When Does Self Defense Become Murder?

Yesterday I was reading the news and came across this storyabout a man in Minnesota who killed two intruders in his home.  I encourage you read the story, but the gist of it is that two teenagers broke into the house of a 64 year old man (apparently it wasn’t the first time) on

Thanksgiving Day.  He waited in the basement and wound up killing them both in a rather cold-blooded fashion.  The two intruders – a male and female who were cousins – had supposedly broke in before on numerous occasions, but the home owner had only called the police once.  In that instance about $10,000 in goods were stolen.

 

After killing the two teens he dragged them into a different room and left them there and the police weren’t notified until the next day.

Wow.

This is one of those stories where I can kind of see both points of view.  First, this guy had been broken into numerous times and wanted it to end – and he ended it.  But… he essentially became the judge, jury and executioner.

My question to you is did he have the right to kill these two kids?  And if he did was it morally right to kill them?  Like one person interviewed said, “If it was 3:00 am I’m gonna shoot first and ask questions later, but it was in the afternoon on Thanksgiving Day.”

Personally I think this was some pretty cold blooded stuff and the guy needs to go away, but that’s just my opinion.

What do you think?

Sound off below!

-Jarhead Survivor

BTW:

The winners of the retro t-shirts are below.  If you recognize yourself please send your mailing address to me at jarheadsurvivor@gmail.com and I’ll see that you get one.  Congrats!

 

Mechanic43 

I love the retro look on the shirt. :)
I watch the show for 90% entertainment and 10% education. However I am not drinking my (or anyone elses) pee !

and

HDinOR

I watch the show and and agree you can not have just one reason to prep. The one thing the show did do was it got my wife a lot more interested in starting to prep. After each show she would ask questions and we would talk about what might happen.
Bugging out is not an option for everyone. Being in early to mid fiftys and both with joint issues, bugging in is out plan.

 

 

68 comments… add one
  • Coru November 28, 2012, 8:43 am

    Wow! I had read this story in the news and as with you my views keep going back and forth. You stated the question correctly, is out legal and/or moral? In my opinion he was well within his rights and they were completely in the wrong. Having said that I am also a devout christian and believe that one day everybody will stand and answer for ask of their actions. But before ask of that, one has to be able to live with themselves for what they do. Sometimes just because you have the right doesn’t mean you have to exercise it.

    Reply
    • ThatguyinCA November 28, 2012, 12:59 pm

      That last sentence is the “responsibility” of freedom.

      Reply
  • Cory November 28, 2012, 8:44 am

    Wow! I had read this story in the news and as with you my views keep going back and forth. You stated the question correctly, is out legal and/or moral? In my opinion he was well within his rights and they were completely in the wrong. Having said that I am also a devout christian and believe that one day everybody will stand and answer for all of their actions. But before all of that, one has to be able to live with themselves for what they do. Sometimes just because you have the right doesn’t mean you have to exercise it.

    Reply
    • Jack November 29, 2012, 9:05 am

      I agree with your last line completely, just because you have the right doesn’t mean you should. I hope I never have to face an intruder in my home, if I do I hope I can order them to the ground at gun point or tell them to run for their life and then call the police. As a soldier I can pull the trigger, as an empathetic human being I would rather not have to unless it was the last resort in true self defense.

      Reply
      • Cory November 29, 2012, 2:20 pm

        When I wrote that yesterday it was two hours before I lost my father to a brain tumor. I was with him holding his hand as he drew his last breath, what a humbling experience. Not that I’ve ever disregarded life, but it just took on a whole new meaning. I believe its an event everyone should experience before deciding to take a life.

        Reply
        • irishdutchuncle November 29, 2012, 3:07 pm

          Eternal rest, grant unto him oh Lord, and perpetual Light shine upon him. (Amen)
          sorry for your loss, Cory.

          if someone is trying to hurt you, your child, or your wife, that persons life must be disregarded. You must act. I hope to God I’m never placed in that situation.

