Trial Begins For Man Accused Of Murdering 2 Teens

Apr 21, 2014 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: CBS Local

Opening statements are expected to get under way in the case of a central Minnesota man who shot and killed two teens who entered his home.

Comments
1 - 20 of 53 Comments Last updated May 20, 2014
First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Christsharians on the DL

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Apr 21, 2014
 

Judged:

1

As defense attorney I will tie my legs together and go climb Mt. Everest instead, because I have a better shot at success at that than in defending this guy.
honest

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Apr 21, 2014
 

Judged:

3

2

2

It sounds like this guy did society a favor. They should pay him half of what it would have cost to house these pieces of carp for however many years they would have spent in jail... Had these "people"(and I use that term lightly) not been in his house, then they would have been alive and well today.. Its pathetic how our government wants to make the offenders victims whenever possible. Trash got taken out and disposed of in a most efficient way. Kudos!!!

“Hippie Single DAD, vet, Honest”

Level 6

Since: Apr 11

Steamboat Sprgs Colorado

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Apr 22, 2014
 

Judged:

3

2

IF You have already forcibly entered the home or space of another ,especially if it is a private home or active business,the perceived threat IS ALREADY clear ,when the paranoia exists from something happening previously ,then it can be see as similar to stress like you would see with combat soldiers or a host of others that deal with violence,including a rape victim.
Have had these very conversations with LEO & d.a.'s office ,about WHEN the threat starts? in my case ,I already had restraining orders
& received threatening ph. msgs.
While I understand shooting them as they are going over the back fence when running away is less of a threat,how am I to know he wasn't running to a car to get a rifle to shoot back AT LONG DISTANCE.
I AM NOT of the new era of "Gun nuts" but have never doubted for a second,what level I would take it to .
The military or the police won't have a problem putting rounds IN YOU until you are no longer a threat ,then why the question for the rest of us. Rick
Where is the logic

Boise, ID

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Apr 22, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

wichita-rick wrote:
IF You have already forcibly entered the home or space of another ,especially if it is a private home or active business,the perceived threat IS ALREADY clear ,when the paranoia exists from something happening previously ,then it can be see as similar to stress like you would see with combat soldiers or a host of others that deal with violence,including a rape victim.
Have had these very conversations with LEO & d.a.'s office ,about WHEN the threat starts? in my case ,I already had restraining orders
& received threatening ph. msgs.
While I understand shooting them as they are going over the back fence when running away is less of a threat,how am I to know he wasn't running to a car to get a rifle to shoot back AT LONG DISTANCE.
I AM NOT of the new era of "Gun nuts" but have never doubted for a second,what level I would take it to .
The military or the police won't have a problem putting rounds IN YOU until you are no longer a threat ,then why the question for the rest of us. Rick
The "threat" ended when both persons were down and immobile. The "murder" began when he stood over the "immobile" male and shot him in the face. It continued when he knelt beside the "immobile" female, put the barrel under her chin and blew her head off.
In the case of the male, he told the police "I wanted him dead". Doesn't sound like he felt "threatened" at that point. Just sounds like he wanted him "dead".
He then told the investigators that it was a "good clean 'kill' shot" when he shot the female.
In both instances, the person was down and no longer a "threat". At that point, the shooting should have stopped and a call should have been made to the authorities. But that didn't happen. He waited until the next day and had his neighbor call.
Another course of action that he could have taken, would have been to call the authorities as soon as he heard them walking around upstairs. Or maybe during the ten minutes between the shooting of the male and the female. But he didn't. Instead, he waited for them to come to him in order to shoot them.
In any case, his own audio recording system from inside the house should tell the story of what went on in there. But the fact still remains that he "executed" two people that we're no longer a "threat". And as an ex-security professional, for the government no less, he would have known when the "threat" no longer existed.
We'll just have to wait till all the evidence comes out at trial to see what truly transpired inside the house on that day.

