Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Read the second story too. The police were called to the house 24 hours after the killing. The shooter did not call the cops. What is it this guy liked about having dead bodies around his house? Are they trophies? This dude does not need to be playing with guns, he needs treatment for necrophilia...after he spends the rest of his life in prison with Bubba! I'll not only convict him right now...I will introduce him to Bubba! Am I the only one that thinks his keeping his dead victims for a day or so is unusual? I hope not...at least not on this forum!

RWBlue01 wrote:First, these were not kids as some have posted. One was 18 that is an adult. The other was acting as an adult.

Next though is I don't think we have the complete story. Some things don't match up. Maybe the old guy is nuts. Maybe the news didn't get it right. (Like that never happens.)

Then rifle fire inside a house is VERY loud. The fact that the second one continued leaves me to believe that these two were not there just to rob him.

Legally, if they were down, the threat was stopped. But if they had lived, would they or their friends have come back as a threat? If they were, he was right taking them out when he did, ethically, but legally he is screwed.

I do have one legal question. If he had shot them and they were down. And he didn't call anyone for a while, would he have legal issues? Or to put it s different way, is he required to give aid to the enemy?

I know that the law considers a person that makes 18 revolutions around the sun an adult, but as a practical matter there is a lot more than age that makes one an adult. Life experiences, environmental influences, education,IQ,ability to reson with a fully developed mind,all 18 year olds are not created equal. If you are old enough to have kids that age, or you can remember when you were 18, they do not always make the best of decisions. Yes the law must have a standard to say when one is legally an adult for legal matters, but they were just kids. And you are also right that we may not have an accurate accounting of the event, but we have what we have and can only comment on what we read. It makes no sense to try to quess what might have happened, and comment on that. Opinions might and probably will change as the facts emerge, but for now with what I read, he's a physcopathic killer.

zerodown1 wrote: And you are also right that we may not have an accurate accounting of the event, but we have what we have and can only comment on what we read.

Yes the law must have a standard to say when one is legally an adult for legal matters, but they were just kids.

I know that the law considers a person that makes 18 revolutions around the sun an adult, but as a practical matter there is a lot more than age that makes one an adult. Life experiences, environmental influences, education,IQ,ability to reson with a fully developed mind,all 18 year olds are not created equal. If you are old enough to have kids that age, or you can remember when you were 18, they do not always make the best of decisions.

Pardon me as I rearrange your sentences and trimming it down.

Why are you still referring to them as kids? Do you know that they were mentally handicapped? Do you know that they were innocents coming to have tea and cookies with the old man? Do you have some extenuating circumstances that I have not read that leaves you to believe that the story is not as written (B&E criminals coming to kill the old man?)

No matter how dumb you are if you are 18 you can vote as proven in the last election. If you want to call them kids, I want to take away their right to vote, drive, and everything else adults can do. They can not have it both ways. They are adults or kids, not both.

By calling them kids, it is like the Brady campaign who use statistics about all the kids (0-21) who are killed with guns. I am sorry, but if you are committing crimes and get shot....you are acting as an adult and should not be included in the statistics.


BTW, I am not defending his actions. I don't think it makes sense. He may be nuts. We only have what is written.

Based on what the media has reported, and having read and reflected on the other commentary, I find that I don't want to rush to convict this man prematurely.

In regards to the would-be theives, the evidence seems to support the theory that the two teens were, in fact, trespassing inside this mans house with every intent of robbing him. It certainly would appear that they were prone to that sort of behavior. I believe that the fact that one was 17 years of age, and the other was 18, really has no bearing on the events, other than the observation that it is not uncommon for people in that age group to make fatally bad descisions. It has been my observation that 5 year old children seem to have a pretty good concept of what's right and what's wrong, so I would expect anyone in their late teens to also have a firm grasp on this, along with a good handle on the notions of action and consequence. I will grant that the two in question likely had their judgment clouded by some recreational drug use, but the homeowner had no way of knowing that, and he can hardly be blamed for their poor decision making skills. At some point, the teens individually made a conscious descision to partake in substances that affect ones judgement. And, they also made a decision to burglarize peoples homes.

