Article: MN: Did man go too far to protect his home?

TBalls said:
There is A LOT wrong with this story and presumably a lot of missing information as well. There is little doubt that the "kids" were no angels and Mr. Smith had every right to defend himself if/when he felt threatened. Certainly the notion of someone laughing at someone who has just shot them (ostensibly in defense) is quite disturbing, and if true illustrates a serious deficiency in mental process (at the time anyway). However, the fact that Mr. Smith moved the girl's body and preformed a "good, clean finishing shot" to me suggests a very real emotional detachment that I find just as troubling as her alleged laughing.
Click to expand...

I don't find it troubling at all, people who are violated get pissed and vengeful. It's human nature. If you haven't felt that pissed before then either you've probably never been violated that way or stolen from with any consequence. Would I get pissed enough to kill someone over theft? No- but only because I value my freedom more than anything. My freedom is worth more than any object money can buy. That having been said I can completely understand why someone would want to kill a few thieves and bury them on the back 40.

I suspect there's a lot more here than what we know. For one, why is there an audio recording of the killings?
Click to expand...

Because this guy was stupid and apparently had all kinds of surveillance equipment set up, and the police got a hold of the data somehow. That is the downside of such things, is they're a double edged sword.

This whole incident is "3 different people play PSGWSP". This guy wouldn't be facing charges right now through if it was smarter about how he had conducted himself during and after the incident. He probably just didn't know any better.

-Mike
 
Judge says he ambushed his attackers? The way I read it is he turned off the lights to hide. He got scared and shot the first one. He didn't wait for the second one and ambush her. She decided to go down stairs instead of fleeing the same way she came in! If she truly was afraid or something she would of been running down the street.

I mean a gun went off and you didn't get scared and run? Makes me think she might of thought it was her friend that did the shooting?
 
Bendad97 said:
This sums it up in a nutshell. Have some shitball break in to YOUR house, where YOUR children & spouse sleep; where everything you WORKED to own is. Then tell me these cruds didn't get what they had coming. Right is right, wrong is wrong. These cretins were violating the man's home, his castle, the one place in the world that he should feel completely safe. Who among us would volunteer to have his/her home violated in a similar fashion, and then stand by idle as all that you have worked for is shit upon by a couple of f**king losers? When you take away all the candy coating, these cruds didn't give a shit that they had violated the sanctity of this mans home. Where does it end? They got all the mercy that they showed and deserved. You can make all the arguments to me about mercy and "appropriate force"; it's pablum puked out by the weak in my opinion. A weapon has but one purpose: TO KILL. In the hands of a properly trained individual, that is just what it will be used for. I made my peace with the concept as an 18 year old Marine Infantryman; I am still OK with it, and everything that entails.
If I was on that jury, I'd set him free, and buy the guy a beer afterwards.
Click to expand...

Rules of war do not apply to the rules of society. Your TV does not = a person's life. If your life is threatened then by all means react accordingly, but executing teenagers, whether they are shitbags or not, over your "stuff" is not ok.
 
Helix said:
Rules of war do not apply to the rules of society. Your TV does not = a person's life. If your life is threatened then by all means react accordingly, but executing teenagers, whether they are shitbags or not, over your "stuff" is not ok.
Click to expand...

When the Rules of Society are broken time and again, when Society does nothing to help enforce the rules that are in place, then it is War.
 
Bendad97 said:
When the Rules of Society are broken time and again, when Society does nothing to help enforce the rules that are in place, then it is War.
Click to expand...

Would someone be justified in going and bombing the perp's place of residence after the fact then if he hadn't gotten them in his home? It is War, after all.

There's a difference between self-defense and homicide/murder. Just because people PSGWSP doesn't mean any and all action by the victim is justified. Someone being stupid doesn't give a victim carte blanche to act without reason, and there absolutely must be a standard of action or anything can be justified. The guy wanted to kill someone, plain and simple.
 
NS_Northbound said:
Would someone be justified in going and bombing the perp's place of residence after the fact then if he hadn't gotten them in his home? It is War, after all.

There's a difference between self-defense and homicide/murder. Just because people PSGWSP doesn't mean any and all action by the victim is justified. Someone being stupid doesn't give a victim carte blanche to act without reason, and there absolutely must be a standard of action or anything can be justified. The guy wanted to kill someone, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

The thing is he didn't just kill someone for "fun". He killed two burglars who broke into his house. He is the victim of the crime, defending his home. Not the other way around. If he had hunted them down after the fact, I'd take a different stance. Fact is they didn't belong there. The manner in which he kills them, how long it took, etc really doesn't matter to me. It's his property, they violated it several times.