“Hippie Single DAD, vet, Honest”

Level 6

Since: Apr 11

Steamboat Sprgs Colorado

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Apr 22, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Where is the logic wrote:
<quoted text>
The "threat" ended when both persons were down and immobile. The "murder" began when he stood over the "immobile" male and shot him in the face. It continued when he knelt beside the "immobile" female, put the barrel under her chin and blew her head off.
In the case of the male, he told the police "I wanted him dead". Doesn't sound like he felt "threatened" at that point. Just sounds like he wanted him "dead".
He then told the investigators that it was a "good clean 'kill' shot" when he shot the female.
In both instances, the person was down and no longer a "threat". At that point, the shooting should have stopped and a call should have been made to the authorities. But that didn't happen. He waited until the next day and had his neighbor call.
Another course of action that he could have taken, would have been to call the authorities as soon as he heard them walking around upstairs. Or maybe during the ten minutes between the shooting of the male and the female. But he didn't. Instead, he waited for them to come to him in order to shoot them.
In any case, his own audio recording system from inside the house should tell the story of what went on in there. But the fact still remains that he "executed" two people that we're no longer a "threat". And as an ex-security professional, for the government no less, he would have known when the "threat" no longer existed.
We'll just have to wait till all the evidence comes out at trial to see what truly transpired inside the house on that day.
Yes I could agree with that. & the waiting does add a lot to this.
Not the norm here r on open WWW ,but I really do try t see from many angle,I would not be alive right now if it were not for change in views.
I agree also the tapes are critical.
I can still see a defense with the idea of paranoia & then shock from previous break ins ,then the true shock of actually shooting someone,which we forget can be a trauma in itself.
Rick

Where is the logic

Boise, ID

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Apr 22, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

wichita-rick wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I could agree with that. & the waiting does add a lot to this.
Not the norm here r on open WWW ,but I really do try t see from many angle,I would not be alive right now if it were not for change in views.
I agree also the tapes are critical.
I can still see a defense with the idea of paranoia & then shock from previous break ins ,then the true shock of actually shooting someone,which we forget can be a trauma in itself.
Rick
I'll agree that shock can be a factor in shooting someone, but I can't see it in this one. We don't know all of the facts yet, but his actions and statements just don't fit with someone in shock.
For instance, after shooting the male, he pulled his dead body further into his basement and then calmly sat in a chair and waited for the female to come downstairs. What is being said is, he waited ten minutes for her. Those don't sound like the actions of someone who wasn't in control of their mental faculties. Sounds a bit methodical really.
I have mulled over many different scenarios about this case, but I've done it quietly to myself. The biggest thing that I hope the trial brings out is, what led up to the point where the breakin occurred. What made them think the house was empty. Things like that. But until this is over, speculation is about all we have.
I think what saddens me the most, after the fact that two people lost their lives, is the way that many seem to be what can only be described as "giddy" that someone was shot and killed. What is it that has brought us to this point where life can be so easily dismissed? For a civilized society, we seem to be becoming more barbaric. That disturbs me greatly.

“I care more about my character”

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

...... then my reputation

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Apr 22, 2014
 

Judged:

2

1

1

All life is precious .....
The fact that some will take a life so easily disturbs me.
Scratch a Homophobe

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Apr 22, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

wichita-rick wrote:
IF You have already forcibly entered the home or space of another ,especially if it is a private home or active business,the perceived threat IS ALREADY clear
You have a certain concept in mind which is based on exactly zero understanding of the law.

“Hippie Single DAD, vet, Honest”

Level 6

Since: Apr 11

Steamboat Sprgs Colorado

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Apr 22, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Scratch a Homophobe wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a certain concept in mind which is based on exactly zero understanding of the law.
http://kansasstatutes.lesterama.org/Chapter_2...
http://kansasstatutes.lesterama.org/Chapter_2...

No I do understand it,although it does to apply directly to this case ,it is still an easy read.
The letter of the law won't pay my or my family's funeral expenses . Rick
Scratch a Homophobe

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Apr 22, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

wichita-rick wrote:
<quoted text>
No I do understand it
You do not get to walk up to people you've shot and who are incapacitated and (now) unarmed even in your home after they broke in and announce you are going to execute them and then execute them.

This goes way beyond self defense.

He won't get first degree murder, of course, but I'd guess something akin to a relatively short manslaughter sentence.

What you meant is that you think the homeowner should be allowed to quite purposefully execute intruders once they're already shot and down.

“New & Improved..”

