re: Minnesota homeowner goes on trial for teen intruders' deaths

quote:

---

You mean being murdered for robbery?

The consequences far outweigh the crime.

---

Meh, if he doesn't kill them then they go to jail, get out and go rob again. This way it just ends the cycle early and they don't waste tax dollars planning their next job while they are in jail.

quote:

---

You mean being murdered for robbery?

The consequences far outweigh the crime.

---

The homeowner definitely exceeded his rights by killing the thieves after the threat was stopped, but if they were killed outright, the consequences would certainly have been justified. Why? Because the homeowner has the right to feel safe within his own home.

Someone who breaks in (especially at night) has already shown intent to do harm to anyone inside, giving the homeowner the right to self defense. The homeowner usually has no clue that the robber is armed, and if it is dark, they may not be able to identify if a weapon is present. Clearly a robber understands that there is a risk that the homeowner is actually home, and they may choose to resort to violence against the homeowner rather than risk getting caught. The homeowner doesn't know the intent of the robber; they only know that they entered their home unlawfully.

So due to the risks involved, killing an intruder should be justified regardless of whether or not the actual "punishment" fit the crime.