Outrage after popular students are found murdered in man's basement after 'they robbed his home on

reply to post by daskakik


the link in my post also stated that Missouri has prosecuted successfully four times if I remember correctly... cases that involve castle law against the defender


As for the invite part...


If he invited them in, then the situation is different...

Now to play devils advocate

1)prove the two did not break in

if they can prove the two people did not step foot in uninvited then Castle law does not apply...


Right now however as several people pointed out this is mostly speculation but... IMHO it comes down to your point...

how they got into the the house?

Absolutely NO sympathy for the dead teens. If you want to be a degenerate criminal and break into another persons home with the intent of robbing them then you deserve whatever you get. Be it death/prison or other. With all the violent home invasions that happen every day where the home owners are beaten or murdered or raped or all of the above how can you blame him.

Ya sure he should have called the cops right away and not tried to hide what he'd done, but after killing two people im sure he wasn't exactly thinking clearly.

Its just one of those scenarios where all you have to do it put yourself in that position, imagine if you came home from work to find your door forced open and two people you dont know in your home. Now imagine if your wife or girlfriend was home at the time... theres simply no measure to the amount of blood curdling instant rage i would feel if i was in this situation. And you can bet your ass if i had quick access to my gun or rifle they would both be shot dead right where they stood.

I can also tell you that if it was my son who broke into a mans house and was shot dead i would be the first person at this mans trial to stand up and say that he does not deserve to go to jail just because my idiot offspring thought it was a good idea to break into his home.

GOOD RIDDANCE you little scum bags.

Originally posted by ripcontrol
reply to post by daskakik

 

the link in my post also stated that Missouri has prosecuted successfully four times if I remember correctly... cases that involve castle law against the defender

I don't think anyone is really against the right for people to defend themselves in their home but this may not be a clear case.

prove the two did not break in

That is what the authorities are doing. I know I'm not really going to be proving anything. I might be able to link to info, when it becomes available, but that would be about it.

Right now however as several people pointed out this is mostly speculation but... IMHO it comes down to your point...

how they got into the the house?

That is where the speculation fun starts. We know the kids where addicted to pills and they are linked to a previous burglary. Maybe they had a close call and decided that it was too risky but they still need a way to get money for their addiction so they turn to prostitution. Now Smith is living alone maybe wanting a little company...

Smith may have had a connection with access to pills and he was supplying the teens. They break the first rule of dealing "don't get high off your own supply" and before they know it are in debt with Smith. He demands payment and they threaten to rat him out so he plays it cool and tells them that he is willing to let it slide if they can move the last of the pills he has stashed. All they have to do is come by and pick it up.

This one is my favorite.
Smith is also addicted to pills and is buying from Brady. They even party together now and then. One day Brady asks if he could bring a girl friend along. Says she's cool and also likes to party. On thanksgiving day they are popping pills and having some drinks. Kifer ends up mixing or taking too many pills and starts to OD.

Smith asked how old she is and Brady says 17. No way Smith is going to call for help for an ODing minor in his home so he tells Brady that they can't call for help. From Brady's reaction Smith realizes that Brady is going to do whatever it takes to get Kifer medical attention even if it means leaving him holding the bag. They leave him no choice.

In all these "what if" scenarios Smith ends up waiting overnight to sober up, set things up and polish his story, making it seem like he is the victim.

Or they broke in and Smith acted completely contrary to what most people would have done after the shooting which is to call the cops and the excuse that he didn't want to bother them on thanksgiving doesn't make sense.

reply to post by ripcontrol


*APPLAUSE*

Really, you did such a good job with that, I can't add a thing, save to say I totally agree.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

They can't present anything while it is still being investigated.

Honestly if it is a gun grab then we can put on out tin foil hats and run the gamut of conspiracy scenarios.

If they can't prove anything yet, they should not have accused this man of a crime, which they have done. They can't have it both ways.

