A kid I went to high school with was shot to death while breaking into a car. He was breaking into the cars to get money for drugs. He was also high at the time and when the person confronted him he stepped toward him so he was shot dead from 3 shots. The police didn't charge him with any crimes. Also had a neighbor who owned a gas station and was robber at gun point and when the robber left he chased him outside and shot him in the back while he was running away. He also wasn't charged.

I'm not sure what to think of this case. It sounds like the kids were breaking into homes for drugs and may have even been using while breaking in. They had probably also broken into other homes before. Ive seen people using heroin and oxy before and they feel invincible. That's probably why the kid laughed after already being shot.

All he had to do was call the police and stay quiet. His mouth will probably add to his sentence more than the actual shooting would.

sportchampps;1331607 wrote:A kid I went to high school with was shot to death while breaking into a car. He was breaking into the cars to get money for drugs. He was also high at the time and when the person confronted him he stepped toward him so he was shot dead from 3 shots. The police didn't charge him with any crimes. Also had a neighbor who owned a gas station and was robber at gun point and when the robber left he chased him outside and shot him in the back while he was running away. He also wasn't charged.

I'm not sure what to think of this case. It sounds like the kids were breaking into homes for drugs and may have even been using while breaking in. They had probably also broken into other homes before. Ive seen people using heroin and oxy before and they feel invincible. That's probably why the kid laughed after already being shot.

Interesting, my understanding of the castle doctrine is that is only applies in a vehicle or in a house/building/etc. I THINK Texas may have looser requirements.

ccrunner609;1331641 wrote:that wouldnt of solved the problem

No no it wouldnt of. But shooting them both and injuring them sure would of. Execution style shooting 2 teenagers was overkill

Well one thing is certain, nobody will attempt to rob him again.

Rotinaj;1331650 wrote:Well one thing is certain, nobody will attempt to rob him again.

Bubba might rob him of his dignity in the showers in jail

I dunno what will happen to him but I hope nothing. Don't rob a guys house, don't get killed. Pretty simple concept. And it appears these 2 kids are repeat offenders. Do I think he went overboard? Yes. Just shoot then and call the police. But I still believe they had getting shot coming to them.

iclfan2;1331652 wrote:I dunno what will happen to him but I hope nothing. Don't rob a guys house, don't get killed. Pretty simple concept. And it appears these 2 kids are repeat offenders. Do I think he went overboard? Yes. Just shoot then and call the police. But I still believe they had getting shot coming to them.

Nobody is disagreeing with them getting shot. Getting execution style finished off however, then going into detail to the cops about how you finished off helpless victims is whats gonna get him charged and found guilty(hopefully)

Interesting, my understanding of the castle doctrine is that is only applies in a vehicle or in a house/building/etc. I THINK Texas may have looser requirements.

This happened in Ohio. It was at the Sunoco on 256 in the Reynoldsburg/Pickerington area.

fish82;1331542 wrote:All that's missing in this story is the trip to the wood chipper out back.

I'm all for self defense. Those two entered the great unknown when going into someone else's house.

HOWEVER, despite their flagrant disregard for him, he still just doesn't get the right to kill someone else. He has the ability to defend himself. I feel he has to right to shoot them. But, once they're subdued, it's done. If he really was broken into that many times, it's possible he was 'getting ready' to shot them to death when they came back again. Either way, the fact he didn't call the police until the next day speaks volumes to me over his decisions in this case.

Commander of Awesome;1331593 wrote:Typical redneck

False. I believe the POS needs charged with murder.

sportchampps;1331658 wrote:This happened in Ohio. It was at the Sunoco on 256 in the Reynoldsburg/Pickerington area.

To be fair though, Fairfield county courts have a distinct hatred for anyone who robs a business in their county. I remember a story of a guy who got 45 years in Fairfield count for holding up the old Schlotzkys on Tussing.

Hate hearing stories like this...I know they're committing a crime themselves, but they didn't deserve to be executed. This guy took it too far, and I hope they pull a "Green Mile Dry Towel" type execution on this guy.

SportsAndLady;1331684 wrote:Hate hearing stories like this...I know they're committing a crime themselves, but they didn't deserve to be executed. This guy took it too far, and I hope they pull a "Green Mile Dry Towel" type execution on this guy.

just for clarification..do you mean they didnt deserve to die? or how they were killed? Because the old man had every right to kill them for breaking and entering.

ccrunner609;1331596 wrote:how the fuck is this redneck?

Because you think the punishment for B&E should be death. That's fucking stupid.

Now of course these idiots could have avoided it by not breaking into a place, but just because they did that illegal and stupid thing doesn't mean they deserve whatever happens to them next.

If you execute someone, which is what it sounds like this guy did, you should be tried for murder.

