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: 37
48
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 10:21 PM
link   


Amid more shots, Smith told Kifer, "you're dying," and then calls her a derogatory name for a woman. After more heavy breathing and another dragging sound, Smith calls Kifer the name again. After more movement, the crack of a gun is heard


That's not defense people, that's an execution. Teenage girl, already shot and laid out with him saying, "you're dying b*tch." What risk was she posing to him at that point? Come on people, shooting an intruder is one thing, this guy murdered an unarmed, incapacitated teenage girl who was probably a feckless follower standing watch outside for her petty criminal cousin.




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



(post by JohnnySasaki removed for a manners violation)

posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnnySasaki
I think he deleted it more because I brought up the recreational drug we are not allowed to talk about. According to rules he was right, even if the rules are dumb, he has to enforce it. He could have handed me an extreme T C violation, but was nice enough to give me an offtopic instead(less point deduction).

edit on Thu, 24 Apr 2014 22:57:08 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Except she obviously wasn't outside standing watch, since she got shot down in the house. Home invasion is not a petty crime either.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Wow, this is actually a pretty old story, it happened quite awhile back.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
Me? I'd have shot them without a second thought. I wouldn't have moved the body to 'stop the carpet from being stained' ... but I wouldn't have thought twice about shooting them. These were a 17 and 18 year old committing 'increasingly violent' crimes. They easily could overpower a 65 year old man and cause him extreme harm.

While what you say may be true, and they were becoming more dangerous, in this case it's still murder. Technically its first degree premeditated murder, which would bring the death sentence in most states.

If he had just shot them on the spot because they broke in, then yes, it would be defense. That's not what he did however. He actually planned this in advance (premeditation), set up a “kill zone”, had tarps set up to move bodies, “double tapped” them (no longer self defense), then didn't call the police until 24 hours later... This is no different then setting a “booby trap” to kill an intruder, which has been done in the past, and similarly leads to premeditated murder charges.

Its premeditated because you're planning it in advance, and your intent is not to protect yourself or property, but to “kill someone”. When you have shot someone and they are incapacitated and no longer a threat, you cannot shoot them again and still claim “self defense”. Then to just sit and taunt dying people is not only cruel and unusual, but shows the intent here again was clearly revenge and punishment.

His intent here is clear in his actions, not to defend but to punish. Once it went from protecting self to judge/jury/executioner, it went from a case of self defense to a case of murder. Being a vigilante praying on other “bad people” does not make you a “good guy” outside of comic books, in reality it makes you a criminal yourself.

This guy has no grounds for self defense, he's going to be rightfully charged, and most likely (depending on state law) rightfully get the death sentence. No one should be defending this mans actions. This was revenge and punishment, not defense, period.
edit on 4/24/2014 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 11:35 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan

Totally. Yes. Every single time. 100% justified in shooting them but, it is still murder.

(Maybe he could have aimed a little lower and just given them a limp for the rest of their lives but, that's just unfortunate).

Break into someone else's house. Suffer the consequences.

If you disagree with the above statement, please supply your full name and address. You are weak and I want to take full advantage of your possessions and families safety.


edit on 25-4-2014 by crzayfool because: Expanded: 'It is still murder'.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

If you shoot someone you don't tend to care about them very much. The chances are, you don't want them to survive.

Just in case she thought that she only invaded peoples privacy in the astral plane where no one could get hurt, he was just reminding her that she was a [profanity] in the real world too.

If she wasn't a Teenage girl would it make a difference? It certainly wouldn't to me.
edit on 24-4-2014 by crzayfool because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 11:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arktos1As far as a jury is concerned, this can be presented in so many ways as to make him totally justified, or absolutely guilty of breaking the law. Ultimately, this is America. It will come down to who is the better; the prosecutor or defense lawyer. Unfortunately so many cases end that way, regardless of the law.


First things first, excellent post. I agree with you about the lawyer duel but I think there's another important factor that could make a huge difference and that's if there are one or two people in the jury room who feel very strongly about this one way or the other and are persuasive then they'll be the deciding factor. Look at what's happening in this thread, people in here feel pretty strongly about this one way or the other and I'm guessing that'll happen with the jury too.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Yes they invaded his house.

What part of breaking and entering is not threatening?

See a random person who you are not expecting in your house that you don't know personally, you freak out. Adrenaline fires and you think holee-f-shizzle I want them gone, NOW.

Question processed at the speed of brain:

Q: Will they hurt me?
A: Oh crap they might...

= Threatening.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Kryties

They could have a concealed weapon that you are not aware of and their last adrenaline fueled wish is to revenge their own death...

People can do the most amazing things when they are close to death, no matter how much agony they are in.



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 12:03 AM
link   
i will have no chance to be on the jury so i can say, the guy should be prosecuted for murder in some degree.


if they died in the initial volly or on the ER table, he would have a case.

the prosecution will eat him up with helpless victims being executed. jury will go along with it.

i don't even think a diminished capacity or insanity plea will fly for the defense.

plea bargain, 25-life.

no death row.






posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 12:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Kryties

Hell likely doesn't exist.

