Hannity Defends Vigilante Killer

[Archaeopteryx]

it is not an argument, any more than your emotional lament for the parents of these kids is an argument, nor any more than your use of the word 'vermin' is an argument.

Of course it's not an argument. You don't have an argument.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

There are other ways to defend one's property that don't involve murder. It's quite a good thing that he won't be around to "defend" it. Who knows how many other people, or "vermin" to use his words, he would kill "defending" his property.

It's not murder if you shoot someone while that person is committing a crime.

Sitting up to guard one's property is not a crime. Breaking into someone's house, however, is.

This guy was stupid for making the recording.

With how he conducted himself on the tape, I don't feel bad for him, though.

I'm sure where you get "2 future felons that knew no boundaries". These kids were thieves, not cannibal-puppy burning-incestual-child molester-murderers. You wouldn't want them in your neighborhood for sure, but you mast well adjusted people wouldn't want to stalk them like predators and relish in murdering them either. They would want them punished and set straight. It always seems like when I hear people make these kinds of "these kids are scum" comments, they seem to get amnesia about all the illegal things they and their friends did in their teenage years.

Generally, residential burglary is a felony.

The guy didn't stalk them like a predator, either. He set up an ambush, and laid in wait, and these kids walked into it.

If they would have refrained from breaking the law, well...

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Of course it's not an argument. You don't have an argument.

Step one to avoiding getting shot during the commission of a crime is to not commit a crime.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It's not murder if you shoot someone while that person is committing a crime.

Sitting up to guard one's property is not a crime. Breaking into someone's house, however, is.

This guy was stupid for making the recording.

With how he conducted himself on the tape, I don't feel bad for him, though.



Generally, residential burglary is a felony.

The guy didn't stalk them like a predator, either. He set up an ambush, and laid in wait, and these kids walked into it.

If they would have refrained from breaking the law, well...

Let's clarify: He set up a trap, lied in wait, shot without warning, and then, still not feeling safe while one of his victims writhed and gasped, the coward executed her. There's defending your property, and then there's murder. This case represents the latter.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Step one to avoiding getting shot during the commission of a crime is to not commit a crime.

Step two is to heed someone's warning when they say they have a weapon and will shoot you. Oh wait, there was no warning. Shoot first, ask questions later.

 

[USincognito]

It's not murder if you shoot someone while that person is committing a crime.

Only if you qualify that statement by noting that it's a case by case situation. If you're driving around and you see someone leaving the vicinity of a store where the alarm is sounding, carrying items from that store and you stop and shoot them dead, you're more than likely going to see a murder or manslaughter accusation heading your way.

 

[SolomonVII]

Of course it's not an argument. You don't have an argument.

Neither was yours.
It was a call to emotion.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Neither was yours.
It was a call to emotion.

Oh, heaven forbid that we consider the emotions of the victims and their families. To which you say "Boo hoo."

 

[iluvatar5150]

I hope Hannity's position on this is enough to get people to see what an irrelevant wack-job he really is.

I can understand how he'd be this frustrated. What he should have done is not make a recording of himself. And after he delivered the kill shots he should have called the police. Not let the corpses lay in his basement overnight.

Likely he'd be a free man. As it is it appears he's freed society of two future felons who knew no boundaries. And at such a young age they could have only gotten worse.

Last I checked, executing someone is also a felony and is quite a bit worse than breaking into a house. You're supporting a murderer while denigrating a couple thieves. Why are you supporting the murderer? Seriously, what the heck is wrong with you? Do you consider yourself "pro-life"?

 

[Nithavela]

All the things in this mans home are not worth more than one of those teenagers' lifes.

 

[Vylo]

That would be Byron Smith, the accused murderer in this case, not Archeopteryx. Perhaps you should actually read the OP.

Actually convicted now.

The man deserves to go to jail. He didn't defend his property, he executed 2 people. Not the best people, granted, but that still doesn't excuse what he did.

 

[MachZer0]

No, their parents have to live without their children because this man murdered them. They could have mused over their successes and failures at parenting while their children faced court charged with burglary. That could have even been a "turning point" for the youths. No one knows. No one can know because they're dead now.

Of course, had the parents instilled certain values into their children, they wouldn't have broken into people's homes to begin with

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Of course, had the parents instilled certain values into their children, they wouldn't have broken into people's homes to begin with

Like I said earlier...they shouldn't have been breaking in and I do feel homeowners have a right to shoot a home invader. ...and I "deer stand" argument is bunk and was just a cheap way for them to pin the "premeditated" part on him...for it to be truly a "deer stand", he would've had to specifically lured them in. If he would've put a note on the door that said "hey guys, it's unlocked, come on inside for some free pizza", and then shot them when they opened the door, then maybe they could've used that argument...however, if the scenario is a break-in, whether he was expecting it or not, the ultimate decision to enter the home was still 100% on the teenagers.

...but on the other side of the coin, once he did engage them, he did cross the line from defense to offence. One you shoot the perpetrator, and they're down and bleeding out on the ground, the police should be notified immediately and the shooting should cease, the threat is gone at that point. While the castle doctrine does afford homeowners the right to be judge, jury, and executioner when their physical well-being is in danger, it doesn't afford one the right to turn their home into a torture chamber.

