Murder convictions overturned on man who shot fleeing home intruders in the back

[T4RAWR]

Originally Posted by ynot-llat

why isn't anybody talking about the prohibited 25 round magazine.
Possession of that itself is 2 years in jail and a life long weapons ban

If he were using a legal magazine pinned at 5 rounds there would be a lot less carnage. Sure, he could've had multiple magazines, but the reloading of new magazines would show more guilty intent. If he had let 5 rounds off as they were coming into his house, more than likely they would've all ran off and he wouldn't needed to have killed them. But in small towns like that, its a matter of time before this situation went full circle.
This guy is going to jail ...i guess you can say he was "idle no more"

iirc an SKS has a fixed mag that is originally a 10 round capacity pinned to 5 rounds. you have to load through the breach either hand loading each round individually or using a stripper clip and ramming 5 rounds from the 10 round stripper clip into it.


if he doesnt get jail time for killing the guys he should definitely go to jail for possession of a prohibited weapon (high capacity magazine for a semi-automatic).

[underscore]

^ sounds like that's exactly why that magazine is illegal.

[Geoc]

There are so much context that seem be left out of this article, it's kinda hard to make a judgement imo.

We can say all we want about the law and all, but the fact that it took place in a small town in the middle of nowhere makes the circumstance a little more difficult.

Let's play devil's advocate, if you're living in a small town of 1500, you would be running into the large portion of the town population day-to-day. If you let these guys live, there is a large chance in your day-to-day routine that you would be running into these 6 people who have a personal vendetta against you, whom has already attempted home invasion to maim or possibly kill you.
What would you do?Would you give your attackers the benefit of the doubt at the risk of your own safety?

We live in a city of millions, so it's easy to say that the law is reasonable, but for a small town the circumstances can easily change.

Food for thought.

[Jason00S2000]

Originally Posted by Geoc

but for a small town the circumstances can easily change.

Food for thought.

Dating, fighting, gossip, your job, what you drive, who you vote for, what religion you follow, all of these things are so much more personal in a small town.


Fuck I would be chased out of a town of 1500, haha!

[Energy]

Originally Posted by Geoc

There are so much context that seem be left out of this article, it's kinda hard to make a judgement imo.

We can say all we want about the law and all, but the fact that it took place in a small town in the middle of nowhere makes the circumstance a little more difficult.

Let's play devil's advocate, if you're living in a small town of 1500, you would be running into the large portion of the town population day-to-day. If you let these guys live, there is a large chance in your day-to-day routine that you would be running into these 6 people who have a personal vendetta against you, whom has already attempted home invasion to maim or possibly kill you.
What would you do?Would you give your attackers the benefit of the doubt at the risk of your own safety?

We live in a city of millions, so it's easy to say that the law is reasonable, but for a small town the circumstances can easily change.

Food for thought.

That's exactly why the trial judge not letting the defense lawyer put some facts to jury led to another trial. It's also why Mr. Bishop might be able to successfully use self-defense when he shot those guys when they were down.

Originally Posted by Jason00S2000

Dating, fighting, gossip, your job, what you drive, who you vote for, what religion you follow, all of these things are so much more personal in a small town.


Fuck I would be chased out of a town of 1500, haha!

Yes, we already know that you're a sleazebag.

[jackal]

Originally Posted by parm104

Well Jason, your mentality is in accordance with the law. The LAW values human life above all. If someone is walking away with your possessions, the law does not allow you to defend those possessions with deadly force. You may use reasonable force to get your belongings back but not deadly force. After all, it's material objects vs. human life regardless of how you feel about scumbag thieves. It's how the law works...

Unless deadly force was being used against him, or he reasonably believed deadly force was going to be used against him, the law most probably, not see his killings as justifiable.

DISCLAIMER: I have not read this case/story, I am making a general comment with regards to how the law would interpret/should interpret a situation.

