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

Should have done a bang up job on both their knees rather than taking it all the way.

originally posted by: QuantumDeath
Should have done a bang up job on both their knees rather than taking it all the way.

No, maiming somebody for life for stealing from you isn't okay, either.

originally posted by: TinkerHaus

originally posted by: govmule

originally posted by: DerbyGawker
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.

You have not answered why the police didn't catch these thugs before they were shot? It happened multiple times? That pretty much leaves the guy on his own. The police should also be reviewed for a lack of initiative and proper investigations of the burglaries.

You are entitled to think this guy was just a bitter old man, but, you do not know him nor do you know all that facts. You only know what has been reported by a few articles in newspapers etc. that are not admissible in court, reporters quite often form an opinion and slant the reporting before they know all the facts.

Here is the Minnesota statute for use of force;

"The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode."

A felony is stealing property from inside someone's home. Also notice the word "reasonably".

You are also assuming he is guilty before proven innocent, that is not how our system works. He will face a jury of his peers, I trust they will do the right thing, what ever that happens to be, is not up to us outsiders to decide.

I have sat on three different juries, I am certainly not a legal scholar, but, in my opinion based on the law wording the state has a difficult case to prove no matter what our views are. If I were a betting man I would say the worst he would get is involuntary manslaughter if the state prosecutor offers that possible decision, otherwise he may walk.

You should go back and read the thread.

Even a veteran defense attorney agrees that the law is clear and that Smith is in fact guilty of murder.

"I think the law is clear for the prosecution, but the facts -- and the way people feel about it -- might lead them to disregard the law, frankly," Degree said.

Source

I can only hope that the jurors are reasonable people. This was definitely not as cut and dry as self defense during a home invasion. This went far beyond what was necessary and prudent to defend one's self in one's home.

I also already pointed out in this post Minnesota's statute for self defense/castle laws, and in another link from the same post showed that certain criteria must be met before a violent act is considered self defense.

So before the trial is over, and without being in the court room to hear the case (I assume), a defense attorney declares his guilt? He does believe in innocent until proven guilty right?

I too want the jurors to provide justice just like I stated before. I am not going to assume what they will decide, I have only stated it will be difficult for the state to prove it, the burden of proof is on the state.

I would love to read all 500 posts but I choose to review a portion of them to save time. If I missed a link I apologize.

a reply to: govmule

Smith stated he moved his truck because he was going to clean the garage out. In one of the articles I read (and I've read so many I don't remember which it was), it was stated that he was seen on his surveillance video moving the truck.

Jury hears shots that killed... gives a good overview of the case.

J

originally posted by: LadyJae
a reply to: govmule

Smith stated he moved his truck because he was going to clean the garage out. In one of the articles I read (and I've read so many I don't remember which it was), it was stated that he was seen on his surveillance video moving the truck.

Jury hears shots that killed... gives a good overview of the case.

J

And based on that article, people here are supporting this person's actions? What does that say?

This is just right now the first round in this trial and it is going to be lengthy. The state will have to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt that he planned to kill, that there was forethought and with malice.
But here is what the state is going to have to prove as according to the law in the state of Minnesota:
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;

The key aspect in this case will revolve around the argument if it was premeditation, and it was his intent to kill these 2 teens. That is going to be the hardest part to prove, that he knew that these 2 were going to break in on that day or not. There will be questions of would he had done the same thing if it was someone different. Was it the heat of the moment? And the lives and actions of the 2 dead people will be sought to brought into the court record. There is evidence that is not being revealed right now.

originally posted by: nextone

originally posted by: LadyJae
a reply to: govmule



Jury hears shots that killed... gives a good overview of the case.

J

And based on that article, people here are supporting this person's actions? What does that say?

Hello nextone

No, I believe the basis of this thread is "You're dead,"...., and the discussion stems from that.

I took the liberty of running a search on Byron Smith and have been reading everything I can find.

J

originally posted by: LadyJae
Smith stated he moved his truck because he was going to clean the garage out. In one of the articles I read (and I've read so many I don't remember which it was), it was stated that he was seen on his surveillance video moving the truck.

Unless his garage connects to his basement there is a bit of a discrepency in the story and if it did then that would mean that he had a way to retreat. Either way it is a stike against.

It also makes me wonder if he drove out knowing the place was being watched and doubled back.

originally posted by: LadyJae
a reply to: govmule

Smith stated he moved his truck because he was going to clean the garage out. In one of the articles I read (and I've read so many I don't remember which it was), it was stated that he was seen on his surveillance video moving the truck.

Jury hears shots that killed... gives a good overview of the case.

