Texas Couple Kills Seven-Year-Old and Wounds Adult Who Trespassed on Property

2398616Texas is proud of its laws allowing citizens to shoot and kill intruders into their homes under so-called Castle Doctrine or “Make My Day” laws. However, critics have charged that these laws have encouraged homeowners who are predisposed to use violence as the first response to intrusions as in the recent cases of Joe Horn and other homeowners. Those critics may have another case in Sheila Muhs, 45, and her husband, Gayle Muhs, 45. The couple did not wait for a home intrusion before allegedly killing seven-year-old Donald Coffey Jr. and seriously wounding Patrick Cammack, 30. Five-year-old Destiny Coffey and her father and Donald Coffey Sr. were also wounded. The family (including a 5-year-old sister) were off-roading when they stopped to allow the kids to go to the bathroom.

The Muhs live in a small house with rebel flag flying from the roof and a sign that reads: “Trespassers will be shot. Survivers will be reshot!! Smile I will.”

The boy was hit in the head.

It is not clear that the off-roaders were actually trespassing. Sheila Muhs reportedly fired once with a 12-gauge shotgun and then handed it to her husband, who also fired once. Sheila told a dispatcher that “They’re out here tearing up the levee, so I shot them.”

What is notable is that with a shotgun, they could not have been too far away to cause this level of injuries — close enough to see the children. By handing over the gun, they also showed obvious pre-meditation.

For the full story, click here.

60 thoughts on “Texas Couple Kills Seven-Year-Old and Wounds Adult Who Trespassed on Property

  1. Are y’all still against the death penalty if this case is fully adjudicated as a murder conviction?

    I am not opposed to the current Texas law regarding self-protection during home invasions/intrusions. However, that statute and the criticisms of it do *not* apply here.

    Off-roaders are a huge problem throughout the western states, they do not respect public lands or private property rights, and they exact great damage to the environment while breaking many laws. However, the private property owners here exceeded all reasonable force and it appears the off-roaders were not trespassing on private property.

    If all of the facts of the case clearly and unequivocally demonstrate that the Texas couple murdered the 7-year-old boy, then they should receive the death penalty.

  2. Texas.




    Yep. Even your dumbest of prosecutors should be able to distinguish between a rightful shooting under the Castle Doctrine and murder.

  3. 40 yards? Who sees a 7 year old through their shotgun sights and pulls the trigger?

    That’s murder, plain and simple.

  4. Remember folks, this is Texas and nothing is a *given* within the Texas system of ‘jurisprudence’.

    Again, those who are generally opposed to the death penalty; are you still opposed to the death penalty for these 2 people if they are found guilty of the level of murder that carries with it the potential penalty of death?

  5. Texas must be the real “Island of Dr. Moreau.” Naw, even animals won’t kill the helpless offspring of their own species for no good reason.

  6. FFLEO,

    I am still against the death penalty. There is no murder that isn’t horrible. My aim in opposing the death penalty is to foster a less violent society. If we can’t stop being so violent, which includes state sponsored killing, then we don’t have a chance of creating a less violent society in the future.

  7. Yes, FF LEO, I’m still opposed to the death penalty, even in this case. It’s difficult to find a rationale that doesn’t look like society is simply taking the role of the Muhs in the next killing.

    I would not be opposed to them being imprisoned for life and I think there’s good cause to say they should never again be allowed near anything with lethal capacity.

    But the death penalty is simply lethal vengeance. Has nothing to do with deterrence or justice.

  8. FFLEO,
    My opposition to the death penalty still stands and for the same reason. It is a punishment with no final redress, or redemption. The fact that if I was the boy’s father I might kill them myself and I say that sincerely, doesn’t make the probability of legal justice, especially in Texas, any higher. These people are obviously scum, but they could easily be mentally deranged scum. Also too, its’ possible that they don’t have IQ’s higher than 80 and sincerely believed this much vaunted law gave them the right to do this.

