MN man, guilty or not guilty

[Skull Pilot]

This is not about sympathy for the perps, this is about the Rule of Law vs the Rule of Man.

The law of my state recognizes the castle doctrine.

Connecticut

The Castle Doctrine is incorporated into Connecticut law governing the use of physical force in defense of premises. This law states that a person who possesses or controls a premises, or is licensed or privileged to be on such premises, is justified in using reasonable physical force upon another person when he or she reasonably believes it to be necessary to prevent or stop someone from criminally trespassing. Deadly force is reasonable only (1) to defend oneself or another; (2) when one reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to prevent an attempt by the trespasser to commit arson or any violent crime; or (3) to the extent the person reasonably believes it is necessary and only to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry by force into his or her dwelling or place of work (CGS § 53a-20).

If someone breaks into my home at while i am there then he has the intent of causing harm or at the very least is prepared to do so. if he wasn't then he would not break into an occupied home.

So rule of law says I can shoot the scum bag piece of shit.

That said I have two dogs and an alarm system. If those fail to stop a scum bag piece of shit from entering then really am I supposed to think i, my wife or my dogs are not in physical danger?

And I will repeat that my dogs have more of a right to live than the criminal breaking into my home.

 

[martybegan]

It seems to me he killed them in cold blood. Why didn't he call the police instead of sitting there waiting for them. There was 11 minutes between the time he killed the boy and the girl. The police could have arrived in that time. If his first call specified he'd just shot a burglar, the police would have made a beeline for the place. The second kid did not have to be shot much less murdered. Her death was like an execution. The fact is, death is not the punishment for housebreaking or burglary. He seems to have taken pleasure in killing these kids.

He should go to prison for premeditated murder.

If he had enough money to put up a recording device, he could also have put in some kind of alarm system. He could have a guard dog on the property. He could put a lock on the bedroom door and go there and wait for the police. Lots of options are available instead of murdering someone. He could even move to a safer neighborhood.

A person is entitled to defend their property as they see fit. If he wants a gun to do it, he can do it and the perps could have avoided the whole situation by NOT BREAKING INTO HIS FUCKING HOUSE. The only act that MAY be a crime is the killing shots after the threat was lifted, and even then, it is manslaughter at best.

 

[Mr Natural]

I voted No, he is innocent.

People broke into the guy's house. That warrants getting shot.

Case closed.

 

[BDBoop]

My guess is, they did a psych eval. I mean, if I were defending him, I'd want to know if he was suffering from dementia. If he has no criminal record, what's with the break from reality? Something led him to believe his actions were logical and just.

 

[Jarlaxle]

If I was on that jury I would not vote guilty.

They broke onto his house he had every right to shoot them. Period.

Of course you wouldn't convict. Question. Would you have used a .22 or something bigger for the clean kill shots?

12-bore, 00 load, full choke.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I'm kind of surprised he's even being tried. They were IN his HOUSE.

The jurors heard the dramatic audio recordings Tuesday involving the homeowner who said he feared for his life after several previous break-ins.

Byron Smith, 65, is charged with first-degree premeditated murder in the slayings of cousins Nick Brady, 17, and Haile Kifer, 18, on Thanksgiving Day 2012. The retired State Department security engineer told police that, after the repeated break-ins, he was so fearful that he installed recording devices in his house.

Glass breaking and footsteps could be heard on the recordings. According to Pam Louwagie, a reporter with the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the tapes captured the moments of the fatal shootings.

“The first couple of gunshots you hear are just two loud bangs, and then you hear Nick Brady groaning,” Louwagie said.

After another bang, Smith’s voice could be heard.

“You’re dead,” he said.

“And soon after that, you can hear a tarp rustling, and it sounds like he’s dragging Nick Brady across the carpet,” Louwagie said.

Minutes later, when Kifer went into the basement, perhaps looking for Brady, Smith apparently shot her too, then quickly said, “Oh, sorry about that.”

But, prosecutors said, he didn’t stop there, firing amid Kifer’s screams.

And how can it possibly be premedited?? He didn't know there would be another break-in; how could he? Wouldn't the prosecution have to prove that he knew they would be breaking in?

