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

I don't care what the shooter is using for his defense.

Stand your ground laws do not defend those kind of situations.

 

The property owner is a stone-cold killer - period. Those people were sleeping, no threat to him at all and he thinks he can use the SYG law when he pulled the trigger? He's certifiably crazy on top of it.....

This guy will go to prison where he belongs........

 

RawStory is a sad left-wing outfit with a huge moral blind spot problem, and as such, this article of theirs is pure political junk.

Ideologically-bent websites are not good places to find factual information.

http://www.ktvn.com/story/25622400/arrest-made-in-february-murder-on-h-street-in-sparks1

Sparks Police say they have arrested 73-year-old Wayne Burgarello on charges of first degree murder and attempted murder after a shooting on H Street in Sparks on February 13th, 2014.

Police say Burgarello was notified of trespassers on his vacant property on H street. They say Burgarello armed himself and went to his property where he found Cody Devine and Janai Wilson sleeping inside the home. They say Burgarello shot both of them, killing Devine and seriously wounding Wilson.

After three months of looking at interviews and interviewing witnesses, police arrested Burgarello Tuesday morning.

"It's been awhile," said Detective Sgt. Aaron Leary. "The Sparks Police Department examined all the evidence in this case that have been sent to the lab and interviewed numerous witnesses, coming to the conclusion this morning to obtain the arrest warrant."

 

By the way, "Stand Your Ground" laws are perfectly legitimate. The only reason there is a controversy is because the media falsely applied the term to the Trayvon Martin case. Zimmerman was flat on his back, therefore the idea of him retreating was not in question.

As far as the laws themselves go, they make perfect sense, because if someone points a gun at you, it is not reasonable to expect a person to turn their back to the aggressor and try to retreat; in doing so, they're asking for death. Thus it's perfectly acceptable that in such a situation a person has a right to shoot without trying to flee first.

I see no reason to expect people to risk being shot or stabbed or baseball batted in the back or back of the head because people have been whipped into a frenzy about Trayvon Martin over fallacious media coverage.

 

They are no more obligated to speak out against anyone any more than a brewery is when someone gets blasted and runs over an old lady.

 

well it was HIS property

 

A guy with drugs in his bag did that in the lobby of a building I used to live in when cornered by police. This was the result:

http://www.therocky.com/news/2008/Sep/26/police-id-man-shot-police-capitol-hill/

I heard the shots in my bathroom and it was LOUD as hell. I found out later a ricocheted bullet went down the hallway just on the opposite side of the wall next to me and lodged into a door.

 

You can't just do anything regardless, so he's in jail for murder.

 

stop blaming the law, and start blaming the idiot judges and morons on the jury who can't think clearly enough to know the difference between a real threat and a bald-faced lie.

 

Are you suggesting that the shooter was justified because the sleeping man stood up? And of course it's a "he-said-she-said" between the shooter and the girl. The other witness is dead thanks to the shooter!

 

1. They were obviously trespassing, but it was a vacant building. How does that rise to the level of an armed confrontation?
2. Assuming facts not in evidence.

 

I am suggesting that, per the report given by the shooter, the deceased was standing, not asleep when shot. Forensics will be able to prove that.
I am suggesting at this point, it's the word of a girl who had just shot up drugs and that of the shooter.

If anything, he'll get convicted of a lesser manslaughter charge. Neither party has clean hands in this

 

Hmm, I seem to recall an obscure bit of minutia from the enlightenment about justice requiring the presumption of innocence or some such nonsense. I wonder what happened to that...

Why do we even have courts these days since we can divine the guilt or innocence of a defendant on a message board?

 

That was his choice when he attempted to kill her.

 

Also:

Gotta love these "discussions" where no matter what side you pick you have to sanction some sort of crime.

Look over there everyone! Someone just received consequences too severe for the mistake they made! Everyone be outraged!

 

He should have called the Police. Instead he initiated the contact, shot first, and asked questions later. Big mistake. Tragically it is murder, though not premeditated.

 

Exactly right.

 

Okay, so he was standing up. So what?

 

He doesn't deny shooting the people. They don't deny trespassing on to his vacant property. The dead man was unarmed and posed no imminent threat according to the statement given by the shooter himself. For me, that is enough information to conclude it was a wrongful shooting. The shooter's decision to escalate was totally disproportionate to the "threat" he or anyone else faced.

 

we don't know for sure what happened. Did the victim really make threatening motions as if he was going for a gun, who knows? Only on TV do we see "shoot to injure". It's easy to Monday morning quarterback and to try and fill in the gaping holes with your own agenda. In order to hold the guy then they need to charge him. I doubt that he will get convicted of murder. He was drawn into the "heat of the moment" aka "passion" by the victims. He was inspecting his property, found intruders and at that moment, the situation escalated and there was no time for the situation to cool, thus "heat of the moment"

He won't get convicted of murder nor should he. Yes, his actions resulted in the death of another so that fits the definition of manslaughter and with respect to "stand your ground", there will be conflicting testimony. One who wants to save his behind and the other who was breaking the law and was high on drugs.

 

Does he have a valid driver's licence, or has he been classified as too discombobulated to drive?

If someone's unsafe to drive, they're probably unsafe to shoot.

 

Well if it's good enough for you, it must be good enough for society.

Why bother having a trial where we present stuff like evidence where the accused has a chance to face and respond to his accuser?

 

If he planned to use SYG as a defense for his murder, then he made a major mistake by not killing both of them. You can only get away with murder under SYG laws if you make certain that no witnesses survive to testify.

 

Im going to wait for more information instead of jumping to conclusions like the rest of the american sheeple. Remembering back I remember a certain teen age boy shot for wearing a hoodie.

 

you're assuming that it's murder.