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

They committed a felony. They're the aggressor. In fact, the surviving girl could legally be charged with felony murder because of her boyfriend who died in the commission of her felony. She's lucky she didn't get charged.

You don't know what B & E is. It doesn't require a door to be locked.

You tell me. You're the one who got this guy convicted in your mind.

He had no way of knowing whether a person was still there or not. Nobody is legally obligated to call the police rather than to defend their own property. You're just looking for a way to make this guy at fault and using some slippery arguments to do it.

Is there a limit to how many handguns he was legally allowed to bring? You're just mud raking.

I have nothing but JHP ammunition in my handguns. Suggesting this will get me in trouble is crap. There's never been a case where somebody got in trouble for using JHP rather than round noses. In fact, the deadlier the force, the stronger the case is that one feared for their life. It's the idiots who "shoot to wound" who are in danger of getting charged with a crime.

"Vigilante justice"? Now your kookiness is showing. I never thought I'd see a conservative defending criminals and taking sides against lawful gun owners protecting their property, but that goes to show how the Left's warped ideologies can corrupt anyone lacking in a solid and principled foundation.

You may not like it, but this guy was zimmermanned by a Leftist kook pastor that you're siding with who applied political pressure to make an arrest (3 months later) that there was never any evidence to justify. You aren't looking at the facts, you aren't applying critical thinking, and you are approaching this like a Leftist with the same warped thinking. That's disappointing.

 

Like I said, I admit I could be wrong, and that is why there will be a trial, but that does not mean I lack the ability to examine the situation and give an opinion based on evidence and logic.

I never said that my opinion should determine his guilt. As in all things, his guilt or innocence should be determined according to the truth. Apparently, you think truth can only be found in a legal or judicial context?

And what is there to dispute, exactly? They trespassed into a vacant property and the property owner entered the property and shot them, one to death. What danger did their occupancy of a vacant building present to him or others that justified such an escalation and use of force? If he truly thought there was a potentially deadly threat inside (otherwise, why would he arm himself?), then he should have never entered in the first place. That only increases the chances that someone will be hurt or killed.

 

I am going to disagree with this assessment. First of all, I never argued they were shot in their sleep. Secondly, I don't recall any agreement between the witnesses on some of those "facts" you allege, namely, that they were ignoring instructions, advancing on the property owner, and making a "threatening gesture" (whatever that means). One witness (the shooter) may allege as much, but clearly the other witness does not agree. Of course, the other witness cannot testify because he is dead. Apparently, you are willing to take the shooter's allegations at face value. Maybe you have some evidence that I'm not aware of? I'd be happy to look at it.

 

He is a murderer.... He went with a gun to shoot some treaspassers. Treaspassing is not a capital offense.

 

I never took sides. I'm explaining one possibility of how this may be perceived. If you lack the ability to think outside your narrow train of focus don't pin that on me. I have the ability to look at problems from different prospectives. I do not feel the need to rigidly dispell notions that I might not agree with. There is much in life and reality I may not agree with. To deny thier existence is intellectual fraud. You may want to think about that before you accuse others of not using critical thought.

 

The evidence is the 3 months it took for the DA to file charges only after a Left wing pastor agitated and applied hard political pressure to do so. There was no evidence that a crime was committed according to the POLICE officers who investigated and DIDN'T arrest the property owner.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm sorry.

 

Two wrongs do not make a right.

I support the 2nd, stand your ground, and the castle doctrine, more than most. I see no defense for this guy. It is not on me to convict but I can not justify his actions. The only amazing thing is it took three months for the charges. It appears they waited for all the evidence before deciding the charge. I would be shocked if he is not convicted.

 

Read it again. Just like with Zimmerman, they didn't have evidence to charge him with, but succumbed to Left wing political pressure. That should at least get you thinking.

 

Read another story...........His friend that went with him signed an affidavit that he went there armed and determined and his story is inconsistent.