          Reply
  • Robert November 28, 2012, 9:14 am

    He was justified in shooting them the first time. Had he called 911 right away, he did nothing wrong. Once he delayed, he committed murder. That he shot them again after they were no longer a threat made it an execution. http://webcenters.netscape.compuserve.com/news/story.jsp?floc=ne-us-12-l10&idq=/ff/story/1001%2F20121126%2F0087.htm&sc=a

    Reply
    • Odd Questioner November 28, 2012, 11:36 am

      Agreed. This make s a lot more sense with more of the story available.

      Reply
  • RJ November 28, 2012, 9:16 am

    Circumstances matter. He has a right to self defense and depending on the state law, he may be able to use deadly force to prevent certain crimes; but once the crime stops, or can’t reasonably be continued, he his right to self defense ends. Once the person is down and no longer presents a threat, he can’t continue to try to kill them; yeah, maybe they were armed but neither of them was pressing the attack; he could have left the room and dialed 911 and waited for the cops, or held them at gunpoint. While a burglar is taking a risk that they may be killed in the midst of the burglary, we don’t execute people for burglary. Once they’re incapacitated, he had no right to kill them.

    Reply
  • irishdutchuncle November 28, 2012, 9:27 am

    something still isn’t adding up here.

    was victim number two deaf? Yeh, she was commiting a burglary, possibly a repeat burglary, and didn’t bug out when there were gunshots? (or did she believe that her cousin was the shooter, instead of the shootee?) I don’t care what you shoot me with, I’m not going to be laughing about it. what kind of “happy pills” was she getting?
    what kind of ineffective piece was he shooting with?

    yeh, they stole a huge amount of stuff (dollar-wise) from him in the previous break-ins. they (or somebody) violated the sanctity of his home repeatedly. Yeh, he was an older guy, did he allow that to affect him to the point of throwing his own life away over stuff? now all of us will need to fight harder to preserve the “castle doctrine”. (and “stand your ground”, and amendment2…) thanks a lot, buddy.

    Reply
    • irishdutchuncle November 28, 2012, 10:48 am

      …on the other hand, since the acts happened entirely within his home, he should have relied on his “right to privacy” and his right against “self incrimination” and to have quietly disposed of the bodies somewhere.

      Reply
      • irishdutchuncle November 28, 2012, 12:22 pm

        …after all, the right to privacy is “established law” in regard to other premeditated killings.

        Reply
  • GoneWithTheWind November 28, 2012, 11:29 am

    I think the self defense was totally just and legal. His actions afterwards were stupid and probably broke laws. If that is the case then he should be charged with any crime he committed but the issue of his act of self defense should not be used against him.

    Reply
  • Yoda November 28, 2012, 11:31 am

    Outstanding JARhead:
    Untrained “civilians” don’t understand that shoot/no shoot decisions are made within a second. For example, an assailant can cover a 21 feet distance in less than 2 seconds.

    Trained coppers and soldiers (Marines!) process through the OODA Loop ( Observe-Orient0Decide)Act) within a seond whereas the untrained take as long as 5

    Outstanding article Jarhead.

    It would benefit readers to research the OODA Loop ( Observe-Orient0Decide)Act) principal. Trained coppers and others act within a second whereas untrained individuals take as long as 5 seconds and longer to act.
    Thanks Jarhead
    “Yoda’s Little Known Tactics To Avoid Being A Target.:
    http://www.magnifiedview.com

    Thanks Jarhead
    “Yoda’s Little Known Tactics To Avoid Being A Target:
    http://www.magnifiedview.com

    Reply
  • Adam November 28, 2012, 11:42 am

    The answer to your question is: This case.

    Was he justified in shooting them? Absolutely. They committed a burglary. He shot when he saw them from the waist down. Once the first person had been shot and was at the bottom of the stairs and seriously wounded, he was no longer a threat. Keep them at gunpoint. Was he justified in shooting the first person in the chest because he “wanted him dead” ? NO. That’s murder.

    The second person coming down the steps, was he justified in the first shot? Yes. Again, only saw from the waist down, they could have had a weapon. Was he justified in shooting her in the head because she was laughing at him? NO. That’s murder as well.

    You are allowed to use deadly force to stop the threat. Once the threat is over, so is your justification of deadly force. There was no justification to move the bodies and not the call the police. When the police investigate homicides, they look at the totality of the circumstances. If he had shot them each just once and called the police immediately, he would probably be a free man. Instead, he’ll spend the rest of his life in prison, which is where he belongs.