    You mention with this the destruction caused by many off-roaders and I agree, though not living in that type of area, that they have at times become menaces and are laden with an unfounded sense of entitlement. This I assume holds true for Snow Mobile and ATV riders. I love to drive and could probably drive any vehicle well. However, the idea of taking a capable vehicle off road and barreling around a countryside doesn’t appeal to me. This is for the same reason I won’t ride a motorcycle anymore. As a good driver, I like to know my environment and going up and down hills and over dunes doesn’t lend itself to that. My last motorcycle ride came more than 30 years ago in Sturgis and I had the bike come down trapping my leg after passing over some sand on the road that wasn’t visible. If I owned considerable rural property though I could see the utility of it.

    I went on so long about the off-roading because in it I see similarities in viewpoint with this threads story. To me there is a sense of entitlement that resides with some people, in that sense they don’t understand that their “rights,” must be taken in context with everybody else’s rights. This has characterized the NRA lobbying (I’m a 2nd Amendment supporter), the Off Road lobbying, the attempt to politicize and enthrone religion as state sponsored and the protection of the very wealthy from paying taxes. It is why I think the conservative movement has gone off the rails.

    True conservatism is cognizant of both rights and responsibilities, as I’m sure you will agree, today’s fake
    conservatism de-emphasizes the responsibility and only supports the rights of certain interest groups to run roughshod over others. If the issues of today were being debated by people who were true conservatives and liberals
    (not doctrinaire scolds), while we might not reach agreement, we would have much more civility and possibility of compromise.

  9. Jill said:

    “I am still against the death penalty. There is no murder that isn’t horrible. My aim in opposing the death penalty is to foster a less violent society.”

    Prison is an extremely violent place.

    More replies later…still fighting for public information from the durn government…both State and Federal…’theys’ all corrupt!

  10. I am as liberal as it gets but i support the death penalty. I think all executions should be public and televised so all citizens see what the state does in our name. Further i believe that murderers of children should get a bypass on the cruel and unusual clause… to take the life of the most vulnerable and defenseless among us speaks to such a deep and profound level of evil.

    I firmly believe we should be able to rip that element out of our society.

  11. Here is a little more of that story,that deals with the question of trepassing.:

    Authorities said the couple fired after they mistakenly thought the group was trespassing on their property.

    Bishop said the area includes a dirt road, trees and overgrown brush and that it wasn’t uncommon for people to go off-roading there. The Houston Chronicle reported that a sign in front of the suspects’ home reads: “Trespassers will be shot. Survivers will be reshot!! Smile I will.”

    Liberty County Chief Deputy Ken DeFoor said Sheila Muhs fired a 12-gauge shotgun once, then handed it to her husband, who also fired once.

    DeFoor said Sheila Muhs then called 911 and told the dispatcher: “They’re out here tearing up the levee, so I shot them.”

    DeFoor said the levee belonged to the subdivision and was not private property.

    Bishop said there was no indication the unarmed victims did anything threatening toward the Muhs.

  12. Most likely the Muh’s will be imprisoned (at minimum) and hopefully for the rest of their lives, so they don’t do any more harm to anyone. The Muh’s seem to be a throwback in terms of evolutionary development, one can only hope they never created any offspring, so that their genetically flawed line dies with them.

  13. Maybe the kids inadvertently peed on the Muhs’ poke salad. The fallacy of the law is in its assumption that people like the beautiful couple pictured above can be trusted to have a lick of sense when it comes to protecting their property. Bad assumption. It encourages a shoot first and ask questions later mentality, sort of like our recent president.

    A note to roycommi: you can’t be “as liberal as it gets” and support the death penalty. The death penalty has nothing to do with removing evil elements from society. We do that every day without killing people; it’s called prison. I do agree with you that executions should be public events; I would even favor televising them. People should be forced the witness the results of their choices. Perhaps then the public would gradually come to understand that the death penalty it not the dispensing of justice but the exaction of vengeance. Most people, however, prefer to deal with the death penalty much like Peggy Noonan prefers to deal with the knowledge of torture, to ignore it and just “walk on.” As a society, we lack the courage to confront our own dark side.

