German exchange student killed in "stand your ground" type shooting

[Guest Len B'stard]

Goes to show you that the old addage is true, if you're gonna burglarise someones property be sure to stalk, hog-tie and execute the residents first

I'm interested in this.. If someone breaks into your house and you kill them, Axlisold, or anyone else with the same mentality, how'd you sleep your nights after that? I mean like would it affect you at all or could you just not feel anything by somehow rationalizing it?

He wouldn't give a fuck because he's SOOOO hard

[SoulMonster]

I am happy I don't live in a nation of fear where people actually think it's okay to shoot home invaders.

[Thin White Duke]

I am not from the States, I've never been there, I've never bothered to read much about American stuff, however even I know it's legal to defend your house using force in many of the States. Therefore, if I go there, and I'm stupid enough to break into a house (honestly, what kind of people do that? I would imagine it's scum, not Nelson Mandela or Mother Teresa), I was calling for it. I would even deserve a Darwin award.

[Thin White Duke]

But that's insane. You're basically saying that the punishment for breaking into someone's house is death.

How do you know that guy's intentions? Maybe he wanted to steal something, maybe he wanted to look at the garage looking for inspiration to decorate his own garage...maybe he wouldn't mind to kill a person if that person got in the middle. Because, normally, people who break into houses are lovely people that wouldn't harm a fly. I suggest we let him steal your hard-earned stuff and if he ends up killing you when he see he was caught, well, shit happens.

[Guest Len B'stard]

How do you know his intentions, well cuz you stitched the bastard up, we dont know his intentions but we fuckin know that other cunts, murder.

He orchestrated a situation where he could kill someone.
Also, is it breakin in to walk into a purposely left open garage door?

That is engineering a situation whereby you get the right to kill someone, it's purposely taking advantaging of the law so you can kill, it's no different planting something on someone, you can conspired to fuck someone up. It's blatant entrapment.

'Why was he walking in there' doesn't cut it as an excuse if it's clear that your intent was to draw him in there, coppers can't use that excuse when they entrap a criminal either so why should anyone else?

Edited May 6, 2014 by sugaraylen

[magisme]

The lack of respect we have for life never ceases to amaze.

[Guest Len B'stard]

The stupid thing about it is that it's not clever. I mean in terms of an entrapment, it's not like he engineered a situation that prompted someone to 'break' into his house or actually enter his property in a way that suggests the person a kind of burglar or something I mean, leaving a garage door open? Thats not necessarily gonna prompt your average burglar, anybody, a fuckin' kid or something might see something like that and try his luck, it's ridiculous, it's like leaving a jar of money on your front garden wall and then waiting from your window to shoot the first motherfucker that touches it, it's not even clever, it's not even like he's good at manipulating the law in a way that makes him look innocent on some level, it's just a blatant set up.

Simply put there would not be a person laying on a slab somewhere if he hadn't conspired to for it to be so, that squarely makes that motherfucker guilty of murder. Everyones focus is on the guy, why did he go in, why did he get on that motherfuckers property, that apparently makes him the guilty party but thats getting it twisted, it was set up for that to happen, the guy setting it up is the person with the initial criminal intent i.e. to kill some motherfucker he can lure into his shit, that makes him the root cause/guilty party in the instance at hand, if hadn't've wanted to do someone there wouldn't be an issue here, there is a dead body out there because this guy wanted there to be.

To my mind the person who had the initial criminal intent is the guilty party here.

Edited May 6, 2014 by sugaraylen

[Thin White Duke]

How do you know his intentions, well cuz you stitched the bastard up, we dont know his intentions but we fuckin know that other cunts, murder.

He orchestrated a situation where he could kill someone.

Also, is it breakin in to walk into a purposely left open garage door?

Of course it is. So, if it's summer and I leave a window wide open because it's hot and I forgot to close it when I go out, you're telling me that if a person breaks in, that's not as bad as if I had closed the window? Sorry but no. It's my property and I have the right to leave the door open. And it's still a punished by law crime if you get in without my permission. My point is, you knew before doing it that you were doing something illegal, if you still do it, you have to deal with the consequences.

Don't get me wrong, I would never be able to do such a thing and I'm not saying what he did is right. I think it's sick. But if we are gonna talk about cunts, there are 2 cunts in this story.

