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

a reply to: ripcontrol

Well he'll rightfully spend the rest of his life in prison.

It's shocking to see that even after the full details of this case came to light, many here still defended the guy.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
I read an article earlier, which states that the man claims to have video of them breaking in, and audio of the actual shooting. If he's got that, then there is proof. Plus, I haven't heard anyone stating that these teens did not break in.

Here's the audio:

gawker.com... &utm_medium=socialflow

a reply to: DeepImpactX

Listened, but nothing he said changes the fact that they broke into his home, and he should have the right to defend his home. Someone who is elderly, or otherwise incapable of defending themselves physically, shouldn't have to live in fear. That they didn't carry a weapon doesn't mean they couldn't have hurt him, or wouldn't have, had they found him there unarmed. They committed a crime, and were shot as a result. His opinion of them doesn't change that. Hos shooting her again doesn't, either. Someone enters my house, I might shoot more than once, too, because I wouldn't want them getting up and coming after me or one of my kids. Where is the blame for the teens that broke in? Are they not responsible for their criminal actions?

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Yes, they are responsible for their actions, but no one needed to actually die. Their punishment didn't fit their crime. Listen to the audio again and it's clear that the old man acted out of emotion, not reason. You're concerned that the perpetrator might get up after getting shot once and do you harm? Knowing that he's unarmed? Know how to aim for the kneecaps. It incapacitates someone without actually killing them. There's self-defense and then there's murder.

The more you look into this the more you can see that both sides were in the wrong. Does the old man deserve a prison sentence? No. But he showed that he's incapable of living on his own. If you think that the only recourse to 2 unarmed teenage kids breaking into your home for the umpteenth time is murder, then you're not of sound mind. You're someone who lets your emotions take over. I understand his frustration with a legal system that is broken, and his pride in not wanting to look like a chump, but that's not an excuse for murder.

Again, that's what wound shots and surveillance cameras are for.

They were wrong in breaking in..deserved to be shot dead

He was wrong for stashing the bodies afterwards..

originally posted by: DeepImpactX
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Yes, they are responsible for their actions, but no one needed to actually die. Their punishment didn't fit their crime. Listen to the audio again and it's clear that the old man acted out of emotion, not reason. You're concerned that the perpetrator might get up after getting shot once and do you harm? Knowing that he's unarmed? Know how to aim for the kneecaps. It incapacitates someone without actually killing them. There's self-defense and then there's murder.

The more you look into this the more you can see that both sides were in the wrong. Does the old man deserve a prison sentence? No. But he showed that he's incapable of living on his own. If you think that the only recourse to 2 unarmed teenage kids breaking into your home for the umpteenth time is murder, then you're not of sound mind. You're someone who lets your emotions take over. I understand his frustration with a legal system that is broken, and his pride in not wanting to look like a chump, but that's not an excuse for murder.

Again, that's what wound shots and surveillance cameras are for.

Maybe I'm wrong (I've only shot a gun a handful of times) but I'm pretty sure shooting to wound is usually a horrible idea. In real life I'm pretty sure all self defense experts tell you when you shoot a gun it's to kill not wound and don't aim for something hard to hit like a leg especially since most intruders aren't stationary. I'm sure it's extremely hard even for skilled gun users to hit someone in the leg in a home invasion situation without their blood pumping/being scared to death. I'm pretty sure when people shoot to wound in the knee caps or arm the shooter can end up injured/dead or in jail. I'm not even going into how shooting to wound could actually backfire when it comes to the legal aspect. Are we a 100% the shooter knew the kids were unarmed? It's easy to say what should of been done after the fact when it comes to shoot to kill vs shoot to wound but when your in that situation you usually have to make quick decisions. Just to clarify I'm only bringing up your comment about shooting to wound and not what happened after because he crossed the line killing someone after he wasn't in danger anymore.
www.omahapoa.com...
bearingarms.com...
www.secondcalldefense.org...

popular huh, i bet if they weren't popular there wouldn't be so much outrage and no murder charge either, it would be seen as it is; self defense in a panicked state of mind.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Listened, but nothing he said changes the fact that they broke into his home, and he should have the right to defend his home.

You are right he does have that right, but when you plan something like this out they call it premeditated murder.

He could have wounded them then secured them without killing them, especially when they aren't armed.

There really is no true answer explanation for this.

Root cause analysis: 2 teens broke into another mans home.
Resolution: Man possibly feared for his life thus causing the shooting of two teens.
Final Resolution (what can be done to prevent): Don't break the law by breaking and entering.

