Outrage after popular students are found murdered in man's basement after 'they robbed his home on

reply to post by MrWendal

The real question that needs to be asked here is did the man know they were unarmed at the moment that they entered his home

Yeah that question is very important, its often very hard to tell if a robber is armed or not, it takes a long time to truly get the xray scanner out and take a good look,

Look if you want to defend the 64 year old man's actions then go for it, weldone. Now others can see how that reflects your judgement.

- I didnt say americans should be trained to SWAT team standard, but some form of training is required if you want to own and operate a dangerous weapon like a gun.

- That SWAT team VIDEO was intended as a reply for another members post anyways, that has since not replied to me. Because members on ATS like picking apart irrelevant points and hiding away from the truthful points.

reply to post by ga-`tv-gi

Ask that question to one of the kids that were shot and killed over a cell phone or a pair of shoes.

Why ask a question that cannot be answered...

If you cannot tell the difference between murder and theft I cannot help you..

Infact I can...!

mur·der/ˈmərdər/ Noun: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another

theft/THeft/ Noun: The action or crime of stealing: "he was convicted of theft"; "the latest theft happened at a garage".

For further particulars please reply....

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by MidnightTide

 

You peeps are real messed up. You should not kill someone because they are burgling you house. Anyone that thinks otherwise is suffering from some kind of mental psychosis. It is a person entering you home, not a rapist or a murderer... Really do you think someone deserves to die for robbing you big flat screen tv....

Poor show.....

What is real messed up here is how you are failing to see the big picture....


again it is EASY to sit here after all the facts come out and judge and say "you should do this and you should do that" but place yourself in the moment.

Let me lay out a scenario for you....

You live alone. Your at home in your bed. It's 2am. You wake up after hearing some glass break. You walk out your bedroom and you see a man in your home walking through your living room. What do you do?

Fact is. You don't know who that person is. You do not know what their intentions are. Is he just there to rob you? Is he going to kill you? Is he going to rape you? Is he armed? Guess what? You don't know. You can not possibly know the answers to those questions in the moment. You will only have an answer to those questions AFTER the fact.

That scenario I laid out is where the decision is made to use a weapon or not. In that moment! And it is in this moment, as I laid out, that you still have the ability to control the outcome of this situation. You have the advantage. You know the intruder is in your home, and that intruder has no idea you woke up, got out of bed, and spotted him in your home. So what do you do in this moment? Go back to bed and hope he just steals your TV? And what if he is a rapist or murderer? Do you fire a warning shot? What if he is armed and a murderer? What if there are others with him?

See the point yet?

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by MidnightTide

 

You peeps are real messed up. You should not kill someone because they are burgling you house. Anyone that thinks otherwise is suffering from some kind of mental psychosis. It is a person entering you home, not a rapist or a murderer... Really do you think someone deserves to die for robbing you big flat screen tv....

Poor show.....

Question - how will you know their intent?

Will you ask them, wait and see, what?

By the time the words leave your mouth your heart could stop beating...your internal dialog assessing the threat and the response needed could take you the rest of your life.

The law gives the benefit of the doubt in a home invasion to the law abiding resident as it should be.

Crime should never pay.

If you want to gamble with your life and that of your family that is your right; however, it is counter to any credible self defense plan or training.

I don't recommend it.

Originally posted by ISeekTruth101
reply to post by MrWendal

 

Yeah that question is very important, its often very hard to tell if a robber is armed or not, it takes a long time to truly get the xray scanner out and take a good look,

Your making my point for me. You can not say that a warning shot is the right thing to do when you do not know if the intruder who entered your home is armed or not.

Look if you want to defend the 64 year old man's actions then go for it, weldone. Now others can see how that reflects your judgement.

Here you just displayed your ignorance for all to see. If you had read my previous post in full, you would have seen where I DID NOT defend the old man and actually called his actions... wait for it..... MURDER!! Let me quote my exact statement for you since you failed to read it the first time...

In any event, after shooting the girl and her supposedly laughing at him after the gun jams, he admits he pulled a revolver and shot her in the chest multiple times. Well guess what? At this moment he is no longer defending himself or his property. He is committing murder. However, he didn't stop there. After all that he still walked up on his victim, put the gun under her chin and fired one more shot into her head.

That description is not self defense. Self defense is very clear in that you use as much force to eliminate the threat. If someone punches you in the face, you have a right to defend yourself. If you knock that person out cold, and you continue to beat on them, you are no longer defending yourself. You have, in that moment, become the aggressor.

So what this man has described is not self defense at all. It is murder.

- I didnt say americans should be trained to SWAT team standard, but some form of training is required if you want to own and operate a dangerous weapon like a gun.

No you didn't say that, you implied when comparing the actions of a SWAT team conducting operations during a hostage situation to that of a person home alone when an intruder enters the home.

