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

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: butcherguy

Even the defense attorney admitted that he needs a jury that has bloodlust in order to win his case, other than that the prosecution has a slam-dunk case.

That is fine.
But justice occurs when the jury comes to a verdict after hearing all of the evidence.
It is up to no one else to decide whether he is convicted or not. That is all that I was saying.

a reply to: FlyersFan

I personally don't think you have the right to use deadly force unless your life is in danger.

originally posted by: TinkerHaus


It's spelled "lose."

www.dictionary.com

Had I known in the first place this was the level of intelligence I was dealing with I would have just abstained from getting involved.

Thanks though, this actually made me laugh.

Your response really highlights exactly what I was referring to. It's actually pretty sad.

And it i funny that with all that I responded with, you keyed on this.

You were trolled, sorry, but you were.

It shows that you would respond to me incorrectly correcting your spelling, then address my points.

Good day sir indeed. A very good day.

By many peoples logic here, it is OK to execute people who have pushed you beyond your limits.

People who text and drive infuriate me. So by everyones logic who is defending Mr. Smith, I should be able to go out and shoot every idiot that texts and drives. I see it all the time, so I should be able to amass a serious body count of people who have pushed me beyond my limits. And I should be set free to do so again.

I'm just making the roads safer and getting rid of the waste in the gene pool after all. It's all good. (Sarc Off)

originally posted by: TinkerHaus
Must feast on some virgin albino hippies. = Play Call of Duty

Wish I had time to play my x-box.

originally posted by: buni11687
There was also some other speculation going around when this first happened that involved dealing with selling the teens pills if I remember correctly.

That was me trying to stress the point that nobody really knew, at the time, if it had actually been a break-in or not and that for all we knew the "burglars" could have been invited in and killed for some reason that only Smith knew.

Actually, seeing how he drove his truck out of the garage, to clean it out, but it took him 20 minutes to get back to his house from wherever it is that he left it, I get the feeling that he set things up and that he knew that the perps would be there that day.

Now they couldn't have been watching from the moment he left because they would have seen him come back, so that would imply that he had an ide of the time they would be around.

I have a hard time believing this was a poor senior living in fear.

a reply to: TDawgRex

So by everyones logic who is defending Mr. Smith, I should be able to go out and shoot every idiot that texts and drives. I see it all the time, so I should be able to amass a serious body count of people who have pushed me beyond my limits. And I should be set free to do so again.

No.
They need to break into your house. Then you shoot them.

originally posted by: CJCrawley
The irony of this case, as I stated in a previous post on here, is that the homeowner videotaped what he did.

Had this not happened it would be just another case of an innocent homeowner shooting dead two intruders, thus exercising his right to defend his property.

People have no right to shoot persons to protect their property.

The reason why people can sometimes shoot intruders is for protection of their own person, not their property. It's where a person is reasonably in fear of great bodily harm or death that they can protect themselves in this way. So if you look out your window one night and see someone breaking into your barn, you cannot shoot them. If you get home one day and walk in and see someone fleeing out the back door with your stereo, you cannot shoot them.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: TDawgRex

So by everyones logic who is defending Mr. Smith, I should be able to go out and shoot every idiot that texts and drives. I see it all the time, so I should be able to amass a serious body count of people who have pushed me beyond my limits. And I should be set free to do so again.

No.
They need to break into your house. Then you shoot them.

I really have no problem with that. As you said before, shoot until the threat is gone, I agree. But if they were still alive, yet incapacitated, I would not shoot them again, especially in the eye, and a second shot to the temple at close range.

The autopsy and his own confession is damning evidence here of a cold and calculated murder.

a reply to: nextone

If you get home one day and walk in and see someone fleeing out the back door with your stereo, you cannot shoot them.

Cops in Pennsylvania can legally shoot a person fleeing from the scene of a felony without even knowing whether the person that they are shooting (in the back, at that) at are even connected with the crime.

The reason why people can sometimes shoot intruders is for protection of their own person, not their property. It's where a person is reasonably in fear of great bodily harm or death that they can protect themselves in this way.

Also in PA, a person entering your house uninvited can be met with the use of lethal force... just for being there. You have no idea of there intentions, whether or not they are armed, and they can be shot for that.

a reply to: nextone

Sorry to say, yes, people do have the right to shoot to protect their property. As well they should.

It might go against your grain, but that's just how it is. It's not like a criminal to ask nicely if he can take your things. Criminals are naturally violent in nature.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: buni11687
There was also some other speculation going around when this first happened that involved dealing with selling the teens pills if I remember correctly.

