It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 31
48
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 11:08 AM
link   
They must not have a castle law in MN...here in SC, you can kill 'em if you find them in your home. They'd be dead the moment I got down stairs after I woke up from the window breaking; besides, I need to buy new carpet anyway.




posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: LadyJae
30 pages of differing opinions...some well thought through, some knee-jerk, some perilously close to being ad-hominem.

Isn't it ironic that the only "evidence" we have, pro and con, are what we read in the news articles? The same sources I've seen discredited time and again here at ATS.

I respectfully submit that none of us (not one) can say absolutely what they would or would not do in the same scenario. At some point, rational thought takes flight and instinct takes over. We can only hope that our humanity will temper that instinct.

General Patton once said "Prepare for the unknown by studying how others in the past have coped with the unforeseeable and the unpredictable." A sage bit of advice for us all.

We must wait for the outcome of the trial. Our opinions are just that: our personal opinions.

Be blessed

J


When the media is reporting transcripts of what was said in court - and we have Smith's own testimony regarding the events that took place that night, we have quite a lot upon which to form an opinion.

The facts of the case are clear. They are not disputed by the defense. The defense's argument will not be against the facts but rather it will focus on the emotional state of Byron Smith and the events leading up to this situation.

The defense can argue all day long that he was somehow justified for executing two people as they lay dying in his basement.. But they won't sell me or any other person who has even a small amount of respect for human life.

I'm a gun owner and collector. I carry every single day. I wouldn't hesitate to protect my family if someone broke in my home. I can tell you, however, that if I critically wounded someone who broke in to my home, I would not kill them execution style while uttering obscenities toward them.

In fact, a little bit of research into 911 recordings where people have been in similar situations prove that the majority of people wouldn't do what Smith did either.

And after I critically wounded someone and they were bleeding out on my floor, I would make sure they didn't have any weapons and immediately call 911. I can say that is what I would do in this situation because I have no desire whatsoever to take anyone's life - and would only consider doing so if it was necessary to protect myself or my family.

The video proves that both intruders were completely incapacitated. Despite what macman says you don't need to be a bloody doctor to see that someone is critically and possibly mortally wounded.

Again - the defense does not contest these facts! The ONLY question here is whether or not Smith was justified in EXECUTING these two as they lay broken at the bottom of his stairway.. (Oh wait, he actually put them on a tarp and dragged them to another location before executing them..)



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: jjsdietfitness
They must not have a castle law in MN...here in SC, you can kill 'em if you find them in your home. They'd be dead the moment I got down stairs after I woke up from the window breaking; besides, I need to buy new carpet anyway.


There is a castle law in MN, and it's very similar to that of SC. You can definitely use lethal force when someone intrudes into your home.. The question isn't whether Smith had a right to defend himself - it's whether or not it was murder to execute his intruders as they lie dying in his basement, and whether or not he should have notified authorities immediately.

macman, you claim to have been in law enforcement yet you feel that Smith's depraved actions are justifiable... I wonder how often you justified an illegal and violent encounter with civilians while you claimed to "serve and protect."



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: TinkerHaus

The video proves that both intruders were completely incapacitated. Despite what macman says you don't need to be a bloody doctor to see that someone is critically and possibly mortally wounded.


And when the Prosecution asks him if he thought they were "incapacitated", the defense will state "I object, Mr. Smith is neither a Medical Doctor nor has training that would give him insight into what incapacitates one person over the other".

Maybe go and actually sit in on some court cases.

The video shows they weren't moving. The video does not prove that they could not move again.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: TinkerHaus


macman, you claim to have been in law enforcement yet you feel that Smith's depraved actions are justifiable... I wonder how often you justified an illegal and violent encounter with civilians while you claimed to "serve and protect."



Ooohhh, a personal statement. I see we have moved from snarki to this.

One has nothing to do with the other.

But, I was never accused of, nor performed an "illegal & violent" encounter with civilians.

Got anything else?



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: macman
But, don't twist my words. I never once stated I think what he did was wrong.


Quite to the contrary, it is you that just twisted MY words for I never actually said that at all.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: macman

And when the Prosecution asks him if he thought they were "incapacitated", the defense will state "I object, Mr. Smith is neither a Medical Doctor nor has training that would give him insight into what incapacitates one person over the other".

Maybe go and actually sit in on some court cases.

The video shows they weren't moving. The video does not prove that they could not move again.



Can you provide the video footage proving this statement?

And if the Defense attorney is such a dunce to state the above, he would be really opening a whole can of worms.

Of course Mr. Smith is not a Medical Doctor, but as a State Dept security specialist, he more than likely did have rudimentary first aid course under his belt.

But being a executioner in a State penal system also requires certification. If you were a LEO, you'd know that. Is Mr. Smith a certified executioner? But even executioners can only perform their duties on people who were tried, convicted and sentenced to death.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: TDawgRex


Can you provide the video footage proving this statement?

Proving what exactly?


originally posted by: TDawgRex
And if the Defense attorney is such a dunce to state the above, he would be really opening a whole can of worms.

It depends. Is Mr. Smith a medical professional?


originally posted by: TDawgRex
Of course Mr. Smith is not a Medical Doctor, but as a State Dept security specialist, he more than likely did have rudimentary first aid course under his belt.

A 3 hour long, annual First Aid Course does not prep someone to make medical statements in court.


originally posted by: TDawgRex
But being a executioner in a State penal system also requires certification. If you were a LEO, you'd know that. Is Mr. Smith a certified executioner? But even executioners can only perform their duties on people who were tried, convicted and sentenced to death.

