[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Is this Murder? (Page 1 of 3)
Posted: 5/2/2014 7:40:12 AM EDT
|
A man owns a store. Over the last 3 weeks, the store has been broken into 4 times. Fed up, the owner puts a cot and a reading lamp in the stock room at the store. At closing time, he goes into the stock room with a good book, a cooler full of Cokes, and a shotgun. About 11:30 PM, he hears breaking glass and goes stealthily from the stock room to the main part of the store. He sees two men moving toward him in the dim light, and beyond them sees that the glass in his front door has been broken.
He shoots and kills the men. |
|
Quoted: A man owns a store. Over the last 3 weeks, the store has been broken into 4 times. Fed up, the owner puts a cot and a reading lamp in the stock room at the store. At closing time, he goes into the stock room with a good book, a cooler full of Cokes, and a shotgun. About 11:30 PM, he hears breaking glass and goes stealthily from the stock room to the main part of the store. He sees two men moving toward him in the dim light, and beyond them sees that the glass in his front door has been broken. He shoots and kills the men. Does this have any connection at all to the guy in Minnesota that was just found guilty for a similar event but in his own home? |
|
Quoted:
Did he fire a good clean kill shot? Wait until the next day to call police? +1 Okay, deadly force isn't appropriate for someone breaking into your home because we have decided that's an offense worthy of death, it's because in almost all circumstances, it's best to grant a lot of leeway because of how real a threat like that is. You should be able to retreat to your home and be safe there, and someone should be safe to defend themselves from someone invading it. We grant a lot of leeway to people if they come to the understandable conclusion that they're in serious danger because of invasion of their homes. This guy in Minn tried to abuse that leeway to get away with a planned murder. |
|
Quoted:
A man owns a store. Over the last 3 weeks, the store has been broken into 4 times. Fed up, the owner puts a cot and a reading lamp in the stock room at the store. At closing time, he goes into the stock room with a good book, a cooler full of Cokes, and a shotgun. About 11:30 PM, he hears breaking glass and goes stealthily from the stock room to the main part of the store. He sees two men moving toward him in the dim light, and beyond them sees that the glass in his front door has been broken. He shoots and kills the men. Are you trying to make a comparison to the outstanding case? If so, isn't there a lot more to "shooting the men"? |
|
Quoted: Does this have any connection at all to the guy in Minnesota that was just found guilty for a similar event but in his own home? Quoted: Quoted: A man owns a store. Over the last 3 weeks, the store has been broken into 4 times. Fed up, the owner puts a cot and a reading lamp in the stock room at the store. At closing time, he goes into the stock room with a good book, a cooler full of Cokes, and a shotgun. About 11:30 PM, he hears breaking glass and goes stealthily from the stock room to the main part of the store. He sees two men moving toward him in the dim light, and beyond them sees that the glass in his front door has been broken. He shoots and kills the men. Does this have any connection at all to the guy in Minnesota that was just found guilty for a similar event but in his own home? |
|
In my state the law presumes that someone who forcibly breaks in to an occupied home or place of business constitutes a threat worthy of deadly force. Quoted: ...In California, he would probably be required to run away out the back door and call police. Nope. California was one of the first states to have an explicit castle doctrine law for self-defense. |
|
Quoted:
no broken glass in that case, door was left open Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A man owns a store. Over the last 3 weeks, the store has been broken into 4 times. Fed up, the owner puts a cot and a reading lamp in the stock room at the store. At closing time, he goes into the stock room with a good book, a cooler full of Cokes, and a shotgun. About 11:30 PM, he hears breaking glass and goes stealthily from the stock room to the main part of the store. He sees two men moving toward him in the dim light, and beyond them sees that the glass in his front door has been broken. He shoots and kills the men. Does this have any connection at all to the guy in Minnesota that was just found guilty for a similar event but in his own home? Still a good shoot. |
|
Quoted:
A man owns a store. Over the last 3 weeks, the store has been broken into 4 times. Fed up, the owner puts a cot and a reading lamp in the stock room at the store. At closing time, he goes into the stock room with a good book, a cooler full of Cokes, and a shotgun. About 11:30 PM, he hears breaking glass and goes stealthily from the stock room to the main part of the store. He sees two men moving toward him in the dim light, and beyond them sees that the glass in his front door has been broken. He shoots and kills the men. I won't shoot at a shadow, would you? What if after the glass is broke they leave and it was family members looking in on him. He better hope he is in Texas. |
|
Part of me wants to say that would be a good time to hit them with a blinding weapon-mounted light and give them an opportunity to surrender. But then I quickly come to my senses and realize that the filthy predators waived their right to life when they broke in. IMO, the moment you begin the act of burglary/robbery/whatever, you've committed yourself as "fair game" for the hunt. And I don't support any restrictions on that type of hunting. Let the shooting begin. |
|
Quoted:
