• @Madison420@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    47 months ago

    They weren’t, they went over this in the trial.

    He became the aggressor when he removed barriers to entry and laid in wait which is a negative defense for self defense.

    • @WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      107 months ago

      Wikipedia says they broke a window to enter, and that can be heard on audio—I’m not trying to argue with everything, but how is a closed window that had to be broken for entry not a barrier?

      • @Madison420@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        -57 months ago

        They did, read the testimony. He has the window blocked and he removed it so the window would be the easiest way to enter.

        He set a trap, there’s no legitimate purpose for that.

        • @WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          157 months ago

          The dude clearly murdered them and had violent vigilante fantasies—I don’t argue that one bit.

          That said, they still came up to his house, broke a window, and entered with the intention to burgle it. It doesn’t really matter if the window was previously blocked or made of paper—breaking and entering with the intention of burglary is a crime, and having no block on a window isn’t enticement to have your house burgled.

          Again, before anyone thinks I’m defending him, I fully agree that he is a murderer. I just think the burglars weren’t innocent either. In Reddit lingo, “everyone sucks here”.