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

a reply to: Swills

Many of the posts are redundant. Some are annoying, and some are well thought out. And it is a very heated thread. But there really doesn't seem to much hate going on. Just a difference in opinion. Legal vs. emotional kinda thing.

My advice would be to just look for the links and read those. It's easier and gives you a more informed option on how to base your opinion.

I just take this as proof of life after death. It is clear to me that all three are spiritually related and have plans after this life. In that since i hope that the shooter joins them soon but not as punishment for their deaths. If you want to demonize anyone here i would look to the vicoden makers. After all this is what they were all three on and the reason a teen would go into a home 10 min after her friend went into the home and she heard shots. Let's be real they thought he was gone for tdayand then she thought her friend just murdered someone in the home. Otherwise she would not have entered the home. This is an example of the disconnect we humans have.
On the spirit level one thing is going on and on the physical level the brain is sending messsages to try to keep up with the spirit. Like i say to me his spirit is crying to get out of his shell and his presence here is trying to be justified in his actions in order to not close the doorway they all used for future incidents. I have found this reasoning works for the reason the police continue to train to put 3 in the t and the reason for unseemingly needless unjustified shootings of homeless and mental. Morally it is not right in this world by our current understanding of things but on the other side the fear of death and value of life we have is detestable.

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: HomerinNCe

You must have missed the numerous posts where we have said that the teens were doing the wrong thing, no question and the homeowner had the right to defend himself according to law. But you seem to be ignoring the part where the owner went far beyond the law and executed the teens after he had incapacitated them.

He broke the law and he should be punished for it. Period.

I have read about this case in some detail. Without actually sitting in the courtroom it is hard to say what all the facts are. Here is a brief description.

en.wikipedia.org...

These young adults picked the wrong profession and it cost them their lives. I am against violence if it can be avoided, however, that doesn't mean people have the right to enter your home, multiple times, cause you to arm yourself and sit and wait for it to happen again.

It is obvious these young adults had done this many times as evidence by stolen property in their car outside his home. The police are all concerned after they are killed, my question is, why didn't they do their job and catch them after the first time? This man previously called police and nothing happened, he was left to fend for himself.

Would I have shot them, yes. Would I have finished them off, its hard to say because it didn't happen to me, I would like to think I would not do that, I would just disable them and call police but then again I am not 65. By the looks of things this man didn't have a phone, he went to a neighbors the next day to call police.

To say this is premeditated murder is a stretch, the man was defending his property and life against multiple intrusions that had no support from the police department. Saying he had a tarp in the basement is no big deal to me, where do most people keep tarps if they are not in a garage or out building, its not the kitchen I suspect.

Was this man pissed, yes. Did this man have the right to shoot these people, yes. One shot could have killed them, it appears it took multiple shots, I suspect because it was such a close range with a rifle, those bullets are made to expand at a distance farther than a 20 feet. I shotgun or large caliber hand gun would have probably killed them with one well placed shot quickly at that range. He probably shot, they were still moving, he continued to fire until his adrenalin stopped. If I shot someone under the same circumstances and it was recorded, I would have used a lot of four letter words directed at them. What he said in the heat of confrontation is worthless in my opinion.

The fact is, if those young adults had not chosen home invasion as a business they would still be alive and this 65 year old man would be going about his regular business.

What is wrong with everyone in this thread? You absolutely do not have a right to use deadly force in defense of personal property, only in defense of your life. People pulling 'MURRICA 2ND AMENDMENT WHOO arguments are just trolls. This is not what the 2nd Amendment was intended for, nor is it what it protects.

First-degree murder isn't that much of a stretch, second-degree murder is an absolute minimum possibility. And to then shoot a 'threat' after it has been neutralized is indeed second-degree murder.

His actions show he valued his carpet above the dignity of human life, those are moments he could have spent calling authorities who would have dispatched EMS who may have possibly saved the suspects lives.

He's a bitter old man who was tired of the B.S. and decided to engage in vigilante justice.

I'm not saying what the teens did is morally defensible, but this man is much worse. And by the looks of it, has a pretty weak self-defense case ahead of him.

a reply to: DerbyGawker

Not if the jury was pulled from ATS, apparently. =\

a reply to: DerbyGawker

Defending yourself, or your "stuff" is really a grey area in a heated moment. Was the guy stressed out. Yes he was and rightfully so.

It's his actions afterwards that is the reason for the trial. The Guy and Girl paid the price for their actions, Now he is on trial for his. As it should be.

What did these kids think would eventually happen?
It was just a matter of time before they would break into the wrong house.

