Jophiel wrote:
I heard about this story a week or so ago and, from what I heard, it sounded pretty clearly like premeditated murder. The guy set up shop in his basement with a barricade, food and water, equipment for removing the bodies, etc. He was set up for the sole reason of killing these people and then went as far as admitting to the police that he killed at least one of them while they were incapacitated. Really (again, from what little I heard) his remarks to the police were probably as damning as anything else for proving intent.
Samira wrote:
On the other hand... what the hell were they doing breaking into his house?
Breaking the law, obviously. But even "castle doctrine" doesn't generally give you the right to lay death traps in lieu of calling the police.
I think it's less that than the former issue (killing them even once incapacitated). There's actually an interesting aspect to the case with regard to where the boundary should lie between premeditated murder and legitimate defense of one's property. In this case, his home had been burglarized before, allegedly by the same two who he killed. We can assume he reported the previous break ins and police investigated, but nothing came of it. The legal question is whether he's in the right to pretend to be away and wait for someone to break in?
Personally, I don't think that should be illegal. He didn't force them to break into his house. Assuming we accept that he has a right to defend his property in the first place, then I don't think he's obligated to truthfully inform a would be burglar as to when they can do so safely. Can he pretend to not be there as well? Again, is a homeowner obligated to tell people the truth about whether he's at home or not? Where does this line of thinking end though? If I buy a system that turns on and off lights in my home to make it look like I'm there when I'm not, am I violating some would be thief's right to break into my home? I think that's a bit silly. Why is the opposite legally problematic?
In this case, I think the issue is that he clearly intended to kill these kids rather than protect his property. But I'm concerned that people seem to be focusing on the "he set a trap" angle, and not the "he continued to shot them until they were dead rather than just to incapacitate them and then he didn't call the police for a day" angle. But that's what makes this murder IMO. A homeowner should absolutely have the right to pretend to not be home if he wants, for whatever reason he wants. That should not even be a factor here.