[
](http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ce8d124ef387463eb0be72fdcc14e0e1/prosecutor-man-who-killed-trespasser-sought-confrontation)As usual here in Nevada, as long as you say the magic words, you get to walk away after killing someone.
Fuck him. Fuck the jury. Fuck the travesty of laws that would allow this.
Well, who needs juries or trials at all when we can just let the mob decide who’s guilty or not, right?
I mean, it worked great in the South.
God damn Smapti, only 13 minutes to reply. 
Yeah, stand your ground is an excuse for every idiot with a gun to be a thug.
I know you have a hard time grasping the concept, but sometimes laws are wrong and need to be changed.
Racist!
What does that have to do with the jury’s decision? It’s not the job of the jury to rewrite legislation.
Wait. The OP said:
So I get the “him,” part and the “travesty,” part. What did the jury do wrong?
If the law needs to be changed – and I am sympathetic to that claim, I should add – then let’s argue for the law to be changed. And certainly let’s criticize the guy.
But unless you, or the OP, is suggesting that the jury should have convicted him even though his actions were legal, I don’t get the criticism of the jury. Can you explain?
Something something quarry something?
I don’t know how the OP feels about police-involved shootings, but it should be noted for the record that Wayne Burgarello was held to the exact same standard as police typically are.
The thing about self defense laws is that they always involve judgement beyond what the law actually says. Jurors always have a lot of wiggle room. They don’t have to believe cries of self defense. They don’t have to agree that a reasonable person would have been in fear of their life just because someone crafts a story that is supposed to lead them to that conclusion.
I can still say that the law was applied improperly, and also hate the law because I think it’s prone to be applied improperly, or even hate it for other reasons.
Not that I know enough about this case to know if this is my own opinion. And, honestly, this sort of thing is depressing and there’s very little I can do about it, so I don’t get too involved.
I’ve known some guys who are into guns who have these wet dreams practically of being able to actually kill someone who dares to step foot on their property. I mean they really want to exercise those 2nd amendment rights to the maximum.
Me, I own guns and would use them if I had to but I would never seek out to take another humans life.
(bolding mine)
Seriously? That was a serious statement? From a lawyer?
Hard for me to judge without having been there and without knowing the additional information that would have been revealed to the jury. I can imagine if you were an elderly man like this guy was and you surprised three people that were illegally squatting on your property you could still be in fear of your life even if you had a gun. I guess the devil is in the details.
If it was some scenario where you went into a most likely dark building because I’m assuming it didn’t have electricity and any of the three made any sudden movements (Even if you have a gun if you are in close proximity and you are outnumbered you could still be overpowered and have the gun taken from you and used against you), not knowing if any of the individuals also have any type of weapon, or what kind of people you are dealing with and whether they may be violent, I can imagine being afraid enough to use deadly force.
That being said if he just went in the room and immediately slaughtered them on the floor that is obviously wrong. He would have an interest in lying to protect himself but I also believe that the gunshot victims that testified against him also have an interest in lying about what happened. It seems to boil down to he said/she said and without enough convincing evidence either way they may have just not had enough to get a conviction.
That’s why we should nullify this law (and keep others, within reason. MY reason)
Yeah, fuck that old man for defending himself. He should have let himself be beaten and robbed (at best) by three much younger criminals, like all upstanding citizens do.
I’d like to say a hearty well done to the Nevada legislators for writing laws that protect innocent people, and to the jury for upholding them. I’d also like to say FUCK YOU to certain individuals, but the rules here prevent me.
You must have posted this in the wrong thread. In this thread there’s no reason to think that being beaten and robbed was the “at best” scenario. And there were only two of them.
You’re welcome.
Ah yes, the fundamental right to defend one’s life against two people sleeping on the floor of a vacant property one’d abandoned nine years ago. Had really no other choice but to go in there and start shooting, really. No other choice at all.
Show me any evidence in the trial that that was going to happen.
[QUOTE=Snowboarder Bo]
As usual here in Nevada, as long as you say the magic words, you get to walk away after killing someone.
[/QUOTE]
I thought the magic words were: “I didn’t do it, nobody saw me, you can’t prove a thing.”*
*Bart Simpson.