Minnesota man kills two teen burglars

By Hum
in Real World News

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

Sandor

Posted
Posted

There's a little thing called reasonable force you may want to look-up.

Which is a crock of bull****. "Reasonable force". GTFO. If someone enters your home to rob you they should get killed off with no nonsense.

A couple of scumbags visit this misfortune on a guy just sitting in his home and apparently he's now the bad guy. Who brought you up? Because clearly they didn't teach you common sense or morality.

  • Lord Method Man
  • Like 1
Grand Master

FlintyV

Posted
Posted

Which is a crock of bull****. "Reasonable force". GTFO. If someone enters your home to rob you they should get killed off with no nonsense.

A couple of scumbags visit this misfortune on a guy just sitting in his home and apparently he's now the bad guy. Who brought you up? Because clearly they didn't teach you common sense or morality.

A classy response but I guess I should have expected that kind of thing. " they should get killed off"...

I know the difference between self-defense and executing someone. If someone was injured and gasping and this 64 year old had the opportunity to position his gun under someones chin and fire they're clearly not an immediate threat to the homeowner.

  • Spartan Erik
  • Like 1
Grand Master

Sandor

Posted
Posted

A classy response but I guess I should have expected that kind of thing. " they should get killed off"...

I know the difference between self-defense and executing someone. If someone was injured and gasping and this 64 year old had the opportunity to position his gun under someones chin and fire they're clearly not an immediate threat to the homeowner.

So basically what you're saying is because he missed the kill on the first shot he's now the bad guy and the "injured and gasping" criminal is now vindicated.

Where do you stand? Do nothing? Only allowed one shot? Shouldn't use a gun at all?

  • Lord Method Man
  • Like 1
Grand Master

Japlabot

Posted
Posted

So basically what you're saying is because he missed the kill on the first shot he's now the bad guy and the "injured and gasping" criminal is now vindicated.

Where do you stand? Do nothing? Only allowed one shot? Shouldn't use a gun at all?

You Sir are messed up. Breaking in does not give the homeowner an open license to kill you, breaking in the homeowner an open license to use REASONABLE FORCE to defend themselves. Reasonable Force means that they are allowed to SHOOT you, or SHOOT TO KILL you, up to the point where they are no longer in a position of having to defend themselves anymore.

If they are still alive, you don't get a "second shot" to kill them (You are allowed to defend yourself, and executions does not fit under defence), you call an ambulance to attempt to save them (even if you think it will be futile or they will die a slow painful death while waiting) and the criminal justice system takes over

Basically when you are shooting to kill them, the aim is to kill them so that they can't harm you, the aim is not to kill them as a way of giving them your own justice.

Grand Master

Nogib

Posted
Posted

So basically what you're saying is because he missed the kill on the first shot he's now the bad guy and the "injured and gasping" criminal is now vindicated.

Don't try to rationalize with the zealots who blindly defend criminals. Just not worth it.

Mentor

SierraSonic

Posted
Posted

Beyond self defense? Of course.

The right action to take from what I read? Possibly.

Though at the time there is no way to know how threatening a person is, WHILE THEY ARE INSIDE YOUR HOUSE, you should always be allowed to assume the worst. Why is it that people who break into other peoples homes they can get special protection and even get the home owner in trouble for having "a house that's to dangerous to steal from"?

Now the fact that this guy took already down intruders and ended their life... a reduced murder charge based on self defense and a crappy situation. No do not take into account what the children were like, its irrelevant, the shooter has no way to know if the intruders are nice or not, but he does know they are not supposed to be there, which at that point in time makes them bad, in every sense of the word.

Experienced

Ph1b3r0pt1c

Posted
Posted

Look at that picture, he killed the girl too??.. What a raving lunatic to think she'd be any threat. He deserves to be behind bars for life. Just sickening.

Yeah, because cute girls NEVER do anything wrong. They both got what they deserved, even if it DID go a bit to far. Any other country such as china, russia, or anywhere in the middle east they would have been beheaded or shot in front of people.

Grand Master

Yusuf M. Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

Which is a crock of bull****. "Reasonable force". GTFO. If someone enters your home to rob you they should get killed off with no nonsense.