Interesting scenario, on one hand you have individuals whom value property protection. On the other, good citizens who went wrong. Thus the answer.? This synopsis is on my top 5 per se, as this is a once in a life time case, and whether it be class or case study, there is not a right or wrong answer, only a "wicked" answer. Thus America is now turning from the melting pot of the past, to the broiling point of the future

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
If they can't prove anything yet, they should not have accused this man of a crime, which they have done. They can't have it both ways.

I meant presenting something to the public. This doesn't mean that a judge has not seen enough evidence to order his detention. Just his declaration is enough to send him to trial.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
If they can't prove anything yet, they should not have accused this man of a crime, which they have done. They can't have it both ways.

I meant presenting something to the public. This doesn't mean that a judge has not seen enough evidence to order his detention. Just his declaration is enough to send him to trial.

Well, fair enough there.

I still wonder if we will ever hear all of the details, accurately. I suspect not, since it started by calling these burglars "popular".

I was just watching my local news and it seems Smith had a surveillance cam and audio...this incident was recorded

i've told people as far back as page ten that these little delinquents, were there looking for drugs. and had been there before. that's why smith said i wanted him dead, i bet he had him on surveillance video from before and was stewing in his juices just waiting for the day they came back.

Shootings of Little Falls teens recorded on home surveillance video


wait and seeif it turns out that there is video from the breaks in that happen before. showing them there before.that's what the sheriff was talking about would change people's mind, if they knew.


ETA: looks like i was scooped, to the poster above.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

No, he admitted that he shot after they were wounded. That doesn't mean "execution"; it means eliminating a threat to his home. These were probably the same punks that robbed him before. What part of them breaking in don't people get? These were not innocent kids!

The old man admitted to shooting the incapacitated male in the face. He then said he put more shots than necessary into the female after she "laughed" at him. And then he said he put a clean kill shot under her chin, into the cranium. He admitted to all of this, so he is clearly guilty, although, of course, he isn't officially guilty until his court case ends. As for the kids, there is circumstantial evidence that they broke in, but as far as I know, no factual evidence of this; if the guy did have cctv, then perhaps there is evidence. In any case, breaking in -- particularly unarmed -- does not warrant being killed. And certainly after being incapacitated by gun shot wounds, there was no legal reason to shoot them further.

What don't you get about putting a "clean, kill shot under the chin" to a teenager with multiple wounds, who poses no danger? And even if had he just shot these two teenagers each one time and then let them bleed to death, rather than call the police or 911, it would still be murder.

YES, this is murder. Clearly, given your avatar, you are a gun freak and you also seem to revel in people killing other unarmed people, and killing wounded, incapacitated people in particular. To babble on about "innocent until proven guilty" with respect to the homeowner who admitted murdering the two teenagers after he had shot and incapacitated them is just ridiculous. As to the teenagers, they may well have broken in, but that still needs to be proven. You obviously can't see the difference in the facts between the two cases: the guy acknowledged he shot AND THEN murdered and hid the two teenagers. He claims the teenagers broke in. Evidence is needed to prove the latter contention.

Originally posted by MrInquisitive

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

No, he admitted that he shot after they were wounded. That doesn't mean "execution"; it means eliminating a threat to his home. These were probably the same punks that robbed him before. What part of them breaking in don't people get? These were not innocent kids!

The old man admitted to shooting the incapacitated male in the face. He then said he put more shots than necessary into the female after she "laughed" at him. And then he said he put a clean kill shot under her chin, into the cranium. He admitted to all of this, so he is clearly guilty, although, of course, he isn't officially guilty until his court case ends. As for the kids, there is circumstantial evidence that they broke in, but as far as I know, no factual evidence of this; if the guy did have cctv, then perhaps there is evidence. In any case, breaking in -- particularly unarmed -- does not warrant being killed. And certainly after being incapacitated by gun shot wounds, there was no legal reason to shoot them further.
*snip*
YES, this is murder. Clearly, given your avatar, you are a gun freak and you also seem to revel in people killing other unarmed people, and killing wounded, incapacitated people in particular. To babble on about "innocent until proven guilty" with respect to the homeowner who admitted murdering the two teenagers after he had shot and incapacitated them is just ridiculous. As to the teenagers, they may well have broken in, but that still needs to be proven. You obviously can't see the difference in the facts between the two cases: the guy acknowledged he shot AND THEN murdered and hid the two teenagers. He claims the teenagers broke in. Evidence is needed to prove the latter contention.