'You're Dead,' Minn. Man Said After Shooting Teen Intruder - ABC News

Mindful of Meursault in Camus' "The Stranger", and remember Meursault was executed.

Of course that was fiction and we will never know what was in the current killers heart.

What would a reasonable person do when they hear breakage of glass and footsteps in their home? I would hope I would think before using lethal force, seek a safe haven or exit the home and call the authorities; if confronted show the weapon and give the burglar/victim a moment to decide if he or she wants to live or die.

If I lived in a neighborhood where such break-ins were common, and I had previously been invaded I would do more for my safety then rely on a gun. A lock on my bedroom door, a cell phone by my bed and a good size dog sleeping on a large pillow at the foot of my bed seem reasonable precautions.

I often wonder, reading the comments on this message board after Zimmerman and whenever a citizen kills another, if some of those who post here don't dream of riding a big wave, hitting a walk-off homerun or staring in a Broadway Play, and instead dream that they are the hero when they shot and kill another human being.

There is NO doubt that's a huge motivation for the gun in every pocket movement. They all dream of being Might Mouse, swooping down to save the day.

We've had the Skittles defense, the texting popcorn and the loud music defense.

What will be this guy's excuses for executing these two?

 

[Katzndogz]

They broke into his house before. It was so much fun they did it again. They won't do it anymore. The man is entirely justified.

 

[Noomi]

I don't think he is guilty of 1st degree murder, given that they had broken into his home - but he shot that girl more than once. One shot was enough to disable her, he did NOT have to continue firing, yet he did. She was in the basement, all he needed to do was lock the door and call 911. Instead, he stood over her and executed her. If that isn't illegal than America is going to shit.

 

[BDBoop]

There is NO doubt that's a huge motivation for the gun in every pocket movement. They all dream of being Might Mouse, swooping down to save the day.

We've had the Skittles defense, the texting popcorn and the loud music defense.

What will be this guy's excuses for executing these two?

But first - what was their 'excuse' for being in his house.

 

[whitehall]

A Fox news legal analyst had it right I think. The man lived in fear after several break ins that the Police couldn't seem to solve. Maybe he was borderline paranoid. He had the right to protect his home and property but he let his anger and emotions take over when he heard the burglars coming. I think he is guilty of at least manslaughter.

 

[Missourian]

Once the threat is removed, the justification is terminated. That's my understanding of the law.

But, they were in his house...their crime was the catalyst.

I think he'll probably do a token amount of prison time for this... Five years, maybe seven...but only because the second victim was an unarmed teenaged girl.

Had it been two males criminals, I suspect he would walk.

 

[BDBoop]

I do hope they take his age and lack of record into consideration during sentencing.

 

[BDBoop]

The prosecution rests.

Security ran out of passes for public entry to the trial on Thursday -- the day jurors learned the two teens who broke into his Little Falls, Minn., home were shot three and six times, respectively.

The medical examiner walked the courtroom through autopsy photos and said Nick Brady, 17 was shot three times and Haile Kifer, 18, six times. The third and final gunshot into Brady's head was proven fatal and had passed through the back of his hand. Kifer was killed with the fifth gunshot before the sixth and final "finishing shot" as Smith had earlier described.

Prosecutors also requested toxicology results during the direct examination, and the medical examiner confirmed Kifer had traces of marijuana in her system, but there were no drugs or alcohol in Brady's system.

Smith's attorney's cross examination of the medical examiner revealed Kifer had a drug found in cough syrup in her system at the time of the break-in. Even after several shots, it was established that the teen intruders "were still a threat."

 

[Pop23]

Once the threat is removed, the justification is terminated. That's my understanding of the law.

But, they were in his house...their crime was the catalyst.

I think he'll probably do a token amount of prison time for this... Five years, maybe seven...but only because the second victim was an unarmed teenaged girl.

Had it been two males criminals, I suspect he would walk.

Read the thread several times. Such a tough call. I'm going to sleep on it before voting, but I think the quoted post is close to the right call.

Fear makes people do really strange things. Even kill.

Just glad I'm not on this jury.

 

[BDBoop]

Pop, that's what I was thinking.

