Repeatedly burglarized, homeowner "settles the score"... (children, murdering, psychopath)

[boxus]

Originally Posted by krawhitham

Homeowner is definitely justified in killing anyone who enters his house without his permission who doesn't live there. Period. I don't care if they're armed or not. I'd have done the same (though I don't own a gun, so I can't)

He is justified to use up to deadly force to remove the threat, however, it seems he went beyond that.

[Gcs15]

Originally Posted by greywar

Some additional details I have heard being reported-
His home security system recorded the incidents audio

Shot the first guy twice-he fell down the stairs, then told the kid "you're dead" before shooting the unarmed kid in the face.

Then you hear the rustling of a tarp as he moves the body onto it to keep the blood from staining his carpet.

He reloads the gun, and 11 minutes later the female comes down, you can hear her call out "Nick?". He shoots her. The guy tells her "Oh sorry bout that", she screams "oh my god", then more shots. He then tells her you're dying *****". He then drags her over to the other body on the tarp.

He notices she is still gasping for air, calls her a ***** again, and shoots her under the chin, later telling investigators that it was a good clean finishing shot to put her out of her pain.

He planned it out, parking his truck away from the home, and taking a secondary route to the home to make it look unoccupied, He brought water and energy bars to eat while he waited for them to show up. (Not exactly the act of a terrified man that he is now claiming huh?)

I've heard rumors he also had a cell phone jammer, but havent been able to verify that.

That's murder. Plain and simple. Once someone is no longer a threat you can not execute them.

It reminds me of the girl that was shot when she knocked on someone's door for help after she was in a car accident.

Or there was another one where a teenage boy was on his way home from a party and it started snowing. He wasn't properly dressed and started suffering from hypothermia. He knocked on multiple people's doors but was ignored, no one even bothered to call 911 and he died.

Has life become this expendable? He lied in wait in his truck, shot them multiple times (even sitting down at one point waiting for the other one to come downstairs after he killed the boy and put it on a tarp so he wouldn't bloody his carpet). Not once during this whole ordeal did he call the police. He was angry, so he executed them, period. The threat was gone.

He didn't bother to call police til the NEXT DAY! He took time to reload his rifle and after it jammed, he loaded a 22 and used that. How is that not premeditation...?

[boxus]

Originally Posted by MisfitBanana

He's a murderer. He planned to kill them. He had the tarps ready for their bodies.

So he planned for them to break into his house? How does a person go about planning for two strangers to break into their house? Why in the heck did these two think it was ok for them to break in?

Originally Posted by MisfitBanana

He had set up a surveillance system but didn't bother with an alarm, because he wanted them to come in and he wanted to kill them.

Many surveillance systems do not have alarms, even I have a system that does not have an alarm, I am hardly planning on killing someone. And he wanted his house to be broken into? If he wanted them to come in, he would have invited them in as guests, it is clear they broke in, which is against the law to do.

Originally Posted by MisfitBanana

He knew they had entered the house because of his video surveillance systems, but didn't bother to call the cops, even though he had plenty of time.

Is there a law stating he must call the cops if his house is getting broken into? If there is a law, is there a time set on how soon he must do this?

Originally Posted by MisfitBanana

In fact, he DID have cell phone jammers so no calls could go out or in. He clearly had disabled them, and wasn't scared of them when he shot them point blank AFTER taking some time to disparage them.

The jammers are an FCC issue. And him being scared or not is not relevant, the fact the two people broke into his home is.

Originally Posted by MisfitBanana

The posters who think that he rid the world of scum are psychotic, and the guy who killed them is a sociopath.

I am sure the guy has issues, but the two he shot obviously did as they clearly were the ones who broke in.

Originally Posted by MisfitBanana

He waited ten minutes after killing the first person to kill the second person. He had AMPLE time to call the cops, and chose instead to kill.

You would think the second person would have ran off after hearing all the gun fire, was she doped up? I would be wondering about someone who still enters my home after I blew one of their partners away.

Originally Posted by MisfitBanana

This guy planned these murders.

He planned for his house to be broken into? How about asking why in the ehck these two felt they could break into someone's home?

Originally Posted by MisfitBanana

He waited a day to call the cops - probably figured it was too difficult to drag the bodies out on his own.

The waiting a day is a concern, and an issue that will be weighed against him on his charges, along with what he did after the initial shots.

Originally Posted by MisfitBanana

He is being prosecuted for FIRST DEGREE MURDER.

Perhaps over-charge? I not familiar with MN laws, maybe the jury can find him guilty on lessor charges. Sounds like the over-charging that was done with Zimmerman.

Originally Posted by MisfitBanana

There is no legitimate self-defense argument here, since 1) he lay in wait for them,

What, it is against the law to WAIT IN YOUR OWN HOME? Of course it is a self defense argument, it is even beyond that, it is castle doctrine.

Originally Posted by MisfitBanana

2) he had time to call the cops but he didn't,

Is there a law he has to? If so, is there a time requirement? (meaning during the break in, obviously he should after the incident).

