That's different. If he had killed them in self defense, no problem. He didn't, though. This was an execution. His safety was not in danger when he put the gun to her head; at least it wasn't based on what I've read here.

Shooting an invader who poses a possible threat is not the same as shooting a defenseless person.

You need to accept it especially if you own a gun. If you shoot a defenseless person, you will be charged with murder. You can't 'defend' yourself from a defenseless person.

You tie them up and call police. They were wounded kids. He knew what he did.

If a guy starts a fight with me, I win, and then at the end I jump on his back and break his neck... that's murder. People don't seem to understand how self defense works... it's not just an excuse. You have to be defending yourself.

They got what they deserved.

In time he will as well...

this.

Likely THREE less criminals.

You answered my first question though. I agree his execution style killing was over the top, but had he happened to kill them with his first volley I would have been fine with that being that they broke into his house.

I think you are agreeing with me. If someone breaks into my house, they are getting a lead injection whether they are armed or not. I have no idea if they are or aren't in that moment, but again I agree he took it too far after he had them down.

Interesting when I read the headline to the thread I was afraid I was about to read about a legitimate self defense that was getting twisted into a murder charge but that is clearly not the case here.

I would have been perfectly fine w/ shooting each of them once to eliminate any threat and then calling the police immediately.

I also understand why he would be angry if he's been victimized by multiple break ins. But the way this dude reacted and the blatant disregard for two human lives is appalling.

Yes, then we are agreed.

I'm not 'gun guy', but I'm in an area where owning a gun can save your life. I own one. I will shoot for the mass. If they die, that's their problem.

However if I shoot and do not kill, I'm not gonna walk up and say "Hasta la Vista baby!" before plugging them in the head. That's just ice cold murder.

Also, in my situation I'd prefer they live if the shots didn't kill them. They ended up being a couple of stupid kids. People do dipshit stuff like this, reform, and become quality members of society. I know a guy who did shit worse than breaking and entering (without getting caught) and now 14 years later he's a very decorated Army veteran.

that's why it's best to empty the gun and not stop shooting.

castle doctrine varies from state to state. in missouri, you are not required to prove shit other than they were unlawfully in your home, there is no need to prove they are a threat, and there is no flight clause which means you are not required to flee if possible before deadly force is used. hell, in MO, castle doctrine extends to vehicles and places of employment as well.

it sounds like one might murder someone, drag them into one's home, and claim self defense.

One could do so in Mo.

Just....saying...

Still doesn't allow you to do what this guy did.

not saying it did. just explaining to someone that lots of states have varied versions of castle doctrine.

Two druggie thief teenagers are dead because they broke into a guys house who had a gun. That's it. End of story. They are dead. It doesn't matter if they would have died with the first shot or later, they are dead.

So the guy doesn't pump em full of lead, they recover, they sue his ass and everyone believes the cute little teenagers and he goes off to jail for people with no eyes. That not good either.