Minnesota: Man Charged in Deaths of Intruders

Status
Not open for further replies.
"there are video confessions where he plainly states exactly the words in Mike's post above.

"It was a good, clean finishing shot."


If the prosecution is smart, and by some unbelievable act of insanity the judge doesn't disallow use of the video in court, the prosecution should play that clip over and over and over.
 
Actually MN's laws aren't all that tough (not sure how that got out there???). We don't exactly have Castle Doctrine though despite what our Gov says (he was wrong when he vetoed the last bill saying we already have it). MN does not say you can shoot someone because they broke into your house. You can shoot them if you feel they are going to harm you or your family but not if they are stealing your TV. However, once they have broken into your house, it's a pretty easy case to make that you now feel threatened and are justified in using deadly force to protect yourself (they already breached your first defense by entering your home). This guy was pretty much in the green when he shot them coming down the stairs. He crossed the line when he executed them after they were down. He should have been calling the cops. Of course that's where it now can get messy with civil lawsuits unfortunately (which is what the bill that Dayton vetoed would have helped).

- phil
 
Frank Ettin said:

Presumptions are rebuttable.
Click to expand...

If you feel like reading, this is contained in Section 2.05(b) of the Texas Penal Code.

To me it looks like if the State can't disprove the facts that give rise the presumption, the jury must find the presumed fact exists. So it isn't the presumed fact (reasonable fear) you fight over. It's the facts that give rise to the presumption (a break in or other Castle Doctrine trigger). I'm not sure if this is what you mean by a rebuttable presumption or not.

But using the basic facts of MN case, we can assume for the sake of argument that they really broke in and the State cannot disprove that. Nonetheless, in TX, the judge can look at all the evidence and decide not to give the Castle Doctrine question to the jury.

So at least in Texas, the Castle Doctrine is not a license to kill.
 
If the prosecution is smart, and by some unbelievable act of insanity the judge doesn't disallow use of the video in court, the prosecution should play that clip over and over and over.
Click to expand...
Heaven knows the media certainly will. We have a murder with/by an assault rifle claiming castle doctrine! as a defense.

It should be mentioned that the Brady Campaign is still somewhat effective in Minnesota, and this could be a beachhead for them to regain some relevance.
 
This is so far from self defense I cannot understand how anyone would defend this guy.
Click to expand...

I agree. I kind of understand his reaction, especially since these two kids broke into his house, but he really crossed the point of no return. he exercised incredibly poor judgement imo and should go to prison for life
 
If you hear someone moving around in your house shouldn't your first reaction be to call the police - or even yell "get out I have a gun" at them - rather than setting up an ambush?

Personally I think this guy crossed the line well before his "finishing shot"
 
I know the man was in his early 60's, but thats not that old nowadays. My point is, I think I could run off two unarmed teenagers with a Mini 14, without shooting them. Using deadly force should always be the last resort. Just because something is within the bounds of legality, doesn't always make the right, prudent, ethical or moral thing to do.

Some people seem to take delight in the fact he shot them, maybe not here on TFL, but in comments I've seen elsewhere on the net. I 100% guarantee it isn't winning our side any friends, or bringing undecideds to our cause.
 
Stupid teenage tweekers meet Crazy Old Man. Everybody loses.

Shooting the boy was probably legally justified. Then it went downhill; he probably crossed the line long before he murdered the girl. I have no idea if he murdered the wounded boy too or not, I haven't followed it that close.

If you hear someone moving around in your house shouldn't your first reaction be to call the police - or even yell "get out I have a gun" at them - rather than setting up an ambush?
Click to expand...

Not really. For one thing, the police don't respond to non-emergencies around here, and I don't know if they'd consider a home break-in an emergency or not. Then how long will it take for them to get there? For another thing, there's one of him and two of them, and he may have been afraid of giving away his position, and/or he couldn't safely get to a phone.

Your first reaction is to survive, and we don't have anywhere near enough facts to judge how it started. It's pretty obvious how it ended, and that enough time passed he can't believably claim a "heat of the moment" thing where he didn't realize the threat was over.
 
Wow, what an idiot. How does one even think for a moment that you could pull a stunt like that and not be prosecuted? A coup de grace and waiting to call the cops "so you didn't disturb their holiday"? Bragging on his "good clean finishing shot"? Is this guy even in his right mind? You can't make this stuff up.
 
I read a thread on this on The High Road, as well as a linked story on this. A poster there who goes by westhope posted the following Minnesota statute:

westhope said:
609.065
JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.

The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.
Click to expand...
While there may be some argument that the initial shooting was defensible, I think it's going to be a pretty weak one. I don't think there's any way that the "good clean finishing shot" clears the hurdles set forth above.

I will also say that the story told to investigators, as I understand it, leaves too many questions unanswered for the shooter to have much credibility with any jury. I'm not all up to speed on MN law (so someone correct me if I'm wrong), but my gut says this guy is going to have to take the stand if he wants to claim SD or defense of home. I can almost hear the prosecutor: "You expect the jury to believe that an 18-year-old girl came down a flight of stairs to investigate MULTIPLE GUNSHOTS, after she and her cousin had broken into the house?"*

*What I am unable to tell from the story that I've read is how much time passed between the initial shots and the man shooting the girl. Obviously, without that information, I can't really judge whether she was necessarily in a position to hear the first shots.

