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

[Terminator03]

I would think it would be his approaching the person lying bleeding on the ground, tanuting her and pushing a gun to her chin and painting the room with her brains yes......that extra shot got him 1st degree murder.

^Spot on, plus the fact that he was stupid enough to record it! Dead men don't tell tales afterall, so if he wasn't a complete douche and RECORDED HIMSELF taunting and subsequently executing the perp(s), he may not have been charged with murder since it would have been his word against theirs (pun intended). That is why he was so easily convicted! debates about whether or not he was justified in shooting intruders in his home are a moot point in this case and I can't even believe people are still debating this unless it's just trolling at this point...

 

[swatgig]

if someone breaks into a house it should be a death sentence.

I'll simply disagree and leave it at that.

 

[Palladin]

I'm amazed the girl didn't bolt when she heard the 1st shot

I agree, home invasion, shoot til the threat is gone, call PoPo & lawyer. And this is no different that the hundreds of cases where the homeowner/shop owner, sleeps in his shop and kills a person breaking in.

http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/247681...-burglary-attempt-in-beltsville#axzz30O76OMFL
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/elgin-police-jewelry-store-owner-fatally-shoots-bu/nfZHQ/


but putting multiple rounds into the girl, while she's wounded, on the ground, then executing her.... is premeditated. the threat stopped when she fell down the stairs.

 

[Carnea]

.

 

[otasan56]

He may not have committed premeditated murder, but he did act in a cold-blooded manner.

 

[inerlogic]

Would it have been okay for him to kidnap them, rape them, torture them, etc?

was the girl hot?

ETA:

eh.......

 

[GhostArcher]

Orput said after the verdicts that this wasn't a case about self-protection, but rather a "senseless, sad, premeditated murder of two kids."

If the two kids didn't go around breaking into homes, they would be alive right now.... yes?! YES!

He didn't force them to break into his home, they made that choice on their own and they may not have been aware of the possible consequences, but they certainly won't be making that mistake again....
But with that said, his actions after the justified shooting, make this case into something else. The fact he wrapped the first body up after killing the kid and then waited for another and finished her off with an execution shot (murder, since the threat was eliminatrd since she was on the ground screaming) and waited for a day to call police opens up another can of worms.

 

[RadiCS]

Sorry but the only legitimate reason for taking a life is if your own life is threatened (or life of loved one). This man did not operate under such motive but rather sought to take a life.

You're wrong on this... You try to hurt my neighbors, friends, or innocent people you deserve the same fate.

 

[Wrench75]

Got what he deserves. The moment he parked his car a few blocks away instead of in his driveway, specifically to make it look like he wasn't home and entice intruders, he committed the first act of premeditation. No one is going to tell me that the guy who sets up an ambush didn't know what he was going to do when someone showed up. As soon as the unarmed kid is bleeding out on your floor the threat has been neutralized. A "finishing shot" to the head then dragging the body to another room so it won't be seen by, and potentially scare off, any other intruders, is not defending yourself.

It would be one thing if he was woken up by the sound of someone in the house. Came out of the bedroom w/ a gun and opened fire when he was suddenly confronted by an intruder. This guy wanted to kill someone. He created circumstances that would give him the best chance of getting to kill someone, and then gloated about the fact that he was about to kill them when they were already incapacitated and posed absolutely no threat. I am all for defending yourself and your property, and if put in the situation, I am certainly plenty willing to kill a person to do so. But I don't want to kill anyone.

Even if you set aside everything that happened up until 1 second before he pulled the trigger on each "finishing shot". That one second where he looked down and decided to kill a wounded person, is all you need to prove premeditation under the law.

 

[Wrench75]

Sorry but the only legitimate reason for taking a life is if your own life is threatened (or life of loved one).

You're wrong on this... You try to hurt my neighbors, friends, or innocent people you deserve the same fate.

Exactly. For that matter it is actually easier in MA to justify shooting in defense of another than in defense of yourself. There are fewer legal hurdles you have to clear to prove you feared for someone else's safety than there are to prove you feared for your own. As crazy as that sounds.

There are plenty of jurisdictions that have written laws specifically to protect a bystander who steps in to help someone. Like protection from civil suits for killing someone that was in the commission of a crime, as long as the use of force is found to be justified.

Never mind the inherent obligation of member of a civilized society to help in such situations if they can. Rest assured, I don't know or love you, but if I see you on the side of the road unconscious in a wrecked and smoking car, or being mugged in a alley way, I'm going to do whatever I can to save your life.

This man did not operate under such motive but rather sought to take a life.

That part I agree with.

 

[M1911]

For that matter it is actually easier in MA to justify shooting in defense of another than in defense of yourself. There are fewer legal hurdles you have to clear to prove you feared for someone else's safety than there are to prove you feared for your own.

