Outrage after popular students are found murdered in man's basement after 'they robbed his home on

reply to post by truthseeker1984


Why do you describe yourself as a "proud gun owner"? Why would anyone describe him/herself as such? It just sounds like macho B.S. Are you a better person because you own a gun? Are you and your family necessarily any more safe? I know of people who own firearms, but would never bring the matter up. Why all the chest-thumping from some of you firearm owners? One gets the impression that it is an extension of your genitalia.

Given all the shootings by children getting hold of parents' or relatives' guns, and even adult family members shooting other family members by mistake or while intoxicated or during domestic disputes, it doesn't seem that having guns around necessarily makes one safer. And let's say you actually shoot an intruder, who's to say that his buddies/gang won't be giving you payback?

Way too much self-righteousness and macho gun posturing in this thread. It also seems that way too many people are willing to give this blood-thirsty, murdering homeowner the benefit of the doubt, even though his own words are EXTREMELY self-incriminating.

Originally posted by nancyliedersdeaddog
Looks like those kids could be responsible for another break in and they seemed to have a addiction to prescription pills.

Link

Kudos to you for finding this follow-up story, and bringing it to our attention. Circumstantial evidence then would suggest that the kids indeed did break into Byron Smith's house. The way the homeowner handled the situation, however, still makes him a murderer, internet commandos' comments here notwithstanding.

Originally posted by StreetGlide
Recommendation for future robbery victims: Admit nothing. Deny everything. Demand proof.

And I guess keep those bodies well hidden and don't ask your neighbors if they know a good lawyer.

Or how about this instead: call 911 and not put anymore shots into the intruders than necessary. And definitely don't empty your firearm into an incapacitated target -- and ixnay on the kill shots to the cranium for unarmed, already dying shooting victims.

reply to post by MidnightTide

Flag and Star. Stunning, after having gone though every post of 30 pages.
Looks like everything that could make this a cluster job lined right up. The
'kids' showed history and clear intent, although hardware was unknown at
showtime. The resident was a security HEAVYweight, and didn't even have
a rathole out of his basement (outstanding, Holmes). What I hear from NOT
reading the text of the police's story of the solid circumstances, and all the
chatter around here: is how fast this turned into who was right or wrong.
Better yet on which side of the door was placed the more presently dangerous
nutcase(s)-- always a favorite for the gun grabbers and toters. Let's demonize
whoever was on the payroll contrary to MY pull on it.
Maybe unfair, but Divide and Cronkite's ghost must be chucklin'. "And that's the way it is..."
My end of it is something like Nicole's in "The Peacemaker", only hold the
nukes... if I may bastardize the scene ending line: "I'm not scared of a security
engineer with a gatling gun: but you're not going to prod me within a county
of some retiree from the same job that I know is holed up in his basement."
Did I mention cluster job? Unlike Will the 1st (avatar,'Manhunter') I'm not a
profiler; but if the threat has been neutralized to my personal satisfaction
and perp#1 is already point blanked DONE, an unneccesary act (?):
why are we waiting for the rest of the Zombie horde to come stumbling
down into my blind alley? The whole thing smacks of a revenge plastering.
Or was it? If the perps turn into vics later, and the original victim was actually
Charlie M. waiting for the perfect time to unload-- let's face it everybody's WAY
wrong. Has it occurred to anyone yet this was how it was supposed to go down?
But the only one left alive is the only one the system can punish, isn't he?
Wow, that alive thing may include how many more... 70 million of us?
I'm not a mind reader either, but this one looks too much like we're getting to
vent on the issue instead of WHY the Media Wurlitzer is playing this one with all
the stops out. Hit everybody's buttons real well?... outstanding.
Here's some stinkin' jerky: how about we're flap-jawing about Just Another
Gun Tragedy and cannon fodder for Slow and Spurious... byebye 2ndAm.
But I'm not Dennis, I'm usually wrong. By the way, how's that UN treaty doing?
I can only hope the arguing in the ivory towers is as effective as around here
for pure gridlock factor. The less they get done up there, the more I love them.

