I saw those videos and this guy (home owner)is no doubt a sick bastard. That said the two had burglarized his house once before and stolen prescription drugs from his home and were caught with them in their car.
I don't see anyone in this case being in the right. If I were on the jury I would have to consider the state laws and adhere to them strictly since in my opinion they were both wrong. 5/16/14 @ 7pm central time, NBC will carry a news hour story of a Minnesota home owner convicted of murdering 2 intruders aged 18 and 17.

I would like to hear the opinions of the self defense proponents on this particular case. Watch it and let us know.

As a spoiler, I understand the mans fear. Alone in his home, victimized in the past. He installed surveillance cameras and armed himself. The cameras tell the story and will be on air. My opinion is the man went past the point of personal protection. He let the pair come into his home. Shot (recorded on audio) both several times and talked on tape of the good "finishing shot" under the girls chin after shooting her multiple times.
The case will be appealed, as not all of the surveillance tape was shown to the jury. That shows the couple breaking into the house and looking into windows before busting the door.

Tonight, 5/16/14 @ 7pm central time, NBC will carry a news hour story of a Minnesota home owner convicted of murdering 2 intruders aged 18 and 17.

I would like to hear the opinions of the self defense proponents on this particular case. Watch it and let us know.

As a spoiler, I understand the mans fear. Alone in his home, victimized in the past. He installed surveillance cameras and armed himself. The cameras tell the story and will be on air. My opinion is the man went past the point of personal protection. He let the pair come into his home. Shot (recorded on audio) both several times and talked on tape of the good "finishing shot" under the girls chin after shooting her multiple times.
The case will be appealed, as not all of the surveillance tape was shown to the jury. That shows the couple breaking into the house and looking into windows before busting the door.

I would not have convicted him. The man had every right to protect his property. A 17 and 18 year old were breaking the law and should know better. Maybe more of this would send a message to ALL potential burglars.

By the prosecutors reasoning, anyone that buys a gun for home defense purposes, then has to shoot and kill an ILLEGAL intruder/s is guilty of premeditated murder. BULLSHIT!!! Maybe he should have used a 12 guage shot gun with double 00 buck shot. Then it would have done the job in 1 shot/person. Did the girl not hear the first shots?

Why? Or, are you one of those that think only the police have the right to shoot criminals when they catch them in the commission of a crime. IF they ever catch them in the first place.

The man had a right, IMO, to protect his person and his property by any means. I doubt there would have been any question about that in Texas. You probably would have been in the minority. Texans believe in the right to protect their private property by any means necessary.

Texas Penal Code SS9.42

I could not begin to find the rational in Texas law. In the case of finishing them off after shooting several times and recording the event. The jury only used about 3 hrs to find him guilty. I agree with that verdict. I also feel, and Minnesota law, that a person has a great amount of leeway in protecting his property. All involved felt this man went beyond the point of only protecting his property. Did you watch the program?
§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

PERMAFROST, I did not get the chance to watch the program. I do not care if he was waiting to ambush them. Could buying a gun for home and self defense be considered premeditated? They were breaking the law by illegally entering his home. And hadn't the teens also been harassing the gentleman? What responsibility did the teens have in this? What was the man supposed to do let them rob and assault or even kill him? Bullshit!

I am not saying that this is not a terrible tragedy. But I think, as we do in Texas, as person has every right to protect himself by any means.


Buffalo, if you had gotten to watch all the program, you would see Brian has a point, this man set everything up with the intent to kill both of these people. The jury only needed 3 hrs to give a verdict.

On appeal, I am sure your points and those of several others will be addressed.

I am interested in the case because I agree very strongly that people have every right to defend property as well as themselves. But in the particular case I do agree with the jury. Thanks for the input..
Like I said, he should have used a 12 gauge with 00 buck shot shells and there would have been no need for additional shots. The jury does not always have to agree with the letter of the law. Ever heard of jury nullification? I would have voted to aquit the man even IF he did use excessive force and went to the extreme. It might send a message to criminals.