Reader quoted in story re Minn. shootings
Joe Olson, a/k/a 30yearlawprof, is cited in an article about self-defense.
I'd say of the incident that is the focus of the story: his first shot at each would probably have been legally justifiable, his followup shots at the guy would be a call for the jury, but his followup shots on the female sound to be plainly over the line. (Not to mention that his story for those is unbelievable).
1. Don't talk to the police.
2. Call police asap.
3. Use a 12ga inside the house. No need for a second shot.
4. Use a handgun caliber starting with 4.
5. Don't talk to the police.
Posted by: Dan Hamilton at December 5, 2012 10:08 AM
I agree with some of the commenters to the DB story - The story sounds fishy. We need to wait for the investigation.
Most puzzling: The girl going down the stairs unarmed into a basement to investigate obvious gun shots.
There's more to this story than meets the eye - especially about the guy claiming self defense. Drug dealer maybe?
Posted by: rspock at December 5, 2012 12:05 PM
Just playing devil's advocate:
How many times have we heard police say "We are taught to keep shooting until we're sure the threat is gone."??? If it's good enough for the police to use those tactics against us, why can't we use those tactics against burglars?
Posted by: CarlS at December 5, 2012 12:17 PM
What Carls said should be tested as to non-police civilians in shooting situations.
It goes hand in hand with, "use the same bullets the cops use in your self defense weapon." Silvertips, gold hollowpoint whatevers; use the same ones. It will likely be the same brand and model the prosecuting DA has in his own piece, issued for his own self defense.
Posted by: Windy Wilson at December 5, 2012 01:49 PM
I was tempted to stop reading after "Two kids break into a Minnesota man’s home on Thanksgiving" (I figured they got what they deserved) but, I wanted to know the age of the KIDS. 17 and 18 year olds look a lot like something other than KIDS when they break into your house.
When I read the rest of the article, I lost a lot of my sympathy for the shooter.
I would never shot to kill. I would only shot to stop the treat, as I know all of you here would.
Give a full statement to the police only after 24 hours and under supervision of council. Especially if you are dumb enough to shot to kill.
That's my 2 cents worth.
Posted by: Chuck at December 5, 2012 04:47 PM
Give a full statement to the police only after 24 hours and under supervision of council.
I don't think that would make a difference in this case, the forensics should be clear on the 2nd "kid" he shot.
He'd also have to lie through his teeth, and it's hard to do that consistently.
I can't say I'm upset when a stupid murderer is also stupid in dealing with the authorities.
Posted by: Harold at December 6, 2012 06:57 AM
There's a follow-up on this showing that the kids' car was found with stolen prescription drugs from other people's houses, so it doesn't look like he lured them in...
Posted by: SDN at December 7, 2012 09:31 AM
As others have said, there is a lot that's odd about this story.
As to the home owner, well yes, he is the victim. When he said "I want him dead" that could simply mean that he wanted to make sure he was no longer a threat. Putting a handgun under the chin of the girl as she lies there helpless?
Regardless of the law, I find the home owners lack of respect for human life completely shocking.
Posted by: Jim at December 7, 2012 09:45 PM