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17


I agree. i believe a person has every right to protect his life and property with whatever force is necessary. But this guy went beyond that. What he did was wrong and downright cruel. these kids should not have been in his house, ill give him that. they were wrong too. But i sympathize with these kids. they made a mistake. i was addicted to heroine for 6 years. it caused me to do some illegal and pretty messed up things. but ive changed my life. im sober now and i consider myself a good person. i feel horrible for the things i did in my past. these kids were messed up but the did not deserve to die. they made a mistake, everyone does.

_________________________

Is there any PROOF that the kids were steeling ? ? ?
Maybe they felt sorry for the old guy being alone
on Thanks-Giving and were there to apologize and
invite him over for turkey dinner., Anything is
possible; Is there Proof of intent ? were the kids armed ?
or is the jury judging by hunches and assumptions ?
Gun culture in u.s. is all psychological,
it's nothing more than a john-wayne-schizophrenia melt down.
Question to any americans here on the forum, :
SERIOUSY, LIKE WHAT IS THE POINT OF STUFF AS
THIS >
U.S. planned to blow up the MOON to win bragging rights

boy shoots 13-year-old girl on school bus

9-year-old girl shot during a Halloween party by a relative who thought she was a skunk.

. . . must be the fluoride or else the alumina ?

oh btw, yes one has the right to defend themselves,
but there needs to be proof of a legitimate NOT
an imagined/assumed threat.

_________________________

reply to post by ToneDeaf


A few pages back myself and at least 2 others posted a followup story that implicates the teens in another robbery earlier that day. The police found prescription meds in the car the teens allegedly used to get to this man's house. So yes I think there is probably enough evidence to prove they broke in looking for more meds. Senior citizens take all kinds of meds and being an older gentleman, who I assume lived alone, would make him an easy target.

reply to post by thov420


The news also said that Iraq had WMDs... whupditty feking doo.

Originally posted by 1plusXisto7billion
I agree completely. I am also a firm believer that one should be able to defend his home with lethal force if need be.

Same here.

When you work hard to make honest money, there is nothing more insulting than having someone who doesn't come into your home to take your rewards for themselves.

We need money to survive. So if someone wants to steal your money from you, why shouldn't they be considered a direct threat to your survival?

reply to post by NuclearPaul


If we need money to survive, please explain to me "Native Peoples" and "Pre-History"....?

Not only do I have your king in check mate, I've also lit the board on fire.

reply to post by clay2 baraka


Agreed. Its words over terminology: apples and oranges. They were "murdered" if one chooses that word, but in the commision of a "felony", I hold the agrument...they put themselves into a position to be KILLED.

(And agreed it was excessive use of single force-defense. How many times does one have to shoot someone?)
Once may not be enough to stop the perceived threat, but 2 or more shots seems excessive.

Originally posted by SymbolicLogic
reply to post by NuclearPaul

 

If we need money to survive, please explain to me "Native Peoples" and "Pre-History"....?

Not only do I have your king in check mate, I've also lit the board on fire.

gonna stray off this topic just this one time
i'll take a shot at why we need money to survive.

quick and simple answer. that was before man developed greed and corporate and government greed became the norm.

a more detailed answer, although still relatively simple is below.

in " Pre- History", "Native Peoples" did not number close too a estimated number of 7.055 billion by the United States Census Bureau living today. this from this wikiWorld population

see the quote below, a estimate from this site, FROM STONE AGE MAN TO MODERN MAN going back to 10,000 bc, there are better ones, that go into much more detail even further back, this was just the quickest i had booked marked that shows a number.

