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

originally posted by: DerbyGawker
a reply to: Jennyfrenzy

I don't believe it matters whether or not your belief makes sense to you, or in general. No one has a legal right to use deadly force to defend property, only life and once the necessity to use deadly force is neutralized, they no longer have a legal right to use it which is what this man did. After his use of force justification was neutralized, he executed the two individuals, after having failed to render aid which he has a legal obligation to do.

One criminal act does not excuse another.

Actually you are allowwed to defend property with deadly force IF you are in said property and fear fo r your life.Also is someone is running away from your house they could come back and attack you.

a reply to: DerbyGawker

You actually can use deadly force, it's totally legal if you fear for your life. This man was in fear for his life. Did he go about the situation in the right way? Probably not, but he was repeatedly victimized and everyone handles being victimized differently. I wouldn't go so far as to call him a premeditated murderer, at all.

Smith's attorney said his client was terrified after several increasingly violent break-ins and hid after he heard a window break and footsteps upstairs.

Op source
Castle Doctrine

A castle doctrine (also known as a castle law or a defense of habitation law) is a legal doctrine that designates a person's abode (or, in some states, any legally-occupied place [e.g., a vehicle or workplace]) as a place in which that person has certain protections and immunities permitting him or her, in certain circumstances, to use force (up to and including deadly force) to defend themselves against an intruder, free from legal responsibility/prosecution for the consequences of the force used.[1]
Typically deadly force is considered justified, and a defense of justifiable homicide applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to him or herself or another".[1] The doctrine is not a defined law that can be invoked, but a set of principles which is incorporated in some form in the law of many states.

a reply to: Jennyfrenzy

I know the laws, the issue is whether or not he still had a reasonable fear for his life after he came upon them gasping for air, unable to struggle as he dragged their bodies away before executing them.

...

And he still failed to render aid.

a reply to: Jennyfrenzy
Of course they are going to say that, it's the defense.

The jury will look at this and the rest of the evidence and decide if it is true or not.

a reply to: DerbyGawker

So he has the right to defend his home with deadly force, and you're argument stems from not rendering aid. We will agree to disagree. They shouldn't have been breaking in the house in the first place!


If they didn't break in to his home they would be alive. They put themselves in that situation.

a reply to: daskakik
So if your home was repeatedly broken in to you wouldn't feel afraid for your life and would be perfectly content sleeping at night? Often times crimes escalate in violence. If this was my grandfather I wouldn't want some criminals thinking they can come in and take whatever they want whenever they desire with no consequences.


We all have choices to make in life and these choices set a series of events in to motion. Tracing this crime back to its origin is easy, it's the two people that decided to break in to this mans home that set all these events in to motion.

originally posted by: Jennyfrenzy

So he has the right to defend his home with deadly force

No, I never once said this. I said he had the right to use deadly force if he had reasonable fear of great bodily harm or loss of life. He still has to reasonably articulate this fear to a jury. What I did was give you benefit of the doubt. Let's say he genuinely had said fear and was justified in using deadly force.

At what point does a genuine fear cease and use of force is no longer justified?
Did he still have a reasonable fear for his life as he dragged their still breathing bodies away?

Logic would dictate he was no longer in fear of great bodily harm or loss of life as he chose to de-escalate his use of force from deadly to physical to move the bodies. At this very moment, he had a legal obligation to render aid.

you're argument stems from not rendering aid.

My argument doesn't stem from his failure to render aid, it's just an additional piece of evidence to establish the malice of his actions. Rather than render aid, he chose to re-escalate his use of force from physical, beyond the threat of deadly force, to use of deadly force.

They shouldn't have been breaking in the house in the first place! If they didn't break in to his home they would be alive. They put themselves in that situation.

So the crux of your argument is that it's okay to commit a capital offense to prevent a misdemeanor?

a reply to: DerbyGawker

No my argument is people have the right to defend their homes with deadly force if necessary.

That's my belief and I'm sticking to it.

They put themselves in this situation.

I read this news article the other day. While I agree that it is entirely alright to shoot an intruder into your home to death, I can't agree with what this man did in this news story. Of course, he was likely, after several times being burglarized and who knows what else, willing to do what it takes to put an end to the nonsense permanently. That's what he did. Good for him.

originally posted by: Jennyfrenzy
a reply to: DerbyGawker

No my argument is people have the right to defend their homes with deadly force if necessary.

That's my belief and I'm sticking to it.