A couple of scumbags visit this misfortune on a guy just sitting in his home and apparently he's now the bad guy. Who brought you up? Because clearly they didn't teach you common sense or morality.

No, it isn't. You seriously need help if you think it's okay to murder someone when they're no longer a threat. Reasonable force is the amount of force necessary to protect yourself or your property. This includes killing someone but it doesn't mean you have to do that. If the aggressor is no longer a threat, you're not allowed to kill them. It's ironic that you mention common sense and morality when what you said is completely void of sound judgment and virtuous conduct.

Also, "Location: Ontario, Canada" :/

So basically what you're saying is because he missed the kill on the first shot he's now the bad guy and the "injured and gasping" criminal is now vindicated.

Where do you stand? Do nothing? Only allowed one shot? Shouldn't use a gun at all?

It's not about killing the intruder. It's about stopping them so you can protect yourself or your property. And it's possible to do that without killing someone.

Don't try to rationalize with the zealots who blindly defend criminals. Just not worth it.

Says the person who "blindly defended" a man that executed two people and had second-degree murder charges filed against him.

As for your earlier post: "You break into someone's home, you flat out deserve whatever happens to you. Good riddance to those worthless kids."

Does that "whatever happens to you" part include torture? Does it include being skinned alive? Or chopped limb from limb? I'd love to get an answer from you. I'll finish off by saying this: You can't rationalize coldblooded murder.

  • Marshall and Spartan Erik
  • Like 2
Experienced

Ph1b3r0pt1c

Posted
Posted

You Sir are messed up. Breaking in does not give the homeowner an open license to kill you, breaking in the homeowner an open license to use REASONABLE FORCE to defend themselves. Reasonable Force means that they are allowed to SHOOT you, or SHOOT TO KILL you, up to the point where they are no longer in a position of having to defend themselves anymore.

If they are still alive, you don't get a "second shot" to kill them (You are allowed to defend yourself, and executions does not fit under defence), you call an ambulance to attempt to save them (even if you think it will be futile or they will die a slow painful death while waiting) and the criminal justice system takes over

Basically when you are shooting to kill them, the aim is to kill them so that they can't harm you, the aim is not to kill them as a way of giving them your own justice.

Well, if someone decides to break into my house, and I notice they are there, I DO have a license to kill them, contrary to what you believe. He should have just kept his mouth shut. As the sheriff that gave me my CDWL permit class, "The only word the cops should get is yours." I stand 110% behind him, and I am glad they are dead. 2 less degenerates in the world harming other people.

Community Regular

Damien

Posted
Posted

Intruders? Shot. Wounded, down and posing no threat? Call the authorities, don't finish them off. Yes, they are criminals and at the point of time he may have felt like dealing with the situation as he saw fit. But the bottom line is: Defend yourself and your own, but leave the fate of the criminals to the law. I can't condone him murdering anyone, not even those teenage criminals.

  • Yusuf M. and Spartan Erik
  • Like 2
Experienced

Ph1b3r0pt1c

Posted
Posted

No, it isn't. You seriously need help if you think it's okay to murder someone when they're no longer a threat. Reasonable force is the amount of force necessary to protect yourself or your property. This includes killing someone but it doesn't mean you have to do that. If the aggressor is no longer a threat, you're not allowed to kill them. It's ironic that you mention common sense and morality when what you said is completely void of sound judgment and virtuous conduct.

Also, "Location: Ontario, Canada" :/

It's not about killing the intruder. It's about stopping them so you can protect yourself or your property. And it's possible to do that without killing someone.

Says the person who "blindly defended" a man that executed two people and had second-degree murder charges filed against him.

As for your earlier post: "You break into someone's home, you flat out deserve whatever happens to you. Good riddance to those worthless kids."

Does that "whatever happens to you" part include torture? Does it include being skinned alive? Or chopped limb from limb? I'd love to get an answer from you. I'll finish off by saying this: You can't rationalize coldblooded murder.

I will answer it for him, YES IT DOES. YOU decide to pretty much do wtf you feel like doing to someone else, YOU should be able to take whatever punishment is handed to you, be it being tortured or cut limb from limb. Your ****ing rights ended when you decided to try to harm or STEAL something from someone else.