 

[The Professor]

Unless the jury ignores the law, Smith will be convicted. He had no right to kill the teens after they were disabled and posed no threat. The applicable Minnesota Statute states:

609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE

The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.

https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=609.065

In Minnesota, as in every other state, the use of deadly force is allowed only when – at the moment such force is used – the actor has a reasonable belief that he would suffer death or serious bodily injury. Brady had already been shot in the chest and back and was on the floor. At that point no reasonable person would consider him to be capable of inflicting death or serious bodily injury upon Smith. However, Smith fired a final shot to his head:

“Prosecutors say as Brady descended the basement steps, Smith shot him in the chest, then in the back while Brady fell, Wartner said. Smith fired a final shot into Brady's head, the bullet passing through Brady's hand, Wartner said. Smith put Brady's body on a tarp so he wouldn't get blood on his carpet, dragged it into his workshop, reloaded his rifle and sat down again, the prosecutor said.”

The same thing applies to what Smith did to Kifer. She was disabled and gasping for air when Smith shot her in the head:

“Smith dragged Kifer's body into the workshop and laid it on top of Brady's, Wartner said. Smith told investigators he thought he heard Kifer gasping, so he placed his revolver under her chin and fired what he told police was a 'good clean finishing shot to the head,' the assistant prosecutor said.”

Note: the above quotes are from the following site:

Byron Smith, Minnesota homeowner on trial for murder, lay in wait for teen burglars, prosecutor says - CBS News

In addition to the cited statute, case law has further restricted the use of deadly force. I didn't have time to research the Minnesota case law, but here is what one reputable source says:

It is very important to remember that case law has added three additional rules, for a total of four rules that must be followed.

1. Reasonably in fear of death or great bodily harm for yourself or another.
2. Must have reluctantly entered the conflict.
3. Must have no reasonable means of retreat.
4. No lesser force will suffice to stop the threat.

Minnesota Statute 609.056 also provides a separate rule for the use of deadly force when in our “place of abode.” Place of abode refers to your actual dwelling and does not include your land, detached garage, storage shed, etc. This section states that deadly force is allowable “when preventing the commission of a felony” in our home, however, case law has confirmed that the reasonable rule in 609.06 also applies here.

The Aftermath

In the aftermath, you must call 911! It is critical that you report the incident and it is your obligation to seek medical attention if someone is injured!

Use of Force in Minnesota | Blue Line Defense

If I'm sitting on the jury, I would convict the man. Whether it would be first degree murder is beyond the scope of this response.

Emotions may be on Smith's side, but the law certainly is not.

 

[JWBooth]

I hope he walks.
Then there are the inevitable wrongful death lawsuits.

 

[R.D.]

I don't think he is guilty of 1st degree murder, given that they had broken into his home - but he shot that girl more than once. One shot was enough to disable her, he did NOT have to continue firing, yet he did. She was in the basement, all he needed to do was lock the door and call 911. Instead, he stood over her and executed her. If that isn't illegal than America is going to shit.

So? Which is it?

 

[martybegan]

Once the threat is removed, the justification is terminated. That's my understanding of the law.

But, they were in his house...their crime was the catalyst.

I think he'll probably do a token amount of prison time for this... Five years, maybe seven...but only because the second victim was an unarmed teenaged girl.

Had it been two males criminals, I suspect he would walk.

Read the thread several times. Such a tough call. I'm going to sleep on it before voting, but I think the quoted post is close to the right call.

Fear makes people do really strange things. Even kill.

Just glad I'm not on this jury.

If I were on the Jury and the charge was manslaughter, I would convict in a second.
If there were both a murder 1 and a manslaughter charge, manslaughter.
If i was only given Murder 1, I would have to acquit.
I could even see murder 2, but not murder 1.

 

[DriftingSand]

If he's guilty then I will be just as guilty when I shoot any intruder who dares to break into my home. It's recommended that if you do have to shoot someone who breaks in that you kill them. I know that sounds grizzly and I hope I never have to but there are two reasons for the recommendation:

1) An injured intruder may still be armed and may still pose a threat to life and limb.
2) Injured intruders can sue the pants off of homeowners for life-changing injuries.