I would say a majority of the posters in this thread didn’t have a problem with the first shots.
Also some people do laugh when hurt or frightened or in shock. Or so I hear. I know I’ve seen the second one. At least once in real life, and once in a James Bond movie.
Was it Christopher Walken in A View to a Kill?
The tox reports on the teens will be interesting. The girl was a known addict, so it’s very possible she was hopped up on something and did indeed laugh. We’ll see.
Yes.
What about when they murder a couple of teens? Does that “irrevocably break the social contract” or is ok when old men do it? Because, that’s the actual discussion here.
As long as we’re still on the speculation trail, I would like to predict that the old man has a huge methamphetamine problem that made him paranoid and highly violent. You heard it here first.
I think everyone would agree that, at face value, being killed for robbery is a punishment too high.
However, once you enter someone’s house, all options are open. There is no social contract once in your house.
cite?
The penalty for self defense, you mean? I’m not sure. Two kids burglarize my home? Yup, they’re endangering my life.
Agreed. The homeowner seems to have freely admitted that he executed the girl after she laughed at him. His exact quote was “'If you’re trying to shoot somebody and they laugh at you, you go again” Cite: Family's outrage after star students were found murdered in man's basement after he claims they robbed his home on Thanksgiving | Daily Mail Online
Again, this isn’t a matter of your opinion. It’s a matter of law. Real life isn’t a Charles Bronson movie, there are consequences for psychopaths.
I’ll just put my heartless opinion out there in plain terms: Kids who are going to steal from an old man because they’re greedy or addicts deserve to die. IMHO: The fact that we live in a society that believes theft is no biggie, especially when it could endanger the victim’s life by leaving them without currency to purchase food for themselves, is pathetic.
This absolutely is a matter of opinion. This is GREAT DEBATES on a forum. Not a courtroom or legal counsel discussion. You’re singling me out, yet everyone before me stated their opinions.
I’ll use the Snow Pea lens to do the old man now:
He was just a sad, old man, who gobbled up NRA nonsense about how his gun made him a brave defender of his home and the first bulwark against tyranny. His gun gave a sense of grandeur in his otherwise barren and crumbling life.
When he heard the break-in, he became an action hero. He would out think, out fight, and out charm the invaders. He was John McClain and his cluttered house became the Nakatome Plaza.
And Now I Have a Machine Gun Ho Ho Ho…
Lucky for us, people with your opinion are fairly rare.
How is this even close to the case?
The Castle doctrine allows a homeowner the presumption that their well-being is under threat from an intruder. It doesn’t pass ANY judgment on the actual threat level posed by an intruder.
As for this bozo, if events proceeded as he reported them, he murdered 2 human beings. Full stop. I’ll let the legal eagles examine the full legal implications, but if you are so confident in your own safety that you deliberately place your weapon under another human being’s chin and fire, you are no longer under any sort of imminent threat.
And yes, invoking the “Great Debates” argument is fallacious. You are entitled to opinions but not your own facts. Trying to argue that matters of fact are subject to interpretation is asinine.
But the penalty under the law for burglary is not death, it’s a jail term.
If it involved a Blimp and a long fall then yes. And Bond was a murderer too damit 
Snow Pea, you skipped over the request for a cite asked of you in post #149.