Also, aren't you the "fuck the police" guy? No offense, but this argument coming from someone who thinks the police are the bad guys is less convincing.

'Why was he walking in there' doesn't cut it as an excuse if it's clear that your intent was to draw him in there, coppers can't use that excuse when they entrap a criminal either so why should anyone else?

Fair enough. But that's not his fault. The lawmaker should change that nonsense and get rid of the right to shoot anyone who breaks into your house. Then, this dicsussion wouldn't even have to take place.

Edited May 6, 2014 by Thin White Duke

[downzy]

if you do not break into someone's house you do not run the risk of being shot to death by the home owner, it is really that simple. people leave garages open all the time with thousands of dollars worth of items in them all the time, it does not give someone the right to steal your belongings. i go to a walmart sometimes and see the sliding glass door to all the video games/video game systems open. this does not give me the right to snag those things because i was "baited".

Nobody is arguing that an open garage gives anyone the right to steal. But the act of doing so doesn't warrant the death of that guilty. Otherwise, why not just write it into law?

This is the point that a lot of people seem to be missing. The kid who stole the purse deserved some sort of punishment, just not death. There was no evidence that the homeowners were ever in jeopardy. Harm or death might be justified if the kid continued with the break-and-enter and harm to the owner was likely. But considering the homeowner specifically staked out the garage to harm or kill anyone who made the mistake of taking the purse, justifying the kid's death in this particular case is absurd.

[Guest Len B'stard]

Of course it is. So, if it's summer and I leave a window wide open because it's hot and I forgot to close it when I go out, you're telling me that if a person breaks in, that's not as bad as if I had closed the window? Sorry but no.

Thats the point i was making though, it's not even like it was like leaving a window open, which is the sort of thing a burglar etc would respond to, a garage door with something valuable in it is like leaving it out in the street almost, there's a degree of difference there. See, it'd be clever as a form of entrapment to catch a burglar if it was perhaps leaving something valuable in a window or something that prompts some kind of breaking and entering but a wide open garage door? Thats not entraping a burglar, thats entrapping anybody, a 13 yr old kid or your average woman or...y'know, whatever could respond to a wide open garage door, thats kinda what i meant by as entrapment it's not even clever.

My point is, you knew before doing it that you were doing something illegal, if you still do it, you have to deal with the consequences.

Right...and in this instance, whoose the first person doing something illegal, in terms of intent? The guy engineering the entrapment.

Don't get me wrong, I would never be able to do such a thing and I'm not saying what he did is right. I think it's sick. But if we are gonna talk about cunts, there are 2 cunts in this story.

OK, the person that engineered the situation, who kicked the whole thing off, arranged it as an excuse to kill...the other party was looking to take a purse from open view which they knew not to be theirs...which is the greater crime?

Fair enough. But that's not his fault. The lawmaker should change that nonsense and get rid of the right to shoot anyone who breaks into your house. Then, this dicsussion wouldn't even have to take place.

Sorry, it's not his fault that he was trying to draw him in there?

[magisme]

The stupid thing about it is that it's not clever.

Is that really the stupid thing about it?

[Guest Len B'stard]

Honestly speaking here, hand on heart, I might think about taking something that was on someones driveway that was valuable if i thought no one was looking. An actual purse from an open garage door? Hmmm, probably not. When i was a kid, fuck yes!

But this is clear bullshit though i mean, i work on a busy street, just off the main drag, we had a problem with thieves around here, they'd come in 3 or 4 at a time if they spied like a phone or something in open view, one of em talks to you, keeps you distracted and the other one takes your shit.

Now if i was to leave my phone on my desk and go into the back office, peeking through the keyhole, at some point or another someones gonna nip in the office, grab it and run...now do i have the right to ice that fuckin' guy, really?!?! For being a tea leaf basically? Fuck no. Jesus Christ, you gonna start shooting shoplifters now...kids that nick a pack of cherry drops out the fuckin' cornershop? Or kids that nick bikes off the rack, it's ridiculous.

I mean, i understand that murder is a quick and efficient way of dealing with, well, any sort of crime really but isn't there some kinda fuckin' 'punishment fits' kinda logic that we work from, maybe? Or am i mistaken about that?

