The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old May 7, 2013, 10:42 PM   #51
Gbro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 20, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,056
Now charged with 1st degree murder

I was watching for updates on this case scheduled for May 6, 2013. after much searching i see a Grand Jury brought back 1st degree murder charges on April 25th. The next court date is set for July 1, 2013
Here is the Wiki page on Byron David Smith listing some background on him.

This is the criminal complaint;

This is the April 25th action i missed;
Smith is said to have a security background. There is something very strange with this whole situation.
Smith has a very high profile defense attorney representing him so this will be very interesting.
__________________
Gbro
CGVS
For the message of the Cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, But to us who are being saved, It Is The Power Of God. 1Corinthians 1-18
Gbro is offline  
Old May 7, 2013, 10:58 PM   #52
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,807
Thanks for the update, Gbro. I think the grand jury did the right thing by bringing charges of 1st degree murder.
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)
Vanya is offline  
Old May 8, 2013, 12:01 AM   #53
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 1,885
The only thing I can think of that may help this guy is the medical examiners report stating the teens were mortally wounded and death was eminent before he took the good clean kill shot . WoW can't believe he said something like that . He must not have heard them say , you have the right to remain SILENT !!
Metal god is offline  
Old May 8, 2013, 07:16 AM   #54
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 35,718
"The only thing I can think of that may help this guy is the medical examiners report stating the teens were mortally wounded and death was eminent before he took the good clean kill shot ."

As I understand it, that wouldn't help in the least. The intent was still to kill the person unlawfully, whether they were mortally wounded or not.

That's like the old law school conundrum.

Guy wants to commit suicide, and jumps off a tall building.

On his way down, his enemy shoots at him, intending to kill him, and in fact does so.

Is the second guy guilty of murder?

As far as I know, the answer is always yes.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old May 12, 2013, 10:19 AM   #55
B.N.Real
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 22, 2008
Posts: 4,083
This is just awful.

I applaud anyone for defending themselves but once the intruder or intruders are incapacitated,on the floor gasping for breath-it's time to call 911 for the police and an ambulance-not shoot them more.

Also,moving a intruder you shot who is now incapacitated is a real no-no.

And the less you say,other then just the facts,the better off you will be.

This looks now like a guy who was finishing off people to hide simply murdering them.

MANY stupid moves on his part.
B.N.Real is offline  
Old July 3, 2013, 10:20 AM   #56
Gbro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 20, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,056
Update

July 1, 2013 court update.
Next appearance August 30, 2013 for a contested omnibus hearing regarding issues of statements and physical evidence.
The initial omnibus hearing was canceled, i presume because of the upping to 1st degree murder.

Here is story,


Updated picture;


