@ Draugnar

When I'm sitting at home reading my paperback, I just have my good old 1911. 1911s never jam; no need to have a second gun. My M14 is where it should be (my locked gun safe) when not in use.
____

As for this case, it's a complete travesty of justice. As Draugnar pointed out, if you don't want to die, then don't commit felony B&E!

The dude is a sick fuck for finishing off two unarmed and badly wounded people, but he's not a murderer. The right to self defense with lethal force in one's own home is the most important and most fundamental human right. There should be no legal difference between wounding (and later killing) two intruders and killing them outright with the first shots. You break into a private residence, you get fatally shot. End of story.

He could have stopped the intruders with a Molotov cocktail and watched them burn alive for all I care. Property owners should have an *unlimited* right to self defense in all truly free societies.

This wasn't self-defense in any reasonable sense of the term. You said it yourself when you said he "finish[ed] off two unarmed and badly wounded people."

"You commit felony B&E, you deserve to die at the inhabitants hands."
"The right to self defense with lethal force in one's own home is the most important and most fundamental human right. "

This discussion only makes sense to Americans. In most other countries, B&E gets you sentenced to jail by a judicial process. Repeatedly shooting somebody in the face is not a human right. Ironically, the "most fundamental human right" is actually considered to be the right to life.

So yes, you shouldnt B&E. And yes, you have the right to self defence. But this weird stuff that youre somehow 'entitled' to execute somebody is so 1790s. This wouldnt be allowed by any other civilised country by any stretch of the imagination.

I love how Gunfighter pulls a True Scotsman too. Are all European societies not 'truly' free?

Most of Europe isn't free. Socialist trends involving high taxes to pay for the lazy guarantees European citizens are slaves to their government.

@ PE

But before he finished them off, he shot them (most likely fatally, a Mini-14 is no joke of a gun, especially at close range against an unarmored target), and he had every right to do so. Shooting a home invader is absolutely a reasonable use of the term "self defense".

@ TMOW

"This wouldnt be allowed by any other civilised country by any stretch of the imagination."

Ha. You accuse me of pulling a True Scotsman and you do the exact same thing.

Your hypocrisy aside, situations like this are why European policies will never work in the United States. In the 19th century, American ranchers couldn't exactly call the police when cattle rustlers showed up. They either shot the thieves or they starved.

There has always been a societal belief in the United States that property crimes should be met with deadly force. When you invade someone's home, you are implying a direct threat to their life and they have a right to respond with equal (deadly) force. When you rob someone's place of business, you are directly threatening their livelihood and they have a right to respond with equal (deadly) force.

The Castle doctrine is the most elegant and wisest carry-over from the days of common law. Why does everyone keep pretending that the criminal is the victim here? Don't invade someone's house and you won't get shot by that someone.

"But before he finished them off, he shot them (most likely fatally, a Mini-14 is no joke of a gun, especially at close range against an unarmored target), and he had every right to do so. Shooting a home invader is absolutely a reasonable use of the term "self defense"."

He wasn't on trial for shooting them. He was on trial for finishing them off. Finishing off an unarmed, gravely-injured, unarmored person isn't self-defense.

It also isn't premeditated murder. Did he plan to kill them under any circumstances? No. He only intended to kill anyone who broke into his home. At worst, what he did was voluntary manslaughter or the lesser second degree murder. Premeditated murder sets out to kill the person regardless. This was no different than a police sting except he was a private citizen in his own home.

So he intended to kill the subset of humans "humans who broke into his home" under any circumstances.

The victims fit in this subset.

Therefore, he intended to kill the victims under any circumstances.

Therefore, premeditated murder.


How can you guys white knight for this man? I'm a very strident defender of private property rights and I can see no way that this verdict is unjustified. I think you both are letting your bloodlust interfere with your rational assessment of the situation.

"Ha. You accuse me of pulling a True Scotsman and you do the exact same thing."

How? He's making a valid point. Do you even understand the concept of a True Scotsman?

"Most of Europe isn't free. Socialist trends involving high taxes to pay for the lazy guarantees European citizens are slaves to their government."

Thats a pretty narrow definition of free. If you would include the level of education, health care, perceived well-being, perceived safety, trust in government, then the scale would tip considerably. The US counts roughly 10 gun deaths per 100,000, most European countries are under 2 per 100,000. But granted, if you include the human right to shoot wounded people in the face, then America, fuck yeah.

