Jebus. Preacher guns down church burglers.

http://www.adn.com/front/story/4227666p-4239656c.html

PALMER -- The pastor who shot and killed two men he caught burglarizing his church took the stand in his own defense Wednesday and told jurors he armed himself with a gun before going into the church but never expected to fire the weapon.

When he did encounter two men inside, however, he didn't hesitate to shoot.

"It all happened so fast," he said. "They were right there, right in front of me."

The Rev. Phillip Mielke, 44, pastor of the Big Lake Community Chapel, spent nearly six hours on the stand recounting how he shot Christopher Palmer, 31, and Francis Jones, 23, in the early morning of April 24. He is on trial for manslaughter.

Dressed in slacks, a striped dress shirt, knit sweater and tie, he seemed calm, getting visibly flustered only once when he complained about the noise from a newspaper photographer taking pictures.

<snip>

And if a man trieth to take your coat, then blam blam blam blam blam.

:(

the original translation of "thou shalt not kill" is thou shalt not murder....big difference.

Im hardly a bible scholar, but I see nothing wrong with that this guy did.

Especially when the alternative was to be a victim.

These guys weren't armed, AFAIK. Whatever they were trying to steal from the church couldn't have been worth two lives.

As far as I'm concerned, this guy went WAY overboard, probably because he panicked. He could have run and called police, he could have fired warning shots, he could have simply watched from his house.

Perhaps you would have asked a follow up, "what is it that you intend to do to me?"

Point is people panic. He didn't know what was going on, and those criminals should not have been there. If they died its their own damn fault.

But when he looked out a nearby window and saw a man running outside, he pointed his gun and fired. He fired until all his bullets were gone,

What you listed happened after the shooting had begun. At that point you are not thinking you are in full panic mode and runnning on pure instinct.

Ask anyone that's ever been in any sort of violence and they'll tell you that you think before and after not during unless you are trained to do so.

Alaska law says you cannot use deadly force protecting property only protecting life and by his own admission he was never physically threatened.

Perception is reality, they ran up the stairs at him and they were shot as they ran past him. The third was shot after the violence had taken place and it wouldn't be hard to convince a jury that he was out of his mind by then and running on instinct.

He's not a trained cop, he doesn't know how to react and he paniced. Not the first time such things have happened when criminals break into places they don't belong.

Are you aware that you have made one of the best arguements I have ever seen for gun control?

is capable of controlling his emotion to the degree that he be expected to use a firearm within the bounds of law, while those lacking that training or control are exempt from the same expectation.

This is hardly a vote of confidence for civilian gun ownership...in either the eyes of law enforcement or society in general.

As a responsible cilvilian gun owner,user and former member of law enforcement, I find your rationalization of the illegal use of firearms to be highly offensive and dangerous.

Perhaps you should craft your arguments upon a foundation of logic. You're shooting responsible gun owners in the back and yourself in the foot with your emotionally charged hyperbole.

Christ, it's no wonder there's an anti-gun lobby. With folks like you running around, who can blame them?

RC

But the main point is that this 'minister' should never have been protecting an unoccupied church with a gun in the first place. If he awoke in the night and found intruders in his house, ok. But what the hell needed deadly force protection in the church? Did he have a solid gold crucifix? Perhaps a Picasso or two?

I think the situation is sad, but the first two shootings sound entirely legit. If the third was a panic shoot, it will be hard to prove otherwise.

and will be hard to prove otherwise. Such is murder and is not only illegal in a criminal sense but a contravention of the law of GOD, as well.

RC

hard to thnk of vengence seconds after the first to. My my your mind was rush to vengence fast as lightning if you think it's possible to think all that out so quickly.

Educate yourselves a little. :)

RC

Once someone has already shot two people fearing for his life, the rest can easily be temporary insanity.

Every gun instructor has told me that once you make the decision to shoot you aim for the center of mass and keep shooting until the target shows no sign of movement or your gun is empty, in which case you reload and continue shooting.

...gun instructor. What you just described is murder, not self defense.

Idols in a church far outweigh the value of human life!

Is a church the House of God....or is it the House of a Reverend? I would suggest it is the House of God. Does the Christian God advocate use of idols in his/her worship? To my knowledge he/she does not; quite the contrary, in fact. Do the idols belong to God or the Reverend? I would suggest they belong to the Reverend. Perhaps God was removing that which he found repulsive from his house. The Reverend's actions only prove that the practice of hoarding idols in Gods name, is, by its very nature and subsequent eventualities, irreligious and contrary to the teachings of Jesus.

