Video: Friends, family don’t understand why teen home invaders were shot dead

posted at 4:51 pm on May 6, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via Bob Owens of Bearing Arms, I’m … pretty sure I understand it, although you can see why a heartbroken parent or sibling would have trouble sorting it out given the tender age of the boys involved. Plain and simple: What was the homeowner supposed to do differently? She’s in her late 60s and had been burgled twice before, including by one of the kids who ended up dead in this confrontation. She was so terrified of how things might escalate next time, given the sense of impunity they obviously felt in targeting her, that she asked her seventysomething brother to stay with her. The facts aren’t entirely clear but it sounds like he’s the one who fired the fatal shots. If he hadn’t, there might well have been a fight between two senior citizens and two young teens armed with God knows what. How do you like the odds on that one? Better yet, how would you like a law that says you can’t fire at someone who’s confronting you in your home unless you know for a fact that the intruder’s carrying a gun himself?

The only wrinkle here is what the sister of one of the teens said: “They were on their way out the door.” Not sure how she knows that, unless she’s making an assumption based on the fact that some of the bullets went through the door. I wonder what would happen if it turned out that the boys were shot in the back instead of the chest. In most home invasion cases, the politics of charging a homeowner with using excessive force in self-defense would be poisonous, especially when the homeowner’s as sympathetic as this one. But given the age of the teens, maybe prosecutors will take a closer look.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 5

“Nothing in here worth dying for” is a good sticker for your windows.

Schadenfreude on May 6, 2014 at 4:53 PM

Can’t say that I’m shedding a tear over their demise. If their family and friends really cared about these teens, they should have intervened to stop them, you know, committing burglary.

That’s inherently dangerous. Armed homeowners, don’t you know. It’s a risk of the profession-you might end up dead.

Vanceone on May 6, 2014 at 4:54 PM

“Deserve’s got nothing to do with it”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpDkYZWeeVg

DJ Rick on May 6, 2014 at 4:55 PM

Where were the boy’s parents?

Murphy9 on May 6, 2014 at 4:56 PM

HEY KIDS.

IF YOU BURGLARIZE SOMEBODY’S HOUSE, AND THEY KILL YOU BECAUSE YOU’RE TERRIFYING THEM, DON’T ACT SURPRISED. WELCOME TO REALITY.

The more you know.

Good Lt on May 6, 2014 at 4:56 PM

Scumbags got what they deserved.

SansJeux on May 6, 2014 at 4:56 PM

I wonder what would happen if it turned out that the boys were shot in the back instead of the chest.

They boys were turning around to find something to bash-in the homeowner’s head, that’s what was happening as far as I’m concerned.

The yoots didn’t have permission to be there, had no reason to be there other than crime, and made the decision to be there all on their own; they gambled and lost.

Bishop on May 6, 2014 at 4:57 PM

The neighbors behind us have one of those “nothing in here is worth dying for” signs. I won’t even go within spitting distance of their house.

Xanatos90 on May 6, 2014 at 4:58 PM

He looked like a wannabe gangster, and he got what he wanted. It’s a shame to waste a life like that, but sooner or later our choices will always catch up with us.

Rollie on May 6, 2014 at 4:58 PM

That’s inherently dangerous. Armed homeowners, don’t you know. It’s a risk of the profession-you might end up dead.

Vanceone on May 6, 2014 at 4:54 PM

I have a meth-using/meth-dealing brother.

There’s nothing I can do to stop him short of killing him.

It doesn’t mean I don’t love him.

However, I’m also honest about who/what he is. If he were breaking into someone’s house and got killed, I would be sad (devastated really) but I wouldn’t be arguing that it shouldn’t have happened.

JadeNYU on May 6, 2014 at 4:59 PM

“I just don’t understand why they were shot multiple times and killed,” said Lisa Sambrano.

Because someone trying to defend themselves doesn’t have to stop with each shot to ask if you’re going to stop now. They can keep shooting till you stop.

