NV man claims 'stand your ground'--shoots sleeping couple in his vacant property!

What a novel idea.

I wonder why the people who wrote the constitution didn't think of DUE PROCESS

 

Yes, I am. And you are assuming otherwise.

If I sat on his jury, then I'd consider him innocent until proven guilty and I'd carefully consider the evidence presented in the case to determine whether or not he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

But I'm not sitting on his jury. I'm merely yakking on a public forum, just as you are.

 

I'll say the same thing I did with the Martin case. The forensic evidence will prove or dis-prove the owners claim of the out stretched arm. In the Martin case, I said if the evidence shows Martin was on top of Zimmerman when he was shot he'd be acquitted. The same is true here. If the forensic evidence shows NO out stretched arm, he'll be convicted and should be. But, if the forensic evidence shows the trespasser with an out stretched as claimed by the property owner, he'll be acquitted and should be.

 

Did I say he shouldn't have a trial? I admit I could be wrong. I'm just basing my opinion (we're allowed to give those on political forums, right?) on the facts that both parties to the shooting have agreed upon. Is there some specific defect with my logic or my interpretation of those facts, or are you just upset that I've offered my opinion one way or the other?

 

Zimmerman didn't leave a witness.

 

actually, I've made no assumption

will justice be served? Yes it will regardless of the outcome.

Will the truth see the light of day? I would say highly unlikely

We'll have one side where the guy wants to save his butt and the other side with testimony from a witness who was shot, but was trespassing and high on drugs and was with a guy she just met.

Nobody denies there is one death and another injured. The shooter does not deny shooting. What is left to determine is whether or not it's murder, manslaughter or stand-your-ground. I'd say it's safe to toss out murder thus leaving manslaughter or acquittal.

 

The most he'll get is manslaughter. No judge or jury is going to take the word of someone on drugs, so it'll come down to how nuts this guy comes off. If he has no priors and has enough people to vouch for his character, he could get off easy. Its his word against hers. If he thought she had a gun or the guy on the ground was reaching, you are ALLOWED to shoot. Its your property. You don't have to retreat. You don't have to cal the cops. After you shoot, yes, but not before. Obviously what the guy did was wrong, but OBVIOUSLY what these people did was also wrong.

No one deserved to die, thats for sure.

 

How do you know that the shooter wasn't on drugs?

 

He woke an UNARMED sleeping woman and shot her! Now if he could see her well enough to aim, he couldn't see she didn't have a weapon?? Come on people, give me a break.

 

I’m sorry but this isn’t a self defense case. This couple that he shot, other then being on his property, it sounds like they didn’t pose a danger to him. Thus, it isn’t self defense, it becomes murder.

 

Was he tested for drugs? Did he give the cops any reason that he was high or drunk? No? Then how do you know the people didn't ask him to shoot them to put them out of their misery....while we're just making &^$*#(*@ up and playing hypotheticals=)

 

We will find that out after the trial. Just because he is using it as a defense doesn't make the defense valid.

 

I'm increasingly annoyed with a society that has grown so enamored with the importance of their own opinions that little things like evidence and reason no longer pose an impediment to the alternate reality they promulgate.

Officers Singer, Koon, Briseno, Powell, and Wind are guilty of beating Rodney King.

OJ Simpson? Guilty.
The Duke Lacross team? Guilty.
Michael Jackson? Guilty.
Robert Blake? Guilty.
Casey Anthony? Guilty.
George Zimmerman? Guilty.

Right?

And no, you're not basing your opinion on facts agreed upon by both parties. Have you contacted both parties? Do you have access to anything other than what a news reporter revealed to you?

All this bull does nothing but corrupt the opportunity for an actual honest attempt to uncover the truth to take place. Just look at how the attorneys involved in the Hernandez trial are attempting to play to the court of society, rather than due process. Be the first to get out the most sensational story...and that becomes truth no matter what the reality of the situation.

 

Put the POS in prison for life.

 

In Texas you don't have to be "standing your ground " to be defending your property with deadly force. I find someone on my property at night they are in grave danger of being shot even if they are pretending to be asleep. The trespasser could be hiding a gun under his body so I will light up the darkness with a 10mm flame to his ass.

So tell us how you know that the criminal trespassers wasn't a danger to the property owner even in his sleep, if he was truly asleep.

Maybe the trespasser's should have thought about giving up the drugs and getting jobs?

You keep talking as if you knew the dead guy and how dangerous he might have been if awakened and asked to get out.

 

So, how is YOUR opinion any different than those you are annoyed with? Just because YOU felt those people were guilty, that does not mean that they were guilty.....especially since many of them were found to be not guilty by a court of law.

 

I had a feeling the OP was full of distortions and outright lies, and everyone who responded before your post got sucked into it without even checking the facts. It took 16 posts for somebody to see through the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and decipher what really happened. No wonder our country is such a mess. Shame to everyone who responded before you.

 

no, they were not asleep when they were shot.

they were awake, and approaching the shooter.

 

The point flew over your head faster than Chuck Yeager.

I don't feel those people were guilty. They were all convicted by public opinion despite being acquitted by a jury.

 

Gotcha.....my apology's.

 

If a cop on the street said that he thought someone was reaching for a gun, and he shot that person, that would be the end of the story. A young, 6'2'', 280 lb, steroid fueled cop could just say he "felt threatened", and that (*)(*)(*)(*) would fly. Yet, a 73 year-old man in his own house facing two drugged up trespassers isn't given the same presumption, and instead of automatically being considered justified like the cop, he is automatically considered a murderer?

 

You are misrepresenting what he did. He didn't shoot them WHILE they were sleeping. He woke them up to get them off his property, and the male trespasser moved his arm quickly, and the guy shot him. I'm not defending what the murderer did in the least, but I don't like inaccuracy, and saying he shot a sleeping couple is not what he did. He shot a couple that HAD been sleeping, until he woke them up, and he didn't shoot them until they were awake.

From the linked story

That said, the landowner is being charged with First Degree murder. I think that's extreme (I think second degree murder should be the charge, if they had actually been sleeping when shot, I would agree with First Degree). He should have called the cops and had them roust them. It wasn't his dwelling place, it was one of his vacant properties.

 

First degree capital murder charges, please? You do not ENGAGE and claim self-defense. Meanwhile, it's pretty easy to see this was pre-meditated. Did he even bother to wake them up?

Edit: Always go to the last page before posting, lol. I agree with second degree.

 

I should hope that's true, though there seems to be some weirdness when it comes to how the laws get interpreted and applied in our legal system.

It's very sad that a man would essentially ambush sleeping trespassers and try to murder them. Why wouldn't the jackass simply call the cops after finding them?

Of course, we've seen that the NV police can be rather like this guy was as well..

 

Actually the Police investigated the event and then decided he did not act properly and arrested him, they have the evidence and all you have to do is wait for the trial and you will see what the State presents and make an informed judgement.