He admitted that he used deadly force, and that, according to the law, is legal under those circumstances. The ONLY issue I see is that he didn't report it right away, and tried to hid the bodies. That doesn't mean murder, though.

As for my avatar.....get a clue. If you don't know what it is, ask. Don't make foolish assumptions. The picture is of a character from an old TV miniseries called "V". It has nothing to do with going around killing people. These were people in HIS HOME, uninvited. If someone enters YOUR home, uninvited, what will you do? Allow them free reign? They enter mine that way, multiple shots won't be needed. One doesn't have to be a "gun freak" (whatever that might be) to believe they have a right to defend themselves, their families, and their property from criminals. If you think those teens didn't break in, please explain, in detail, exactly what they were doing in his house? How did they get in?

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by hounddoghowlie
wait and seeif it turns out that there is video from the breaks in that happen before. showing them there before.that's what the sheriff was talking about would change people's mind, if they knew.

That may not be what the sheriff was talking about because that could be seen as a reason to defend the guy and the sheriff said that if people knew all the facts they would not be so quick to defend him.

Originally posted by defcon5

its premeditated murder, and he's being charged as such.

wrong see the complaint filed. unless they have amended the charges, which i haven't seen any reports of yet. he is being charged with two counts of 2nd degree murder with intent-not premeditated.

Smith Complaint

reply to post by hounddoghowlie


Which means the same thing:

Premeditation Definition:
Specific intent to commit a crime for some period of time, however short, before the actual crime.

2nd degree murder:
No special circumstances are necessary to classify a murder as 2nd degree murder. However, it is usually required to prove intent and premeditation.

It simply means he had preplanned that he was going to kill them before the event even occurred. In many states you only get first degree murder if you plan to murder someone that falls in a “special class” such as a police officer, judge, or witness to a crime.

Legal Definition of Murder in New York and several other states
• Second Degree Murder: Any premeditated murder or felony murder that does not involve special circumstances.

• First Degree Murder: Not only is the murder premeditated, but it also involves special circumstances, such as

•murder of a police officer, judge, fireman or witness to a crime;
•multiple murders; and
•torture or especially heinous murders.

In Minnesota, the fact that they added “with intent” says that he could be convicted with 1st degree murder, as it fits the criteria to pass as 1st degree:

609.185 MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE.

(a) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of murder in the first degree and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life:
(1) causes the death of a human being with premeditation and with intent to effect the death of the person or of another;

Yet they are undercharging him. I assume that they are doing this because a jury will be more likely to convict under the lesser penalty because of the controversial aspect of this crime. In essence what they are doing is avoiding the same mistake that the Orlando Attorneys office made with the Casey Anthony trial.

reply to post by defcon5


Again I hate to disagree with a mod but so far ATS has been pretty good about this...

Good sir your definitions apply straight to gun ownership..


Guns are purchased with the intent to defend your property with lethal force..You are premeditating killing anyone who does not have your permission to be in your house...

The whole point of the castle laws is to insure this premeditation does not fall under the guise of murder one or two.. Regardless of what is said, you have the right to use any amount of force you deem prudent to save your life and protect your household...

the whole argument comes down to how they got into and why they were in the house.. and even then it still comes down to his right to protect himself.