    Reply
    • Jason November 28, 2012, 8:02 pm

      Excellent assessment Adam, I agree 100%.

      Reply
    • BUT November 28, 2012, 11:52 pm

      I had to shoot them again because I shot them in the stomach with a too small caliber weapon and I couldn’t get up the stairs to call police because they were laying there at the bottom alive.. He should have sat there till they bled out, if they stood up they were a threat so shoot them again…

      Reply
      • irishdutchuncle November 29, 2012, 10:10 am

        poorly designed house.

        only one means of egress from the basement? no extention phone? crazy prepper living in a Faraday Cage house?
        (so no cell service from inside, and no cell phone anyhow so they can’t track me… )

        Reply
  • HDinOR November 28, 2012, 12:12 pm

    While he has the right to defend himself the question is was his life in danger. If his life was not in danger he should not have killed the two intruders. He should have held them for the cops.
    I think everyone has the right to defend their life if needed, this does not seem like it was needed.

    Reply
  • John Brown November 28, 2012, 12:25 pm

    If he hid, called police, then shot them both dead, when they came down the stairs, even if he shot them a dozen times a piece while on the stairs, that probably would be self defense.

    The finishing shots were 2nd degree murder, especially during the day, by man’s law.

    If he had shot them each once in the chest with a 12 gauge 545 gr slug the end result would have been the same, except he would most likely be home and not charged with murder.

    My take on it is it probably is 1st degree murder, he probably left the window unsecured on purpose, made it look vacant, waited for them for hours, hidden in the basement, hoping he could kill the people that ripped him off the 1st time.

    Reply
    • irishdutchuncle November 28, 2012, 7:02 pm

      yeh, what John Brown said, what smokechecktim said.

      it would sure appear that he was lying in wait.
      yeh what gat31 said, regarding his stolen guns. he didn’t wait to see the face of either victim, or whether either had a weapon at the ready: temporary insanity.

      Reply
      • irishdutchuncle November 29, 2012, 9:50 pm

        yeh, what T.R. said. (see below)

        “at that point a person must assume these days that anybody that is a home invader is also armed… “

        Reply
    • Jason November 28, 2012, 8:08 pm

      John Brown,

      I read the article the day it came out & the one thing that struck me was he was waiting in the basement. I never considered he was setting them up, especially waiting for #2 – but that makes more sense & completes the picture. The sad thing is the kids ended their lives for very little to gain.

      Reply
  • smokechecktim November 28, 2012, 12:41 pm

    lying in wait (ambush)….unarmed suspects in the middle of the day……shot a wounded burglar who was no longer a threat….failed to call the police. ….2nd degree murder at a minimum.

    guns have only two enemies…..rust and politicians!

    Reply
  • ThatguyinCA November 28, 2012, 1:02 pm

    In my opinion he was justified in every action up to the first volley. After that, his actions show intent and not reaction.

    Reply
  • Odd Questioner November 28, 2012, 1:09 pm

    BTW – one addendum:

    If the perpetrators are incapacitated and on the floor, this does not give anyone an excuse to execute them. As long as civilization still occurs, you stop and call 911 if they’re down and present no further danger.

    Post-collapse? You may be doing them a favor by finishing the job, but that’s entirely up to you at that point.

    Reply
    • Tim November 28, 2012, 2:27 pm

      Yet I will take this opportunity to thank Mr. Smith for preventing untold suffering & mayhem that likely would have been inflicted over the years by these (now room-temperature) scumbags.

      It’s unfortunate that we’ll now spend a fortune incarcerating an otherwise, law-abiding, productive member of society.

      Reply
    • T.R. November 28, 2012, 3:14 pm

      OQ,
      agreed . if your threatened , its clear cut defense , after the threat has been neutralized , its pre meditated murder at any time after . You know what you are doing and also know they are no further threat to you ……….

      Reply
  • T.R. November 28, 2012, 3:09 pm

    They broke into his house …………at that point a person must assume these days that anybody that is a home invader is also armed from a self preservation point of view . I think he did the right thing in shooting them . However , the fact that he waited to call the cops is pretty damn weird . Why would you want two dead bodies in your house for any length of time ? That is what opens the door to questions ……..like , were they shot in the back ? were they armed ? was he aware of that , yes or no ? The fact that he waited justifies those kind of questions from a law enforcement point of view , because it is fishy and not the way people generally behave after that kind of situation , so the cops are correct to question his motivations .

