Self defense or murder?

[tallguy]

My heart goes out to the guy who'd had enough and my hat is off to him for ridding the world of two wastes of DNA. More wastes gone, world safer and better.

Except that he is far more of a waste of DNA than they are.  His actions prove that.  They were young and stupid.  He is old and calculating, and his callous disregard for life easily trumps their "criminal" tendencies.  And again, "career criminals?"  At that age?  How many times had the girl done something like this?  I do not necessarily mourn the two at all, but I celebrate the removal from society of that sick f**k. 

And as an aside:  Anyone who thinks he is NOT a sick f**k, and that his actions are in any way admirable, is right there with him. 

[Deleted]

Apr 29, 2014 20:06:18 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Well, I'm sorry for the guy but glad some career criminals have been stopped. He made the ultimate sacrifice. I'm sure he will appeal and wiser heads will prevail.

Jesus will hug him when he is welcomed at the Pearly gates for an afterlife of eternal bliss. 

[zibazinski]

HE may or may not be welcomed, that's between him and whatever he believes. I believe he will be welcomed.

[zibazinski]

His ONLY questionable action was waiting too long to call the cops after he did it. Other than that, right on!!

[Shooby]

"Well, they were career criminals. They had done it repeatedly and with no consequences. Now their parents are whining? Should have done a better job of raising them. Too bad, so sad. They were bad seeds and the world is better off. My heart goes out to the guy who'd had enough and my hat is off to him for ridding the world of two wastes of DNA. More wastes gone, world safer and better. Criminals do these things over and over and nothing is ever done to them. This is why people take the law into their own hands, because the law protects the criminals, not their victims. They weren't little kids. Even my immature children/slash adults knew enough to not break into people's homes when they were a lot younger than these punks."

  They were kids.  Minors.  You know, people who can't legally enter into contracts or give consent?  Were they engaged in wrongdoing?  Of course.  They were doing the wrong thing.  No question.  Was their wrong doing worthy of being executed?  No.  He engaged in wrong doing as well.  They committed burglary.  He committed murder.  So, he is the bigger PUNK.

[tallguy]

I believe he will be welcomed.  His ONLY questionable action was waiting too long to call the cops after he did it. Other than that, right on!! 

As I said, right there with him.

[Green Eyed Lady]

I agree, Zib.  Guess I'm right there with ya!  I don't understand why he didn't report it right away either, unless it was some trauma thing.  I doubt that weighed heavily in the jury's mind, tho.  His tape recording sunk him, it appears.  Why the heck he didn't get rid of it is beyond me.  I bet the jury is glad they are done with this one.

It will go to appeal.  The Appeals Court will decide that this Judge was wrong for excluding evidence of the prior history of burglary (needed to prove he was in fear), and a new trial will be granted.  That's my prediction.  Maybe they will decide the same - maybe not. 

What sickens me just as much as defending this guy sickens others, is that all of a sudden, in the press, these criminals are saints-in-waiting.  They just needed another year to turn into wonderful, productive citizens.  What a bunch of delusional horse shit.

[tallguy]

The Appeals Court will decide that this Judge was wrong for excluding evidence of the prior history of burglary (needed to prove he was in fear), and a new trial will be granted. That's my prediction.

Absolute nonsense.  Not a chance in hell.  (Which, by the way, is exactly where his chance would need to be.)

What sickens me just as much as defending this guy sickens others, is that all of a sudden, in the press, these criminals are saints-in-waiting. They just needed another year to turn into wonderful, productive citizens. What a bunch of delusional horse shit.

Has anybody here made such a statement?  Or is it rather that they will never get the chance to become anything else?  Has anyone, anywhere, praised them as "saints-in-waiting?"

I agree, Zib. Guess I'm right there with ya!

You DO realize what that, "Right there with him" referred to, right?

[billisonboard]

Apr 30, 2014 8:19:16 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

...

It will go to appeal.  The Appeals Court will decide that this Judge was wrong for excluding evidence of the prior history of burglary (needed to prove he was in fear), and a new trial will be granted. ...
. ...

Here is a link to a story about the discussion on the witness stand of prior burglary:
www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/25341818/deputy-told-byron-smith-to-call-police-right-away-after-earlier-burglary

What was not allowed was anything specific to the two who were shot.

[billisonboard]

Apr 30, 2014 8:19:16 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

... His tape recording sunk him, it appears.  Why the heck he didn't get rid of it is beyond me. 
...

You do realize that tampering with evidence is a crime. A break-in had taken place. The tapes had evidence of that crime.