I also explained to you that citizens who do get firearms training are trained on two points, which you have ignored. #1 Never pull out your weapon if you do not intend to use it. #2. You shoot to kill.

Those two points are what the average citizen is trained to do with a firearm.

- That SWAT team VIDEO was intended as a reply for another members post anyways, that has since not replied to me. Because members on ATS like picking apart irrelevant points and hiding away from the truthful points.

I would suggest it is you who is hiding from the truthful points as I have shown in this post. You are hiding from the truth that people are trained to shoot to kill. You are hiding from the point that in the moment that an intruder enters your home, you have no idea of their intentions or if they are armed or not.

Back and forth of failed arguements...

THIS IS NOT GUN LAW / PRIVATE PROPERTY RELATED ISSUE ANYMORE.



People defending him answer these questions. Question we should be asking is that..


1) Why did he do execution shot AFTER incapacitating them?

2) Why Hide the body?


Anything else, including Gun laws, Private property, Trespassing are just derailing the thread and excuses, because a person who is defending their home DOES NOT have to do the two actions in questions.

Half of the people defending him because they are Pro-Gun and turning blind eye to everything, and other half the people commenting back with Anti-Gun law are not helping with the real question instead of derail with warning shot and both posting useless links to useless videos.

Look at the main part of the story. His Story does not match up...

The cops should do the following;

-Identify whether the body was dragged from a different place.
-Identify if there is any of his DNA on the teens body.
-Identify if there was any possible break in
-Identify if the teens were intoxicated.

If people actually discuss the reasons in question, this would be a better discussion, instead of 15 pages of useless Gun Laws and Private property crap... Appreciate few those that stuck with the story.

reply to post by purplemer

I do agree it was vague, what I was getting at is would you know if someone was just out to rob you or rob you and leave no witnesses behind. Know one can answer the question because know one knows the answer. IMHO if I was to be on the receiving end I would feel my loved ones and my self were in danger. So I would do what I have to to survive because I did not choose the course the perpetrator did.

Originally posted by ISeekTruth101
- That SWAT team VIDEO was intended as a reply for another members post anyways, that has since not replied to me. Because members on ATS like picking apart irrelevant points and hiding away from the truthful points.

Your video is one specific incident with a very different set of circumstances than that suggested in your original point that a SWAT team would approach a man armed with an AK 47 by first asking him to drop it.

The video doesn't answer my question which was for you to provide an SOP or training standard that requires a SWAT team in that situation to approach a man armed with a battle rifle and ask him to disarm.

Ask him to disarm, yes. Approach him, no way...

It is fairly clear your knowledge of tactics and the law are clouded by some warped sense of concern for the rights of people who terrorize others in their homes.

Here you just displayed your ignorance for all to see. If you had read my previous post in full, you would have seen where I DID NOT defend the old man and actually called his actions... wait for it..... MURDER!! Let me quote my exact statement for you since you failed to read it the first time...

reply to post by MrWendal



Your weird bro? i dont understand what you're arguing about than? because it sounds like your defending his actions?

I have already made my opinion very clear on this topic?

What is your conclusion? that you think he 'didn't know if the intruders were armed or not?''

Is this the point your arguing for?

Ok well if he had time to get his gun ready, and get past the jamming thing, and watch the girl laugh at him but not know if they were armed or not? what else can i say to you???????????????????


Your lacking in common sense and logic? ive presented my logic here.


Now let me know what exactly your conclusion is to this matter? is he right or wrong?

Legality aside, if you do not break in to someones home, the odds of said home owner gunning you down drop dramaticly. Should a home owner who caught, killed, and then hid the bodies of 2 thiefs invading his home be charged and convicted of crime(s)? Perhaps, perhaps not, but the path that led to this crime is clear and undeniable. It would be a shame if he was treated and convicted as if he sought out and murdered 2 people for no reason. However, and as much as I understand this far, it also seems a bit much to kill and then hide the bodies of 2 individuals caught breaking in to ones home.

It is an all around sad situation, one that ended 2 lives and perhaps now will ruin a third. Having said all of that, if I cought 2 people/thieves in my house and they did not instantly retreat and leave upon being asked, bodies would drop as well. I would gladly sit in jail if need be knowing I did what I had to, to protect my wife and child.

Here is another odd fact in the case. According to the shooter's brother:

“He was a security officer for the State Department over the past two decades and was responsible for plans and specifications of State Department buildings worldwide,” Bruce Smith said.

Shooting death of two teens confounds Minnesota community

So this ex-security officer's home had been burglarized 8 times and he never thought of installing some type of security system. It should have been right up his alley.

The article in the OP also states that:

Byron Smith said that he suspected that the two had been responsible for at least some of those past robberies.

So maybe he wasn't satisfied with the speed of justice and took it into his own hands to set a trap for them. Big maybe but...

reply to post by luciddream


1) He thought they were all hopped up on drugs, which they might have been. We have all heard of cops shooting people on drugs that kept getting back up.

