Excessive Force? This guy needs a lawyer

[GlockPaperScissors]

Because, even if someone enters your home illegally, you do not have the right to do whatever you want to them (or their bodies). The last I time I checked rape, torture, forced detainment, and many other things were still illegal.

The "finish them off" garbage is what really ticks me off. I do agree that the guy took things too far and I don't think it was necessary for him to change guns and shoot them as many times as he did or wait to contact authorities about the situation, but if I was in his situation and someone breaks into my home while I'm in the basement and I shoot them from the top of the stairs, I'm not just going to let them suffer and slowly bleed to death. If the person is going to die anyway, you might as well end their pain rather than let it linger on. Like I said before though, this guy took things too far and more than likely has a few screws loose somewhere.

Why would one have to be facetious to make the statement?

"Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos..."

I agree that the guy should have lawyered up, and probably not have 'finished them off.'

I would also find him 'not guilty' unless the State could provide some seriously compelling evidence as to his guilt. Ah, the powers of nullification.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Because, even if someone enters your home illegally, you do not have the right to do whatever you want to them (or their bodies). The last I time I checked rape, torture, forced detainment, and many other things were still illegal.

The "finish them off" garbage is what really ticks me off. I do agree that the guy took things too far and I don't think it was necessary for him to change guns and shoot them as many times as he did or wait to contact authorities about the situation, but if I was in his situation and someone breaks into my home while I'm in the basement and I shoot them from the top of the stairs, I'm not just going to let them suffer and slowly bleed to death. If the person is going to die anyway, you might as well end their pain rather than let it linger on. Like I said before though, this guy took things too far and more than likely has a few screws loose somewhere.

So, 'finishing them off' makes you upset, but you admit that you would do the same if they were 'suffering?' Non sequitur unless there's some salient point which I'm missing.

Regardless of outcome, one plays stupid games, one wins stupid prizes. Perhaps if these upstanding citizens had paid a little more attention to minding their own business and not raiding the homes of strangers, they would not be subject to the mercies or mental illnesses of strangers.

The law will crucify the home owner, but under what conditions do we really wish to limit self-defense? Notice the phrase 'self-defense' and not 'self-offense.' What seems clear-cut from having a few of the facts now might not be so damning with a full view during discovery and trial procedure. Easy to condemn from afar. I hope I never have to make this type of decision. "Behind every bullet is a lawyer." - Kirk Freeman

 

[GlockPaperScissors]

You misunderstood, him "finishing them off" doesn't bother me. In fact, if I would have done the same, although I wouldn't comment on the "kill shot," nor would I have waited to contact authorities. It bothered me that so many people here were upset about his "kill shot" comment and found that unacceptable.

I do agree with you though, I don't think there should be limitations to self-defense.

So, 'finishing them off' makes you upset, but you admit that you would do the same if they were 'suffering?' Non sequitur unless there's some salient point which I'm missing.

Regardless of outcome, one plays stupid games, one wins stupid prizes. Perhaps if these upstanding citizens had paid a little more attention to minding their own business and not raiding the homes of strangers, they would not be subject to the mercies or mental illnesses of strangers.

The law will crucify the home owner, but under what conditions do we really wish to limit self-defense? Notice the phrase 'self-defense' and not 'self-offense.' What seems clear-cut from having a few of the facts now might not be so damning with a full view during discovery and trial procedure. Easy to condemn from afar. I hope I never have to make this type of decision. "Behind every bullet is a lawyer." - Kirk Freeman

 

[lipster]

Are you being facetious or do you actually believe that?

I am saying that some on this forum believe that, if you can believe their statements here.
Me? No.
The Sheriff? no.
The Jury? We will see in about 18 months, I guess. I doubt it, even though he is being represented by Ron Meshbesher, who is an excellent and aggressive defense attorney.

 

[Mark-of-Scotland]

We know where his next Thanksgiving meal is coming from. Tax payer supplied Turkey. Could be his last.

Lol he would sit on death row for 30+ years getting fat and lazy on the taxpayers cash while law abiding productive members of society fund his attempts to live.

Whatever happened to summary execution eh?
Judge: You guilty?
Defendant: Aye.
Judge: Right lads what's the verdict?
Jury: Death
Judge: No Bother, Ropes out back.
Defendant:...oh...hamburgers.

