when self defense/home invasion turns into 1st degree murder

gym,

If you were on the jury would you have convicted?

Click to expand...

Good question. I thought I might see a reply, but all I hear is the chirping of crickets.

The one guy took a plea bargain, he took the time, 6 years , "approximately, the other guy went to trial pleaded innocent, got convicted, and went to prison also, they were both in Lake Placid Correctional. Then the Guy who got convicted won on appeal, "he had the money to fight the case. He was convicted on Facilitation, which was not the original charge, which was Conspiracy to distribute, "if I remember correctly, " "it's been a while". The judge saw that they didn't have enough evidence during the trial and charged him with Facilitation, of which he was convicted. He would have done 30 yrs, minimum as it was his 3d conviction.
The appeals attorney found that the judge was the one who changed the initial charge from conspiracy to Facilitation, and had the case thrown out, he was released after a year and a half. I left out a few things to avoid getting this involved in a 30 something year old case. He's since passed on, the one who did the time 6 years., is still around from what I know, his son still calls from time to time. The point of this was simple, guilty people get out of jail if they can afford to pay lawyers to go to a higher court and find the slightest thing wrong with the case. That's what they do, one mistake out of thousands of pages or a procedural error, and your out.That's what it has to do with it.
Bill I would never be able to answer that unless I were on the jury. If he intentionally killed them then he's guilty, but you do realize that is not my point right?

The one guy took a plea bargain, he took the time, 6 years , "approximately, the other guy went to trial pleaded innocent, got convicted, and went to prison also, they were both in Lake Placid Correctional. Then the Guy who got convicted won on appeal, "he had the money to fight the case. He was convicted on Facilitation, which was not the original charge, which was Conspiracy to distribute, "if I remember correctly, " "it's been a while". The judge saw that they didn't have enough evidence during the trial and charged him with Facilitation, of which he was convicted. He would have done 30 yrs, minimum as it was his 3d conviction.
The appeals attorney found that the judge was the one who changed the initial charge from conspiracy to Facilitation, and had the case thrown out, he was released after a year and a half. I left out a few things to avoid getting this involved in a 30 something year old case. He's since passed on, the one who did the time 6 years., is still around from what I know, his son still calls from time to time. The point of this was simple, guilty people get out of jail if they can afford to pay lawyers to go to a higher court and find the slightest thing wrong with the case. That's what they do, one mistake out of thousands of pages or a procedural error, and your out.That's what it has to do with it.

Click to expand...

Dog Whistle.

3 bad guys are off the streets do you laugh or cry, the whole thing is just stupid. Bad choices bad out come.

Is "dog whistle" a new Internet pejorative term?

Is "dog whistle" a new Internet pejorative term?

Click to expand...

"Dog whistle" is a type of strategy of communication that sends a message that the general population will take a certain meaning from, but a certain group that is "in the know" will take away the secret, intended message. Often involves code words.

See: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dog whistle

^^^

Not sure when simple burglary was punished with death sentence.
Certainly not 50yrs ago. Maybe in the 1800s in the west.

Somebody please explain to me how parking down the street or on the next block is a "trap." People shouldn't break into your house no matter where you park. If I sleep in and leave my morning paper on the driveway, am I laying a trap? Soon, the law will require us to provide burglars notice of when we're at home.

Somebody please explain to me how parking down the street or on the next block is a "trap." People shouldn't break into your house no matter where you park. If I sleep in and leave my morning paper on the driveway, am I laying a trap? Soon, the law will require us to provide burglars notice of when we're at home.

Click to expand...

You don't even care. So why even pretend. Why don't you just celebrate murder?

Jim Watson said:

I recall a professional trainer who wrote that a criminal intruder in your home is fair game for any tactic. Ambush is smart, not sneaky. But that was maybe 25 years ago, standards change.

Click to expand...

If I wake up and there's an intruder in my house, any tactic I use to protect my family and survive is fine.

If I park my car three blocks away and turn out the lights to lure somebody into my house to ambush them, that's *not* fine. Not at all.

Bill_Shelton said:

You don't even care. So why even pretend. Why don't you just celebrate murder?

Click to expand...

This is simply an ignorant statement. I didn't even reference the murder.

Frank Ettin said:

... various things he did supported an inference that he intended to intentionally hurt or kill another without regard to legal standards of justification.

Click to expand...

This is a much more intelligent response. My point is that reading "murderous intent" into something as simple as where you park seems like a slippery slope.

You could argue that parking some distance from your house supports your intent to keep others away rather than lure them in. For example, if my annoying neighbor doesn't see my car parked out front, maybe he won't come knocking. With something as serious as murder, we want to be sure we don't draw the wrong inference.

The whole "finishing shot" thing is a different story and definitely supported his conviction.

You could argue that parking some distance from your house supports your intent to keep others away rather than lure them in. For example, if my annoying neighbor doesn't see my car parked out front, maybe he won't come knocking. With something as serious as murder, we want to be sure we don't draw the wrong inference.

The whole "finishing shot" thing is a different story and definitely supported his conviction.

Click to expand...

Yeah. Well...you just better watch where you park your car.

Bill_Shelton said:

Yeah. Well...you just better watch where you park your car.

Click to expand...

That's my whole point. People shouldn't have to "watch where they park their car" for fear of getting charged with or convicted of murder.

Let's say that a homeowner was involved in a self-defense shooting (to be nice, the burglar lives and is apprehended by police). Would jurisprudence demand that the district attorney "throw the book at" our frightened homeowner because he happened to be parked down the street?