Grand Master

Marshall Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

No, it isn't. You seriously need help if you think it's okay to murder someone when they're no longer a threat. Reasonable force is the amount of force necessary to protect yourself or your property. This includes killing someone but it doesn't mean you have to do that. If the aggressor is no longer a threat, you're not allowed to kill them. It's ironic that you mention common sense and morality when what you said is completely void of sound judgment and virtuous conduct.

Also, "Location: Ontario, Canada" :/

It's not about killing the intruder. It's about stopping them so you can protect yourself or your property. And it's possible to do that without killing someone.

Says the person who "blindly defended" a man that executed two people and had second-degree murder charges filed against him.

As for your earlier post: "You break into someone's home, you flat out deserve whatever happens to you. Good riddance to those worthless kids."

Does that "whatever happens to you" part include torture? Does it include being skinned alive? Or chopped limb from limb? I'd love to get an answer from you. I'll finish off by saying this: You can't rationalize coldblooded murder.

+1

I was going to chime in, but you basically summed up what I was going to say. Nicely put.

Grand Master

Noir Angel

Posted
Posted

So basically what you're saying is because he missed the kill on the first shot he's now the bad guy and the "injured and gasping" criminal is now vindicated.

Where do you stand? Do nothing? Only allowed one shot? Shouldn't use a gun at all?

The idea of self defence is just what it implies... That you defend yourself. Placing a gun under someone's chin and finishing them off when they're already injured and no longer a threat is not self defence, it's an act of callous murder.

Grand Master

Yusuf M. Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

I will answer it for him, YES IT DOES. YOU decide to pretty much do wtf you feel like doing to someone else, YOU should be able to take whatever punishment is handed to you, be it being tortured or cut limb from limb. Your ****ing rights ended when you decided to try to harm or STEAL something from someone else.

No, you don't. Self defence isn't a free pass for murder or torture. Self defence is using reasonable force to defend yourself or your property. If you hacked off someone's limbs while they attacked you and they're disabled (e.g. no longer a threat), then you don't have the right to end their life. I don't know what kind of delusion you're suffering from but in the real world, doing something like that is against the law.

  • Spartan Erik
  • Like 1
Grand Master

Rippleman

Posted
Posted

I will answer it for him, YES IT DOES. YOU decide to pretty much do wtf you feel like doing to someone else, YOU should be able to take whatever punishment is handed to you, be it being tortured or cut limb from limb. Your ****ing rights ended when you decided to try to harm or STEAL something from someone else.

your words are hurting/harming me, i guess i get to kill you now. ty, its all subject to interpretation now right? who's to say you aren't harming me with your words? that's right baby, I DO! :)
Grand Master

DocM

Posted
Posted

The second shots on downed baddies are what cause the controversy. IF they still had weapons in their hand then they're still fair game. If not, then it's an unjustified homicide.

Lesson: take 'em down for the big sleep with the first shot.

Mentor

Spartan Erik

Posted
Posted

I will answer it for him, YES IT DOES. YOU decide to pretty much do wtf you feel like doing to someone else, YOU should be able to take whatever punishment is handed to you, be it being tortured or cut limb from limb. Your ****ing rights ended when you decided to try to harm or STEAL something from someone else.

Sounds like you'd go along great with some of the nuts in the Middle East, Southeastern Asia, remote parts of Africa.. you know, the primitive types who still believe in stoning, decapitation, dismembering..

The second shots on downed baddies are what cause the controversy. IF they still had weapons in their hand then they're still fair game. If not, then it's an unjustified homicide.

Lesson: take 'em down for the big sleep with the first shot.

I think this bit from the article sums it up best:

Hamline University School of Law professor Joseph Olson, who has studied self-defense laws, noted that the number of Smith's shots will make it difficult for him to claim self-defense in court.

"I think the first shot is justified," Olson said. "After the person is no longer a threat because they're seriously wounded, the application of self-defense is over."

Honestly, the lesson depends on the person. If I felt threatened and in fear for my life or my family's lives, you would bet I would attempt to shoot to kill. Assuming I had shot someone, saw the person was unarmed and clearly in no position to threaten me, I'd get the police. Whatever happens, and whether or not this guy faces charges, I wouldn't want to be him. He'll probably have to find a different place of residence

Experienced

Ph1b3r0pt1c

Posted
Posted

Sounds like you'd go along great with some of the nuts in the Middle East, Southeastern Asia, remote parts of Africa.. you know, the primitive types who still believe in stoning, decapitation, dismembering..