Of course the media and courts will crucify the homeowner.

a reply to: TDawgRex

I believe his actions according to what little information there is indicate he wasn't worried about his safety and was more concerned with the nuisance and proving a point.

originally posted by: lightedhype
a reply to: FlyersFan

Today I am discusted with my fellow ATS members. This is murder your imbociles. Plain and simple first degree murder. Say the cops plan a drug deal sting and instead of arresting the criminal they simply ambush him and shoot him on first sight when he walls in to the sting? Youall would be screaming murderous pig cops.

Yet when some sick old #in man does it wooohoooo MURICA. The criminals were 'armed with their youth' LMFAO did I really just read that on ATS?? I guess everytime I go out in public I should do so with my hands clasped behind my back as I am armed with youthn Want to see a movie? I am sorry sir you cannot enter the theatre today as you see you are armed with youth. LMAO this olsd man was armed with a GUN. These kids were not. And where are the details about how the break ins were 'increasingly violent'???


You realize that was a quote from.the defense attorney right?


This would NEVER go to trial in Minnesota unless the prosecution and judge knew damn well the old guy was guilty of murder and he is.

These kids decided to do what they did, and the homeowner did what he did.... You play on this kinda carpet and you'll get a rug burn... Nuff said!

I had not been aware of this trial until I read this thread. The case seemed straightforward. Multiple burglaries, no help from law enforcement, and an OTT reaction by the elderly homeowner.Apparently he waited 24 hours after shooting the teens to call authorities (and I think a neighbor called for him).
www.startribune.com...

“He didn’t want to bother them on Thanksgiving,” Assistant State Prosecutor Kurt Wartner said Monday, the first day of Smith’s trial on two counts of first-degree premeditated murder.

www.wdaz.com...
Now I don't know what to think. This is getting curious and curiouser, as Lewis Carroll would say.

originally posted by: DerbyGawker
a reply to: TDawgRex

I believe his actions according to what little information there is indicate he wasn't worried about his safety and was more concerned with the nuisance and proving a point.

Maybe so. But he was justified by Minnesota law initially. Then he overstepped his bounds. His confession and the recording are a matter of public record and will probably be released once the trial is over. (Truthfully I am amazed they haven't been yet. Other than transcripts)

THAT is what the trial is about.

I have zero compassion for real criminals. These two "kids" (as many on here are calling them), repeatedly invaded the safety and sanctity of another persons home to support their drug addictions, and got exactly what they deserved. They chose to enter this mans home, intent on committing a crime. How they died should be irrelevant.

Why does it seem in this day and age, that the career criminals have more rights than their victims?

a reply to: Darkmask

Once again, missing the point...

The homeowner has the right to self-defence, but not the right to perform a summary execution.

As I and others have said, you can bloody guarantee that if a Police Officer decided to do exactly what this man did, ie: shoot some peeps, wound them then drag them away somewhere and then shoot them in the head with a "clean kill shot" you'd all be up in arms...

originally posted by: TDawgRex
Defending yourself, or your "stuff" is really a grey area in a heated moment. Was the guy stressed out. Yes he was and rightfully so.

I'm not so sure about that. The original charges were second degree and they were changed to first-degree premeditated murder because he seemed to have set a trap for them.

The guy was a security engineer who had recently retired from implementing security measures in overseas facilities for the US Department of State. The video survailance from 4 cameras fed into the workshop and if I remember correctly he knew they were coming before they broke into the house.

I think that is going to be important to the jury although it seems to have been ignored in this thread.

Geez! You guys are still going?!

The guy was wrong for executing people.

The kid and adult were wrong for what they did as well.

Everything is not so black and white. This particular situation could have been handled differently

everyone, calm down.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: spirited75
who cares

The 65 year old retired man cares. He's on trial for murder protecting himself.

The lesson to teen criminals ...
Break into an older mans home on Thanksgiving ... and you won't live to eat the turkey.

He's on trial for recording it.
Don't ever record it.

It's OKa reply to: Kryties

It's OK because the thieves were not invited guests.

originally posted by: daskakik
The video survailance from 4 cameras fed into the workshop and if I remember correctly he knew they were coming before they broke into the house.

I think that is going to be important to the jury although it seems to have been ignored in this thread.

Can you provide a link to the video surveillance? I didn't see that. I thought it was all audio.

That right there could be damning evidence. The audio already is.

a reply to: TDawgRex

Not the video itself but this story says that the jury was shown video and explains what was in it.

I also remember the video being mentioned when the story first broke.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Let me reiterate what NavyDoc said because that's how this is going to play out:

"It was self-defense up until he decided to do a "make sure" shot on one of them. If this allegation is true, he is in the wrong because, once the threat is neutralized, shooting to make sure he is dead goes from self defense to murder."

www.abovetopsecret.com...