Why he made the recording in the first place is what is beyond me.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Of course, I know tampering with evidence is a crime.   I still don't understand why he didn't get rid of it.  And I agree with you.  I don't know why he made the recording in the first place, unless it was as Virgil stated and he wanted to make a point/stand/whatever.  Or, it could be as mmhmm suggested and he may have some early dementia issues.  Who knows?

[Virgil Showlion]

Apr 30, 2014 1:27:07 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Apr 30, 2014 0:06:15 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Is getting shot be a foreseeable consequence of breaking and entering? Should it be? Therein lies the question.

what's your answer?

I'd come up with a long and complicated response earlier, but then revised it to the point of absurdity. Instead, I'll say:

Yes, getting shot is a foreseeable consequence of breaking and entering, depending on where/when the break-in takes place.

No, getting shot should not be a foreseeable consequence of breaking and entering.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

I still don't understand why he didn't get rid of it.

Cause he's nuts and wanted a keepsake maybe?

I can sorta buy where you are coming from with the tarp and the not calling the police for 24 hrs. But I can't swallow that making a recording and keeping it was an act of "extreme stress".

I'm surprised he was convicted on first degree murder, I didn't think that would stick.

I usually have faith in juries even when I disagree with them. Juries are supposed to take in to account the evidence as presented, they aren't supposed to make a decision based on "the punks deserved it".  Apparently the evidence was enough for this jury to convict.

I also have a hard time swallowing the line "well this will make other criminals think twice". Here's a small problem with that theory: criminals don't ever think they'll get caught. If every single person thought it through beforehand we'd be a crime free society.

And it could also lead to opposite undesired results.  Instead of criminals cowering in fear of armed vigilantes instead it could escalate and all robbers arm themselves and shoot first in case there is a crazy old guy lying in wait.

I'm not saying you don't have a right to protect yourself or your home. I just don't get holding this guy up as some sort of hero and Batman like deterrent to criminals.

[Green Eyed Lady]

I agree, Drama.  I have faith in juries also and I believe they do the best they can do.  I'm not one to sit in judgment of those who have actually sat in judgment. 

I still assert it will make criminals think twice.  It certainly does where I live.  Home invasions/burglaries have dropped considerably in the last several years - which is surprising given the state of the economy.  Those who are supposed to know what they are talking about attribute it to the fact the criminals are now seeing law-abiding citizens at LEAST as well armed as they are.  It's no longer worth the chance.    Criminals do consider that they will get caught.  I can't tell you the number of times I've heard, "I knew I was gonna get caught but....".   Granted, it's mostly drug related stuff because, as we all know, drugs make a person do stupid things.  They do consider it and we dont' have a crime free society as a result because most of them consider it worth the chance anyway.  It used to be that all they had to fear (in their minds) was jail.  Now they have to fear the home owner will shoot their stupid asses.  I'm sure it's like most issues - depends on the part of the county you live in. 

[EVT1]

Crime has been dropping steady for decades- gun laws have nothing to do with it- though I am sure plenty of 'studies' will claim they do.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 30, 2014 8:07:55 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

HE may or may not be welcomed, that's between him and whatever he believes. I believe he will be welcomed.

indeed.  if he is truly repentant, then it is between him and God.  if not, may he rot in hell.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 30, 2014 8:19:16 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

What sickens me just as much as defending this guy sickens others, is that all of a sudden, in the press, these criminals are saints-in-waiting.  They just needed another year to turn into wonderful, productive citizens.  What a bunch of delusional horse shit.

i think this appraisal is absurd.  nobody is granting these kids sainthood.

i spend a lot of time on this board decrying the treatment of detainees in GITMO.  are they angels?  of course not.  some are totally innocent, and were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.  some were there to support the Taliban and defend Afghanistan.  some were nasty pieces of terrorist s(*t.  but treating them ALL as if they were in the latter category doesn't work for me.

i think mmhmm has it about right: when someone becomes the criminal justice system, i have a problem with that.  if you don't, that is fine- but keep in mind that many innocent people will die because of that attitude, and even more that could be reformed.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 30, 2014 9:26:30 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

I agree, Drama.  I have faith in juries also and I believe they do the best they can do.  I'm not one to sit in judgment of those who have actually sat in judgment. 

I still assert it will make criminals think twice. 

i can pretty much guarantee it won't.  criminals are not thinking about being caught.  that is why they are criminals: they are fundamentally stupid.

