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

a reply to: Snarl


Just what the jury needs, a gun nutter with a biased attitude. That's certainly fair.

/sarcasm

I haven't read the entire thread, but speaking for myself, I have mixed feelings about this. I do think he went beyond the level of force that one could consider reasonable under the circumstances. Not because he shot two burglars. No, but because he killed them after it was pretty clear that they were already incapacitated. To me, that's not right, and I don't think a jury will view it so, either.

On the other hand, I can sympathize with the old guy a little bit. It sounds like he'd been victimized a number of times and had finally had enough. I don't have a problem with the fact that he waited for them, or 'set them up', nor would I consider it premeditated murder. Hell, its HIS HOUSE. The two burglars had absolutely no right to be where they were, and generally speaking, I think a homeowner has a right to use lethal force in the event of a home invasion to protect himself and his family. The problem here, is that he did that, but then he took it a step further by killing them after they were apparently incapacitated.

Based upon what we know, I would have to grudgingly vote 'guilty'. Although I have absolutely no sympathy for them, killing them appears to have been unnecessary.

a reply to: DerbyGawker

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.

If there is an intruder in my house that I did not invite.... I am being reasonable to fear great bodily harm.
Think about it... you are home alone at night and you go from one room into another and there stands a strange person. Any normal person would be scared crapless.

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

In Tennessee vs Garner, the SCOTUS had this to say:

The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."

Source
So the court ruled that the cops can shoot a suspect in the back when they are fleeing from the scene of a felony IF they have probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of harm to the cops or others. That gives a bit of leeway to the cops. It also proves that a cop can shoot you in the back when you are fleeing from the scene of a felony.... even when you are just a suspect...

Break into my home and I'll shoot you dead. Period. I don't care if they are standing, kneeling or sitting.
These thieves knew the risk. He shouldn't have moved the body, though. I hope his peers throw this out of court. It's ridiculous that a person can't even defend themselves in their own home because of these anti-gun nuts.

ATTENTION!!!

Final Notice

The bickering and rude remarks stop hear and now.
Any further post of this nature will continue to be removed...and members may face a Posting Ban.

You are responsible for your own posts.

We expect civility and decorum within all topics.

Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

Simply put there has to be a place where a person and his family can be "Safe". This place is logically the home because we are safe no where else in the world. Therefore since people have a right to be safe there should be a solid my castle law nationwide. Anyone entering a home without permission should be subject to execution period. If this where the law home breakins would immediately cease. It would not lower the statistic it would eradicate it because if you know you will get dead going into someone else's home you would never even consider it. Laws with no teeth are worse than no laws at all.

For this specific case jury nullification will fix the problem and send a strong message to law makers.

originally posted by: tmeister182
Anyone entering a home without permission should be subject to execution period.

Only in America could this type of bloodthirsty attitude prevail.

Americans seem to place little to no value on human lives other than their own.

originally posted by: tmeister182
For this specific case jury nullification will fix the problem and send a strong message to law makers.

That message might very well be that they need tougher laws.

Careful what you wish for.

Honestly, even if that isn't the message they get, that is propably the spin they will give it.

Remove emotion from the story and look at the facts.

This is clearly a case of premeditated murder.

Psychopathic gun nuts who "froth at the mouth at the thought of exercising vigilante justice when their actions might be protected by the law" may disagree, but most logical, reasonable people would agree.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

I agree with you, emotion should be removed from the story. For example, "teenagers who were well known in the community and were into sports"...yep, that phrase certainly tugs on the ol' heartstrings but I'm sure the media and the authorities didn't mean to influence anyone at all with that little gem. "Gangland style execution"...another good one.

To be fair there has been plenty of appeals to emotion on behalf of Byron Smith also but I hope that when you say that you want emotion removed from the equation that you mean both sides of the equation.

a reply to: Goteborg

The thing is that emotions are an important aspect of humanity and we cannot simply ignore them. In the context of delivering justice, however, the less we focus on them, the less chance we can override logic and reason.

Both sides have used emotion to support their arguments:

• One side has painted the picture of a fragile, defenseless old man who only wanted to protect his property and stop future break-ins from occurring.
  
• The other side has portrayed the buglers as innocent, aspiring kids in the wrong place at the wrong time who didn't deserve to be killed.

When you remove these appeals to emotion, you see that a man has unnecessarily murdered two other people in a calculated manner.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

When you remove these appeals to emotion, you see that a man has unnecessarily murdered two other people in a calculated manner.