  14. hey, that’s poke salit…

    Poke salit Annie, gator’s got your granny…Chomp, Chomp…Chomp

  15. Mike Appleton:

    “Maybe the kids inadvertently peed on the Muhs’ poke salad.”


  16. I would not recommend the death penalty for these two. It would be akin to mercy killing. I suggest an exile. They are too monstrous to release back into the wild, and too dangerous to contact other felons like drug dealers and armed robbers. I suggest a small island in the Bearing Sea with enough food and supplies flown in annually; a little electronic ankle bracelet and a restocking of sharks around that little paradise. Hell, throw in a rebel flag for the igloo too.

  17. Ha, I guess even experienced lawyers must sometimes sit back and shake their heads when there just aint no good answers..

  18. “Are you still opposed to the death penalty for these 2 people…”

    Yes, life without parole if the charges get changed and that becomes a sentencing option if found guilty. That’s the ethical path imho.

  19. I notice here an aversion to the death penalty often on the basis of vengence.
    Well, in addition to deterrence, punishment and justice, what’s wrong with vengence?
    If somebody has wronged not only another individual, but society as well by KILLING another human being, why the allergy to public as well as private vengence?
    I think such vengence is cathartic to me as well as society, even if we have no personal loss in the victim’s death.
    However barbaric it may seem, when I witness the killing of a heartless, intentional murderer, I feel that the universe has been made a better place by that sheer execution, and I think we all do whether we admit it or not.

  20. Just when you think you’ve just about heard it all….
    Ages ago, my room mates and I had a daily subscription to the SF Chronicle. Mondays on page 2 featured stuff like this story. We called it Power News and we cut it out and stuck the columns on the walls of out kitchen. Most of it was beyond any fiction we could invent and we were really creative people. I remember a story about a man who cut a hole in the water bed he shared with his wife (someplace in the bible best) and tried to drown her by shoving her head in the hole. He said, when interviewed by the arresting officer, that he did it because he did not like her new hair-do.

    This couple, the Muhs, shot and killed a 7-year old and then called 911 to complain about the off-road vehicle?
    The woman shot the kid and then passed the shotgun to her husband to do more shooting, more killing?

    I, like Jill, do believe that capital punishment is wrong, it serves no one and history has clearly shown that it is not any deterrent to violent crime. Neither is the 3-strikes law. Apparently, if one is determined to shoot/kill someone else the last thing that stops them is the thought that they may be tried and sentenced to death.

    Whether the universe is better off without people like the Muhs is beside the point.

  21. Well, just be very thankful that you have not had someone close to you who was tortured, mutilated, and then murdered. No one else who posts here is more individualist than I am. However, in a society we all must obey societal law, honor the rights of others, and ‘fit in’.

    Keeping sociopathic murderers—who have no conscience—alive and well cared for with housing, healthcare, and all of the necessities of life, who can never be an asset to society, over providing healthcare or medicine to other innocent and deserving people, is simply unconscionable in my worldview.

  22. FFLEO,

    I want to say that I am deeply sorry for what happened, both to the person you loved and to everyone who still suffers as the result of such a horrible, terrifying and brutal murder.

    I actually do know someone who was tortured and nearly murdered. They just got lucky.

    There is no reason that housing murderers in prison for life should preclude healthcare treatment for innocent and deserving people. The reason I oppose the death penalty is the reason I oppose torture. There are some things the state should never do. Doing them promotes more violence and cruelty in our society.

    I know we won’t ever agree on the death penalty.
    The most important thing I want to convey here is how deeply sorry I am for what happened to someone you loved and how badly I feel for everyone who suffers now.

  23. Jill,

    I know that stating what I did on a liberal site is pointless because there is no room for debate on either side of the issue. I hate illegal drugs I have never used them but many here have used them and want to legalize drugs and drug use/legalization on a liberal site is just another pointless debate.