Prehistoric World Population and Health
The world population around 10,000 B.C. was between 5 million and 10 million. By 3000 B.C. It was 100 million. Archaeologists have estimated that no more than 20,000 people and maybe as few as 1,600 people lived in France at one time during Paleolithic times.

did you see that 1600 to 20,000 in france. alone, and there are what are considered today countries that are much lager than france.

back in " Pre-History", "Native Peoples" lived in clans or maybe a better term tribes, which were mostly inter related. in other words, family. they lived , worked, hunted, and everything else for the greater good of the group. do you or your family charge one another to eat, wash your clothes use each others tools and so forth.
also back then there were fewer people, which means the the resources were more, i want to say abundant, but that is not quite true, maybe i should say, more easily shared.
also that was before greedy, power grubin, people, corporations and governments existed.

i could keep on going, but i think i've put the fire you started on the board out, polished it back up, and placed "your king in checkmate".

also if you go back to when history was first recorded, you will see that a lot cultures killed people for steeling.all through history. hell in the U.S they hung people for horse theft up until the late 1800's
and that could be considered a hold back from Pre -Historic times when resources got scarce.



ETA: also in "Pre-History" the life span of individuals was quite short, so they didn't require resources as long as their counterparts in the future. which means what was there then went further than what is here now.

Originally posted by SymbolicLogic
I've had this kind of thing happen to me...

and I didn't kill them.

I just had them give me some " sweat equity/loyalty " for not calling the cops. It was worth more in the long run. Such a shame that the average American is... #ing retarded.

edit on 28-11-2012 by SymbolicLogic because: those tricky letters.

just skimming through your posts, let me get this straight. are you saying that, you let some thieving lowlife/ lives that you caught in your home, go without even doing the simplest of things by calling the cops, just for some " sweat equity/loyalty"? whose the ________ tard?

i wonder how many times, the thieving lowlife/lives have broken into someone else's home and stolen, assaulted, rapped,maybe even killed someone, sense this has happened? how do you know they haven't done anything like that? do you see them on a regular basis? do you hang out with them? if so do you take them at their word? seeing how they owe you some, " sweat equity/loyalty"?

talk about gullible, how do you sleep at night knowing that? you may have helped a murdering thief to run free.
after reading your posts, i have come to the conclusion, that you yourself are a criminal by aiding and abetting them by covering it up, or at the very least someone who believes in coddling them.
and reading this post, you made on page 26.

I support gun laws. I just don't go postal at the drop of the hat. so that and the one/ ones that owe some

i bet you do, more strict or even a out right gun ban. so you or the one/ones that owe you some '" sweet equity/loyalty'[/b can continue to rob, steel, rape or murder with out fear that some home owner will blow their head off.

edit on 29-11-2012 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)

Well, growing up in New Orleans, it was a pretty safe assumption that if someone saw you while breaking into your house, you were likely about to be killed or raped, so you better do the killing first. Also, many states have an anti maiming law, so if you shoot an intruder and they live they can sue you.

reply to post by MidnightTide


Can we kill the outraged family members too?

Originally posted by thov420
reply to post by ToneDeaf

 

A few pages back myself and at least 2 others posted a followup story that implicates the teens in another robbery earlier that day. The police found prescription meds in the car the teens allegedly used to get to this man's house. So yes I think there is probably enough evidence to prove they broke in looking for more meds. Senior citizens take all kinds of meds and being an older gentleman, who I assume lived alone, would make him an easy target.

There was also a blurb in one of the linked articles where the neighbors were concerened with thier own and thier childrens safety because this older gentelman was shooting his guns off on his property very frequently. If this is common knowledge around town I hardly think he was thought of as an easy target.

Originally posted by mysterioustranger
reply to post by clay2 baraka

 

Agreed. Its words over terminology: apples and oranges. They were "murdered" if one chooses that word, but in the commision of a "felony", I hold the agrument...they put themselves into a position to be KILLED.

(And agreed it was excessive use of single force-defense. How many times does one have to shoot someone?)
Once may not be enough to stop the perceived threat, but 2 or more shots seems excessive.

I would say that when you kneel next to a badly wounded teenage girl, laying next to her dead boyfriend you just got done executing a short time earlier....place the barrel of your gun beneath her chin, while she's gasping for air from the multiple chest wounds you inflicted earlier too, then fire a final "clean kill shot" as he puts it in his statement, you are no longer in the position of defense. You've crossed the line from homeowner exercising rights of individual self defense to becoming a nightmare from a horror movie....with a little shop of horrors going on right there in the basement.

