"You're dead," Minnesota Homeowner Told Teen Burglar

originally posted by: yuppa
Also alot of people with basements keep tarps in them for any number of reasons.how can they prove he had it there for just this?

That's true. Tarps can be anywhere. But the red flag is when he wrapped up the bodies in them. Your average homeowner would not do that. But some one with a plan to dispose of the bodies would. I know it's conjecture, but I think Mr. Smiths plan didn't work out the way he thought it would.

originally posted by: stumason

Indeed - however these two were so incapacitated they allowed themselves to be dragged around before being finished off.

Unless he is a medical doctor, he could not know for sure if they were able to still fight or not.

originally posted by: stumason
Actually, no. If that combatant is no longer a threat or has surrendered, you can't "finish him off". The example of the Marines I gave was during an active firefight - they wounded the chappy, he was down and out, then they sauntered over and the Sgt put a bullet in his head.

And that is a scenario where the fighting stopped and he went and shot him. Another case where I don't have a problem with what was done.
But, in an active engagement, if an enemy combatant is shot, there are no rules, for during the engagement, that the wounded can't be shot.

The article you provided, for Royal Marines, was that of them coming across a wounded person, after a battle had ended.
Seems like they were scapegoated, the Royal Marine with the helmet cam was a moron for filming it and it has to do with Non US military. There are items that I don't care about.

And the warfare situations have nothing to do with this thread.

originally posted by: stumason
Actually it is within the realms of the OP as it considers "threats" and where that line is..

No, it doesn't.
One is within the US and has civilian based people involved.
The one you quote is outside the US, during a warfare scenario and revolves around Non-US citizens.
I guess that apple and baseball are the same, because they are both kind of round.

originally posted by: stumason

Then you and I are quite different people - which is fine, each to their own - but I personally could not happily live with myself having just executed two people who posed no threat.

They are a threat until they are not.
I would not shed a tear or lose any sleep.

originally posted by: stumason

Until he goes to jail, because he most certainly will barring a successful insanity plea, where he will become prey to quite a few nasty buggers (pun intended)

Don't forget about the jury pool that will be the deciders of this case.

originally posted by: stumason

Indeed - from your side. The facts are there, as stated in the OP, he went far above what is considered normal.

Not really. There are assumptions from your side as well.

originally posted by: stumason
Let's put this another way, if this was a Police officer, who shot a criminal then finished him off afterwards, would you feel the same I wonder?

In what manner would this "what-if" be played out?

originally posted by: nextone

originally posted by: TDawgRex
a reply to: nextone

In my State, I can use lethal force to prevent my car from being stolen. And I would. I refuse to be a victim.

No, you cannot. There is not a single state in the U.S. where you have that right.

You really need to read up on laws.

Yes...you can. Will you be arrested at first? Of Course, but if found to be within reasonable limits, you'll walk free. You must remember, I'm not talking about sneaking up on the thief and shooting them in the back. Always identify that you are armed. (While having the perp in your sights)

originally posted by: TDawgRex

originally posted by: nextone

originally posted by: TDawgRex
a reply to: nextone

In my State, I can use lethal force to prevent my car from being stolen. And I would. I refuse to be a victim.

No, you cannot. There is not a single state in the U.S. where you have that right.

You really need to read up on laws.

Yes...you can. Will you be arrested at first? Of Course, but if found to be within reasonable limits, you'll walk free. You must remember, I'm not talking about sneaking up on the thief and shooting them in the back. Always identify that you are armed. (While having the perp in your sights)

You are correct Dawg.
Texas is one such state... as you were aware, I believe.
Here is a link to info... thinkprogress.org[/u rl]
I used a liberal site so they can't say it ain't so.

Trying again... [url=http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/07/24/2345901/three-self-defense-laws-that-could-be-even-worse-than-stand-your-ground/]Link

originally posted by: daskakikHim setting everything up because he wanted payback?

There is nothing that really shows he was living in fear other than his words but his actions show that he was actually very much in control of things.

Payback is your word, not mine. You didn't answer my question. How could Mr. Smith possibly have had any idea what day and what time he would be victimized again? You're saying he set it up somehow, think about what had to have been happening for that to be true.

originally posted by: nextone

originally posted by: CJCrawley
The irony of this case, as I stated in a previous post on here, is that the homeowner videotaped what he did.

Had this not happened it would be just another case of an innocent homeowner shooting dead two intruders, thus exercising his right to defend his property.

People have no right to shoot persons to protect their property.

The reason why people can sometimes shoot intruders is for protection of their own person, not their property. It's where a person is reasonably in fear of great bodily harm or death that they can protect themselves in this way. So if you look out your window one night and see someone breaking into your barn, you cannot shoot them. If you get home one day and walk in and see someone fleeing out the back door with your stereo, you cannot shoot them.

Actually if someone is threatening your livelyhood by breaking in your barn which will cause your life to suffer you can. Although you have to verbally warn them first then. Who is to say that after the barn they are not coming for you next?

I had a state tropper tell me that if you have to shoot someone in the back make sure to turn them over and blow enough holes in the front to cover the first shot up or put a weapon in their hands and say you dodged them and fired into their back. Yeah i know dirty pool. And when they want to give you a lie detector specify they are not admissable in court and refuse. that way your lawyer can argue that point giving you some reasonable doubt.

a reply to: Goteborg

Payback is your word, not mine. You didn't answer my question. How could Mr. Smith possibly have had any idea what day and what time he would be victimized again?

"Payback" is a word that can fit just as well as "victimized".

He would know if he wasn't really a victim but had set things up.

