135 replies to this topic

[pallidin]

If the circumstances surrounding the death of those burglary teenagers are true as reported, he murdered them.
There is no excuse, in my book, for willifully doing "killing shots" on any unarmed downed person.
That's just plain sick.

[glorybebe]

-Mr_Fess-, on 30 November 2012 - 07:56 PM, said:

Hey man you're being way too defensive. I'm taking guesses here and you're acting as if you know what happened. Is it not possible the homeowner either made it appear to be a good time to break in or is it not possible he's been itching for this day?
I said repeatedly here that the kids were idiots and they got what they deserved by getting shot and if they died then so be it but this guy just plain executed them when they didn't die right away.

sorry, but that just got me.  I guess I was raised differently.  One rule, not yours? don't touch.  How can a homeonwer make it appear to be a good time to break in?  The kids shouldn't have broke in.  The guy shouldn't have shot them repeatedly.  the public shouldn't be saying that they were 'role models'.  This whole instance stinks.  BUT, it could have been avoided by the kids not breaking in in the first place.  Maybe if the punishments for the crimes were harsher, the kids wouldn't be doing things for a lark.

[aztek]

it really does not matter if what he did leagal or not, right or not, the buttom line is, if THEY didn't brake into his house, they would be alive, THEY started chain of events that got them killed. NOT the home owner.

[supervike]

Yes, it really does matter.

I don't disagree that it was a chain events started by the intruders, but there are still laws applicable to what happens at that point.

If he would have tortured them for hours, then chopped them up and ate them, would it have 'mattered' then?

[ouija ouija]

supervike, on 03 December 2012 - 09:17 PM, said:

Yes, it really does matter.

I don't disagree that it was a chain events started by the intruders, but there are still laws applicable to what happens at that point.

If he would have tortured them for hours, then chopped them up and ate them, would it have 'mattered' then?

This is what I meant in my OP: if you break into someone else's property you risk anything happening to you! This could be an attack by pitbulls; the homeowner having a heart attack and you get charged with murder; through to being held hostage, tortured and abused for hours, days, weeks.

[DieChecker]

aztek, on 03 December 2012 - 08:36 PM, said:

it really does not matter if what he did leagal or not, right or not, the buttom line is, if THEY didn't brake into his house, they would be alive, THEY started chain of events that got them killed. NOT the home owner.

The guilt of the kids really is not in Doubt. But, the kids' guilt does not automatically make the homeowner Innocent? He comitted a crime also. "Chain of events" excuse is total BS.

The bottom line should be, "Don't do the Crime if you don't want to do the Time".

[ouija ouija]

DieChecker, on 28 November 2012 - 01:48 AM, said:

Yeah, but like JOC just pointed out... The robbers familys are still going to sue you. And their Criminal friends are probably going to come over and Rob him again, once he's put into cuffs and held in the local jail pending a bond hearing. So... you can't win by killing robbers.

ouija ouija, on 28 November 2012 - 02:43 PM, said:

Maybe it's because he knew this that he thought he might as well spend the rest of his life in jail?

DieChecker, on 03 December 2012 - 10:26 PM, said:

The bottom line should be, "Don't do the Crime if you don't want to do the Time".

As I said before, perhaps he'd just had enough and thought he might as well do the time.

[DieChecker]

Maybe. Sounds like he lived alone. Was old. Grumpy. No friends. Maybe he just needed a change. Maybe this was like a slow suicide.

[Orcseeker]

I hate how articles always show these kids as if they are innocent angels, every time something like this happens. The girl being a "popular role model" (apparently committing criminal offences is a desirable attribute in a person these days) and the guy is always "making people laugh", both of these aren't a rare find on articles of the like. They probably knew the law, they trespassed and robbed the man. Knowing that deadly force could be applied to them they still underwent the crime.

Seperate to that, do I think you should be able to outright kill someone for robbing your home? No. At the very least try to apprehend them or ask them to leave without your stuff, if they refuse to, appropriate force is necessary. Though over there you don't know if they will have a gun or not on them themselves.

In this case specifically, it seems like an overreaction and spur of the moment bit of anger which caused the man to shoot more than necessary.