So, this homeowner, then, is minding his own business, in his own house, on Thanksgiving day. He hears someone breaking in, and sees a figure descending the stairs and coming in his direction, so he shoots the figure.

At this point, it would seem that no one objects to this part.

Allow me, for the sake of discussion, to speculate on a few things.

So, figure one is shot. Is he armed? Don't know. Better shoot him again. Probably wouldn't want to be shot in the back by this intruder. That won't turn out well, at all.

At this point, the homeowner hears someone else coming down the stairs. Who in their right mind would hear gun shots and come towards them? Maybe the first guy is armed, after all. And if one is, the second one would be, too. There's the second figure, let's shoot it. Alot. Lessen the chances of being shot back.

Now, the second one is laughing. Is she going to draw a weapon? Maybe she is planning a lawsuit. Dead people don't sue, and they don't draw weapons. Shoot her again. Good clean shot. Both threats are thoroughly eleminated.

At this point, it would be reasonable to assume that the homeowner has some adreneline flowing. He needs to sit down. And he reflects on what just happened. He probably realizes that what he just did may be viewed as excessive, even if he doesn't think so. As far as he is concerned, the world is now less two criminals. That's two less people to jam up the court systems, two less criminals being fed, clothed, and housed in the jail system on the taxpayers dime. Hard to feel bad about that. So, it's Thanksgiving day. Who wants to deal with law enforcement, possibly getting arrested, and that sort of thing on Thanksgiving? No need to let a couple of deliquents ruin a perfectly good holiday. Besides, maybe he has a few affairs that should be put in order, just in case. The next day, he just can't bring himself to get himself arrested for defending his home, so he gives his neighbor a reason to call the police. Maybe he confessed to his neighbor, outright, or maybe he dropped some cryptic hints. Hard to say. Maybe, this stressful situation has had a negative effect on his ability to sleep well, so he could be a bit loopy. So, he says some goofy things to the police.

Really, I have no sympathy for the teens. None, at all. And, at this point, I see no reason to convict the homeowner. He may have made some poor decisions, but none that warrant arrest or citation. At this point, maybe I'm not opposed to further investigation, but I do not currently believe that this man needs to be in jail, or be deprived of his firearms.

I'll repeat what many others have said; as more facts come out, I may change my opinion on the matter... not that my opinion does matter, mind you. This is just my take; obviously, others may disagree. And, that's OK.

SHMIV, you missed the part about where grandpa drug the second intruder around to put her where he wanted her before firing the killing shot.

I am NOT trying to justify the presence of the intruders in his house by any means. That being said, if gramps is able to drag the second intruder around and not get resistance from her and then putting the barrel of a gun under her chin, was she really a threat to his life at that point? All of the rest of it may be self defense, but this part in NO way constitutes this man protecting his own life or property. He crossed the line.

SpanishInquisition wrote:
SHMIV, you missed the part about where grandpa drug the second intruder around to put her where he wanted her before firing the killing shot.

I am NOT trying to justify the presence of the intruders in his house by any means. That being said, if gramps is able to drag the second intruder around and not get resistance from her and then putting the barrel of a gun under her chin, was she really a threat to his life at that point? All of the rest of it may be self defense, but this part in NO way constitutes this man protecting his own life or property. He crossed the line.

No, I didn't miss that part; it just doesn't matter to me. Maybe he thought that she was dead already when he was moving her. Of course, why he'd move the bodies around is beyond me; I guess he was just under a bit of stress. My grandfather, who has killed a man while looking him in the eye, tells me that killing is stressfull. (It's worth pointing out, btw, that my grandfather was in the middle of a war in Burma, when that happened.) People often do strange things under stress. The guy also had no clue as to whether or not the young woman was armed; perhaps he figured that if she was conscious and laughing, she might have enough fight in her to do him harm. So he made sure that she had no fight. Again, I'm speculating here, of course.

Certainly, I don't believe that you would justify the presence of the intruders; I don't believe anyone else is, either.

I was simply offering my own opinion, based on my limited knowledge of the whole thing. If what has been reported is all that goes to trial, personally, I wouldn't convict the man. I don't deny that he made poor decisions, but I just don't think that his poor decisions were bad enough to put him through arrests, trials, and prisons. Again, as more information flows forth (if it does), I may find that my opinion changes.