You're saying he set it up somehow, think about what had to have been happening for that to be true.

Thinking about it while taking into account the facts lead in that direction.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
The lesson for all you fine ATSers here: double tap when firing on a home invasion.

And don't record the situation either.

a reply to: Kryties

Are you seriously going to compare making a comment on a forum to breaking into someone's house? And call it logic?

originally posted by: nextone
originally posted by: TDawgRex
a reply to: nextone

In my State, I can use lethal force to prevent my car from being stolen. And I would. I refuse to be a victim.

 

No, you cannot. There is not a single state in the U.S. where you have that right.

I'm not so sure you're right, nextone:

Where may I use Deadly Force? – The “Castle Doctrine.”

Here is where Tennessee law most strongly protects the right of a person to use deadly force, using an expanded version of the old adage that a person’s home is their “Castle.” Using the same criteria above, Tennessee law provides a person the presumption that they have a “reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury,” when the person using deadly force is inside their:

4. Vehicle – any motorized vehicle that is self-propelled and designed for use on public highways to transport people or property.

Of course the person using deadly force may only do so against another person who unlawfully and forcibly enters, or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence, business, dwelling or vehicle, and the person using defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

Nashville Criminal Lawyers

Since I'm not an attorney, I can't dissect this law. However, it does appear that stealing one's car (at least in my state) can be a cause for use of force.

J

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Goteborg
"Payback" is a word that can fit just as well as "victimized".

He would know if he wasn't really a victim but had set things up.


Thinking about it while taking into account the facts lead in that direction.

I want to be certain that I understand what you're saying, are you saying that Mr. Smith was partnered with the thieves in order to rob his own home? If you are saying that. there are no facts to support that and no one has alleged that.

As I have said in other post...
You don't want to be dead? Don't break into my home!

No for as far as he "Stalked them" Really.. What dream did you wake up from?
He had been broken into several times and at least twice by these folks. Age matters not when you break the law...Period.

I have not been broken into...yet. But rest easy that if you do I will shoot you dead. Now is that premeditated murder/ NOPE!
It is a statement of the outcome, and if you care to test the outcome to see if I have the $alls to do it... feel free .

If we allow this to go the course the touchy feely anti Americans wish, then we are more doomed then we all ready are.

a reply to: macman
www.abovetopsecret.com...
get your gun and go here and shoot them
tough guy

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: stumason

Indeed - however these two were so incapacitated they allowed themselves to be dragged around before being finished off.

Unless he is a medical doctor, he could not know for sure if they were able to still fight or not.

How about the fact he was able to drag them around on a tarp shows that he knew they were no longer a threat?

Or how about WHEN HE ADMITTED IT to the police when they interviewed him?

When asked why he kept firing after Brady and Kifer were disabled, Smith said, "Even if I kill someone, I don't want them to suffer." He further compared the killings to hunting deer.

Read more: BYRON SMITH TRIAL: Chilling audio of Little Falls shootings - KMSP-TV www.myfoxtwincities.com...

It's not rocket science.

originally posted by: Goteborg
I want to be certain that I understand what you're saying, are you saying that Mr. Smith was partnered with the thieves in order to rob his own home? If you are saying that there are no facts to support that and no has alleged that.

Not partnered with the thieves but in control of the situation even before the "break-in".

a reply to: buni11687
*Star
I hadn't read about the rx involvement; but many news sources indicate that he had a prior relationship with one or more of the juveniles, though it's impossible to know the truth at this stage. This prompts me to speculate: what prompted the overkill?

Overkill usually is personal, with anger as the common underlying drive.

www.dummies.com...
(not the best link but quickest I could find this AM)

A sketch of the crime scene:

www.myfoxtwincities.com...

Reports claim that one victim, Haile Kifer, had a history of stealing prescription drugs.

[Nick] Brady's sister, Crystal Schaeffel, told the Star Tribune that Kifer had stolen prescription drugs from her home before. Little Falls police records show Crystal Schaeffel reported a theft Aug. 28, but the department said the report was not public because that investigation was continuing and because it named juveniles.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

She said that Kifer had been in treatment more than once for abuse of controlled substances, and speculated that her cousin might have been after pills. Kifer had recently returned to school and had been trying to straighten out her life, Shaeffel said, adding that Kifer had stolen Adderall pills from Shaeffel's home.

www.startribune.com...

A little background on Mr. Smith's former profession:

Byron Smith, the Little Falls man who authorities say admitted killing two teenagers because they broke into his home, was a highly trained State Department security engineer responsible for protecting U.S. embassies from terrorism and espionage.

So, it would seem as if Mr. S was adept with video surveillance equipment.

Security engineers oversee construction and repair work in U.S. embassies and consulates to prevent spies and terrorists from breaking into State Department buildings or installing secret recording devices, said retired U.S. State Department political officer William Davnie. Unlike security officers, who patrol embassy grounds and offer advice about personal safety to Americans living abroad, security engineers are focused on technical issues, such as building layout, wireless networks, locks and alarms.

www.mprnews.org...

A complex case, filled with twists and turns.

originally posted by: Danbones
a reply to: macman
www.abovetopsecret.com...
get your gun and go here and shoot them
tough guy

Dan you know he cant do that.Thats not his house. The cops are suppossed to announce their intentions and if they do not though they can be shot. THATS when a camera would come in handy though.

a reply to: daskakik

How was he in control?

a reply to: daskakik

You are making no sense at all. What exactly are you trying to say? How is he supposed to have been in control of burglars? MKUltra or what?

originally posted by: Goteborg
How was he in control?

He told police he wanted them dead and that was the outcome.