I think the reason is that, under the law, whether someone has been a scumbag on other occasions doesn't justify killing them today. Suppose Smith walked up to the two on the street, said "you two broke into my garage once, broke into another garage too, and I think you once had stolen Rx in your car", leveled his shotgun and executed them. No defense there.

In most cases the shooter cannot have possibly known the criminal history of someone he ends up shooting in self-defense, as long as it's a stranger. So I can see why that might need to be excluded at trial. They need to examine the shooter's state of mind at the time, not how he felt even more justified when he later found out he had rid the Earth of a career criminal. In the MN case, the shooter had been a victim of those two burglars in the past, so he was well aware who he was shooting.

Not sure how I feel on this one. Home invaders should be killed, no question. And tempting someone to break into your house should be discouraged and it should also constitute some level of culpability on the shooter's part. But life in prison for shooting two home invaders sounds a little harsh. He should, however, face a sentence enhancement, for being so stupid as to record it all, then talk like a tough guy while shooting and then waiting a day to call the cops. Someday we need to criminalize being stupid.

In this case, continuing to shoot after the invader has been incapacitated was stupid and recording it was worse yet but, I can see his logic recording it had the intruders been armed and his plan went south in a hurry. I feel bad the home invaders were that stupid as well.

Who goes looking for their partner after hearing gunshots?

Both cases are a poor example of standing your ground since they were actively engaged in luring the intruders.

Stand your ground is different from castle doctrine. SYG means you have no duty to retreat when in a place you have a legal right to be. Most states also qualify this by requiring that you had nothing to do with creating the situations.

Example - You mouth off to a tough guy in a bar and you have a legal right to be there. But if he starts kicking your ass in the parking lot and doesn't stop, your killing him isn't gonna be justified, since you created the situation.

CD says you can use deadly force in your home when in reasonable fear of your life or limb. Given this law, it would be reasonable to assume an intruder intends to do you harm, armed or not, because his entering your occupied house is a suicide mission. I'd say a home invasion is a lot more serious than getting into a confrontation outside your house and there's probably less burden placed on homeowner to demonstrate he didn't contribute to the cause of the situation.

I'd read this thread, but didn't read the two linked articles.

I like the quote in the bottom of the first article that says something like 'they didn't deserve to die for teenage transgressions'. While it might be true, that sounds like using "boys will be boys" in a rape trial. I was a teenager once. I never broke into someone's home and burgled from them. They definitely deserved some sort of punishment, and death does seem a bit harsh, but if you break into someone's home, that's always a possibility.

On the other hand, the guy that did it was definitely off of the deep end. Honestly, it sounds like he deserves plenty of punishment too. He seemed to enjoy what he did. The fact the he killed the first kid, then put him on a tarp and dragged him out of site and sat down to wait for another kid, is not much of a defense. Then the second kid came in and the guy shot her several times, told her that she was dying, and then shot her again, while saying something like 'a good clean killing shot'. Then he waited a day to ask a neighbor to call the police.

Yeah, the guy sounds like he's way off his rocker and probably shouldn't be out and about either.

The home owner too brazenly 'baited' his garage.
Left the garage door partially open and a purse and other goods in plain site....stupid perp comes in and he kills him.
What you are to take from this is don't have a stupid plan.

My view: if I'm surprised in my home by an intruder, and I reasonably fear for my life, then I have the right to defend myself and my family with my weapons, some of which are in a pushbutton safe by my bedside. But if I've deliberately left a door open and am waiting in the dark with a shotgun, planning to kill the kid who I expect will take the bait, that is ambush and murder. Possessions are not worth more than human lives. You know damn well these guys weren't fearing for their lives. They wanted to kill someone and thought they'd get away with it.

I have no problem with the verdicts. If someone is in my house, or attempting to get in, I will tell them in no uncertain terms that I'm going to shoot them if they don't leave. If at all possible, I would call the police and tell them what's going on, and tell them I'm frightened, and yell to the person that the police are coming. Honestly, I would guess that 99% of intruders would leave if you did that. The 1% that don't leave? Eat lead mother F'er.

In the two cases, the homeowners never gave the perps an option to leave. That is a big factor in both judements.

Stuff and the loss of it never justifies excessive force.

-Z

The Minnesota case has nothing to do with the Castle Laws. The guy was a lunatic plain and simple.

I agree.
No neeed to kill someone if you can avoid it. Maiming them for life so's they can hardly walk will do nicely.