Huh? Would you care to support that statement by citing a court decision?

As far as I know, the standard is the same. You can use deadly for to protect yourself (or another), if you (or they) are immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury. If you are outside of your home, you must retreat if it is safe to do so.

 

[Wrench75]

Huh? Would you care to support that statement by citing a court decision?

As far as I know, the standard is the same. You can use deadly for to protect yourself (or another), if you (or they) are immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury. If you are outside of your home, you must retreat if it is safe to do so.

I'll dig around to see if I can find it, though it has actually been mentioned on this forum several times. I'm not positive but I believe it has to do with the duty to retreat not applying to protecting others. Which would be one less significant hurdle.

If someone confronts/threatens me I'm required to try to retreat if possible. But if I walk in to a convenience store, see a robber pointing a gun at the clerks head, and I shoot the robber. I was never required to try to retreat. I shot because I had reasonable fear for the life of another. Which is allowed under MA law. All I have to prove is that I had every reason to think the other person's life was in imminent danger. The duty to retreat only applies if you are claiming self defense.

That is not to say you couldn't screw yourself by saying the wrong thing when the cops show up. In the exact situation if you told the cops "I feared for my life so I shot." Then duty to retreat would apply. Also I'm sure they would try to jamb you up if you shot someone holding a knife instead of a gun without warning them first and all that bullshit.

 

[murf4321]

Bahahah, yes, he made them rob him by parking his car elsewhere. Give me a break.
Perhaps he didn't want his car vandalized too? Hmmmmmm


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

 

[M1911]

I'll dig around to see if I can find it, though it has actually been mentioned on this forum several times. I'm not positive but I believe it has to do with the duty to retreat not applying to protecting others. Which would be one less significant hurdle.

If they are legally justified in using deadly force, then you are legally justified in using deadly force to defend them. But if they are not legally justified in using deadly force, then as far as I know, you are not legally justified in using deadly force to protect them.

If someone confronts/threatens me I'm required to try to retreat if possible. But if I walk in to a convenience store, see a robber pointing a gun at the clerks head, and I shoot the robber. I was never required to try to retreat. I shot because I had reasonable fear for the life of another. Which is allowed under MA law. All I have to prove is that I had every reason to think the other person's life was in imminent danger. The duty to retreat only applies if you are claiming self defense.

No, I think you are mistaken. In this case, the clerk is in immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury. He is unable to retreat safely. Therefore the clerk is legally justified in using deadly force. Since the clerk is legally justified in using deadly force, you are legally justified in using deadly force to protect him.

 

[Bonesinium]

Again, the actions of another, even if those actions are criminal in nature (breaking into/invading someones house), do not justify another persons criminal actions. He took it way beyond defending himself and his property. He didn't just defend himself. He made sure no matter what they did, they wouldn't leave alive. He may have been justified in shooting them at some point. He may even have been justified when he did initially shoot. But he took it further. It appears with at least the female he killed, he made sure to execute her. Proceeding to then move the bodies and not report the killings until a day later? That is pretty damning.

Though I'm a firm believer that you should be able to use any force on someone who invades your home, your castle, with ill intentions, once that force is used, and the person(s) are not a threat, reason should prevail.

He is indeed guilty of murder, not because he shot some home invaders, but because he made sure to kill them regardless of what they did once they entered the home.

 

[Wrench75]

If they are legally justified in using deadly force, then you are legally justified in using deadly force to defend them. But if they are not legally justified in using deadly force, then as far as I know, you are not legally justified in using deadly force to protect them.

No, I think you are mistaken. In this case, the clerk is in immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury. He is unable to retreat safely. Therefore the clerk is legally justified in using deadly force. Since the clerk is legally justified in using deadly force, you are legally justified in using deadly force to protect him.

That is basically why I mentioned the knife versus gun thing in my last post. I would draw down on someone wielding a knife but wouldn't automatically fire. Once an unarmed person is facing a drawn gun at any kind of point blank range, in an alley, across a counter, whatever, then retreat is no longer an option. No court should (word chosen carefully) ever expect someone to turn their back on a gun at, what should be, guaranteed hit range.

Now if your at any kind of distance, like across the street, or otherwise in a situation where you could duck behind a car or around a building, or the attacker has a knife bat or the like, that is a completely different story. And not the type of situation I was originally speaking about.

Also the courts may handle it differently depending on whether you see the whole scenario play out, IE you were in the store before the robber came in, versus, you walk in to a gun already drawn situation. As far as I'm concerned, any time you walk in to a situation where someone is facing a gun from 3 or so feet, the inability to retreat is already a forgone conclusion.

 

[M1911]

That is basically why I mentioned the knife versus gun thing in my last post. I would draw down on someone wielding a knife but wouldn't automatically fire. Once an unarmed person is facing a drawn gun at any kind of point blank range, in an alley, across a counter, whatever, then retreat is no longer an option. No court should (word chosen carefully) ever expect someone to turn their back on a gun at, what should be, guaranteed hit range.