Rocks on May 6, 2014 at 4:59 PM

Frankly, the kids made the fatal mistake. It says a lot about their character, their morality, and their upbringing. Society as a whole is better off without them. In fact society benefits by the vivid image of the possible consequences of burglary.

MikeinPRCA on May 6, 2014 at 5:00 PM

If true, it’s a complaint leveled at the intruders, not the defender(s).

If you’re going to forcefully enter a place that’s not yours, to take things that aren’t yours, you’d best consider whether what you’re taking is worth your life, because if you wait to find out whether your life is at stake, it’ll be too late, and I’m not really going to feel all that badly.

The Schaef on May 6, 2014 at 5:00 PM

It took me a lot of back-linking to figure the skin color of the teens that have been shot. If Obama had another two sons…

Rix on May 6, 2014 at 5:00 PM

One of the dead boys already burgled this home, right? Coming back to dish out some punishment to the old lady for getting him in trouble, don’t ya know. Too bad the kids didn’t count on the old man who didn’t like them terrorizing his little sister.
I’m sure the siblings understand.

DublOh7 on May 6, 2014 at 5:01 PM

There’s nothing controversial about this.

forest on May 6, 2014 at 5:01 PM

I don’t see why your brother had to terrify that woman so much that her only recourse was to kill him. Was rape not far behind?

Drops mic.

Skywise on May 6, 2014 at 5:01 PM

Reality 1
Thug culture 0

Murphy9 on May 6, 2014 at 5:01 PM

“I don’t understand why they were shot dead.”

Better figure it out and tell the rest of your miscreant friends.

traye on May 6, 2014 at 5:01 PM

HEY KIDS.

IF YOU BURGLARIZE SOMEBODY’S HOUSE, AND THEY KILL YOU BECAUSE YOU’RE TERRIFYING THEM, DON’T ACT SURPRISED. WELCOME TO REALITY.

The more you know.

Good Lt on May 6, 2014 at 4:56 PM

News you can use!

When I first was on the street as a beat cop, I was surprised to find out how many teens were committing burglaries. I would say the majority of burglaries were by criminals in training.

NavyMustang on May 6, 2014 at 5:03 PM

Children? A 14 and 16 year old breaking into someone’s home are not children. They’re thieves and they’re dangerous.

Oldnuke on May 6, 2014 at 5:04 PM

If they don’t break in they are alive today..

DWoDiego on May 6, 2014 at 5:04 PM

Local news reports indicate the prior burglary they were connected to at the house occurred on Easter Sunday.

JeremiahJohnson on May 6, 2014 at 5:05 PM

In most home invasion cases, the politics of charging a homeowner with using excessive force in self-defense would be poisonous, especially when the homeowner’s as sympathetic as this one. But given the age of the teens, maybe prosecutors will take a closer look.


Unless you are suggesting the teens face posthumous charges, AP …

let me be crystal clear as someone who HAS HAD his home broken into while my family was there

… I am OVERJOYED the homeowner was successful in protecting her home and herself …

… and am REPULSED and SICKENED by the people on the video and YOU suggesting “these teens deserved something else”.

They were committing a FELONY in an area beset by a wave of FELONIES – the took their chances and they LOST and I will not shed a tear for them or their ilk!

PolAgnostic on May 6, 2014 at 5:05 PM

Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.

talkingpoints on May 6, 2014 at 5:05 PM

I would say the majority of burglaries were by criminals in training.

NavyMustang on May 6, 2014 at 5:03 PM

I understand what you’re saying but if you are burglarizing something then you are already a criminal and you’re just honing your skills, you’re not training.

Oldnuke on May 6, 2014 at 5:06 PM

They should have used a non-lethal skeet gun to subdue the perps. – HAL

RickB on May 6, 2014 at 5:06 PM

I think there has to be a standard for shooting an unarmed teenager above that he or she invaded your home.

DarkKnight3565 on May 6, 2014 at 5:07 PM

I wonder what would happen if it turned out that the boys were shot in the back instead of the chest.

They were in his Home….who the Fu*k cares where he shot them.

