Minnesota man who killed teens in break-in charged with murder

[Omaha]

Originally Posted by Predarat

I still think most of the charges are bullshit. They are worthless home invaders who invaded his house, robbed him and terrified him repeatedly. If the cops, DAs and judicial system in general had been doing its job these thugs would have been locked up, not repeatedly invading homes. I'm not saying he should have got off scott free with nothing but the charges are way too harsh for what happened. Had he hunted them down on public property or their own property, hell yes, 2 counts of murder 1. But they broke into his home.

None of this makes a bit of difference. None of this gives him the right to take matters into his own hands and execute them... even if he made the world a better place. It really is that simple. He can protect himself and his home, but, once he has done that, he can't take it upon himself to execute them. How is this still being argued?

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Omaha

None of this makes a bit of difference. None of this gives him the right to take matters into his own hands and execute them... even if he made the world a better place.

Actually it does. He could have shot them to ribbons and not had a problem. The so-called executions aren't the problem. The preparations for them, and the delays, were the problem for the defendant, particularly because the invaders were unarmed.

[Omaha]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Actually it does. He could have shot them to ribbons and not had a problem. The so-called executions aren't the problem. The preparations for them, and the delays, were the problem for the defendant, particularly because the invaders were unarmed.

If he hadn't killed them, it's unlikely that prosecutors would have gotten him for murder.

[Omaha]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Actually it does. He could have shot them to ribbons and not had a problem. The so-called executions aren't the problem. The preparations for them, and the delays, were the problem for the defendant, particularly because the invaders were unarmed.

It absolutely does not give him the right to execute them.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Omaha

It absolutely does not give him the right to execute them.

Of course he had the right. You have the right to shoot to kill intruders. The issues are the premeditation and the delays, not the killings themselves.

[Rain Man]

Crazy or not, let's give this man a round of applause. It appears that he singlehandedly lowered the crime rate in his neighborhood dramatically. He sacrificed himself to save others and make his community a better place.

[Predarat]

I still have a hard time believing you can 'premeditate' thugs invading your home. Hell soon it may be 'baiting' criminals to simply own valuables they want to steal, then it will be 'baiting' to simply own a house or property. The delays and 2nd efforts, I get punishing him for that but not the 'premeditating'. He did not force them into his house.

[Omaha]

Originally Posted by Predarat

I still have a hard time believing you can 'premeditate' thugs invading your home. Hell soon it may be 'baiting' criminals to simply own valuables they want to steal, then it will be 'baiting' to simply own a house or property.

This is stupid. He did not premeditate thugs breaking into his home. Nobody thinks that.

[Predarat]

Originally Posted by Omaha

This is stupid. He did not premeditate thugs breaking into his home. Nobody thinks that.

That is what the DA, prosecutors, judge and jury think, and that is how they painted it too.

[Omaha]

Originally Posted by Predarat

That is what the DA, prosecutors, judge and jury think, and that is how they painted it too.

[ForeverChiefs58]

Originally Posted by Omaha

This is stupid. He did not premeditate thugs breaking into his home. Nobody thinks that.

"The two jurors, speaking just hours after their verdicts were delivered, said the picture of Smith that emerged from days of often chilling testimony was of a man who methodically planned for a violent confrontation rather than a homeowner surprised by intruders."

[Omaha]

Originally Posted by ForeverChiefs58

"The two jurors, speaking just hours after their verdicts were delivered, said the picture of Smith that emerged from days of often chilling testimony was of a man who methodically planned for a violent confrontation rather than a homeowner surprised by intruders."

Yeah?

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by ForeverChiefs58

"The two jurors, speaking just hours after their verdicts were delivered, said the picture of Smith that emerged from days of often chilling testimony was of a man who methodically planned for a violent confrontation rather than a homeowner surprised by intruders."

Laying in wait would have been a better way to phrase it, probably. Planning what to do in case of a violent confrontation was a smart move. Every homeowner should be doing that. This guy set up an ambush, which is where he seems to have lost the jury.

[Omaha]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Laying in wait would have been a better way to phrase it, probably. Planning what to do in case of a violent confrontation was a smart move. Every homeowner should be doing that. This guy set up an ambush, which is where he seems to have lost the jury.

Absolutely.

[Anyong Bluth]

Originally Posted by Predarat

I still have a hard time believing you can 'premeditate' thugs invading your home. Hell soon it may be 'baiting' criminals to simply own valuables they want to steal, then it will be 'baiting' to simply own a house or property. The delays and 2nd efforts, I get punishing him for that but not the 'premeditating'. He did not force them into his house.

I'll take entrapment for 200, Alex.