How NOT to defend your self in a break in situation

[Guest DarylDixon]

http://m.knoxnews.com/news/2012/nov/27/minn-man-gives-teen-intruders-finishing-shots-afte/

This guy shot these kids who broke into his house, fired execution style shots to finish them off once they were down, and then waited a day to call the cops. What an idiot.

[E4 No More]

Umm, just WOW!!!

[RobertNashville]

Obviously, the God-given right of men to keep and bear arms and to exercise self-defense doesn't also mean that the man has also had the intelligence and wisdom necessary to know when/how to employ such has been imparted to him.

That said, I can't help but think of some members here who have, by their statements, given reason to think that they don't grasp the difference between shooting to stop the threat and shooting to kill or the understanding that they have the right to do one but not the other. ; Edited November 27, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Guest cardcutter]

Two things jump out at me about this.
A. The home owner is a complete dumb ass! He has no idea about how to legaly defend himself or his property.

and as my old man would say,

B. If they hadn't been there it wouldn't have happened. They chose to break in he did not go hunting them.

Was the home owner justified?
Of course not! He should hangfor it. It was not much more than cold blooded murder. Prosecute him to the fullest.
I just can't bring myself to cry to terribly much for these two. They went looking for it and unfortunately they got more than they bargained for.

[Guest DarylDixon]

The point of bearing arms is to defend yourself, not to kill opportunistically. If he feared for his life, he should have shot to neutralize the threat and then called the police immediately.

More shots should have been fired, only if the perps got up and came at him. He could have easily kept a gun pointed at them from a safe distance while he called police. What an asshat.

[Guest cardcutter]

According to the article, he started shooting while he could only see them from the waist down. How did he know they were not friendlies?
The he admits to killing the girl basicly because she laughed at him. This guy needs to be put out of commision. I stand by my precious statement. They should hang this idiot on the public square!

[E4 No More]

[quote name='cardcutter' timestamp='1354036145' post='851373']
According to the article, he started shooting while he could only see them from the waist down. How did he know they were not friendlies?
The he admits to killing the girl basicly because she laughed at him. This guy needs to be put out of commision. I stand by my precious statement. They should hang this idiot on the public square!
[/quote]What I'd like to know is, why isn't her murder 1st degree? He put the gun under her chin and pulled the trigger when she was incapacitated. To me that makes it premeditated. Edited November 27, 2012 by SWJewellTN

[101]

Ok.... the guy was wrong. Enough said.

Now...those two decided to play the stupid game and won the grand prize.

They chose to break into a mans house more than once, presumably, while he was home on a holiday.....poor criminal planning there. They found old homeowner alone by himself. They got shot by someone who was tired of being a victim. End result of a long series of choices by themselves is....(dingdingding) death!

Did the man have to finish them off..no. Legally should he have finished them off...no. So I only see two bad choices on his part. He executed wounded, non threatening criminals and ran his mouth like a song bird to the cops.

[GlockSpock]

[quote][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]According to the article, he started shooting while he could only see them from the waist down. How did he know they were not friendlies?[/font][/color]
[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]The he admits to killing the girl basicly because she laughed at him. This guy needs to be put out of commision. I stand by my precious statement. They should hang this idiot on the public square![/font][/color][/quote]

I also doubt she laughed at him. It was probably more along the lines or sobbing, coughing, etc. What person would assume that someone they had just shot was laughing at them? I question the sanity of the homeowner. What blows me away is he left them there a day before having police called. A logical thinking person would want two dead bodies out of their house as soon as possible. Blood, smell, heck even the sight would be too much for most people. I feel after his initial power trip, he realized he screwed up irreversibly big time and was trying to figure out the best way to do things.

[Guest Aces&8s]

We, meaning gun owners, are our own worst enemies. One day in the not-too-distant future when we have lost the battle of public opinion and our Second Amendment rights have been seriously curtailed, if not completely removed, it will not be due to the legitimacy of the liberal agenda, but the result of outrageous and reprehensible behavior within our own ranks.