That is nice.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to Flyer's Fan
What would a prudent or reasonable man do in a situation like this. It is not unreasonable to assume that someone breaking into your home could be armed and wish you harm. Recently where I live. A guard at an Embassy witnessed a band of thugs enter and rob a restaurant across the street. As they emerged brandishing weapons he fired two warning shots. The result, he received two slugs in either leg. The moral is don't give an armed opponent an opportunity to do you harm.
It is sad that these young people lost their lives but they should have considered the possible consequences of intruding in someone's private home in the middle of the night, uninvited. In today's sick society the Judicial system is designed to punish the victim and not the perpetrators.
Bottom line, these two are criminals, and the homeowner is the victim. I doubt that he feels proud of what he did but most of us in his position would do the same. Whether of not he moved the body is of no consequence. What is of consequence is two thugs violated his residence with the intent to steal property.






a reply to: FlyersFan



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: TinkerHaus

The video proves that both intruders were completely incapacitated. Despite what macman says you don't need to be a bloody doctor to see that someone is critically and possibly mortally wounded.


And when the Prosecution asks him if he thought they were "incapacitated", the defense will state "I object, Mr. Smith is neither a Medical Doctor nor has training that would give him insight into what incapacitates one person over the other".

Maybe go and actually sit in on some court cases.

The video shows they weren't moving. The video does not prove that they could not move again.



I don't at all believe you have any experience whatsoever in law. I do believe the court would allow the defendant to give his opinion on whether or not they were incapacitated.

Additionally, the defendant already admits that they were in his statement to police where he talked about "putting them out of their misery" which the court has allowed.

Can you show some legal precedent that would prove that the court wouldn't allow Smith to give an opinion on this? Go ahead, show us.

Can you also show some sort of proof that you have more expertise in these matters than the rest of us peons? This is the internet.. I could claim to be the Easter Bunny.

I would bet money that if you were ever involved in LE it wasn't in any significant role and that your jury duty sitting in on a DUI case has no bearing on your knowledge of a murder trial.

edit on 24-4-2014 by TinkerHaus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: macman

So far you talk a whole bunch but you really haven't backed up a single claim in this thread.


It's very disconcerting that people star you and encourage you when any reasonable person can see right through your claims and the immature and inexperienced way in which you argue your points.

This is exactly the reason we keep voting complete idiots in to office.

"THIS MAN KNOWS HOW TO BREAK DOWN A POST AND WRITE A COMPLETELY INSIGNIFICANT REPLY TO EACH POINT! GIVE THIS MAN A STAR!"



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: macman

Also, there are categories under which objections must be made. Can you please point out which category an objection by the defense against the prosecution asking Mr. Smith to give his OPINION on whether or not the intruders were incapacitated would be made?

Something tells me you can't without first doing a bit of googling..

If you cannot do this off the top of your head, and your courtroom experience is merely being a witness to a trial that probably was nowhere near as significant as this, I would ask that you recant the claim that you somehow have more experience and therefor your opinion carries more weight in this matter.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: knowledgedesired

I don't think you know the definition of stalking...



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinkerHaus
a reply to: macman

So far you talk a whole bunch but you really haven't backed up a single claim in this thread.


It's very disconcerting that people star you and encourage you when any reasonable person can see right through your claims and the immature and inexperienced way in which you argue your points.

This is exactly the reason we keep voting complete idiots in to office.

"THIS MAN KNOWS HOW TO BREAK DOWN A POST AND WRITE A COMPLETELY INSIGNIFICANT REPLY TO EACH POINT! GIVE THIS MAN A STAR!"





So are you mad at him for having an opinion or are you just upset that more people agree with him then they do with you?




posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: thesaneone

Neither mad nor upset. Just pointing out how sheep love to be herded.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan

He didn't just shoot them...
He shot them, they survived, he dragged their bodies to some other place in his house, then shot them again.
That is murder.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   
im glad i live in Colorado, make my day law. if somebody is even on your property and you feel threatened, after asking them to leave if they do not you can kill them. straight g. someone breaks into my house you best believe id kill them



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Well it's a shame that two people lost their lives, but you really should not break into someone's house.

Home invasion is unpredictable, and a lot of people will just shoot first, and ask questions later when it comes down to not knowing if they, or their loved ones lives are in danger. ~$heopleNation



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinkerHaus


I don't at all believe you have any experience whatsoever in law. I do believe the court would allow the defendant to give his opinion on whether or not they were incapacitated.
Actually, I do believe I offered to meet in person a year or two back and you refused.
Personally, I could careless what you believe or don't believe. You see, I can stand up, walk over and talk with anyone I know, and can personally verify what I have and have not done on life.


originally posted by: TinkerHaus
Additionally, the defendant already admits that they were in his statement to police where he talked about "putting them out of their misery" which the court has allowed.

And I addressed this. Maybe instead of counting up the zingers you can dish, actually read my statement. It is above and is called a spontaneous utterance. Maybe look it up, before you open you keyboard again.


originally posted by: TinkerHaus
Can you show some legal precedent that would prove that the court wouldn't allow Smith to give an opinion on this? Go ahead, show us.

I never said he couldn't give his opinion. Clearly you aren't following the bouncing ball.
Go and re-read what I stated.


originally posted by: TinkerHaus
Can you also show some sort of proof that you have more expertise in these matters than the rest of us peons? This is the internet.. I could claim to be the Easter Bunny.

Well Mr. Bunny, I really like the eggs you lay. Although here on ATS, they kind of stink.
What proof should you have me divulge over the internet?


originally posted by: TinkerHaus
I would bet money that if you were ever involved in LE it wasn't in any significant role

Yep, no real role at all.
MP as a secondary in the military and 4 years as LE in AZ.



originally posted by: TinkerHaus
and that your jury duty sitting in on a DUI case has no bearing on your knowledge of a murder trial.

Again, you failed to read and/or comprehend what you read. I stated I never served on a jury.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: TinkerHaus

Back what up exactly???







 
48
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join