    Reply
    • irishdutchuncle November 29, 2012, 9:58 pm

      back in the day, burgulars made a point of not being armed, just in case they did get caught.

      Reply
      • Yikes! December 2, 2012, 11:43 pm

        Which day? The 1980’s? I seem to remember something about that in the early 80’s.

        Reply
        • irishdutchuncle December 3, 2012, 10:39 am

          more like the 1960’s. (they say that if you can remember the sixties, you weren’t “there”)

          Reply
  • gat31 November 28, 2012, 3:48 pm

    the article said that he had 2 guns stolen on a previous break-in so l think it is safe to assume that they were armed if they were or not. l agree he had every right to shoot them if he was holed up in the basement waiting or if he just happened to be there either way when they came into his home he was justified.
    As for his frame of mind? If l had been broken into 8 times in 6 months, l can’t guarantee that my nerves would be frayed and l wouldn’t feel some kind of justice for them being dead. Just like someone who gets the chair for killing someone the family feels justified. Police and military gets training on how to assess a situation and when to fire and when to not but how many have made the decision to shoot and killed someone with a remote control? l can tell you my mom is 67 and if she was being broken into regularly, she would empty a clip into someone just from the fear, and pent up anger she had been experiencing for the last 6 months.
    l’m not saying at some point the man should have stopped and called authorities, he should have no doubt. l’m just saying l can understand how he just got wound up in the whole thing and went overboard. l also can understand how he might have panicked and didn’t know what to do until he had the chance to calm down and get his head about him before calling the cops. lt’s very easy to be “armchair quarterbacks” on this whole situation, but until you have had to experience what he went through before and during this event can you truly judge him without prejudice? l don’t know that l could.

    Reply
  • Cory November 28, 2012, 4:24 pm

    I find it curious that everybody has concentrated on the justification or not of the actions of Mr. Smith. To me its painfully obvious that the two cousins had a choice in not entering, but chose poorly. Not that I’m totally condoning Mr. Smiths actions.

    Reply
    • Yikes! December 3, 2012, 12:04 am

      Yeah, breaking into houses in the middle of the night SHOULD be like playing Russian roulette. I’m not being sarcastic. It ought to be common knowledge that a transgression of that nature might get you killed. The more a gun is a deterrent, the fewer people need to get shot with one.

      Reply
  • 1982MSGT November 28, 2012, 6:32 pm

    Heads Up. . . . . .

    U.S. Special Operations Command is recalling thousands of body armor plates after discovering a manufacturer’s defect that could put operators at risk.

    LINK: http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/11/27/socom-faces-scrutiny-after-body-armor-recall.html?ESRC=airforce-a.nl

    Reply
  • John November 28, 2012, 7:05 pm

    From a cop’s point of view, he had the right to shoot the intruders. He did not have the right to “finish” them, since it seems he was no longer in harm’s way, and could have fled the home or called police. Shooting someone is one thing, but moving closer to them to finish them with your pistol would indicate that they are no longer a threat, or at least an imminent threat.

    Reply
    • John November 28, 2012, 7:09 pm

      I will add that I fault the burglars more, for they would not be dead if they had not broken the law and entered his home illegally. I fully support the second amendment, but I think moving closer to the suspect indicates that danger is no longer a factor. In this situation, I simply think that the extra pistol shot under the jaw at point blank is excessive.

      Reply
      • Yikes! December 3, 2012, 12:10 am

        Agreed. If you’ve stopped someone and decide to kill them even though they’re no longer a threat… you’re just being a prick, and need to calm the hell down.

        Reply
  • highdesertlivin November 28, 2012, 8:57 pm

    The threat was neutralized, a coup de graw to a teenage girl shows a lack empathy , and down right meanness. Iff I discovered teenagers breaking in to my house , I might slap the sh t out of them w/the flat of a machete , or in the dark at 3 am take action that would leave me sad for a lifetime. But in broad daylight, able to id the target and do what he did……………….monster

    Reply
    • Michael November 29, 2012, 12:11 am

      +1

      Reply
    • Yikes! December 3, 2012, 12:11 am

      Get a weapon light for your machete?