  24. FFLEO,

    It’s not pointless. Please don’t assume that I and other people never gave serious consideration to the death penalty. It is true that people who really think about things may come to opposite conclusions. I think that is the case here.

  25. Leo

    Having an opinion is never pointless. You may or may not find agreement, but you have a point of view that you state convincingly.

    Whether we come to agreement on this or any other issue is not the goal of being here, is it?

    Clearly I have no idea how I might feel about capital punishment had I ever lost a loved one to violent crime. On the other hand, my ideas about torture are definitely informed by my experience as a child of a holocaust survivor and my own experience with anti-Semitism.

    The great issues that divide this nation: abortion, gay marriage and gays in the military, torture and capital punishment, the right for a 12 year old to own an Uzi, reinstatement of the draft among others are not cause for cynicism, or rudeness and I am grateful for your reasonable approach to discussion.

    Clearly you put some thought into life without possibility of parole vs. capital punishment and that is all anyone can or should ask.

  26. GaryT,
    The death penalty is not a deterrent to future crimes.
    Is there any more reason to do a forced secession from the Union for the great state of Texas? These two mental giants need to see the bad side of a cell for a long, long time.

  27. I think that it is good that you both Jill and FF LEO have different opinions and values but remain the same in the ability to agree to disagree the greatest act of civility that two people can share.

    Have you thought about going and settling the current affairs of the world? Nah, don’t do that then we would have nothing to talk about.

    To All that may care and read it even if you don’t.

    Hey, this was my first day back in the legal field in nearly 2 years. I am my own boss sort of but I do not have to go back to the courtroom unless I want. I feel like I have only been up for a few hours, so I guess it was a good day. Man the day flew by.

    Then I went to a meeting tonight for depressed attorneys. It feels good to be able to identify what ails me without turning to the ale or stout or lager or . . . .or the sauce of the Vintners to fell this good.

  28. Well FF LEO,

    I hear the have a Vacancy on the US District Court for the Southern District of Galveston? Until of course the US kicks Texas out or we go back to being Texas a whole nother Country.

  29. I’m one of those rare pro-gun leftist/progressive types. The gun forum that I read is unanimous in agreeing that these idiots need to either go away for life or be put to death. Also, if they get off, it will be because a jury chooses to ignore the law. As extreme as Texas castle law doctrine is, it still definitely does not allow what happened here. The relevant part of the statute:

    Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

    (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

    (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

    (A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

    (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

    (3) he reasonably believes that:

    (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

    (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

    As for the death penalty, there are many legitimate reasons to oppose it. I need only one. The risk of executing the innocent.

  30. I would be arguing 9.42(2)A) since our child assassins were in uncontrollable fear and did in fact say that the dangerous 7 year old and his 5 year old henchmen were “tearing down the levees,” at night. Presto-chango and viola you have perpetrating criminal mischief. If Texas condones this murder, I say make ’em secede.

  31. The only reason I’m against the death penalty has nothing to do with religion or political ideology. It is simply for this reason:

    Sometimes the justice system gets it wrong.

    We have seen time after time people being being released from prison for crimes they never committed. People who were jailed for years, decades in many cases, and they were innocent all along.

    It is horrible enough to think that somebody has been robbed of their freedom and their years with their families because mistakes were made in the process, but can you imagine the horror of being wrongly accused of a crime and then not only being convicted but eventually being put to death for a crime you never committed?

    That, I believe, is the strongest case against the death penalty. Sometimes the system fails.

    Let them live out their lives in confinement, stripped of the freedoms we enjoy, but at least in the few cases where those who are truly innocent are concerned, give them the opportunity to gain their freedom if it in fact deserved.

    I realize that in a case like this it seems pretty clear-cut … but isn’t that the slippery slope we tread upon?

    Did anyone here see that 60 Minutes story a month or two ago about the woman who was raped and got the wrong man convicted?

    Fascinating, heart-breaking story and enough to make me rethink my stance on the death penalty …

  32. Rafflaw:

    My main point was not we should execute for deterrence.
    It was that vengence (among other reasons) is a viable motivation for the death penalty, presuming a reliable conviction.