Thieves exist in this world, thats a given. But do we have the right to fuckin' weed them out by way of entrapment and mete out boil-in-the-bag death sentences on them, I can't fathom on what level people can justify this?

Edited May 6, 2014 by sugaraylen

[downzy]

How do you know his intentions, well cuz you stitched the bastard up, we dont know his intentions but we fuckin know that other cunts, murder.

He orchestrated a situation where he could kill someone.

Also, is it breakin in to walk into a purposely left open garage door?

Of course it is. So, if it's summer and I leave a window wide open because it's hot and I forgot to close it when I go out, you're telling me that if a person breaks in, that's not as bad as if I had closed the window? Sorry but no. It's my property and I have the right to leave the door open. And it's still a punished by law crime if you get in without my permission. My point is, you knew before doing it that you were doing something illegal, if you still do it, you have to deal with the consequences.

Don't get me wrong, I would never be able to do such a thing and I'm not saying what he did is right. I think it's sick. But if we are gonna talk about cunts, there are 2 cunts in this story.

Also, aren't you the "fuck the police" guy? No offense, but this argument coming from someone who thinks the police are the bad guys is less convincing.

And if you leave your house unlocked and wide open, try getting your house insurance to pay for what's stolen. There's different degrees of culpability. It's not as though the kid was using brute force to enter a place he didn't belong. The insurance industry sees the difference, the legal system sees the difference, but for whatever reason, others don't see shades of grey on this one.

Your posts, along with others who agree with you, seem to make the assumption that both can't be guilty. Of course the kid is guilty of something, and of course he deserved punishment. Just not death. Nobody is arguing that the kid was in his right to take the purse because the garage door was left wide open and the purse was prominently displayed. Like I said earlier, if the kid was caught after the fact he deserved a criminal record. Or, if the homeowner is foolish enough to confront a burglar, he deserves a beating if the homeowner is able to administer one.

But the assumption that this rather petty crime justifies deadly force is insane. It's why, even in the U.S., where property rights are often given a lot of consideration, the home owner in this case was charged with murder. There was a similar situation that just finished up in the courts with the homeowner being convicted of murder of two young boys who were enticed to break into his home:

A Minnesota homeowner who shot and killed two unarmed teenagers during a break-in was quickly convicted of premeditated murder Tuesday, with a jury taking about three hours to reject his claim of self-defense.

Byron Smith, a 65-year-old retiree who once set up security in American embassies for the U.S. State Department, shot Nick Brady, 17, and Haile Kifer, 18, multiple times after they broke into his home on Thanksgiving Day 2012.

Smith's attorney said he was fearful after previous burglaries. But prosecutors argued Smith waited in his basement and intended to kill the teens, with a setup so elaborate that lead prosecutor Pete Orput compared it to a deer stand. Their key evidence was an audio recording that captured the killings in chilling detail, including Smith's taunts as the teens died.

The teens' killings stirred debate around the state and in Little Falls — a Mississippi River city of 8,000 about 100 miles northwest of Minneapolis — about how far a homeowner can go in responding to a threat. Minnesota law allows deadly force to prevent a felony from taking place in one's home or dwelling, but one's actions must be considered reasonable under the circumstances.

Prosecutors said Smith's plan was set in motion on the morning of the killings, after Smith saw a neighbor whom he believed responsible for prior burglaries. Prosecutors say Smith moved his truck to make it look like no one was home, and then settled into a basement chair with a book, energy bars, a bottle of water and two guns.

Smith also set up a hand-held recorder on a bookshelf, which captured audio of the shootings, and had installed a surveillance system that recorded images of Brady trying to enter the house.

The audio, which was played several times in court, captured the sound of glass shattering, Brady descending the basement stairs and Smith shooting Brady three times. Smith can be heard saying, "You're dead." Prosecutors said Smith put Brady's body on a tarp and dragged him into another room, then sat down, reloaded his weapon and waited.

About 10 minutes later, Kifer came downstairs. More shots are heard on the recording as Kifer screams. Smith says, "You're dying," followed soon by the sound of another gunshot, which investigators said Smith described as "a good, clean finishing shot."