I honestly have to wonder if perhaps the man is a veteran who ended up going through some crazy and bad sh*t while deployed. It's possible he got put into a situation similar to one he experienced there and maybe lost himself a bit. You shoot an intruder. If they die, they die. It's the cold hard truth, but it is the truth. I would hate the day I would ever have to kill someone, I hope it never comes, but if you put me and my family in harms way it will happen.

The second person involved, also deserved to be shot. However, the idea of dragging a severely injured person to another room and firing a killshot directly through the chin up to the brain suggests something far more than either "The man was protecting himself" or "He may have enjoyed it". It makes me believe perhaps his head wasn't really where it should have been. He may have been back at war and once it all stopped and his brain caught up he didn't know what to do, so he sat on it for the day.

A little more info about his background:

http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_ ... lice-about

There is a small amount of irony: The first intruder was a student in the Pillager school dstrict.

I love how everytime a self defense case comes up, the press shows a terrible jail cell photo of the person who did the shooting, and they use a glamour shot of the people who caused the problem.

Okay. Does anyone see anything wrong with what the guy did? When the suspects were down, that means the threat is OVER and his response then would be to make sure his family was safe and then IMMEDIATELY dial 911! He should then WAIT in a secure room for Police to COME to him! if they run away, then lawfully you are required to stand down. You CANNOT shoot them in the back. Once Police arrive you should have your weapon unloaded and in plain sight. You shoot to end the threat and then STAND DOWN!

Of course if that is what happened it was very wrong. However after the Zimmerman affair I have learned to never ever trust the media to relay the true story right away. If he did what is reported, then his only hope is that he is likely certifiable. However I have to reserve a "wait and see" a little on this one because of the media's penchant to distort, enlarge, and obfuscate the truth.

jmicheals1984 wrote:Okay. Does anyone see anything wrong with what the guy did? When the suspects were down, that means the threat is OVER and his response then would be to make sure his family was safe and then IMMEDIATELY dial 911! He should then WAIT in a secure room for Police to COME to him! if they run away, then lawfully you are required to stand down. You CANNOT shoot them in the back. Once Police arrive you should have your weapon unloaded and in plain sight. You shoot to end the threat and then STAND DOWN!

A couple of problems with your statement. Just because the immediate threat is over you don't stand down. I would wait and watch over the criminals to ensure they didn't get up till the Cops secure the area. You never know if there are more invaders or if these will come after you. My weapon would not be unloaded till after the police arrive.

I just find this wrong in so many way's. Yes the 2 perp's were wrong in their actions but the old man was 100 % wrong in some of his. This was an exacution pure and simple and he should hang. He violated the law to a much grater extent then the 2 cousins did. It is an out and out murder.
Bill

The break in was caught on his home surveillance system, and he has an audio recorder on him when he shot them which caught it:

http://www.sctimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar ... ck_check=1

Correct link:

http://www.sctimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar ... 2312090049

I wonder if and when the recording will be released. That'll hopefully stop much of the speculation as to what happened inside the house.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Unless those recordings depict the homeowner enticing that pair into the house with promises of pina colodas and pot brownies, I expect that I'll still be siding with the homeowner on this one.

I am interested in those recordings, though...

They probably won't be released until trial, or maybe not then even. Don't want to bias a jury or anything.

skeeterss0 wrote:

jmicheals1984 wrote:Okay. Does anyone see anything wrong with what the guy did? When the suspects were down, that means the threat is OVER and his response then would be to make sure his family was safe and then IMMEDIATELY dial 911! He should then WAIT in a secure room for Police to COME to him! if they run away, then lawfully you are required to stand down. You CANNOT shoot them in the back. Once Police arrive you should have your weapon unloaded and in plain sight. You shoot to end the threat and then STAND DOWN!

A couple of problems with your statement. Just because the immediate threat is over you don't stand down. I would wait and watch over the criminals to ensure they didn't get up till the Cops secure the area. You never know if there are more invaders or if these will come after you. My weapon would not be unloaded till after the police arrive.

You stop shooting once they are down and then call the Cops. And you always call the Cops IMMEDIATELY. You don't wait 24 hours to do so.