What he describes is bad enough and murder on the literal, text book defined, face of it. It's not even debatable in legal terms. You can't execute people who are wounded, on the ground and absolutely no threat of any kind, to anyone.

*** Something else many are missing here I thought of last night. If this killer homeowner had simply called 911 AFTER shooting the boy and then finishing him off on the floor.........the cops likely would have arrived to catch the girl alive and well, before she made the fatal error of looking in the basement. This thing is almost cliche' to a movie, it's so bad...but it really happened and his own words really make him an unthinkable monster.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by SymbolicLogic
reply to post by hounddoghowlie

 

Hm, amazing how your post is comprised entirely of cow paddies.

well seeing how you couldn't respond with anything other than your standard one liners you love to use so much.
which by the way, your not suppose to do here on ats.
i will take it as checkmate.

also i will stand by my posts, the first one although may not be very academic, i think it's pretty accurate.
if any of the members are scholars would care to take a look , please tell if i m wrong.

my second post is mostly my opinion, except for the aiding and abetting, also i think blackmail could also be added to the charges if not more.

if you care to respond in any other way, than your witty one liners, please do. i want to hear more, espieacaly how you defend being judge and jury and allow a criminal walk the streets for a little "sweat equity/loyalty ".

I have motion activated flood lights, signs warning of no trespassing and cctv cameras in use, 7 cctv cameras, a big dog, a wrought iron security door, etc. If someone passes all of these passive warnings, they are up to NO good and the threat they pose will be eliminated if they choose to enter my home. Typical thieves/burglars typically do NOT enter occupied homes or homes where the inhabitants are awake and lights on.It was just a little while ago I HAD to stick a gun in an idiots face and tell them to move on.. This dumbass was trying to enter through my basement window. These arent poor hungry out of work folks.. Id give until I bled to them if so.. and I actively DO this. These are like the assholes who stuck an ak47 in a womans face when they discovered her hiding from them as they were hauling out her flat screen TV during the ice storm here. The home invader told her he had to kill her cause she saw his eyes. WTF...anyway, a neighbor interrupted him killing her for a Tv.
Im 5'4" 125-130 lb older woman with kids in the house.. husband was out of town with his father who is dying. A few months ago they tried to get in my steel reinforced basement door ( morons) and all I had to do was chamber my mossberg and tell them they had about 15 seconds to run.. while my dog was growing and wanting out to get them. They broke my super cool bamboo fence getting the hell out of didge.. but they left and no one was harmed. A reasonably intelligent criminal would see the things I have done as warning and move on to easier pickings.. or go home and get a damn job. If a person persists in trying to get into my house.. they are literally begging or what they get. Im in Illinois. No real castle law here and we are told to flee 3 times before defending ourselves.. again wtf... however, Id rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. I DO NOT want to harm or kill someone.. and have done EVERYTHING I can to prevent myself and family from being put into the position that we may have to.
Do I live in a rotten neighborhood as so many morons on here have assumed when we talk about crime? Nope, huge historic home in a historic district.. crime and criminals have vehicles and have already trashed their neighborhoods.. now they have to come to ours. I refuse to kill someone over my TV, jewelery,doodads or game systems. I fear being judged for such a thing, but if I fear for my life or the lives or safety of my children.. I will kill and not really feel bad about it.


The problem with this man in the OP.. he kept shooting the little jerks and hid bodies. HE is wrong in his response, like many I see here will be if it ever happens to them. Not minimizing the FACT that the kids were begging for trouble.. but he is WRONG. There are no winners here. If you can not make split second decisions, assess a situation, or control your firing willy nilly.. you do NOT need a gun. I saw the "Ima proud gun owner" bs.. I happen to be a responsible gun owner and realize that a gun is capable of killing.. and is merely a tool in my hands. The OP was a killer.. not responsible enough to control his wanton need to punish an intruder.. rather than simply control the situation and/or eliminate the threat. He is the reason normal gun owners get a bad rap.