe he thought it was a lone nutbar at first and it was over?

According to the article after he moved the boys body he sat back down to await the girl.

a reply to: Kryties

Not the one in the OP it don't.

There's a show in the UK called Crimewatch where they show reconstructions, often of home invasion style burglaries. These typically involve the intruders tying up the defenceless family and in extreme cases killing them. Wouldn't happen nearly as much if we still had our guns.

a reply to: Kryties

You keep calling this punk a boy, the last I checked he was a healthy athletic man.

If these punks valued their lives so much they wouldn't be breaking into people's homes and terrorizing them.

originally posted by: TKDRL
a reply to: Kryties

Not the one in the OP it don't.

In the OP's article it links to a previous article....

www.cbsnews.com...

Prosecutors say as Brady descended the basement steps, Smith shot him in the chest, then in the back while Brady fell, Wartner said. Smith fired a final shot into Brady's head, the bullet passing through Brady's hand, Wartner said. Smith put Brady's body on a tarp so he wouldn't get blood on his carpet, dragged it into his workshop, reloaded his rifle and sat down again, the prosecutor said.

A few minutes later, Kifer walked down the stairs and Smith shot her

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: Kryties

You keep calling this punk a boy, the last I checked he was a healthy athletic man.

If these punks valued their lives so much they wouldn't be breaking into people's homes and terrorizing them.

So you agree, and would emulate, moving their bodies to prevent bloodstains on the carpet, placing the gun directly under their chins while they were already on the ground (and having just been moved by a tarp) and then administering "good, clean killshots"?

Because if so then methinks you have psychopathic tendencies.