Their bodies become Target circles…aim for the Heart, or Head,
but if you hit something else, (and yes, that would include
the Back) oh well.

In 1971, CLint Eastwood made a movie titled Dirty Harry.
about a San Fran Homicide Detective who administers Justice
HIS way. Years ago, I read an interview with him, I believe
in the Saturday Evening Post, of all publications, and he stated
that the main reason he made that movie was because of all the
left leaning, have Sympathy for the criminal, mindset that was
taking hold in our Nation. He made a Victim’s Rights movie in essence…..

…seems we need another set of Dirty Harry movies…..

ToddPA on May 6, 2014 at 5:07 PM

A bunch of future nancy pelosis

TX-96 on May 6, 2014 at 5:07 PM

The neighbors behind us have one of those “nothing in here is worth dying for” signs. I won’t even go within spitting distance of their house.

Xanatos90 on May 6, 2014 at 4:58 PM

The same with my neighbor. When his Gadsden flag needed a replacement I decided to gift an extra I had by placing it in his mailbox vice dropping it off on his doorstep.

Meat Fighter on May 6, 2014 at 5:07 PM

If these young men had not repeatedly, forcibly entered an elderly woman’s home they would be alive, wouldn’t they?

The police will do a full forensic job, but these guys both were shot inside the house. Unless the evidence shows they were shot in the back after they surrendered, I can’t imagine charges being filed in these circumstances.

The bereaved families are in denial. While it’s a shame the young men are dead, the shame does not fall on this elderly woman and her brother who had the courage to defend themselves against criminal home invaders.

novaculus on May 6, 2014 at 5:09 PM

Cops say self defense. Dead thugs sibs say shot in the back. I’ll go with the cops thanks. I also object to these people holding a noisy vigil for the thugs in front of the home they were invading. Leave this poor old lady and her brother alone. Seems to me if you have a 14 year old and a 16 year old couple of perps then the parenting skills were substandard. I wonder how much crime will decrease in this area now that 2 thugs are dead. I wouldn’t be surprised if those two were responsible for a lot of this crime spree.

neyney on May 6, 2014 at 5:09 PM

I think there has to be a standard for shooting an unarmed teenager above that he or she invaded your home.

DarkKnight3565 on May 6, 2014 at 5:07 PM

So when someone breaks your door down or smashes your window in and comes into your home you’re going to yell “Stop, how old are you?” There are two names for people like you the first is “The Victim” the second is “The Deceased”.

Oldnuke on May 6, 2014 at 5:10 PM

Someone didn’t comprehend fully the risk/rewards ratio.
Sad that they felt they could endanger their own lives as well as the homeowners….and spread fear amongst the neighbors.

Don L on May 6, 2014 at 5:10 PM

Who cares what the “friends of the victim’s” think.

Dumb young kids usually hang out with dumb young kids.

Odie1941 on May 6, 2014 at 5:12 PM

“They didn’t deserve to get killed,” said the sister of 14-year-old Michael Sambrano.

Yes they did.
They were buglarizing an elderly woman’s home.
They absolutely deserved what they got.

dentarthurdent on May 6, 2014 at 5:12 PM

If conservatives had the courage of their convictions they would openly advocate the death penalty for burglary and armed robbery.

libfreeordie on May 6, 2014 at 5:12 PM

I think there has to be a standard for shooting an unarmed teenager above that he or she invaded your home.

DarkKnight3565 on May 6, 2014 at 5:07 PM

How do you know it’s a teenager?

How do you know he’s unarmed?

Don’t want to get shot? Don’t invade someone else’s home. It really is that simple.

CurtZHP on May 6, 2014 at 5:13 PM

friends, family don’t understand why teen home invaders were shot dead

Two words, doncha’ think, collie?

My collie says:

Terminal stupidity?

That’s a good guess, collie. I was thinking that “Darwin Award” works as well.

CyberCipher on May 6, 2014 at 5:13 PM

I think there has to be a standard for shooting an unarmed teenager above that he or she invaded your home.