If you don't want to die, don't be a thief.
 
xtry51 said:
The thing is he didn't just kill someone for "fun". He killed two burglars who broke into his house. He is the victim of the crime, defending his home. Not the other way around. If he had hunted them down after the fact, I'd take a different stance. Fact is they didn't belong there. The manner in which he kills them, how long it took, etc really doesn't matter to me. It's his property, they violated it several times.

If you don't want to die, don't be a thief.
Click to expand...

not disagreeing - they didn't belong there, and if you don't want to die don't be a thief. But it's possible to entertain both thoughts: "the intruders did wrong"; "the homeowner did wrong" and be consistent. It doesn't have to be one or the other, and both parties were responsible for their actions. Would the homeowner be justified in torturing the intruders to death over a period of weeks? I don't think so, but to your point - if the manner and time frame in which he kills them are irrelevant then by extension any/all actions would be permissible if someone is first violated.
 
NS_Northbound said:
Would someone be justified in going and bombing the perp's place of residence after the fact then if he hadn't gotten them in his home? It is War, after all.

There's a difference between self-defense and homicide/murder. Just because people PSGWSP doesn't mean any and all action by the victim is justified. Someone being stupid doesn't give a victim carte blanche to act without reason, and there absolutely must be a standard of action or anything can be justified. The guy wanted to kill someone, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

His motives, whatever they were, are irrelevant here. I am speaking only to THIS actual scenario, not some fictional "what if". FACT: He was in his home defending his life and property. FACT: These vermin came into this man's home, uninvited, with bad intent, one of them a repeat offender. FACT: After having the sanctity of his home violated again & again, justice was served. Was it brutal? Yes. Will it be a deterrent? To these two cruds, absolutely. DON'T BREAK INTO OTHER PEOPLE'S HOMES, AND THE RISK OF YOUR BEING SHOT WILL DECREASE BY A FACTOR OF 10.
 
Nectaris said:
No way on the premeditated charges, not like he could plan when they would break into his house again or if they would.

I certainly understand his frustration in being targeted multiple times and probably not getting much help from the police but still you shoot until the threat is stopped then call the police. You don't get to execute them.

Jail time yes, premeditated no.
Click to expand...
Exactly. This is a psychopath. Yo "Finish" off animals, if you have them mortally wounded, not a human. Obviously he was very "p**ed" about the break-ins, and has every right to, but he can not be the judge, jury and executioner.
He obviously has no remorse for the 2 human lives he took, (of two kids). He should spend the rest of his life in jail for the murder.
How can anybidy be so non-chalant about killing two people ("I did not want to bother the police because it was thanksgiving")
He is a demented psychopath
 
Poster boy for the anti-gun crowd. He executed an incapacitated teenage girl with a shot under the chin. He'll die in prison.
 
Without even reading the article, my answer to the question would be, "There's no such thing as going too far!"



Send lawyers, guns, and money and get me out of here! -Warren Zevon
 
For crying out loud.

Have all concepts of responsibility gone completely out the window?

Apparently "people" had broken into his house MULTIPLE TIMES. How hard is it to figure out that a person who's been broken into MULTIPLE TIMES - is going to be pissed off and scared?

In my experience - if a house gets broken into MULTIPLE TIMES, it's pretty much always the same people - or friends of the same people. It's almost always a " hey this guy has drugs go break into his house and get them" situation.

And last but not least: would ANY of this happened if those kids hadn't broken into his house? NO.

There were multiple points along the way when those kids could have CHOSEN to do something different and they didn't. When they talked with each other and decided to go do it - they could have changed their minds. When they got into a car and drove there - they could have changed their minds. When they were walking towards the house - they could have changed their minds. When they were breaking thru the door or window - they could have changed their minds. When they successfully broke in the last time - and got away with it - they could have decided to not tempt fate and not do it again.

But no - at every step of the way they kept MAKING DECISIONS that finally put themselves into the position where they got shot.

I fail to see how those kids don't share the bulk of the blame for what happened to them.
 
I wasn't there so I can't speak to what actuallt happened. But if someone breaks into my home I will shoot to defend myself and family. But I will not walk over to someone laying on the ground incapacitated and "finish" the job. That is fine if people don't agree with me. He had every right to shoot the intruder and even wait for the second one(he doesn't know the second one is or isn't armed). But after she is shot and falls down the stairs she would "most likely" be incapacitated and no longer a threat. If that is the case then going over to her with another firearm and "finishing" her off is no longer defense. Again none of us will ever know what really happened as there is only one living side of the story and even when there are two sides the truth sometimes never comes out. Really without video and audio of something then no one will ever know.
 
glockstones said:
I wasn't there so I can't speak to what actuallt happened. But if someone breaks into my home I will shoot to defend myself and family. But I will not walk over to someone laying on the ground incapacitated and "finish" the job. That is fine if people don't agree with me. He had every right to shoot the intruder and even wait for the second one(he doesn't know the second one is or isn't armed). But after she is shot and falls down the stairs she would "most likely" be incapacitated and no longer a threat. If that is the case then going over to her with another firearm and "finishing" her off is no longer defense. Again none of us will ever know what really happened as there is only one living side of the story and even when there are two sides the truth sometimes never comes out. Really without video and audio of something then no one will ever know.
Click to expand...