      Reply
  • lee November 28, 2012, 9:12 pm

    his house his rules

    Reply
    • highdesertlivin November 29, 2012, 8:52 pm

      so by that highly intelligent statement , rape torture and murder are ok ,within his house ? I sure would hate to see what go`s on in your house.

      Reply
      • irishdutchuncle November 29, 2012, 9:35 pm

        “the right to privacy” is the rubric under which abortion was legalized. so yeh, lee is exactly right. that’s why the police used to need a warrant. your right against unreasonable search, is enumerated in amendment four, but all other rights continue whether the Constitution mentions them or not.
        (until there is “probable cause” to believe a crime has been committed)

        Reply
  • wilson November 28, 2012, 9:53 pm

    Minnesota does not have a “Castle Doctrine” (Minnesota is extremely liberal and democrats have always voted it down). So basically in Minnesota you do not have a right to protect yourself or your property, you are required to let criminals have their way even in your own home. Smith has been charged with second degree murder. Also, yesterday, police indicated that the teens car was found where they parked it near Smith’s house with property in it from a place they broke into and stole items from before they went to Smith’s house. I think the world is a safer place without them.

    Reply
    • Odd Questioner November 29, 2012, 12:38 am

      Remind me to never live in Minnesota.

      Reply
      • Jason November 30, 2012, 9:30 am

        Don’t live in Minnesota!

        Reply
  • Michael November 29, 2012, 12:09 am

    “My question to you is did he have the right to kill these two kids?”

    Nope!

    Since when do you open-fire on people before IDing your target? You don’t. He saw someone’s legs, sorry that’s not good enough. While they were in his home and shouldn’t have been, I don’t consider that justification for the use of lethal force. That trespassing not attempted murder. You don’t shoot people for trespassing. And you don’t use more force than is needed to safely end an altercation. They weren’t attacking him, they weren’t armed in anyway, and he didn’t do anything to ID them or see if they really were a threat. He could have been been mistaken about the broken window (I’ve head plenty of suspicious noises that turned out to be my cat) and those kids could have been family or police checking up on him.

    Had this happened here in Washington State he’d probably have gone to jail even for the first shots and I’d be supportive of that.

    Reply
    • 3rdMan November 29, 2012, 9:25 am

      Michael,

      The answer depends on which state you live in. In Texas if the intruder uses force to gain entry than deadly force is justified. I think yours is more of a moral question than a legal one.

      Now in reference to this story everything was good up until he decided to take it to the next step and finish them off and wait a day to report it. If he would have just killed them out right and call 911 I think he would have no legal problems, but now it is anyones guess.

      Reply
    • Adam November 29, 2012, 2:22 pm

      It’s not trespassing, it’s burglary. One is typically a misdemeanor and one is a felony.

      I’m assuming (I know what assume means, but bear with me) that he lived alone. Therefore, no one should have been in his house. Anyone in his house would be an burglar. Was the first shot justified? Absolutely. Finishing off the first burglar was not. Neither was moving the body. Had he not moved the body, would the second burglar even come down the stairs? Doubtful. But was he justified in shooting the second burglar? Yes he was. He was not justified in executing her.

      He wasn’t justified in executing either one. This has NOTHING to do with Castle Doctrine laws. We have the Castle Doctrine here and he’d have been charged with First Degree Murder. Putting a gun to the girls head and executing her is premeditated and he should be in prison for the rest of his natural life.

      And they are not kids. One was 17 and one was 18. They know right from wrong and were obviously involved in multiple burglaries in the area. They ultimately made the decision to commit the crime. They paid for it in spades. Just like the homeowner will pay for his.

      Reply
      • Jason November 29, 2012, 4:38 pm

        Was it wrong of him to call the taxidermist first before calling 911?

        I know – sick sense of humor …

        Reply
        • Yikes! December 2, 2012, 11:57 pm

          I’m pretty sure it’s illegal to have burglars mounted after you shoot them… except maybe if you live in Texas. I don’t know what goes on down there.