Events & Orders of the Court


OTHER EVENTS AND HEARINGS
11/26/2012 Complaint-Order for Detention (Judicial Officer: Freeberg,Conrad I. , )
11/26/2012 First Appearance (11:30 AM) (Judicial Officer Anderson, Douglas P.)
11/26/2012 Reset by Court to 11/26/2012
Result: Held
11/26/2012 Bail Study
11/26/2012 Certificate of Representation
11/26/2012 Notice to Remove (Judicial Officer: Freeberg,Conrad I. , )
11/26/2012 Affidavit of Service
11/26/2012 Demand/Request for Discovery
11/26/2012 Acknowledgement of Rights
11/26/2012 Affidavit of Service
11/26/2012 Order to Remove (Judicial Officer: Freeberg,Conrad I. , )
11/26/2012 Acknowledgement of Rights (Judicial Officer: Anderson, Douglas P. )
11/26/2012 Order for Release (Judicial Officer: Anderson, Douglas P. )
11/26/2012 Interim Condition for Smith, Byron David
- Pay bail
$200,000.00
- Post bond
$2,000,000.00
- Conditions, other
- Do not leave Minnesota without written court approval
- Keep court/attorney informed of current address
- No contact with victim or family
- Remain law-abiding
- Make all future court appearances
- Make and maintain contact with attorney
- No use or possession of firearms or dangerous weapons
- Pay bail with conditions
$100,000.00
- Post bond with conditions
$1,000,000.00
11/26/2012 Notice of Filing of Order
11/26/2012 Notice of Hearing
11/30/2012 Search Warrant (Judicial Officer: Freeberg,Conrad I. , )
11/30/2012 Search Warrant (Judicial Officer: Carlson, Jay D. )
11/30/2012 Search Warrant (Judicial Officer: Carlson, Jay D. )
11/30/2012 Search Warrant (Judicial Officer: Carlson, Jay D. )
11/30/2012 Search Warrant (Judicial Officer: Carlson, Jay D. )
11/30/2012 Search Warrant (Judicial Officer: Carlson, Jay D. )
12/04/2012 Certificate of Representation
12/07/2012 Motion
12/07/2012 Memorandum
12/07/2012 Affidavit of Service
12/11/2012 Notice of Evidence and Identification Procedures
12/11/2012 Discovery Disclosure
12/11/2012 Affidavit of Service
12/12/2012 Discovery Disclosure
12/17/2012 Hearing (1:00 PM) (Judicial Officer Anderson, Douglas P.)
Result: Held
12/17/2012 Motion Hearing (1:00 PM) (Judicial Officer Anderson, Douglas P.)
Result: Held
12/17/2012 Discovery Disclosure (Judicial Officer: Anderson, Douglas P. )
12/17/2012 Order for Release (Judicial Officer: Anderson, Douglas P. )
12/17/2012 Interim Condition for Smith, Byron David
- Pay bail
$200,000.00
- Post bond
$2,000,000.00
- Conditions, other
- Do not leave Minnesota without written court approval
- Keep court/attorney informed of current address
- No contact with victim or family
- Remain law-abiding
- Make all future court appearances
- Make and maintain contact with attorney
- Sign Waiver of Extradition
- No use or possession of firearms or dangerous weapons
- Pay bail with conditions
$50,000.00
- Post bond with conditions
$500,000.00
12/17/2012 Other Document (Judicial Officer: Anderson, Douglas P. )
12/17/2012 Discovery Disclosure (Judicial Officer: Anderson, Douglas P. )
12/17/2012 Waiver of Extradition (Judicial Officer: Anderson, Douglas P. )
12/17/2012 Probable Cause Found to Detain (Judicial Officer: Carlson, Jay D. )
12/17/2012 Notice of Hearing
12/18/2012 Other Document
12/31/2012 Substitution of Counsel
12/31/2012 Substitution of Counsel
12/31/2012 Discovery Disclosure
01/07/2013 Notice of Defense and Defense Witnesses
01/07/2013 Affidavit of Service
01/09/2013 Demand/Request for Discovery
01/14/2013 Request for Continuance
01/14/2013 Demand/Request for Discovery
01/15/2013 Notice of Hearing
01/18/2013 Demand/Request for Discovery
01/24/2013 Discovery Disclosure
02/11/2013 Discovery Disclosure
02/11/2013 Motion
02/11/2013 Proposed Document
02/11/2013 Other Document
02/11/2013 Correspondence
02/12/2013 Correspondence
02/13/2013 Demand/Request for Discovery
02/15/2013 Motion
02/15/2013 Affidavit of Service
02/15/2013 Proposed Document
02/15/2013 Correspondence
02/15/2013 Correspondence
02/20/2013 Motion
02/20/2013 Affidavit of Service
02/21/2013 Motion Hearing (1:00 PM) (Judicial Officer Anderson, Douglas P.)
Result: Held
02/21/2013 Notice of Motion and Motion
02/21/2013 Memorandum
02/21/2013 Other Document
02/21/2013 Other Document
02/21/2013 Other Document
02/21/2013 Demand/Request for Discovery
02/21/2013 Taken Under Advisement (Judicial Officer: Anderson, Douglas P. )
02/25/2013 Order-Other (Judicial Officer: Anderson, Douglas P. )
02/26/2013 Notice of Filing of Order
02/27/2013 Order-Other (Judicial Officer: Anderson, Douglas P. )
02/28/2013 Notice of Filing of Order
03/06/2013 Discovery Disclosure
03/06/2013 Affidavit of Service
03/07/2013 Demand/Request for Discovery
03/07/2013 Correspondence
03/12/2013 Correspondence
03/15/2013 Discovery Disclosure
03/15/2013 Affidavit of Service
03/19/2013 Memorandum
03/22/2013 Discovery Disclosure
03/22/2013 Affidavit of Service
03/25/2013 Discovery Disclosure
03/25/2013 Affidavit of Service
03/25/2013 Correspondence
03/26/2013 Taken Under Advisement (Judicial Officer: Anderson, Douglas P. )
04/03/2013 Order-Other (Judicial Officer: Anderson, Douglas P. )
04/03/2013 Notice of Filing of Order
04/10/2013 Discovery Disclosure
04/10/2013 Affidavit of Service
04/11/2013 Discovery Disclosure
04/11/2013 Affidavit of Service
04/24/2013 Indictment - after service or in custody
04/24/2013 Warrant Issued
04/25/2013 Warrant Quashed
04/25/2013 Demand/Request for Discovery
04/25/2013 First Appearance (2:00 PM) (Judicial Officer Anderson, Douglas P.)
Result: Held
04/25/2013 Court Clerk Minutes (Judicial Officer: Anderson, Douglas P. )
04/25/2013 Order for Release (Judicial Officer: Anderson, Douglas P. )
04/25/2013 Order-Other (Judicial Officer: Anderson, Douglas P. )
04/25/2013 Interim Condition for Smith, Byron David
- Pay bail
$200,000.00
- Post bond
$2,000,000.00
- Conditions, other
- Do not leave Minnesota without written court approval
- Keep court/attorney informed of current address
- No contact with victim or family
- Remain law-abiding
- Make all future court appearances
- Make and maintain contact with attorney
- Sign Waiver of Extradition
- No use or possession of firearms or dangerous weapons
- Pay bail with conditions
$50,000.00
- Post bond with conditions
$500,000.00
04/25/2013 Notice of Hearing (Judicial Officer: Anderson, Douglas P. )
04/25/2013 Notice of Filing of Order
04/26/2013 Warrant Returned
05/06/2013 CANCELED Omnibus Hearing (1:00 PM) (Judicial Officer Anderson, Douglas P.)
Other
01/22/2013 Reset by Court to 05/06/2013
05/09/2013 Discovery Disclosure
05/09/2013 Affidavit of Service
05/17/2013 Discovery Disclosure
05/17/2013 Affidavit of Service
06/03/2013 Discovery Disclosure
06/03/2013 Affidavit of Service
06/24/2013 Hearing (2:30 PM) (Judicial Officer Anderson, Douglas P.)
Result: Held
06/24/2013 Notice of Hearing
06/27/2013 Discovery Disclosure
06/27/2013 Affidavit of Service
06/28/2013 Publicly Viewable Note to File
07/01/2013 Initial Appearance - Rule 8 (10:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Anderson, Douglas P.)
Result: Held
07/01/2013 Court Clerk Minutes (Judicial Officer: Anderson, Douglas P. )
07/01/2013 Discovery Disclosure
07/01/2013 Affidavit of Mailing
07/02/2013 Order-Other (Judicial Officer: Anderson, Douglas P. )
07/03/2013 Notice of Filing of Order
08/30/2013 Contested Omnibus (10:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Anderson, Douglas P.)
__________________
Gbro
CGVS
For the message of the Cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, But to us who are being saved, It Is The Power Of God. 1Corinthians 1-18

