Home owner kills intruder and found guilty despite Castle Doctrine !

Your garage door being open is illegal and wrong? Anyone who leaves their doors open gives up their right to defend themselves and their property?

 

And just what do you expect the person to do...maybe ask the intruder if he needs help finding something. You don't give someone intruding your property time to overtake you or the criminal is the one getting away with it.

 

Where did I say that?

If they leave it open with the goal of killing someone, yes, that is baiting and wrong which is why he was convicted.

As I mentioned before, if he hadn't talked about wanting to kill someone earlier, he probably would have gotten away with it.

 

And before you know it they will be adding rape to their list.

 

You sound pretty much like the guy going to jail. Do you want to kill people too? If you're that anti-social, perhaps you should build a fortress with a moat around it....geesh.

 

F'ing shoot them in the leg then....no need to kill. I wouldn't want that on my conscience...though I have one....

 

Oh quit it with the stupid rhetoric...I don't bow down to anyone. You shoot into the air to scare them off or in the knee to disable them. NO NEED to take a life.

 

Despite what you see in the movies, you don't shoot to shoot them in the knees. You shoot to kill.

I doubt many people in the heat of a fight could even shoot a knee. You always aim for center mass when you shoot.

All that aside, what this guy did was basically baiting and that's why he was convicted as he should be.

 

BC Bud, while I can appreciate your intentions, that is not good advice. Firearms are not toys. They are never to be fired without the intention of killing. If you are going to fire a gun, you had better aim for center mass, lest you end up hurting someone other than the intended target, or placing yourself at undue risk.

The issue is that some people think that their possessions are of greater value than human lives. Many in this thread have already stated as much. These people ought to have their firearms seized, because they simply do not have the emotional or mental maturity to possess such a deadly weapon. And like all people with mental issues, there is no sense trying to convince them otherwise. They'll never believe that there is something wrong with killing a guy because he is in your garage without permission, even if you know the perp is unarmed, and even if their tactical situation is so advantageous that there is no chance of their family or themselves being hurt.

All reasonable people will agree that home invasions are serious business, and that the benefit of the doubt ought to be given to those who are woken up in the middle of the night by burglars. But the reasonable person also understands that lethal force is only justified when there is reason to legitimately fear for your life - in other words, when you are surprised and unsuspecting, and not when you have literally setup an ambush knowing full well that something is going to happen.

>>>MOD EDIT Flamebait Removed<<<

 

if your gonna tell people ""He said 'I'm tired. I've been up for the last three nights with a shotgun wanting to kill some kids,' " Colby said."

then if you actually kill some kid, it may come back to bite you in the butt

that is not fear for your life, that is vigilante justice

.

 

You know, it's always amusing hearing this bravo tripe from someone who the closest they'd ever been to a terrifying experience, such as being woken up in the middle of the night by a stranger in their house was in their dreams.... until you've been there and done that, bubba, I suggest you try to have more understanding of the victims and their paralyzing fear, along w/believing they're going to die..... that had been my experience when I was 19 and single, living alone.

This goofy babble of saying "I have a conscience, I would just shoot him in the knee" is just mindless babble. Thousands of women have had this happen to them and many didn't live to report it to the cops. Maybe b/c some of them who had a gun were to terrified to focus on the small knee and missed..........get back into the real world.

 

They can defend themselves. This will vary case by case. What more do you want me to say?

 

Perhaps the assumption is made that if you shoot someone who has broken into your home you are justified, unless evidence is presented to contrary. Start with the presumption of innocence. But a key question is what degree of evidence is required to show that the shooting was not justified? And who makes this determination? The prosecutor? If the burglar was shot in the back, is that automatically enough reason to arrest the homeowner?
It seems there is no clear cut answer.

I don't agree with this. If they are stealing something extremely valuable, and they have been clearly warned, and are still attempting to flee with the stolen property, a gun shot to one of their legs is appropriate. I suppose it depends on the situation, of course, but just saying that anyone can steal your property and you can't stop them seems a little senseless.

Obviously if it's a young person running off with a soda from a convenience store without paying, using a gun is not appropriate. This could get into some tricky territory, where the line is drawn, how valuable the stolen property has to be, how necessary using force is.

 

Thanks for a great laugh. This ^^ from a guy who lists pornography amongst his interests.

God Bless America!

 

I may like porn, but I don't advocate murder, nor is watching porn "crazy." You need serious psychiatric help.

 

It's vigilante, but certainly not justice. This freak relied upon a controversial law to allow him to bait and kill human prey. It's good that this excuse for a man will be removed from society.

 

People that support a guy that lured and killed a kid are most likely into an actual perverse TV viewing pastime. They probably get off on snuff films .

 

sounds like you agree with me and I agree with you....

 

I agree, but not for that reason. If someone has broken into your home, you can reasonably assume he represents a deadly danger to anyone in the home. Where it becomes questionable is where the door is open, or where nobody is home (the homeowner is lurking in the bushes), or where an outbuilding is broken into, etc.

This is simply not so. You use deadly force to counter the threat of deadly force. The general rule is that no property is worth more than a human life, and there must be SOME plausible threat to human life.

This is not so, for pretty obvious reasons. In emergency conditions, you can't expect someone to appraise the value of property, or to shoot at legs! MOST people armed with a handgun couldn't hit anywhere on a standing person 50 feet away given 10 tries.

Now, there is a great deal of variation from state to state in the US. Consider some of the wording from Alabama:

Notice the lack of clarity here. It says you can use deadly force against a burgler, right? BUT the burgler must be "using our about to use unlawful deadly physical force". Deadly force doesn't apply to property, since property is not alive. So the way the Alabama law is interpreted is, IF someone is armed and apparently prepared to shoot while in the process of burgling, robbing, kindnapping, and so on and on, THEN you can use deadly force. The idea being, armed criminals in the commission of a crime will probably shoot someone if they have to.

But if someone is running away with your priceless Picasso, you can NOT shoot him in the back. He doesn't represent a deadly danger.

 

The intent of the trap layer is what matters here; he clearly admitted his desire to kill.

 

I have a gun.

If someone broke into my home and I had the gun ready, I would first yell "freeze!!!!".

if he then pointed a gun at me or started to come at me with some other weapon, I'd shoot him.

but if he stopped in his tracks and surrendered, I'd call the cops and detain him till he was arrested.

no moral, sane human being shoots first and asks questions later.

 

I think this is a valid point, and one in which many of our crazed supporters of this murderer are not investing any thought.

The court and jury can make exceptions under the castle doctrine. But they keep ignoring that these are exceptions made BY THE JURY.

They got it right this time. A murderer, with murderous intent, is behind bars.

 

Identifying your target should attempted before you just start opening fire. Or else you get this.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/12/24/3102541/father-shoots-kills-14-year-daughter-saying-mistook-burglar/
You can bet your ass this father wishes he had yelled "Who's there" or "Freeze".
There are about 3 more stories linked in there with the same horrible results of opening fire without ever saying a word.

 

It all depends upon the situation.