[Green Eyed Lady]

A study a few years ago purported the average IQ of a criminal to be 90-92 (about 8 points lower than the average of non-criminals).  Does this make them "fundamentally stupid" or does this make them of "average intelligence"?

[djAdvocate]

Apr 30, 2014 11:34:09 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

A study a few years ago purported the average IQ of a criminal to be 90-92 (about 8 points lower than the average of non-criminals).  Does this make them "fundamentally stupid" or does this make them of "average intelligence"?

their IQ makes them "of average intelligence".  the fact that they are criminals makes them fundamentally stupid. 

[Green Eyed Lady]

I agree the things criminals do are stupid.  I don't agree the criminals, themselves, are stupid.

I'm wondering.  Do you think these two criminals this thread is about would have broken into Mr. Smith's house that night had they thought it was occupied?  Of course I understand you can't know - nobody can - but what is your opinion?

[djAdvocate]

Apr 30, 2014 13:38:20 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

I agree the things criminals do are stupid.  I don't agree the criminals, themselves, are stupid.

my daddy always said "stupid is as stupid does".  guessing you don't agree.

I'm wondering.  Do you think these two criminals this thread is about would have broken into Mr. Smith's house that night had they thought it was occupied?  Of course I understand you can't know - nobody can - but what is your opinion?

i doubt it.  but that doesn't make them smart.  not by any stretch.  smart would be not breaking into the house.

[zibazinski]

Well, attacking citizens has gone down due to few "innocent criminals" getting shot by their "criminal victims." That's been great! But the bleeding hearts have been crying because the criminals didnt get ANOTHER chance to commit more crimes/see the light!

[djAdvocate]

Apr 30, 2014 13:43:27 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Well, attacking citizens has gone down due to few "innocent criminals" getting shot by their "criminal victims." That's been great! But the bleeding hearts have been crying because the criminals didnt get ANOTHER chance to commit more crimes/see the light!

you are assuming two things here:

1) that the "bleeding hearts" don't want the crimes punished.
2) that they criminals had no potential to learn from their mistakes.

both are wrong.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Apr 30, 2014 13:43:08 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Apr 30, 2014 13:38:20 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

I agree the things criminals do are stupid.  I don't agree the criminals, themselves, are stupid.

my daddy always said "stupid is as stupid does".  guessing you don't agree.

I'm wondering.  Do you think these two criminals this thread is about would have broken into Mr. Smith's house that night had they thought it was occupied?  Of course I understand you can't know - nobody can - but what is your opinion?

i doubt it.  but that doesn't make them smart.  not by any stretch.  smart would be not breaking into the house.

I agree.  It doesn't make them smart or dumb.  Why do you doubt they would have broken in had they thought the residence was occupied?

[djAdvocate]

Apr 30, 2014 13:50:37 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Apr 30, 2014 13:43:08 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i doubt it.  but that doesn't make them smart.  not by any stretch.  smart would be not breaking into the house.

I agree.  It doesn't make them smart or dumb.  Why do you doubt they would have broken in had they thought the residence was occupied?

because they were unarmed.  moreover, they don't have a history of violence.  i am guessing that they did this for kicks, not confrontation.

[billisonboard]

I think teenage laziness is a factor also. 

[djAdvocate]

Apr 30, 2014 14:35:33 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

I think teenage laziness is a factor also. 

'tolly.  boredom.  something like that.  it is amazing how much trouble the idle can get into.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Apr 30, 2014 14:33:28 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Apr 30, 2014 13:50:37 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

I agree.  It doesn't make them smart or dumb.  Why do you doubt they would have broken in had they thought the residence was occupied?

because they were unarmed.  moreover, they don't have a history of violence.  i am guessing that they did this for kicks, not confrontation.

I tend to agree with you, even though nobody can know what they intended.  Why, then, would they choose to go in while the house is unoccupied, yet shy away if they thought someone was home - regardless of their intentions?  In your opinion, of course.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 30, 2014 14:38:32 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Apr 30, 2014 14:33:28 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

because they were unarmed.  moreover, they don't have a history of violence.  i am guessing that they did this for kicks, not confrontation.

I tend to agree with you, even though nobody can know what they intended.  Why, then, would they choose to go in while the house is unoccupied, yet shy away if they thought someone was home - regardless of their intentions?  In your opinion, of course.

for the same reason that i drink beer with my friends, but not around the house.  i don't like conflict. 

seriously: it is one thing to joy ride someone's unoccupied house.  it is quite another to take that trip with an unwilling partner.