Perhaps heat of the moment rage at people that violated his home.


2) Afterwards he got scared and was not thinking rationally.

People like to say "I would have done this or that if it was me", but in reality, no one knows what they would do in these kinds of situations. Fight or flight kicks in, even people trained, cannot know for sure what will happen until it does.

Some of you people are hilarious. Do this, do that, shoulda, coulda, woulda. You know what? If you're ever in a situation where you feel your life is in danger, your tune does not fit your instrument, or vice versa. You don't ask a stranger that is in your home, what their intentions are. You're scared. They could be about to do anything. You shoot, and you shoot to kill. No need for questions if they weren't there in the first place. You let them live, they sue you, or make up some story that you coaxed them in and then shot them.
The guy was right to do what he did. The kids and the parents are to blame. Wake up call for all of you juniors out there. Life is not a videogame. Destructive activities can have destructive consequences. There are no Reset buttons or Extra Lives. Learn to respect people or that disrespect you all have grown so accustomed to can be your endgame.

reply to post by TKDRL

2) Afterwards he got scared and was not thinking rationally

He doesnt deserve to own a gun then.

reply to post by TKDRL


The thing is ..if he thought about it, to go near and execute chin to cranium style... that does not fall under fight or flight theory. Tat theory would more likely cause him to keep shooting at them until they are dead, not execute close up......

The hiding has no excuses unless they feel they did something wrong. A normal person would call the cops or neighbour.... and he did live near a neighbour and they reported gun shots.

reply to post by MrWendal


When I came home to find someone in my home. I offered to make the man a cup of tea... He had his tea. Had a chat to what he was doing. Apologies and left....

reply to post by FaithInSelf


People like you read OP and post reply.

He didn't just shoot and kill the intruders. In that case i would be all okay with it and defend his rights.

Execution after decapitation and Hiding bodies is the "...right thing" according to you? you must be a pleasant person.

Only people that would do that are Psychos and serial killers.

Originally posted by minniesoda
they were no longer a threat to him after he shot them the first time....he then executed them
then not reporting it to the police....something is not right with this story

Yep, he did use excessive force. I rarely am on this side of the fence but he took them out of action and then coldly executed them. He should be charged and prosecuted for murder.

reply to post by Golf66

Originally posted by ISeekTruth101 Even a swat team that is armed to the bone, that approaches a hostile 200lb man with an AK47 will request that he drops the weapon first and put his hands up in the air.......they wont shoot first like its a video game???

No, no they won't. They will not get within the weapon's effective range and risk death to make such a request. If you can provide one SWAT SOP or standard practice that outlines your suggested course of action I will eat my hat. They will not make such a demand. They will shoot him and then approach. They will scream those things, drop your weapon and such but will also fire at the same time. No one will fault them either.

So you said they will not get within weapon range? well if you watched the video, one of the swat team got so close he was wounded by a shot, and was in pain at the end.

You said they will shoot then approach, but it can be heard very clearly in the video that they negotiated first and then approached.

You said they will scream 'those things' and shoot at the same time, i did not see them do that in that video i posted.

Doesnt matter if it was a training routine or not, it was even better......real life scenario.

They were definitly swat and they conducted themselves in a manner that was opposite to the way you thought they would.

And the circumstances are irrelevent im arguing the point that they assess the situation first and persuade an armed civilian to drop their weapon first before they attempt to shoot, that was my argument.

Originally posted by MidnightTide
I am sure the usual anti-gun membership on ATS will say he shouldn't have defended his home and property, but like I said, if they weren't breaking the law they would still be alive today. Parents are in part to blame, obviously they didn't teach their children the proper respect of others property and rights. Tired of the "good kids" excuse, your actions have consequences, just as these two found out.

Wow, way to generalize much?

I personally think he was right to defend his property. If someone is in your home and robbing you, you have the right to defend yourself and protect your property. HOWEVER, there has to be a limit to what is considered reasonable force.

For example, bludgeoning to death someone who is already incapacitated is NOT acceptable. Shooting someone who is leaving, ie in the back, is not acceptable. If you want a damned gun, learn how to use it! Don't just think you have the right to slaughter anyone because you can point it and pull the trigger, a trained chimp can do that.

Humans have the capacity to understand consequences, as you rightly point out. He understood the consequences of his own actions, and what could have been a warning shot to the legs became a double murder.
The guy has a right to defend his home, but not arbitrarily kill through the use of excessive force. He should be charged with manslaughter.

Also, don't just assume that anyone who disagrees with your argument doesn't have an equally valid argument of their own. Like I said, I agree with the right for people to protect themselves in their own home, but I DO NOT agree that a person should be able to own a weapon capable of murdering thousands of people an hour.

Weapons of war do not belong in the hands of idiot Americans. They belong on the battle field. Those kinds of automatic weapons should be OUTLAWED.