Anyone watch Dateline Tonight 5/16? - Page 4

occasionalrain · ‎03-10-2010

On 5/17/2014 Goldengate8361 said: I was very disappointed that he was found guilty. I was also disappointed at the poor journalism by dateline to paint a sympathetic picture of burglars. They both deserved to be shot.

I agree. The family of the criminals were hard to take. I believe the sister knew what her brother was doing with his free time. The mother should have be concerned about where her son was getting all the money he had.

occasionalrain · ‎03-10-2010

On 5/17/2014 terrier3 said:
On 5/17/2014 Goldengate8361 said: I was very disappointed that he was found guilty. I was also disappointed at the poor journalism by dateline to paint a sympathetic picture of burglars. They both deserved to be shot.

No one deserves to be shot to death, unless they are about to kill you.

This man was a heartless, premeditated fiend.

FINALLY someone gets justice from these shoot first vigilantes!!!!

Come back and tell us that when you live alone and have people breaking into your home and stealing guns again and again. What was he supposed to think these criminals were going to do with the guns they had stolen from him?

terrier3 · ‎03-10-2010

On 5/17/2014 occasional rain said:
On 5/17/2014 Goldengate8361 said: I was very disappointed that he was found guilty. I was also disappointed at the poor journalism by dateline to paint a sympathetic picture of burglars. They both deserved to be shot.

I agree. The family of the criminals were hard to take. I believe the sister knew what her brother was doing with his free time. The mother should have be concerned about where her son was getting all the money he had.

The boy might have been a thief...but there is no state in America where that is a capital crime.

The man overreacted and I'm glad he's gone to jail for the rest of his life. He is a menace to society.

He reminds me of the ex-cop who shot and killed a man in the movie theater. He also thinks he will get away with it. I hope he's wrong too - and these vigilantes stop killing.

terrier3 · ‎03-10-2010

On 5/17/2014 occasional rain said:
On 5/17/2014 terrier3 said:
On 5/17/2014 Goldengate8361 said: I was very disappointed that he was found guilty. I was also disappointed at the poor journalism by dateline to paint a sympathetic picture of burglars. They both deserved to be shot.

No one deserves to be shot to death, unless they are about to kill you.

This man was a heartless, premeditated fiend.

FINALLY someone gets justice from these shoot first vigilantes!!!!

Come back and tell us that when you live alone and have people breaking into your home and stealing guns again and again. What was he supposed to think these criminals were going to do with the guns they had stolen from him?

Maybe he should have had his guns locked away safely.

He was NOT a responsible gun owner....plus there is no evidence he got the original thieves...and even if he did...burglary isn't a capital crime.

occasionalrain · ‎03-10-2010

On 5/17/2014 terrier3 said:
On 5/17/2014 lovepink said:
On 5/17/2014 Dagna said:
I didn't see the show and don't know all the facts.

Maybe, under the law he deserved his sentence.

I will say tho that I am not sorry for the burglars. When you break into someone's house, it's just a little too much in my view to expect "your rights" to be upheld -i.e., that no one can shoot you unless you are actually threatening their life.

Seems to me you take your chances - and if you run into someone as lawless as yourself - and perhaps unbalanced as well - well there you are.

I did see the show and do know the facts and I agree with this!

Well the killer took his chances with the jury and he lost.

A tragedy all around.

He lost because his attorney was prevented from entering evidence that he had every reason to believe the intruders were armed. Many witnesses for the defense were not permitted to testify. I believe he will win on appeal.

occasionalrain · ‎03-10-2010

On 5/17/2014 twopeas said:
IMO, the previous break-in's have nothing to do with the vigilante justice that the defendant used. He could have held the kids at gunpoint, while he called 911 for the "proper" authorities. Just because the kids had priors doesn't give anyone the right to be the judge and jury. He entrapped and killed those kids.

They had stolen guns in the previous break ins which made the man and anyone with any sense believe they would be armed. Maybe he didn't want to risk a shoot out by trying to hold them. Maybe he had had enough of being victimized.

occasionalrain · ‎03-10-2010

On 5/17/2014 terrier3 said:
On 5/17/2014 scotttie said:
On 5/17/2014 Dagna said:
I didn't see the show and don't know all the facts.

Maybe, under the law he deserved his sentence.

I will say tho that I am not sorry for the burglars. When you break into someone's house, it's just a little too much in my view to expect "your rights" to be upheld -i.e., that no one can shoot you unless you are actually threatening their life.

Seems to me you take your chances - and if you run into someone as lawless as yourself - and perhaps unbalanced as well - well there you are.

I don't know a lot about it either but have to wonder if they hadn't tormented him in the past in addition to robbing him.

My sil's uncle was robbed again and again and beaten. Police couldn't do a thing. He finally had to leave his own home before THEY killed HIM.

There was no evidence of this in this case.

The boy was a bully, pushing kids around so it's not unlikely that had the man not shot him he would have been beaten or killed. That testimony wasn't allowed in either.

So the prosecution got to paint a picture of a couple of naughty fun loving kids from good families getting themselves into trouble.

terrier3 · ‎03-10-2010

On 5/17/2014 occasional rain said:
On 5/17/2014 twopeas said:
IMO, the previous break-in's have nothing to do with the vigilante justice that the defendant used. He could have held the kids at gunpoint, while he called 911 for the "proper" authorities. Just because the kids had priors doesn't give anyone the right to be the judge and jury. He entrapped and killed those kids.

They had stolen guns in the previous break ins which made the man and anyone with any sense believe they would be armed. Maybe he didn't want to risk a shoot out by trying to hold them. Maybe he had had enough of being victimized.

He had NO IDEA who these kids were. How was he to guess they were the same people who had broken into his home before???

He set up a "deer stand" - hid in the basement and shot them first to incapacitate them...then went in and KILLED them in cold blood...he did not call for help.

terrier3 · ‎03-10-2010

On 5/17/2014 occasional rain said:
On 5/17/2014 terrier3 said:
On 5/17/2014 scotttie said:
On 5/17/2014 Dagna said:
I didn't see the show and don't know all the facts.

Maybe, under the law he deserved his sentence.

I will say tho that I am not sorry for the burglars. When you break into someone's house, it's just a little too much in my view to expect "your rights" to be upheld -i.e., that no one can shoot you unless you are actually threatening their life.

Seems to me you take your chances - and if you run into someone as lawless as yourself - and perhaps unbalanced as well - well there you are.

I don't know a lot about it either but have to wonder if they hadn't tormented him in the past in addition to robbing him.

My sil's uncle was robbed again and again and beaten. Police couldn't do a thing. He finally had to leave his own home before THEY killed HIM.

There was no evidence of this in this case.

The boy was a bully, pushing kids around so it's not unlikely that had the man not shot him he would have been beaten or killed. That testimony wasn't allowed in either.

So the prosecution got to paint a picture of a couple of naughty fun loving kids from good families getting themselves into trouble.

Being a bully doesn't give anyone the right to shoot you dead.

Breaking into a home doesn't give anyone the right to shoot you dead.

It only took a few hours for the jury to come back with a verdict. It was a no-brainer.

He was guilty of murder.

songbird · ‎03-21-2010

I agree with the verdict. That guy just lost it and over reacted. The boy was a lowlife and his cousin probably knew what that kid did in his spare time. But that's not a reason for being shot like that. Had the jury heard about the kids past, well it might have been a different verdict. But that Byron guy would still be found guilty. All that guy had to do was call the police. It was his choice.... now he has to pay for it.

As a child, my family was a victim of a home invasion. By the time, my father got his gun the guy was gone. I scared the guy. He didn't see me in the dark, and I ran straight in to him.