Last edited by Gbro; July 3, 2013 at 10:42 AM.
Gbro is offline  
Old April 22, 2014, 07:06 PM   #57
Gbro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 20, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,056
Trial has started

Today was the opening of the 1st. Degree Murder trial of Byron David Smith.
Story here;

This trial is about Mr. Smith going too far in the use of deadly force.
I find the argument that he was in fear of more intruders for his reasoning to shoot more than what is believed justified.
I am interested in what the defense bring out on Mr. Smiths past employment with the State Department and if any training could have led Mr. Smith into the mindset that played out.
__________________
Gbro
CGVS
For the message of the Cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, But to us who are being saved, It Is The Power Of God. 1Corinthians 1-18
Gbro is offline  
Old April 22, 2014, 09:58 PM   #58
Sierra280
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2013
Location: Gardnerville, NV
Posts: 569
I generally agree with the prevailing opinion on this thread: he crossed the line (blatantly) from self defense to murder.

However, as I read about this story I feel there is some piece of info missing. The man shot the intruder (the boy) twice, then spent the time to get a tarp, and move the body to the basement. Where was the girl? She didn't hear the gun shots? At what point did she decide to go into the basement? Was the boy armed and she thought he fired? How did the old man know she was going to come down the stairs (1st degree requires pre-meditation) Was the girl high?
Sierra280 is offline  
Old April 22, 2014, 10:58 PM   #59
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,212
I think he crossed a line and that he should be convicted of something, but my understanding of first degree murder is that it requires premeditation. I suppose it can be argued that one can premeditate a murder without pre-selecting the victim, in which case setting up a trap and intentionally killing whoever walked into it might be classified as first degree murder. But I suppose the definition of "first degree murder" varies by state, and I'm not even sure that all states have "first degree" murder.