They put themselves in this situation.

Well, when you go to prison for your beliefs, let me know how that works for you.

a reply to: DerbyGawker
Seriously? That's not necessary! I'll just brush it off as it weakens your argument.

I'm not a criminal and just because someone doesn't agree with you there's no need to make statements like this.

Maybe these 2 people should have made better decisions in life or looked before they leapt.

The Frogs and the Well
Two Frogs lived together in a marsh. But one hot summer the marsh dried up, and they left it to look for another place to live in: for frogs like damp places if they can get them. By and by they came to a deep well, and one of them looked down into it, and said to the other, "This looks a nice cool place. Let us jump in and settle here." But the other, who had a wiser head on his shoulders, replied, "Not so fast, my friend. Supposing this well dried up like the marsh, how should we get out again?" "Look before you leap."

Source

a reply to: Jennyfrenzy

Such an action would indeed make you a criminal. That's the point, beliefs are irrelevant when it comes to the law. The law is what it is, the law.

This is the logic my statements stand upon, the law.
Yours stand on beliefs.

originally posted by: Jennyfrenzy
So if your home was repeatedly broken in to you wouldn't feel afraid for your life and would be perfectly content sleeping at night? Often times crimes escalate in violence. If this was my grandfather I wouldn't want some criminals thinking they can come in and take whatever they want whenever they desire with no consequences.

You are assuming that that in fact was the situation because that is what Smith said.

How true that is, is what is being decided now.

We all have choices to make in life and these choices set a series of events in to motion. Tracing this crime back to its origin is easy, it's the two people that decided to break in to this mans home that set all these events in to motion.

You are correct but that does not let Smith off the hook for his actions.

a reply to: DerbyGawker

So by your logic since I believe someone has the right to defend their home with deadly force, as the law allows for, I am a criminal.

People have the right to use deadly force to defend their "castle."

Again, there's no need to bash other members, we are discussing a news event not each other.


a reply to: daskakik
I'm not going to quote the article again I've quoted it multiple times.

originally posted by: Jennyfrenzy
So by your logic since I believe someone has the right to defend their home with deadly force, as the law allows for, I am a criminal.

Why are you making it more complicated than it needs to be?

Everybody agrees that people have the right to defend their home with deadly force and the law recognizes this. When you go beyond what the law allows, you become a criminal.

a reply to: Jennyfrenzy

No, not at all. You're attempting to apply your logic to my statements. The law does not allow for you to use deadly force to defend property, it allows you to use deadly force within your property when you have a reasonable fear of great bodily injury or loss of life. It allows you to merely threaten deadly force to defend your domicile unless the aforementioned fear is present.

Using deadly force merely to defend property would indeed make you a criminal.

No one "bashed" you and I take offense to such libelous statements. Stating that beliefs are irrelevant in a factual discussion is not an ad hominem attack.

originally posted by: daskakik
Everybody agrees that people have the right to defend their home with deadly force and the law recognizes this.

I don't, and it doesn't. What few jurisdictions that do have enacted statutes contrary to their state constitutions.

a reply to: daskakik

I'm not making this more complicated, I was responding to the following statement made by DerbyGawker.

Well, when you go to prison for your beliefs, let me know how that works for you.

As I have said before, we all have choices to make in life that set off a series of events. These 2 people made a choice to break in to this mans home, had they not done that they would be alive.

I am not going to allow myself to be demeaned because of this. The statement about me going to jail for my beliefs was uncalled for. The law allows for deadly force in your home when you fear for you fear for your life. You can say it's circumstantial that this man feared for his life, it's not. He said he felt victimized and afraid. That's enough for me.


And just to clarify, I am not ignorant. Just because someone doesn't agree with you does not make them ignorant. That's a fallacy.

originally posted by: DerbyGawker
I don't, and it doesn't. What few jurisdictions that do have enacted statutes contrary to their state constitutions.

Yes, semantics. You are in fact defending yourself within your home but that is the phrase that is often used.

a reply to: daskakik

It may be semantics, but it's important to clarify or the ignorance persists.

originally posted by: Jennyfrenzy
I'm not making this more complicated, I was responding to the following statement made by DerbyGawker.

Well, when you go to prison for your beliefs, let me know how that works for you.

If you take the types of actions that Smith did then you may very well go to prison.

I'm not going to quote the article again I've quoted it multiple times.

You don't need to I've read it and a lot of other things about the case. What you are focusing on is only a small part of the case.