Pick6;1331693 wrote:just for clarification..do you mean they didnt deserve to die? or how they were killed? Because the old man had every right to kill them for breaking and entering.

If the initial shot in self defense would have proven to be fatal, so be it... but to keep shooting after they were clearly incapacitated is the issue. It was no longer self defense.

Pick6;1331693 wrote:just for clarification..do you mean they didnt deserve to die? or how they were killed? Because the old man had every right to kill them for breaking and entering.

I disagree, the man has every right to defend himself. That doesn't automatically jump to killing them. If someone comes into my house uninvited with a box of donuts I shouldn't shoot them despite perhaps being legally allowed to (not a direct parallel but hopefully the point that just because you are allowed to do something to someone doesn't mean you should is demonstrated).

First, they didn't deserve to die. The punishment for B&E is not and should not be death. That can happen during the course of someone reacting to the break in and it is sometimes justified, but it isn't automatically so simply because there was a break in.

Second, the execution part is definitely a problem.

If you ask some on this forum it would be impossible to murder someone who broke and entered. Which is simply ridiculous.

I Wear Pants;1331715 wrote:I disagree, the man has every right to defend himself. That doesn't automatically jump to killing them. If someone comes into my house uninvited with a box of donuts I shouldn't shoot them despite perhaps being legally allowed to (not a direct parallel but hopefully the point that just because you are allowed to do something to someone doesn't mean you should is demonstrated).

First, they didn't deserve to die. The punishment for B&E is not and should not be death. That can happen during the course of someone reacting to the break in and it is sometimes justified, but it isn't automatically so simply because there was a break in.

Second, the execution part is definitely a problem.

If you ask some on this forum it would be impossible to murder someone who broke and entered. Which is simply ridiculous.

I agree that the execution part is a problem. Coming to my house with a box of donuts and breaking and entering into my house are two completely different things.

Im not going to take the time to look into specifics, but I believe the castle doctrine states something along the lines of being able to use "reasonable" forms of self-defense. Deciding what is reasonable and what isnt is up to the jury to decide. However, in most cases, killing an intruder is considered to be a reasonable form of self-defense. The kids had a drug abusers, were thiefs, and who knows what else. Maybe they did deserve to die. They dont sound too much better than the man who executed them, to be honest. 18 or not, maybe the world is a better place without him here. Maybe the guy did them a favor by putting them out of their misery instead of letting them lay there and suffer. I think the part that will fuck him the most is not calling the cops right after the shooting/calling his lawyer.

How the guy did it isnt right, but if you dont want to take the risk of getting shot, dont be breaking and entering.

Pick6;1331693 wrote:just for clarification..do you mean they didnt deserve to die? or how they were killed? Because the old man had every right to kill them for breaking and entering.

I guess moreso how they were killed. They didn't deserve to die for breaking in, but the man had every right to shoot and kill. Now, when he shot again, execution style, that is just going wayyyy beyond his legal capacity. I get that the law says the guy has a right to shoot and kill a trespasser, but to execute them...damn

I Wear Pants;1331708 wrote:Because you think the punishment for B&E should be death. That's fucking stupid.

Now of course these idiots could have avoided it by not breaking into a place, but just because they did that illegal and stupid thing doesn't mean they deserve whatever happens to them next.

If you execute someone, which is what it sounds like this guy did, you should be tried for murder.

Everybody who was speeding when killed in a car crash...deserved it.

Oh and can you break into my house and give me donuts?

I live in the ghetto of Akron. I sleep with a loaded shotgun underneath of my bed. I know people who have been robbed...whether it be on the street, their car, or their house. If somebody breaks into my house, I am going to shoot them in fear of my own life. Im not going to take the chance of them being unarmed (unlikely). A lawyer will also tell you to shoot to kill, because you dont want it to be their story against yours.

SportsAndLady;1331762 wrote:I guess moreso how they were killed. They didn't deserve to die for breaking in, but the man had every right to shoot and kill. Now, when he shot again, execution style, that is just going wayyyy beyond his legal capacity. I get that the law says the guy has a right to shoot and kill a trespasser, but to execute them...damn

I agree, it was probably outside of his legal capacity, and most definitely sick. We will see what the jury decides I guess as it is a grey area.

Hb31187;1331653 wrote:Nobody is disagreeing with them getting shot. Getting execution style finished off however, then going into detail to the cops about how you finished off helpless victims is whats gonna get him charged and found guilty(hopefully)

I disagree with them getting shot.

GoChiefs;1331675 wrote:False. I believe the POS needs charged with murder.

I was calling CCrunner a redneck, not you.

Commander of Awesome;1331811 wrote:I was calling CCrunner a redneck, not you.

He's saying he (gochiefs) is a redneck, and thinks the guy should be charged.