          Reply
  • Sgt. Survivor November 29, 2012, 10:10 am

    Shoot until you feel that the threat is gone, call 911 immediately, and administer first aid. Your intent should not be to “kill” anyone. Your intent should be to eliminate the threat (sometimes that means killing someone). In Oklahoma if someone forces their way into your home, they are asking to be shot at. I would not shoot wildly at an unidentified intruder (mostly because my mom has a key to my house). I think the guy should go away, I understand being fed up or frustrated but our boys overseas shoot at people all day and when they come upon a wounded enemy, they administer first aid. If they can do it and resist the urge to execute the wounded enemy that has been killing their friends, so can anyone else.

    Reply
  • Al November 29, 2012, 12:43 pm

    Let’s see, according to news reports, the home owner shoots one then awhile later a second home invader comes down into the basement…and is shot/killed… Gotta ask yourself, WHAT WOULD YOU DO? – IS THE THREAT OVER? The home owner Dosnt know the skill level of the intruder, what concealed weapons they might possess, HOW MANY INTRUDERS ARE IN THE HOUSE, are they high on drugs (PCP) resulting in temporary extraordinary human strength? So, when EXACTLY was the perceived threat really over? It’s so EASY to ‘ARM Chair QB’ – you weren’t there. Finally, after multiple break-ins, you’re still assuming that the home owner was playing with a full deck.

    Reply
    • irishdutchuncle November 29, 2012, 2:03 pm

      yeh, what Al said.

      how do you know (for certain) how many intruders?
      (I don’t want to spend more than the house is worth on security cameras…
      but I can’t put a dollar figure on the life of a family member either)

      Reply
      • Michael November 29, 2012, 7:53 pm

        “I would not shoot wildly at an unidentified intruder (mostly because my mom has a key to my house.”

        Exactly. And shooting wildly at an unidentified intruder that’s what this guy did. Coulda’ been someone else, he didn’t check. Had he waited to see who it was and then shot I don’t think I’d have much of an issue with it.

        If this guy had yelled at the teens when he heard the glass breaking they probably would have run off and if they didn’t, then yeah, I can see shooting.

        Personally, I think people NOT getting shot is a good thing. People in their teens do all sorts of stupid shit and then they grow up and change and become responsible adults. It’s too bad these kids will never get the chance.

        Reply
  • sirlancelot November 29, 2012, 5:51 pm

    i’d say judging from the home owners statements he “went the distance” that is to say the multiple break-ins and callous attitude of the criminals made this dude snap.

    it was “game on ” when these little cretins decided to terrorize an old man on thanksgiving day .they screwed with the wrong guy and paid with their lives.

    having your personal safety, liberty, home and peace of mind stripped from you by some low lifes made this man insane.

    if they let scum like OJ walk, why not this man ?

    Reply
  • MikeA November 29, 2012, 6:12 pm

    Absolutely NOT! He did not have the right to execute these two. Like the article says, once the appropriate application of force was used and the crime was no longer able to continue, his right to use deadly force was done. At that point he should have notified the authorities regardless of the fact that it was a holiday. This guy, if the article is correct in its representation of the situation, should be taken off the streets!

    Reply
    • Al November 29, 2012, 6:36 pm

      MikeA – when would you have called the authorities? When you heard the glass break? Footsteps in the house? Actually seen the intruder? Would you feel differently about how the home owner handled the situation if there had been others in the house? Exactly what is the value of a human life? You can’t possibly KNOW the intent of the intruders – MAYBE, just maybe after so many previous incursions into this man’s house, the intruders were ready to take it to another level. YOU DON’T KNOW NOR DO I. The authorities won’t be there to protect you, just to take the report after the fact. It’s your right to be a victim, but don’t peddles the bleeding heart bologna when YOU are. Maybe there was still a threat, maybe not. If the home owner had spent more time at the range the point would be moot.

