He says $10,000 worth of stuff was taken from him, what insurance company doesn’t need a police report?
From that linked article.
Yikes. I wonder what he was planning on doing.
Also from the article:
Ambush city. Shoot the first, then move the body so the second one doesn’t see it. Clever, but you’re still guilty.
Clever? Delusions of being Rambo. Or maybe John Wayne. I could see arming yourself with a rifle and pistol or a shotgun and a pistol, but a shotgun and a rifle? What was he planning to do, hop on his (hobby)horse and fire like he was chasing down the Indians on the Plains?
Umm, what? He had a rifle and a pistol.
Sorry, for some reason I read “handgun” as “shotgun”. The dude’s still a Rambo-/John Wayne-wannabe, though.
Either way, you don’t get to make a trap, shoot people, reset the trap, and claim self defense. OK, technically he didn’t set a trap, but the moving the body and laying in wait again is fucked up.
Yep.
These two “upstanding citizens” who were “murdered”-is there any info on their contributions to society? Were they gainfully employed? Yes, the old man probably exceeded his right to self-defense…but the fact remaions that he had a very reasonable fear fore his life.
I think that the judge should give him an extremely strong lecture-he needs to be made aware of the laws.
The operative word in that sentence is had.
If you missed it the first N times it came up in the thread, most posters agree he had an acceptable reason for making the first shot.
The argument is that following up his first shots by calmly and methodically finishing off the teens and then neglecting to inform the police for a day go way beyond fearing for his well being (much less being an imminent threat anymore). The moral worth of the intruders is immaterial to that.
I’m hoping you actually do realize that those questions are irrelevant. Nobody deserves to be murdered. Vigilante justice isn’t actually justice.
Probably? Well, I guess you’re technically right in that 1:1 is a valid term in Probability.
Initially, he had a presumptive fear for his life. After he rendered the burglars incapable, he no longer had any fear whatsoever. He evidenced (how many times does the term evidence in all its forms have to be used in this thread before some folks realize what it means?) that he had no fear when he dragged one victim and left him to suffer, die, and decompose. After the second burglar came down the steps, he may have had another presumptive fear for his life until–you knew this was coming, right?–he rendered that burglar incapable. He yet again evidenced he had no fear for his life when he calmly killed his victim because the victim upset him. So, what do you think he was afraid of for the day he spent waiting to call the cops?
WTF? He needs to be prosecuted for the crimes he’s admitted to committing and which the evidence (there’s that word again) shows he committed. A freaking lecture for two stone cold murders? Please do whatever you can, within the law of course, to be excused from duty the next time you’re called up for jury duty, please. Seriously. If nothing else, show this post to the judge.
Not every murder is a cause for great sorrow, though. I will not argue that The Crazy Old Man doesn’t deserve prosecution. However, I just cannot summon up any sense of loss either personally or on behalf of society over the deaths of two thieves.
Christian analogy on a silver platter for the taking, folks. 
One does have to wonder what sort of “hobby” he was working on in that basement, and did it involve a gimp?
I can. Being a thief isn’t the most attractive, nor even most intelligent, job on the planet; however, it certainly doesn’t qualify as is a capital crime.
Yes, as a society we should just go back to death sentence for all criminals. Makes sense.
You see, it is not the “death” of two thieves. It is the “murder” of two thieves. Herein is the difference. Were two thieves breaking into a place and through their stupidity slip, fall down the stairs and die, well that is an accident. But if society allows people to take justice into their own hands, we as a society lose.
ETA: Or what Monty said
I’m right with you. The Crazy Old Man’s initial shot at each intruder was 100% justified; it was when he set himself up as judge and executioner over a crippled assailant rather than allow society’s justice to take over that he became as much or more of a menace than the thieves.
The biggest problem is that I, as a random person, cannot know if someone who breaks into my occupied house is a thief or a murderer. In some sense, it qualifies as a capital crime to the extent that I as a homeowner feel threatened by their presence inside my home, y’know?
I did not claim it did. In fact, I indicated that I’m good with TCOM being prosecuted for the killings. Lack of heartache that two thieves chose to burglarize a crazy man and paid with their lives in no way indicates that I consider burglary a capital crime.
I know that, as I said above, the old dude in question had a presumption initially that his life was threatened by the unknown persons in his home. Once he removed their capability to threaten him, then I know for a fact that there is no threat to his life. He removed their capability and then he killed them. Care to take a wild guess what such a killing is called?