I agree with the above: hang this sorry piece of excrement, as he deserves no better.

Sent from my NookColor using Tapatalk 2

[Guest rebeldrummer]

wow! just wow....

shot her under the chin (up in to cranium!) ARE YOU KIDDING ME!?!

that takes a special kind of messed up to do to a kid...breaking in or not!
they were down....NOT putting up a fight (according to his own words even!!)

hang him...shoot him...whatever! but also post this for all over people out there who think its "cool" or ok to break into a house...especially stupid silly kids who get a thrill out of doing something that they know is wrong.

[Oh Shoot]

Another clear cut rebuttal example for those who think the "Castle Doctrine" establishes a "Free Kill" zone as discussed in the latter part of:

[url="http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/55216-question-regarding-protection-property/"]http://www.tngunowne...ction-property/[/url]

I don't know MN laws, but he wouldn't fare well under TN's either. Might have been charged more harshly here, even.

- OS Edited November 27, 2012 by OhShoot

[mcurrier]

"[color=#000000][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Smith's brother, Bruce Smith, told the Minneapolis Star Tribune his brother had retired after a career as a security officer with the U.S. State Department."[/font][/color]

I wonder how this might factor in to this nut-job's mental state of what he did (as he was doing it).

[Guest cardcutter]

""Castle Doctrine" never even entered my mind. He was in no danger and should never have fired to begin with. I dont see how that could even remotely come into play. Basicly this fool shot unarmed tresspassers.

[Guest Grubbah]

[quote name='cardcutter' timestamp='1354043586' post='851465']
""Castle Doctrine" never even entered my mind. He was in no danger and should never have fired to begin with. I dont see how that could even remotely come into play. Basicly this fool shot unarmed tresspassers.
[/quote]

I would have to somewhat disagree on that. Once they enter the house, castle doctrine does apply. While I dont know the situation exactly and what he could or could not see, I know myself that if someone enters my house uninvited I will always assume they have a weapon of some kind on them and will react accordingly. The initial shooting I believe to be justified. but he should have called 911 immediately. the gun to the head execution and waiting a day to call the police will earn him prison time.

When those kids broke into the house, they assumed the risk of being shot at or killed. They didnt need to assume the risk of being executed. There is a difference in my opinion.

[RobertNashville]

At the risk of stating the obvious, the castle doctrine only applies up to a point...there is a difference between finding someone in your hallway in the middle of the night when you live alone and there is simply no justification for anyone to be there.

However, if you have a wife and you find someone in that same hallway in the middle of the day and the guy is wearing a plumbers tool belt; you had better be damn sure he isn't a plumber who you wife called to unstop a drain before you start blasting away.

At first blush, I think this guy had the right to shoot the intruders (although I would probably have tried a bit more not to have to do so)...finishing the "job" with execution killings and waiting a day to call LEO...he deserves all the jail time he gets if not a needle. Edited November 27, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Spots]

He was wrong to wait, and to shoot the girl execution style. That points to mental instability, and serious problems. He needs to do some jail time, as well as a lot of corrective therapy.

[quote name='cardcutter' timestamp='1354043586' post='851465']
""Castle Doctrine" never even entered my mind. He was in no danger and should never have fired to begin with. I dont see how that could even remotely come into play. Basicly this fool shot unarmed tresspassers.
[/quote]
However, I disagree with the above post about the fact that he shouldn't have shot. A trespasser in my house is an unknown threat. If your in in my house without invitation, I will automatically assume you are there to do me and my family harm, and you will be dealt with accordingly. That doesn't mean I'm gonna shoot you, then walk up and blow your brains out while you lie there defenseless. As far as shooting to stop a threat vs shooting to kill, I'm shooting where I've trained. Center Mass of the target until the threat stops being a threat, either incapctitaed, wounded, or dead. These kids broke into a house, and they got killed for it. I shed no tears for someone like that. They were in the wrong, and while he shouldn't have shot them execution style, and waited to call the cops, they brought this on themselves by electing to break into the house to begin with.