RC

They were shot because he understably feared for his safety. I don't know where you live, but in most of the world, people who rob you and run at you pose a threat to your safety.

I don't know where you live, but in most of the world people who are running from you after you have shot them in the back, pose no threat to your safety.

If you fear for your safety you don't walk into a building you know has been broken into and play John Wayne. You walk back to your home and call the cops....then you let them and the insurance company do thier jobs.


RC

So then the message to criminals is STEAL ALL YOU WANT AS LONG AS KNOW ONE LIVES THERE. The only way anyone will stop you is if some cop happens to get there in less then their usual 20 minutes?

please.

How do you know they were there to steal anything? The House of the Lord is supposed to be open for praying and just maybe that is what they were doing.

Perhaps they were angels sent to bring us a more powerful marajuana plant?

You are quick to dish out death without any substantiation of any crime. I guess they don't deserve a day in court.

who were only in the church to cast spells and discuss alien theology deserved to die.

Sorry buddy not going for your what if nonsense.

They did nothing wrong other than be in the church after hours. You are the one saying "what if" they were going to steal or harm someone. For that "what if" the "Preacher" was valid in his callous disregard for human life. I say you are very wrong and quite immoral in the belief that it was justified also.

the preacher is going to fry.

You can't shoot people unless you can prove that there was a threat to your life. "I panicked" is not a viable excuse.

What - are we just supposed to go around shooting whomever we like and just say "well, I panicked".

Death Penalty for the Preacher, I say. Fry him.

I believe Alaska law on self-defense is in line with every other state except Massachussets, i.e. if you shoot someone who has come uninvited into your home or place of business the burden of proof is on the state to show that you did not act reasonably.

You can't shoot people unless you can prove that there was a threat to your life.

Showing that you had good reason to be in fear of death or injury is usually how that is stated.

"I panicked" is not a viable excuse.

It depends on whether or not panicking was a reasonable response to the situation. It will be the jury's job to make that determination.

First....a Church is neither a home or a place of business.

Second, panic is defined as a loss of reason....In short, reason is not a causality of its antithesis. Thusly, the reasonable response defense may not be used if the defendant claims the commission of the homicide was a result of panic, which, incidentally, he is NOT doing.

Panic is not insanity, as such, the defense cannot implement a plea of "not guilty by reason of insanity" temporary or otherwise. Using panic as a defense infers Diminished Capacity. Diminished Capacity means that although the accused was not insane, due to emotional distress, physical condition or other factors, he could not fully comprehend the nature of the criminal act he is accused of committing, particularly murder or attempted murder. The use of such a defense cannot yield a verdict of not guilty.

Most crimes in the United States have an "actus reus" or a guilty act and a "mens rea" or guilty mental state. The diminished capacity plea is based upon the belief that certain people, because of mental impairment (panic) or disease, are simply incapable of possessing the mental state required to commit a certain crime. In the example of murder and manslaughter, diminished capacity states that a certain defendant is incapable of intending to cause a death, and therefore must have at most caused such a death recklessly. Thus, a successful plea of diminished capacity in a murder trial would likely result in the charge being reduced to manslaughter. Cornell Law School


Now to address the Reasonable Response Defense....as this is what has actually been plead. A Reasonable Response Defense demands that the defendant had no other available, more effective means with which to deal with the situation it's claimed lead to the crime he or she has been indicted for....In this case two counts of Manslaughter, Class A felonies, and two counts of Criminally Negligent Homicide, Class B felonies.

I would suggest that all who are interested in this case, read the stories below.


story 1

story 2

story 3 "stealing food"

story 4

Mielke suspected something was wrong in the Chapel located a short distance from his home. He strapped on a gun and went to investigate. Before getting to the Chapel he noticed a running car parked in the trees/bushes next to the Chapel and went back to the house for a flashlight. He then returned to the Chapel and noticed it had been broken into. What would be most reasonable course of action at this juncture? To remove the gun from its holster and walk inside a dark Chapel, which you knew had been broken into? Or would it be most reasonable to have walked back to the safety of the house and called the police? Seems to me, like the answer is obvious. Aside from the killings....What transpired after he failed to call the police is all academic.