DarkKnight3565 on May 6, 2014 at 5:07 PM

How do you determine if they’re armed.

And, if you’re frail or elderly, is the strength they have from being young enough of a weapon for you to consider yourself in danger?

JadeNYU on May 6, 2014 at 5:13 PM

But you’ll never see any politician run on the death penalty for burglary and armed robbery. So you leave vigilantes to do the cowardly work for you, you’re afraid of it being part of an explicit political platform. Disgusting. *spit*

libfreeordie on May 6, 2014 at 5:13 PM

TV and movies trivialize breaking and entering and rarely ever demonstrate the consequences that can befall the perpetrators. This is a grave disservice to not only young men like these, but to everyone that young men like these terrorize. The parents are the ultimate failures here, having allowed them to become criminals, but TV and Movie producers certainly should try to add more reality to their programming.
Someone breaks into my home while I am there, and they will find a similar end. Just simply the sanctity of my home space is worth killing for, and there ain’t a damned thing worth dying for in my home.

astonerii on May 6, 2014 at 5:14 PM

And, naturally, the resident libtards show up to defend the stupid.

Like moths to a flame.

CurtZHP on May 6, 2014 at 5:14 PM

Legally there can only be one logical position on this: if you break into someone’s home, know that you can be legally shot and killed. Furthermore, the guy in the comments of the CBS article saying that an attempt to retreat should be made first is a blithering idiot. Our homes are our one safe haven and we have the right to defend them if criminals decide to invade that space.

I will express a little discomfort with some of the glee in the comments of the BA article. Loss of life isn’t something to celebrate. Speaking personally, if someone kicked in my door in the middle of the night, I’d take my shotgun out of the closet, load it, and wait in my bedroom for the police to arrive. If the person comes through that door, that’s one thing, but I’ve got no family to defend, and I’m not willing to kill over my television.

Again, that’s my own moral opinion (and I have no idea what the circumstances the people in the article were in, I don’t mean to cast judgment on them). But as I said at the beginning, the only sensible *legal* position is the right of the homeowner to defend his/her property and person against anyone who breaks in.

LukeinNE on May 6, 2014 at 5:14 PM

This was a repeat event. A very deliberately chosen repeat event.

I don’t blame the homeowner one bit.

lineholder on May 6, 2014 at 5:15 PM

I think there has to be a standard for shooting an unarmed teenager above that he or she invaded your home.

DarkKnight3565 on May 6, 2014 at 5:07 PM

That standard is incapacitate the intruder.

Pretty solid standard.

Murphy9 on May 6, 2014 at 5:15 PM

If conservatives had the courage of their convictions they would openly advocate the death penalty for burglary and armed robbery.

libfreeordie on May 6, 2014 at 5:12 PM

How so?

In the moment when someone is in danger, I do not see a problem with them defending themselves with deadly force (if necessary).

That doesn’t necessitate a belief that burglary should be a capital crime that allows the state to execute a criminal long after the immediate danger has faded.

JadeNYU on May 6, 2014 at 5:15 PM

For once I’d like to see a parent go on TV and just say hey, I f*cked up. I raised a monster.

Mark1971 on May 6, 2014 at 5:15 PM

The same with my neighbor. When his Gadsden flag needed a replacement I decided to gift an extra I had by placing it in his mailbox vice dropping it off on his doorstep.

Meat Fighter on May 6, 2014 at 5:07 PM

Should have presented it in person, you would have had an armed neighbor friend for life.

Sven on May 6, 2014 at 5:15 PM

I’d be willing to bet that running two-week crime map gets a lot sparser in the next two weeks. Maybe those kids’ deaths will save the lives of some other kids by showing them that crime doesn’t pay in the long run.

suburbanite on May 6, 2014 at 5:15 PM

Reality 1 2
Thug culture 0

Murphy9 on May 6, 2014 at 5:01 PM

There ya go!

CapnObvious on May 6, 2014 at 5:16 PM

I think there has to be a standard for shooting an unarmed teenager above that he or she invaded your home.

