|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Apr 25, 2014 15:15:13 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by woodrowli on Apr 25, 2014 21:56:04 GMT -6
I call it Murder one. His intent was to kill. While it is true the 2 were guilty of Breaking and entering and attempted burglary, they could have been stopped without lethal force. He had preplanned to kill the next person who broke into his house.
There was no reason he had to fear for his life. He was not physically attacked. The teens were unarmed. He also shot each more than once when he saw they were still alive.
If nothing else he needs to be jailed for life just for placing the value of his possessions above a Human life.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Apr 25, 2014 22:56:04 GMT -6
I'll have to wait until the defense presents its case and all the psychiatrists testify before I come to a decision. Who sets up microphones in his house and doesn't doesn't destroy the evidence? Not a sane person..........................oh wait, I forgot about Aaron Hernandez and his surveillance tape. Still, I need to get all the facts before I rush to judgment.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Apr 26, 2014 9:29:14 GMT -6
I call it Murder one. His intent was to kill. While it is true the 2 were guilty of Breaking and entering and attempted burglary, they could have been stopped without lethal force. He had preplanned to kill the next person who broke into his house. There was no reason he had to fear for his life. He was not physically attacked. The teens were unarmed. He also shot each more than once when he saw they were still alive. If nothing else he needs to be jailed for life just for placing the value of his possessions above a Human life. I may be mistaken, but I think that the concept that a homeowner can use lethal force to stop a property crime is fairly new. At any rate, it doesn't seem to be the concept that specifically is being tested. Defense in these "castle defense" cases all seem to be fought on the basis that the person holding the gun was afraid for his life. I think the defendant here is going to have a very hard time asserting that the two teenagers gurgling on his floor--not even at the same time--presented him with an imminent threat, or that when he pressed a gun against their heads as they lay incapacitated, he was reacting to that fear.
|
|
|
Post by woodrowli on Apr 26, 2014 16:43:08 GMT -6
I call it Murder one. His intent was to kill. While it is true the 2 were guilty of Breaking and entering and attempted burglary, they could have been stopped without lethal force. He had preplanned to kill the next person who broke into his house. There was no reason he had to fear for his life. He was not physically attacked. The teens were unarmed. He also shot each more than once when he saw they were still alive. If nothing else he needs to be jailed for life just for placing the value of his possessions above a Human life. I may be mistaken, but I think that the concept that a homeowner can use lethal force to stop a property crime is fairly new. At any rate, it doesn't seem to be the concept that specifically is being tested. Defense in these "castle defense" cases all seem to be fought on the basis that the person holding the gun was afraid for his life. I think the defendant here is going to have a very hard time asserting that the two teenagers gurgling on his floor--not even at the same time--presented him with an imminent threat, or that when he pressed a gun against their heads as they lay incapacitated, he was reacting to that fear. True he executed them deliberately. At least that is how I see it based upon the story.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Apr 29, 2014 10:06:03 GMT -6
I may be mistaken, but I think that the concept that a homeowner can use lethal force to stop a property crime is fairly new. At any rate, it doesn't seem to be the concept that specifically is being tested. Defense in these "castle defense" cases all seem to be fought on the basis that the person holding the gun was afraid for his life. I think the defendant here is going to have a very hard time asserting that the two teenagers gurgling on his floor--not even at the same time--presented him with an imminent threat, or that when he pressed a gun against their heads as they lay incapacitated, he was reacting to that fear. True he executed them deliberately. At least that is how I see it based upon the story. I agree with all three of you on the ethical merits (including Steve's caution against a rush to judgement without hearing the defense side of the story). This is a gruesome and twisted set of facts, according to the article. Even so, presuming the facts in the article are proved, I doubt that there will ever be a conviction for first degree murder. The man had been burglarized by these same kids more than once. He may not have been fully justified in executing the intruders, but it is at least arguable that he was defending himself in view of the past burglaries. I am not sure how the castle doctrine interfaces with the sanity of the homeowner. In other words the issue might be whether the homeowner was in actual fear for his life (in the context of his potentially not-sane mind) versus whether the homeowner was reasonably in fear for his life (under a reasonable person standard). I'm not sure how those issues go, it's been a long time. My guess is a plea agreement to manslaughter with time in a psychiatric hospital as part of the plea deal. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Apr 29, 2014 15:47:43 GMT -6
I had thought you would bring up the so called "duty to retreat". Is there any such thing in law?
