Minnesota: Man Charged in Deaths of Intruders

[jimbob86]

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

I'm pretty sure the "unarmed part" is relevant, at least in the case of the female- once she was down, struggling to breathe, she was obviously unarmed, and obviously not a threat. Shooting her again at that point was NOT self defense.

It was an execution, and we have laws against freelancing in that area.

[Madcap_Magician]

Originally Posted by green_MTman

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

Go back and read the criminal complaint.

Smith did in fact claim that he thought the burglars might be armed, which is not unreasonable. He was in his basement when the first intruder came down the stairs. He fired one or two shots with his Mini-14 at the male intruder when he saw his hips coming down the stairs.

Still not unreasonable.

Then the first intruder fell down the stairs, and was lying at the bottom of the stairs, posing no articulated threat to Smith, when Smith shot him again in the face.

Unreasonable. You cannot simply shoot someone because they 'might' have a weapon. See: AOJ triangle. A person who 'might' have a weapon 'might' have the ability to inflict death or great bodily harm upon you, which in Minnesota would justify the use of deadly force in self defense if you could articulate why you reasonably believed them to be armed and threatening you with death or great bodily harm.

However, a person you have already shot who is lying on the ground and has neither produced a weapon nor made any motion consistent with reaching for a weapon cannot be shot again simply because he might have a weapon. He is lying on the ground gut-shot. Without any reasonable cause to believe he was still a threat, there is no opportunity or jeopardy, and the presence of ability is a wild guess at best.

You are only halfway correct when you say it's the victim's perception about whether the attackers were armed. It's the victim's reasonable perception that matters, and Smith articulated no actions or behaviors that indicated that it was reasonable to assume either burglar was armed. Given that they were committing burglary at the time they were shot, the first shots were likely justified, but they do not legally or morally excuse the following ones.

So after executing the first burglar, Smith then puts the body in a handy tarp, which he apparently told police was "so he didn't get blood on his carpet," and drags the body into his basement workshop, and then goes back out to sit in his chair.

Unreasonable. What possible justifiable reason would you have for altering a crime scene? If you were being burglarized, why did you not call the police? If you did not have time to call the police after shooting the burglar, why did you not call them immediately after the threat from the burglar had stopped?

At this point, the second burglar starts coming down the stairs in a fit of terminal stupidity. Smith again waits until he can see her hips, and fired. She fell down the stairs.

Not unreasonable on its own merit, probably unreasonable in light of what he had done with the first burglar.

Smith's rifle jams. At this point Smith says she "laughed" at him, which made him upset. He later told police "If you're trying to shoot somebody, and they laugh at you, you go again."

Smith then empties a nine-shot .22 LR revolver into the second burglar as she is lying on the ground, again, like in the first case, posing no reasonable articulated threat to him.

Are you kidding me? I am hoping that people here posting in Smith's defense are simply talking about this case without actually having read anything about it, because it seriously concerns me that someone could have read all this information and still think he was justified.

Totally frickin' unreasonable.

And if that wasn't enough, he then rolls the second burglar's body into a tarp and drags her back to his workshop by the first burglar, again tampering with a crime scene.

And then, if THAT wasn't enough, he notices the second burglar is still breathing, so he reloads his .22, tucks the barrel under her chin, and executes her with what he later told police was "a good clean finishing shot."

That's so far beyond any question of reasonableness that it infuriates me that anyone here would try to justify it.

Ordinarily I would still withhold final judgment on cases like this, knowing that the media usually have it wrong. But everything I said here came from the criminal complaint itself, which was generated by police investigation and from the detailed statements Smith himself told the police.

EDIT: Removed a reference to "burglary in the first degree" after reviewing the relevant statute. It would probably be burglary in the second degree.

[Sure Shot Mc Gee]

A man's home is his castle. When a younger and stronger opponent confronts a unarmed senior of either gender there's usually one outcome. The old person doesn't fair well. The two young adults in prime physical condition without question one of the two broke in via a bedroom window while the other acted as his look out. In time both made their way down the stairs to the basement under their own volition without being enticed by Smith for who knows what reason. Both perpetrators soon discovered a armed, aware, and scared home owner full of resolve.

