isadore;1334009 wrote:7 breakins
they keep coming back
they harassed and tortured him
october $10,000 stolen
"no suspects"
gosh a failure of the law

Al Bundy;1334018 wrote:If he had a pit bull to guard his home, he would not have been robbed.

isadore;1334009 wrote:7 breakins
they keep coming back
they harassed and tortured him
october $10,000 stolen
"no suspects"
gosh a failure of the law

reclegend22;1334021 wrote:Have to agree with this.

Again, the guy took it too far by going all medieval on these kids and performing a point-blank execution and then hauling the carcasses down to his dungeon. When phrased like that, it sounds pretty horrible. Or, as WearPants would say, "IT SOUNDS LIKE MURDER!" Wanted to put that out there before we had to re-hear it.

However, taking into consideration everything this guy had been through -- the continual after-dark break-ins by masked robbers, threat of harm, accompanying emotional trauma, loss of tens of thousands of dollars, etc. -- I might have snapped and killed these f----ers, too. They are dirt and the world is better that they're dead.

isadore;1334029 wrote:the difference between the law and true justice. they got what they deserved.

WebFire;1334024 wrote:Ok. And you'd still be charged with murder. I don't understand what the argument is.

isadore;1334009 wrote:7 breakins - so drive your trailer to a new park

they keep coming back - get a big dog

they harassed and tortured him - bull

october $10,000 stolen - he's a moron for keeping that much cash around. Probably illegal moonshine money. Or maybe if he had used that $10k to put some bars on the window they kept breaking into the problem is solved and he'd have money left over.

reclegend22;1334032 wrote:The argument is that this guy, despite the awkward way in which he handled the bodies, might -- or, in my opinion, should -- get off with a much lighter sentence than murder due to the emotional distress he was obviously in

reclegend22;1334032 wrote:The argument is that this guy, despite the awkward way in which he handled the bodies, might -- or, in my opinion, should -- get off with a much lighter sentence than murder due to the emotional distress he was obviously in, and certainly shouldn't get more than a year or two of jail time, if any. There have been cases (just saw one on 48 Hours Hard Evidence the other day) where people have straight up committed murder in broad daylight, in public, for no reason at all, with witnesses, and got off with much less due to claiming self-defense. It's probably rare, and I no scholar of law, but this guy doesn't deserve hard time.

I Wear Pants;1334178 wrote: You don't get to murder people and get off easy simply because you've been robbed a few times before.

gut;1334096 wrote:FIFY

isadore;1334268 wrote:hardly a surprise you would be indifferent to the obvious persecution of an old man.

I Wear Pants;1334177 wrote:Bar the windows, better doors and locks, security services, more lights, etc, etc. It's never the person's fault they got robbed or broken into but there are certainly steps you can take to make it less likely to happen.

Either way, this guy murdered a person. I don't feel bad for him. Sucks that he had break ins but that doesn't mean you need to commit murder.

I wear pants wrote: It's never the person's fault they got robbed or broken into

gut;1334270 wrote:Ultimately even the gubmit could not protect him from his own stupidity.

isadore;1334272 wrote: He was the continuing victim. He did what was needed to stop this continuing torture.

gut;1334273 wrote:Nope, bars + dog + motion activated flood lights do wonders to deter break-ins.

This guy chose to become a vigilante and will now face a jury for the consequences of his poor choices.

I Wear Pants;1334177 wrote:Bar the windows, better doors and locks, security services, more lights, etc, etc.

gut wrote:Nope, bars + dog + motion activated flood lights do wonders to deter break-ins.

gut wrote:Instead he plotted and waited to ambush the next person that broke in.

reclegend22;1334307 wrote:


He had every right to have his gun locked and loaded, ready to blow the head off the next intruder that climbed through one of his windows. That's not an "ambush." It's called protecting yourself and your property.

LJ;1334310 wrote:No, he literally killed the first guy, dragged him to the basement, then went back upstairs and waited for more without calling the cops. Absolutely no reason to not call the cops after the first guy was down.

reclegend22;1334317 wrote:I understand what the guy did. I was simply responding to the idea that by simply having his gun ready to kill the next masked burglar who entered his house, the guy was therefore planning an "ambush" or the "perfect murder." That's ridiculous. He had every right to be on the ready, to shoot and to kill.

As I said, the awkward way in which the guy handled the bodies after the first criminal was killed was certainly not the way to handle things. That might be what gets him hard time. But, honestly, I think the guy just had broke mentally and all-out snapped, believing that these thieves were never going to stop and might eventually kill him. So, he took advantage of the opportunity and ended their lives. I hope he gets off on some sort of temporary insanity/distress cause.