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

[DemonChronicles]

He did two things (among many) wrong:
1.) He dragged bodies around and executed someone that was no longer a threat.
2.) He incriminated himself by talking to the police.

This guy isn't too smart and he'll most likely spend the rest of his life in jail due to his own stupidity ad ignorance.

 

[calsdad]

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.

What's also been forgotten is the principle of leaving people alone.

As a society we constantly coddle and forgive the actions of criminals - and in fact our government and business organizations are constantly getting away with criminal behavior of one form or another. The news is full of stories about us blowing up wedding parties in Iraq and Afghanistan - and we lived under the threat of being blown to kingdom come by nuclear weapons for decades now.

You only need to read the news in MA to see how often outright criminals get away with murder (literally) - while "citizens" take a screwing over and over again.

To me - one of the crucial pieces of information here is the part where the guy said that he shot the girl - AND SHE LAUGHED AT HIM.

WTF is that anyway?

She MUST have already heard the gunshots that took out her cousin.

So now she's wandering thru the house - SOMEBODY ELSE'S HOUSE - calling out his name.

And she gets shot.

And then SHE LAUGHS AT THE GUY. Sorry - but an awful lot of people would interpret that as a "**** you".

A "**** you" that is - to a guy whose house they had already broken into multiple times before.

I don't think the guy was a psycho - I think he was pissed off at being constantly violated by these two scumbags.

There's an awful lot of people in the world - seems even more lately - that think it's their god-given right to just go around screwing with other people. They actually get pissed off when you tell them no. There's been numerous cases of people who don't have the slightest bit of remorse over stealing from and killing other people. GM-GUY , right here on NES has a perfect example of this - his own brother.

These people think they DESERVE what they take and think they can do no wrong. And the law often supports them. And that's because the law is a byproduct of the temperment of society and the aims of government. We live in a socialistic society - where the govt. wants to be able to lay claim to anything it wants. It can only do that - when society accepts a certain ideology - and that ideology has become very socialistic IMHO. I don't think our society - or our laws REALLY respect private property or individual rights. I'm sorry , but my interpretation of what happened is that the guy had finally just had too much - WAY too much - after having been broken into numerous times - by a couple of scumbags - one of whom - a girl no less - who demonstrated how much of a scumbag she was by LAUGHING at the guy after he had just shot her.

They just keep pushing and pushing - and they finally pushed the guy too far.

- - - Updated - - -

He did two things wrong:
1.) He dragged bodies around and executed someone that was no longer a threat.
2.) He incriminated himself by talking to the police.

This guy isn't too smart.

Agreed.

 

[calsdad]

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.

It's not an ambush if he's inside HIS OWN GODDAM HOUSE.

That comment is a perfect example of what I just referred to - the acceptance by the law and society of screwing with other people.

 

[DemonChronicles]

A "F*ck you" isn't justification to shoot someone bud.

Look, no doubt the criminals got what was coming to them. But there is so much fail in this guy's actions that it is incredibly hard to have any kind of sympathy for him at all.

And I highly suspect a jury will undoubtedly come to the same reasoning.

He's f*cked" plain and simple.

Some more news on this story

One more

 

[calsdad]

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

You need to go read thru some of the "death by cop" threads then.

Because by your definition a good many of the police departments around the country are full of psychopaths - and they're getting paid by your tax dollars - and they get off when they shoot people down.

Or are you going to tell me that it's somehow different when you're a cop?

 

[DemonChronicles]

Because by your definition a good many of the police departments around the country are full of psychopaths - and they're getting paid by your tax dollars - and they get off when they shoot people down.

Yes, they are full of them. You should already know this.

Or are you going to tell me that it's somehow different when you're a cop?

Isn't it always?

 

[calsdad]

A "F*ck you" isn't justification to shoot someone bud.

Look, no doubt the criminals got what was coming to them. But there is so much fail in this guy's actions that it is incredibly hard to have any kind of sympathy for him at all.

And I highly suspect a jury will undoubtedly come to the same reasoning.

He's f*cked" plain and simple.

Some more news on this story

One more

I don't have much sympathy for this guy - but I have NO sympathy for those two kids.

The thing that peeves me off about this story is the turn they're trying to take with it where they portray those two as "good little kids" who played sports and participated in their community and all that.

This guy may have been some wacko loner who lived by himself - and those kids took some cues somewhere that that this meant it was absolutely ok to just keep screwing with the guy. There's been numerous cases where even entire communities get going on one person and basically bully them to death or make their lives miserable thru constant harrassment. So what we may really talking about is "pack of criminal douches vs. screwed up old loner guy" situation.

The old loner guy might have just lived out his life being the town whacko - and nobody would have gotten harmed - but for the actions of those two kids.

That's the thing I have an issue with.

If we going to talk about where the REAL responsibility lies - then lets go right back to the source and look at WHO IT WAS that precipitated this whole thing happening in the first place.

If the old guy had left his house and proactively hunted those kids down - then HE would have definitively been at fault here. He didn't do that. He was INSIDE his house - which according to at least some people here - is an "ambush".