That was me trying to stress the point that nobody really knew, at the time, if it had actually been a break-in or not and that for all we knew the "burglars" could have been invited in and killed for some reason that only Smith knew.

Actually, seeing how he drove his truck out of the garage, to clean it out, but it took him 20 minutes to get back to his house from wherever it is that he left it, I get the feeling that he set things up and that he knew that the perps would be there that day.

Now they couldn't have been watching from the moment he left because they would have seen him come back, so that would imply that he had an ide of the time they would be around.

I have a hard time believing this was a poor senior living in fear.

After writing all of that the conclusion you came to is that he wasn't living in fear. Think about the things which had to have happened in order for Mr. Smith to even have the foggiest idea what time they'd be around.

originally posted by: TDawgRex

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: TDawgRex

So by everyones logic who is defending Mr. Smith, I should be able to go out and shoot every idiot that texts and drives. I see it all the time, so I should be able to amass a serious body count of people who have pushed me beyond my limits. And I should be set free to do so again.

No.
They need to break into your house. Then you shoot them.

I really have no problem with that. As you said before, shoot until the threat is gone, I agree. But if they were still alive, yet incapacitated, I would not shoot them again, especially in the eye, and a second shot to the temple at close range.

The autopsy and his own confession is damning evidence here of a cold and calculated murder.

Yes, the 'coup de grace' shot is what has caused him the most trouble.
He could have shot them both thirteen times and told the cops they were still moving and that's why he shot again and again.... and not have been charged. But the execution style shot and his callousness about the whole ordeal is what is at issue.

originally posted by: TDawgRex
a reply to: nextone

Sorry to say, yes, people do have the right to shoot to protect their property. As well they should.

No, they absolutely do not have this right to protect "property." Persons have the right to use limited, reasonable force to protect their property. This doesn't include using potentially lethal force or force that can cause great bodily harm. So if you look out the window at the grocery store and see someone trying to steal your car, you cannot use this type of force.

The reason people can sometimes legally shoot people breaking into their home is for protection of their person, not their property.

For that matter, persons do not have a general right to use excessive force to protect their person from mild to moderate damage, either. So if you get into a little argument with some guy at a bar, and he throws a simple punch without using weapons, you cannot pull out a gun and shoot. That's common law. It's only when it gets to the point of a reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death that this type of force can sometimes be used.

originally posted by: Goteborg
After writing all of that the conclusion you came to is that he wasn't living in fear. Think about the things which had to have happened in order for Mr. Smith to even have the foggiest idea what time they'd be around.

Him setting everything up because he wanted payback?

There is nothing that really shows he was living in fear other than his words but his actions show that he was actually very much in control of things.

originally posted by: emjay8
Many of you in this thread need to adjust your views on home defense. You don't shoot first and ask questions later. Gun ownership requires a certain level of critical thinking ability that, unfortunately, many people lack.

Its a fact that saying freeze does not worj out that well. you give away your posistion,alert the intruders and open yourself up to getting shot or killed first. In his state they have castle law correct?they also have duty to retreat(except when you cannot retreat anymore) as in a basement with no way out but the entrance exit. If the man would a had a gun with hollow points with a decent caliber and shot correctly he would not b e in this situation. i prefeer shotgun with double ought buckshot for insta kills myself. Also alot of people with basements keep tarps in them for any number of reasons.how can they prove he had it there for just this?

a reply to: nextone

In my State, I can use lethal force to prevent my car from being stolen. And I would. I refuse to be a victim.

But if the guy that was trying to steal my car was incapacitated, I wouldn't shoot him again, unless he reached for a weapon.

I would let the LEOs and Medics deal with it.

originally posted by: butcherguy

It is up to no one else to decide whether he is convicted or not. That is all that I was saying.

That's fair enough, this thread has been full of people who have taken on the job of juror and would set the man free, I just felt it was necessary to point out the other point of view.

Personally, I hope he gets life in prison, in my opinion he deserves nothing less.

originally posted by: TDawgRex
By many peoples logic here, it is OK to execute people who have pushed you beyond your limits.

Yep, by that logic those of us who have been trying to show the viciousness and illegality of what he did could be said to have been 'pushed beyond our limit' by other posters here who ganged up and tried to demonise us for daring to go against their opinion.

So, by their very logic, is it OK to now kill those people?

Thought not.

originally posted by: TDawgRex
a reply to: nextone

In my State, I can use lethal force to prevent my car from being stolen. And I would. I refuse to be a victim.

No, you cannot. There is not a single state in the U.S. where you have that right.