If he felt like he was under siege, why didn’t he call the police right after the shooting?
I can see someone who felt really threatened over-reacting in the heat of the moment and using excessive force. But why would someone who felt that threatened then just sit around by himself for 24 hours when there might be other assailants prowling around? His description of the events doesn’t make any sense to me.
Possibly not. But since he shot the first kid as soon as the kid’s “hips came into sight”, he probably couldn’t tell if he had a gun in his hands coming down the stairs. And…he still would not know if the other intruder, still upstairs, was armed.
I’m pretty sure it’s true that dead people don’t testify.
OTOH, killing someone AFTER you shot them is not going to look good for you. If you fear for your life and intend to use a gun for your safety, don’t shoot to warn or wound. Shoot for center of mass, and shoot until they’re not a threat anymore.
Checking on the person you just shot then popping a few more rounds into them is Grade A Murder.
Has it even occured to you that somebody capable of coldly murdering two people might just be capable of lying about the circumstances? The story that he tells just doesn’t make any sense, whereas the scenario where he leads them at gunpoint down to the cellar and murders them does?
A child is playing with matches. He’s been told a dozen times not to, but he still does it anyway. Unfortunately, this time he manages to burn his fingers pretty badly. Burning a kid’s fingers is not an appropriate punishment. A timeout, taking away his Gameboy, maybe even grounding for a week if the problem is persistent - those all sound reasonable. So, did the child deserve to get his fingers burnt?
Well…he didn’t not deserve it.
The burglary victim was a known gun enthusiast - so fond of shooting his guns that his neighbors had complained about it. Even if the burglers were not aware of these complaints, if they were the same ones that had robbed his house previously (quite likely, IMHO), they had seen that he was a gun owner. Yet, in true Darwin-Award-Winning fashion, they decided to go in anyways.
Obviously society doesn’t feel that death as an appropriate punishment for burglary, or that would be the official punishment. So did the criminals deserve to die for their stupidity?
Well…they didn’t not deserve it.
Of course.
[Oliver Hardy]Now look what you made me do![/Oliver Hardy]
Many of you are using the term “the two kids”:
One of the two was a adult, the other was 17. I suppose 17 can be called a “kid’ but 18 is a adult.
So we should refer to them as two adults that were murdered in cold blood? Will do.
Since it’s all wild speculation anyway:
What if the girl went down the stairs after shouting something like: “Oh no, cousin Nick! Please don’t shoot, I’m unarmed!” and then ran down the stairs to help her cousin? Then nasty old man shoots her anyway.
That would at least make sense for her running down the stairs after the gunshots. Even if it perhaps wasn’t the best idea.
Why don’t we just refer to them as what they were: Two criminals who were killed while they were committing a crime. If it makes you feel better, you can note that they were killed by a third criminal.
I’m a huge gun rights and gun ownership advocate–nonetheless, Der Trihs is right. You are legally and morally permitted to use as much force as necessary and no more to defend yourself against a determined attacker, and this guy’s actions went beyond the pale. If you’ve shot to incapacitate, you get out of the room and call 911, you don’t go finish 'em off and let 'em rot.
The simple failure to call the cops in a timely manner argues that this should be a murder case. I’m sympathetic to shooting first in a situation where strangers have entered your home, but finishing off an unarmed intruder who’s lying moaning on your floor passes the line of “acceptable force”. Similarly, one cannot excuse follow-up shots on a wounded intruder who is at that point obviously not wielding any weapon.
I find that the age of a person I consider to be a kid keeps going up in relation to how much older I keep getting. Yeah, an 18 year old is an adult but I can’t help but think of him as a kid. A few years ago one of my neighbors shot a 17 year after he broke through the kitchen door and entered the house. The kid died. What a waste. This kid was snuffed out before he really had a chance to live a full life. Did he deserve to die? I don’t like to think of it that way. I don’t really like to think of it that way.
To me, getting shot, beaten or otherwise hurt is a natural consequence of breaking into someone’s home. If I shot an intruder in my home it wouldn’t be because I thought he deserved it. I’d shoot him because I was scared. I sure has hell wouldn’t be scared of someone who was lying on my floor bleeding to death. Shooting him at that point isn’t self-defense it’s just murder (or manslaughter or whatever you want to call it).
A persistent theme in the online comments from friends, family and neighbors is that the homeowner suspected the two teens in at least two of the previous break-ins. If this is actually true, and of course we have no evidence that it is at this point, it still does not excuse the execution-style killings. But if these criminals were systematically and routinely terrorizing this guy, it does perhaps explain why the homeowner finally lost it and went all Rambo on them.
And actually, might be used by a prosecutor to indicate that he had pre-meditated the murders.
All right, I’ll be the first to day it (maybe, I skimmed a lot of the thread).
It had to be precious snowflakes because that picture makes the girl seem really sweet.
NO doubt. But also possibly by the defense to show mitigating circumstances. It will be an interesting trial.
to say it:smack:
And somebody finally did. That was the most frightening thing to me about the story - how absolutely wholesome and “normal” those two kids looked.
I caught what may have been the first radio broadcast of this crime on Public Radio and there was a mention of a possible third intruder who ran away. Haven’t heard any more about that since.
Haven’t read the entire thread. Have read the articles.
The homeowner executed the kids in cold blood. The boy fell at his feet and so he aimed down and shot him in the face to finish him off. After shooting the girl and dragging her body over to the boy’s, she was still breathing, so, his rifle having jammed, he pulled out his pistol, placed it under her chin and fired into her brain. He clearly and openly admitted to having done this intentionally to kill her.
He did not call the police until the next day.
As such, his confession is on file. He admitted killing them, he admitted ‘finishing them off’. He is guilty of two counts of 2nd degree Murder under Minnesota law and I fully expect him to be tried and convicted on that.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.19
"Subdivision 1.Intentional murder; drive-by shootings.
Whoever does either of the following is guilty of murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:
(1) causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation"
On another board after I posted this, a criminal attorney relatively local to the event stated that, if the man has no other criminal record, the sentencing guidelines recommend a sentence of 25.5 years.
Frankly, doesn’t matter what the family says about the kids. Has no bearing on the case. And as I said in another place; “‘good kids’ don’t do home invasions”.