Minnesota Man found guilty of premeditated murder during home invasion....

[Livefreeormass]

How could a gun owner entice two teenagers into his house and shoot them execution style, knowing that they were unarmed, is beyond me, morally, religiously and legally. The world hasn't sunk that low, or so I hope. I'm 100% with the Minnesota jury.

 

[M1911]

The difference is in the retreat option. As an individual, you will always be expected to retreat when you can safely do so. A person being victimized by a violent attacker is not under an obligation to retreat so that a third party will not have to use force (think of spouse, child, etc.). "It's your fault because you did not choose to retreat" is an easier sell than "It's your fault because your child did not choose to run".

I'm sorry, but I don't quite get it.

Suppose the victim chose not to retreat, even though it was safe to do so. As a result, the victim is not legally justified in using deadly force. Then our hero comes in and uses deadly force. Is our hero legally justified in using deadly force even though the victim was not?

I don't understand how third party defense has less legal restrictions than self defense. I must be missing something.

 

[Spinning Piledriver]

I feel NO sympathy for either parties involved here. Moral of the story; don't effin break into anyone's god damned house.

 

[Bonesinium]

I'm sorry, but I don't quite get it.

Suppose the victim chose not to retreat, even though it was safe to do so. As a result, the victim is not legally justified in using deadly force. Then our hero comes in and uses deadly force. Is our hero legally justified in using deadly force even though the victim was not?

I don't understand how third party defense has less legal restrictions than self defense. I must be missing something.

Which is why the concept of 'duty to retreat' is asinine as a statutory requirement.

 

[calsdad]

I disagree. The main issue is that the guy, regardless of the guilt and culpability of the teenagers, set up an ambush. He also, for some reason, recorded everything. The recordings along with his statements paint a clear picture of the events.

In a prior thread some posters felt it was deserved. To argue that this is justified or that the kids were asking for it is a chilling thought, unless your argument is that events in a private residence are outside the law.

Bullshit.

How do you "setup an ambush" in your own home.

If nobody shows up - nothing happens. The first requirement of something being an "ambush" - is that there is an "invader" going into the territory where the alleged ambush is setup.

Those kids broke into his house.

Your argument is that the only acceptable behavior when PEOPLE (not just one) are invading your home - is to act in complete ignorance and be taken by surprise and then - hopefully - be able to fight back against the odds.

Congratulations - you're arguing that criminals should be able to do whatever they want to do - and break into people's homes without repercussions.

The simple fact of the matter is - if those kids had not broken into his home ...... NOTHING would have happened that day. The root cause of this whole incident lies in the criminal behavior of those kids.

 

[calsdad]

Sure does sound like the basement equivalent of a tree stand to me, from snacks & water to the camouflage of making the place look unoccupied on purpose.



Does he have the right to execute a person who is no longer a threat to his life? Short answer: No. That this is even up for debate is mindboggling. It's SELF-DEFENSE people, not the right to kneel over a seriously wounded, incapacitated person, mock them, put one in his/her hat, and then wait a full day just to be sure there is no doubt that they are dead. *That* is murder, and is just as ****ed up when a legal gun owner does it as it is when some junkie does it. Making the decision to live civilized is what separates us from them. Acting like them degrades the argument that you're better than them and it absolutely hurts our battle to protect our rights.



Somehow I don't think sitting in your boxers with a gun nearby, Cheetos in one hand and beer in the other while watching tv is the same as hiding in your house with supplies and firearms, most likely done up in the latest in tactical boots and drop holsters while luring in burglars. Even that isn't the thing that's wrong. It's the execution afterwards.

So if the guy was on vacation - it would have been "OK" to break in?

Is there is some chart we can refer to - to determine exactly what state a house can be left in - and where the OWNER is - that will mean it's OK to break in and steal stuff?

And people wonder why criminals get all pissed off when they get caught in a house and take a beat down.