On the other hand, there is also the concept that the criminal actors who commit a felonious act are automatically guilty of murder if anyone dies as the result of their felonious act. The two decadents met their demise in the course of committing a felony. If that makes them guilty of their own murders ... does that make the homeowner an accomplice, an accessory, or a victim?

I am conflicted on this case. This is one where I am glad I'm NOT on the jury.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old April 23, 2014, 09:43 AM   #60
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,807
I don't know whether he'll be convicted of first degree murder, but what he did is comparable to the behavior of Jerome Ersland, the pharmacist who shot an armed robber after he (the robber) was injured and clearly no longer a threat; Mr. Ersland was convicted of first degree murder.

From a CBS report on the case:
Prosecutors say as Brady descended the basement steps, Smith shot him in the chest, then in the back while Brady fell, Wartner said. Smith fired a final shot into Brady's head, the bullet passing through Brady's hand, Wartner said.
<snip>
Smith dragged Kifer's body into the workshop and laid it on top of Brady's, Wartner said. Smith told investigators he thought he heard Kifer gasping, so he placed his revolver under her chin and fired what he told police was a "good clean finishing shot to the head," the assistant prosecutor said.

Among the similarities in the two cases: Mr. Smith, like Mr. Ersland, used a second gun to dispatch Ms. Kifer. He also considered shot placement before doing so, telling police that he shot her under the chin because .22 "doesn't go through bone very well."

I'd say there's a degree of premeditation there...
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)
Vanya is offline  
Old April 23, 2014, 09:58 AM   #61
coldbeer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2012
Location: Woodhaven MI
Posts: 440
What Smith did was wrong, but I have no sympathy for criminals breaking into someones house.
coldbeer is offline  
Old April 23, 2014, 10:39 AM   #62
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,063
I'm not sure they'll get 1st-degree murder, but 2nd-degree seems very likely. Smith game ample ammunition to the prosecution with his statements to police:

“I shoot him in the face. I want him dead.”

“I was far over the edge."

“I was no longer willing to live in fear.”

This isn't like other recent cases, in which the events aren't clear. Smith made an audio recording of the shooting, and he was quite explicit in his statements to police.

If anything, this resembles the Bernhard Goetz case more than anything in recent memory.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old April 23, 2014, 11:52 AM   #63
Madcap_Magician
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 13, 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca
I think he crossed a line and that he should be convicted of something, but my understanding of first degree murder is that it requires premeditation. I suppose it can be argued that one can premeditate a murder without pre-selecting the victim, in which case setting up a trap and intentionally killing whoever walked into it might be classified as first degree murder. But I suppose the definition of "first degree murder" varies by state, and I'm not even sure that all states have "first degree" murder.
Premeditation for murder doesn't require detailed prior planning or knowledge of a specific victim and could actually be strongly suggested by the murderer's actions after the fact, by attempts to conceal the crime or elude capture. In this case, his failure to immediately call police and the fact that he moved the second victim after wounding her, then executed her, plus his multiple statements about his own intent to kill both of them and his admission that he shot 'more than I needed to' would make this slam-dunk murder in the first degree to me.

I am surprised the original charge was murder in the second.
Madcap_Magician is offline  
Old April 23, 2014, 05:36 PM   #64
SIGSHR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 13, 2005
Posts: 3,045
As I understand it, the Rules are:
1. The shooting stops when the threat is neutralized.
2. You inform the authorities of what has happened in a bare bones "Just the facts, Ma'am!"
3. And you say no more. Except the Five Words-"I have nothing to say." And
"I want to talk to an attorney."
SIGSHR is offline  
Old April 23, 2014, 07:22 PM   #65
Doc Intrepid
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2009
Location: Washington State
Posts: 831
There is one weird issue I've never seen satisfactorily explained. It leads me to believe there is more here than has been stated.

A Mini-14 is not a quiet weapon, especially when fired in a basement. It isn't going to be mistaken for, say, a champagne cork.

Let's say you're an 18 year old young woman and you go to break into a neighbor's house with your cousin.