Think of it this way...if I'm a homeowner, and I catch a 22 year old woman breaking into my home, would the castle doctrine give me the right to rape her prior to shooting her? Absolutely not.

The castle doctrine simply gives one the right to eliminate a threat in their own home without a duty to retreat (meaning, you can go after the threat instead of hiding under the bed waiting for them to find you)...but it doesn't give one the right torment people who are no longer a threat...I'm sure his defense attorney claimed that they were still a threat, however, if he had time to stop and talk trash to them prior to firing the last shots, he probably wasn't feeling very threatened at that point. I know if I have invaders in my home, I'm not taking the time to stop and trash talk, I'm eliminating the threats as quickly as a possible.

One thing I've noticed with this case is that my fellow conservatives have almost been goaded into defending this homeowner by certain anti-gun folks on the left. Those certain folks on the left use this case (like every other case) to criticize concepts like castle law and SYG...and by doing so, put pressure on their opponents who in turn try to defend the person instead of the concept. The castle doctrine is about more than just this case much like Stand Your Ground is about more than just the Zimmerman case.

It seems like when these cases come up, people always view it as "which party was right and which party was wrong"...when in this case, both parties were wrong.

The fact that the homeowner misused the castle law doesn't invalidate the fact that the castle law is a good thing, much like the fact that people misusing cars doesn't invalidate the fact that cars are a good thing.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Like I said earlier...they shouldn't have been breaking in and I do feel homeowners have a right to shoot a home invader. ...and I "deer stand" argument is bunk and was just a cheap way for them to pin the "premeditated" part on him...for it to be truly a "deer stand", he would've had to specifically lured them in. If he would've put a note on the door that said "hey guys, it's unlocked, come on inside for some free pizza", and then shot them when they opened the door, then maybe they could've used that argument...however, if the scenario is a break-in, whether he was expecting it or not, the ultimate decision to enter the home was still 100% on the teenagers.

He did lure them in. Didn't your read the story?

He made himself appear absent, probably so they wouldn't see him coming.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Of course, had the parents instilled certain values into their children, they wouldn't have broken into people's homes to begin with

Perhaps you should scrutinise more closely the values held by the murderer, not his victims' parents.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

He did lure them in. Didn't your read the story?

He made himself appear absent, probably so they wouldn't see him coming.

Why is that considered luring them in? You make it sound as if an empty home is somehow irresistible to break into... My neighbors have gone on extended vacations several times and not once have I broken into their home.

"He made the home look empty so that lured them in" is about as ridiculous as the "look how she was dressed, she was asking for it" argument that rapists make.

It's his home, he has a right to make it look empty if he so chooses. That doesn't negate the fact that the two teens were engaging in criminal activity.

There are plenty of things that this guy did wrong that he can be criticized for, but this particular aspect isn't one of them...

 

[OldWiseGuy]

OTOH he might have done the best thing he could to ensure his own future security. If he had just wounded them they might have gotten the sympathy of the court, received a light sentence, then returned to get revenge on him. He made sure that wouldn't happen. Also he made sure they wouldn't grow up to become another Bonnie and Clyde.

 

[RDKirk]

Why is that considered luring them in? You make it sound as if an empty home is somehow irresistible to break into... My neighbors have gone on extended vacations several times and not once have I broken into their home.

"He made the home look empty so that lured them in" is about as ridiculous as the "look how she was dressed, she was asking for it" argument that rapists make.

It's his home, he has a right to make it look empty if he so chooses. That doesn't negate the fact that the two teens were engaging in criminal activity.

There are plenty of things that this guy did wrong that he can be criticized for, but this particular aspect isn't one of them...

One of the things that was brought out in the trial is that these people had a history of animosity before this event. They knew each other. There had been a long "Hatfields and McCoys" feud going on between this man and those kids, and their "attacks" on his house had been part of that feud.

We have to ask--as the jury probably did--why the man did not report those repeated attacks to the police. It's a small town. The police know who their routine troublemakers are. To the degree the man did not involve the police, the man was allowing the attacks to continue, and that does spell "lure."

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Why is that considered luring them in? You make it sound as if an empty home is somehow irresistible to break into... My neighbors have gone on extended vacations several times and not once have I broken into their home.

"He made the home look empty so that lured them in" is about as ridiculous as the "look how she was dressed, she was asking for it" argument that rapists make.

It's his home, he has a right to make it look empty if he so chooses. That doesn't negate the fact that the two teens were engaging in criminal activity.

There are plenty of things that this guy did wrong that he can be criticized for, but this particular aspect isn't one of them...

I never said that merely making one's home appear absent of the homeowner invites burglary in the same way that a rapist might say that her dress invited his advances. It's not just that he lured them in. I was merely pointing out that your comment, that he didn't lure them in, was false. He lured them in them, lied in wait, and then killed them. As I said, probably because he didn't want them to see him coming.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

OTOH he might have done the best thing he could to ensure his own future security. If he had just wounded them they might have gotten the sympathy of the court, received a light sentence, then returned to get revenge on him. He made sure that wouldn't happen. Also he made sure they wouldn't grow up to become another Bonnie and Clyde.

Yes, he has lots of security now - in prison.