The legal system will turn the only person involved in this case who had any legitimate claim to victimhood into the bad guy - and turn the two douches into victims - and then he'll go to jail over an incident that was entirely precipitated by the actions of the those two kids - and everybody will sit back and pat themselves on the back and tell themselves what good people they all are - and wonder why all of this crap just keeps happening over and over again.

 

[calsdad]

Yes, they are full of them. You should already know this.



Isn't it always?

I do already know that - it appears that a lot of other people don't though. I'd be happy if people just applied their definitions consistently.

 

[Eman .357]

I just took my hollows out of my .40 and told them very sternly they are only allowed to incapacitate and must not cause too much damage. I couldn't tell if they were listening. Guess I will have to shoot first, call a lawyer, and then the coroner.

Can my no trespassing sign say things like...

You are passing the point of living retreat.

I am f**king serious no trespassing.

I will kill you, I am a man of my word.


The way the education system is going the criminals will just plead "I couldn't read" or "I don't know what trespassing means"

P.S. calsdad has essentially said everything I could have possibly said. Thank you calsdad.

 

[calsdad]

I just took my hollows out of my .40 and told them very sternly they are only allowed to incapacitate and must not cause too much damage. I couldn't tell if they were listening. Guess I will have to shoot first, call a lawyer, and then the coroner.

Can my no trespassing sign say things like...

You are passing the point of living retreat.

I am f**king serious no trespassing.

I will kill you, I am a man of my word.


The way the education system is going the criminals will just plead "I couldn't read" or "I don't know what trespassing means"

The education system, society - and government by example - is already telling "the criminals" - to just take what they want because "you deserve it".

 

[DemonChronicles]

I don't have any sympathy for any of them, the homeowner or the teens.

The criminals got what they did because of their actions. I don't give a flying f*ck whether they were derelicts or potential career criminals, it's irrelevant. They broke into someones home in an attempt to rob someone, period.

The homeowner is also going to get what's coming to him for the epic failures he displayed during the incident.

Again, I have absolutely no sympathy for any of them. No one wins here, no one.

But this homeowner is a walking, talking sh*thead and a prime example of how NOT to go about defending your home or yourself.

 

[richc]

Sounds similar to the pharmacist in Oklahoma. He was found guilty and got life in prison:

 

[rjharris33]

does everybody really think the girl "laughed at him" after already being shot? I guess we will have to wait til the audio is released. Even if she did, that doesn't seem like something that is threatening to his life.
My belief is that three people made big mistakes. The two teens and the man.
The teens should have never been at the house. I don't fault the man for protecting his life and property.
However, he should have kept his mouth shut and never moved the bodies, and should have called police after incident.

I don't know if he should, tough to tell without all the evidence, but I'm fairly certain he will be found guilty of murder.

Hard to say what we would all do in this situation.

 

[Nectaris]

I thought about the laughing bit myself but the guy seems to not give a crap and said so many other things truthfuly to incriminate himself whether she laughed or not so why would he make that part up.

 

[namedpipes]

The premeditation appears to hinge on the fact that breakins happened previously and he reacted by installing a security system, arming himself and waiting for his attackers to return.

If anyone reading this post has gone to the trouble to obtain a License to Carry Firearms and does so, you should be aware that if you ever kill someone in self defense, you just might be charged with premeditated murder. After all, you put a great deal of thought, planning and assets into the killing of that person. Probably more than Mr. Smith.

 

[OfficerObie59]

The problem with this lies with the fact that, notwithstanding the fact these two shitheads broke into the house, the homeowner's intent was to kill them and cause them to no longer be alive. Not to simply stop the threat, or stop them from whatever illegal activity they were engaged in.

While only on NES could pointing out and resting with that distinction make me a big government apologist, but I'm sticking with the line drawn there.

 

[OfficerObie59]

You need to go read thru some of the "death by cop" threads then.

Because by your definition a good many of the police departments around the country are full of psychopaths - and they're getting paid by your tax dollars - and they get off when they shoot people down.

Or are you going to tell me that it's somehow different when you're a cop?

Exactly.

Which is kinda funny--juxtapose this incident with the one where the cop shot the guy who reached for his cane, believing it was a long gun.

There's something cognitively dissonant about arguing that guy should have been charged with attempted murder, as some of us did. Mainly, the lack of intent to kill.

 

[calsdad]

If that was your daughter he shot in the head I suppose all you tough guys would still be saying the same thing, right?

If my daughter was breaking into old men's houses - multiple times - I think I'd have a pretty hard time defending her actions no matter how pissed off I was about her being dead.

Actions have consequences - it doesn't much matter whether it's your daughter or somebody else's.

 

[mibro]

The thing that peeves me off about this story is the turn they're trying to take with it where they portray those two as "good little kids" who played sports and participated in their community and all that.

Many teenagers have made serious mistakes and gone on to live productive lives. There's no indication that either of these kids was any more than a teenage ****-up.

The fact that the girl (apparently) continued to look for the boy after hearing gunshots suggests to me at least that she was high on something. That might also explain the apparent laughter after she was first shot.