As commented I haven't heard or know just what took place concerning those two kids and Mr. Smith. And again I'm not fully privy to all the police reports and court testimony. Only what information our local news media releases. (But it is what it is gents.) A persons Right of Self Defense to a (point?) in their own home. So from now on "I'm going to hide my guns and get myself a Stick!! Otherwise I might find myself in court facing my peers too."

BTW: The local police were notified of Smith's prior burglary's no arrest's were ever made. I think it was said Smith suffered thru 5-6 break-in's from August thru November with money, prescription drugs, and high dollar items taken each time. Including a couple guns.

Some of what was said in court yesterday can be read in the Minneapolis Star & Tribune paper today. For those who may want too track this court case.

[Madcap_Magician]

Originally Posted by Sure Shot Mc Gee

A man's home is his castle. When a younger and stronger opponent confronts a unarmed senior of either gender there's usually one outcome. The old person doesn't fair well. The two young adults in prime physical condition without question one of the two broke in via a bedroom window while the other acted as his look out.

I'm not disagreeing with you on that, and most of the expert opinion from criminal defense lawyers in the state, other prosecutors, and law enforcement has generally concurred that Smith was justified in shooting at first. But what happened afterward is so unreasonably outrageous that I think Mr. Smith is headed to jail for the rest of his life.

And I certainly don't feel sorry for either burglar. Both would be alive today if they hadn't committed one crime too many. They took their own lives in their own hands breaking into people's houses, and when you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.

[zincwarrior]

I'll be honest. This sounds way more like two burglars that accidentally stumbled on a serial killer, then legal self defense.

[zxcvbob]

I'll be honest. This sounds way more like two burglars that accidentally stumbled on a serial killer, then legal self defense.

It's a little of both; that's what makes it an interesting case.

[zincwarrior]

Not seeing any legal self defense about it. Its not a difficult argument to make that both were premeditated murder.

*shooting persons who did not pose a threat after the initial shoot each time.
*where'd that handy tarp come from?
*removing the bodies.
*murdering a potential witness.
*going to dinner before calling police.
*not calling 911 at any time.
*no affirming via 911 that you are in danger, or making similar warnings to others.

Yea this has serial killer/really dumb mob guy wannabe all over it.

[jimbob86]

A man's home is his castle.

No argument there, but just being in his "castle" does not confer upon a homeowner the absolute authority of a medieval warlord. Self defense is a right. Killing the wounded is just despicable, and I predict will not be looked upon very well in the courts ......

[manta49]

As commented I haven't heard or know just what took place concerning those two kids and Mr. Smith. And again I'm not fully privy to all the police reports and court testimony. Only what information our local news media releases. (But it is what it is gents.) A persons Right of Self Defense to a (point?) in their own home. So from now on "I'm going to hide my guns and get myself a Stick!! Otherwise I might find myself in court facing my peers too."

I am surprised some are trying to defend him. If he put a gun to her head and shot her when she was no longer a threat then that's murder. And he deserves to go to jail.

So from now on "I'm going to hide my guns and get myself a Stick!! Otherwise I might find myself in court facing my peers too."

No need to hide your guns just doint execute someone when they are no longer a threat. Do you not see the difference in self defence and murder.

[jimbob86]

So from now on "I'm going to hide my guns and get myself a Stick!! Otherwise I might find myself in court facing my peers too."

If the man had just gutshot them both and held them at gunpoint where they fell at the bottom of the stairs while he called the police, he'd have nothing to fear from facing his peers.

He'd likely be lauded as a hero, succesfully defending his home.

Instead, he crossed the line, executing the wounded.

I find it disturbing that someone could defend that behavior.

[zincwarrior]

Agreed.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by green_MTman

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.

Seriously?!? Suspend his FID and make him take a gun safety course?!?

Originally Posted by green_MTman

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

No, it's not just "the victim's perception of whether the assailant is armed" that is relevant. The "victim's" perception must also be reasonable, as a general rule. He shot one intruder, dragged his body over to a "handy tarp" (premeditate much?), shot the second one and executed her.

I'd say that a little more than FID suspension and mandatory gun safety training will be the likely result, and rightfully so.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

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.

I have also seen claims (by prosecutors) that premeditation can be formed in an instant. I didn't accept the notion then, and I don't accept the notion now. Words have meaning, and the prefix "pre" to me clearly means "Before, in advance of," not "during, in the heat of the moment."

