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

You need to read the articles posted before posting. It's clear he woke them up first. If he shot them asleep, of course it would have been First degree murder.

 

Oh, the police decided that, huh? That's my point: had the man been a cop, they would not have decided that. "He made a threatening gesture" would be all they'd need to hear.

 

Yes, that is usually who decides to send charges on to the District Attorney, before going offf half-cocked wait for the evidence to be presented, is that too difficult for ya?

 

Steadfastly ignoring the point, I see.

 

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I am basing my opinion on facts that no one is disputing.

They trespassed onto a vacant property.

The property owner armed himself, entered the property (totally unnecessary escalation of the situation), and shot them both. HE claims that he shot because the man's arm "came up like a gun", whatever that means.

In other words, there was no imminent threat to his life or anyone else's and he shot two unarmed people because they were trespassing in a vacant building.

Do you dispute any of these facts or my interpretation of them?

Definitely true. If this had been a cop instead of a civilian, he'd be on paid leave instead of sitting in a jail cell.

 

Yet they charged him with 1st degree murder after waiting 3 months (which shows they didn't have evidence he committed ANY crime)

 

Yes, that was precisely my point.

 

Not quite. The DA often presses charges by themselves and this DA waited 3 months because there was no evidence he committed a crime. But finally the DA buckled under political pressure, including that lying, evil, Left wing "reverend" saying SYG allows people to be shot over skittles, agitating anger and stirring people up to Zimmerman this guy whether he committed a crime or not. These days justice by lynch mob is becoming more and more common and the facts and evidence don't matter whatsoever.

 

So why bother having a trial? Oh wait, I bet the defendant disputes some of your claimed "facts" But you didn't let that stop you from concluding that there was no threat, that the people were shot for trespassing, that the defendant escalated the situation by entering his own home. Not to single you out though. You're not alone. Seems like everyone wants to cast their "vote" as to what happened based on very limited data and hearsay.

We have a little process called discovery in which evidence is vetted. After that a judge or jurors decide both whether evidence presented is compelling or conclusive. You've simply repeated what a news articled told you, and colored with your own assumptions. This is not how we determine guilt in a civil society.

 

That IS odd, isn't it?

 

I'm surprised that you're taking this position, but I think I understand why. On the first page, I think you did what a lot of people did, read the OP but didn't check the article itself or you would have known the OP was complete bull(*)(*)(*)(*). And now you've taken a position on this that's indefensible, now that the facts are out, and you continue along the same trajectory, even though it started based on a lie. Based on what I know of you from your posts, I think that if the OP were truthful and you had the facts from the start, you would have taken a very different position on this.

But the good news is, this is fixable, and I've been in a similar position myself. All you have to do is concede your first impression was based on a dishonest OP and now that you have the facts, that these two weren't shot in their sleep, that they were awake, ignoring instructions, advancing on the property owner, and making a threatening gesture, you have a different take on it.

I also invite anyone else who made the same mistake before SEC set the record straight to do the same. You were misled by the OP and, as I sometimes also do, you didn't read the actual story. Just admit it and we'll move on. You won't be upbraided, at least not by me.

 

With a criminal record?...............trespassing? I'm sure she'll garner a lot of credibility with any jury. With that being said, like in the Zimmerman case, the forensic evidence will prevail. If the physical evidence backs up the shooters allegations the man had his arm out stretched toward him, he will be acquitted, if not he will be convicted regardless of what one of the criminals claims.

 

So then, you consider an outstretched arm to be evidence beyond any reasonable doubt of an aggressive attack toward the shooter on the part of the victim? Interesting.

 

Untrained civilians can't be held to the same standards as cops who are trained to actually see a weapon before using deadly force. Having gone through that training myself, I can say it's very difficult which is why even police often shoot unarmed suspects because they thought they saw a weapon. If such split second decision making is difficult for trained officers, how much more for a civilian in his 70's?

But anyone dealing with a police officer OR a legally armed citizen who does not follow explicit instructions is suicidal, in my view. "Stop!" "Stay Back!" Anyone who ignores these commands can very well get shot and they got it coming to them. If the trespasser (let's remember who the criminal is here) had maintained a non threatening posture and listened to the instructions given by the armed man, he would no doubt be alive today. Unless you really believe that he just wanted to kill people for kicks, and if you do, I have no response to that level of hackery.

 

What point? Cops don't test you for drugs unless you give them reason to. You understand that right? So I don't get why you made the comment? Could you elaborate?

 

So, if the intruders were armed and the guy just stood there and got killed, you'd probably not give a ^$**@)@, would you? Thats the thing about squatting in someone's house. You're a danger and a threat FIRST, since guessing wrong on that one leads to getting murdered, raped or both. Any rational person assumes the worst in this sort of situation, since there are no second chances. The intruders got shot for being in the house, not because this guy wanted to murder anyone. Its sad that all they wanted was a place to sleep, but then, squatting isn't a safe life choice.

 

Not to mention they put themselves in the situation where they don't have money to house themselves; spending it all on drugs. I'm not even sad that they were homeless.

 

Nevada SYG laws have a clause that says the shooter cannot be the original aggressor. It may be the DA believes entering the abandoned house knowing people were inside with the intent of confronting them is an aggressive move. Can it be considered standing your ground when you move from one property to another to confront someone?
Should have called the cops. At least given them a reasonable time to respond before entering himself. JMO.

 

How can he be the aggressor on his own property? The aggressive act was the crime of trespassing, breaking and entering, a misdemeanor and a felony, wasn't it? And how does somebody call the cops before they have something to report? And why did the DA wait 3 months before charging him after buckling under the pressure of a Leftist "community organizer" pastor's agitations? Could it be they had no evidence he committed a crime, but the demonic Left was out to Zimmerman him anyway?

Those are the questions we should be asking.

 

He was told someone was in there.

All he had to do was pick up the phone.

The law is clear about leaving one property to go to another

He is the aggressor because he went there to confront them

 

He could easily be considered the aggressor if they deem the actions of the trespassers as non aggressive. They trespassed into a known abandoned building that was frequently unsecured in order to shoot drugs and nod off. Quite possibly not even B and E just simple trespass. Illegal yes, aggressive?? Without resorting to a bunch of what ifs you tell me how that's considered aggressive.

Now he was informed someone had entered this abandoned property. That's what he should have reported to the police.
Instead he chose to enter the property with not one but two handguns, one reported as a high power revolver. See where that is heading? You know if you choose to defend your property with hollow point bullets and you get a defense attorney and liberal DA on the case you may be looking at trouble. Wouldn't be the first time a defenders choice in weaponry was called into question as being overkill suggesting a desire for lethal vigilante justice.
You may not like it, I may not like it, but I see the possibility this guy will be classified as the aggressor in this altercation.

 

Is the law clear on that? I don't know myself.
Clear or not I think that's what's gonna happen in this case.

 

I agree if half of the information I have seen is true it looks like murder IMO.
Shooting the man 5 times including once in the head, and the woman twice and shooting at her while she ran away. I will post a video a very liberal source but have seen nothing that suggest they are lying. I see no reason to defend this man myself but the jury will decide his fate. Too bad it gives many a excuse to bash a law that does not apply in this case.
[video=youtube;pqM0QwJs9wE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqM0QwJs9wE&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/video]

 

The fact he was told they were in his property will be his downfall.

He armed himself and became the aggressor.

Had he stumbled upon them by happenstance, this debate would be moot.

 

Agreed.