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

a reply to: knowledgedesired


Then I'm sorry to say but if they had a gun you would have probably shot dead by the time you said whose th...

Additionally, Smith likened his killing shot to putting a wounded deer out of it's misery.

He was obviously not in fear of his life. He was being "humane" and putting them out of their misery.

SELF DEFENSE!

Even the defense attorney admits they fall on the wrong side of the law.. His hope is that he can get the jury to react in a knee-jerk, emotional manner. I'm paraphrasing but this is exactly the defense's strategy.

Source

a reply to: TinkerHaus

So you don't know, that's all you had to say.

a reply to: thesaneone

He was ready...they were not...

At the bottom of every stairwell I have ever seen cover less than 36 inches either way.

He waited until he saw her then he shot her because that is what he wanted to do...Kill her.

He had no intentions of protecting himself and the truth will come out with the guilty verdict.

a reply to: Kryties

I'm not defending him, I stand with you but...

You've got to wonder, if he phoned the police then shot them would the police have ended up shooting him (Smith) in this trigger happy day and age?

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: TinkerHaus

So you don't know, that's all you had to say.

I assumed you were a capable person..

It's ok, I don't mind helping the elderly cross the street.

en.wikipedia.org...

www.princeton.edu...

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

www.jaapl.org...

Should I keep going or will this keep you busy for a few minutes?

originally posted by: TinkerHaus
This guy wasn't temporarily insane, and his own testimony to police (which will be played in court) seems to reveal that. He was in complete control of his facilities and knew exactly what he was doing. Getting all ramped up and shooting someone in the head because they laugh (probably a result of shock) is not temporary insanity.. it is rage.

I doubt he was 'temporarily insane'. More like he was pushed past his limit by being a repeated victim of violent crime in his own home ... and the cops weren't doing anything to help stop the crimes against him.

But we'll see when the trial happens. After what happened with the Zimmerman trial, you never know what information is going to come out ....

originally posted by: knowledgedesired
He waited until he saw her then he shot her because that is what he wanted to do...Kill her.

That is what you are suppose to do.

If anyone wants to rob my house while I'm in it I will shoot to kill.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Flyers, I would really appreciate if you would honestly respond to the question I asked earlier..

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: knowledgedesired
He waited until he saw her then he shot her because that is what he wanted to do...Kill her.

That is what you are suppose to do.

If anyone wants to rob my house while I'm in it I will shoot to kill.

I'm unsure why it needs to be repeated over and over, but I don't think the issue anyone here has is someone defending their home..

It's the execution style killing of two critically wounded people. Again, even the defense attorney is saying the acts themselves obviously fall on the wrong side of Minnesota State Law... He is hoping for a bloodthirsty jury.

Glad you're not on the jury. =]

a reply to: TinkerHaus

No need to be snarky, if your going to post some facts then post the link it's your claim that you brought to the table not mine.

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: TinkerHaus

No need to be snarky, if your going to post some facts then post the link it's your claim that you brought to the table not mine.

This is a conspiracy forum, not a research paper.

I have no responsibility whatsoever to prove to you what I'm saying, but still tend to do so 90% of the time.

You could have just fact checked me instead of accusing me of "throwing numbers around."

a reply to: DodgyDawg

That would depend, I guess, on the circumstances in which he shot them and whether or not he presented a threat to police after.

a reply to: TinkerHaus

It was in response to the other poster about not waiting to give a intruder a chance of shooting you if they were at the top of the stairs.

Try to pay attention.

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: TinkerHaus

Those are some stats, do you have a link for those or are you just throwing numbers around?

No - you were very clearly responded to and accusing me. Try to pay attention.

originally posted by: macman
I have seen wounded people still fight.

Indeed - however these two were so incapacitated they allowed themselves to be dragged around before being finished off.

originally posted by: macman
If you are engaged in battle, shooting a wounded enemy combatant is not against anything.

Actually, no. If that combatant is no longer a threat or has surrendered, you can't "finish him off". The example of the Marines I gave was during an active firefight - they wounded the chappy, he was down and out, then they sauntered over and the Sgt put a bullet in his head.

originally posted by: macman
Here are a couple of hints.
This is not the topic and maybe when giving scenarios to back your statement, you be detailed.

Actually it is within the realms of the OP as it considers "threats" and where that line is..

originally posted by: macman
And I don't have a problem with it.

Then you and I are quite different people - which is fine, each to their own - but I personally could not happily live with myself having just executed two people who posed no threat.

originally posted by: macman
Well, then it is defense for possible future actions against him.

Until he goes to jail, because he most certainly will barring a successful insanity plea, where he will become prey to quite a few nasty buggers (pun intended)

originally posted by: macman
I do believe this whole thread is filled with assumptions.

Indeed - from your side. The facts are there, as stated in the OP, he went far above what is considered normal.

Let's put this another way, if this was a Police officer, who shot a criminal then finished him off afterwards, would you feel the same I wonder?

originally posted by: TinkerHaus
Flyers, I would really appreciate if you would honestly respond to the question I asked earlier..

This thread is moving fast ... musta' missed it ....


Was it this one??

How do historical acts of revenge set any legal precedent whatsoever?

Answer ... I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. All I know is it HAS happened and some have gotten off.

Or was it this question ... a long hypothetical story and then this question ...

At this point is it justifiable to shoot him in the head? If you flee the scene and don't report these events for 24 hours is that a criminal offense?

Each situation is different. The court has to look at the person who did the shooting and see what's going on. This is where court psychologists come in. Was the person with the knife threatening ... was the person with the gun previously victimized ... etc etc As for leaving and not reporting ... I'm pretty sure that's a problem no matter what ... to leave the scene of a crime .... I don't know if you being the perp or the victim matter, it could. Again .. that's all for a court to decide.

a reply to: TinkerHaus

And that response was to your response you had post above mine.

a reply to: FlyersFan

That is the one. As you can see the situation is similar, and in the hypothetical situation the need to defend one's self was even more apparent..

So in this hypothetical situation can you please answer the two questions at the end?

a reply to: thesaneone

Go back and re-read the last two pages of this thread.

I haven't responded to anything you didn't direct toward me.

Fast moving thread, I understand it can get a bit confusing.