DarkKnight3565 on May 6, 2014 at 5:07 PM

Agreed, the invader should show proof of age as well as submit to a metal detector and strip search to verify if they are armed, then and only then can they assault the homeowner or steal their property.

Bishop on May 6, 2014 at 5:16 PM

P.S.

Autoplay is a tool of satan.

CurtZHP on May 6, 2014 at 5:16 PM

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

The Darwin filter worked this time.

I feel bad for the homeowner and her brother. If I could send him a new box of ammo to replace what he expended I would.

sumpnz on May 6, 2014 at 5:17 PM

I think there has to be a standard for shooting an unarmed teenager above that he or she invaded your home.

DarkKnight3565 on May 6, 2014 at 5:07 PM


No, there doesn’t
… if YOU want to live by a turn the other cheek philosophy, you are completely free to do so.

Until YOU have had your home robbed by multiple intruders who decide to come back and rob you AGAIN (Pop Quiz: WHY did they target the same house again?) you have as informed an opinion as the millions of liberals who tell us “these kids are just misunderstood”which is complete horseshite!

PolAgnostic on May 6, 2014 at 5:17 PM

Any loss of life is sad, but these were a couple of terrorist thugs, who KNEW there was an elderly widow living in the home yet chose to burgle her anyway. How could she know their intentions?

As far as the mother and sister are concerned, the kid was in “foster care”… why is that, mom??? You couldn’t be strong enough to raise your own child? Sister’s nose ring is a good indicator of the type of upbringing they had – and the remark about “maybe he was just trying to eat”… really?

Good riddance.

Key West Reader on May 6, 2014 at 5:18 PM

When you take it upon yourself to break into the home (castle) of a decided victim with the intent to commit a felony therein (from grand theft to murder) you are by nature of the felonious act, placing yourself in potential harm’s way. The potential occupant of the dwelling (likely occupied in England, in light of the disarmament of the populace – except for felons with felonious intent) may, indeed, be bent on protecting him/herself with legally possessed firearms, in light of the universally known fact that when seconds count, LEO is minutes away (almost an hour if you have the misfortune to reside in Detroit). Well known is that LE has no Constitutional obligation to protect individual citizens, hence the the 2nd Amendment’s call to protect oneself from enemies, foreign or domestic. Yes, it is an individual Right. Deo Vindice.

vnvet on May 6, 2014 at 5:18 PM

“They didn’t deserve to get killed.”

Yes they did.

AtTheRubicon on May 6, 2014 at 5:18 PM

This gives a lot more info.

Neighbors said footage from a residential surveillance camera had shown two teenagers casing the house recently. Neighbors also said the teenagers had apparently threatened the female resident verbally, prompting her to ask a male relative to stay with her at night.

These people were more than justified in the shooting.

The mother of the teen shot and killed during a burglary says the homeowners shouldn’t have shot to kill.

They aren’t Dirty Harry lady, their senior citizens. It’s not like they take target practice twice a month.

Rocks on May 6, 2014 at 5:18 PM

I think there has to be a standard for shooting an unarmed teenager above that he or she invaded your home.

DarkKnight3565 on May 6, 2014 at 5:07 PM

Feel free to live your life any way you like and throw it away to whoever you like. I could care less. The standard for shooting someone who illegally enters my home will be that they do not stop immediately the moment my gun is pointed at them. If they show any aggression or I am forced into any retreat, their life is 100% forfeit at that point.

Anyone who is brazen enough to break into an occupied home is most certainly a threat to occupants.

astonerii on May 6, 2014 at 5:18 PM

I think there has to be a standard for shooting an unarmed teenager above that he or she invaded your home.

DarkKnight3565 on May 6, 2014 at 5:07 PM

WTF are you supposed to ask for his birth certificate or drivers license and then ask him a bunch a questions to see if he qualifies not to be shot???

txdoc on May 6, 2014 at 5:19 PM

Good for the homeowner, glad to see widows armed…

OmahaConservative on May 6, 2014 at 5:19 PM

Robbing folks can have dire consequences for the robbers..