The depraved malice with which Mr. Smith took both of these kids lives tells me all I need to know about him and his motives. He shot the boy in the face when the boy was on the ground and then he put his firearm under the chin of the girl - not the action of someone who is afraid the girl might be armed - and pulled the trigger.

From the latest news reports:

"On Monday, prosecutors gave the first glimpse of what the audio recording system inside Smith's home captured the night of the double-shooting. The assistant county attorney said Smith can be heard taunting the dying teens, firing multiple times, and taking just 18 seconds to wrap Brady's body in a tarp before waiting for Kifer to come down the stairs before shooting her as well.

Under Minnesota law, a homeowner can use deadly force on an intruder if a reasonable person believes the intruder intends to inflict harm. Smith told investigators he was afraid the teens might have a weapon, but prosecutors say he went too far.

"The law doesn't permit you to execute someone once the threat is gone," said Morrison County Sheriff Michel Wetzel. "When it becomes clear there's no threat to you, and a felony can't be committed in your home, you no longer have the right to shoot someone.""

 

[Helix]

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.

I don't know who you're talking to but it's "shoot to stop". That doesn't mean a warning shot or shooting to incapacitate, it's one round center of available mass until they "stop" their actions. Most likely if you're on target they will die, however you are not shooting with the sole intent of killing, you are attempting to stop them from causing you or someone else life threatening harm.

Good luck with your shoot to kill ideology if you ever have to defend yourself. A prosecutor will massacre you on the stand.

 

[namedpipes]

To all those of you that think you will have the presence of mind to shoot the gun right out of the intruders hand... Grow up.

If you ever find your self in a situation where you have to shoot someone I predict these things: one. You will shit your pants. Two. You will shoot until you are out of ammo, or at least until the lump is no longer moving. Three. You'll piss your pants. Four. You'll set the gun down on the ground and stare at it. Five. You may puke. You will for sure later when it starts to sink in. Six. The adrenaline rush may be scarier than the adrenalin let down your about to have. Seven. You're going to babble like a baby when the police arrive. Shut up. You're in no condition to talk. Go to the hospital. You probably need to anyway. I know I would. Eight. Recurring nightmares for years. Nine. You're alive.

Fantasize about how cool and collected you'll be or how you know you'll do the right thing. You won't. You'll freak out. That's not bad. It's normal.

Whatever your intentions are, if your plans are to walk away alive, get over the idea that the bad guy will stop doing bad things because you told him sternly. Shoot the guy until he's no longer a threat. If he's moving, he's a threat.

Sent from my chimney using smoke signals.

 

[DemonChronicles]

It only does the first time, gets easier after that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[peter k]

i understand that the two "kids" were in Smith's home and they should'nt be there; but i believe that his actions were grossly excessive. Have no problem shooting the intruders but shooting an intruder and dragging the presumably dead body to the basement. then getting a second firearm to administer "a good, clean finishing shot" under her chin after shooting her multiple tiimes is not, i my eyes, self defense.

 

[xtry51]

I don't see how the manner in which he kills them matters at all. Either he has the right to use deadly force or he doesn't. You don't have to like how he treats criminals.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

.

 

[drgrant]

If that was your daughter he shot in the head I suppose all you tough guys would still be saying the same thing, right?

If that was my kid I'd be more upset about my abject failure as a parent than anything else.

-Mike

 

[dcmdon]

Although I think many people's emotional response might have been similar to Mr. Smith's, the simple fact is that he lost the legal and ETHICAL justification to use deadly force once the people no longer represented a threat to him.

If he had shot the man (not a boy) and then dialed 911, he'd never have even been arrested.

Also, if he had kept his mouth shut beyond saying, "they came into my home, I feared for my life, so I shot them", he'd also never have been arrested.

The "coup de grace" execution of the woman was not even close to ethical or legal.

Don

 

[drgrant]

The "coup de grace" execution of the woman was not even close to ethical or legal.

Don't shoot the pandas.

 

[OfficerObie59]

I don't see how the manner in which he kills them matters at all. Either he has the right to use deadly force or he doesn't. You don't have to like how he treats criminals.

It has nothing to do with the manner insofar as that manner doesn't suggest an intent to kill rather than simply neutralize the threat.

I can shoot an intruder exactly in the same manner on two separate occasions, and depending on what is going on in my mind, one a can be a justified shooting and other can be murder--it's just that usually the latter can't be proven. This is the result of this whole mens rea thing we've been developing for the 1,000 year history of English common law.

 

[M1911]

The tactic may seem excessive, and a bit creepy, but its his house. Hopefully he gets off.

He won't.

Legally, his actions were not justified. If his life actually was in danger (I think he will have a hard time convincing a court of that), it surely wasn't in danger once he'd shot the girl multiple times and he approached her, placed the gun under her chin, and shot her in the head.

Regardless of what you think the law should or shouldn't be, he broke the law as it is today, and he'll spend a very long time in jail as a result. If I am ever in a life or death situation, I want to win both fights -- the one at the scene and the following in court.