The problem with that is that if you incapacitate him - he's very likely to sue your ass later. And you DON'T REALLY know whether or not he's no longer a threat unless he's dead.

The mistake this guy made was being so obvious about finishing them off. He did that out of anger IMHO - he should have kept his shit together a little bit better and acted like a scared old man and not done things to implicate himself - and we wouldn't even talking about this story right now.

Face it - "the law" did nothing to really protect this guy - but it really likes showing up after the fact and picking up the pieces. Especially if there's a nice juicy court case to get out of the deal. The mistake this guy made was giving them the opportunity to have their chance at such a case.

- - - Updated - - -

dvajda said:
I think the thing to take note here: don't incriminate yourself. The way he described it all and what he was "trying" to do is about 80% of his problem. If he had told police "I was scared for my life!" that would eliminate 90% of his problems. The not calling police for a day and other factors are not so great, but he might have been in shock and you could probably argue that. I figure this guy is probably going to jail, but he put himself there by talking.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

"They had come to my house before - the last time I told them to get out - and they threatened to kill me. They had broken into my house multiple times. I was scared for my life!"

End of story.
 
Helix said:
He deserves a life sentence.

You shoot to stop, not shoot to kill. Even if the teenager was in fact armed and a threat to his life as soon as she was down and unable to fight you don't, "Finish her off".

He should have called police/ambulance and then attempted to help her. As far as I'm concerned, he knowingly and maliciously murdered at least one of them.
Click to expand...

You have it wrong.

Every cop I've ever talked to and every self defense course I've seen or book I've ever read - says shoot to kill. Furthermore in MA - if you shoot to incapacitate - you're very likely looking at a lawsuit or jail time.

If you don't believe me - go look up what happened to the guy who fired a warning shot into the FLOOR OF HIS OWN HOUSE - to try and scare a burglar away who was confronting him across his dining room table.
 
The argument about shoot to kill or shoot to stop is ridiculous. If the occasion comes we will all shoot for center mass until the threat is stopped, if they happen to die after then that is their problem.

We all here are also glad there is a law on the books which allows us to defend ourselves whether in our homes or not but there are certain responsibilities within that law and if you take advantage of one aspect you must follow the others. So if you defend your home or person by shooting someone which is within the law then you must also promptly call the police and not execute the people in cold blood which is also what the same law requires. You don't get to just follow the bits of the law you agree with.
 
calsdad said:
You have it wrong.

Every cop I've ever talked to and every self defense course I've seen or book I've ever read - says shoot to kill. Furthermore in MA - if you shoot to incapacitate - you're very likely looking at a lawsuit or jail time.

If you don't believe me - go look up what happened to the guy who fired a warning shot into the FLOOR OF HIS OWN HOUSE - to try and scare a burglar away who was confronting him across his dining room table.
Click to expand...

There's a principal in law of "reasonable force." This has somehow been forgotten in the current climate of (a minority of) police officers dumping full magazines into unarmed people and then hiding behind their badges.

The sadistic old **** took his time to kill two young people. He laid an ambush and then taunted them while in the process of incrementally shooting them to death. If I were on the jury I'd convict him of the maximum charges presented. I'd do that just for the preposterous lie that the girl laughed at him after he shot her. He's going to need a good lawyer.
 
Helix said:
Rules of war do not apply to the rules of society. Your TV does not = a person's life. If your life is threatened then by all means react accordingly, but executing teenagers, whether they are shitbags or not, over your "stuff" is not ok.
Click to expand...

Just because they're in his house doesn't mean they're just there for his "stuff".

They could be there for drugs, his bunghole - or his life.

And as far as the "stuff" thing is concerned - I paid with little bits of my life for all my "stuff" I had to exchange large chunks of my life to get my "stuff".

When somebody steals my "stuff" - it's really not that much different than kidnapping me and taking some portion of my life away. Because if I hadn't wanted that "stuff" - I wouldn't have spent a good part of my life on acquiring it. Stealing my "stuff" - and then telling me : "it's only stuff" - is like saying "**** you - we're going to lock you in a box for a few years - and you had better not be pissed off about it when you get out".
 
NS_Northbound said:
Would someone be justified in going and bombing the perp's place of residence after the fact then if he hadn't gotten them in his home? It is War, after all.