Rapid Creek

If some dumbass criminal thinks he can make a living burglerizing a church, then have at it cause chances are you'll starve before you get rich.

Don't distort what I said. I specifically said a priest protecting an unoccupied church is different from Joe Smoe protecting his store.

Maybe this priest should have spent his money on better locks rather than guns and baby monitors.

The message is LIFE before PROPERTY.

What the message is, is this... you can make the choice to be vigilante and face two counts of Class A Manslaughter felony, and two counts of Criminally Negligent Class B Homicide felonies and spend more money than your Chapel is worth, paying a lawyer to convince a jury that being a vigilante is more reasonable than returning to the safety of your home and calling the cops....thereby avoiding your current predicament....or you can return to the safety of your home and call the cops. Seems pretty fucking simple to me.

RC

It's a tragedy, but they wouldn't have died if they had obeyed the law.

imho.

but being that Jesus isn't here and none of us are as cool as he was......

What was your point again? I'm sure it had something to do with christians should be try to be like christ, which you confused with we are all able to be exactly like christ if we want to.

I know you don't expect perfection in your priests, but I doubt you'd keep a child molestor, a drunk, a philandering playboy, or a thief as a minister either.

Ministers have devoted their lives to Jesus. They spend their entire life helping people get closer to God and preaching the message. If they aren't to be held to a higher standard, then who the hell is?

n/t

Except for being in a church after hours what did they steal?

That's like saying, aside from stealing money from the bank, what crime did the bank robbers commit?

If these idiots had not broken into the church, they would still be alive. End of story.

Anyone read Les Miserables? Jean Valjean stealing from the Church and the priest letting him go?

and he would't be facing two counts of Manslaughter, Class A felonies, and two counts of Criminally Negligent Homicide, Class B felonies....at least one of which I would bet money....he will be convicted of.


RC

To use deadly force one has to be physically threatened. It doesn't sound like that was the case at all. One doesn't kill to protect property. That becomes murder if that is the definition you prefer. He shot them in the back for Christ's sake and you find nothing wrong with that?? Why are you on this forum anyway?

The ONLY cases in any state or federal court where killing someone is justified is when it is in self-defense where you are obviously threatened and deadly force is the only way to protect yourself from harm. Shooting two men in the back as they were running away, regardless of WHAT they did, is just plain wrong and breaks more than a few laws in the process.

First off, self-defense is not stopping someone from robbing you. Self-defense is literally defending yourself when your life is in danger.

Secondly, how would this apply to the following verse, spoken by Jesus himself in the Gospel of St. Matthew?

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.

Preventing people from robbing you is not murder. So perhaps you don't know as much as you think eh?

"But when he looked out a nearby window and saw a man running outside, he pointed his gun and fired. He fired until all his bullets were gone,"
One can not use deadly force in protecting property only in protecting one's life, in the state of Alaska. He was never physically threatened by his own admission.

This preacher obviously believed that the sanctity of property was more important than the sanctity of life. I seem to remember a few things about being more interested in money than in God, and stuff like that.... :shrug:

Can't say I'm surprised to hear this kind of response from you though, Blue_Chill. How you can, as a Christian, justify shooting someone in the back to stop them from robbing you is completely beyond my comprehension. :eyes:

Nevermind the fact that these guys shouldn't have been there to begin with, or that it is not uncommon for peopel to panic in such situations.

I mean who fucking cares about reality when we can all look down on a christian right?

... explanation that this preacher was somehow justified to shoot two unarmed men in the back as they fled the scene of their robbery.

I just find the whole thing preposterous. And if the preacher is going to get that panicky, he has no business with a handgun in the first place.

Show me where Jesus said go ahead, shoot first, ask questions later. And unload your weapon while you're at it. Don't try to disable them, make sure you MURDER THEM IN COLD BLOOD.

This isn't planned out murder. He went over there scared because he heard noises and then FREAKED OUT.

They were the criminals here, he had reason to fear for his safety.

I never understand why some on the left feel so obliged to defend the actions of criminals, not victims.

The men in question were committing a robbery. For that they should have been eventually arrested and sentenced.

The point is, did the act of these men robbing the church justify the taking of their lives, whether it was in panic or not. Do you really believe that the committment of a petty theft justifies the loss of life? I'm sorry, but I don't.

