Wikipedia says they broke a window to enter, and that can be heard on audio—I’m not trying to argue with everything, but how is a closed window that had to be broken for entry not a barrier?
The dude clearly murdered them and had violent vigilante fantasies—I don’t argue that one bit.
That said, they still came up to his house, broke a window, and entered with the intention to burgle it. It doesn’t really matter if the window was previously blocked or made of paper—breaking and entering with the intention of burglary is a crime, and having no block on a window isn’t enticement to have your house burgled.
Again, before anyone thinks I’m defending him, I fully agree that he is a murderer. I just think the burglars weren’t innocent either. In Reddit lingo, “everyone sucks here”.
The jury took less than three hours to establish as a matter of fact that none of the shootings were justified or in defense. It’s a fact now, your opinion is just that… An opinion and one not backed by either statute or the court case.
They weren’t, they went over this in the trial.
He became the aggressor when he removed barriers to entry and laid in wait which is a negative defense for self defense.
Wikipedia says they broke a window to enter, and that can be heard on audio—I’m not trying to argue with everything, but how is a closed window that had to be broken for entry not a barrier?
They did, read the testimony. He has the window blocked and he removed it so the window would be the easiest way to enter.
He set a trap, there’s no legitimate purpose for that.
The dude clearly murdered them and had violent vigilante fantasies—I don’t argue that one bit.
That said, they still came up to his house, broke a window, and entered with the intention to burgle it. It doesn’t really matter if the window was previously blocked or made of paper—breaking and entering with the intention of burglary is a crime, and having no block on a window isn’t enticement to have your house burgled.
Again, before anyone thinks I’m defending him, I fully agree that he is a murderer. I just think the burglars weren’t innocent either. In Reddit lingo, “everyone sucks here”.
You are defending him boss.
The jury took less than three hours to establish as a matter of fact that none of the shootings were justified or in defense. It’s a fact now, your opinion is just that… An opinion and one not backed by either statute or the court case.
I already requested the link for the info you are referencing, and I have told you where I found mine. Please provide a source, I would like to learn.
I did!
The court transcripts which I’ve read, you haven’t and I’m not your goddamn mom. You know the source, go get it for yourself.
If you’re arguing that both the murderer and murder victims “suck” maybe you need to rethink your priorities…
I’m not saying one is worse than the other, rather that both fucked around and found out.
And I am definitively saying the murderer is worse than his victims
Agreed. Never said he wasn’t.
Well that’s strange because one is a convicted murderer.
I find this kind of “appeal to the system when it agrees with me” strange
What do you mean, by any system one is a murderer one is a burglar what’s not to agree with?
And the others probably would have been convicted of burglary if they lived, what’s your point?
Absolutely. If you think unarmed burglary and premeditated murder are the same morally and legally I cannot agree.