    For those who oppose the death penalty for reasons of missed innocence, I agree that is a strong argument.
    But there are some situations where there is no question of guilt, like where the perp admits to it, or when there is indisputable video evidence, or other situations I am not conjuring here.

    Additionally, I think the rules of evidence need to be seriously shored up, particularly for capital trials where death is a possible penalty. I think the standard has to be higher than beyond a reasonable doubt, if we are going to kill someone upon conviction, and I think a colorable claim of prosecutorial misconduct should automatically preempt a possible death sentence.

  33. FFLEO,

    My stance against the death penalty is not that cut and dry. While there are some crimes that should require one to take one for the team (pedophilia, mass murder, cannibalism as a lifestyle choice, etc.), my opposition is primarily to the economics of the death penalty and the occasional error. Not all liberals are carte blanc against the death penalty and brining the subject up is far from fruitless. Discussion is always welcome. Is the death penalty merited in this case? Probably not. This crime reeks of both stupid and evil, but mostly stupid. I want a little more premeditation to justify death, even in such a heinous crime as this. Prison is just about right for these two although I’ll stipulate I like mespo’s island idea. But I say not only restock the sharks around the island, give the prisoners sunscreen.

    Bacon scented sunscreen.

    Then not only will they be in danger from the sharks, but they might turn on each other in a fit of cannibalistic karma and cancel each other out like a stupid matter/anti-matter explosion. Or it’d just be a treat for the sharks. Everything is better with bacon.

  34. mespo727272,

    Unless I’m reading it wrong, you missed the “and”. You’ve got to come up with something under part 3 as well, and that’s the stickier part.

  35. Gary T, I believe that your comments cut to the core of the debate on capital punishment, although I disagree with your conclusions. The prosecution of crime is the exclusive prerogative of the state because under our system the commission of a crime is deemed to be a wrong against society and the social order. Therefore, the issue as you have framed it is whether social catharsis is a legitimate justification for execution. I do not believe that it is. First, emotional satisfaction is not a proper measure of justice, except justice as defined by a lynch mob. Second, a moral legal system ought to ennoble society, rather than merely cater to it. Third, the execution of a human being forecloses the possibility of forgiveness and rehabilitation. Fourth, the institution of capital punishment, however restricted by rules of evidence and judicial review, is implemented by human beings, guaranteeing that we will sometimes get it wrong. In addition, it can be argued from a purely religious standpoint that execution interferes with the relationship between God and man by eliminating the chance of redemption. From a secular standpoint, I agree with the sentiments of John Donne, who wrote, “Any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind.”

  36. I am against the death penalty specifically because I do not think that there is any instance where the guilt is so clear cut that the evidence is incontrovertible. This includes eyewitnesses, confessions, video tapes, voice recordings and even forensic evidence.

    Eyewitnesses = Have been shown to be unreliable.
    Confessions = Can be coerced or due to mental illness.
    Video Tapes = Can be cut or altered.
    Voice Recordings = Can be cut or altered.
    Forensic Evidence = Even the FBI Lab has been shown to be compromised.

    There have been many killers whose act is so vicious that they clearly deserve to die. In all honesty if I knew for a fact that they were truly guilty, I would pull the switch without compunction and I take no pleasure in violence. However, if even one person is executed wrongfully and more than a few have been, then the whole system is bad. I believe that life without parole is the punishment that should be imposed for murder, at least if a mistake is made there is a possibility for some redress.

    This too is not a liberal vs. conservative issue as some would have it. It has been cleverly put that way by the fake conservative elements so that they can continue their phony
    issues that liberals are somehow weak, while conservatives are tough. Dick cheney is a perfect example of this since when he had a chance to go to war, for a war he believed in,
    he said he had other things to do and avoided the draft. Yet
    some conservatives (and liberals) see Cheney as a tough guy,
    when in reality he is a bully.