Your cousin goes down into the basement, and you hear what sounds like very loud shots fired. You know your cousin did not have a gun.

Why do you then go down into the basement?
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with dignity and respect....but have a plan to kill them just in case.
Doc Intrepid is offline  
Old April 23, 2014, 08:32 PM   #66
Lucas McCain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 7, 2013
Location: Callaway, MN
Posts: 187
Here another part of this story. His house had been broken into before at various times when he was absent from it. It happened on Thanksgiving morning and its been reported that after he shot the teenagers he went to a relatives house for a Thanksgiving celebration. It was the next day that he reported it.
Actions like that make him look pretty cold blooded.
There may well be a possibility that he will be found not guilty,. I have been told Lawyer is Stephen Meshbesher, whom I believe is from the firm of Meshbescher and Spence who are Top Guns as far as defense lawyers go.
__________________
If you have time to do it twice, then you have time to do it once right and put your name on it

Last edited by Lucas McCain; April 23, 2014 at 10:26 PM.
Lucas McCain is offline  
Old April 23, 2014, 10:41 PM   #67
Sure Shot Mc Gee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2012
Posts: 1,983
Smith parked his vehicle in a different location other than his own property that Thanksgiving Day. Taped his own conversation and the event before and after. Admitted to the local authorities both burglars were down and incapacitated and his purposely giving the female perpetrator who at the time was wearing a drawn tight around her face hoodie sweatshirt. Smith admitted that he called her a Bit-- and gave her a coup de grace head shot. (w/ 22 pistol) He told the young man prior to his final head shot "Your Dead" What the judged ruled out in the trial was the past police records these two burglar's had. Female burglar's purse continents included a dope pipe. Which again is stricken by the judge. But Mr. Smith has I think the best defense attorney team representing him in the whole State of MN. (Steven Meshbesher) What is known. Both burglar's being younger than Smith by 46 plus years was indeed a serious threat in Smith's mind. Being no other was there to observe Mr. Smith's actions he alone had to determine whether they were incapacitated enough or not. Reality: Two young drug troubled adults broke into a single aged persons home with intentions of felony burglary and were caught in the act of by its armed homeowner. Having to rely on his own resources Mr. Smith did what he had too do. Stop any further intrusion and his intruders. Local Law and towns people along with a major MPLS newspaper all thinks Mr. Smith went too far or over the line in his reactions. Being a aged person having been burglarized in the recent past many times. Money, guns, drug cabinet prescriptions burgled in the recent past. I think what Mr. Smith did was a bit bizarre but again understandable under those stressful circumstances he found himself confronted with. Young adults breaking the Law in the wrong place at the wrong time and confronting the wrong old timer showing stringent resolve and also applied. IMHO: >Not Guilty.
Sure Shot Mc Gee is offline  
Old April 23, 2014, 11:52 PM   #68
kilimanjaro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 1,658
Juries will render verdicts that defy reason at times. We'll see what happens here. I certainly think the man went beyond justifiable self-defense into the realm of murder, but I'm not sitting in the jury box hearing all the evidence.

I was visiting family in the Ozarks some years back, a rural area near some mid-sized towns. One elderly man had been in a series of incidents with some local youths who had vandalized his mailbox time and again, requiring multiple replacements, calls to police, etc., etc., which had accomplished only one thing, a new mailbox was available to the youths on a recurring basis.

One night the man came outside to the sounds of the youths destroying his mailbox, yelling insults down the driveway, and such things. He got a hunting rifle, and fired one shot down the driveway into the dark to scare them off. The bullet struck the car, penetrated to the interior, and one kid was dead in short order.

The jury found him not guilty of any charge. A juror said for the papers, I'm paraphrasing, 'It's too bad someone had to die that night, but they were begging for something to happen and it did. Don't mess around with folks, they don't like it.'

I don't think we'll see that happen in this case, but it's not improbable.
kilimanjaro is offline  
Old April 23, 2014, 11:52 PM   #69
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,063
Quote:
IMHO: >Not Guilty
Yes, but you're not on the jury. They're going to see everything we've seen, and then some. And they're also going to be hearing from a very motivated prosecutor.