Because of this, it's also likely that in the same situation of being an old man and being abused by youngsters and even possibly losing your marbles a bit, and not thinking straight and also thinking "My God the youths of today have no respect" and "I'm sick of this, it's time to teach them a harsh lesson"... you'd probably do the same.

People of the older generation don't generally follow the same weakness in thought as my generation and the one above (yes my parents are still alive and too are my grands). They make decisions. They are right (even if they're wrong) and what they decide is going to happen, will happen.

Today, men are considered... women... masculinity comes in the size of your artificial muscles and how orange and soft you can moisturise your skin with fake tan. This guy was an old school "You F with me and I will hurt you, given the chance" and "You repeatedly F with me, I will kill you" type guy. Many on hear will not understand him.


This thread will go on forever though because there are DIFFERENT people with DEFFERENT outlooks. I have voiced mine. The old man was justified in doing whatever he did, no matter how vulgar some of you may find it. That is my opinion and that is also my final post, or I won't leave my PC for a week arguing this pointless case.

He will go to prison and he will die there. The state will favor the teenagers and disfavor the way he treated / acted. They have to because that is what is seen as right (and in a way it is because this was predetermined murder. I don't argue that. I argue that this "type" of murder should be re-considered, considering the lead up and mental provocation involved and stress that they put the old man under).

If there was no recording then the old man would have simply killed intruders and ATS would have never heard of it (providing he lived in a state where Obama hasn't confiscated guns or banned your right to bear arms.. I'm from the UK I don't know and haven't got the time to read the law of this old mans particular state).

Bye.

(The metaphysics & philosophy forum is much happier than this one - people die there and then they come back, even teenage criminal intruders, it's amazing).



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 12:39 AM
link   

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.

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.


I understand the premise of your post and agree w/ it except for the naturally violent comment. You see, I am considered a criminal as I have done exactly what those kids have done and then some but in my case I was doing it purely for food and shelter and not once did I ever threaten or attack anyone. As I always went out of my way to avoid people at all costs cause the universe forbid, I should get confronted by owner of said objects being lifted by myself and henceforth defecating while getting shot because that would be terribly embarrassing should I survive. Mind you legally, my record is actually clean. Save for 2 evictions for failing to uphold a rental agreement.
edit on 25-4-2014 by DexteramLucifer because: added/subbed a word or two.



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 01:53 AM
link   
Ooops..wrong thread..
So I edited my response accordingly.

I say fry him..taking that last shot..is considered murder...if you let him off...than anyone who kills with a weapon..should use this defense...including criminals....they can always say.."they felt their life was in danger", "they felt the person they were killing were vermin..etc"
edit on 25-4-2014 by Onslaught2996 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 02:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: crzayfool
a reply to: Aazadan

Yes they invaded his house.

What part of breaking and entering is not threatening?

See a random person who you are not expecting in your house that you don't know personally, you freak out. Adrenaline fires and you think holee-f-shizzle I want them gone, NOW.

Question processed at the speed of brain:

Q: Will they hurt me?
A: Oh crap they might...

= Threatening.


I'm not against gun ownership but if you have a gun and the ability to instantly escalate a situation to the point where someone is going away from the encounter in a body bag you have a responsibility to try and avoid that situation from even happening.

Breaking into someones house is a crime, but as a society we have decided the appropriate punishment for that is a fine and some time in jail. Seeing as how this man was 65 years old, back when he was the age of those he killed the punishment would have been a couple months in jail to straighten the person out. The punishment for a home invasion is not the death penalty.

If adrenaline kicked in and the man shot one or both of them, then called for help (after shooting someone it is your obligation to ensure they live and can make it to trial) I would feel he was too quick on the trigger and possibly needs some training but that the resolution to the situation was fine overall. This man went so far beyond that, that any semblance of him doing the right thing is gone. He set traps to find them. He set up a surveillance system, not to deter them or alert the police but to let him know when they were there. Then after he found them, he didn't detain them for law enforcement and the cops like he should have, but he shot them and left them to die. The kids weren't innocent but what this man did was premeditated cold blooded first degree murder. He deserves the electric chair.


originally posted by: crzayfool
a reply to: Kryties

They could have a concealed weapon that you are not aware of and their last adrenaline fueled wish is to revenge their own death...

People can do the most amazing things when they are close to death, no matter how much agony they are in.


The person you get in a heated argument with could be carrying a pistol, and they may get so angry they're going to shoot you in a fit of rage. That doesn't give you the right to shoot them first.

When the outcome is killing someone, a hypothetical is not good enough. Not for police (what everyone in the Posse Commitatus forum complains about) and not for citizens.
edit on 25-4-2014 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 03:06 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy


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.


No they can't, what is legally permissible and what is unenforced by the AG are two completely separate matters.



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.