But hey, I'm just a leftie who loves criminals, right? :eyes:

Your logic of do nothing and wait for the police would encourage crime. The police do have the funds to launch a full investigation into petty theft. Criminals know that.

Criminals started this cycle in motion. When criminals take action, you can't expect ordinary people to act exactly the way you wish. He felt threatened and fired his gun in self defense.

They were not shot for robbery, they were shot because they had already committed multiple crimes and he feared they would harm him.

You said they were guilty of multiple crimes but won't say what those crimes were.

The last is hard to say condensing six hours of testimony into one tiny news article. They may have had stolen goods on them as well, I don't know.

It was a church for christ's sake. People go there to pray. Trespass and die.

And fear for your life, you can defend yourself.

RC

According to the law, self-defense can only be used is the defendant (the preacher in this case) has a reasonable basis for fearing an imminent threat to their life. The law has already decided that happening upon someone in the middle of a crime is not sufficient to for a reasonable basis for fearing an imminent threat to one's life.

That's imminent fear of his life enough for me.

The only question in my mind is the third shoot and if he did do as the article says -- fire and keep firing even after the gun was empty -- then it sounds like temporary insanity at that point.

(edited for headline typo)

what did he do? Being able to perform miracles, could he have smite them down? Why didn't he?

RC

Is that your new legal standard? I thought many here didn't like the idea of mixing religion and the law.

Even ministers are scared to be beat up, robbed or killed. They are human and not divine.

Again, next time robbers should reconsider their line of endeavor.

Because he feared the situation into which he intentionally walked, might result in his being beat up or killed?

RC

Or perhaps a church burning?

No, he is the preacher and responsible for the church. He looked into it as he should.

I would expect him to call the Police, as that is the only reasonable course of action! See post #143.

RC

He checked it out first. He went armed because, big surprise, he feared that if it were a crime he might be injured. But it is property HE is responsible for, so HE went.

yours or anyone elses, needlessly walking into a potentially dangerous situation doesn't prevent injury either....returning to your home and calling the cops prevents injury....and is also more reasonable than choosing to face two counts of Manslaughter two counts of Criminally Negligent Homicide and legal debt which could buy two Chapels with all the whistels and bells thrown in.

You have heard of insurance, right?

RC

should reconsider their line of endeavour.

What was stolen? What was their crime?

...and possibly other things...from the church basement.


RC

Victims of Charlston Heston in a priest Collar.

I say lock the fucker up and let him pray for the men he murdered.

edit: spelling

It's really that simple.

RC

....if this took place with a normal citizen and house. If a homeowner shot two people fleeing in the back, would you be making excuses for them?

One wonders if you don't want to see the man punished just for being a preacher. Perhaps we should feed him to a lion? Would that make you smile?

How many times have you acused people of being anti-theists for making any kind of criticisms about the church or church related things and you wonder that some my assume you have a bit of bias?

But it's ok for you to do it, but not for me? LoL. Ok man whatever you say.

And I don't accuse anyone of being a anti-theist, I accuse those that make blanket accusations based on faith. So go make up bullshit somewhere else pal.

....I have to wonder about a preacher that carries around a gun to begin with much less one who manages to panic just long enough to kill two fleeing people.

Forgeting that the first two died as they ran RIGHT BY THE GUY. It's not like they saaw him and ran the other way.

I look down upon hypocrites. If I were to panic about hypocrites in the same fashion you suggest this Reverend panicked about people who are running away from him...would shooting you in the back be justifiable? Using your logic it would.

RC

then your logic would work. Otherwise you have no point to make and wasted my time.

You running away from me across my lawn, following your alleged robbery of my home, would pose me no more physical threat than the current hypocrisy I allege you are guilty of commiting....both, if they occurred, would inspire in me, an angry vengeful panic....If panic, is, as you suggest, a rational defense for the commission of homocide, then shooting you in the back, in either case, should be a defensible action.

That is the point. We, as a society, have laws, whether you agree with them or not, which protect us all.....One of those laws this Preacher clearly violated. If a person is going to use deadly force, that person is responsible for knowing and following the law concerning its implementation. Anything less constitutes criminal behavior. When one breaks the law, one is subject to the same penalties as any other criminal. The laws of our land do not offer panic as a defense for vigilantism.

