This is gonna hurt those who believe in defending there home from burglars

[Fritz The Cat]

Here comes the political fallout.

http://www.startribune.com/local/180853761.html?refer=y&refer=y

[..]

He did defend but then he deliberately killed them.

BUT

If he had killed each with one clean shot would there be any charges?

[ragincajun]

Probably not.

Stupid kids. Second shot and his "mercy shot" we're well beyond reasonable.

[Robert]

Second and third shot, yup may be problem not to mention didnt call the police till the next day??

[Oss]

This is a home invasion so nobody is saying he did not have the right to fire initially

So empty the magazine or shoot from where you are and you are ok is what it looks like

once someone is down and no threat, if you can take the time to reload you have taken the
time to cross the line  If you can drag the body and then shoot again you are askin for trouble if you can wait until after the football game and still sleep soundly before you call the police something is wrong

I am curious why the homeowner made his statements before gettin an attorney

He may have a diminished capacity defense

just saying....

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

Doesn't sound like the home owner is any smarter than than the crooks.

[T.P.]

I sent my deer hunting buddy a text to see if he was going to get the case. T.P.

[junior]

its gotto be an age thing. you know teenagers knows everything, and old people think they can do as they dam well please and get away with it cause they are ..................well, old.

i think they otto have an age limit for guns and wepons, a maximum age. then they need to get tested every year to check to see if they are senile and in thier right mind to have guns. lets see i havent brought GOD into this yet, so here we go. this is what I love about this "family" we have gun totters,bible thumpers wholy rollers, and old people. and lets not forget the people that push the red button and make things go boom. (yes Det the finger is being pointed at you......lol)


but as far as the original story goes i feel that old man didnt have gun control, or her would have gotten a good clean kill on the first shot. but i think that he did the penal system a favor by killing them. he just should have done it faster and cleaner. dont you think so Chris?

[Hoser]

Seems to me he got a bit carried away......     Hoser

[Detn8er]

its gotto be an age thing. you know teenagers knows everything, and old people think they can do as they dam well please and get away with it cause they are ..................well, old.

i think they otto have an age limit for guns and wepons, a maximum age. then they need to get tested every year to check to see if they are senile and in thier right mind to have guns. lets see i havent brought GOD into this yet, so here we go. this is what I love about this "family" we have gun totters,bible thumpers wholy rollers, and old people. and lets not forget the people that push the red button and make things go boom. (yes Det the finger is being pointed at you......lol)


but as far as the original story goes i feel that old man didnt have gun control, or her would have gotten a good clean kill on the first shot. but i think that he did the penal system a favor by killing them. he just should have done it faster and cleaner. dont you think so Chris?

      You hurt my little feelers.....          and and and the buttons I push are grey..... 

[MP]

One moment I think he should have quit when they went down, and legally I think that is where it will rest.

The next moment, I think if MORE of this happened, ie bad people getting put down at the scene of the crime, that we would get a lot LESS of these crimes happening!

MP

[Chrisj CMA]

One thing about self defense is sorta bizzar.  You can intentionally kill an intruder that can be reasonably shown to be a threat.  But, you cant (shouldnt) make statements like "I wanted him dead"  Killing is not the authorized action, stopping is.  If the dude ends up getting killed in the initial confrontation like Oss said, then it is what it is, but to continue because you want them dead at that point.......I cant imagine.

In fact you shouldnt make ANY statements if you kill someone in your house.  However, the sentiment that is appropriate and will support your justified shooting is "I didnt want to kill him, but I had no choice"

The other thing is if someone is down, no longer a threat and still alive, you should at least call an ambulance......I would render first aid as well, but I suppose if you didnt want to, you could say you didnt know what to do, but I would think failure to provide some care at that point is heartless and can only cause you trouble with the law.

Those secondary shots are going to be hard to justify.......I think hes going to do some time.

[old2soon]

Home protection to me is fine. In this persons case I M H O execution IS NOT WAS NOT warranted. At least not the way we got to read about this incident anyway. I'm thinkin he crossed a line. RIDE SAFE.

[czuch]

On my wife's pepper spray it states,
"Once your assailent is down dont PUNISH them by continuing to spray"
I say equal concern for safety and immediate future as would be accorded me.
HOWEVER, with deadly capabilities, dwn is a game ender. Unless further threat is percieved, make the call to the authorities.
Or, I guess, fire up the back hoe and start diggin another pool.;-)

[steve 3054]

Sounds like he forgot he had the " right to remain silent "

[JimmyG]

"I am curious why the homeowner made his statements before gettin an attorney"

Maybe the old fella is broke and destitute, so he is going to the pen to get his 3 frees a day, color tv, gym, playroom, free healthcare, free dental, library membership, etc.,etc.  just maybe..............

[Fudd]

Sounds like he forgot he had the " right to remain silent "

I'm not sure that would have helped.  The facts of the shooting would have beared their way out, anyway.  I think the way this went down, he's made a case for 'deminished capacity'.  By clamming up, he would have seemed more like a sadistic murderer.

[Hoser]

its gotto be an age thing. you know teenagers knows everything, and old people think they can do as they dam well please and get away with it cause they are ..................well, old.

i think they otto have an age limit for guns and wepons, a maximum age. then they need to get tested every year to check to see if they are senile and in thier right mind to have guns. lets see i havent brought GOD into this yet, so here we go. this is what I love about this "family" we have gun totters,bible thumpers wholy rollers, and old people. and lets not forget the people that push the red button and make things go boom. (yes Det the finger is being pointed at you......lol)


but as far as the original story goes i feel that old man didnt have gun control, or her would have gotten a good clean kill on the first shot. but i think that he did the penal system a favor by killing them. he just should have done it faster and cleaner. dont you think so Chris?

"i think they otto have an age limit for guns and wepons, a maximum age. then they need to get tested every year to check to see if they are senile and in thier right mind to have guns."   

I assume this is said in jest, if you are serious I think your full of it.  Hoser  ???

[Tx Bohemian]

"i think they otto have an age limit for guns and wepons, a maximum age. then they need to get tested every year to check to see if they are senile and in thier right mind to have guns."   

I assume this is said in jest, if you are serious I think your full of it.  Hoser  ???

Yeah, me too.

Earlier I had a response all typed out for this but thought I'd better wait to see if it was a joke or not.

[bagelboy]

I own three dobermans and a couple of shotguns. The last thing in the world I would do is hurt another human. That being said, I would let my dogs do their job first, but if someone hurt them they would be looking at aload of pain without remorse. I personally would deal with the fallout later!

[Willow]

Crossed a line?

The homeowner was way out of line when he fired as soon as the intruders were visible "from the waist down."

This is a blatant demonstration that although everyone should have the right to bear arms, not everyone has the good sense to bear arms responsibly.

That's my humble opinion and based solely upon the news story we read which may or may not be accurate and complete.

[Disco]

If I were to sit on a Grand Jury and hear this case as presented in the article, I would start and end with the fact that what made this entire sad episode possible was those kids entering the premises (perhaps not for their first time) without authorization.  They punched their tickets to whatever fate befell them by doing so.  Any discussion about how that fate might have been meted out would be academic to me.  Would/might I have done things differently?  Probably, and I would feel differently if he had gone on a vigilante rampage stalking and killing every person suspected in the prior crimes against him.  But, to me, second-guessing a multiple burglary victim about what happened to burglars he confronted inside his own house is Monday morning quarterbacking. 

No Bill