And you see, that when his house had been previously robbed, and weapons stolen, that no more than a half-assed effort was made to recover his property and identify the perps. Yet, after a citizen took the law into his own hands, there seems to be no problem recovering what was stolen and the culprits identified.

Let's see what the defense comes up with. After, let's see if the bitter pill of justice can be swallowed.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

I get the opposite impression. I think when you remove emotion you realize that this isn't about teenagers and Castle Doctrine.

a reply to: Snarl

Great point. The cops can't lose, can they? They get their stuff together right after the incident and they get to demonize Byron Smith in the press right after the incident that caused them to get their stuff together. Must be good to be public sector and have your cake and eat it too.

This elderly man was given little hope of resolution from LE. All he had was time to sit/stew.

What scenarios were playing out in his mind? Apparently it became a war for him.

Imo he was protecting his right to live in his home without constant fear of invasion. The first teen thought the old guy was such an easy mark he brought along a friend the next time. The kids were escalating.

This man had every right to self-defend. The situation he was left in invited his overreaction. Unless the man was a cold blooded killer to begin with, the fact he moved the bodies/overkill leads me to believe his mind was affected by the whole ordeal.

The elderly are in the sights of a lot of punks looking for easy marks. We see it all the time in our biz, my hubby provides senior services. He goes to their home and finds it full of uninvited teens/adults taking advantage, sometimes they just want access to medicine cabinets. He sees elders on the street being harassed for money by known druggies/criminals. Everyone from home health care workers to family members swoop down on old people like vultures on a carcass.

My hubby steps in but they won't stop. It's a habit. Whether they get anything or not isn't the point, it's just plain fun. LE can't do anything unless the elders file a complaint or get hurt.

It's a serious problem. It's getting worse as more are desperate to fund drug/alcohol habits. What both this man/teens did is a symptom of a society running amok. The only reason those teens should've ever been at that old guys house was to help mow his lawn etc. That's what normal communities do. They certainly don't leave old people to defend themselves against rampant abuse.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: DerbyGawker

In Tennessee vs Garner, the SCOTUS had this to say:

The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."

Source
So the court ruled that the cops can shoot a suspect in the back when they are fleeing from the scene of a felony IF they have probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of harm to the cops or others. That gives a bit of leeway to the cops. It also proves that a cop can shoot you in the back when you are fleeing from the scene of a felony.... even when you are just a suspect...

This isn't what you originally said at all. You said:

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.

SCOTUS has reiterated that deadly force is only permissible to prevent great bodily injury or loss of life. The reason for use of deadly force must be CLEARLY articulated and supported by reason. This falls under exigent circumstances.

You can't simply shoot someone merely for fleeing. Use of force isn't that complicated, people make it complicated by changing the hypothetical scenarios with "what-ifs" and "if it was me".

originally posted by: tmeister182
Simply put there has to be a place where a person and his family can be "Safe". This place is logically the home because we are safe no where else in the world. Therefore since people have a right to be safe there should be a solid my castle law nationwide. Anyone entering a home without permission should be subject to execution period. If this where the law home breakins would immediately cease. It would not lower the statistic it would eradicate it because if you know you will get dead going into someone else's home you would never even consider it. Laws with no teeth are worse than no laws at all.

Uh... warrants aren't invited. Please fully reason out your sentiments. Additionally, all this will do is encourage criminals to escalate their use of force upon unlawfully entering another's domicile. The reason use of force and 'Castle Doctrine' are as such is to mitigate felonious activity.

a reply to: DerbyGawker

According to the supreme court decision, a cop can shoot you in the back if they think that you constitute a risk of serious harm to others or themselves.
If they roll up on the scene of a shooting and see someone running away, they can shoot them in the back and get away with it....... Even if you are not the person that committed any crime there. They can assume that you are involved because you are running away.

SCOTUS has reiterated that deadly force is only permissible to prevent great bodily injury or loss of life. The reason for use of deadly force must be CLEARLY articulated and supported by reason. This falls under exigent circumstances.

Probable cause is what they need. They have probable cause when they see a person running away from them at the scene of a felony where there has been violence causing serious harm.
I never said there aren't any exclusionary factors.... I said that the cops can shoot you ... and they can. It has happened in PA.
And you are the one throwing complications into it. I said they can shoot you.. and they can. You said 'no they can't' and provided proof that they can. Now you say that I am complicating things.
Whatever.