Excessive Force? This guy needs a lawyer

[beararms1776]

I'm all for self defense but this is off the scale. The guy actually enjoyed and takes pride in what he did and the way he did it.

BOOK'EM Dano!

 

[griffin]

didn't engage until he believed the perps were going to get away.

When they were a threat to nobody. That's the parallel I was trying to draw.

 

[hopper68]

Joe horn for those who wonder. like I did.

Joe Horn shooting controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[griffin]

So you have no point then?

My point is don't go breaking into people's houses or you might get killed. If the homeowner had done it a little differently it would have been legal. The outcome is the same, two dead actors. For all we know they would have bled out first anyway.

We're just discussing how he should have done it one way rather than the other.

He'll probably go to prison for a while, and the kids will go to the morgue for a while.

 

[downzero]

I have no problem with this guy being locked up forever or for a long time. Probably a manslaughter though, I'm not so sure it was a murder.

 

[griffin]

Don't know what will happen legally. Minnesota is a liberal's wet dream, is it not?

 

[griffin]

I love the way the media plays it, posting pictures of the innocent looking, sweet little girl. But the media has to play their slanted part to the end.

Like Trayvon, huh?

 

[remauto1187]

I didn't say what the guy did was right or wrong. I said the kids are dead because they broke into his house. So even though the guy was wrong, they are STILL DEAD.

I'll bet if they hadn't broken into his house they'd still be alive. What do you think?

Also ref. Joe Horn.

No. Absolutely not. The kids are dead because the old man did not have the common sense enough to see that they did not have a weapon and just hold them there at gunpoint until he could call the police and wait. Instead he acted like a crazy old man with a gun.

Just because someone breaks into your house just does not justify (even though it may be legal to do so) someone shooting them until they are dead.

If a 13yr old little girl broke into your house and had nothing in her hands would you shoot her? Would it be OK to do so, in your warped mind? If a 14yr old boy walked into your backdoor and had no weapons would it be ok then? How about a 16yr old girl or boy? Where does it stop? Where is the cutoff? How about if a 80yr old unarmed man/woman opened your (unknown to you) unlocked front door is it then ok to unload a magazine on them? 65? 55?

 

[griffin]

No. Absolutely not. The kids are dead because the old man did not have the common sense enough to see that they did not have a weapon and just hold them there at gunpoint until he could call the police and wait. Instead he acted like a crazy old man with a gun.

Which is one reason you shouldn't break into someone's house. There may be a crazy old man with a gun! Just sayin'.

Just because someone breaks into your house just does not justify (even though it may be legal to do so) someone shooting them until they are dead.

I disagree. If someone breaks into my house I have to assume that they have already weighed the risk of losing their life, and thus taking mine, to get what they want, whether it be money for drugs or my wife. Yeah, I'm justified in shooting them dead.

If they hadn't broken into his house, they'd still be alive. Like kutnupe said, "they manufactured their own fate by breaking into someone else's home." It just happened to be a crazy old man.

 

[remauto1187]

Which is one reason you shouldn't break into someone's house. There may be a crazy old man with a gun! Just sayin'.

I disagree. If someone breaks into my house I have to assume that they have already weighed the risk of losing their life, and thus taking mine, to get what they want, whether it be money for drugs or my wife. Yeah, I'm justified in shooting them dead.

If they hadn't broken into his house, they'd still be alive. Like kutnupe said, "they manufactured their own fate by breaking into someone else's home." It just happened to be a crazy old man.

Ok so you are saying it is ok to shoot an unarmed 13yr old girl/14yr old boy/80yr old woman, etc????

If so then you have no business with a gun yourself if that is your mental capability.

 

[Black Cloud]

Easy, guys.

All scenarios are different. There are many reports of very violent acts perpetrated by kids, teens, young adults or whatever the 'in' term is these days. Does this make it okay to waste unarmed perps as soon as they cross the threshold of a residence? Well, that depends.

The number one thing is determine that the threat is just that: a threat. A child with a weapon is just as dangerous as an adult with a weapon. We must all, as responsible firearm owners, determine whether said child is an actual threat. As for me, if my wife and children are home, and unknown teens enter it, they are a threat until I deem the threat is neutralized. Does it warrant a 'clean, finishing shot', especially if I'm the only one home? Well, no. But all my training tells me to fire until the threat is neutralized, or until I'm out of rounds, whichever comes first.

Let's not call for the removal of someone's arms due to his own personal beliefs. That may be just a bit harsh.

 

[griffin]

Ok so you are saying it is ok to shoot an unarmed 13yr old girl/14yr old boy/80yr old woman, etc????

If so then you have no business with a gun yourself if that is your mental capability.

You're losing focus. Root cause analysis. These actors were responsible for their own fate.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Ok so you are saying it is ok to shoot an unarmed 13yr old girl/14yr old boy/80yr old woman, etc????

If so then you have no business with a gun yourself if that is your mental capability.