I think this bit from the article sums it up best:

Honestly, the lesson depends on the person. If I felt threatened and in fear for my life or my family's lives, you would bet I would attempt to shoot to kill. Assuming I had shot someone, saw the person was unarmed and clearly in no position to threaten me, I'd get the police. Whatever happens, and whether or not this guy faces charges, I wouldn't want to be him. He'll probably have to find a different place of residence

You are entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is.

Grand Master

Japlabot

Posted
Posted

You are entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is.

It's a matter of law, based on the values of a normal sane person. You are the outlier in this equation, most people would not find it justified to execute someone if you had the chance just because they are a low-life criminal who wastes oxygen because they did wrong by you, even if they are that.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Posts

    • Display Driver Uninstaller (DDU) 18.1.5.5

      By Copernic · Posted

      Display Driver Uninstaller (DDU) 18.1.5.5 by Razvan Serea Display Driver Uninstaller (DDU) is a utility for completely removing AMD/NVIDIA/INTEL graphics drivers and related packages from your system, attempting to eliminate all leftovers (including registry entries, folders and files, driver store). Though AMD/NVIDIA/INTEL drivers can usually be removed via the Windows Control Panel, this uninstaller tool was created for situations where standard uninstall fails, or when you need to fully remove NVIDIA or ATI graphics card drivers. After using this driver cleaner, your system will behave as though it’s the first time you’re installing a new driver—similar to a fresh Windows installation. As with all such tools, we recommend creating a restore point beforehand, allowing you to undo changes if issues arise. If you're having trouble installing an older or newer driver, try it—there are reports that it resolves such problems. Recommended usage: The tool can be used in Normal mode but for absolute stability when using DDU, Safemode is always the best. Make a backup or a system restore (but it should normally be pretty safe). It is best to exclude the DDU folder completely from any security software to avoid issues. You do NOT need to uninstall the driver prior using DDU. Requirements: .NET Framework 4.8 Compatible with Windows 7, 8, 8.1, 10, and 11 (32-bit or 64-bit) Note: Using on Insider Preview builds is at your own risk. Display Driver Uninstaller (DDU) 18.1.5.5 changelog: Added 'Reset to recommended' button for the Options. General fixes and improvements. Download: Display Driver Uninstaller (DDU) 18.1.5.5 | 1.7 MB (Freeware) Download: DDU Portable | 1.2 MB Links: Display Driver Uninstaller Home Page | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • WACUP 1.99.51.24568 Preview