[Professor Buzzkill]

DieChecker, on 03 December 2012 - 10:26 PM, said:

The bottom line should be, "Don't do the Crime if you don't want to do the Time".

The difference between the homeowner and the "kids" that robbed him is; he was not planning on doing anything criminal that day and if it weren't for those pesky kids, he wouldn't have.

[aztek]

DieChecker, on 03 December 2012 - 10:26 PM, said:

. "Chain of events" excuse is total BS.

perfectly valid excuse.

[F3SS]

glorybebe, on 03 December 2012 - 07:56 PM, said:

sorry, but that just got me.  I guess I was raised differently.  One rule, not yours? don't touch.  How can a homeonwer make it appear to be a good time to break in?  The kids shouldn't have broke in.  The guy shouldn't have shot them repeatedly.  the public shouldn't be saying that they were 'role models'.  This whole instance stinks.  BUT, it could have been avoided by the kids not breaking in in the first place.  Maybe if the punishments for the crimes were harsher, the kids wouldn't be doing things for a lark.

I explained myself already. You're just asking questions twice now. Yes, it's the kids' dumb fault for making this all possible in the first place. And I've also said that this guy pulled a Gran Torino and did it for the greater good but this isn't the movies and vigilantism is against the law. Ain't my fault.

Professor Buzzkill, on 03 December 2012 - 11:14 PM, said:

The difference between the homeowner and the "kids" that robbed him is; he was not planning on doing anything criminal that day and if it weren't for those pesky kids, he wouldn't have.

My guess is he was awaiting the day and maybe he didn't have a plan but he knew one day something was going to happen and when that day arrives whatever happens happens and if he comes out on top he's going to teach them a lesson and others too. Or maybe he just likes to kill and the kids walk into the trap like a bad horror movie.

Edited by -Mr_Fess-, 04 December 2012 - 01:40 AM.

[Mantis914]

One thing I have not seen brought up here is how do they know this was a case of burglary and not a home invasion?  How do we know these kids weren't going to torture this guy and take his stuff or worse?  He must've been known as an easy target due to the past incidents, right?  Why not have some fun?

Even though the bath salts craze kind of died down, I'm not taking any chance or waiting a few minutes to find out someone's intentions.  It takes total desperation/fiendish insanity to walk up to someone else's property and say, "I'm going inside uninvited and getting what I want, regardless of the consequences or who I hurt or worse".  Put yourself into that mindset and then you'll know what you're dealing with...

[DieChecker]

Orcseeker, on 03 December 2012 - 11:10 PM, said:

They probably knew the law, they trespassed and robbed the man. Knowing that deadly force could be applied to them they still underwent the crime.

Quite probably since this had happened to the man so many times, the kids thought he would just hide and do nothing. That he was an easy victim. It may have even been some kind of initiation.

Still they should not have been doing it and should not have been there.

Edit: The OP article says that the kids busted out a window to get in. That sounds like they knew what they were doing.

Edited by DieChecker, 04 December 2012 - 02:04 AM.

[DieChecker]

-Mr_Fess-, on 04 December 2012 - 01:07 AM, said:

My guess is he was awaiting the day and maybe he didn't have a plan but he knew one day something was going to happen and when that day arrives whatever happens happens and if he comes out on top he's going to teach them a lesson and others too. Or maybe he just likes to kill and the kids walk into the trap like a bad horror movie.

One thing the old man has in his favor, is that he was using a .22 pistol. No one in their right mind would use a .22 pistol to fight robbers. If this guy had planned ahead even a little bit, he'd have bought a 9mm at least.

Did the article say what kind of weapon it was?

Edit: Apparently he had a rifle and a 22 pistol. Supposedly he'd previously been robbed of electronics and thousands of dollars of guns. So, probably his best guns had already been stolen.

Also he reportedly shot guns on his property, meaning this was a rural home, not a neighborhood. So, the kids obviously knew where they were and what they were doing.

aztek, on 03 December 2012 - 11:51 PM, said:

perfectly valid excuse.

Not in an American Court.

Edited by DieChecker, 04 December 2012 - 02:03 AM.