Now if your at any kind of distance, like across the street, or otherwise in a situation where you could duck behind a car or around a building, or the attacker has a knife bat or the like, that is a completely different story. And not the type of situation I was originally speaking about.

Also the courts may handle it differently depending on whether you see the whole scenario play out, IE you were in the store before the robber came in, versus, you walk in to a gun already drawn situation. As far as I'm concerned, any time you walk in to a situation where someone is facing a gun from 3 or so feet, the inability to retreat is already a forgone conclusion.

None of which supports your statement that the law is less stringent about defense of others versus defense of yourself. Ability, opportunity, and jeopardy are considered by the court in either situation. The duty of the victim to retreat (or not) is considered by the court in either situation.

Defending others is generally more risky from a legal perspective because you might not know exactly what is going on and who is actually the aggressor.

 

[Sweeney]

Nutjob removes three pieces of trash from society... including himself. Good show I say!

 

[Come and take]

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.

It's the the way the guy played it out. Dragged the body on a trap. Waited for the other teen and waited a day to report it.

If he shot both as they were entering the house. I think it would of played out different in court.

I agree three scumbags removed from society.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Huh? Would you care to support that statement by citing a court decision?

As far as I know, the standard is the same. You can use deadly for to protect yourself (or another), if you (or they) are immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury. If you are outside of your home, you must retreat if it is safe to do so.

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".

 

[Satcom]

No sympathy for any of the three.

 

[Livefreeormass]

I pray that no NESers kills like this man did. The teens were his neighbors and the guy knew them, and knew that they would get in his house, eat his food, or maybe take his stuff, but not hurt him physically. He should have chosen nonlethal means to stop them. The only sane explaination would be he was insane.

 

[Robert1]

Sorry if this is a dupe but I looked and searched and did not find it.....

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/prosecutor-man-shot-teens-intended-kill-23517042

Thoughts?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Good
'nuff said.

 

[exojam]

I do not have an issue with him parking his car somewhere else.

He should have just been "working" late in the basement, heard someone break in and shoot since he felt his life was in danger. Call the cops on the cell phone you are carrying and hold the next one till they cops arrive.

On a side note though, if his house was broken into 11 times he should have let the cops know sooner and setup some cameras to try and get some evidence of who was doing it.

Putting one under her chin is a bit much though.

 

[OfficerObie59]

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 don't think anyone is claiming the intruder maintains any rights at all.

The question rather is whether the homeowner maintains a right to do whatever he wants to any intruder, including killing them with malice aforethought.

 

[whacko]

I don't think anyone is claiming the intruder maintains any rights at all.

The question rather is whether the homeowner maintains a right to do whatever he wants to any intruder, including killing them with malice aforethought.

Good point. Here is food for thought.......COP on the street shoots a perp (armed) that was threatening the officer and the perp falls to the ground wounded and bleeding but is still alive. COP walks up and puts his pistol to the perps head and blows his brains out. Is the cop guilty of murder?

All you guys that said the homeowner was not guilty should chime in here and explain.

 

[Bendad97]

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.

This. We had a raging debate on this subject when the trial began. I said it before, and I'll say it again. If I was on that jury, I'd have found the guy not guilty, and bought him a beer.

 

[shapiroeric]

Audio of the encounter....starts a little after the 4 minute mark....

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f1f_1398904305

 

[beaker]

They were scumbags but this guy is a couple cans short of a six pack. Listen to the recordings. I mean WFT what kind of a mind records this stuff then hands it over to the police? The recordings convicted him.

Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk Pro - typos are from the GD auto correct unless they are funny substitutions those I'll take credit for.

 

[Wrench75]

Audio of the encounter....starts a little after the 4 minute mark....

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f1f_1398904305

Ya, anyone who listens to that and doesn't think this guy has some serious ****ing problems must have a few of their own...

"I felt like I was cleaning up a mess, like some spilled food or something"...

They were scumbags but this guy is a couple cans short of a six pack. Listen to the recordings. I mean WFT what kind of a mind records this stuff then hands it over to the police? The recordings convicted him..

The recordings are why it only took the jury 3 hrs to return a verdict. I think the forensics alone would have been damning enough though. Several bullet holes in the floor from when he shot them while standing over them, wound tracks in the girl, at an upward angle, showing he shot her from the bottom of the stairs. Several wounds to the body and a headshot. Hell in MA the headshot alone probably would have been enough to get him convicted. Oh ya and then there is the lack of any weapons, moving the bodies and not reporting it until the next day. Not to mention that the 10 min between kills gave him ample time to leave the building. He was ****ed no matter what, and rightly so...