Later on the recording, Smith refers to the teens as "vermin." Smith waited a full day before asking a neighbor to call police.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/29/byron-smith-convicted_n_5235941.html

The law is pretty clear on this (at least in Minnesota and most other non-deranged southern states). Deadly force is allowed but must be considered reasonable under the circumstances. Shooting a 17 year old kid because he walked into your open garage to take a purse does constitute as a reasonable response. Those arguing that the kid should know better, that there's risks involved when breaking into someone's house, also have to acknowledge that there's risks involved to the homeowner who chooses to use deadly force when it's abundantly clear that it's not reasonable to do so. There's precedent for this (as the case I just posted makes clear). People who steal from others deserve to be reprimanded, but they don't deserve to have their life prematurely ended.

Edited May 6, 2014 by downzy

[Guest Len B'stard]

The stupid thing about it is that it's not clever.

Is that really the stupid thing about it?

It'd've never occured to you if i hadn't've been here to clear it up, eh?

[magisme]

Kind of freaks me out that American culture veers so often toward a mindset that says if you're doing something wrong you pretty much deserve whatever happens to you.

[Thin White Duke]

@sugaraylen Sorry but no. It's not a crime to leave your garage open, it's not a crime to install a cam or whatever in your garage. It's a crime to break into someone else's property.

It's like telling me someone who wears too much gold or drives a Ferrari is calling for being robbed just because potential thieves can see the gold or the awesome car. That's a bullshit argument.

Edit: But again, you think the police is evil.

Edited May 6, 2014 by Thin White Duke

[Guest Len B'stard]

@sugaraylen Sorry but no. It's not a crime to leave your garage open, it's not a crime to install a cam or whatever in your garage. It's a crime to break into someone else's property.

It's like telling me someone who wears too much gold or drives a Ferrari is calling for being robbed just because potential thieves can see the gold or the awesome car. That's a bullshit argument.

Edit: But again, you think the police is evil.

What you are doing is breaking the instance down into a set of actions, removing it from it's context and ending up with a skewed view of what happened. If those things are done with a view to drawing someone in while you wait with a shooter to do em, then it is a crime i think you'll find.

But it's not like saying that, is it? The Ferrari analogy doesn't apply because a purse and a Ferrari are not comparable in terms of what it takes to nick em. The gold bit applies but not hanging off someones neck, again, totally different context. Now if a bunch of gold was laying in plain view from the street out in the open, not behind a window or otherwise secure, but left open in plain view from the street, then yes he is asking for it to be nicked, thats just common sense.

Let me be clear about this, I wouldn't care if every woman and man in town lost their collective wallets and purses if it meant that someones life could be saved, the two things ain't comparable in value.

Edited May 6, 2014 by sugaraylen

[Thin White Duke]

Kind of freaks me out that American culture veers so often toward a mindset that says if you're doing something wrong you pretty much deserve whatever happens to you.

No. It's not like you deserve whatever happens to you, it's that it can happen something to you, and you're the responsible if it happens.

[Thin White Duke]

@sugaraylen Sorry but no. It's not a crime to leave your garage open, it's not a crime to install a cam or whatever in your garage. It's a crime to break into someone else's property.

It's like telling me someone who wears too much gold or drives a Ferrari is calling for being robbed just because potential thieves can see the gold or the awesome car. That's a bullshit argument.

Edit: But again, you think the police is evil.

What you are doing is breaking the instance down into a set of actions, removing it from it's context and ending up with a skewed view of what happened. If those things are done with a view to drawing someone in while you wait with a shooter to do em, then it is a crime i think you'll find.

But it's not like saying that, is it? The Ferrari analogy doesn't apply because a purse and a Ferrari are not comparable in terms of what it takes to nick em. The gold bit applies but not hanging off someones neck, again, totally different context. Now if a bunch of gold was laying in plain view from the street out in the open, not behind a window or otherwise secure, but left open in plain view from the street, then yes he is asking for it to be nicked, thats just common sense.

And again, you're still commiting a crime and you're justifying that crime. If I leave my wallet in front of you, that doesn't give you the right of stealing it. Never.