Dire Straits on May 6, 2014 at 5:20 PM

Friends, family don’t understand why teen home invaders were shot dead

Their lack of understanding is exactly why they’re dead. Oh, the irony.

I’m Canadian and even here, there is absolutely no controversy.

MrX on May 6, 2014 at 5:21 PM

I think there has to be a standard for shooting an unarmed teenager above that he or she invaded your home.

DarkKnight3565 on May 6, 2014 at 5:07 PM

There is.
If he’s in my house uninvited – he’s dead.
I’m not risking my life wasting time to ask for ID or ask him to show me whether he’s armed or not.
If he broke into my house he’s dead – that’s a very simple, straight-forward, easy to understand standard for even the most stupid criminal.

dentarthurdent on May 6, 2014 at 5:21 PM

Think I’ll try to get some new enthusiasm for what to have for dinner.

docflash on May 6, 2014 at 5:22 PM

Good aim.

WhatSlushfund on May 6, 2014 at 5:22 PM

I think there has to be a standard for shooting an unarmed teenager above that he or she invaded your home.

DarkKnight3565 on May 6, 2014 at 5:07 PM

So when you hear the window being broken, or the door kicked in you are supposed to find out their age and ask them if they are armed?

Or maybe you are just an ivory tower idiot?

sharrukin on May 6, 2014 at 5:22 PM

I think there has to be a standard for shooting an unarmed teenager above that he or she invaded your home.

DarkKnight3565 on May 6, 2014 at 5:07 PM

Agreed.

I think shooting a home invader should be standard procedure.

pain train on May 6, 2014 at 5:22 PM

I think there has to be a standard for shooting an unarmed teenager above that he or she invaded your home.

DarkKnight3565 on May 6, 2014 at 5:07 PM

Care to suggest one? How about you can only shoot them once they actually start beating you? How far into the beating would you say seems fair? Should a 14-year old be able to break both of your arms but an 18 year old can only break your non-shooting arm?

Should they be required to present ID and pass though a magnetometer to prove their age and unarmed status or should we just take their word for it.

Seriously, do ideas like this really not sound idiotic to the person posting them? It’s hard to imagine anything so ludicrous ever sounds like a good idea to anyone whose not the victim of a head trauma.

Here’s the standard: If you’d like to reduce the possibility of being legally shot to death, reduce the number of homes you break into. Works every time.

SoRight on May 6, 2014 at 5:22 PM

Sorry, I got some knots in sum gold chains to get out. No time for this BS.

rik on May 6, 2014 at 5:23 PM

I think there has to be a standard for shooting an unarmed teenager above that he or she invaded your home.

There is a standard:

If the thief is found breaking in, and is stricken and dies, no blood shall be shed for him. Ex. 22:2

suburbanite on May 6, 2014 at 5:23 PM

The police said:

“We get there within two minutes and we found the two suspects inside the house,” said Gigante.

So they weren’t shot in the back on the way out the door or they wouldn’t still be in the house.

Rocks on May 6, 2014 at 5:23 PM

YES they deserved to be shot. Where doesn’t matter, as in, in the face, the ass, the gut, whatever. Anyone breaking into your home whether expected to break in or not, should also expect and consider that they are gambling with their lives and it’s a one time gamble.

I have NO sympathy for the little scumbags.

Diluculo on May 6, 2014 at 5:24 PM

If conservatives had the courage of their convictions they would openly advocate the death penalty for burglary and armed robbery.

libfreeordie on May 6, 2014 at 5:12 PM

Why let the state have all the fun? Conservatives need target practice as well.
Yes, we are all laughing at you.

TinFin on May 6, 2014 at 5:24 PM

Furthermore, the guy in the comments of the CBS article saying that an attempt to retreat should be made first is a blithering idiot. Our homes are our one safe haven and we have the right to defend them if criminals decide to invade that space.