 

[mrjarrell]

Lol he would sit on death row for 30+ years getting fat and lazy on the taxpayers cash while law abiding productive members of society fund his attempts to live.

Whatever happened to summary execution eh?
Judge: You guilty?
Defendant: Aye.
Judge: Right lads what's the verdict?
Jury: Death
Judge: No Bother, Ropes out back.
Defendant:...oh...hamburgers.

Sorry, but here in the US we've had far too many cases of innocent people being sentenced to death, only to find out years later that they were innocent. Fortunately, through the use of science and good lawyers, we've managed to free a good many people from their jury imposed fate. We'd be much better off in this country if we just did away with death as an option. It's cheaper to just imprison them for life, and if someone turns out to be innocent all you owe them is compensation for their time lost. You cannot compensate someone for their life.

 

[lipster]

Sorry, but here in the US we've had far too many cases of innocent people being sentenced to death, only to find out years later that they were innocent. Fortunately, through the use of science and good lawyers, we've managed to free a good many people from their jury imposed fate. We'd be much better off in this country if we just did away with death as an option. It's cheaper to just imprison them for life, and if someone turns out to be innocent all you owe them is compensation for their time lost. You cannot compensate someone for their life.

The man who poked the hornet's nest...

 

[Jack Ryan]

SSS, people would do well to memorize that.

 

[GlockPaperScissors]

Sorry, but here in the US we've had far too many cases of innocent people being sentenced to death, only to find out years later that they were innocent. Fortunately, through the use of science and good lawyers, we've managed to free a good many people from their jury imposed fate. We'd be much better off in this country if we just did away with death as an option. It's cheaper to just imprison them for life, and if someone turns out to be innocent all you owe them is compensation for their time lost. You cannot compensate someone for their life.

Cheaper? How can providing someone with food, healthcare, a place to live, clothing, and other essentials needed for 30+ years be cheaper than taking them right from the courtroom to the electric chair right away? Electricity was pretty cheap the last time I checked.

 

[downzero]

Cheaper? How can providing someone with food, healthcare, a place to live, clothing, and other essentials needed for 30+ years be cheaper than taking them right from the courtroom to the electric chair right away? Electricity was pretty cheap the last time I checked.

The data are undeniable that it is cheaper to imprison for life than to execute.

The constitution does not allow us to drag them straight from trial to the death chamber.

 

[mrjarrell]

Cheaper? How can providing someone with food, healthcare, a place to live, clothing, and other essentials needed for 30+ years be cheaper than taking them right from the courtroom to the electric chair right away? Electricity was pretty cheap the last time I checked.

Fortunately, we no longer operate murder machines in this country. There's a process that must be adhered to before the state can kill someone. That costs a lot more money than just locking a person up for life. And there's a lot less chance you'll murder an innocent person that way.

 

[GlockPaperScissors]

I think we should start caning criminals.

Caning in Singapore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It would definitely make someone think twice before committing a crime in public.

Fortunately, we no longer operate murder machines in this country. There's a process that must be adhered to before the state can kill someone. That costs a lot more money than just locking a person up for life. And there's a lot less chance you'll murder an innocent person that way.

 

[Mark-of-Scotland]

The fact that criminals can't be dragged from court to coffin in less than an hour is kind of what I'm getting at.

Admissions of Guilt and video evidence. Basically where it's clear that they are 100% guilty. Why should we bother wasting time and money by keeping them locked up for decades before execution.

We only start having problems when people are sentenced when there is doubt about their guilt in which case the court should not be permitted to apply the death penalty.

 

[beararms1776]

Originally Posted by HeadlessRoland
So, 'finishing them off' makes you upset, but you admit that you would do the same if they were 'suffering?' Non sequitur unless there's some salient point which I'm missing.

Regardless of outcome, one plays stupid games, one wins stupid prizes. Perhaps if these upstanding citizens had paid a little more attention to minding their own business and not raiding the homes of strangers, they would not be subject to the mercies or mental illnesses of strangers.

