BAD - "Execution" of home invaders in MN

[Hopyard]

I would like to know this man's military service history. At 64 he was prime draft age for VN.
A flash back could explain his behavior and mitigate the charges and punishment. I'd also like to know if he
had a prior criminal record, as that too could affect what he should be charged with and what his punishment should be.

I don't exactly believe his statements. I think he might believe them, the police and DA might want to take them at
face value because it is quite convenient for them to do so, but they could be quite untrue.

I'm thinking some sort of flash back and shock might explain the apparent coldness as well as the 24 hour
wait. That and confusion could also tarnish his own recollection of what happened.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Kimberpackn]

Moral of the story; don't break into other people's homes. Wrong or not this wouldn't have happened if these two had been law abiding citizens.

[Thunder71]

What 'was' an unknown is now proven: Teens Killed in Little Falls on Thanksgiving Linked to Previous Burglary

It seems these two innocent looking teens stole prescription drugs, among other items prior to this break in.

Teens Killed in Little Falls on Thanksgiving Linked to Previous Burglary | Northland's NewsCenter: News, Weather, Sports | NBC, CBS, MyNetworkTV, and The CW for Duluth MN / Superior WI | Crime

[Hopyard]

In short he took out two probably dangerous people. That doesn't make his confessed actions legal, but
it should be a huge mitigating fact when the DA is picking and choosing among the various charges he can
file. On the one extreme he could go for murder 1 as I think was the case with that pharmacist in OK (Kansas?, don't remember) or he could go for some much lower level of manslaughter.

Regardless, he has to be able to prove his case and confessions are IMO pretty poor evidence even when they are given
voluntarily

[CaptSmith]

Old man victimized by drug crazed tweaker brats...Hope he walks...anybody breaks in to my place and is comein for me is going to be shot to doll rags too...count-on it...WONDER WHY THE RUGER Failed....

[shockwave]

Excuse me? He took a wounded teenage girl, laid her out on the floor, pushed the muzzle of a pistol under her jaw and fired upward for a kill shot? That's "home defense"?

Dudes, that's murder, first degree.

You got a problem with that, you need to do some thinking.

[CaptSmith]

Nope, can understand it completely...does not require much thought...shot the female one or two to the lower abdomen comeing down the stairs with a long gun...shot 3 or 4 more 22 revolver into her chest after long gun fails...one more into the brain-pan because the noise she's making dying, without lungs..HOPE HE SKATES...HOPE HE GETS THE HELP HE NEEDS....

[ccw9mm]

Everything I have read about self and home defense is "shoot to stop" not "shoot to kill"..

Yes, and the after-threat actions in this "invasion" pretty much show the practical aspects of this mantra.

Had he simply shot to stop, without all the follow-on crap of shooting the "execution" shot, dragging the bodies and waiting to call in the cavalry, likely the situation would have been taken at face value.

A good lesson for us all: stop the threat ... nothing more.

[Jollymann]

I'm seeing a whole lot of politically easy snap opinions here about how bad this old guy was and how he deserves all this punishment. I think it's spineless and thoughtless, and it's too easy. I've done my own thinking about it and I'm not down for the judgment gang up on him. How about this? They were there to rob him, might very well of robbed him before, the boy had stolen for narcotics before, he was habitual about robberies, the old guy had been robbed recently and had guns stolen, possibly by this kid. They were taking actions as criminals. They were in his own personal dwelling. They were committing the actions against his safety and security. He was the one actually threatened in a basic way. In my opinion he had every business being pretty nasty with the shooting, generally. Yeah I have a moral dilemma about it all too. I’d like to think I would have been more restrained in my defending. But he was defending his house (castle) and himself from habitual hoodlums. Let me tell you something else. They might as well have been shot dead to begin with. Same difference in my opinion. Killed is killed. He just made sure of it. Yeah it was nasty and cruel, but this guy had been screwed over and burgled already, and right recently too. Knowing that in all likelihood this punk had stolen his guns, and therefore presumed armed, he didn’t want to mess around. He wasn’t going to take chances. I’m sure that was his mentality at that point. I’ll make you think about something else. When you had Charles Bronson (in the first “Deathwish”) on the subway wasting the dirty creeps with the switchblade attack through the newspaper, no one had any real problem with it. He got nasty with them and wasted them and made dead sure. Oh but now that it’s normal looking white teenagers, and a cute white girl seemingly, now it’s all different and never mind the old guy getting screwed in the legal system. It’s just a bad image. Oh and HCI is going to use it. Can’t have that. Make sure the hoods you waste are blacks or Puerto Ricans, then it’s OK I guess.