Absolutely. Also, retreating into the loving embrace of the look-out guy in the yard is not a viable strategy.

obladioblada on May 6, 2014 at 5:24 PM

Screw them nd the folks whining for them. Somebody breaks in on me and I am not checking ages or negotiating. I let Mr Ruger do the talking.

Southernblogger on May 6, 2014 at 5:24 PM

If conservatives had the courage of their convictions they would openly advocate the death penalty for burglary and armed robbery.

libfreeordie on May 6, 2014 at 5:12 PM

Many of us do – especially if they choose to attack an armed victim.
Tough luck kid – you chose the death penalty for yourself.
So what’s the problem?

dentarthurdent on May 6, 2014 at 5:24 PM

“I don’t understand why they were shot dead.”

Because the shooter was a good shot! Duhhhhhh!

LouisianaLightning on May 6, 2014 at 5:25 PM

“I don’t understand why they were shot dead.”
‘Cause they needed killin’.

LtGenRob on May 6, 2014 at 5:25 PM

Speaking personally, if someone kicked in my door in the middle of the night, I’d take my shotgun out of the closet, load it, and wait in my bedroom for the police to arrive. If the person comes through that door, that’s one thing, but I’ve got no family to defend, and I’m not willing to kill over my television.

Again, that’s my own moral opinion (and I have no idea what the circumstances the people in the article were in, I don’t mean to cast judgment on them). But as I said at the beginning, the only sensible *legal* position is the right of the homeowner to defend his/her property and person against anyone who breaks in.

LukeinNE on May 6, 2014 at 5:14 PM


How many times are you willing to go through that same drill?

You are thinking there is NO effect on your family if they don’t enter the bedroom.

You are completely wrong in that regard. My wife was traumatized when it happened to us the first time and FREAKED OUT when the police said the perpetrators were almost guaranteed to COME BACK AGAIN.

How many times?

And what if one of those times they decide to set fire to your house … just for fun?

PolAgnostic on May 6, 2014 at 5:26 PM

But you’ll never see any politician run on the death penalty for burglary and armed robbery. So you leave vigilantes to do the cowardly work for you, you’re afraid of it being part of an explicit political platform. Disgusting. *spit*

libfreeordie on May 6, 2014 at 5:13 PM

This is what passes for intelligent thought in the social sciences, folks.

DisneyFan on May 6, 2014 at 5:26 PM

DarkKnight3565 on May 6, 2014 at 5:07 PM

Undeserving of the nic

libfreeordie on May 6, 2014

Two really stupid comments in a row.

Not a record for you, unfortunately.

cozmo on May 6, 2014 at 5:26 PM

The kid who had robbed the house a week before shouldn’t have been on the streets. I blame his parents for his death. They killed him just as sure as the homeowner did. They allowed and enabled his suicide by robbery attempt.

HotAirian on May 6, 2014 at 5:26 PM

The woman has a carport, no garage, the punks could clearly see if she was home or not, they knew the woman was home and that there was no man living there. I’ll bet bigger plans were in store.

Bishop on May 6, 2014 at 5:27 PM

I think there has to be a standard for shooting an unarmed teenager above that he or she invaded your home.

DarkKnight3565 on May 6, 2014 at 5:07 PM

As soon as there’s a law requiring burglars to provide government ID to the defending homeowner so that their age can be verified.

Socratease on May 6, 2014 at 5:28 PM

Pictures show the 16 year old with a neck tattoo & flashing gang signs.

Call me cynical but this end was inevitable.

landshark on May 6, 2014 at 5:28 PM

If conservatives had the courage of their convictions they would openly advocate the death penalty for burglary and armed robbery.

libfreeordie on May 6, 2014 at 5:12 PM

Do you read the other comments before performing your daily Infinite Monkey Theorem exercises?

I think summary execution is openly advocating for the death penalty.

Idiot.

turfmann on May 6, 2014 at 5:28 PM

Scumbags got what they deserved.