I'm gonna be a bit demagogic here and use an ugly comparison but, this reminds me of rape cases when they try to justify them because they girl was dressing slutty, therefore she was calling for it. Just no.

[Guest Len B'stard]

Kind of freaks me out that American culture veers so often toward a mindset that says if you're doing something wrong you pretty much deserve whatever happens to you.

No. It's not like you deserve whatever happens to you, it's that it can happen something to you, and you're the responsible if it happens.

With the person pulling the trigger to blow a fuckin' unarmed kid to fuckin' bits totally innocent of course

[magisme]

Kind of freaks me out that American culture veers so often toward a mindset that says if you're doing something wrong you pretty much deserve whatever happens to you.

No. It's not like you deserve whatever happens to you, it's that it can happen something to you, and you're the responsible if it happens.

Minor difference.

[Thin White Duke]

Kind of freaks me out that American culture veers so often toward a mindset that says if you're doing something wrong you pretty much deserve whatever happens to you.

No. It's not like you deserve whatever happens to you, it's that it can happen something to you, and you're the responsible if it happens.

With the person pulling the trigger to blow a fuckin' unarmed kid to fuckin' bits totally innocent of course

No one said the guy is innocent of nothing.

FUCK THE POLICE.

I don't see anyone defending the trapper. All we're saying is that when someone breaks into or enters someone's property with the intent to steal, we feel no sympathy for them when they don't get away with it.

This.

Edited May 6, 2014 by Thin White Duke

[Tater Totts]

@sugaraylen Sorry but no. It's not a crime to leave your garage open, it's not a crime to install a cam or whatever in your garage. It's a crime to break into someone else's property.

It's like telling me someone who wears too much gold or drives a Ferrari is calling for being robbed just because potential thieves can see the gold or the awesome car. That's a bullshit argument.

Edit: But again, you think the police is evil.

What you are doing is breaking the instance down into a set of actions, removing it from it's context and ending up with a skewed view of what happened. If those things are done with a view to drawing someone in while you wait with a shooter to do em, then it is a crime i think you'll find.

.

Completely agreed. If someone purposefully leaves something on display to tempt someone to take it, then sets up shop somewhere while armed waiting for someone to come and take it so you can shoot them it is a sick perverse crime. Sure someone trespassing or breaking in is of course a crime, but to purposefully tempt someone into it with the explicit intent to gun them down when it happens is also one and completely fucked up.

Of course breaking and entering is a crime but if we put the events into context nobody would have died. If the shooter hadn't attempted to entrap anyone by setting the events into motion there would have been no reason for anyone to break in/ trespass and no reason for him to have shot them as they wouldn't be there in the first place.

Breaking and entering is of course a crime but putting the events into context it seems obvious to me that without the actions of the shooter nobody would have died and there would have been no break in.

[Thin White Duke]

If it was just a case of potential theft, then yeah, death is a disproportionate punishment. But in a lost of cases (not so much this one), if an intruder is in your home, you really don't know if they pose a threat to you or not. If you give them a warning that might be all the time they need to bring out their own weapon to use against you. In this case, yes, it doesn't seem there was a chance of danger to the homeowners, but I can see how in other cases someone may choose to shoot first and ask questions later.

And this.

[Guest Len B'stard]

And again, you're still commiting a crime and you're justifying that crime. If I leave my wallet in front of you, that doesn't give you the right of stealing it. Never.

I don't think you're quite getting your head around this concept but leaving the purse in open view and waiting to shoot someone makes the leaving of the purse where it was left part of an overall criminal act, it's not someone who forgot or was just careless or whatever, it's a means from which you can find an excuse to kill someone.

I'm gonna be a bit demagogic here and use an ugly comparison but, this reminds me of rape cases when they try to justify them because they girl was dressing slutty, therefore she was calling for it. Just no.

COMPLETELY different though really, isn't it? The issue here is that you keep trying to seperate the act from the intent of leaving the shit there. The difference between a girl dressing 'slutty' as you put it and this instance is that there is a clear indicator as to the intent of the dude leaving his shit there...and that indicator being that he's waiting behind the curtain with a fuckin' burner looking to sort you out. You thinking the girls looking to get raped cuz she wears revealing clothes is indicative of nothing on the part of the girl and profound mental illness on your part.