Comments by "Barry On" (@barryon8706) on "Man Convicted Of 1st Degree Murder For Shooting Burglars During Home Invasion." video.

If I were on the jury, I would have voted for acquittal. If the law doesn't protect him -- if the law has firmly displayed that it has no interest in protecting him -- then the law should not prevent him from protecting himself. Edit: Looks like it was a divisive opinion. I get that, and I was on the fence for a while. And I get that what he did was legally murder; but since law enforcement had abandoned him, I don't care what it was legally. Legally, he couldn't make his house appear empty. if the legal system is one-sided, it has ceased to be a justice system. My assumption is that turning them over to the police would not have kept them off the streets for long. If the cops aren't even trying to stop burglaries then it suggests the courts are clogged, and the teens will be out on bail and re-offending in no time. If I'm wrong then I do indeed have my head up my ass. It wouldn't be the first time.
88
Making the home look empty is not an invitation to burglarize it.
2
@bobsmith-wg9fz Because he did it to entice the burglary, as Nate explained, it meant he legally couldn't defend himself. It's really messed up, IMHO. Maybe -- maybe -- that would be OK if the police were defending him, but they weren't.
1
@riptors9777 Legally, he wasn't even allowed that, since he made his house appear empty to entice them in. Legally, he's only allowed to be a victim a 13th time, or to never leave his home appearing vulnerable.
1
@bobsmith-wg9fz According to Nate the Lawyer, it would legally count as enticement.
1
@bobsmith-wg9fz Bob,please pay attention to what I am saying. I am not saying it's right. I'm passing along the view of the law according to an actual lawyer.
1
@riptors9777 You're assuming revenge. I'm assuming he mostly wanted to stop the threat of further burglaries. The taunt points toward revenge, but it doesn't mean it was all revenge? Was it murder? Yes. That's what the jury determined. That's a legal question, not a moral one. It's like the "rooftop Koreans" (and I don't now to what extent those are true) during riots when the police withdraw from an area. Legally, you cannot protect property with deadly force, and if you shoot someone to defend your store then you're a murderer. For me, morally, if the police have abandoned protecting the people in an area then they shouldn't be allowed to object to how people handle it themselves. That's selective law enforcement. Justice is only justice if it's blind.
1