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

reply to post by trainedobserver


Maybe you didn't read the entire thread....

1) He killed both and said.. they were trespassing.. OK we will give him the benefit of the doubt. Intruders need to get shot. Okay.

2) So he shots the guy on face, hmm okay, so the boy was not prepared, sort of like they were already close range, anyway, we do not know. Now the girl was gasping for air after first shot..she had bullet holes in her lungs(wonder if he mentioned her gasping, as laughter)... he goes to her.. puts gun up her chin and executes her. Now...he said she was coming downstairs after the first shot, when would anyone execute a 18 yrs old girl after incapacitating her by blowing her brains out close range?


Too many people stopping after the first sentence and been arguing about that and not looking at what happened later. This is past a simple break in entrance and intruder shot... this story is doubtful.

2) Why would you hide the bodies? you have perfect justification right? unless... there was another story and he shot and panicked.


*My opinion would be the boy and the girl was already in the house and possibly he invited them.. something goes wrong or they were not cooperating for something he wanted, so he shot the guy... panicked and shot the girl.*

This man is FAR from innocent.

reply to post by Matt1951


Certainly, you should verify your targets. Yes, you should call the police. However, I have zero sympathy for criminals breaking into homes. I find it incredible that anyone would be asked to restrain themselves in protecting their loved ones out of consideration the person perpetrating a crime against them! It boggles my mind, but I'm an ugly American living in the south. Maybe, I'm just not enlightened enough.

reply to post by luciddream


Point taken.

I am not going to try to suss out the guilt and innocence of anyone based on that report.

I am just saying in principle, home invasion should be considered by the "invader" to be potentially fatal activity.

reply to post by caladonea


What if? lmao Ok. What if...... they were part of a gang, there was more of them coming in or the old man thought there might be so he was making sure that those he hit could not come after him as the others came at him? Remember HE did not got to them! They both came down the stairs to him. What if there was more? What if the others were armed as well? You can play the what if game on both sides.

What we KNOW is the window was broken, he had his home broken into before, he DID NOT GO HUNTING THEM but instead waited for them to come to him, and they did not belong there and he did. As to his thoughts we can not accurately figure them out but I would be interested in the OTHER times his house had been broken into, the number of home invaders, what the police told him about the home invaders then, plus other items. To me it sounds like he was expecting that to be his last stand and did not really expect to survive it.

I am 100% amazed by the number of responses celebrating the homeowners action.


First of all, I don't care if they were popular, nor do I care what age, sex, race or religion they were.
If someone breaks into your home, you have the right to defend your home. Period.

That being said,

When the teenager tumbled down the stars, Smith shot him in the face as he lay on the floor, looking up.

then

He dragged the body into his workshop

That goes beyond defending a home, and certainly doesn't indicate a threat.

He then sat back down in a chair.

When Kifer began walking down the stairs, he shot her and she fell down the stairs.

He tried to shoot her again with his rifle, but the gun jammed and Kifer laughed at him

He then re-arms himself, drags this still-alive violent criminal across his basement floor, in order to finish her off in another location?

He then shot her several times in the chest with a .22-caliber revolver, dragged her next to her cousin, and with as she gasped for air, fired a shot under her chin 'up into the cranium'.

If those events are true, this goes way beyond defending life and property.

Looks to me like it was a home invasion. Seriously the worst thing you can do is invade someone's home. They don't know if you are there to vandalize, steal, rape, torture or kill them. Some people will assume the worst and keep shooting until the gun is empty.

Sal

reply to post by trainedobserver


Read Ayoob. I am trying to enlighten you. You have to not only plan your self defense, you have to plan for the trial which WILL occur afterwards. Don't ever move a body if you shoot someone. Don't plant a gun or fake evidence, the police WILL know what you did. Know the laws of your state. Realize, however much you hate home intruders, you have no right to cross the line of self defense.

If I'm shooting you for breaking into my house, and you start laughing at me, I'll probably empty the clip into your torso...just sayin', his adrenalin levels must have been through the roof, and then to be laughed at??,

by the thugs who broke in and tried to steal what you have worked so hard for? Good Riddance ..Let me guess...they are white...otherwise they would not have been portrayed in such a positive light.

reply to post by JustToSatisfyYou


So you are saying i should kill the driver i get into accident with? If i run over a pedestrian and he survives?