I totally get the rancher history. And I subscribe to the premise of the castle idea. But self-defence needs to be conditional and proportional.

For it to be self defence the target must be capable of causing you harm.

"Most of Europe isn't free. Socialist trends involving high taxes to pay for the lazy guarantees European citizens are slaves to their government."

Right to elect a government to organize society to make sure everyone has basic necessities < Right to finish off a neutralized threat. Riiiiiiiiight.

@PE -they aren't a subset and premeditated requires targeting people *by name*. He would not have killed those two had they not broken in and he would have killed anyone who broke in, there fore it isn't premeditated any more than a soldier on fire watch who kills an enemy sneaking into his camp "premeditated" the killing.

He may well have done that every night for a month afraid fro his life. If it was truly premeditated, he would have hunted his two so called victims outside his home and killed them. But he didn't know who was robbing him for certain so he let the chips fall where they may.

And no, I have no sympathy for people who rob an old man repeatedly. They got their comeuppance.

Health care, perceived well being, perceived safety? Prisoners in a federal penitentiary have all these and yet they aren't free at all. I don't know what your definition of freedom is, but when prisoners have the majority of your attributes, it is a pretty fucked up definition.

"Premeditated murder is the crime of wrongfully and intentionally causing the death of another human being (also known as murder) after rationally considering the timing or method of doing so, in order to either increase the likelihood of success, or to evade detection or apprehension."

I think that pretty clearly fits. You can argue whatever legalistic quibbles you like, though. I don't see how in the world anyone can think it okay to execute unarmed, gravely-wounded teenagers after they've been incapacitated.

I must say that, as the crazy conservative Texas gun-rights enthusiast, I'm surprised to find myself to the left of so much of webdip on this case. This was open-and-shut murder, self-admitted.

@ Gunfighter: "In the 19th century, American ranchers couldn't exactly call the police when cattle rustlers showed up. They either shot the thieves or they starved."

How interesting. Remind me though, what year of the 19th century are you currently living in? My calendar says it's 2014.

Cops don't atop crimes, they are so slow in responding, they just show up after the fact. If they did, perhaps this man's home wouldn't have been repeatedly invaded. If they had done their job, they would have caught the scum and not forces him to kill them.

Forced him to kill them? That's not how the account reads for me.

I can't better semck and PE's contributions, but I do want to add: Property right are important, but they do not supersede human rights. You can't kill someone trying to steal a cup of coffee.

"Sure you can. If they didn't want to die they shouldn't have fucked with your coffee? When they do they are harming your livelihood and you have the right to respond with deadly force. Whats so hard to understand about that?"

-Gunfighter

"If they didn't want to die they shouldn't have voted for Obama"
-Krellin

"If they didn't want to die they shouldn't have told me to keep away from their teenage daughter"
-Draugnar

Cute Jamie...

Lets be realistic. They weren't stealing his lawn storks. They broke into his *house*. For all he knew, the thrives who had repeatedly broken I to his house and stolen his *guns* were *armed* with those stolen guns. I agree after they were down, he committed manslaughter or possibly second degree murder by finishing them off, but the original shooting was justified completely.

I could agree with the initial shooting being justified, but nothing can justify killing them once incapacitated.

@ Gunfighter: "In the 19th century, American ranchers couldn't exactly call the police when cattle rustlers showed up. They either shot the thieves or they starved."

Which do you think promotes freedom more: Castle doctrine or Freedom to roam?

"I agree after they were down, he committed manslaughter or possibly second degree murder by finishing them off, but the original shooting was justified completely."
Then we're all in agreement.

The reason he got murder 1 was for what he did before he even shot them. If we are in agreement that fear drove him to lay in wait for the next theft, then he shouldn't have gotten murder 1.

Yeah that's a debateable point, Draug. He certainly deserved murder 2. Murder 1 is less clear.

However, there's certainly a strong argument to be made that he always intended to kill whoever came there, whether he was momentarily afraid for his life or not. Everything he said is consistent with that theory; and that's what he carried out, certainly in the case of the girl.

So in other words, it's at least reasonable for the jury to conclude that he did in fact always plan to kill the intruders, irrespective of threat to his life.

But always intending to kill an intruder (I was taught you shoot to kill, period) is not a crime. The crime was killing them *after* they were disabled. Had he waited and done a head shot when he had a clear shot to do so, there would have been no crime.