      Reply
  • noisynick November 29, 2012, 7:00 pm

    Hindsight is always 20/20. Your home is the only private place still in america he felt threatened and acted. They weren’t victims these kids that entered a home [not theres] with the intent to do harm.
    In my opinion they lost every right they might have had. Our society has softened so much on criminals that they rule our actions
    its time we reinstated commonsense and made a firm stand.
    He probably did society and the Taxpayers a favor by ending there lives. Harsh you say extreme How extreme would it be if they had tortured him for hours and then slowly killed the old guy.
    I was taught from an early age if your with the wrong crowd,
    doing the wrong things, at the wrong time, You’ll get what you deserve lots of times you that doesn’t happen you skate this time they didn’t get by with it………

    Reply
    • Jason November 30, 2012, 8:48 pm

      Executing each of them was wrong anyway you slice it. That is not even acceptable in war, though it does happen sometimes.

      Reply
  • sexy sweater tumblr November 30, 2012, 6:13 am

    Once upon a time there was this Aussie photographer guy who
    deleted (Thai) girls off his Facebook coz he
    said they liked to post sexy photos

    Reply
  • John Brown November 30, 2012, 9:53 pm

    > However , the fact that he waited to call the cops is pretty damn weird .

    Not if he was setting them up. Suppose he drove his truck out of town for everyone to see, walked back in the dark. He shoots them in the day, but, knows enough not to lie about time of death. So, he has to wait for night fall to walk back and get his vehicle unseen. Calls the police once he is back and the engine has cooled.

    I think he felt they basically took everything he had, he could not replace it, his life was done, and he wanted revenge. I would not be surprised the two teenagers either knew about it or had directly ripped him off before. They were seeking to strip him of everything he had. He took everything they had.

    Thieves use to be satisfied to just take enough or what they could carry, now they have to take everything and strip the person bare, and as in the case of the Petti family, rape and torture them for good effect, then burn them to death.

    One thing is for sure, those two teenagers will not have the chance of the gospel being told them or the ten commandments read to them ever again to help change their lives around or to save their souls.

    Since we no longer execute first degree murderers such as the Ft Hood shooter or the Gifford’s shooter after he executes a 9 year old girl, I would probably let this guy go 100% free because he does not deserve a life sentence on par with them. Then I would let only God judge him he if this is his only transgression and give him back what guns he had left. He was the victim 2x before the teenagers.

    For those of you in GA and with AJC access. See they closed down the comments on the shop lifter that died at Walmart after only ten comments? I guess they were expecting people to be all boo-hoo and most of the comments were of the nature “who cares, he deserved it, and good he will not be doing it again, good riddance to bad garbage” vein.

    Reply
  • ED December 1, 2012, 9:38 am

    Once they enter your home illegally, they no longer have any rights,
    What ever happens to them is of their own choosing.
    The home is one boundry that is sacred or should be. It is to me.

    Reply
  • .ezpixs.com/myauctions/ December 2, 2012, 8:56 am

    llful direct it.” by Jeanne-Marie Roland.|”As they use to say, spick and span new.” by Miguel de Cervantes.|”Everyone is born with genius, but most people only keep it a few minutes.” by Edgard Varese.|”Be not so bigoted to any custom as to worship it at the expense of truth.” by Johann Georg von Zimmermann.|”The cynics are right nine times out of ten.” by Henry Lou

    Reply
  • Yikes! December 2, 2012, 11:54 pm

    Well, shooting people is no good, regardless of the circumstances. Still, the castle doctrine has its place, in spite of the potential abuses of that sort of law, and that place is in your living room in the middle of the night when there’s some crackhead in there with you.

    I currently and unfortunately live in a state without one, and have an obligation to flee and be pursued with a chainsaw until I’m cornered before I can legally shoot someone in self defense.

    The bottom line is the bottom line is the bottom line: nobody ought to be skulking around in your own goddamned house without permission. We’re not talking about an argument in the street here.

    Reply
  • fake ray ban December 5, 2012, 11:17 pm

    True Religion outlet it was still a long way fake ray bans Outlet adventure they sailed on south and a little east for twelve days with a gentle wind,the skies being mostly clear and the air warm,and saw no bird or fish,except True Religion Jeans Outlet USA once there were whales spouting a long way to starboard.fake ray bansLucy and Reepicheep played a good deal of chess at cheap True Religion Brand Jeans Outlet time.Then on the thirteenth day,Edmund,moncler pas cher from the fighting top,moncler pas chersighted what looked like a great dark mountain rising out of the sea on their port bow.

    Reply

Leave a Comment