Here's a clue - it's because you've been telling them for decades that another person's property is ok to violate - as long as all the right conditions are met.

 

[calsdad]

How could a gun owner entice two teenagers into his house and shoot them execution style, knowing that they were unarmed, is beyond me, morally, religiously and legally. The world hasn't sunk that low, or so I hope. I'm 100% with the Minnesota jury.

Seriously?

He "enticed" them into the house?

I guess the next time I see some woman with a really short skirt, some high heels - and a low cut blouse - it will be ok to rape her - because she "enticed" me to do it?

 

[M1911]

Which is why the concept of 'duty to retreat' is asinine as a statutory requirement.

Lots of laws are asinine. In other breaking news, the sun will rise tomorrow in the East -- details at 11.

 

[calsdad]

I feel NO sympathy for either parties involved here. Moral of the story; don't effin break into anyone's god damned house.

According to this story:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...zy-year-treating-estate-like-candy-store.html

There's a LOT more involved here than the dumb-ass mainstream media is letting on. Sounds like these kids had been torturing this guy for quite some time. Maybe that doesn't justify what he did in the eyes of many people - but it starts to put some real context around the whole situation as to why somebody would make the decision to do what he did.

It's quite a bit less than "insane" to wait in your basement for somebody who has been constantly ransacking your house, stealing your possesions, and threatening you.

Most of the people who are commenting on this story and who are writing about this story in the news - are portraying it as though it was the first time these kids had done this shit. Looks like the real truth - is quite a bit different than that.

IMHO - when you keep pushing people - you can expect that bad things will happen to you. When you push people over and over again - and then break into their house - it's entirely within the realm of expected behavior that you might get yourself shot - and if the first shot doesn't kill you - then you might get another one.

If you don't want bad things to happen to you - don't do bad things to other people.

 

[murf4321]

If you don't want bad things to happen to you - don't do bad things to other people.

Bingo. They'd still be around if they decided they shouldn't break into someone's house. **** em

 

[GlockJock]

I still don't understand how anyone who breaks into someone else's home can claim they maintain any rights while they're in the midst of violating someone else's.

I'll tell you how: I lived in Minnesota for a year. It's like Massachusetts with igloos. Liberals who love c-c-cold winters move to Minnesota. They're "staunch" democrats.
Then, when they go "off the board" and select someone other than a loony democrat, they elected....Pro Wrestler Jesse "The Body" Ventura. (at least Jesse was OK on the Guns issue...)
But overall, they're Cambridge Eskimos out there.

The CommonPuke of LiberChusetts ain't the only bunch of Loonies in the country.
Enough said?

 

[Admin]

The CommonPuke of LiberChusetts ain't the only bunch of Loonies in the country.
Enough said?

1 year is a poor sample. Ventura was light years better than Patrick. Minnesota is liberal because of the twin cities but not even close to MA.

 

[BigTimber]

1 year is a poor sample. Ventura was light years better than Patrick. Minnesota is liberal because of the twin cities but not even close to MA.

They also have Sen. Stuart smalley. I'd agree we are worse, but they aren't too far behind.

 

[Admin]

They also have Sen. Stuart smalley. I'd agree we are worse, but they aren't too far behind.

Good point.

 

[GlockJock]

1 year is a poor sample. Ventura was light years better than Patrick. Minnesota is liberal because of the twin cities but not even close to MA.

That's not saying much LOL...The Rock, Hulk Hogan, Stone Cold Steve Austin etc ALL would be better than Deval Patrick. At least they'd get off their knees and not willingly lick Obama's shoes clean...

 

[Admin]

That's not saying much LOL...The Rock, Hulk Hogan, Stone Cold Steve Austin etc ALL would be better than Deval Patrick. At least they'd get off their knees and not willingly lick Obama's shoes clean...

Again good point.

 

[Zappa]

They also have Sen. Stuart smalley.

The failed comedy writer who stole the election through voter fraud