Playing devil's advocate here, how culpable is our legal system in the deaths of these teenagers? It sounds like both sets were in the "catch and release" program, wherein everyone (including the authorities) knew what they were up to. I sense a good deal of frustration on the homeowners' parts, putting up with multiple break ins and thefts from the same kids. Kids that were allowed to walk each and every time. That would get pretty damn old.

And "baiting"? Really? One cannot "bait" an honest man into breaking into your home. One can make it appear a good opportunity for a thief, but the honest man would not see any "opportunity" whatsoever. The desire to steal must first be present before one would even consider such an "opportunity". How many police "entrapment" cases get dismissed? I suspect not all that many, or the oft reported drug and prostitution "stings" would be a monumental waste of time.

In the end, these kids chose, completely on their own volition, to enter homes in which they perceived an easy opportunity to steal. Many of you point out that the homeowners had the opportunity to, and should have warned them before opening fire. Maybe hold them at gunpoint for the police. O.k., great - now what? More catch and release? They won't be held any longer just because the homeowner caught them (as opposed to the police). And now they are likely rather upset with the homeowner, and they know where he lives...

It has to end somewhere. What recourse is there when the "system" consistently fails to protect the homeowner? The kids had not gotten violent yet, preferring to sneak around unnoticed, but many of these young thieves get bolder and bolder and the stakes get higher and higher. Should the homeowners be forced to wait for a violent encounter engendered by these kids, are they obligated to wait until a loved one gets hurt? That's a tough question. I would hate to see one of their wives, or children, laying there dead with the hand-wringing ninnies lamenting "but he was such a good kid"...

We had a punk like this in our neighborhood many years ago. He was breaking into cars at first, then garages, then homes. He was caught multiple times but never did any "time". He finally burned a house down, just for kicks. The family moved away over ten years ago, but guaranteed this miscreant is out there, wherever he is, continuing to cost good people their possessions, time, and money. One of us should have shot him.

So in other words, some of you reject the US Constitution and instead prefer "old west" justice. Because: 1) stuff is more important than people and/or 2) someone stealing my stuff today might rape or kill someone down the road.

My stuff is more important that a thug's life. I may not be allowed to shoot bad guy stealing my car out of my driveway. But if he breaks into my occupied house, I can only assume he has no fear of deadly force, can't be deterred or reasoned with and will need to be stopped.

Not sure what killing bad guys has to do with the Const. The gov't. has some hurdles to do it legally, but private citizens have far less of a burden.

That's the absolute worst thing you can do. Letting a bad guy stay alive so the cops can hear his side of the story and his lawyers can sue you is a very bad option. No matter how justified, you will face financial ruin for letting a bad guy tell his side of the story to the cops.

If you set bait to lure somebody into your kill zone so you can get the satisfaction of killing them, you are a murderer.

AAMOF the Kaarma guy in the first case actually did NOT confront the perp from his home side of the garage, the door that usually goes to the living quarters in an attached garage. He rather went outside first and then confronted him from the open garage door, leaving the kid no escape route.

Kaarma also was bragging at his barber that he's going to kill one of the kids, just watch ... it will be in the news ...

I didn't read the second case, that one sounds even more clear cut.

Frankly, I am disappointed in some of the posters here that find it justifiable to kill a fellow human over stuff. I can see a lot of other reasons, i.e. someone that's done harm to you or your family, but a kid coming for the beer in your fridge or the weed in your garage?

G

Unless you're a cop of course.

^^^This X 1000%

and this too.

Um, reread it ; the US Constitution was designed to protect me, the individual, from encroachments of the state. It was not designed to protect a scum bag from the consequences of his actions by another individual. You have no protected liberty rights on my property, particularly if you are uninvited and do me or mine harm, or steal my stuff. Horse theives were routinely shot with impunity under "old west" justice. Consequences? Fewer horse theives.
And yes, my stuff is more important thant the thief who wants to steal it. You of course miss the point entirely - it isn't about the "stuff" - it's what the stuff represents. Hard work/honest labor, receiving value for creating something positive of value. People who want to simply take it from you are the lowest form of vile scum, and represent the greatest threat to a civilized society.
I would have let the homeowner off had I been on the jury.

I used to think all human life was inherently valuable. Then I grew up. It's not. All human life has value at birth because of its potential. When ones choices shift the situation such that there is no more (or very little) potential, there is no value or little value.

I have very little problem with what those guys did. I have lots of problems with what our legal system did (and continues to do).

Nobody will miss a dead thief or home invader or come looking for them. I tend to agree with Sammy here.