^^
That is simply ridiculous in the extreme. Really.
People don't have to "watch where they park their car" to avoid being charged with or convicted with murder.
They have to avoid murdering people. If they aren't murdering people, it is irrelevant where they park their car.

I mean....damn. The comments defending this guys actions are just getting more and more illogical, frantic, and just....dumb. Trying to stay high road here but sheesh.

Even the act of parking his car away from his house had significance in his crafted plan of manipulating the situation towards an outcome he could predict....the entry of two burglars into his domicile.
The lack of a car parked out front was part of the facade of an uninhabited house ripe for burglary.
People keep looking at singular aspects of this case without considering how each action this guy took were deliberate and planned, and how each action influenced the outcome as a whole.

Parking a car away from your house is fine. But that is not what you reasonably do as a homeowner fearing burglary. That is the opposite of what you want to do......give the impression of activity and human presence.

It goes on and on. Singularly, most of this guys actions are reasonable.
You can move your truck
You can take light bulbs out of your basement if you feel its safer for you to shelter there.
You can hold fast in your basement if you have intruders
You can shoot said intruders if they enter

However, you cannot
Move your truck so the house looks unoccupied In hopes the house is burglarized with the intention of...
Taking the light bulbs out of your basement to make an ambush point
Where you then lie in wait for the intruders you did everything in your power to get into the basement
Where you shoot them and execute them.

When he performed these actions as part of a crafted plan start to finish, given his desired outcome, each action that could be legitimate in itself depending on circumstances becomes another part of a plan to commit murder.

Not the actions of a homeowner reasonably defending himself.

I'm guessing the investigation for murder didn't start with suspicions over where he parked his car. It started with the two unreported bodies in his basement. His parking job simply showed intent and was just another nail.

It really boggles my mind and sickens my stomach that some people here are in denial still about this case, and are still trying to see some supposed affront to "self defense rights" in the verdict.

Please for the love of god look up your local and state laws concerning the legal justifications for the use of lethal force. Familiarize yourself with their implications. Taking the shot is only part of protecting your family. Landing in jail for murder afterwards with your best outcome being an impending $100k in legal bills....doesn't help them.
If you own or carry a gun for the purpose of defense, you owe it to yourself, your family, and your community.

Black Butte said:

Somebody please explain to me how parking down the street or on the next block is a "trap." People shouldn't break into your house no matter where you park. If I sleep in and leave my morning paper on the driveway, am I laying a trap? Soon, the law will require us to provide burglars notice of when we're at home.

Click to expand...

What's getting me about this comment, along with several others, is that it's a single-minded attempt to justify or explain away what this guy did.

The totality of the evidence shows that this guy clearly intended to lure these people in and then kill them.

That is premeditated murder, pure and simple.

It wasn't about preventing a break-in or theft. It wasn't about scaring these people away. It wasn't even about capturing them or getting some form of proof and identification on the people breaking in.

It was about setting them up and then killing them. And THAT is where he went wrong.

A cold blooded murderer.

While I wasn't there, I'm relying on the news article (which are often wrong). However, taking it at face value... it's VERY bad for this home owner.

Some folks here seem to purposefully WANT to not understand the law of self defense.

You can't purposefully set a trap, and lay in wait for would-be burglars. For instance, you can't leave valuables in plain view in your open garage and hide in the corner with a rifle and shoot them when they trespass to steal the goodies. Sure, it's YOUR property, and you can "do darn well what you want with it..." Like this case, sure, you CAN park your car anywhere you want (lawfully). But you can't do it as part of a plot to ensnare would-be burglars to lure them into a shooting gallery.

You cannot shoot and kill people who you do not fear are going to hurt you. It is widely accepted in most jurisdictions that you have to have some immediate fear for your safety/life of yourself, serious injury/death of others in order to use lethal force against someone.

The evidence suggests that this man knew, or reasonably should have known, that these teens were unarmed. He repeatedly shot them when they were essentially totally defenseless, and he apparently took pleasure in their deaths. According to the article, he sadistically killed the female with a headshot as she was prone on the floor, gasping her last breaths.

You also can't hide bodies in tarps, disturb evidence as he did, and on and on and on... And true victims of attacks who use self-defense notify the police immediately. The article said that he waited until the next day to call the cops. Think about that for a moment. He anticipated the break-in, and repeatedly shot and killed two teenagers, and wrapped their bloody lifeless bodies in tarps, and moved them down a flight of stairs into the basement. Then, for HOURS these bodies were in his house and he did what?? What did he do for HOURS with two dead teenagers in his home before deciding to call the police? There is not a single good lawful answer.

That speaks highly of a murder plot with poor afterthought planning, and not self-defense. Coupled with the bodies in the tarps in the basement, it will be the odd jury that acquits this guy.

Anyone here that can't see this situation as anything but murder, should SERIOUSLY re-take courses on the law of self-defense, or hang up your guns.

The difference between innocently parking a car down the street, and purposefully doing it and sitting in the dark with your guns waiting for a break-in, so you can fulfill some sadistic fantasy of shooting the burglars is so clearly on the illegal end of the spectrum it speaks of bloodlust, and not 'I was the innocent victim of an unexpected break-in, and was in fear of my life, so I shot the armed intruder to stop his attack."

RetiredUSNChief said:

What's getting me about this comment ... is that it's a single-minded attempt to justify or explain away what this guy did.

Click to expand...

INCORRECT. Nowhere did I "attempt to justify or explain away what this guy did." Posting false statements adds nothing the discussion.

In fact, I even wrote: "The whole "finishing shot" thing is a different story and definitely supported his conviction." Reading before commenting is always a good policy.