      By Copernic · Posted

      WACUP 1.99.51.24568 Preview by Razvan Serea WACUP (WinAmp Community Update Project) is a modern, enhanced version of the classic Winamp music player, designed for better stability, performance, and compatibility. Built for Windows, WACUP retains the familiar Winamp interface while adding 64-bit support, bug fixes, and new features like improved audio format support, customizable skins, and optimized playlist management. Unlike bloated alternatives, WACUP focuses on lightweight performance and regular updates, making it the best choice for fans of the classic Winamp experience. Basically, if you miss the good old days of Winamp and want a modern upgrade that doesn’t mess things up, WACUP is for you! WACUP key features: Classic Winamp Feel – Keeps the familiar interface and functionality. Bug Fixes & Stability – Fixes old Winamp issues and improves performance. 64-Bit Support – Works better on modern systems. More Formats & Plugins – Supports additional audio formats and third-party plugins. Customizable UI – Skins and tweaks for a personalized look. Better Library Management – Improved playlists, media organization, and search. No Bloat – Focuses on performance without unnecessary extras. Regular Updates – Community-driven development with new features and fixes. WACUP 1.99.51.24568 Preview changelog: Fixed a deadlock seen from the recent crash reports when doing some of the drag + drop actions within the media library window Fixed a loading crash seen related to a problem with some of the artwork cache image files being restored which should now be better handled allowing for the bad image to be removed without it failing Fixed a deadlock seen from the recent crash reports when the internal metadata cache clearing is triggered which could block the main ui thread for too long with this now being moved to a background thread Fixed some performance issues with some of the methods related to determining artwork support which mainly affected the local library import / refresh (this is still slower for some compared to other players because there's more data & artwork aspects being checked for which means doing more processing on a single file despite the best of attempts to reduce duplicate / heavy processing where possible) Fixed a crash with the JTFE based missing files hotkey which no one seems to have used for an age for this to appear (maybe it's time to seriously consider stripping out features that aren't being used) Fixed how some of the file types which use extra information to reference their sub-songs is handled which was preventing some from being correctly resolved back to their base file (noticed fixing above) Fixed an issue with the handling of files with underscores in their filepath which wasn't being correctly handled causing some of the filename to be lost when shown as the title if title reading is delayed Fixed a few things that might be behind NotSoDirect not being stable for some setups though am still not certain that the changes done for this are going to fully resolve the problem from the crash reports Fixed the OS toast handling when there's no prior shortcut in the OS start menu to now create the shortcut (needed to allow the yes/no buttons for the new build / post-release toast) to be done as a hidden one so it's less likely to cause annoyance for those not wanting to see it whilst still allowing this less than ideal OS api implementation requirement to be met to avoid toasts without the needed buttons Fixed a regression when moving from taglib1 to taglib2 which broke some of the handling in place to allow for external programs to still access files when wacup has a held open cached instance of the file Everything else Updated cppwinrt (gen_win10shell.dll) to 3.0.260520.1 (26 May 2026) Updated libcurl (libcurl.dll) to 8.2.1 (24 Jun 2026) Updated Monkey's Audio (in_ape.dll) to 13.15 (28 Jun 2026) Updated mpg123 (mpg123.dll) to 1.33.6 (6 Jun 2026) Updated OpenSSL (libcurl.dll) to 3.5.7 (9 Jun 2026) Updated pugixml to 1.16 (16 Jun 2026) Updated taglib (tag2.dll) to 2.3.0 (11 May 2026) Updated vgmstream (in_vgmstream.dll) to the latest Git commit from 28 Jun 2026 Download: WACUP 64-bit | 9.6 MB (Freeware) Download: WACUP 32-bit View: WACUP Website | Screenshots Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Dbrand thought they could get away with this Steam Machine case, Valve disagreed

      By Doli · Posted

      "over a thousand engineering hours" and started selling it but could not take a couple of minuets to send an AI email to ask permission. What an expensive lesson.
    • Can't access the forum on mobile

      By WITHOUT-ME · Posted

      just tested it yesterday, a simple page with autoloading ADS takes 60mb....just 1 page for 60 megabytes.   poor people with a limited internet never will visit neolose
    • Tor Browser 15.0.17

      By Copernic · Posted

      Tor Browser 15.0.17 by Razvan Serea Protect your privacy. Defend yourself against network surveillance and traffic analysis. Tor is a network of virtual tunnels that allows people and groups to improve their privacy and security on the Internet. The Tor software protects you by bouncing your communications around a distributed network of relays run by volunteers all around the world: it prevents somebody from watching your Internet connection and learning what sites you visit, it prevents the sites you visit from learning your physical location, and it lets you access sites which are blocked. The Tor Browser Bundle lets you use Tor on Windows, Mac OS X, or Linux without needing to install any software. It can run off a USB flash drive, comes with a pre-configured web browser to protect your anonymity, and is self-contained. Tor Browser 15.0.17 changelog: All Platforms Updated Tor to 0.4.9.11 Updated NoScript to 13.6.25.1984 Build System / All Platforms Bug tor-browser-build#41821: Update gpg subkeys for boklm Bug tor-browser-build#41827: Update morgan's keychain with renewed key Download: Tor Browser (64-bit) | Tor Browser (32-bit) | 109.0 MB (Open Source) View: Tor Browser Website | Other Operating Systems Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware

  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      Wakeen1966 earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Rookie
      Almohandis went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Apprentice
      jahara21 went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Reacting Well
      NovaEdgeX earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Week One Done
      NovaEdgeX earned a badge
      Week One Done

  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      530
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      266
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      148
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      99
    5. 5
      macoman
      55
    Show More

  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!