RC

Christians don't go shooting down thieves. Especially in the back with absolutley no warning. If you believe in your heart that this callous act of taking a human life was justified then I believe you know not the meaning of Christianity.

hope this cowardly fuck enjoys being a jail-house preacher! :grr:

Perhaps they shouldn't have robbed a church to begin with?

It's not like this guy went to their homes and shot them in front of their children. They were criminals and the preacher paniced. This is the risk you run when breaking the law.

They were criminals and the preacher paniced.

I fail to see how the crime committed by these two individuals somehow justifies the taking of their lives. At no point was the preacher ever in danger.

but I won't judge a guy who paniced when it's obvious the theives caused the entire incident in the first place.

The incident would have been only a robbery if this preacher would not have had a handgun that he obviously had no business having!

But since he happened to carry a lethal weapon that he was completely ill-equipped to yield PROPERLY, two men are dead who should have just been found and arrested for what was probably a petty theft.

Are you going to excuse the shooter for his part in all of this as well? Or are you going to also insist that he bear the consequences of HIS actions?

Had no one broken the law that night at that church all would be alive today. You can't go around robbing people and expect everyone to just let you run off with their stuff. You are rolling the dice when you break the law like this and the law breakers knew it before they broke in.

What if it had been people dropping off food late at night, like the preacher said it could have been? What if they had heard the preacher coming and thought HE was the burgler and so they started to run?

What if it had been aliens seeking to eat his kidneys? Maybe a chupacabra looking for some blood to drain?

...

... all arm ourselves, and if someone tries to rob us, we gun them down. That's the answer. :eyes:

Your logic in this matter is completely beyond me. Really.

By your logic if a criminal knocks on your door and let's himself in you should allow him to rob you and wait for the police. Perhaps you could offer him some tea in a effort to delay him?

Material possessions <> life

(in case you're wondering, <> means "does not equal")

Immediate danger to life = justifiable self defense

I could come over and take your TV and all you would do is wait for the cops. Because hey it's just a TV?

whatever.

here, you can have it. i'll call the cops, have my insurance replace it.

i respect life more property.

more than i can say for the preacher, or you.

One thing I know I WOULDN'T do is unload a clip in your back as you're running away. Because I'm at least smart enough to know the way people react when they panic, and that a firearm would never help the situation.

I don't claim to be a gun expert, but the only .44-caliber hanguns I see on the Ruger site are revolvers. So that means six shots, no more. That's not exactly a high number of shots for three people.

And I find this kind of logic ironic coming from someone sporting an MLK avatar. :eyes:

We had enough church attacks in the black community. I know several ministers who pack a gun as a result.

Come now. I realize you tend to give the church related things the benefit of the doubt, but that boggles the imagination.

I'm not giving this guy the benefit of the doubt because he's a preacher. I'm refusing to hold him up as a murderer when the entire incident was caused by burglers breaking the law to begin with.

He's being charged with manslaughter and I think the evidence is that he guilty.

:crazy: And by the way how did he know they were thieves. They could have been in there praying (people do strange things). He never asked just started blasting.

The preacher was armed with a .44 cal Ruger. That would be a 6-shot revolver, Redhawk or Super Redhawk, with do not use clips.

and who made this preacher judge and jury, AND EXECUTIONER??

but feel free to justify murder, cause that's just what this is. hope this coward spends a long time atoning for his sins in the 'big house'.

They are the ones that risked their lives to rob it.

it's obvious, worldly possesions mean more to you than the sanctity of human life.

you might want to consult the book of matthew on what your christ has to say about worldy possesions. i mean, you are a follower of the teachings of christ aren't you?

and I would direct the person responsing to you, KG, to check out post #106.

RC

Or do you think it is right to open fire with no verbal warning or questions?

"what in a church could be worth the lives of these men?"

That is a good question. Unfortunately, in this case, the people with the most authoritative answer are dead.

If you choose to make your living by burglarizing others, you run the risk of being shot.

Should death be the penalty for burglary? No.

Did the priest over react? Likely.

Is violent death at the hands of an intended victim a forseeable outcome of burglary? Absolutely.

The individuals who gambled their lives over this churche's property were the burglars. This time they lost.

I do not mourn them. They used their free will to victimize others and suffered a perfectly forseeable, albeit unlikely, fate.

two thieves were crucified alongside him. You might want to re-read that story.

Got me with a nice hit and run.

Perhaps you could elaborate and, don't be shy, make an actual point.