Smith didn't do himself any favors by waiting to report the incident, nor by yapping to investigators.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old April 24, 2014, 01:08 AM   #70
Sierra280
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2013
Location: Gardnerville, NV
Posts: 569
Therein lies the problem with taking a trial to jury (although there was obviously no option here), when a trial goes to jury; it's pretty much a toss of the dice which way it will go.
Sierra280 is offline  
Old April 24, 2014, 06:43 AM   #71
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,212
He probably stands a better chance with a jury than he would with a judge. IMHO a judge would be more likely to look strictly at the law, and would be less likely to (possibly) be swayed by arguments about how terrified he was.

In reality, nothing about his actions seems to strongly support the argument that he was in fear, and it seems that with both teenagers (especially the girl) his actions mirrored those of Jerome Ersland (the pharmacist who came back into his store and finished off a wounded robber).
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old April 24, 2014, 09:51 AM   #72
Madcap_Magician
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 13, 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sure Shot Mc Gee
Smith parked his vehicle in a different location other than his own property that Thanksgiving Day. Taped his own conversation and the event before and after. Admitted to the local authorities both burglars were down and incapacitated and his purposely giving the female perpetrator who at the time was wearing a drawn tight around her face hoodie sweatshirt. Smith admitted that he called her a Bit-- and gave her a coup de grace head shot. (w/ 22 pistol) He told the young man prior to his final head shot "Your Dead" What the judged ruled out in the trial was the past police records these two burglar's had. Female burglar's purse continents included a dope pipe. Which again is stricken by the judge. But Mr. Smith has I think the best defense attorney team representing him in the whole State of MN. (Steven Meshbesher) What is known. Both burglar's being younger than Smith by 46 plus years was indeed a serious threat in Smith's mind. Being no other was there to observe Mr. Smith's actions he alone had to determine whether they were incapacitated enough or not. Reality: Two young drug troubled adults broke into a single aged persons home with intentions of felony burglary and were caught in the act of by its armed homeowner. Having to rely on his own resources Mr. Smith did what he had too do. Stop any further intrusion and his intruders. Local Law and towns people along with a major MPLS newspaper all thinks Mr. Smith went too far or over the line in his reactions. Being a aged person having been burglarized in the recent past many times. Money, guns, drug cabinet prescriptions burgled in the recent past. I think what Mr. Smith did was a bit bizarre but again understandable under those stressful circumstances he found himself confronted with. Young adults breaking the Law in the wrong place at the wrong time and confronting the wrong old timer showing stringent resolve and also applied. IMHO: >Not Guilty.
You think it's "a bit bizarre" to shoot a home invader, then walk up to her, shoot her nine times in the chest because she's still breathing, then drag her on a convenient tarp into another room where you're keeping the OTHER burglar you shot, then realize she is still alive, reload your revolver, tuck it under her chin, and fire a SECOND shot that was clearly intended to execute the incapacitated invader, and then tell the police exactly what you did?

I think your definition of "a bit bizarre" must be pretty similar to my definition of "Murder in the first degree" added to my definition of "Almost Terminal Stupidity."

And you think this is "understandable" because he'd had a string of burglaries in the past and wanted to prevent being burglarized in the future?
Madcap_Magician is offline  
Old April 24, 2014, 10:24 AM   #73
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,541
One reason we train and engage in FOF scenarios is that it helps to deal with stressful situations.

Premeditation can take only seconds according to some trials I've read. This guy is a disgrace to humanity if the story is true. Stress is NO excuse.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is online now  
Old April 24, 2014, 10:38 AM   #74
green_MTman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 27, 2014
Location: southeastern Vermont,USA
Posts: 213
i would like to suspend this idiots FID card or pistol permits and LTC for a couple years.and make him take a gun safety coarse to get his guns back.


but i dont think he should face criminal charges.if someone unarmed breaks into your house,you dont know there unarmed how is one to know they dont have a gun or knife in a pocket or under a shirt or pant leg.

the unarmed part is irelivent,its the victims perception of whether the assailent are armed or not that matters.

but he seems cavalier and arrogant and should loose his guns for a period of time
green_MTman is offline  
Old April 24, 2014, 11:14 AM   #75
Sierra280
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2013
Location: Gardnerville, NV
Posts: 569
I don't mean to make light of this situation, but I always wondered what kind of person would buy/put up one of those signs that reads: WARNING: Tresspassers will be shot; Survivors will be shot again.
Sierra280 is offline  
Closed Thread

Tags
home invasion , minnesota , mozambique

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15732 seconds with 9 queries