On the political side, I agree with several posters that if: (1) the facts in the story are correct; and (2) this guy successfully pulls off a defense of the home argument, then Castle Doctrine laws are in trouble.

My $0.02: I fully support Castle Doctrine and Stant Your Ground laws, but this goes way beyond that. Even if his story is true (& I have my doubts), he still went way beyond defending himself or his abode. The finishing shots were murder, plain and simple. I also suspect that there's a great deal more to the story than has surfaced. His story about not calling the police "because he didn't want to disturb their holiday" is hogwash. This sounds more like someone who spent a day or so trying to figure out what to do with the bodies. When he couldn't come up with a decent plan, he figured he'd just claim that they'd broken into the house.
 
Using deadly force should always be the last resort. Just because something is within the bounds of legality, doesn't always make the right, prudent, ethical or moral thing to do.
Click to expand...

+1

I had a similar discussion with my brother 2 weeks ago when he told me he was going to purchase a shotgun for HD purposes. I told him to check the state laws regarding self-defense, but more importantly, just because someone breaks into your house does not automatically mean you have the right to kill that person. I told him that you have to use your best judgement. Killing someone is one thing but having to live with that split second decision, right or wrong, for the rest of your life is another.
 
If we lose gun rights - it will because of incidents like these and not conspiratorial plots.

Two thing can drive legislation:

1. An emotional response overwhelming the positive use of firearms.
2. An availability cascade (meaning that all folks will remember are the negatives - esp. since the positives are not played up that much).

Given similar incidents like Martin, the new one in Florida with the kids and loud music vs the not found shotgun, guys pulling guns over punches in line on Black Friday and the like - the public will have in their mind the memories of irresponsible gun owners. Even though responsible far outweighs that. Folks remember the emotional vivid incident and overestimate its probability.

While the legal mandate for gun education is something we debate, I still think that if you are serious about SD you need to be educated on more than punching holes at the square range. Sure, some can't afford it, etc. But it's a good idea.
 
Let me run this past you guys.

Given that prescriptions and drugs from other burglarized homes were found in the teens car; that's what they were obviously after. And they both went straight to his basement...

The home owner and his relatives claim his house had been broken into multiple times before (8-10), but he only reported one. The only one he did report had stolen prescriptions and a firearm. I'm guessing the only reason he reported the one is because a firearm registered to him was stolen.

Based on that, and the fact that he waited an entire day to call police, leads me to suspect he probably had a quantity of illegal plants in his basement he needed to clear before getting authorities involved.

I can't see any other reason for executions, or waiting to phone the police. Maybe I watch too much TV, but I think were missing a chunk of the story.
 
Lordy123 said:
Let me run this past you guys.

Given that prescriptions and drugs from other burglarized homes were found in the teens car; that's what they were obviously after. And they both went straight to his basement...

The home owner and his relatives claim his house had been broken into multiple times before (8-10), but he only reported one. The only one he did report had stolen prescriptions and a firearm. I'm guessing the only reason he reported the one is because a firearm registered to him was stolen.

Based on that, and the fact that he waited an entire day to call police, leads me to suspect he probably had a quantity of illegal plants in his basement he needed to clear before getting authorities involved.
Click to expand...
That certainly would 'splain lots.
 
In my view, what started as legitimate self defense ended with a pair of executions, very similar to the Ersland case.

Murder is what I would call it.
 
No one so far has raised an issue of diminished capacity. The man's actions and deeds would seem to be irrational. There does not seem to be any mention of having him examined by a psychiatrist to determine if he is responsible for his actions.
Sounds to me that there is at least a possibility, that he has "done gone round the bend"...something that a stroke, mild dementia, could do to any of us. If that be the case, the burglars were just unlucky to have chosen his house to burglarize.
 
Last edited:
ok, reason for post: there are supporters and also attorneys in MN claiming(many not representing this man) that he has a huge chance to be cleared of all charges. This is amazing to me; I thought MN had some tough gun laws. Maybe it is just the particular castle doctrine law in that state you mentioned? Either way this guy would have faced a much slimmer chance of being arrested(forensics still could have hurt him and the results will when they come back) if he didn't say anything. It makes you wonder if he was drunk...one article claimed the young woman was laughing at him(this was his story to police) after his gun jammed. Well, this is after he fired a shot at her and her accomplice(the male) had been shot three times and deceased?!?! I am usually more defense attorney prone when it comes to legal arguments(I am not a lawyer, I just gravitate in that direction), but this case especially is upsetting and I give credit to the prosectuor for fighting this one even if it is a losing battle. The funny thing is: he stepped in it bigtime, but they only have a confession at this point. There are many things that can pop-up during the investigation that can indeed help clear this individual. This doesn't seem like a slamdunk case like it might after reading the article. I'll tell you what though; this guy better make sure he has a Good, Well-Paid attorney + I am surprised he has so much support. That might fade in the public eye. He over-stepped his bounds bigtime(in his words).
Click to expand...

He's been charged with 2 counts of 2nd degree murder (it could easily have been one 2nd and one 1st) The murder charge for the girl is a slam dunk. The jury *may* show some leniency in the sentencing. But I doubt it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top