When it comes down to being a burglar, I don’t think that that was any too Christian, either. You think that being good for the last 27 years means that you didn’t negatively impact a lot of lives back then? Being burgled isn’t the walk in the park that you’re letting on, even with amends. You have somebody breaking into your house, and you don’t know what they are going to do, and/or when they will come back, and what they will do when/if they do.
You got lucky. I’m glad it worked out for you, but, these kids got a bad break, as often happens to felons, and I think the homeowner should not be faulted.
A few years ago my neighbor shot and killed a seventeen year old who broke into his house in the middle of the night. Was it okay with me? Well, no, because a young man suddenly had his entire life taken from him before it even had a chance to really start. But at the same time I don’t think my neighbor did anything wrong. One of the possible consequences of breaking into someone’s home is getting shot.
Originally in English common law a felony was any crime for which you could lose “life or limb”- literally, to be hanged or suffer mutilation. Serious theft was one of these. In response to the rise in urban crime in the 18th century Britain actually expanded the number of death penalty crimes from 50 in 1688 to 220 by the early nineteenth century. Jury nullification became more common as a result, and reforms started by making the death penalty discretionary in most cases.
Even though it’s long since been legally abolished, popular culture still remembers the tradition that people suffering injury or death as a result of committing a felony had forfeited any claim to damages. I couldn’t find a cite, does anyone know when this was abolished from tort law?
Right – you have do a right to defend yourself and your home when under attack/threat,that’s not in question. But his actions during and after the incident indicate “cold blood” and take away a lot of the justification behind the self-defense principle IMO.
To harken back to the thread title, no, not “precious snowflakes”. Victims of criminally bad decisions both their own and his, and whatever’s *their *share of fault does *not *relieve him of any of his.
Their isnt a darn thing in my house worth killing another human over. Now I’m not saying I wouldnt threaten or even shoot to wound but I really cannot see where one would need to take a life.
Because in this case the guy was lying in wait. He wasn’t going about his business in his home, he’d prepared an ambush in his basement before the break-in.
Lo, and behold, they were murdered. Minnesota law permits the use of deadly force when “preventing the commission of a felony in the actor’s place of abode.” That describes the initial shots, but not the executions that followed.
Shooting to wound basically isn’t a thing; the law makes no distinction between shots to wound and shots intended to kill, all are considered deadly force. Further, given the fragility of the human body and the poor accuracy of firearms, especially handguns, under stress, any shot fired has a decent chance of killing the person shot.
Right. A prosecutor could claim that if you had the leisure to shoot to wound, you weren’t in mortal danger.
Well, in this case there were “shots to wound”, followed by shots to kill (though he may have intended to kill with the first shots.)
But how do you know they arn’t going to kill you? If I catch someone breaking into my house, when my family is asleep, I am going to make damn sure my family is not hurt. If someone doesn’t like that, they can stay the Hell out of my house.
This. Just ask Dr. William Petit (because you can’t ask his wife or his 17-year-old daughter. And not even his 11-year-old. Nope).
For home protection I’d have my first couple of rounds be buckshot, then the remainder be lethal. I think a person can survive a .22 caliber buckshot round.
You could be wrong, or more likely you’d just piss them off and they’d kill you.
I’m sure you mean birdshot, as buckshot is abundantly lethal. Shot of .22 inch diameter is a hair smaller than #4 buckshot (.24 inch diameter), and much larger than turkey/goose loads using BB (.18 inch) or #2 birdshot (.14 inch).
In any event, the law still classifies such as lethal force. It depends from state to state, but you generally must be in fear of lethal injury or serious bodily harm, to you or a third party, for you to justify using lethal force. If you’re in fear of lethal injury, why are you thinking of using ammunition that has a lesser chance of stopping your assailant? And if you aren’t in fear for your life or the lives of your loved ones, then damn it, why are you using lethal force?
As to the instant case, it’s further proof of why it’s good practice to not make a full statement to police until you’ve consulted with counsel. Though, like Nixon, the recording system was going to sink him regardless of whatever story he concocted. I’d just further like to add that it is not illegal in any state I’m aware of, to wait “in ambush” in your own home. It probably will count against your claim that you were in fear of death or serious bodily injury though. Especially if you don’t bother calling the cops.
Why can’t they be both?
Why say ‘Lying in wait’? That is just trying to put a bad spin on something, and you blamed well know it.
Was he actually lying? Tell the truth. Was he sitting? Was he standing?
If he wasn’t lying, then he wasn’t ‘lying in wait’, was he? So, there must be some reason to use the term. I submit that you are using the term to try and help build your case, since it is traditionally used for malefactors.
And, he *was *going about his business in his home. Whatever he wants to do in his home is his business, not that it mattered to the felons.
I don’t think that the ‘Make my day’ laws and/or the ‘Castle doctrine’ laws are made to protect anything that’s in your house.
Not if it involves illegal activity, such as murder. Then it’s the state’s business.
He said “lying in wait” because that’s the legal term for what he was doing.
Does that include yourself and your loved ones?
A man who records himself talking to himself all night, setting a trap then giddily murdering teenagers and doesn’t even erase the tape has mental issues ? The hell you say.