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Apr 29, 2014 17:04:06 GMT -6
I had thought you would bring up the so called "duty to retreat". Is there any such thing in law? I think there might be in the common law of various states. In some states though, "stand your ground" statutes or "make my day" statutes have overturned any previously recognized duty to retreat. This is almost certainly a state by state thing. I've no knowledge of what the status of the law in Minnesota might be, but if I get a minute I'll Google it. J
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Apr 29, 2014 17:36:39 GMT -6
True he executed them deliberately. At least that is how I see it based upon the story. I agree with all three of you on the ethical merits (including Steve's caution against a rush to judgement without hearing the defense side of the story). This is a gruesome and twisted set of facts, according to the article. Even so, presuming the facts in the article are proved, I doubt that there will ever be a conviction for first degree murder. The man had been burglarized by these same kids more than once. He may not have been fully justified in executing the intruders, but it is at least arguable that he was defending himself in view of the past burglaries. I am not sure how the castle doctrine interfaces with the sanity of the homeowner. In other words the issue might be whether the homeowner was in actual fear for his life (in the context of his potentially not-sane mind) versus whether the homeowner was reasonably in fear for his life (under a reasonable person standard). I'm not sure how those issues go, it's been a long time. My guess is a plea agreement to manslaughter with time in a psychiatric hospital as part of the plea deal. Jim Nope. Premeditated murder and life in prison: www.startribune.com/local/257169671.htmlIt's the main story on the news up here in the land of ice and snow.
|
|
|
Post by woodrowli on Apr 29, 2014 21:26:34 GMT -6
I agree with all three of you on the ethical merits (including Steve's caution against a rush to judgement without hearing the defense side of the story). This is a gruesome and twisted set of facts, according to the article. Even so, presuming the facts in the article are proved, I doubt that there will ever be a conviction for first degree murder. The man had been burglarized by these same kids more than once. He may not have been fully justified in executing the intruders, but it is at least arguable that he was defending himself in view of the past burglaries. I am not sure how the castle doctrine interfaces with the sanity of the homeowner. In other words the issue might be whether the homeowner was in actual fear for his life (in the context of his potentially not-sane mind) versus whether the homeowner was reasonably in fear for his life (under a reasonable person standard). I'm not sure how those issues go, it's been a long time. My guess is a plea agreement to manslaughter with time in a psychiatric hospital as part of the plea deal. Jim Nope. Premeditated murder and life in prison: www.startribune.com/local/257169671.htmlIt's the main story on the news up here in the land of ice and snow. Reading the story it seems the clincher that convinced the Jury was it looked like he set a trap with the intent of killing them
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Apr 30, 2014 9:52:59 GMT -6
Yep. It's really hard to believe otherwise based on his comments on his audiotape (WTF?!!) and the forensics. The both victims were shot at point blank range to the head--the first victim through the back of his own hand.
|
|
|
Post by woodrowli on Apr 30, 2014 13:30:41 GMT -6
They had a copy cat in Montana SOURCE
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Apr 30, 2014 20:45:51 GMT -6
This is the illogical but inevitable conclusion of Stand Your Ground laws. These cases are proliferating all over the country, and in South Africa for that matter (c.f. Oscar Pistorius). While it is somewhat gratifying to see a few murder defenses fail on this principle, there are more than enough egregious non-prosecutions to establish this as a murder loophole for deliberately aggressive, confrontational gun nuts.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Apr 30, 2014 21:26:04 GMT -6
Wow, there's no mention of psychiatric testimony. I guess the defense budget was limited.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on May 1, 2014 9:00:52 GMT -6
I agree with all three of you on the ethical merits (including Steve's caution against a rush to judgement without hearing the defense side of the story). This is a gruesome and twisted set of facts, according to the article. Even so, presuming the facts in the article are proved, I doubt that there will ever be a conviction for first degree murder. The man had been burglarized by these same kids more than once. He may not have been fully justified in executing the intruders, but it is at least arguable that he was defending himself in view of the past burglaries. I am not sure how the castle doctrine interfaces with the sanity of the homeowner. In other words the issue might be whether the homeowner was in actual fear for his life (in the context of his potentially not-sane mind) versus whether the homeowner was reasonably in fear for his life (under a reasonable person standard). I'm not sure how those issues go, it's been a long time. My guess is a plea agreement to manslaughter with time in a psychiatric hospital as part of the plea deal. Jim Nope. Premeditated murder and life in prison: www.startribune.com/local/257169671.htmlIt's the main story on the news up here in the land of ice and snow. Based upon the article, it doesn't seem like duty to retreat would have been an issue. When the jury determined that the homeowner planned, set and sprung a trap with the intention to murder, the issues of "was he reasonably in fear for his life" and w/n he fulfilled the duty to retreat fall by the wayside. In case you were wondering, the states seem to be evenly divided on the duty to retreat. criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/states-that-have-stand-your-ground-laws.htmlI did not realize that we were in mid-trial when I predicted a plea deal. Sloppy reading on my part. Jim
|
|