Originally Posted by MisfitBanana

3) he had disabled them, 4) they were not armed,

He did not have time to interview them to see if they were armed or not, and they do not have to be armed for the castle doctrine. A person can easily beat someone to death with their fists, the homeowner is under no obligation to put himself near death before using deadly force.

As for disabling them, yea, if what the previous poster stated is true, then after he removed the threat by the initial shots, he went to the male and shot again; him going up to the male shows the homeowner did not believe there was a threat, thus this does give legitimacy to a murder charge, though I think heat of moment more than premeditated, but either way a murder charge. The lack of rendering assistance after by calling the ambulance also supports this charge or some level of it.

Originally Posted by MisfitBanana

5) he was clearly angry and not scared (proven by his own audio recordings of the even).

Being angry is not against the law; how many people are not angry at their house getting broken into? And not being scared also is not against the law, and being scared can show many different ways.

[boxus]

Originally Posted by Gcs15

He took time to reload his rifle and after it jammed, he loaded a 22 and used that. How is that not premeditation...?

That is not premeditation, having your gun jam and going to your other gun is not premeditation; the gun failed and he used another in its place, pretty simple.

[greywar]

I think that most people would have accepted the first guy being kille, and the shooting of the second female intruder. Borderline was shooting her some more after telling her she was dying. not borderline at all and out and out wrong is executing her after dragging her onto the tarp next to her boyfriend who was dead.

If hed shot her, dragged her onto the tarp......in Minnesota I believe he would still be guilty.
These are the requirements in minnesota:
1. Reasonably in fear of death or great bodily harm for yourself or another.
2. Must have reluctantly entered the conflict.
3. Must have no reasonable means of retreat.
4. No lesser force will suffice to stop the threat.

he's got #1, although it could be argued.
#2 he wasnt reluctant at all. he planned it.

At this point, done. right or wrong thats the law. But lets continue.

#3 have no reasonable means of retreat.....possibly. But he kind of set it up that way.

And #4 no lessor force will suffice to stop the threat.
Nope. the second intruder is still alive, you've just dragged her over to the tarp to protect your carpet. She's no threat or you wouldn't have taken the time to move her-she isnt moving. You cannot then shoot her in the head under the chin. This is wrong.

Defending this mans actions gives ammunition to the anti-gun crowd. Please stop.

[shyguylh]

It's pretty simple to me--you don't want to die, don't go trespassing onto other people's property trying to steal their stuff. To me, not only should a homeowner be allowed to kill to prevent being killed themselves, but also to prevent belongings from being taken. "You're comparing an object to a life"--the right to that comparison ends once you're now stealing. Your actions basically mean you as the thief can no longer play that card. If your life is so darn precious, why are you risking it by trespassing?

You work hard and spend years looking or stumbling across something by sheer luck in accumulating the things that help you have fun and get work done etc in this life, and you're not allowed to physically stop someone else from just taking it? Horsefeathers. If that's how the law is, it needs to be changed. What good is property rights if someone else can just take it from you and you're not allowed to do whatever it takes to stop it?

[notoriouskelly]

Tru, shy.

Look at it this way: Money is actually Time in a barterable format.

You exchange your time for money, which is then used to purchase possessions.

If someone steals your possession, they are actually robbing you of your limited time, which is your life.

So- they are taking your life and you are justified using deadly force.

(I'll let someone else try this defense in court, though.)

The bleeding hearts can be the next star of The First 48.

[d from birmingham]

Is there a law he has to? If so, is there a time requirement? (meaning during the break in, obviously he should after the incident).

Pretty much yes. You fire off a gun in city limits you have to report it in a timely manner. If you kill someone in self defense then you should report it right away. Not doing so makes you look guilty and trying to come up with self defense as a coverup for murder.

The jammers are an FCC issue.

Wrong they show planning as did the tarps so he didn't get bloodstains on his carpets and so he could move the bodies down into the workshop and that he didn't want anyone calling for help from law enforcement.

How does a person go about planning for two strangers to break into their house?

Let see moving your vehicle several blocks away and having the lights off while hiding with food and water to make it look like no one is there. One of the tips for people leaving their home for a week or two is to have lights on and even the tv if possible to give the appearance that someone is there.

[carnivalday]

Originally Posted by Gcs15

I'm thinking of getting a gun. It is just me and my 3 year old daughter living together. Of course it would be locked up and out of her reach (too many stories of kids getting into guns and killing themselves). However, the second I saw the kids breaking in I would have called the cops. And I would have told them I have a gun and will shoot them and to get the f out.

Shooting an unarmed person always makes me uneasy though. I don't think the teens were looking to harm anyone, I think they were being extreme dumbazzs but didn't deserve to die.

How do you know that someone breaking into your house thru a window is unarmed? Are you going to ask them first?

[FlowerPower00]

How many of you believe this will result in a conviction? IF he is convicted what will he face?