By a ghost, I suppose?
Really, I think you’ve made your point, though I’m not sure what that ever was.
Not getting your “ghost” reference, guessing it’s one of those “zombie” memes that are on here? Don’t really follow that, so anyway it will be interesting to see what the facts are as they emerge.
And how, pray tell, do you expect her to know what cordite smells like? I mean, you don’t actually know that the girl has ever been in the vicinity of a gunshot before the encounter in question, do you?
now why on earth would you do that now, after making your mind up on so many details because you just know?
I was referring to the post you were replying to. Thanks for reading. But hey, as long as we’re making assumptions that we don’t have anything but conjecture for, it should be good. Let’s change it to Jesus armed with the Missouri.
In 2009, two NH teenage boys knocked on the door of a home, which belonged to two Dartmouth College professors. Under a pretext of conducting a survey, the two herded the victims into the living room, where both were shot to death. The two perps were later caught while hitching rides at a truck terminal in Indiana. So…two innocent people murdered because they trusted two strangers…at the trials, the two admitted that they killed the pair because the “wanted to see what it felt like”. Had the victims been armed (and killed their attackers), would that have been justified?
Ralph, I think you’ve taken the castle defense out of the equation. One of the lawyers would have to clarify, but I think that it does not apply unless they are breaking in. If that is the case, it would be a normal justifiable homicide if the professors had defended themselves.
First off, nobody uses cordite anymore. The smell of modern propellant is hardly overpowering. Are you picturing Pepe Le Pew stinklines flowing up the stairs? You don’t even have any idea what the house smelled like. Maybe the scent of moldy newspaper overpowered the very faint stink of the propellant. Or maybe it wasn’t noticeable at all or she had no idea what it was. You’re just creating a scenario that appeals to you, not one that is in any way likely.
As long as we’re wildly speculating and making shit up to try to explain what seems like irrational behavior based on limited information…
What if the homeowner was doing something that he found embarrassing/humiliating in the privacy of his basement, and his killing the intruders and not immediately contacting police was in order to keep whatever it was secret.
Could also explain the bit about the girl supposedly laughing (at whatever she saw him doing) and his executing her in frustration and desire to keep her quiet. Obviously, the guy ain’t playing with a full deck, not only because of the killings, but because of his over-the-top self-incriminating confessions to the police.
What they deserved was to be apprehended, held, charged, tried, convicted, receive an appropriate sentence (which probably wouldn’t have been the death penalty), and given the chance to rehabilitate and become productive members of society.
Were they “precious snowflakes”? Well not mine or yours, but they were probably someone’s.
Were they tragically murdered? Debatable perhaps; they were certainly tragically killed. Whether they were murdered or not will be decided once all of the facts are in and a trial is conducted.
Sorry for the lack of wild speculation and/or vitriol.
Has anyone checked for a grassy knoll shooter?
You’re seriously asking if you’re allowed to use lethal force in defending yourself against an attempted murder? :dubious:
I am not a lawyer, but I believe the pair of thieves would quite likely have found themselves facing felony murder charges if they had been armed and killed the old man.
Twisting another poster’s words to attack them is a straw man argument and, in this case, a rather inflammatory one.
Knock it off.
That said, this sort of response does nothing to further the discussion, either:
Both of you back it down and stop making it personal or take it to The BBQ Pit.
[ /Moderating ]
I fully support the rights of the homeowner to defend their life and property with deadly force if need be. In this case, it is obvious that the man’s rights were violated, especially since he was in the BASEMENT when the incident occurred, which meant that the two teens would have encroached upon his property to the fullest extent before being fired upon. Also, in self defence, the point is to incapacitate your threat, and at times, that includes taking a life. How would you know that the perps didn’t have some sort of concealed weapon, and despite being injured, pull them out and fire back on the homeowner? Yes, the old man’s actions were extreme, but in light of the scenario, I fully understand them. It only takes one failure to incapacitate your foe to take a bullet in the back. I do not relish in any sort of killing, quite the opposite, I relish life and the fulfillment of life, but if we cant defend ourselves to the fullest extent, how can we feel free to live?
The guy’s confessed to murder, and, if the jury believe that confession, he’s guilty of murder. That said, he had a right to defend himself, and if he’d killed them with one shot (such as in another case that’s been discussed in brief on this board) he would be fine, morally at least. The burglars bear most of the responsibility for their deaths, as they caused the situation where it was acceptable for them to be shot. The homeowner bears the rest of the responsibility, and for that should be found guilty of murder (based solely on his confession as reported in the newspaper).
They did not deserve to die. But then, he did not deserve to have his house burgled. That’s pretty much irrelevant though.
Shooting a helpless, wounded person because they are supposedly “laughing” is not defending yourself. It’s not even close. Going by his own statement of what happened, what he did was murder, not self defense.
No no no no no … Did you notice a sign out in front of my house that said “Dead Kifer Storage”?
I am not from the US but on these questions of self-defence shooting’s the thing that sticks out is it seems acceptable to shoot first without issuing any kind of warning. I find that really odd. It’s a willingness to escalate to violence I just don’t understand.
I am sure the answer to that will be ah but they might be armed and will shoot you first but to me it seems the home owner in the examples I am aware of (the other I can think of off the top of my head being the guy who shot his son) had had the drop on the burglar. It seems unlikely they are going to be able to get a shot off before someone that already has them sighted. I find it weird someone would shoot someone else without at least trying some sort of verbal warning first.
There also always seems to be this assumption that people breaking and entering are going to be the very worst type of psycho who is just out to rape and murder when reality tells me 99% of the time it’s going to be some petty thief who will run a mile at the first sign of trouble.
Of course in this specific case the guy looks to have been far from a reasonable person if everything is as reported.
I’m not a big gun guy, but I can’t say I favor the idea that a homeowner has to wait for the burglar to pull his own gun before taking action to defend himself. Life isn’t like the movies, can this man be sure his defense will work after the gunfight has started? People don’t always drop like a sack of potatoes when they get shot, you can miss, and now the guy is throwing lead your direction. Of course, there has to be some reason behind your defense, unlike that case where a teen was killed because he knocked at the wrong house looking for a halloween party.
If you don’t want to get shot, or brained by a 9-iron, or stabbed with a kitchen knife, don’t go around breaking into people’s houses. Similarly, if you don’t want to die in prison, don’t execute unarmed teens in your basement.