Self Defense or Murder?
Just how far do we go to protect ourselves from severe bodily injury and or murder? Specially if it happens in your own domicile?This question come to mind as I am reading the dominant news on the fatal shooting of two teenagers that burglarized the 65 year old peaceful man from Little Falls Minnesota.
Facts: Thanksgiving day, 2012, two teenagers, an 18 year woman and a 17 year old boy burglarized a home of a 65 year old retiree in his home for the second time. These kids were later found to have been responsible in many such acts from the same place.
The homeowner claimed he was so terrorized by such burglars after he found out that one of his gun was stolen on the last one. These kids were found to be responsible on the same acts in the same town for so many times. Why they were not in jail? Beats the hell out of me.
This time he was more vigilant and armed himself ready for his defense if it happens again. And it did.
Verdict: Guilty. Was it justified for the man to kill those young kids? What would you have done?
Thank you so much for your comments.
Comments (86)
Listed in your facts you mention.
"These kids were later found to have been responsible in many such acts from the same place."
OBJECTIONNNNNNNNN
These facts were only brought to light after the fact and are inadmissible as convicting circumstances. Due to the the fact of the defendants ignorance on the matters Proposed
Thanks for the contribution..
But for purposes of the clarity of the judgement, they didn't put any weight on that either.
I don't know, I think this jury is truly out of their mind.
I do feel sorry for the teenagers and wished it didn't happen, but the truth is that the poor old man, who is to claim he didn't feel threatened?
The law states that you can defend yourself in the manner you are being attacked.
If those kids would have brandished a gun then the home owner could have shot them. But not in the back if they were fleeing.
Justified? It's kinda hard to say "Yes" because some kids will not learn from this episode. And a future victim of such a crime as this could be punished as an aggressor.
I would do anything to protect me, and sad to say but being dead first wouldn't have protected me, would it?
Should have the kids, forewarned the old man and say, I am only here to steal and not to kill?
That is a tough one...but I was a victim of an attempted break in...and I was very frightened by it...I think the old man has the right to defend himself...the guests were uninvited and given the situation...being frightened and lets say developing a stress related illness...he would be better off with councelling and therapy...waste of time to jail an old man...people who act in crime in my opinion, suffer the concequences...how else do they learn?...
That it is okay for them to commit these crimes and yet it is not okay for one to defend oneself on such an aggression?
Having thought of it as a precaution to the degree and or severity of the crime committed.
I like that kind of thinking Ito and why on earth all these members of the jury didn't see that?
Even Ireland had a case of a farmer who shot an intruder dead a while back
It said in the paper that the old man, having experienced this once before, indeed taped and recorded the whole act and it starts from the way he waited for them to show up and which they did and killed them in the process..
Now why would this tilt to the premeditation is just not quite clear to me.