An Important Lesson...

[minnesotatv]

Homeowner charged in fatal Akron home invasion shooting

AKRON, Ohio - The homeowner who fatally shot a home invasion suspect in Akron earlier this month
is now facing a voluntary manslaughter charge.

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/local-news ... n-shooting

[yukonjasper]

Who was his instructor.............?

[shooter115]

Yep. It is still illegal to chase someone down and shoot them.....that said, I don't have a single ounce of pity for the thug that got shot. Going to be an interesting case that will come down to a jury. People of this country have gotten so fed up with the murders, home invasions, burglaries and muggings, that a little vigilantism might not be as frowned upon as it was a few years ago.

[yukonjasper]

The kid will get convicted. There is no honest, plausible defense for what he did.

I agree that there was an initial crime committed and that is reprehensible, but when the law clearly states that you cannot pursue off your property AND you need to be in fear for your life and safety, popping a guy in the back of the head two doors down probably isn't going to tolerated. We'll see what the evidence tells us, but based on the description so far, this kid is EFFFED.

I also have no sympathy for home invasion thug, but the Rules are what the Rules are.

[Heffay]

The kid will get convicted. There is no honest, plausible defense for what he did.

I agree that there was an initial crime committed and that is reprehensible, but when the law clearly states that you cannot pursue off your property AND you need to be in fear for your life and safety, popping a guy in the back of the head two doors down probably isn't going to tolerated. We'll see what the evidence tells us, but based on the description so far, this kid is EFFFED.

I also have no sympathy for home invasion thug, but the Rules are what the Rules are.

Well, that's why we should promote jury nullification.

[jdege]

Yep. It is still illegal to chase someone down and shoot them.....that said, I don't have a single ounce of pity for the thug that got shot. Going to be an interesting case that will come down to a jury. People of this country have gotten so fed up with the murders, home invasions, burglaries and muggings, that a little vigilantism might not be as frowned upon as it was a few years ago.

It's not illegal to chase someone, for a purpose other than an intent to injury or kill.

If, for example, you follow a perpetrator with the intent of discovering his license plare, so you can identify him for police, you are doing nothing illegal, and if he then turns and attacks you you are fully justified in using force to defend yourself.

Lots of luck, though, in convincing a prosecutor that that's what happened....

[shooter115]

The kid will get convicted. There is no honest, plausible defense for what he did.

I agree that there was an initial crime committed and that is reprehensible, but when the law clearly states that you cannot pursue off your property AND you need to be in fear for your life and safety, popping a guy in the back of the head two doors down probably isn't going to tolerated. We'll see what the evidence tells us, but based on the description so far, this kid is EFFFED.

I also have no sympathy for home invasion thug, but the Rules are what the Rules are.

Well, that's why we should promote jury nullification.

I know the pony is most likely trolling here, but I actually agree with his statement. It will all boil down to details and the jury. The man that is no longer with us was most likely a burden on society, how far should our laws go to protect/avenge him, when he has no respect for the law to begin with? That's if, this was truly a home invasion?

I liken it to the John Grisham novel "A time to Kill" (yes, it was a movie too). Who did you want to win.....the man that clearly committed premeditated murder or the law? If you tell me you were rooting for Rufus Buckley, I'd have to call you a liar.

But I digress.......For all we know this was a drug deal gone wrong and he was shot so the kid could take back his 8 ball of coke. I'll sit over here and wait for the details before I cast my ballot.

[shooter115]

Yep. It is still illegal to chase someone down and shoot them.....that said, I don't have a single ounce of pity for the thug that got shot. Going to be an interesting case that will come down to a jury. People of this country have gotten so fed up with the murders, home invasions, burglaries and muggings, that a little vigilantism might not be as frowned upon as it was a few years ago.

It's not illegal to chase someone, for a purpose other than an intent to injury or kill.

If, for example, you follow a perpetrator with the intent of discovering his license plare, so you can identify him for police, you are doing nothing illegal, and if he then turns and attacks you you are fully justified in using force to defend yourself.

Lots of luck, though, in convincing a prosecutor that that's what happened....

You're right.......I should have worded that differently.

[yukonjasper]

I know the pony is most likely trolling here, but I actually agree with his statement. It will all boil down to details and the jury. The man that is no longer with us was most likely a burden on society, how far should our laws go to protect/avenge him, when he has no respect for the law to begin with? That's if, this was truly a home invasion?

I liken it to the John Grisham novel "A time to Kill" (yes, it was a movie too). Who did you want to win.....the man that clearly committed premeditated murder or the law? If you tell me you were rooting for Rufus Buckley, I'd have to call you a liar.

But I digress.......For all we know this was a drug deal gone wrong and he was shot so the kid could take back his 8 ball of coke. I'll sit over here and wait for the details before I cast my ballot.

You may be right that there could be more to the story and I think that is one of the main reasons the law is written the way it is. It tries to provide some clarity so you can't go around assassinating people and then claiming you were scared. More details to come I'm sure and the details are the reason we have a court system. At face value, it doesn't look good for the Kid.

[Randygmn]

There are a few conflicting stories circulating. One has these thugs attempting to break into the neighbors house, too. Another says that the thugs were hanging out at this kids house earlier in the morning and that they came back at around 1pm. That it may in fact be a drug deal gone bad. Who knows. For me personally, I'm not shooting anyone in the back. The only caveat is if you're not fleeing after harming my wife or child.

[Chunkychuck]

I'm assuming they have other witnesses or evidence, other than he said vs. he said, that conclusively places the other perpetrator there that they could charge him, not only for the home invasion, but with the murder charge as well.

[Hmac]

Other details may supervene as they come out, but on the face of it, the question is "is it justified to kill someone if your life isn't in danger"?

[Ghost]

Other details may supervene as they come out, but on the face of it, the question is "is it justified to kill someone if your life isn't in danger"?

#CRIMINALLIVESMATTER

[Hmac]

Other details may supervene as they come out, but on the face of it, the question is "is it justified to kill someone if your life isn't in danger"?

#CRIMINALLIVESMATTER

I detect sarcasm. We should be able to kill all criminals?

[Ghost]

Other details may supervene as they come out, but on the face of it, the question is "is it justified to kill someone if your life isn't in danger"?

#CRIMINALLIVESMATTER

I detect sarcasm. We should be able to kill all criminals?

No sarcasm. Just a play on the black lives matter which I wouldn't assume that disagreement with their message means people are for killing black people either.