• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Homeowner executes two burglars

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
The guy deserves to rot in jail. Seriously though, the guy incriminated himself. If he had said nothing, he would be free right now. Then again, I'm glad the lunatic decided to be stupid and incriminate himself in the crime of murder now and not later after doing it again.
 
halik said:
Link? I thought the only exception was rape.
Click to expand...

Stop living like your local laws are national laws.
In Texas deadly force is justifiable for many reasons.
If you don't want to die, don't break into someones home.
Honestly, I don't care that he killed them after wounding them. Those are the risks of being a home invader.
 
JeffreyLebowski said:
You tend to have another view about scum that would break into your house or do you harm anywhere after you've been the victim of it before.
Click to expand...

And you seem to have another view about scum that would drag your already shot, incapacitated, and gasping for air body across the room, put a pistol under your chin, and fire a round into your brain.....

That is a really fucking huge (like Mount Everest fucking huge) difference between accidentally or even purposely putting an extra round in the badguy during the altercation "for good measure".

The altercation was completely over and by his own admission he mindfully drug her body next to her companion while she was gasping for air, stuck a gun under her chin as she lay on the ground, and pulled the trigger. That is fucking murder anyway you try to slice it. If she was even remotely a threat he would have shot her BEFORE dragging her, dontcha think?
 
JeffreyLebowski said:
You tend to have another view about scum that would break into your house or do you harm anywhere after you've been the victim of it before.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it's a great idea to have our laws based on personal revenge fantasies instead of objective cases of actual self-defense. Personally I think you should definitely be able to kill someone if you're defending yourself or someone else from serious harm at the very least. Other people would argue you should be able to kill someone if you're defending property. It sounds like you think we should be able to kill anyone who has wronged us, or is the kind of the person who wronged us. The property arguments I can sort of understand, but what you're saying is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Do you really think arguing about this is going to somehow change the judges or juries mind? No... Unless you are the judge or the one of the members of jury your not... So... let the justice system decide after that you can argue about it all you want.

But I pat the dude on the back... Since if these two robbers didn't die we'd be paying for their stay at Disneyland at yes... your tax payers expense. But sadly dead people don't talk and if he would have just pleaded the fifth he probably would have just been the end of it.

I thought that's what you were suppose to do? Kill em so they don't sue your ass later? He did the right thing.
 
ericlp said:
Do you really think arguing about this is going to somehow change the judges or juries mind? No... Unless you are the judge or the one of the members of jury your not... So... let the justice system decide after that you can argue about it all you want.

But I pat the dude on the back... Since if these two robbers didn't die we'd be paying for their stay at Disneyland at yes... your tax payers expense. But sadly dead people don't talk and if he would have just pleaded the fifth he probably would have just been the end of it.

I thought that's what you were suppose to do? Kill em so they don't sue your ass later? He did the right thing.
Click to expand...

How can he go to prison if he did the "right thing? People aren't imprisoned for doing the right thing.

He sure looks headed there.
 
JeffreyLebowski said:
You tend to have another view about scum that would break into your house or do you harm anywhere after you've been the victim of it before.
Click to expand...

You fail at debating sir--whenever you start using 'how would you feel if...' As the basis of your argument, there isn't anything left to debate because you've put everything we talk about into a circular argument.

But to the point, there are some seriously fucked up people on this forums. The fact that you are celebrating a guy executing two teenage burglars when they are already incapacitated and posed ZERO clear and present threat makes me fear for humanity.

I'm an advocate of gun rights, but this is beyond that debate, it's pure sadism.
 
sigurros81 said:
You fail at debating sir--whenever you start using 'how would you feel if...' As the basis of your argument, there isn't anything left to debate because you've put everything we talk about into a circular argument.

But to the point, there are some seriously fucked up people on this forums. The fact that you are celebrating a guy executing two teenage burglars when they are already incapacitated and posed ZERO clear and present threat makes me fear for humanity.

I'm an advocate of gun rights, but this is beyond that debate, it's pure sadism.
Click to expand...

You seem to fail at reading, no one is arguing that what the guy did in murdering the intruders after they were incapacitated is wrong. He will very likely (and correctly) be punished severely for it.
But to feel sorrow or remorse that the two dimwits that broke into his house are now dead is where I and it appears several other draw the line.
 
The real bottom line lesson to be learned here is that if you deadly force to defend your property, best know your state's gun laws backward and forwards. Maybe what our Mr. Smith did might pass muster in Florida, but not in Minnesota.

As Minnesota law is nearer the national norm than places like Florida.
 
CrackRabbit said:
You seem to fail at reading, no one is arguing that what the guy did in murdering the intruders after they were incapacitated is wrong. He will very likely (and correctly) be punished severely for it.
But to feel sorrow or remorse that the two dimwits that broke into his house are now dead is where I and it appears several other draw the line.
Click to expand...

You're an idiot, maybe you should scroll back and read what people are saying. Stop trying to troll me, because I'm still waiting for your examples of how you own people in debates in other threads :awe:
 
sigurros81 said:
You're an idiot, maybe you should scroll back and read what people are saying. Stop trying to troll me, because I'm still waiting for your examples of how you own people in debates in other threads :awe:
Click to expand...

😳
I didn't read all of JefferyLebowski's first post.
You are correct there.
I still stand by my own commentary though.

I also forgot about finishing off Incorruptible in that other thread. But then again, he is so retarded he wouldn't know what I posted anyways.
 
