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

a reply to: TKDRL

You can't blame him, his reasoning was faulty and he now knows it but doesn't want to admit it.

What he wants to say is that Byron Smith trapped the criminals by moving his truck to make it appear as if he weren't home. There's a big problem with that line of thinking if you're going to claim that Mr. Smith had no reason to feel afraid.

a reply to: daskakik

Once again. not answering the question. How did Mr. Smith control the situation? Do tell, enquiring minds want to know.

a reply to: TKDRL
I did say control of the situation.

My point is that he wasn't a scared defenseless person.

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

Ahhhh, you don't want to play anymore.

I do believe I shall stay. It is warm and comfy.

As for a tough guy??? Nah. I cower at the thought of someone entering my house. I fear that I won't be able to escape quickly, and that they really should be not hurt for coming in. If I take notice quickly, maybe I won't have to leave my testicles behind during my escape.

originally posted by: Goteborg
You can't blame him, his reasoning was faulty and he now knows it but doesn't want to admit it.

Meh, my reasoning was a lot better than most kneejerk reactions in this thread.

What he wants to say is that Byron Smith trapped the criminals by moving his truck to make it appear as if he weren't home. There's a big problem with that line of thinking if you're going to claim that Mr. Smith had no reason to feel afraid.

It was more than just that but yeah I'm not taking Mr. Smith at his word.

This is still a conspiracy site, right?

originally posted by: Kryties


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

Okay, here is a question posed to everyone still here.

How many here, have either investigated such an event, been in court of such a thing or on a jury for this?????
I have for the first 2.

Anyone else??

There are things that will be thrown out. Like, any idea that Mr. Smith has medical training and/or would know if the people could fight again.

originally posted by: Kryties
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.

Spontaneous utterance is admissible in court, but may be thrown out if the mental standing is shown he was not all there at the time.

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

It's not rocket science.


Well, it might be Brain Surgery.

There are many things that may make it to court and/or be able to be used as evidence.
Unless you and the others have first hand knowledge, and not just what is reported by the media, I think I will wait to see what the jury verdict is.

a reply to: daskakik

You're still not answering the question and it's now become painfully obvious that you won't and I don't blame you for that because some people can't handle being on the wrong side of reason, but I'll ask one more time in a different way.

What conditions had to have been present for Mr. Smith to have manipulated the situation?

originally posted by: yuppa

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.

They need to announce before and as they enter only if the search warrant states it.
Most Departments have moved away from the "no knock" warrant.

originally posted by: Goteborg
a reply to: daskakik

You're still not answering the question and it's now become painfully obvious that you won't and I don't blame you for that because some people can't handle being on the wrong side of reason, but I'll ask one more time in a different way.

What conditions had to have been present for Mr. Smith to have manipulated the situation?

Maybe he had a sign on the front porch.... advertizing free guns, drugs and X-Boxes? He must have lured them in...

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: yuppa

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.

They need to announce before and as they enter only if the search warrant states it.
Most Departments have moved away from the "no knock" warrant.

Yes. They found that armed homeowners were shooting at them when they went to the wrong address to serve 'no knock' warrants.. In some cases, they shot innocent homeowners that looked like they might be armed... when they had entered the wrong house.

originally posted by: butcherguy
Maybe he had a sign on the front porch.... advertizing free guns, drugs and X-Boxes? He must have lured them in...

Exactly.

Of course we can't really know if he did or didn't.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: butcherguy
Maybe he had a sign on the front porch.... advertizing free guns, drugs and X-Boxes? He must have lured them in...

Exactly.

Of course we can't really know if he did or didn't.

Hmmm, you said earlier that he did, now you "can't really know"? OK, whatever, I'll drop it.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: yuppa

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.

They need to announce before and as they enter only if the search warrant states it.
Most Departments have moved away from the "no knock" warrant.

Yes. They found that armed homeowners were shooting at them when they went to the wrong address to serve 'no knock' warrants.. In some cases, they shot innocent homeowners that looked like they might be armed... when they had entered the wrong house.

Yep. The no knock when I was in LE were few and far between for this very instance.

Now, most are reserved for and used by Federal LE. Marshals and FBI use them more then local LE.

a reply to: macman

You'll wait and see what the jury verdict is?

HURRAH!!!!!!!

Finally you make some sense. You've spent the entire thread making excuses for Smith and claiming he did nothing wrong (i'll quote you if I need to) - thank the stars you've finally seen some sense and will wait to see what the actual jury says.

originally posted by: Goteborg
Hmmm, you said earlier that he did, now you "can't really know"? OK, whatever, I'll drop it.

Him knowing and us knowing are 2 different things.

All we can do is come up with theories.

As for your previous question, the facts of the case are all over the place. Connect the dots any way you like. I say his profession, the surveillance system and his actions lead me to believe that he was a methodical person who handled things how he wanted.

ETA: As someone pointed out earlier in the thread. There is video and he could have handed it over to the police to make an arrest and a case against the perps. He wasn't too scared to confront them.

I'm neither here nor there on the topic. I don't know enough details to make a full assessment, if I were on the jury I'd have to hear everything.

My first question is : who gives the statement the man was acting with fear and adrenaline? People keep defending him with this statement but I didn't see any indication in the article.

Second question is: is there any indication anywhere that the kids were violent in any way? Much more heinous crimes than basic theft are defended every day. I'd rather non violent burglary triple and duis cut in a third, just saying.

To me it would be important to ensure this was self defense.

Also, you ats members are incredibly biased. If the headline was about a cop instead of a 65 year old man we'd be talking about two happy teens well known for playing sports and being in their community.

Not saying cops are the good guys now days, just saying yall look for the story you want to hear.

I abhor violence in any form, but I believe the homeowner was justified in his initial action, and am surprised he is being charged with murder.

originally posted by: dovdov
I abhor violence in any form, but I believe the homeowner was justified in his initial action, and am surprised he is being charged with murder.

His initial action (being defending himself and his home) is not the issue, the issue is that after he had incapacitated the threat (admitted by him) he then went too far by executing them at point blank range.

The murder charge is appropriate.

30 pages of differing opinions...some well thought through, some knee-jerk, some perilously close to being ad-hominem.

Isn't it ironic that the only "evidence" we have, pro and con, are what we read in the news articles? The same sources I've seen discredited time and again here at ATS.

I respectfully submit that none of us (not one) can say absolutely what they would or would not do in the same scenario. At some point, rational thought takes flight and instinct takes over. We can only hope that our humanity will temper that instinct.

General Patton once said "Prepare for the unknown by studying how others in the past have coped with the unforeseeable and the unpredictable." A sage bit of advice for us all.

We must wait for the outcome of the trial. Our opinions are just that: our personal opinions.

Be blessed
J

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: macman

You'll wait and see what the jury verdict is?

HURRAH!!!!!!!

Finally you make some sense. You've spent the entire thread making excuses for Smith and claiming he did nothing wrong (i'll quote you if I need to) - thank the stars you've finally seen some sense and will wait to see what the actual jury says.

What a jury comes with as a verdict has little to do with what I feel about the situation.
I don't think he did anything wrong. I am not speaking for the legal aspect. Never have.

I didn't make excuses for him either.

It is the reality of this situation that it will in fact rest on the Jury.
If I were on it, I would be hard pressed to either find him guilty. I would see guilty with no sentence or penalty.

But, don't twist my words. I never once stated I think what he did was wrong.