You may wish to review the subject of child soldiers before taking this stance. The 12-15 year old demographic once turned to the path of mayhem can take in some of the most ruthless killers on the face of the planet.

 

[HoughMade]

You're losing focus. Root cause analysis. These actors were responsible for their own fate.

Well that seems like one of the more obvious things I've seen today.

....However, the focus of the thread seems to be what the shooter was thinking and how he should be treated. The fact that the perps' bad choice cost them their lives is clear, but to me, it is just as clear that the shooter was wrong, criminally wrong. The original bad choice does not change that in the least. The teens' bad choice does not mean that whatever happens after that is justified. Not even close. They are dead, partially, because of their own mistakes and partially because this man thought "defend" meant "execute if I want to."

We will never know, but without the "finishing shots" they may have survived. In fact, as he gut-shot them....before he could see if they had weapons, prompt medical attention may have had a decent chance at saving them. He made sure there was NO chance, and for that, he should be justly punished.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Well that seems like one of the more obvious things I've seen today.

....However, the focus of the thread seems to be what the shooter was thinking and how he should be treated. The fact that the perps' bad choice cost them their lives is clear, but to me, it is just as clear that the shooter was wrong, criminally wrong. The original bad choice does not change that in the least. The teens' bad choice does not mean that whatever happens after that is justified. Not even close. They are dead, partially, because of their own mistakes and partially because this man thought "defend" meant "execute if I want to."

We will never know, but without the "finishing shots" they may have survived. In fact, as he gut-shot them....before he could see if they had weapons, prompt medical attention may have had a decent chance at saving them. He made sure there was NO chance, and for that, he should be justly punished.

Not only this, but taking a day or two to decide how you are going to deal with the situation before notifying the police generally works only if you are surnamed Kennedy.

 

[griffin]

The fact that the perps' bad choice cost them their lives is clear, but to me, it is just as clear that the shooter was wrong, criminally wrong.

I didn't say I didn't see anything wrong with the actions of this guy. That doesn't change the fact that the actors ARE DEAD! You and their family can say all you want that what the guy did was wrong, but it doesn't change the fact that they ARE DEAD because of what THEY did. THEY broke into his house.

He didn't go looking for trouble. He was spending a quiet Thanksgiving home alone when THEY committed a felony on him and his property.

So if it makes you and the parents feel good in the knowledge that the homeowner will go to jail, fine. But the actors ARE DEAD. So even though he's in jail they still don't win because they ARE DEAD. Anyone who cries and says the guy went too far is missing the bigger picture. When you break into a house, there may be someone on the other side who makes sure you don't leave alive.

 

[45calibre]

lets not forgot that this man was the victim and had his home invaded

 

[45calibre]

Save it Griffin... You are a flat out liar if you tried to tell me that it would be OK for me shoot up then assassinate your kids if they were to come into my home UNARMED under the same scenario.

The old guy was obviously "off his rocker" and the proof in itself are the quotes of what he said to the investigators. No mentally stable person says crap like that. The guy acted like he was reliving Vietnam all over. He was in his basement with 2 unarmed kids, one of them a girl no less.

if they broke into your home i say you do have the right. her being female doesnt mean anything. he might be a little crazy of he might have still been upset someone broke into his house to say hi to him.

 

[45calibre]

No. Absolutely not. The kids are dead because the old man did not have the common sense enough to see that they did not have a weapon and just hold them there at gunpoint until he could call the police and wait. Instead he acted like a crazy old man with a gun.

Just because someone breaks into your house just does not justify (even though it may be legal to do so) someone shooting them until they are dead.

If a 13yr old little girl broke into your house and had nothing in her hands would you shoot her? Would it be OK to do so, in your warped mind? If a 14yr old boy walked into your backdoor and had no weapons would it be ok then? How about a 16yr old girl or boy? Where does it stop? Where is the cutoff? How about if a 80yr old unarmed man/woman opened your (unknown to you) unlocked front door is it then ok to unload a magazine on them? 65? 55?

they didnt just walk right in they broke a glass window to get in.

 

[AD Marc]

"Though Kifer was "already hurting," she let out a short laugh, Smith told investigators. He then pulled out his .22-caliber revolver and shot her several times in the chest, according to the complaint."

If this statement is true I wonder if the kid was laughing because she was thinking along the lines of... I got you now you stupid old man, you shot me and I am going to sue you for everything you have.

More likely, she was hypoxic and dying because some psychopath shot her multiple times with a rifle.

if they broke into your home i say you do have the right. her being female doesnt mean anything. he might be a little crazy of he might have still been upset someone broke into his house to say hi to him.

Are you fighting because you HAVE TO, or are you fighting because you WANT TO? If it's the latter, you are almost certainly in the wrong. This idea that someone breaking into your home gives you licence to kill them is preposterous and unfortunately far too pervasive in the gun community. Legality aside, you have a moral and ethical imperative to not use lethal force unless someone has the ability, opportunity and intent to cause you grave bodily harm and no other reasonable course of action exists.