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

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: stumason



Don't want to be shot, don't break into a house.

I agree.

Where are the laws that protect law-abiding citizens in their homes? Instead, there exist more laws that protect the criminals.

It is quite clear the bloke went above and beyond what is expected in self-defence.

A court psychologist will most likely say differently. See my response to the next statement -

Either way, despite being a victim of crime myself, I've never wanted "anyone dead".

Your situation isn't his situation. You aren't in his shoes. Everyone has a different threshold. He was a repeated victim of crime. He's 65 and victimized over and over and the cops couldn't stop it. He defended himself. And yes, he was angry so he made sure he wouldn't be victimized again. Psychologically speaking ... his response was understandable. It's classic of what a person who has been the repeated victim of violent crime could do.

a reply to: Kryties

Boo Hoo.

Now your the poor victim after you called people psychopaths and deluded, please get some thicker skin.

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: Kryties


If punks don't want to be shot dead then they should not break into people's houses.

I didn't know that there was a law that states that you can only shoot one bullet at a thief.

The law says nothing about how many rounds you can fire - instead it deals with determining under what situations the use of deadly force is justifiable.

You should really educate yourself.. And because you obviously haven't at this point you should not own or carry a firearm.

Look in to "The Reasonable Man" doctrine. To put it briefly, this doctrine asks what a reasonable man would have done in similar situations. I would argue that a reasonable man would not shoot someone execution-style as they were laying on the floor, bleeding out from their wounds.

No offense intended, but the people in this thread claiming he had every right to perform TWO EXECUTIONS in his home after the threat had been neutralized seriously need some help. I would advise you all to familiarize yourself with defense laws in your state - because if you think what Smith did after neutralizing the threat to his safety (murdered two people) was justified, you are probably going to spend some time in prison for murder yourself if you are ever forced to defend yourself with a firearm.

Some of you should read this, and similar literature:

www.armedcitizensnetwork.org...

From: minnesota.cbslocal.com...

Reality Check: Explaining Minnesota’s Self-Defense Laws

A Minnesota man told police he feared two teenagers breaking into his home had a weapon when he shot and killed them on Thanksgiving Day.

Byron Smith, 64, of Little Falls, is now facing murder charges.

Smith admitted to investigators he fired “more shots than (he) needed to.”

And seemed to brag about making “a good, clean finishing shot” when he killed 18-year-old Haile Kifer, after he had already killed 17-year-old Nicholas Brady.

Minnesotans already have the right to defend themselves in their homes, but the case in Little Falls would probably not apply.

It’s already legal to shoot and kill an intruder in your home, or in your yard, or your garage, if you are threatened.

But self-defense becomes murder at a very specific point.

Most states already have self-defense laws based on the Castle Doctrine — “a man’s home is his castle.”

In fact, in Minnesota, you can shoot an intruder — even kill — if you feel threatened with great bodily harm, or if you are trying to prevent a felony.

But you must stop shooting if the threat’s eliminated, even if the intruder is still alive.

That’s called the “duty to retreat.”

Self-defense laws in 24 states go further than Minnesota. They are not “duty to retreat” states — but “stand your ground” or “make my day” states. “Make my day,” as in Clint Eastwood’s famous line.

Here’s what you need to know.

This year the Minnesota legislature passed, and Gov. Mark Dayton vetoed, a bill that would have turned Minnesota into a “make my day” state.

That would have expanded the Castle Doctrine beyond a house — to cars, motor homes, boats — even tents.

That’s not the whole story.

In Little Falls, Smith may have felt threatened when two young people broke into his home.

But even a “make my day” state won’t allow a shooter to do what Smith says he did — keep shooting until the intruders were dead.

George Zimmerman used Florida’s “stand your ground” law when he killed Trayvon Martin, claiming he felt threatened.

Why is this so difficult for some posters to comprehend?

Bottom line .... An old man was the victim of repeated break ins. He went to the cops. The cops couldnt' stop it. The thieves continued to break in with multiple break ins. The victim took measures to protect himself. Of course he was angry and scared. He made sure it wouldn't happen again. In terms of psychology .. it's evolutionary survival kicking in. It's understandable. And in a criminal court, it will be up to a psychologist to state if the man was afraid for his life. Being the victim of repeat violent crimes, he very well could have seen the only way out was to kill the criminal invaders.

Until you are an old man who is the victim of repeated violent crimes in your own home ... crimes that the cops can't or won't stop ... you don't know how you will react in order to protect yourself.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

Bottom line .... An old man was the victim of repeated break ins. He went to the cops. The cops couldnt' stop it. The thieves continued to break in with multiple break ins. The victim took measures to protect himself. Of course he was angry and scared. He made sure it wouldn't happen again.

Bottom line: In no U.S. state it is considered legal to keep shooting an intruder after they were already incapacitated. Full stop. Period. End of discussion.

Please read this link: minnesota.cbslocal.com...