Level 8

Since: Oct 07

Formerly From Kenya

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Apr 22, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

The trick in ANY home defense scenario is to be the only witness...

“water water water water water ”

Since: Oct 07

the place with Pyramid Head

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Apr 22, 2014
 
BANG BANG BANG
o
Scratch a Homophobe

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Apr 22, 2014
 
justaguess wrote:
The trick in ANY home defense scenario is to be the only witness...
The homeowner was the only witness...and his statements and his audio recordings form the basis of his prosecution.

Assuming the cops haven't misrepresented things or deprived him of his rights as they so often do.
keeping_distance

Bethlehem, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Apr 22, 2014
 

Judged:

2

1

1

They didn't belong in his house, and he had other break-ins before this. He was just looking out for his own welfare, it's his home.

It's like buyer beware, or ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK, u break into someones home UP TO NO GOOD , this is what can happen to u.
Scratch a Homophobe

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Apr 22, 2014
 
PRIME RIB wrote:
BANG BANG BANG
o
So your guess is a sentence of three years for each murder he committed?

“water water water water water ”

Since: Oct 07

the place with Pyramid Head

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Apr 22, 2014
 
Scratch a Homophobe wrote:
<quoted text>
So your guess is a sentence of three years for each murder he committed?
haha gud one
keeping_distance

Bethlehem, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Apr 22, 2014
 
Where is the logic wrote:
<quoted text>
The "threat" ended when both persons were down and immobile. The "murder" began when he stood over the "immobile" male and shot him in the face. It continued when he knelt beside the "immobile" female, put the barrel under her chin and blew her head off.
In the case of the male, he told the police "I wanted him dead". Doesn't sound like he felt "threatened" at that point. Just sounds like he wanted him "dead".
He then told the investigators that it was a "good clean 'kill' shot" when he shot the female.
In both instances, the person was down and no longer a "threat". At that point, the shooting should have stopped and a call should have been made to the authorities. But that didn't happen. He waited until the next day and had his neighbor call.
Another course of action that he could have taken, would have been to call the authorities as soon as he heard them walking around upstairs. Or maybe during the ten minutes between the shooting of the male and the female. But he didn't. Instead, he waited for them to come to him in order to shoot them.
In any case, his own audio recording system from inside the house should tell the story of what went on in there. But the fact still remains that he "executed" two people that we're no longer a "threat". And as an ex-security professional, for the government no less, he would have known when the "threat" no longer existed.
We'll just have to wait till all the evidence comes out at trial to see what truly transpired inside the house on that day.
Where in the story did it say both teens were already down and immobile ? I didn't see that here in this story. Did this information come from another source?
Scratch a Homophobe

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Apr 22, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

keeping_distance wrote:
They didn't belong in his house, and he had other break-ins before this. He was just looking out for his own welfare, it's his home.
It's like buyer beware, or ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK, u break into someones home UP TO NO GOOD , this is what can happen to u.
Another one who confuses what he thinks with what the law is.
Where is the logic

Boise, ID

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Apr 22, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

keeping_distance wrote:
<quoted text>
Where in the story did it say both teens were already down and immobile ? I didn't see that here in this story. Did this information come from another source?
The information comes from the defendants own statement. He admitted to investigators that after shooting the male, he stood over him and shot him in the face. He also admitted that when his weapon jammed, he pulled his pistol, knelt beside the female, put the barrel under her chin and pulled the trigger. I believe the term for that is execution. The reason for shooting the male in the face was because he "wanted him dead". The reason for blowing the females head off was because it was "a good clean kill shot".
Read the article again. It tells more than I can. Also, there was another thread with a different article about this.
But as I have said before, we"ll have to wait for the trial to actually find out what went on. Many facts are coming out that might change opinions in the days to come. We'll just have to wait and see.
Buckshot

Chicago, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Apr 23, 2014
 

Judged:

3

3

3

You enter my house with a weapon.....you're open game
If you're only injured and claim you're gonna get me for this .....
you're dead
If you've beaten me in the past and left me for dead....
you're dead

If he had used a shotgun........there would be no trial
Probably did'nt want to mess up his walls.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

but as for this case.......

I would need to see the criminal history of the two burglars and the victim ...... before I could draw any conclusions.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••