    To carry this further it is my opinion that the Bush/Cheney Crime Family was responsible for murdering a lot of people, including our troops. Would that they could suffer the death penalty for their crimes, as have other war criminals, but I’ll settle for life without parole for the whole lot of them.

  37. jw:


    Unless I’m reading it wrong, you missed the “and”. You’ve got to come up with something under part 3 as well, and that’s the stickier part.”


    I think that would be the easiest lie to make: “I’m sitting around the house with my woman and reading the Bible according to Jefferson Davis, when, all of a sudden, I hear the squeal of off-road vehicles pull up. There is all kinds of hell-raising going on and some’in that sounds a lot like “Barney is a dinosaur….” Then I see four,dark shadowy figures destroying my levee that protects me from the river, and even hear running water. We’ve got floods you know. So I’s tell my woman to get the shooting iron while I investigate. I calls out several times and hear nothing except the pitter patter of approaching footsteps right for my door. In mortal fear of her life and that of mine’n, she fires–just to warn ’em off you know. But they keep on coming and yellin’ some’en terrible. I get the gun and fires ag’in while she calls the Rangers. What’s a southern man’sposed to do? Run?” Some Texas jury somewhere will buy it.

  38. Mespo:

    That example is ruined when you said she feared for her life. Nothing else in the hypothetical matters once that is established; she’s justified in shooting, and that standard is active in many states that are a lot less conservative than Texas.

    Look at the standard again:

    (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

    Call the police? Run them off? Confront them prior to shooting them? They are miles from meeting this standard.

    (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

    There was some distance between the shooters and the victims, plus they handed off the gun; it’s pretty obvious between that and what they said on the 911 call that they didn’t fear for their lives where they stood. There’s no evidence that they thought the family was armed, there’s no evidence that they thought they were committing any crime other than vandalism, so they are on shaky ground in terms of thinking they could be put in danger if they used non lethal means to stop them. Sure, they might be afraid of being run over by the ATVs, but the sight of a shotgun is usually a pretty good deterrent for that.

    These people are going to prison. For a long time.

  39. I could not agree with you more purely from an economic stand point. However, I do believe that there are certain circumstances that NO TRIAL or Incarceration would tame the rage that I have. Such as child abuse, serial rapist, pedophile priests to name a few.

  40. jw:

    It’s an objective standard for fear (“reasonably believes”), not a subjective one (“well, it scared me, and so what if no one else was scared”)lest Cretans like this would win. I agree that these Neanderthals should be boiled in oil, heads run up on a pike for 60 days, and then imprisoned for life, but this is Texas and Jethro and Granny are likely on the jury with Jed as the Judge. Anything can happen, and usually does in this third world theocracy, so you will understand my reticence that justice will be prevail.

  41. CL

    “The death penalty costs more to the state than supporting them for life. That is the sole reason I oppose it myself.”


    Glad you never let principle compromise your adherence to cash.

  42. Mespo: “Glad you never let principle compromise your adherence to cash.”
    Perhaps I would have a different rational if economics went the other way.😉

  43. Appeals to emotion work both ways. It’s easy to get Jethro and Granny to convict when it’s a couple of adult men with different colored skin that got shot. But when you’ve got a dead seven year old and aren’t in the same galaxy as a reasonable defense….

  44. Mespo: “Glad you never let principle compromise your adherence to cash.”
    Perhaps I would have a different rational if economics went the other way.

    Mades perfect sense (cents) to me. C.L. is a’fixin’ to become a real lawyer someday…doncha know. (JK)

  45. Look at these two winners. This is nothing but plain simple murder and hopefully a jury will see through all of this.

  46. FFLeo:

    Christa and Lia (C.L.) are on their way to being fine lawyers and we love’em here on the blog. Evidence their own cyber contribution, “Torted,” by clicking their initials. I just like to tweak the young lawyers a little and remind them “our is (was?) a noble profession,” and wealth should derive from principle not the other way ’round.😉

  47. M72,

    Yes Sir, and I just had to get my JK ‘jab’ in while I could. That C.L. visit(s) this blawg says a lot about ‘them'(her).