The only issue i have with this story is that it was the 3rd break in....

The 3rd one?

Jesus. Criminals obviously not afraid of getting caught..

a reply to: Kryties

I don't see people really arguing the legal side.


I see people saying they don't have a problem with his actions.

originally posted by: TinkerHaus
Look in to "The Reasonable Man" doctrine.

Which will be torn apart by psychologists on the stand. When an old person is the repeated victim of violent crime .. in their own home .. and the cops can't stop it ... then what is a reasonable response when the victim is yet again victimized and he has a chance to end the crimes against himself once and for all?

See ... a psychologist could easily say it was 'reasonable' to expect that the man would end his torment in a final manner.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Kryties

I don't see people really arguing the legal side.


I see people saying they don't have a problem with his actions.

I'm not sure what's scarier - the fact some posters are completely ignoring the illegality or the fact that other posters completely agree with what the man did.

Either way, there is an incredible amount of bloodlust being displayed in this thread.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Kryties

I don't see people really arguing the legal side.


I see people saying they don't have a problem with his actions.

Actually earlier in this thread you yourself said that he wasn't aware of what "premeditated" was and you were glad he doesn't live in our country. You were absolutely discussing legality as "premeditated" is a legal term.

a reply to: Kryties

The point is, when a crime is in process, the victim can't be sure that the criminal is totally incapacitated. And when a person has been victimized over and over .. the 'reasonable force' thing goes out the window. The victim sees the situation differently .. with greater fear .. then someone sitting on a computer chat site. Other psychological issues come in to play. The court psychologists will be able to easily bring this in.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

Which will be torn apart by psychologists on the stand. When an old person is the repeated victim of violent crime .. in their own home .. and the cops can't stop it ... then what is a reasonable response when the victim is yet again victimized and he has a chance to end the crimes against himself once and for all?

See ... a psychologist could easily say it was 'reasonable' to expect that the man would end his torment in a final manner.

I don't believe that the law states that 'reasonable' includes repeatedly shooting the burglars dead well after they were incapacitated on the ground.

originally posted by: Kryties
there is an incredible amount of bloodlust being displayed in this thread.

... says the guy who was just whining that he was somehow being 'demonized'.
*insert major eye roll here*

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Kryties

I don't see people really arguing the legal side.


I see people saying they don't have a problem with his actions.

I'm not sure what's scarier - the fact some posters are completely ignoring the illegality or the fact that other posters completely agree with what the man did.

Either way, there is an incredible amount of bloodlust being displayed in this thread.

Don't really care about what scares you or what doesn't.

Don't want to get shot, don't break into a house.

Seeing that you have admitted to breaking into homes, it is safe to state you identify with these types of behaviors. Seems that your mind doesn't want to be shot, so you defend this activity.

originally posted by: macman
It is self defense. It is yet to be shown, that any home owner can read the mind of a person UNLAWFULLY breaking into a house and knowing what their intent is.

If you don't want to be shot, I strongly suggest you don't break into homes.

Another person unable to grasp an exceptionally simple premise.

Why keep repeating the tired old adage "Don't want to be shot..."

I don't disagree with it at all, in fact, I support it.

originally posted by: macman
There is no reason that you or anyone else should enter my home without my permission.
Again, don't want to get shot, don't break into someone else's home.

Yep, you said that but clearly lack the mental agility to grasp that I agree with you.

originally posted by: macman
And that is not my concern nor the topic of this thread.

Just pointing out that you can't do this on the battlefield after some guy has been shooting at you, so why do it in your basement with two wounded, unarmed teenagers. And before you say anything, he knows they are unarmed as he is dragging their bodies around before he executes them.

originally posted by: macman
I have no clue as to what you are referencing.

Then aloow me to enlighten you - you do know what I am on about though, because it gathered huge attention here on ATS - you're just playing dumb:

Pharmacist jailed for life for executing robber

Another link, in case you don't like the Daily Mail

originally posted by: macman
Even someone running out of my home, I would still shoot them. I have no idea is they are leaving to grab a firearm, a buddy or two or anything else.

Not what I was referencing. Read the above story. The guy was getting robbed, shot one and chased the rest out of his store. He then returns, gets another gun from behind the counter, walks up the now wounded and motionless robber and puts a few in his head.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
a reply to: Kryties

The point is, when a crime is in process, the victim can't be sure that the criminal is totally incapacitated. And when a person has been victimized over and over .. the 'reasonable force' thing goes out the window. The victim sees the situation differently .. with greater fear .. then someone sitting on a computer chat site. Other psychological issues come in to play. The court psychologists will be able to easily bring this in.

In this case the fact that the man walked up to the girls head, placed a gun to her chin and blew the top of her head off shows that he believed that the burglars weren't of any real threat to him after he had shot them already. If he still feared for his life he wouldn't have put the gun to her chin, simple as that.

He crossed the line from self-defense to murder and that is backed up by U.S. law as I have already shown a few posts up.