This isn't abnormal compared to most states, but I hope you recognize the difference between the threat [display] of lethal force and the use of lethal force. Generally use of force dictates that the victim may escalate force one level above that of a perpetrator. An intruder uses physical force to unlawfully enter, therefor you have the right to threaten deadly force but you do not have the right to use deadly force unless you are in reasonable fear of great bodily harm or for your life.

a reply to: TDawgRex




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


Every jurisdiction within The United States would disagree with you.
Please see my above response to butcherguy.




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


I challenge you to post said statute, or your state and I will verify as I'm willing to bet that the reason isn't 'because they were trying to steal my car'. Use of force is the same for vehicles as castle doctrine when permitted, the reason is the same: to prevent loss of life or great bodily injury.

EDIT: Upon reading butcherguy's post

I would like to point out that Texas has enacted unlawful statutes, contrary to their State Constitution. In addition, it exceeds their jurisdictional scope as vehicular law is the sole purview of the Federal government.

From the Texas Constitution



Sec. 19. DEPRIVATION OF LIFE, LIBERTY, ETC.; DUE COURSE OF LAW. No citizen of this State shall be deprived of life, liberty, property, privileges or immunities, or in any manner disfranchised, except by the due course of the law of the land.


What is legal isn't necessarily lawful.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Let's not forgot that this man had a duty to render aid once the threat was neutralized, his decision to delay in notifying the authorities is an aggravating circumstance.

2013 Minnesota Statutes

Subd. 2.Duty to render aid. (a) A person who discharges a firearm and knows or has reason to know that the discharge has caused bodily harm to another person, shall:

(1) immediately investigate the extent of the person's injuries; and

(2) render immediate reasonable assistance to the injured person.

(b) A person who violates this subdivision is guilty of a crime and may be sentenced as follows:

(1) if the injured person suffered death or great bodily harm as a result of the discharge, to imprisonment for not more than two years or to payment of a fine of not more than $4,000, or both;

(2) if the injured person suffered substantial bodily harm as a result of the discharge, to imprisonment for not more than one year and one day or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both;

(3) otherwise, to imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both.

(c) Notwithstanding section 609.035 or 609.04, a prosecution for or conviction under this subdivision is not a bar to conviction of or punishment for any other crime committed by the defendant as part of the same conduct.

--------------------------------------------------------------


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.


This isn't what Castle Doctrine states at all.


originally posted by: TinkerHaus
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..


This isn't what Castle Doctrine states at all.

Threat of deadly force and use of deadly force are two separate matters, you may only USE deadly force when presented with great bodily injury or loss of life.


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".


I apologize your honor, I'll rephrase the question. Mr. Smith, in your opinion, did either individual pose a threat to you after your initial shots struck them both?


originally posted by: macman
This is very simple. If the prosecution is asking the defendant or witness a question that would could be viewed as an answer that is professional in nature, like asking the postman how to fix an aircraft engine, the defense would object on grounds that they are not an expert in the matter.


I understood where you were going with it.


originally posted by: ominousrex
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


This is a functional equivalent of Castle Doctrine, just because each state labels it with slang terminology, the underlying historic, fundamental framework for the use of force is the same across jurisdictions.

You must prove that you had a reasonable fear for great bodily injury or loss of life. You can't simply state that you felt "threatened".

-------------------------------------------------

I believe I'm all caught up with any new original posts since my last reply.
edit on 25-4-2014 by DerbyGawker because: sp

edit on 25-4-2014 by DerbyGawker because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 05:26 AM
link   
It is very sad.

But at the end of the day, when you knowingly break the law and invade someone elses secure space you have made your own bed.

it was their own action which led to their killing, if they hadn't threatened this mans sense of security this would never have happened.

In England, if someone is In the house during a break in it is classed as an aggravated factor and carries a much harsher sentence - because of the far increased potential of violence - this would apply to this case.

Smith wasn't to know they wouldn't harm him, and whether it's me or me and my family , if you threaten my safety in my home I will put you down rather than trust you are one of the good burglars - don't break into my F-ing house you stupid little beggers.



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 06:01 AM
link   
I am sad to think that he could be convicted on what is essentially a technicality; the definition of premeditated murder certainly does describe his actions, but frankly and imho, nothing to you to an intruder is a crime.



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 06:27 AM
link   
My opinion of humanity has dropped considerably during this thread. The amount of people in here with such a callous and bloodthirsty disregard for the preciousness of human life is beyond my ability to comprehend.

Yes, what the teens did was wrong but they thought they were entering an empty house - Smith had ensured that by making it seem like he wasn't home. I think that adds weight to the fact that they had no intention of hurting or terrorising anyone, just to steal a few possessions. Yet the owner, and many people in this thread, would see them die in a very vicious and inhumane manner.

I really hope this man is found guilty of premeditated murder and is sent to prison for the rest of his miserable existence.



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 06:37 AM
link   
One of the persons seated on the jury is a member of the NRA.


One of the three jurors selected Monday admitted to being an NRA member who wouldn't hesitate to shoot someone who broke into his home, a move Washington County Attorney Pete Orput -- lead prosecutor on the case -- didn't block. Source



new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join