Not sure if that would plausible in a everyday scenario.

reply to post by MidnightTide


Personally, I'm glad these kids have been removed from the planet (for the time being -- I believe in reincarnation).

This should be a lesson for other stupid, sociopathic kids.

This man is going to catch %^&$ for defending his home & himself. What a shame.

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by JustToSatisfyYou

 

So you are saying i should kill the driver i get into accident with? If i run over a pedestrian and he survives?

Not sure if that would plausible in a everyday scenario.

you're right. It's not plausible in most situations. But home invasion? Very plausible

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17


Maybe they didn't deserve to die, but that doesn't matter. What matter is they created the excuse for themselves to be shot and they died as a result. If it turns out he shot them and then executed them while they were laying on the floor then charge him, but whether they deserved to die or not is not even a question in this.

They created the situation in which they were killed.

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by trainedobserver

 

there was another story and he shot and panicked.

*My opinion would be the boy and the girl was already in the house and possibly he invited them.. something goes wrong or they were not cooperating for something he wanted, so he shot the guy... panicked and shot the girl.*

This man is FAR from innocent.

I was thinking the same thing.

There is no mention that the intruders were armed, after hearing a rifle blast, the girl decides to wander in the direction of the blast, unarmed?

And after being shot, falling down the stairs and landing in the mess that was once her cousin (shot in face with rifle= big mess, I assume), she somehow still finds humor in the click of a firing pin?

Something doesn't add up.

For those defending the robbers, all I have to say is that you are encouraging robbery and crime. Just think, if the homeowners did not shoot them, do you think these robbers will grow up to be doctors or social workers ?
NO, if their mindset is to rob someone, they will most likely try to rob someone else, then maybe move onto a store and bigger and better things until they get caught or get shot. Also, if they get off easy with a slap on the wrist, this will only encourage other robbers to do the same, since the punishment isn't that severe. But if death is the consequence of robbery, than you might think twice if the XBox and Blue Ray player is worth your life.

The robbers are criminals and don't contribute anything positive to the society, it's not like they were volunteering the nursing home and got shot.

If the homeowner had killed them on the initial shots, I would have supported him.
After they were incapacitated and no longer posed a threat to his person, he went beyond self defense and acted out of anger and vengeance since he had been robbed so many times before.

We treat our enemies of war better than this.
Question for those that support the killing of others after they have been incapacitated.

Do you support the notion of taking prisoners of war that invade our country, or we invading others countries, after they/we no longer pose a threat and have been incapacitated? We are even armed in these scenarios and in many cases not down and out.

Or do you think we should take no prisoners and nor should our enemies?

I have to add something in here. Some of the ideas here aren't just ignorant, they are outright reckless and dangerous. Warning shots are absolutely NEVER a good idea. EVER. I'll say again. EVER. Why? This Youtube captures in a way better than any description can, why.



If you fire that weapon, you have made a concious decision to utterly destroy or kill whatever it is you're pointing at when firing. This is something any basic level training program ought to hammer home again and again. The other thing that makes a warning shot quite literally an act of criminal negligence is that bullets don't hit something and stop. However, Hollywood portrays this, it isn't reality. Bullets keep going more often than people would like to imagine.

So..That warning shot......? What is 100 yards BEHIND whatever you are taking the time to decide to aim at ...so you don't shoot the wrong thing with that warning shot? What's realistically FIVE hundred yards behind it? Not necessarily directly behind, either.

I'll add one other thing, because plenty of posts show people come here new to firearms and looking for information. There is something Hollywood never shows about shooting within enclosed spaces. It wouldn't be manly to show with the leading actor to be HALF DEAF for the next 30 minutes of the movie....because that IS what the first shot fired is going to do. Unless someone wants to lie and say they are grabbing plugs or muffs at the same time they're grabbing their weapon, then that warning shot made you functionally deaf for hearing anyone ELSE inside or outside the house. If you missed anyone and it hadn't been a lethal situation before, it will be when they work to BECOME armed by taking yours....after all, the warning shot tells them it's life or death for them now, more than likely too.

Bad idea all around.

reply to post by MidnightTide


Should have pointed that gun at them, told them to get down on the ground, spread eagle. Call the cops, wait, and then watch the arrest.

A bit too trigger happy on this one, I'm thinkin'.

Poor fools, shouldn't have done what they did, and now they're deceased because of a wiley crazy old man defending his # pile that they decided to mess with.