As I always say, you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes. Their age has nothing to do with it. They were in a house uninvited, and ran into some who refused to be a victim. They are dead because of their own actions Edited November 27, 2012 by Spots

[daddyo]

He was within his constitutional rights to protect himself in his own home.

He crossed the line when he went from self-defense to murder.

[Oh Shoot]

[quote name='DaddyO' timestamp='1354058857' post='851603']
He was within his constitutional rights to protect himself in his own home.

He crossed the line when he went from self-defense to murder.
[/quote]

Exactly. It's really quite a gap between stopping an intruder and executing him.

- OS

[midtennchip]

The other thread mentioned by OhShoot came to mind when I read this article this morning. This is precisely why the so called "castle doctrine" does not provide anything more than a presumption of reasonable fear. There are actual facts that can overcome the presumption. This is just one example. Although this one seems really clear, there are other factual situations hat would also overcome the presumption.

[1gewehr]

A couple of thoughts:

1) I'm not certain that a liberal newspaper actually got the facts right. If they did, it would be a rare occurrence. So, I'll refrain from judging the homeowner at this point.

2) If someone DOES break into your house and you make the decision to shoot, you are better off killing them rather than wounding them. Otherwise, you will find yourself trying to defend your actions in court with the person you shot playing the part of victim.

3) This is another example of why you should say as little as possible to the police or anyone else until you have spoken to a competent attorney.

4) 'Mini-14 jammed'. Reliability counts. Make sure that your home-defense weapon is in good shape, reliable, and use good-quality ammo and magazines.

5) If the news is accurate, when he approached the girl and drew his revolver, he was obviously no longer 'in fear for his life'. As soon as the threat is removed, call 911. Waiting until the next day is obviously indefensible. And the 'finishing shot' as described by the news was obviously going too far.

Had he held his position, cleared the jam, immediately fired at what he still believed was a threat, and then called 911 right away, this would be a non-issue. As for the two dead burglars, they paid the ultimate stupid tax. I have little sympathy for them.

[Chucktshoes]

Somebody forgot the rule of "SSS". The burglars had it coming, I have no concern or care for them. The old man should have just bought a couple of hacksaw blades and a few extra gallons of bleach. Problem solved, problem staying solved.

[Oh Shoot]

[quote name='Chucktshoes' timestamp='1354252302' post='852733']
Somebody forgot the rule of "SSS". The burglars had it coming, I have no concern or care for them. The old man should have just bought a couple of hacksaw blades and a few extra gallons of bleach. Problem solved, problem staying solved.
[/quote]

Dunno if that would have helped either, since he had the Ron White problem: "I had the right to remain silent, but not the ability".

- OS

Edited November 30, 2012 by Oh Shoot

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name='Oh Shoot' timestamp='1354252771' post='852737']

Dunno if that would have helped either, since he had the Ron White problem: "I had the right keep silent, but not the ability".

- OS[/quote]
Yep, hence the third "S" of "Shut Up!" I'd say that was the one he really would have done well to follow. Especially considering that nobody reported the gunshots the night of and the cops weren't called until he told someone else. What a dumbass.

Edited November 30, 2012 by Chucktshoes

[BryanP]

[quote name='Chucktshoes' timestamp='1354252302' post='852733']
Somebody forgot the rule of "SSS". The burglars had it coming, I have no concern or care for them. The old man should have just bought a couple of hacksaw blades and a few extra gallons of bleach. Problem solved, problem staying solved.
[/quote]

I haven't heard anybody claiming that the teens aren't at fault at all. As others have said "play stupid games, win stupid prizes." That said, the "finishing shots" were what pushed this over the line from self defense to murder. Assuming the facts are as presented, that old man cross the line to murder at that point and deserves to fry for it.