We've TWO crimes here: Burglary by the burglars and 1st degree murder by the religious hypocrite. "Thout shalt not kill" speaks for itself and he did say he wanted his gun, to be prepared like wearing a seat belt and hoping there wouldn't be "an accident".

Shooting people in the back with a gun until it's completely empty is one hell of an accident... x(

I have sympathy for none of them, if that helps. Stealing from a church is pretty nasty too... Back in the days of the old tyme religion, people probably were killed for stealing. But I thought we've evolved since then.

Oh well.

If the jury decides that he did, that fact would be likely to work against the defense's claim of a justifiable shooting.

...he did say he wanted his gun, to be prepared like wearing a seat belt and hoping there wouldn't be "an accident"....

I always wear seat belts and hope there won't be an accident. I also consciously try to avoid getting into accidents. Don't you?

Shooting... ...a gun until it's completely empty is...

Standard procedure when you are shooting a gun defensively.

While I support the right to self-defense in most cases of home invasion, this sounds like the pastor crossed the line and shot the intruders while they were fleeing.

That is not ok.

Have you ever been in a situation where criminals who certainly don't let you know their intent were running around?

People get scared and it's sad how many here have rushed to judge this guys faith because of it.

That is why it is especially appalling. In the house of the lord of all places. Guns mean so much to you that you are willing to overlook the "Criminal" taking of life to justify your need for a gun. It is against the law to kill someone for robbery. You could only justify such action (if at all) if your life were endangered and by his own admission he was never threatened.

He does not believe in our Constitution obviously.

What if the two people had been juveniles just fooling around in the church? Would it matter then if they were murdered?

Gun owners will always defend their right to murder.

Seriously show me where I said thieves deserve it? If you can't find it apologize for making shit up.

oy.

The shooting was either justifiable as self-defense or it was not. If the state thought the shots were fired as an act of "punishment" he would have been charged with murder rather than manslaughter.

...as they were coming towards him, that's one thing. Getting scared and shooting them in the back is quite another. They did not attack the preacher, they were trying to get away. In any case, we don't do the death penalty over property crimes. Based on the incomplete story seen here, I'd say the preacher is guilty of manslaughter.

Lots of wrath and smiting. :shrug:

``...
A light overhead blinked several times, then went out, he said. He thought the men were coming to attack him. Only later, did he realize the two may have been trying to run out the door.

Mielke said he fired twice. Both men were hit in the back.

Mielke said he shot without thinking. He didn't even know when he had drawn his gun.

"It was just reaction," he said.

Both men fell into a doorway leading to an outside deck. One grunted. He heard another say, "I've been shot." One started rolling around and squirming. He backed away, scared, he said. He said he didn't want to shoot the man again.

But when he looked out a nearby window and saw a man running outside, he pointed his gun and fired. He fired until all his bullets were gone, and still continued to push the trigger so hard he said he had a bruise on his finger the next day.

"I still don't know why. I just spun around and shot right through the glass -- bang, bang, bang, bang," he said. "I just panicked."
...''

perhaps this is a man who should not own a gun, or who needs more training/counseling.

I can understand being scared, but jeez, what the hell was in the church that was worth killing for?

If this was an ordinary Joe Smoe protecting his gas station or hardware store, OK, it's a bit more understandable. But this was a Christian priest. They weren't breaking into his house and threatening him. They were breaking into an unoccupied church.

"Once inside, events unfolded quickly. He found a back door ajar, yelled out to his wife to call the troopers, and within seconds, saw two men running up the stairs at him from the church basement.

A light overhead blinked several times, then went out, he said. He thought the men were coming to attack him. Only later, did he realize the two may have been trying to run out the door.

Mielke said he fired twice. Both men were hit in the back."

I guess it's THOU SHALT NOT TAKE MY STUFF.

I think I will skip church the more I read. It is really unsafe.

I don't think that this church qualifies as a home and since they were fleeing with their backs to him, he was not in iminent danger.

I believe that in Alaska as in most states (including California) the same rules apply in your place of business as in your home: Burden of proof that a shooting was not justified falls on the state.

...since they were fleeing with their backs to him, he was not in iminent danger.

Whether or not his fear of being injured or killed under the exact circumstances as presented in trial is a matter for the jury to decide. Anything that you or I conclude based on what we read in the news is irrelevant speculation.