In my state the law presumes that someone who forcibly breaks in to an occupied home or place of business constitutes a threat worthy of deadly force. Nope. California was one of the first states to have an explicit castle doctrine law for self-defense. Quoted:
In my state the law presumes that someone who forcibly breaks in to an occupied home or place of business constitutes a threat worthy of deadly force. Quoted:
...In California, he would probably be required to run away out the back door and call police. Nope. California was one of the first states to have an explicit castle doctrine law for self-defense. I'm pretty sure that in Utah, proof of forced entry is justification for lethal force in defense of oneself against the intruders. |
|
Quoted: Still a good shoot. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: A man owns a store. Over the last 3 weeks, the store has been broken into 4 times. Fed up, the owner puts a cot and a reading lamp in the stock room at the store. At closing time, he goes into the stock room with a good book, a cooler full of Cokes, and a shotgun. About 11:30 PM, he hears breaking glass and goes stealthily from the stock room to the main part of the store. He sees two men moving toward him in the dim light, and beyond them sees that the glass in his front door has been broken. He shoots and kills the men. Does this have any connection at all to the guy in Minnesota that was just found guilty for a similar event but in his own home? Still a good shoot. |
|
Quoted:
It is more legal than booby trapping the place. Agreed. There was no trap set. The guy was simply occupying his property to protect it. I doubt any jury would think that a man occupying his property is required to place a sign on the door that says "business protected by armed owner after hours" |
|
Quoted: no broken glass in that case, door was left open Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: A man owns a store. Over the last 3 weeks, the store has been broken into 4 times. Fed up, the owner puts a cot and a reading lamp in the stock room at the store. At closing time, he goes into the stock room with a good book, a cooler full of Cokes, and a shotgun. About 11:30 PM, he hears breaking glass and goes stealthily from the stock room to the main part of the store. He sees two men moving toward him in the dim light, and beyond them sees that the glass in his front door has been broken. He shoots and kills the men. Does this have any connection at all to the guy in Minnesota that was just found guilty for a similar event but in his own home? |
|
Quoted:
Part of me wants to say that would be a good time to hit them with a blinding weapon-mounted light and give them an opportunity to surrender. But then I quickly come to my senses and realize that the filthy predators waived their right to life when they broke in. I think you're right on both counts. Certainly just because someone has given you a justification for hurting or killing them does not mean that you must kill or hurt them, or that their maiming or death is the most desirable outcome. I think it would be very reasonable to light them up and give them one (and only one) opportunity to fall down flat on the floor and surrender or die. |
|
Quoted: No, the case in Minnesota they broke the glass on a door window to get in, you can even hear it on the audio tape the shooter made of the events. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: A man owns a store. Over the last 3 weeks, the store has been broken into 4 times. Fed up, the owner puts a cot and a reading lamp in the stock room at the store. At closing time, he goes into the stock room with a good book, a cooler full of Cokes, and a shotgun. About 11:30 PM, he hears breaking glass and goes stealthily from the stock room to the main part of the store. He sees two men moving toward him in the dim light, and beyond them sees that the glass in his front door has been broken. He shoots and kills the men. Does this have any connection at all to the guy in Minnesota that was just found guilty for a similar event but in his own home? |
|
Quoted:
no broken glass in that case, door was left open Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A man owns a store. Over the last 3 weeks, the store has been broken into 4 times. Fed up, the owner puts a cot and a reading lamp in the stock room at the store. At closing time, he goes into the stock room with a good book, a cooler full of Cokes, and a shotgun. About 11:30 PM, he hears breaking glass and goes stealthily from the stock room to the main part of the store. He sees two men moving toward him in the dim light, and beyond them sees that the glass in his front door has been broken. He shoots and kills the men. Does this have any connection at all to the guy in Minnesota that was just found guilty for a similar event but in his own home? By itself, that meant nothing to me. It's not nice to lure thieves to a place where they'll get shot for illegal entry and burglary, but the easiest way to avoid that fate is to not go into other peoples' homes to steal their stuff to support a drug habit. Combined with the finishing shots, it establishes his intent for me. Mr. Minnesota would not want me on that jury. |
|
Quoted: A man owns a store. Over the last 3 weeks, the store has been broken into 4 times. Fed up, the owner puts a cot and a reading lamp in the stock room at the store. At closing time, he goes into the stock room with a good book, a cooler full of Cokes, and a shotgun. About 11:30 PM, he hears breaking glass and goes stealthily from the stock room to the main part of the store. He sees two men moving toward him in the dim light, and beyond them sees that the glass in his front door has been broken. He shoots and kills the men. Personally I wouldn't be a cheap ass store owner and I would have a quality alarm and system in place.