SansJeux on May 6, 2014 at 4:56 PM

Yup, yup, yup. To the point.

libfreeordie on May 6, 2014 at 5:13 PM

This is your brain on drugs ….. maybe you should try burglary as a hobby – in Texas, say.

Chuck Ef on May 6, 2014 at 5:28 PM

If conservatives had the courage of their convictions they would openly advocate the death penalty for burglary and armed robbery.

libfreeordie on May 6, 2014 at 5:12 PM

Do you support the death penalty for all rapes?

If not then I take it that any woman who defends herself with a gun during an attempted rape should be charged?

sharrukin on May 6, 2014 at 5:29 PM

A teen boy under the age of 18 with script writing in tattoo across his neck and his little sister with a steel nose ring have never had any boundaries placed on them and are out for drug money. “Wanted to eat”. Tchaaa, yeah right.

Marcus on May 6, 2014 at 5:29 PM

I think there has to be a standard for shooting an unarmed teenager above that he or she invaded your home.

DarkKnight3565 on May 6, 2014 at 5:07 PM

“Invaded your home”… to do what? Rape and kill an elderly woman and her brother? Trash her home, tie her up and put it all on You Tube?

Eff it.. if you want to break into my humble abode you best be prepared to die if you’re uninvited. It’s that simple…

Key West Reader on May 6, 2014 at 5:29 PM

If conservatives had the courage of their convictions they would openly advocate the death penalty for burglary and armed robbery.

libfreeordie on May 6, 2014 at 5:12 PM

That’s only because you’re too stupid to understand the difference between punishment and self-defense.

Socratease on May 6, 2014 at 5:29 PM

landshark on May 6, 2014 at 5:28 PM

According to one of the videos, the same one I saw the kid with the neck tat, the younger kid was in foster care.

cozmo on May 6, 2014 at 5:30 PM

HEY KIDS.

IF YOU BURGLARIZE SOMEBODY’S HOUSE, AND THEY KILL YOU BECAUSE YOU’RE TERRIFYING THEM, DON’T ACT SURPRISED. WELCOME TO REALITY.

The more you know.

Good Lt on May 6, 2014 at 4:56 PM

Worth repeating

portlandon on May 6, 2014 at 5:31 PM

I think there has to be a standard for shooting an unarmed teenager above that he or she invaded your home.

DarkKnight3565 on May 6, 2014 at 5:07 PM

So what limits would you put in? How taller does the teen have to be than you before you can shoot them? How stronger? They are invading your home, your castle, shoot the barbarians or just bow down before them darkknight as their slave.

oryguncon on May 6, 2014 at 5:31 PM

Libfree is, of course, on the side of the burglar. As for the asinine “why don’t you advocate the death penalty for armed robbery” thing:

Our current Supreme Court says that raping a child is not death penalty worthy. And you liberals want to ban the death penalty for everyone (except innocent children, who deserve to be brutally ripped from their mother’s womb and killed–that is a cause for celebration!).

I’m fine with the death penalty for armed robbery. These homeowners just saved the cost of a trial, and prison, for these scum.

Vanceone on May 6, 2014 at 5:31 PM

I think there has to be a standard for shooting an unarmed teenager above that he or she invaded your home.

DarkKnight3565 on May 6, 2014 at 5:07 PM

If breaking and entering multiple times into the home of a sixty eight year old widow, at night, knowing she’s home with her car plainly visible in the drive, willing to take by force anything there, doesn’t meet your standard for armed defense … well, go jump in front of a bus.

M240H on May 6, 2014 at 5:33 PM

But you’ll never see any politician run on the death penalty for burglary and armed robbery. So you leave vigilantes to do the cowardly work for you, you’re afraid of it being part of an explicit political platform. Disgusting. *spit*

libfreeordie on May 6, 2014 at 5:13 PM

ROFL

Vigilante:
1. a member of a vigilance committee.
2. any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime.
3. done violently and summarily, without recourse to lawful procedures.

With California law in mind which of these fits the act of what the homeowner did, you’re a perfesser so an explanation should come easy.

Bishop on May 6, 2014 at 5:33 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 5