Police said in the affidavit that Burgarello "provided inconsistent details of the incident" and the man with him, longtime friend Alvin Lilla, said Burgarello approached the duplex "determined" with a .357 Smith and Wesson in one hand, a 9 mm semi-automatic in the other and another gun in his car.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ing-ignites-stand-your-ground-debate/9743759/

 

Your gracious apology accepted saint mike.
And btw, I'm not lying about the hollow points. Just ask Harold Fish. We don't have to agree just acknowledge it's possible albeit I think less likely these days. An excerpt from his trial.

And the jury had another issue to think about: Fish’s gun.
The firearms investigator said that Fish’s gun — a 10mm — is more powerful than what police officers use and is not typically used for personal protection. And the ammunition Fish used to shoot Kuenzli three times, called “a hollow-point bullet,” is made to expand when it enters the body.
When he decided to pull the trigger, the prosecutor said, Fish should have known what the consequences would be.
Lessler: Mr. Fish knew well what a hollow-point bullet does.
Larson: And the end product of his shooting is going to be death?
Lessler: Yes.

 

Forensics takes a while, I admit it is unusual to let him run free for 3 months. I was never a Zimmerman defender but I never thought he would get murder. I thought manslaughter was likely since he did follow Martin. Martin attacked is the only thing that saved Zimmerman IMO. That was not "stand your ground" but self defense that saved him.

This case it surely does not, shooting someone 5 times once in the head bad enough. Still shooting at the woman while she was trying to run away. That and like PT points out he was not suprised he went to catch them. He did not live there so the castle doctrine does not apply. If he has no evidence he was attacked I do not see beating this as possible. It is just too much against him if half is true it is murder IMO.

The only similarities to Zimmerman is the time lapse and protest before being charged. The woman had been staying there off and on for years if the info I heard was correct. Yet even if she destroyed property or even threatend him, after she ran shooting is not justified. At his age even attempted murder will give a life sentence.

I am not a judge or jury that falls to someone else. My opinion is this man played police, judge, jury, and executioner. I have been wrong before but it would be shocking in this case without more evidence coming out.

 

Your emotional, false assumptions regarding my feelings have little to do with rules of evidence in a court of law.

 

Speaking of the rules of law...the people trespassing CAN be shot if the owner of the property felt threatened, regardless if the shiny object was a fork or a gun. No way to know what that object is until its too late and waiting to see if its a gun doesn't mean much once you hear the !!BANG!!. Because guess what...you're already potentially dead after the sound of the shot reaches your ears. And a jury is going to side with the owner, not the drug addicts squatting in the home as long as the guy keeps his mouth shut and doesn't come off as crazy. Count on it. You're ALLOWED to kill someone breaking and entering. You might not like it, but its LEGAL! Sure, the guy should've called the cops, but thats not the LAW. The law says you allowed to walk into your own home and if someone is in your home without permission, you can shoot and kill them if you felt threatened. Sucks for the intruder but its certainly better than when people break into homes and kill the unarmed, helpless, occupants

 

You certainly make a lot of assumptions regarding what my personal feelings are. Perhaps you are a better psychic than you are a lawyer. I hope so!

 

Without any meaningful input from you, what else is there to go on? Why are you commenting then? If you don't have a real opinion, why are you here?

 

What is it about my opinions that you find unrealistic?

 

You are not allowed to go confront said trespassers and then fear for your life.

He will be convicted of either murder 2 or manslaughter............either way for him is a life sentence.

All he had to do was call the cops and report a possible trespasser on his property.

The moment he didn't and armed himself and went there.......he became the aggressor.

 

I agree. He was informed that someone was in his house. So it wasn't like he was surprised while entering his own home. He should have called the Police.

 

this guy will go down for it. SYG laws don't protect idiots who grasp at straws to bail their butts out.

Sounds more like a squatters issue, and I know at least in my state, how frustrating having to "evict" squatters, even in cases where the owner was out of town for extended periods, only to come home and find occupants in their house, and not being able to do anything about it. They have to go through the month long eviction process that costs well over $500 in my state. It's ridiculous.


So this guy just handled his frustration wrong, shot them in their sleep, now is in a bind.


that's my humble opinion of the situation at hand.


also... this just in... Zimmerman still found not guilty by a jury of his peers based on actual evidence, not race-baiting made up scenarios....