Lemon law said:
The real bottom line lesson to be learned here is that if you deadly force to defend your property, best know your state's gun laws backward and forwards. Maybe what our Mr. Smith did might pass muster in Florida, but not in Minnesota.

As Minnesota law is nearer the national norm than places like Florida.
Click to expand...

I doubt even Florida allows you to drag a person you shot off to another location to better deliver a kill shot.
 
chucky2 said:
I'm not willing to punish this guy for going overboard what society thinks is proper, in his own house, after the protection mechanisms society provides failed (schooling, police), and then question his decision to grant what these two scum already accepted.

Don't invade peoples homes. Don't get dead. Seems pretty simple to me....

Chuck
Click to expand...

Guess what, society makes the goddamn rules, not you and whatever fucked up revenge fantasies you have. I know it irks people like you, but even criminals are afforded the same rights as anyone else on the country, and their rights don't just disappear because you think they are scum.
 
CitizenKain said:
Guess what, society makes the goddamn rules, not you and whatever fucked up revenge fantasies you have. I know it irks people like you, but even criminals are afforded the same rights as anyone else on the country, and their rights don't just disappear because you think they are scum.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup: Well said.

Too many fucked-up whackos with a fetish for violence out there that are looking for any excuse to kill someone or something. And to have the audacity to masquerade their sickness as an act of self defense, lol.

Listen you sick dumbasses, it's no longer self defense when you have the person at your mercy and you put a bullet in their head anyways.
 
<- NRA member, responsible firearm owner, proponent of sane 2nd amendment rights.

Guy was in the clear to shoot invaders in his home.

Guy was way out of line to then proceed to become an executioner of a person clearly and completely disabled.

Guy was obviously mentally deranged or retarded to have forgone calling the authorities immediately, but instead letting the bodies rot overnight like some fucking wacko.

In conclusion :

(1)- I will lose no sleep over a couple of imbeciles getting shot for breaking into someone's home.

(2)- I will lose no sleep over a complete nutjob probably going to FMITA for the rest of his sorry life.

(3)- It's assholes like this guy who make gun owners look somewhat insane by association.

I've never in my life shot or even pointed any of my firearms at anyone, and I damn sure hope I never have to. I certainly wouldn't execute someone outside of the most grievous circumstances (all bets are off if someone killed one of my kids or something of that nature).
 
chucky2 said:
No he showed a disregard for scum. The scum showed a disregard for their own lives, and what they wanted was granted. You don't go invading peoples dwellings without accepting that the risk you're accepting includes being maimed and/or killed. These scum decided to accept that risk and invade anyways. And they got what they accepted.

I'm not willing to punish this guy for going overboard what society thinks is proper, in his own house, after the protection mechanisms society provides failed (schooling, police), and then question his decision to grant what these two scum already accepted.

Don't invade peoples homes. Don't get dead. Seems pretty simple to me....

Chuck
Click to expand...

Fuck that shit. You don't get the right to be judge jury and executioner over a couple of dumb fucking kids. Once you have incapacitated them you call the authorities...


You don't execute them like you're in a Punisher / Death Wish movie. This insane person with a gun is only going to make the general public suspicious of people who like guns.


If these "home invaders" were armed you're stupid fucking post would have a point... but they were unarmed.

Holy fillet of FUCK. WTF is wrong with you?!
 
Last edited:
dmcowen674 said:
Where do you live?

Let's have a pair invade your house whether unarmed or not and see how you feel about it.
Click to expand...

I would shoot them if they didn't leave after seeing me brandish a rifle. Then I would call the police.

I wouldn't shoot them execution style after they've been rendered helpless by the first gunshots. Then forget about calling the authorities for a day.

what part of this can't you comprehend.

Jaskalas said:
1: Good initial shooting
2: Bad execution following
Click to expand...

No one is saying that the trigger happy asylum candidate wasn't within his rights on the initial shooting. Executing them afterwards then waiting a day to call authorities is a bit much though.
 
blankslate said:
I would shoot them if they didn't leave after seeing me brandish a rifle. Then I would call the police.

I wouldn't shoot them execution style after they've been rendered helpless by the first gunshots.

what part of this can't you comprehend.
Click to expand...

What's this rendered helpless crap?

When you shoot there is only one option, shoot to kill.
 
dmcowen674 said:
What's this rendered helpless crap?

When you shoot there is only one option, shoot to kill.
Click to expand...

She was lying on the floor, out of it enough that he was able to drag her around. She was rendered helpless, and no longer a threat. And then he murdered her.
 
HumblePie said:
The guy deserves to rot in jail. Seriously though, the guy incriminated himself. If he had said nothing, he would be free right now. Then again, I'm glad the lunatic decided to be stupid and incriminate himself in the crime of murder now and not later after doing it again.
Click to expand...

not too sure about him being out if he kept his trap shut. 1, he did not call until later, 2, he put the barrel of the gun beneath her chin point blank and fired, hard to argue that shot was justified. 3, he moved the bodies disturbing evidence.
 
Originally Posted by dmcowen674
What's this rendered helpless crap?

When you shoot there is only one option, shoot to kill.

NTMBK said:
She was lying on the floor, out of it enough that he was able to drag her around. She was rendered helpless, and no longer a threat. And then he murdered her.
Click to expand...

He didn't get it right the first time.

She should have never been "rendered helpless", she should have been shot dead.

He got there eventually apparently.

If a burglar is in your house are you going to shoot to "render helpless" or shoot to kill?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top