That said, the more I read about this case the more I think it was a premeditated execution. An article I saw on-line today indicated that, in addition to sitting in ambush, the guy had a tape recorder running through the entire incident. I didn't get a sense that he volunteered this to the police; it appears that a detective happened to notice it on a shelf.

While I was initially on the fence, I am now leaning very heavily in the direction of believing that the guy laid a deliberate trap for the burglars, and that he had every intention of killing them if they returned. I don't think he was in the least bit in fear for his life.

[skoro]

A man's home is his castle.

It is.

What it isn't is an execution chamber.

[Blindstitch]

Wow.

All I have to say is throw in a fear of vampires and it sounds justified for head shots.

[jimbob86]

That said, the more I read about this case the more I think it was a premeditated execution. An article I saw on-line today indicated that, in addition to sitting in ambush, the guy had a tape recorder running through the entire incident. I didn't get a sense that he volunteered this to the police; it appears that a detective happened to notice it on a shelf.

While I was initially on the fence, I am now leaning very heavily in the direction of believing that the guy laid a deliberate trap for the burglars, and that he had every intention of killing them if they returned. I don't think he was in the least bit in fear for his life.

IMHO, setting up an ambush at a choke point (stairs) was a tactically sound thing to do- If someone broke into my house, I'd have done the same.

Recording the event would be a good idea, too, I think.

Where the guy erred was "shooting the wounded".

If he had shot them and held them at gunpoint while he called the police, and before the police (and EMS) got there, one or both of them bled out and died ..... I could not condemn him for that either- it would not be safe for him to approach an assailant that might not be hurt as bad as he looked- but shooting them when they posed no threat is, for me, beyond the pale. I think a jury will find him guilty of murder.... and rightly so.

[zxcvbob]

All I have to say is throw in a fear of vampires and it sounds justified for head shots.

Only if a jury decides that fear is "reasonable".

[Argyle]

These two were certainly not very bright and in the end it cost them there lives. The homeowner because of his actions looks like some kind of a nut for finishing this pair off, both showed poor judgment but had they not broke into his home in the first place perhaps they would still be alive.

[manta49]

The homeowner because of his actions looks like some kind of a nut for finishing this pair off, both showed poor judgment but had they not broke into his home in the first place perhaps they would still be alive.

I would describe executing someone as more than a bit of poor judgment. Breaking the speed limit is poor judgment.

[Mike Irwin]

Can't kill a vampire with a headshot.

Only a zombie.

Reading some of these comments really makes me wonder at times if we truly are not in the end times of the Republic.

Obviously our educational system has completely failed...

[jimbob86]

Can't kill a vampire with a headshot.

Only a zombie.

Reading some of these comments really makes me wonder at times if we truly are not in the end times of the Republic.

Obviously our educational system has completely failed...

Obviously we need Monster Hunter International to develop a "Combating the Undead" curriculum for the Public School System to address this deficiency ......

[zxcvbob]

Can't kill a vampire with a headshot.

With a big enough gun you probably can. (decapitation) But the point was whether or not the jury would find that the fear was reasonable

[Tom Servo]

This sounds way more like two burglars that accidentally stumbled on a serial killer, then legal self defense.

Smith doesn't appear to meet the MO for a serial killer. Let's not go there.

Let's also drop the zombie/vampire silliness. This is a grave situation. Let's also remember that people who would use this against us read this forum as well. Snide comments about Smith's actions could be construed as support.

[Oysterboy]

Wow, what a screwy situation and it leaves itself to a lot of speculations. Who knows what really happened?

Sure he says what went down but had they put him on a lie detector?

I can't blame the guy because of the past burglaries but why the hell don't he put up a security surveillance system? Or get a dog?

I think he went too far but I think he snapped as well when he finally came face to face with the burglars. Did he think it's the same burglars that hit him before? And they have his guns?

The girl laughed when she got gut shot? And she came down after all that ruckus? C'mon, give me a break, there's more to this. For all we know, he told her to come down or he'll finish off this guy.

That old man's missing his straw to his chocolate shake.

[Mike Irwin]

"Who knows what really happened?"

Smith does.

And he gave a pretty vivid account of what he did, an account that is supported by forensics, and which paints a very damning picture of him and his actions.

And, given just how damning an account it is, one really can only take it at face value.




Oh...

VAMPIRES!