Why would I assume any such thing? The person in question has already broken several laws by invading my home. Why should I assume he’s harmless?
Well you are not assuming they are harmless. I just think you could issue a verbal warning before shooting them. It’s not the assumption that they are harmless but the assumption that you are in a life and death struggle when in the vast majority of cases it really won’t be that.
I have only ever interrupted one attempted burglary and they ran at the first sign the property was occupied. Burglars are not there to get into a fight. They want an easy pay day not a confrontation.
So how often do gun fights between home owners and burglar’s happen in the US? Just curious as it’s not a story I see reported much.
Are burglar’s often armed? I would have thought that would impact sentencing quite a bit so you would think it would be avoided.
Yeesh, what the hell does this have to do with the case at hand? This guy shot and incapacitated two unarmed burgers; good on him. I support his right to defend himself and his property when he feels threatened. He then stepped over the line and executed them, committing murder. He did not have the right to continue shooting after they were lying incapacitated on the floor. End of story. The guy is a menace to society and should be locked up.
Life isn’t a movie, that guy is not an action hero. A live intruder in your house is a deadly threat no matter how “disabled” they are. You shoot a guy coming down the stairs, what’s to stop him from pulling out a gun and shooting back if he’s still alive? What’s to stop him from stabbing me if I try to search him for weapons? I don’t know what I would do in that situation, but I know I would be terrified and concerned ONLY about my own safety with absolutely zero regard for the life of the burglars. To me “shoot until they stop twitching” seems like a perfectly valid reaction to a situation like that. I strongly disagree that an injured robber stops being a threat, if anything they would be more likely to shoot back.
Presumably you would stop at the point of an execution shot to the head when you were dragging the body further into your basement and realised they were still alive?
I think after the initial shots that appeared to incapacitate a normal person would get out of that room and call the police. The guy in question seemed to have no problem moving the bodies and did not seem in fear of them.
I don’t know what I’d do, I just know I would be terrified and the likelyhood of taking irrational less than ideal solutions would be high.
Seriously, did you even read the news article? How you can get from “I’d be scared if someone broke in my house” (which is a legitimate point) to partially justify “I put a pistol under the chin of a wounded and gasping teenager to deliver a ‘good clean finishing shot’” (an act of psychopathic and senseless violence) is just unbelievable.
I read the article, my first reaction was “that guy is crazy”. My second reaction is “i guess under those circumstances i might act crazy too”. After the fact it is easy to see them as two mess up kids who didn’t deserve to die over a robbery, but while it is actually going on you simply don’t know enough to make that kind of decision.
Bullshit. Firing blindly in a panic that turns them into hamburger – okay, maybe.
Dragging the victim to a better spot to issue a “good clean finishing shot” is not born of fear and/or confusion, but of anger and/or psychosis.
Indeed. Clearly this was far from what would be considered a “normal person”.
I’m jumping in late, but yeah. They deserved it. If a kid my age broke into my home, they better believe they’re going to have a serious lack of a pulse.
In your opinion they would get what they deserve, and in my opinion you would then get what you deserved.
Yeah, it’s a simple matter of opinion. My question is, what would I be getting? What would I deserve?
What’s the penalty for murder in your neighborhood?
If someone broke into my home I would be pretty angry I must say. I don’t think I could then equate that to them deserving to die for doing it though. Where do you draw the line when you think just breaking and entering is something you can kill someone over?
It’s actually a matter of law, not some person’s opinion. If the facts are being described accurately (and it seems the old man is gleefully relating the whole crime in great detail), there simply isn’t any doubt that it is murder.
We’d apparently still be churning out thieves and trigger-happy old men, though, so society might not turn out to be better off after all.
A sob or a gasp of pain can sound like a bark of laughter.
Let me begin by noting that The Crazy Old Man in the OP should not have executed the two thieves after they had ceased to be a threat. That was wrong. So was concealing what he had done for 24 hours. That said…
People actually have been harmed by intruders into their homes, right? Robbery, assault, rape, murder…intruders have genuinely done these all things. Sometimes even combinations of them. Is there anybody here who wishes to dispute that?
With that in mind, if there is an intruder in the house, there is a non-zero chance that s/he may do any or all of those things to the inhabitants. If there is more than one intruder, even more of a chance IMPO because as things escalate, multiple intruders will be reluctant to be the first to back away for fear of looking weak to their fellow intruders.
With that in mind, if you have an intruder (or two) in your house, you are certainly welcome to give hir/them the benefit of the doubt and figure all they want is an easy pay day. I’m not quite that trusting in the essential good nature of criminals, especially if these intruders have broken into a house that they have every reason to expect is occupied.
Perhaps the thieves didn’t deserve what happened to them in the sense that, if they had been arrested for all they had actually done up to the moment The Crazy Old Man killed them, the legal system would not have imposed the death penalty. OTOH, if they hadn’t broken into The Crazy Old Man’s house, they wouldn’t have got killed.
If he hadn’t killed them, we have no way of knowing what other outcomes the incident might have had. Maybe they’d have just taken off. Maybe they’d have engaged in some assault and battery, especially if they thought that The Crazy Old Man might have some cash or other valuables stashed somewhere in the house he wasn’t telling them about. Maybe The Crazy Old Man might be the one who ended up dead.
Like I said before. This story has no good guys and no innocent victims.