J

Thank you for the link. I didn't realize that during previous break ins two guns were stolen from him. That in and of itself would make me nervous after repeated break ins, where did those guns go? It will be interesting to see the outcome of this trial. If it were me, I do not believe I would not have acted the same way he did but I wasn't in his shoes at the time. I don't know what to make of the truck issue, only he knows if he moved it to lure someone in, I'm not sure I believe the cleaning the garage story since he was downstairs in a chair. Do you know if his garage did indeed get cleaned?. There will be a lot more testimony in the coming weeks. Thanks again.

If people break into your house illegally then shouldn't you have the right to assume they are dangerous as long as they are intruding and still breathing? Even a wounded criminal can still pull a gun and cause harm and police seem to be okay just killing a perp?

He's fortunate that they weren't a couple of 10 year olds pulling pranks on an old guy, someone who was looking for emergency help, a church visitor who was checking on elderly, or a neighbor with alzheimer's who went into the wrong house.

I think he should have dragged them out and buried them in the rose's way less hassle than this trial
shoot first ask questions later

a reply to: Xtrozero

Exactly. I volunteered for Marine Infantry- I have put some very sober thought into the idea of shooting somebody in the head and calling it a good thing- for all my subsequent development to the left, I still get it. But this guy is beyond the pale. It's incredible that he could be defended by any reasonable person, but the political game is so perfected in this country at this point that people censor their own thoughts subconsciously to the normal expected responses which are on the news all day every day sounding the same every time not because they are bad at making news, but because it has to be repetitious if they want to drill anything into your head.

a reply to: LadyJae

I've been digging, too. This case has so many twists and turns, it sounds like a "Murder She Wrote" episode. I found an article that described the burglaries; another teenager was the "lookout" and has been charged, as follows:

A Little Falls teen, charged with second and third degree aiding and abetting Nick Brady in a burglary at the home of Byron Smith, appeared in Morrison County Court Tuesday. Another teen was charged in December 2012 for possessing a gun stolen from Smith’s home

It seems as if Smith was more or less tormented by the burglaries, but his reaction was off the scale:

A few minutes later, Kifer walked down the stairs and Smith shot her, Wartner said. His rifle jammed when he tried a second shot, and Smith told police he believed Kifer laughed at him.He was angry," Wartner said, then describing that Smith pulled out his revolver and shot her twice in the head, once in the left eye and once behind the left ear.

Smith dragged Kifer's body into the workshop and laid it on top of Brady's, Wartner said. Smith told investigators he thought he heard Kifer gasping, so he placed his revolver under her chin and fired what he told police was a "good clean finishing shot to the head," the assistant prosecutor said.

www.cbsnews.com...
mcrecord.com...

I would not have done what he did, but can't blame him.

a reply to: stumason

An angel, certainly not. Did lots of things, got into fistfights, partying. Even as young as 8 years old I knew that breaking into another person's houses and barns and sheds was an act of individual war. You do not invade others' homes, and will likely be shot and killed for it. I knew this, because my parents and uncles taught me right. They taught me to treat someone breaking in as if they declared personal war on me and my family. The home is the one place you are afforded personal privacy and safety, someone tries to take that from a person, they are likely to respond with total aggression.

I have only stated it will be difficult for the state to prove it, the burden of proof is on the state.

This case is a slam dunk for the prosecution.

If he felt compelled to confront the intruders he should have simply held them at gunpoint until the cops arrived. But he made the crazy mistake of playing judge, jury and executioner. And for that he will spend the rest of his life in prison.

a reply to: TKDRL

Likewise, I never broke into homes, but empty houses of which there were plenty owing to living on an Army base. My point was and reams that kids do stupid crap but it certainly doesn't warrant executing them.

"Your honor, my client didn't not 'execute' the two assailants. He was aiming for their kneecaps, and he happens to be a really, really bad shot. In fact, he'd make a crappy thug. Not like these two here. My client was afraid. He was reaching across to shoot her in the kneecap, like the mafia, and he slipped in all the spilled blood....

My client is not a vigilante; he's just a really bad shot. The defense rests."


Seriously, I would not have finished them off. I would have hand cuffed them and then called the police. While waiting for the sirens, I would have talked to them about God who loves them and wants to forgive their sins if they "will but repent and confess him lord of all...."

But torture? no.

This story made a thread back around when it occurred. And yes, obviously this guy committed premeditated murder -- not to mention moving/hiding one of the corpses and waiting considerable time before calling the cops. He also shot additional times a person who he had just shot and completely incapacitated; if this isn't cold-blooded murder, I don't know what is.

I have no problem with a person protecting his/her property wit ha firearm and firing on a person if necessary, but this shooting was not warranted; he had the drop on them and could have held them at gun point while calling the cops.

He's a sick multiple murderer, and I hope he gets convicted gets to make new friends in prison, who will also think that he is the lowest form of scum and give him what he deserves -- shanks ahoy.