who is talking about committing murder? you just keep on bending over and taking it up the butt from criminals
Only to bleeding heart types who are already in favor of gun control.Hate to break it to y'all, but this is the kind of incident that lends support to gun control advocates -- not the other way around.
. Why the grand jury didn't indict is beyond me
They set out to protect their business. Why? Because they were being robbed by (armed) meth addicts and scumbags and the police didnt help. I personally wouldnt have shot them. Then again...I personally am not in their position.
maybe because they weren't liberal, crybaby, handwringing, bedwetters and the actual evidence and facts showed that it wasn't murder.
but, of course, people like you always know more about these things than the people who were actually involved.
They didnt call the police "that night". Why not? Could it be that their past experiences with police response was less than stellar? They didnt go on the prowl cruising the streets looking for a poor innocent widdle victim. They protected their property with extreme prejudice. Ive already said that I wouldnt have gone to that extreme. I can however understand them doing so.They never called the police (that night). They could have. They chose to shoot and kill someone instead. So saying that the police didn't help is a tad disingenuous. Especially given this (from the article):
"Milanovic and his father told police a week before the shooting they would shoot any intruders who returned. Police say the men concealed the rifle in the trunk of a car so well that a police detective initially missed it during a search."
They weren't interested in help from the police, they were interested in revenge. This is not just behavior, it's not legal, and it's not remotely civilized. Now, to be clear, I don't rate a junkie as a huge loss to the world, but I think murders should go to jail. Don't you?
They didnt call the police "that night". Why not? Could it be that their past experiences with police response was less than stellar? They didnt go on the prowl cruising the streets looking for a poor innocent widdle victim. They protected their property with extreme prejudice. Ive already said that I wouldnt have gone to that extreme. I can however understand them doing so.
As I've explained twice now, I find the behavior of the grand jury baffling based on the facts we have available. You probably would too if you actually looked at what the law says and what actually happened.
and I'm sure all the facts were presented in an "article". gullible much? keep on believing whatever you want to believe. let your heart guide you to the path of enlightenment.My opinion stems entirely from the information in the article. Read the article and look at the standards for self defense. You are, presumably, aware that if you intentionally kill someone without a valid defense (such as self-defense) you have committed murder. So look at the article, look at the standards for self defense, then compare those standards to the actions that we know these guys committed. Try it. Seriously.
It is not murder to use lethal force to defend yourself and property against burglars especially armed burglars.If what the property owner did was murder then he would be in prison right now.
And I explained that he did not commit murder.If he committed murder then he would be in prison right now not dealing with some fraudulent lawsuit from the scumbag's family. The fact he was not convicted of it murder proves he did not commit murder despite the evidence you claimed he did.
They were indeed protecting their property...they just didnt do it the way YOU approve of. They didnt do it in a way 'I' would have done it either. They tried the police. That didnt work.I can understand it as well, but it's still murder, and I have no sympathy for them. And to be clear, they weren't protecting their property. If they wanted to do that, their are a million things they could have done that don't involve killing someone. For example, get a couple of guard dogs. Put up barbed wire on the fence around your lot. Install an alarm system. The section I quoted makes it pretty clear that they were substantially less interested in protecting their property than they were in seeking revenge against whoever had taken their property, or, apparently, against whoever came along next. This is not remotely defensible in the modern era, and it's certainly not something the law either does or should support.
Actually it is in many cases. You do not have the right to use lethal force to counter a non-lethal situation. There is more lee-way when it is a residence. This was a business. This is really a case of a couple of thugs seeking to extract revenge on the next person that burglarized their business. The dead man and his friend were certainly not fine upstanding citizens, however, that doesn't change the actions of the two thugs in question here.
He wasn't even tried for murder, which is the troubling part. I've said this to a couple of different people now (possibly including you), but let's try it again:
Look at the standards for self-defense as laid out in the article. Then compare those standards to the actions of the shooter and his accomplices. Ask yourself, in all honesty, did their actions meet with the standards for self-defense? If the answer is no, then yes, they are murderers, whether a grand jury chose to indict them or not.
Invade my property, invite a bullet. It's that simple, ladies and gentlemen. In the case of this gentleman, I'd flat out refuse to pay the award. It's that simple. They were trespassing. That's a capital crime in my mind. Especially since they had to come over a fence to get onto the property. The fact that they were trying to steal anything is essentially irrelevant to the case so far as I'm concerned.
and I'm sure all the facts were presented in an "article". gullible much?
keep on believing whatever you want to believe. let your heart guide you to the path of enlightenment.
Only to bleeding heart types who are already in favor of gun control.
yeah, how dare these thugs protect their property from fine upstanding individuals like this innocent victim
I'm simply pointing out that based on the information in the article (i.e. the only information we have), it is my biased opinion that these guys are murderers. It's not that complicated.
Im betting you arent going to find very many people that would change their mind on anything with the facts in this case. Plenty of folk that already have their mind made up. I doubt people will hear meth addict, armed with three knives, repeat offenses, multiple robberies with intent to score more drugs, business owners, no results from police, protecting their family business that they managed build despite all the excuse and hardships citizens want to cry about, and decide..."say...THIS is why there should be more gun control."Only to rational people who believe that vigilante justice has no place in a civilized society.
unless you are convicted you are not a murderer.