Also of note being accused does not make someone guilty... it means the prosecutor wants to convict... The law went out the window a long time ago... It is mostly a matter of can they beat the accused in court... they will lie and or cheat just like everyone else to put a W on the scoreboard...

www.talkleft.com...

nancy grace misconduct ok'ed- withheld evidence

The three-judge panel on Monday criticized Grace for not following her obligations to disclose to the defendant's lawyer information about other possible suspects. The 11th Circuit also agreed with a magistrate who found it hard to believe that Grace did not knowingly use a detective's false testimony that there were no other suspects.

it goes on and on... the prosecutors are just as bad as the ones they prosecute

Here is something kind of related.

rochester.ynn.com...
This guy shot a kid in the street walking away and killed him after he was them breaking in a neighbors car, and was found not-guilty.

I honestly think this guy is going to be found not-guilty.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by MrInquisitive

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

He admitted that he used deadly force, and that, according to the law, is legal under those circumstances. The ONLY issue I see is that he didn't report it right away, and tried to hid the bodies. That doesn't mean murder, though.

I hope in saying this, you simply haven't read the man's OWN sworn statement of events. The kids may well have been burglars and up to no good. They may even have been a modern Bonnie and Clyde out to start a rip roaring crime spree for all we knew. However, none of that much matters because this played out like a Hollywood Horror movie. They were like hungry people breaking into Hannibal Lecter's house to find invitations to dinner all set.

Smith heard a window breaking upstairs. Then he heard footsteps walking down the hallway. Smith then saw a person >Walking down the stairwell into the basement where he was sitting. Smith stated that he first saw the feet, then he saw the legs, then he saw the hips. At this point Smith stated he shot the person, and the person fell down the stairs. Smith stated that the gun he used was a Mini 14 rifle. Smith believed he shot twice. Smith stated that after ' the man fell down the stairs the man was looking up at him. Smith state that he then shot the man in the face. Smith told Investigator Luberts, "l want him dead."

and it got MUCH worse on the female... This man is a monster. Period.

Smith minutes iater he again heard footsteps on the main floor of his house. Smith stated that another person came down the stairs into the basement where he was sitting. Smith said he waited until he Could see her hips and then he shot her. After shooting the person she tumbled down the steps. Smith stated that he tried to shoot her again with the Mini 14 but the gun jammed. Smith stated that, after the gun jammed, the Woman laughed at him. Smith stated that it was not a _ very long laugh because she was already hurting. Smith acknowledged that this made him upset. Smith told Investigator Luberts,"lf you're trying to shoot somebody and they laugh at you, you go again." Smith then pulled out his .22 caliber 9-shot revolver that he was wearing, and he shot the female several times in the chest. Smith acknowledged that he fired "more shots than l needed to."Smith stated that he then dragged the fema|e's body into his office workshop and placed her body nextto the man's. Smith stated that the female was still gasping for air. Smith stated at this point he placed the handgun under the woman's chin and shot her "under the chin up into the Cranium." Smith described it as "a good clean finishing shot."

Sour ce

He sounds like a guy who'd been dreaming of killing people and finally got a couple kids up to no good, walk right into his little kill zone. I can't help but feel for the girl. The helplessness of knowing 100% you are GOING to die. You don't HAVE to ..but you are GOING to..and NOTHING you do or say to this man will stop him from the "finishing shot" SHE STILL MAY HAVE SURVIVED PRIOR TO. I can't imagine executing two people that way.

That shot to the boyfriend? My God..... She wasn't laughing She was hysterical! A shot to the face while on the ground? Where is the .223 round going and what is it carrying WITH it to splatter all over the place? I don't mean to be gross...but it's relevant to her reaction after tumbling down into the same spot, wounded herself.

I hope he dies hard in prison.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

They were like hungry people breaking into Hannibal Lecter's house to find invitations to dinner all set.

So far this is the key point, they broke in

(also I liked the reference... still smiling over it...)

what happens afterwards is their fault...

she could have saved both of them at any point... by not breaking in... choice A lead to choice B lead to choice C and so forth.. it is the fault of both the boyfriend and the girl they are dead....


I want to make sure I understand where this is going..

it is ok to break into someones house

the burglars are not responsible for their actions or the consequences from them

it is wrong to defend your house from thieves...

this sums up the opposition.. if I am wrong, then please explain why ..