Posted on 11/27/2012 7:59:37 AM PST by Uncle Chip
Yeah, they all say that about the deceased criminals. "He/She/They were getting was/were getting his/her/their life/lives together" is another one.
Of course, the cutest available images are used in the press.
Make up your mind. “Torturing” her would have been to allow her to choke to death on her own blood.
Or are you just making crap up now...
However, he did not need to kill her at all, as it turned out.
According to his own statement, his initial center mass shot wounded and incapacitated her.
Not satisfied with eliminating the threat, he then chose to shoot her some more with a different weapon, and then he chose to execute her in cold blood some time after that.
If he had done the right thing, she might be in a prison hospital right now.
But because he chose evil, we will never know.
This is certain: her last moments on earth were a living hell. She was a human being. Someone's daughter.
No. If SHE had done the right thing, she'd never have broken into his house with a lead pipe in the first place.
She is the instigator, anything that happened to her after that is her own damn fault.
That would describe the BTK Killer as well, except that in his case he was just months from retirement.
Nor would it be an inaccurate description of Ted Kaczynski.
These attributes are not really probative of anything.
“...anything that happened to her after that is her own damn fault.”
Perhaps one can view it that way. Does it mean the old guy could have done “anything” and be innocent?
Surely thou jest.
And you still miss the point...
Know what the difference between Ted/BTK and this guy is?
THIS GUY DIDN’T HUNT DOWN HIS VICTIMS.
He WAS the victim.
In other words, the immoral actions of one person justify the immoral actions of another person.
Two wrongs make a right.
I disagree with this analysis.
He chose to do evil in response to her evil act when he could have done good.
He could have defended his home and then called an ambulance.
He instead chose to commit murder.
Since you can't even grasp the concept of who initiated these events, please forgive us if your concept of what is "moral" is equally suspect.
Correct.
The murder he committed was one of opportunity, not of careful planning.
He WAS the victim.p>Of the break-in, certainly.
But he was the perpetrator of the murder.
Byron Smith never called 911 but let the bodies lay in his home for just more than 24 hours while the teens' families tried to find them. Bruce Smith said his brother was distraught and didn't know what to do.
"Put yourself in his shoes after you shoot two people in your basement. How are you going to react?".
Really, Bruce. He called you and he called a neighbor and he ate Thanksgiving dinner while two people lay dead in his basement. And he didn't think to call the police??? and when you talked to him what did you tell him???
Bruce Smith said he believes his brother fired in self defense.
Really, Bruce, which of those 20 some shots were self-defense???? the two on the steps perhaps but the dozen or more while they lay there helpless. What exactly were they????
The moral of this story is: Never ever try to rob Freddy Kruger.
If by “murder” you mean he killed a couple of thieves that were breaking into his house, that is not in question.
If by “murder” you mean “psychopathic rage monster who eats kittens on the weekends” than you are no better than the liberals at the Strib.
Yep. And the Mississippi runs right past the house.
But he wanted to take credit for his work.
After the statement he gave, he's definitely toast! Insanity is an outside chance, but that's about it.
Yes, but they are demonstrably not rational individuals.
Since you can't even grasp the concept of who initiated these events, please forgive us if your concept of what is "moral" is equally suspect.
The question of who initiated the incident isn't a matter of dispute. The burglars/intruders obviously initiated the incident.
The issue is: how does a moral person respond to the provocation?
Depends. We only got part of the charges against him and snippets of what he might have told police.
Only three people know what happened for sure and only one of those is still capable of talking.
They shoot them and kill them. If you don't, then you are allowing them to victimize other people later.
Even under MN law, until the Dem legislature/Governor change it to match UK's idiotic laws, you have no duty to retreat from within your home.
If they run, you can't chase 'em. If they are outside, you can't shoot at 'em. Once they break in, you are within your Rights to kill them.
Advisable too as MN has a long history of people defending themselves and being sued into the poor house via civil suites from the criminal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.