This is of course assuming that the story is two robbers, breaking and entering, stealing stuff, and the dude realizes it and just shoots at them without any hesitation or dialogue.

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by milominderbinder

 

This is all based off of the article, so if they did not break into the house, then how did either teenager get down to where the person was sitting in the first place?

Well...I can think of roughly 6.5 million different scenarios of how that could have happened. The point is that the police haven't yet commented on the particulars so you shouldn't jump to conclusions.

And based off of the suspect statement, that while sitting there, in his chair, in the basement of his house, the girl walked down, and his gun jammed, and then the girl laughed at him. He pulled out another weapon and shot her.

That isn't what the article states at all. Go back and read it again. The guy who was hiding bodies in his basement alleges that the girl was laughing at him with one bullet in hear already and a dead cousin. That doesn't sound just slightly implausible to you? Just because the suspect says something doesn't at all mean that there is any truth whatsoever to the statement. The crime scene might tell a very, VERY, different story. For all any of us know the forensics unit might have concluded that they were shot elsewhere then dragged down the steps. Being a homicide investigation...we probably won't have any details until the trial.

So the question is if the teens were not in his house, when how did they get there? After all if one is going to move a body with a hole in it, there would be blood coming out from the wound. As the article does not show this to be the case, we can conclude that the teens were in the house in the first place where they were shot and executed.

Exactly. The article doesn't state that. Just like it doesn't say anything at all except for the verbal statements given by a guy who was hiding bodies in his house and is trying to save his own ass. Nobody on this thread has ANY IDEA AT ALL what happened, how it happened, or where it happened. Passing judgement based upon unsubstantiated hearsay is simply irresponsible.

While I do agree that the deaths were sensless, neither of the teens were angles, infact they did have a drug problem. And if they were indeed breaking into houses to steal and rob from people, then that would be a good reason for such.

Incorrect. ONE of the teens had PREVIOUSLY sought counseling for prescription drug addiction. Just like Brett Favre, Rush Limbaugh, and 85% of the population in California. This hardly makes these kids thieves, criminals, or interlopers.

But beyond that, tell me if you are in a house and hear a gun shot, do you go towards or away from the sound?

Again...you have no idea if anyone ran towards the sound of the gunshot or not. The police haven't stated that it happened that way. The only person who is saying that is a guy who killed a couple of kids and didn't think it was necessary to call 911 and figured he would just stash the bodies in the basement instead. Secondly...it was a .22 LR. It sounds more like you dropped something than a gunshot. And if I'm with somebody who I think might have just been shot...my instinct is to run towards them to help. I'm glad I'm not your cousin.

One, being reasonable, would run away from the sound, as it would be a means of self preservation, not go down and investigate, which is what it sounds like she did. And if she was outside, then what was she doing on the property, all of the pictures of the house where this took place, pretty much shows that the house it not set next to anyone elses house, more like one has to walk down to where it is.

Following the laws of the country, this guy in short shot and killed 2 teens who broke into his house. The question that many are raised is how far should that force have gone, and based off of his statements, he executed them, in the basement of his house.

You are incorrect.

Following the laws of this country, everyone is considered innocent until PROVEN GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW. That goes for the RECENTLY DECEASED TOO.

I just don't understand why it's so hard for everyone to get their head around the idea that NOBODY KNOWS IF THE KIDS BROKE IN OR NOT YET.

reply to post by MidnightTide



Let's assume what the homeowner says is true. Even then he is guilty of first-degree murder. He shot people who were already shot and incapacitated and in no way threatened him. He also apparently did not give them a warning to put their hands up and just shot them in cold blood. Then, instead of calling the police, he moved the bodies and kept them for a day. This raises a great deal of suspicion in my mind; perhaps this wasn't even a break-in as claimed, but rather some sort of abduction.

In any case, I am amazed by the comments here and at the Daily Mail in support of this murderer, without all the facts of the matter fully investigated yet.. I wonder how many of these folks call themselves Christians -- does "Thou shall not kill" ring any bells? Yeah, I know, "that shall not steal" is another commandment, but it doesn't deserve death as punishment.

It seems like there are a lot of blood-thirsty people out there who will defend any abusive use of deadly force by a property owner.

Does it make sense that this girl would continue down the steps after hearing gunshots and her friend tumble down the stairs? A whole lot about this case stinks, and the gun-loving, property-owner defenders just seem to ignore these facts, and celebrate that this guy killed two teenagers.