Man executes two teens for breaking into home on Thanksgiving

• Raw Dawgin' it

  

  isadore;1333432 wrote:Two young adult punks broke in the home an old man and got what they deserved. Now they are treated as martyrs.
  http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/11/25/vigil-held-for-2-little-falls-teens-shot-killed-town-shaken/

  gfy - if the man had a pittbull that attacked and killed them as they broke in you'd be singing a different tune.
• like_that

  

  Commander of Awesome;1333485 wrote:No kidding, I even heard they cussed at live sporting events.

  Even though I disagree with you on this thread, this post brought the lulz.
• reclegend22

  

  Fly4Fun;1333448 wrote:From the information that we've heard so far, it does seem as the man went too far with his "execution," however, I also think all this "feel good" crap about the students is ridiculous. They weren't shot down by the man because they were on his porch selling girl scout cookies. They were on drugs, had previously robbed another residence and were in the process of doing the same to his.
  
  I hate all the "they were athletes, they were popular, every one loved them, they had so much energy, they were working towards their future" crap. No need to dance on their grave, but to pretend like they were stand up individuals is a laughing stock.

  This.
  
  Who cares if they were high. I've taken plenty of drugs and yet, I don't ever remember conducting a home invasion. Sadly for these kids, the most likely consequence of entering a stranger's home at night with a ski mask on your head is death. It is not being hit in the face with a flying paint can or tripping on Micro Machines and being tied up until the cops come, as some here would have you believe. Just "subdue" them lol. I agree guy should have stopped once they were visibly down, but it was in the dead of night and perhaps they twitched (as if they were perhaps reaching for something) or he thought they might have weapons, so in that case I think it is OK to "take them down."
  
  This guy will get murder, however, for taking them to his basement. That sealed the case.
• like_that

  

  reclegend22;1333575 wrote:This.
  
  Who cares if they were high. I've taken plenty of drugs and yet, I don't ever remember conducting a home invasion. Sadly for these kids, the most likely consequence of entering a stranger's home at night with a ski mask on your head is death. It is not being hit in the face with a flying paint can or tripping on Micro Machines and being tied up until the cops come, as some here would have you believe. Just "subdue" them lol. I agree guy should have stopped once they were visibly down, but it was in the dead of night and perhaps they twitched (as if they were perhaps reaching for something) or he thought they might have weapons, so in that case I think it is OK to "take them down."
  
  This guy will get murder, however, for taking them to his basement. That sealed the case.

  LOL Reps.
• Gblock

  if the teens were black he might have a chance to get off but two good looking popular white kids?? break in or not hes going down
• isadore

  Raw Dawgin' it;1333538 wrote:gfy - if the man had a pittbull that attacked and killed them as they broke in you'd be singing a different tune.

  pitt bulls prefer killing babies and small children rather than young adult burglars.
• Scarlet_Buckeye

  

  Mixed emotions about this.
  Did he take it too far? Certainly.
  After he clearly wounded them enough so that they were not a "threat", did he need to continue to shoot them? No
  Was it grotesque? Absolutely.
  
  HOWEVER...
  Does one have the right to protect them-self? Yes
  Were the teenagers breaking-and-entering? Yes
  Does one have the right to shoot someone who is trespassing on their property? Yes
  What if these weren't some... "harmless" teenagers? What if they shot and killed him first?
  
  I agree he's likely in the wrong (because I do think he took it too far), but... it's not like he went looking for trouble; trouble went looking and found him.
• Hb31187

  

  Scarlet_Buckeye;1333656 wrote:Mixed emotions about this.
  Did he take it too far? Certainly.
  After he clearly wounded them enough so that they were not a "threat", did he need to continue to shoot them? No
  Was it grotesque? Absolutely.
  
  HOWEVER...
  Does one have the right to protect them-self? Yes
  Were the teenagers breaking-and-entering? Yes
  Does one have the right to shoot someone who is trespassing on their property? Yes
  What if these weren't some... "harmless" teenagers? What if they shot and killed him first?
  
  I agree he's likely in the wrong (because I do think he took it too far), but... it's not like he went looking for trouble; trouble went looking and found him.

  And he subdued that trouble with gunshot wounds, no need to execute them after
• sportchampps

  I believe the, being on drugs does make a difference. People who are popping painkillers often use heroin as well because is a cheaper version of the same high. When people are on these drugs it can make them become more aggressive and much harder to restrain. They don't feel pain. In this case the one kid was shot but was still able to laughs cording to the shooter because his gun locked up. I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't laugh after being shot.
• gut

  While those are fair points, I don't think it matters. The law is usually pretty clear, relatively speaking - clear and immediate danger, and many laws go further to clarify that lethal force is only justified is there is legitimate reason to fear for your life.
  
  There's no leg to stand on here. The only defense I can see is mentally incompetent. And based on his statements there's a pretty solid case, especially if we find out he was off meds. Temporary insanity (maybe triggered by fear) would be a tougher sell, and his statements indicating he had planned and thought about this (for the next break-in) dont help.
  
  Scary part is if he is found to be mentally unstable/incompetent, he could one day be released (maybe with meds deemed to be effective).
• I Wear Pants

  Scarlet_Buckeye;1333656 wrote:Mixed emotions about this.
  Did he take it too far? Certainly.
  After he clearly wounded them enough so that they were not a "threat", did he need to continue to shoot them? No
  Was it grotesque? Absolutely.
  