|
|
Quoted:
not convinced that is true, there is lanaguage in their statute about requiring forcible entry or a forcible felony. In NY it might be okay as it sounds like it was a residential burglary. but i think the shooter is in trouble in almost every state with the stupid shit he said Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A man owns a store. Over the last 3 weeks, the store has been broken into 4 times. Fed up, the owner puts a cot and a reading lamp in the stock room at the store. At closing time, he goes into the stock room with a good book, a cooler full of Cokes, and a shotgun. About 11:30 PM, he hears breaking glass and goes stealthily from the stock room to the main part of the store. He sees two men moving toward him in the dim light, and beyond them sees that the glass in his front door has been broken. He shoots and kills the men. Does this have any connection at all to the guy in Minnesota that was just found guilty for a similar event but in his own home? Still a good shoot. I thought I remember some guy at a service garage or something in your AO that shot up a car one night he caught trying to burglarize his business property. iirc EdSr was friends with the guy. |
|
Years ago in Rhode Island something pretty similar happened. A shop owner was sick of his store getting robbed so he made his back room into a sleeping area and waited. Eventually some thugs broke in, the shop keeper killed at least one. Shop keeper got in some trouble with the law because he was waiting for them and seeking confrontation. Pretty stupid stuff, but it's RI...
Plus a number of years ago if someone was breaking into your house you only had the right to shoot if you couldn't escape. So if you shoot the bastard but you could have climbed out the bathroom window and ran away Jonny Law was not on your side. |
|
Quoted:
no broken glass in that case, door was left open Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A man owns a store. Over the last 3 weeks, the store has been broken into 4 times. Fed up, the owner puts a cot and a reading lamp in the stock room at the store. At closing time, he goes into the stock room with a good book, a cooler full of Cokes, and a shotgun. About 11:30 PM, he hears breaking glass and goes stealthily from the stock room to the main part of the store. He sees two men moving toward him in the dim light, and beyond them sees that the glass in his front door has been broken. He shoots and kills the men. Does this have any connection at all to the guy in Minnesota that was just found guilty for a similar event but in his own home? Didn't the guy shoot the 1st intruder in the back twice, then without contacting police sat down and waited for intruder 2? |
| Reference to Minnesota case. http://www.contracostatimes.com/crime-courts/ci_25675214/stand-your-ground?source=inthenews |
|
Quoted: Didn't the guy shoot the 1st intruder in the back twice, then without contacting police sat down and waited for intruder 2? Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: A man owns a store. Over the last 3 weeks, the store has been broken into 4 times. Fed up, the owner puts a cot and a reading lamp in the stock room at the store. At closing time, he goes into the stock room with a good book, a cooler full of Cokes, and a shotgun. About 11:30 PM, he hears breaking glass and goes stealthily from the stock room to the main part of the store. He sees two men moving toward him in the dim light, and beyond them sees that the glass in his front door has been broken. He shoots and kills the men. Does this have any connection at all to the guy in Minnesota that was just found guilty for a similar event but in his own home? Didn't the guy shoot the 1st intruder in the back twice, then without contacting police sat down and waited for intruder 2? |