That being said it's too hard to tell what happened inside. Excessive force may possibly have occurred. This man will get charged likely not because he shot and killed someone but because he tried to hide it and did not report it right away. You need to call and report the incident immediately. I'm sure he was terrified which is very reasonable but you still need to cover your own ass.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

read my post above. I would think it would be extremely hard to shoot to wound in that situation but what do I know. If he tried to just wound them there is a good chance he would miss and give at least one of the kids time to attack him or pull their weapon if they had one (which I don't think he knew for sure if they were armed or not

a reply to: MidnightTide


Break in and rob a house, get shot dead....that is the penalty you pay for being a criminal!!

Model students...blah blah blah....cry somewhere else.

Tough....is what is say to the parents and family and friends....should of raised them better!!

Court Releases Recording Of Byron Smith Gunning Down Teens (EXPLICIT AUDIO)

Smith was convicted on Tuesday of premeditated murder and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for killing 17-year-old Nick Brady and 18-year-old Haile Kifer in his basement. The audio Smith made of the Thanksgiving 2012 slayings can be heard below and might be upsetting to some.

A miscarriage of justice


I have to say it this way

You break into someones home there is no need to be nice

trap set doesnt matter

The whole thing was based on the singular choice to break in
The teens committed a crime and their estates will not be punished
I hope his family sues the teens family

This is the same as saying well if the woman would not dress that way she would not have been assaulted.. those that think this is true are as guilty as the rapist and the dead teen criminals..

Thank god this is texas..

So I understand, what the belief is here

It is okay to break into someone house
To rape them emotionally

kids will be kids

it is not ok in your opinion to be prepared

Next thing you will tell me is that people should have to register their weapons

I think the defense would have done better by giving a plea of temporary insanity.
The guy sounds a little deranged on that tape.

originally posted by: DeepImpactX
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Yes, they are responsible for their actions, but no one needed to actually die. Their punishment didn't fit their crime. Listen to the audio again and it's clear that the old man acted out of emotion, not reason. You're concerned that the perpetrator might get up after getting shot once and do you harm? Knowing that he's unarmed? Know how to aim for the kneecaps. It incapacitates someone without actually killing them. There's self-defense and then there's murder.

The more you look into this the more you can see that both sides were in the wrong. Does the old man deserve a prison sentence? No. But he showed that he's incapable of living on his own. If you think that the only recourse to 2 unarmed teenage kids breaking into your home for the umpteenth time is murder, then you're not of sound mind. You're someone who lets your emotions take over. I understand his frustration with a legal system that is broken, and his pride in not wanting to look like a chump, but that's not an excuse for murder.

Again, that's what wound shots and surveillance cameras are for.

Well, the man might have acted on emotions, but then, hadn't he already experienced break-ins in the past as well? Most people would be emotional about that. Plus, someone entering your home illegally is a threat, and in many places, you are legally allowed to shoot and kill them. You don't have to wait and see if they are unarmed. yes, I know he shot the girl again after she was down, but how could he know if she had a concealed weapon or not? If we were to require verification of that, people would end up dead when the bad guys did have weapons. You can't KNOW an invader is unarmed, till the invader is down. Walking up on one that is wounded can get you killed, too. Even military training doesn't teach one to simply walk up on a wounded opponent and assume they are unarmed and safe.

The main focus of this case, and his conviction, was emotion. The kids were "popular" - so what? That doesn't mean they get a pass for being criminals. I know that isn't what YOU are saying, but that is how a lot of people responded. Maybe the guy isn't able to live alone, and maybe he is. Shooting intruders isn't a reason to assume he isn't, though.

However, if anyone breaks into my home, I am not taking the time to determine their age, or whether or not they are armed, and I am not taking a survey to find out their intent. I am defending my home. We have that right. I can't afford surveillance cameras, either, and should not have to 'install them. Someone breaking in to a home should be prepared to deal with the consequences.

I do appreciate your civility in the discussion.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Listened, but nothing he said changes the fact that they broke into his home, and he should have the right to defend his home.

You are right he does have that right, but when you plan something like this out they call it premeditated murder.

He could have wounded them then secured them without killing them, especially when they aren't armed.

He didn't plan for them to break in; he only planned what he would do if someone did again. I don't consider planning to defend your home the same as planning murder. Plus, he had no way of knowing if they had a concealed weaon or not.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
He didn't plan for them to break in;

Actually in the video evidence he is seen taking his truck out and a while later walking back home. An LEO that lives close by said that he saw the truck parked outside his home, about 3 blocks away.

In the audio you can hear him say “I left my house at 11:30. They were both dead by 1.”

I think the break in was part of his plan.