  HOWEVER...
  Does one have the right to protect them-self? Yes
  Were the teenagers breaking-and-entering? Yes
  Does one have the right to shoot someone who is trespassing on their property? Yes
  What if these weren't some... "harmless" teenagers? What if they shot and killed him first?
  
  I agree he's likely in the wrong (because I do think he took it too far), but... it's not like he went looking for trouble; trouble went looking and found him.

  But they weren't and they didn't. Hypotheticals are useless. The reality is this guy murdered these kids.
• gut

  I Wear Pants;1333784 wrote:But they weren't and they didn't. Hypotheticals are useless. The reality is this guy murdered these kids.

  Technically I think he murdered one kid. Sounds like the shotgun shot to the boy was lethal.
• I Wear Pants

  gut;1333788 wrote:Technically I think he murdered one kid. Sounds like the shotgun shot to the boy was lethal.

  Indubitably.
• isadore

  I Wear Pants;1333784 wrote:But they weren't and they didn't. Hypotheticals are useless. The reality is this guy murdered these kids.

  young adult thugs who tried to rob an old man.
• password

  

  People get all worked up over 2 criminals being killed while committing a crime, since when do we feel sorry for criminals who get what they deserve. The only thing that I see wrong with this incident is that he waited until the next day to call police, but that will be his trump card when the trial starts, he was in such shock over the whole incident that he couldn't think straight when it was over. I say he walks with a slap on the wrist when this goes to trial.
• WebFire

  password;1333798 wrote:People get all worked up over 2 criminals being killed while committing a crime, since when do we feel sorry for criminals who get what they deserve. The only thing that I see wrong with this incident is that he waited until the next day to call police, but that will be his trump card when the trial starts, he was in such shock over the whole incident that he couldn't think straight when it was over. I say he walks with a slap on the wrist when this goes to trial.

  No way.
• password

  

  Yes way. This is a guy who had already been victimized a couple of times before this night, he was scared and just snapped during the criminal act being committed against him.
• I Wear Pants

  isadore;1333797 wrote:young adult thugs who tried to rob an old man.

  Yes they did. The punishment for that crime isn't death and we don't allow citizens to dole out punishment on their own. If they had been killed in defense of his home then this is an entirely different conversation. But that didn't happen, this man executed a teenager. That's murder and needs to be tried as such.
  
  Just because you're too morally bankrupt to be able to see past the "herp derp they broke into his house therefore anything at all that would ever happen to them is okay" doesn't mean that's how our laws do or should work.
• WebFire

  password;1333841 wrote:Yes way. This is a guy who had already been victimized a couple of times before this night, he was scared and just snapped during the criminal act being committed against him.

  You clearly have no idea how these laws work.
• isadore

  I Wear Pants;1333858 wrote:Yes they did. The punishment for that crime isn't death and we don't allow citizens to dole out punishment on their own. If they had been killed in defense of his home then this is an entirely different conversation. But that didn't happen, this man executed a teenager. That's murder and needs to be tried as such.
  
  Just because you're too morally bankrupt to be able to see past the "herp derp they broke into his house therefore anything at all that would ever happen to them is okay" doesn't mean that's how our laws do or should work.

  these "kids" as you like to call them were monsters. They were young strong athletes who in their small community found a old man to victimize. An old man who had been robbed by them or their ilk again and again. His possesions take again and again, his home looted again and again, his personal safey endangered again and again. The police failing in their job of protecting this man from these predators. When the law failed to protect, you are entitled to use any mean necessary to eliminate that continuing threat to yourself.
• password

  

  WebFire;1333864 wrote:You clearly have no idea how these laws work.

  I will stick to my theory, he walks if he has a good group of attorneys. I do know how the law works, but it has been proven many times how the courts work, they are not the same. The law is what is used to file charges, but the courts are all that matters.
• WebFire

  password;1333874 wrote:I will stick to my theory, he walks if he has a good group of attorneys. I do know how the law works, but it has been proven many times how the courts work, they are not the same. The law is what is used to file charges, but the courts are all that matters.

  The odds are not in your favor. If he would have shot them dead right away when there was threat, he walks. "Finishing them off", then hiding the bodies in the basement and calling the police the next day, murder.
  
  Pretty black and white. You are crazy if you think he walks.
• WebFire

  Good example of one here. Teens come in to rob, with guns. Store owner shoots, hitting one of the robbers and the robber falls to the floor. The other robber flees, and the owner chases (big no no). Comes back into the store, walks over/around the kid he shot, laying on the floor, then comes back and "finishes him". Clearly not longer a threat.
  
  Verdict? Guilty of murder.
  
  [video=youtube;DSBBlEhmWNQ][/video]
• password

  

  WebFire;1333885 wrote:The odds are not in your favor. If he would have shot them dead right away when there was threat, he walks. "Finishing them off", then hiding the bodies in the basement and calling the police the next day, murder.Pretty black and white. You are crazy if you think he walks.

  Hiding the bodies and waiting until the next day to call police is what they will try to use as proof that he was in shock and disbelief of what had happened. If this happened to you and you did what the guy claims to have done, would you have made the comments to the police that he did? That just shows he was insane at the time, he just lost it and snapped.
• WebFire

  password;1333895 wrote:Hiding the bodies and waiting until the next day to call police is what they will try to use as proof that he was in shock and disbelief of what had happened. If this happened to you and you did what the guy claims to have done, would you have made the comments to the police that he did? That just shows he was insane at the time, he just lost it and snapped.

  So you are saying he did the crime, but will walk by pleading insanity?