The law will crucify the home owner, but under what conditions do we really wish to limit self-defense? Notice the phrase 'self-defense' and not 'self-offense.' What seems clear-cut from having a few of the facts now might not be so damning with a full view during discovery and trial procedure. Easy to condemn from afar. I hope I never have to make this type of decision. "Behind every bullet is a lawyer." - Kirk Freeman

You misunderstood, him "finishing them off" doesn't bother me. In fact, if I would have done the same, although I wouldn't comment on the "kill shot," nor would I have waited to contact authorities. It bothered me that so many people here were upset about his "kill shot" comment and found that unacceptable.

I do agree with you though, I don't think there should be limitations to self-defense.

There is a limit to self defense. It's a combination of the words neutralize and morals. You are under no obligation to agree. JMHO.

 

[GlockPaperScissors]

The fact that criminals can't be dragged from court to coffin in less than an hour is kind of what I'm getting at.

Admissions of Guilt and video evidence. Basically where it's clear that they are 100% guilty. Why should we bother wasting time and money by keeping them locked up for decades before execution.

We only start having problems when people are sentenced when there is doubt about their guilt in which case the court should not be permitted to apply the death penalty.

^^^ THIS

If you see someone committing an atrocious crime, such as a mass murder, that person is obviously guilty. There isn't any need to have a court case. They should just execute them on the spot. Their life certainly isn't bettering the world in any way.

 

[Mark-of-Scotland]

Sorry, but here in the US we've had far too many cases of innocent people being sentenced to death, only to find out years later that they were innocent. Fortunately, through the use of science and good lawyers, we've managed to free a good many people from their jury imposed fate. We'd be much better off in this country if we just did away with death as an option. It's cheaper to just imprison them for life, and if someone turns out to be innocent all you owe them is compensation for their time lost. You cannot compensate someone for their life.

How can you compensate someone for the the emotional hell of spending years imprisoned and living next to criminals while all the while knowing you are innocent. That **** is going to scar you for life and you will never be ok after that.

Is it not more compassionate to simply end it quickly?

 

[mrjarrell]

The fact that criminals can't be dragged from court to coffin in less than an hour is kind of what I'm getting at.

Admissions of Guilt and video evidence. Basically where it's clear that they are 100% guilty. Why should we bother wasting time and money by keeping them locked up for decades before execution.

We only start having problems when people are sentenced when there is doubt about their guilt in which case the court should not be permitted to apply the death penalty.

We've had more than a few cases in this country where people have confessed to crimes they did not commit. A confession is not proof of commission of a crime. More than one person has been interrogated to the point they confessed just to make the harassment and intimidation stop. And, as our resident INGO cops have so often stated, video evidence doesn't always tell the whole story. Sorry, no. Your dream world murder machine isn't wanted or needed in a civilised country.

 

[mrjarrell]

How can you compensate someone for the the emotional hell of spending years imprisoned and living next to criminals while all the while knowing you are innocent. That **** is going to scar you for life and you will never be ok after that.

Is it not more compassionate to simply end it quickly?

No. And the fact that you think it is says a lot about you. Stealing time from someone is one thing, stealing their life is another. I've yet to hear one exonerated person say they wish they'd been murdered by the state instead of released after years of false imprisonment.

 

[hornadylnl]

How can you compensate someone for the the emotional hell of spending years imprisoned and living next to criminals while all the while knowing you are innocent. That **** is going to scar you for life and you will never be ok after that.

Is it not more compassionate to simply end it quickly?

May you never be wrongly convicted of a crime.

As I've said in various threads. It's easy to not care about the rights of those outside your demographic.

 

[Mark-of-Scotland]

We've had more than a few cases in this country where people have confessed to crimes they did not commit. A confession is not proof of commission of a crime. More than one person has been interrogated to the point they confessed just to make the harassment and intimidation stop. And, as our resident INGO cops have so often stated, video evidence doesn't always tell the whole story. Sorry, no. Your dream world murder machine isn't wanted or needed in a civilised country.

Intimidation and harassment by corrupt police officers who are more concerned with getting an arrest than arresting the right person is of course a serious issue. What this amounts to in itself is Murder as they know the person they are intimidating will likely face the death penalty. If the accused is innocent and he is executed then the officers should face a murder charge which of course is a capital offense. If the accused is not executed the officers should face an attempted murder charge and be imprisoned for life.