Trespassers shot

[Sigarms]

Don't you all just love TV stations and the way they cover the news? "Wife of victim wants answers".. Um huh. Yeah, like she doesn't know what kind of "chit" those two "good ole boys" were in to.

Actually, they were separated. The "husband" (killed) also had a total of 5 children, and only one with the woman in the article. The guy was 50 years old, probably didn't have a means to make a living other than through shady business, and he had his 5th child at age 47. Honestly, I'm suprised they were actually married.

 

[Looking4new]

After having read 110 responses to this post I stand by my original post #3. The owner may or may not be a 'nogoodnik' but that is not justification for killing two trespassers or 102 of the same.

 

[k0ua]

So, basically, a bunch of nogoodniks?

NOUN

US
informal
A good-for-nothing; a villain, a petty criminal.

Time will tell, but yes, that is where my money is..

 

[kevin37b]

I think that was probably the issue , where is my money ?

 

[2LaneCruzer]

So.. Perhaps not JUST trespassers....

We wouldn't want to bring misinformation into the topic.

Why, according to the wife, they were just "exploring" the woods. I got that stuff out of my system when I was about 10 or 12 years old; these guys were 40 and 50 with kids of their own, not to mention a rap sheet?

 

[TSO]

My guess: Either they (the trespassers) attempted to steal from his "drug production facility" and were shot in the process. Or, they were conducting an illegal transaction that went bad, and the shooting occurred. Either way, neither side wanted to contact the authorities, as both sides were aware that their involvement was illegal (including the drivers). That is my hunch based off of the limited information we have at this time.

We probably won't know the full story until this goes to trial and background information is furnished. And even then, the only testimony of the actual provocation for the event will be supplied by the shooter. So we will never truly have the full story. As the saying goes, the only way that two people can keep a secret is if one is dead.

 

[k0ua]

So one of the innocent guys on his mission of just out "exploring" someone else's woods, when his little squad of 2 comes under attack, he phones his "wheelman" for extraction, NOT the police. NOPE, wouldn't want to call 911 and let them know what nefarious purpose we infiltrated the woods for..Notice SHE did not call the police either. Not for 7 more hours. I am sure after many frantic calls back to our "explorer" goes unanswered. By that time he has assumed ambient air temprature of the environment.

 

[k0ua]

My guess: Either they (the trespassers) attempted to steal from his "drug production facility" and were shot in the process. Or, they were conducting an illegal transaction that went bad, and the shooting occurred. Either way, neither side wanted to contact the authorities, as both sides were aware that their involvement was illegal (including the drivers). That is my hunch based off of the limited information we have at this time.

We probably won't know the full story until this goes to trial and background information is furnished. And even then, the only testimony of the actual provocation for the event will be supplied by the shooter. So we will never truly have the full story. As the saying goes, the only way that two people can keep a secret is if one is dead.

Yup.!

 

[PJSprog]

After having read 110 responses to this post I stand by my original post #3. The owner may or may not be a 'nogoodnik' but that is not justification for killing two trespassers or 102 of the same.

A couple of points about this ...

1) I don't think anyone here really believes those two were simply "trespassers" out for a stroll and shot for that reason alone. There is clearly more to this story.

2) This incident reflects a lesson I have been trying to impress upon my youngest stepson; when you do questionable things with questionable people, you drastically increase the chance of unpleasant consequences. Whether it's justifiable or not is not the issue. The real issue is found in intentionally putting yourself into shady situations.

 

[k0ua]

A couple of points about this ...

1) I don't think anyone here really believes those two were simply "trespassers" out for a stroll and shot for that reason alone. There is clearly more to this story.

2) This incident reflects a lesson I have been trying to impress upon my youngest stepson; when you do questionable things with questionable people, you drastically increase the chance of unpleasant consequences. Whether it's justifiable or not is not the issue. The real issue is found in intentionally putting yourself into shady situations.

Exactly. You greatly increase your risks for a bad outcome when you do questionable things.