There's a difference between self-defense and homicide/murder. Just because people PSGWSP doesn't mean any and all action by the victim is justified. Someone being stupid doesn't give a victim carte blanche to act without reason, and there absolutely must be a standard of action or anything can be justified. The guy wanted to kill someone, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

The fact of the matter is - if he had "wanted to kill somebody" as you claim - that he DIDN'T GO LOOKING for somebody to kill.

They came to him. On their own volition - and by committing numerous crimes to get there IN THE FIRST PLACE.

If those kids didn't make the numerous decisions that they made to get them to that place - in the first place - then nobody would have died that day.

And that guy could have been pissed off about his life or his lack of a woman or money or whatever the hell it was that was pissing him off - and HE couldn't have killed anybody that day without himself making a bunch of decisions that would have meant that HE actively went out and searched for somebody to kill.

Those kids fostered and grew that situation by being the criminal douchebags that they apparently were. Nothing is going to change the fact that their actions precipitated everything that happened that day.
 
NS_Northbound said:
not disagreeing - they didn't belong there, and if you don't want to die don't be a thief. But it's possible to entertain both thoughts: "the intruders did wrong"; "the homeowner did wrong" and be consistent. It doesn't have to be one or the other, and both parties were responsible for their actions. Would the homeowner be justified in torturing the intruders to death over a period of weeks? I don't think so, but to your point - if the manner and time frame in which he kills them are irrelevant then by extension any/all actions would be permissible if someone is first violated.
Click to expand...

"Would you be justified in torturing a person over the course of weeks"

I honestly think that depends on the circumstances.

Are you talking about some harmless homeless guy who broke into your house to steal a can of soup because he's starving to death - or are you talking about the 18 year old neighbor kid who has been a psychopath since he was like 6 , has been terrorizing the neighborhood since he was 10 - and has already killed your cat and your dog and has threatened to kill you. Then you woke up one night and he's standing in your bedroom.

Sorry - but in the second case you're likely going to HAVE TO torture the little shit just to make him leave you alone - if you're unwilling to just kill him outright. Because you need to speak a language that he understands.
 
calsdad said:
Those kids fostered and grew that situation by being the criminal douchebags that they apparently were. Nothing is going to change the fact that their actions precipitated everything that happened that day.
Click to expand...

That's true.

I'm surprised by some of the opinions, judgements if you will, expressed on this thread. You do not have an unequivocal right to kill someone who breaks into your house. You have to be in reasonable fear for your life. Smith was not dealing with a Viet Cong soldier about to pull the pin on a hidden grenade. A teenage girl lying on the ground with multiple gunshot wounds and no visible weapon presents no threat. By his own admission he taunted her and then executed her with a close range shot to the brain. That last shot was not self-defense.

So the Prosecutor is going to examine, moment by moment, the sequence of events that Mr. Smith conveniently recorded. What Smith said, the number of shots, the time intervals between shots, where the firearms were relative to the victims' bodies when each shot was fired, what the victims said.

And then the jury will convict him of murder.
 
Bendad97 said:
His motives, whatever they were, are irrelevant here. I am speaking only to THIS actual scenario, not some fictional "what if". FACT: He was in his home defending his life and property. FACT: These vermin came into this man's home, uninvited, with bad intent, one of them a repeat offender. FACT: After having the sanctity of his home violated again & again, justice was served. Was it brutal? Yes. Will it be a deterrent? To these two cruds, absolutely. DON'T BREAK INTO OTHER PEOPLE'S HOMES, AND THE RISK OF YOUR BEING SHOT WILL DECREASE BY A FACTOR OF 10.
Click to expand...

This is the libertarian principle at work. If you don't go around doing bad things to other people - then bad things probably won't happen to you.

If I don't actively pursue doing bad things to other people - bad things likely won't happen to me.

The problems start when you ACTIVELY PURSUE doing bad things to other people.

Those kids actively pursued doing bad things to that guy. That's what started this whole thing.

"The law" doesn't seem to give two shits about that.
 

Similar threads

Article: Veterans Day 2017
Replies
5
Views
536
Len-2A Training
Len-2A Training
Article: ABC News: Firearm Confiscation Orders Part of Solution to Mass Public Attack
Replies
20
Views
2K
Lucus
Lucus
Article: Texas AG: Response to Church Shooting Should Be More Armed Law-Abiding Citiz
Replies
5
Views
763
KBCraig
KBCraig
Article: Trump Bypasses Congress to Open Up World Markets to U.S. Gun Makers
Replies
10
Views
968
Crotchrocket
Crotchrocket
Article: 7 Mistakes Coyote Hunters Make
Replies
1
Views
469
Kevin_NH
Kevin_NH
Back
Top Bottom