In my opinion i feel this is a flaw in our system. if i wake up to some idiots in my house stealing my tv/computer or what ever. I feel i should have the right to kill them. at least that way thieves will have some deterrent. same goes for say a rape victim. if someone came into my house and raped me then proceeded to leave and i had a gun stashed away in a closet i should have the right to shoot the rapist as he proceeded to leave.

might be extreme but if your retarded enough to commit the crime you should be ready to pay the ultimate price.

i have very low tolerance for crime. especially crime involving breaching someones house and crime causing bodily harm. and in the case of this thread the threat of causing bodily harm.

5 guys think it's a good idea to show up a buddies house with a variety of weapons after threatening him. and this guy went and hid in a room. THEY went looking for trouble. at that point i give this guy the right to execute each of them.

[Culverin]

I mean, nobody ever commits a murder, then drags the body back to their home to use the "castle law" defense right?

[jackal]

Originally Posted by Culverin

I mean, nobody ever commits a murder, then drags the body back to their home to use the "castle law" defense right?

should be pretty easy to tell if a body has not been shot in a home, or if the body was killed and then planted. bullets make a mess.

[westopher]

Originally Posted by jackal

In my opinion i feel this is a flaw in our system. if i wake up to some idiots in my house stealing my tv/computer or what ever. I feel i should have the right to kill them. at least that way thieves will have some deterrent. same goes for say a rape victim. if someone came into my house and raped me then proceeded to leave and i had a gun stashed away in a closet i should have the right to shoot the rapist as he proceeded to leave.

might be extreme but if your retarded enough to commit the crime you should be ready to pay the ultimate price.

i have very low tolerance for crime. especially crime involving breaching someones house and crime causing bodily harm. and in the case of this thread the threat of causing bodily harm.

5 guys think it's a good idea to show up a buddies house with a variety of weapons after threatening him. and this guy went and hid in a room. THEY went looking for trouble. at that point i give this guy the right to execute each of them.

And thats why you don't determine or enforce laws in this country, because you are a spazz. If someone is going to kill you, like in this case, you should be able to do anything it takes to save your own life. Once that stops, you can't go any farther. If someone takes your computer, you really think you should be able to put a bullet into their head to protect your 1300 dollars?

[parm104]

Originally Posted by westopher

And thats why you don't determine or enforce laws in this country, because you are a spazz. If someone is going to kill you, like in this case, you should be able to do anything it takes to save your own life. Once that stops, you can't go any farther. If someone takes your computer, you really think you should be able to put a bullet into their head to protect your 1300 dollars?

HAHA "spazz!"...

Death Penalty for all thieves! Bring back capital punishment so we can deter robberies! Get with the program Westopher!

[Noir]

Originally Posted by parm104

HAHA "spazz!"...

Death Penalty for all thieves!

With regards to the topic, they weren't thieves were they not?

[freakshow]

regardless of what the law says, in the heat of the moment, there's a good chance i would have done the same thing..

[The7even]

What bothers me the most is that there is even a debate whether he should be jailed or not.

If this guy is a scumbag , jail him for whatever he does/did elsewhere.
But for this?
No way.
He did the right thing.

Some men have children, let's see what you'd do if some idiot rushes into your home with a Katana while your kid is in the living room..

I'm glad he shot them, even if it was in the back. These guys are cowards and pussies who intended to do him physical harm and when they realized, and ONLY when they realized that they're going to be fucked, did their cowardly nature tell them to make a run for it.

Fuck them, a bullet to the back is all they deserved. If I could charge them for the bullets, I would.

[prznali]

Ok listen, the law says you can't use force on an intruder or trespasser unless it's self defense, which you can also only use "reasonable" force ...

Now.. what do i think? i think thats bullshit ... if a thief comes into your home you should have every right to take them down .. that also doesn't mean to kill them, if the person is running or something shoot them in the leg maybe ??

[El Bastardo]

Originally Posted by prznali

Now.. what do i think? i think thats bullshit ... if a thief comes into your home you should have every right to take them down .. that also doesn't mean to kill them, if the person is running or something shoot them in the leg maybe ??

Never own a firearm, ever