Finally, I’ll tell you for right sure that no matter the moral problems I have with the nature of the killings in the way he explained it, I would never vote for a conviction on a jury for a guy defending his own house, no matter what the details. If it was 11 to 1, I still wouldn’t. NO DAMMED WAY!

DMJ

[Jollymann]

Yes, and the after-threat actions in this "invasion" pretty much show the practical aspects of this mantra.

Had he simply shot to stop, without all the follow-on crap of shooting the "execution" shot, dragging the bodies and waiting to call in the cavalry, likely the situation would have been taken at face value.

A good lesson for us all: stop the threat ... nothing more.

I also don't think it matter a whit about the bodies being dragged. He was still involved in the defense when he dragged the first one off. He was clearing the decks. As for not reporting it. The presumtion is that he's making a lawful shooting defense. OK. So he's actually under no obligation to even report it technically. As long as a shooting is lawful, there is no requirement to report it. Everyone thinks you have to report it, and it might be good in a legal sense to do so. But generally as a common concept, you are not obligated. You don't have to do that.

[John_Bender]

Can you explain putting them on a tarp and waiting for 24 hours before having the police called?

It happened around noon on Thanksgiving, police were notified around noon the following day, and you don't give someone a 'finishing shot' when the threat is eliminated, you call 911.

I have no problem with this guy defending himself, and even to a lethal means if he felt it was necessary. Where he crossed the line was intent to kill, not intent to stop a threat, followed by not notifying the authorities.

Arizona law and Minnesota law are obviously much different, but you have to go by the laws of the state this occurred.

[ccw9mm]

I'm seeing a whole lot of politically easy snap opinions here about how bad this old guy was and how he deserves all this punishment.

"Snap" opinions? I'd suggest that most have thought about such things long, long before this guy's situation ever arose.

Well, he did it his way. We'll see where it gets him.

History is often unkind to those who rush it. And living in a society that doesn't condone "Death Wish" type actions yet acting that way can be a painful way to go through things. Hopefully he can let us know his opinions on the matter, if ever he gets through the morass of it all.

[Jollymann]

Was on FNC today with Megan Kelly.......... and the basic point is that the State Law, as written, may let him off because of the way it is written. Apparently, he (legally) was within his State Written Law rights to do what he did.

No Duh. Check out the way the Castle Doctrine in that state is written.

Castle Doctrine is not the law in Minnesota. I've looked it up in my state handbook on firearms laws. I'll add too that if the state were Arizona or Texas, he'd have a better time legally in defense.

[Ogien]

In regards to the "laughing" after being shot. You do know that some people start laughing out of hysterics instead of crying or screaming right? It's an involuntary response in some while in others they can't stop crying or screaming.

[Hopyard]

Castle Doctrine is not the law in Minnesota. I've looked it up in my state handbook on firearms laws. I'll add too that if the state were Arizona or Texas, he'd have a better time legally in defense.

Frankly, IMO it really isn't clear either way. There is a point where the action stops, the necessity to stop a threat has disappeared, and if you shoot after that you are doing an act of malice which amounts to murder 1.

You don't get to shoot someone in the leg, tie them up, and come back an hour later and claim the castle defense.

He didn't do anything quite as outrageous but his words indicate that the action had stopped and the threat had perhaps stopped. We can't be sure about that and maybe he can't be sure about that. His comment that the girl laughed at him
can be interpreted either of two ways: 1) that she was not that seriously injured and was still a threat (an autopsy will clear that
part up); or 2) that the shooting was malicious when a threat didn't exist.

My big problem with the whole thing is that I intuitively don't trust his own confession. I think he may actually not have a clue
of what happened in there. I hope they do very very very thorough forensic investigation of the "crime" scene.