  48. Where’s the Love? It’s gone! I read these comments and smell hatred big time. We have gone from a race war in this country to a hate based civil war.

    Like many others, the Muhs were sick from all the free riding off roaders, atvs, day and night noise of the law breaking land destroyers. Not to mention loss of peace and the harrassment given them by these free wheelers. You drove them to murder!!!

    How many complaints did they make about these civil rights violations. Tresspassing, Noise, Destruction of Private Property and General Harrassment. Call them rednecks!!!

    You free loading off roaders and atv riders are responsable for these sick peoples gun reaction.
    Your personal guilt already has them on deathrow.
    Way to go rednecks.

  49. its a shame that had to happen, but i think alot of the people around the area it happened will think twice about goin on peoples property. we have that in pa and the law will not do a thing about it.if they made a law you could just shoot the tresspassers i dont think people would go on land they have no bussiness being on.the land owners in pa would love for the law to make a fine of 2000.00 dallars and lose of atv or dirt bike for a year first time,and lose of atv and 4000.00 fine 2 time an never get it back.just the way it is tree huggers.

  50. What these two people did was horrid and extremely unforgivable but we can not and should not look to abolish “castle doctrine” laws just because people have taken advantage of and distorted these laws.There have been cases where people have been killed by home invaders all because the state/township where they lived in denied them the right to defend themselves by any means necessary.The above mentioned people did indeed murder that poor child in cold blood and deserve the death penalty in my view,but what about all of those criminals out there that are just like the couple mentioned above that kill without any remorse?Should they be allowed to continue to get away with committing cold blooded murder with the utmost impunity and have the full protection of the law on their side while the rest of us as law abiding citizens cower in fear?A lot of you that make comments on here really need to check yourselves because you make no kind of sense at all,this couple unjustly shot and killed that poor child and because this couple has no scruples or moral compass the rest of us should be denied and stripped of our right to defend and protect ourselves?ARE YOU PEOPLE REALLY THAT STUPID?!!!YOU MUST BE BECAUSE TO JUDGE OR DENY THE MAJORITY BECAUSE THE ACTIONS OF THE FEW IS IGNORANCE AND STUPIDITY IN ITS PUREST AND SIMPLEST FORM.WE ARE NOT ALL ALIKE AND AS SUCH SHOULD NOT ALL BE JUDGED DEEMED AS BEING ALIKE,I’M SPANISH AND I HAVE BEEN CALLED BIASED RACIST NAMES BY SOME WHITE PEOPLE,SO THAT MEANS THAT ALL WHITE PEOPLE ARE RACIST JUST BECAUSE THE THE FEW THAT CALLED ME BIASED RACIST NAMES?GET A CLUE PEOPLE!!!DO YOU SEE HOW RIDICULOUS WHAT I JUST IS?WELL THAT’S HOW RIDICULOUS YOU PEOPLE SOUND SAYING THAT “CASTLE DOCTRINE” LAWS AND THE RIGHT FOR PEOPLE TO DEFEND AND PROTECT THEMSELVES SHOULD ALL BE TAKEN AWAY JUST BECAUSE OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED COUPLE THAT SO SHAMELESSLY AND WITHOUT REMORSE MURDERED THAT POOR CHILD.YOU PEOPLE MAKE ME SICK!!!THE ABOVE COUPLE CLEARLY ACTED IN A SELFISH AND SHAMELESS MANNER YES BUT WHY SHOULD THE REST OF US HAVE TO SUFFER BECAUSE OF THAT?!!!WHAT?SO YOU’LL THROW THE WHOLE CAKE IN THE GARBAGE JUST BECAUSE YOU MAY HAVE DROPPED A FEW EGGS IN THE PROCESS OF PREPARING AND BAKING THE CAKE?WAKE THE HELL UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE PEOPLE!!!

  51. Speaking of coffee, maybe you should watch your caffeine intake there, Nelson. You seem a bit . . . jittery.

Comments are closed.