The Church simply doesn't have its priorities straight, and one isn't allowed to point that out even here at DU!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I thought Jesus shot people in the face.

n/t

there. He goes in there armed when he didn't have to and winds up shooting 3 people in the back. What does a country church have that is that valuable? A microwave, VCR? Worth somebody's life?

appears he meant to kill someone, otherwise why the gun? he could've called the cops, but he took the law, and his god's roles, into his own hands, basically declaring himself judge jury and executioner.

hope the cowardly weasal spends some time looking out a small window, from a small room.

sarcasm...still on.

...I'm shock and amazed that some of you think that ANYONE has the right to take the life of others in such a situation. Amazed and fucking saddened.

- Is this what our society has become? Barbarians? You'll fit nicely into GWB's* America.

...I'm shock and amazed that some of you think that ANYONE has the right to take the life of others in such a situation.

All we know about the situation is what we've read in the news. It's been colored by the perceptions of reporters and editors. The defendant's statements made to police or the press which sound so damning may never be heard by the jury. Whether or not his actions were reasonable and/or legal will be decided in court.

Nobody here really has any business defending or attacking the man.

...that says the thousands of dead innocent dead men, women and children in Iraq are just 'collatoral damage'.

- Just as Bush* had the moral responsibility to make sure no civilians were killed in Iraq...this 'preacher' had the same responsibility when he had a gun in his hand.

- The casual acceptance by some for the murder of intruders shows just how debased our society has become. And just like Bush* murdering innocents in Iraq...the preacher had a CHOICE not to do it.

:shrug:

The preacher is charged with manslaughter for shooting two adult men. Stupid men who chose a hazardous occupation.

two counts of Manslaughter, Class A felonies, and two counts of Criminally Negligent Homicide, Class B felonies. A stupid man who chose to behave as a vigilanty, instead of taking a reasonable course of action and calling the Police. A stupid man who will most likely pay the heavy price of jailtime, a life long record of felony conviction and the loss of his Chapel.

RC

This guy was carrying around a .44 for safety!? And he had altered the .38 he originally got to make his gun bigger!

Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. A child running around with what he thinks are men's tools.

Handguns are for killing. Shotguns are for self-defense. One "shick-shick" sound and the intruder knows what you've got in your hands.

First of all, he knew there might be burglars since he heard them throught the monitor. He could have just called the police. He chose to confront them instead. He did not face even the possibility of danger if he had never stepped into that church. That is why this is different from a man who awakes to hearing burglar's rummaging downstairs in the same house and ends up killing them because he is scared. If he had any doubts about his ability to handle the situation, he should have never placed himself in that situation.
Secondly, not all ministers are like him. My father's cousin is a minister at an inner city church that leaves its doors open at all hours of the day and night. Of course, the offeratory money and such are locked up or deposited right away. The church is there to serve the people not protect itself from the people. From what I understand, the church's position is respected by the neighborhood and has not experienced vandalism and theft. Even if it did, serving people is what the church is suppose to do and the Christian thing to do. We should also remember Victor Hugo's Les Miserables where the merciful priest lets Valjean get away with stealing the silver because it was meant to be sold to help the poor and Valjean was poor.
What do I think of ministers who go into their church knowing that there might be burglars and shooting them? This is not a man of Christ.

"The student Shichiri was reciting the sutras when a robber entered
his room, put a knife to his back, and demanded his money. "Over
there in the box," said Shichiri, going on with his recitation.

As the robber was leaving, Shichiri said, "Leave me some for my
taxes; they are coming around tomorrow to collect." So the robber
put back some of the money and started to leave.

"Don't you thank someone who makes you a gift?" asked Shichiri. So
the robber thanked him, and went off.

A few days later the robber was caught; and among other
confessions, he said he had robbed Shichiri. But Shichiri refused
to testify against him. "I made him a gift of some money," he
said. "And he thanked me for it. That was all."

The robber served a prison term. When he was freed, he went
directly to Shichiri. "Will you be my teacher?" he said."

Methinks this preacher may want to find another line of work.

Trespass on my property and prepare to die.

October 9th huh?

You do fit in well with the 'mostly right to life' crowd.

what are you liberal on?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

eom

cause you will! :) Nothing like a big ole sweaty dude walking into the jail cell of a tough guy like you and hearin him say "HI HONEY I'M HOME!"

RC