Minnesota: Man Charged in Deaths of Intruders

[steve4102]

He had the benefit of due process, which is something he denied his victims.

This case is a cautionary tale for those who think the law allows them to shoot first and worry about the consequences later.

So where does this leave us, the rest of society?

A BG breaks into my home committing a felony, can I shoot him or NOT?

Simple question, no need to go into the Smith case all over again, we all know he crossed the line.

Can I shoot and Kill a BG that broke into my home to commit a felony,or do I have self determine what a stranger would consider "reasonable" at the time?

BTW they were not Victims, they were common criminals. They were no more a victim than Trayvon Martin was.

[Brian Pfleuger]

We're left right where we've always been.

We shoot to stop the threat and stop shooting when the threat ceases, all under "reasonable person" requirements. Nothing is new or different.

Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws don't really change any of it, except the requirement to retreat.

Wisdom dictates retreat when possible anyway, we shouldn't need a law to tell us that.

[pax]

A BG breaks into my home committing a felony, can I shoot him or NOT?

Simple question, no need to go into the Smith case all over again, we all know he crossed the line.

Can I shoot and Kill a BG that broke into my home to commit a felony,or do I have self determine what a stranger would consider "reasonable" at the time?

The answer is the same as it has always been: you may legally use deadly force when there is an immediate, otherwise unavoidable, danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent.

Assuming your question is a real one, you can find more about the answers here, here, and here.

pax,

Kathy Jackson

[Tom Servo]

Can I shoot and Kill a BG that broke into my home to commit a felony,or do I have self determine what a stranger would consider "reasonable" at the time?

If the felony was to steal some jewelry, and he's on his way out the door, no.

If the felony is to stab you, probably so. There is a difference.

This case changes nothing. We are expected to be reasonable and show restraint in the use of deadly force.

[steve4102]

If the felony was to steal some jewelry, and he's on his way out the door, no.

If the felony is to stab you, probably so. There is a difference.

MN 609.065 has been posted on here several times. It clearly states that Taking of a Life is Justified to stop the commission of a felony. MN appeals court also says that Self Defense and Fear for One's Life is not a criteria for Taking of a Life in one's home to stop the commission of a felony.

Going out the door with my jewelry is still Committing a Felony, Yes. Breaking into my home to get said jewelry is Committing a Felony, yes.

By your words and opinion, the Law is not the law, what you and 11 other people on the jury think is "reasonable" is the Law. yes?

[Brian Pfleuger]

We're back at thinking that we can "just read" the law and know what it means. We can't. We have to see previous opinions/precedent. The "reasonable man" standard has always been the standard and, yes, it all comes down to the jury but that hasn't changed either.

[steve4102]

We're back at thinking that we can "just read" the law and know what it means. We can't. We have to see previous opinions/precedent. The "reasonable man" standard has always been the standard and, yes, it all comes down to the jury but that hasn't changed either.

Same Question, can I shoot a BG that broke into my home or not?

[OldMarksman]

Posted by steve4102: So where does this leave us, the rest of society?

Right where we were yesterday. A trial court decision does not establish legal precedent.

A BG breaks into my home committing a felony, can I shoot him or NOT?

That depends upon the jurisdiction.

But even if deadly force may be used to prevent a felony when necessary and you do it, you will probably regret having done so

But you should not be asking the question "can I shoot him" in the first place.

Can I shoot and Kill a BG that broke into my home to commit a felony,or do I have self determine what a stranger would consider "reasonable" at the time?

Have we answered that?

BTW they were not Victims, ...

They were victims of first degree murder.

...they were common criminals.

So are many murder victims.

That is completely irrelevant.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by steve4102

Same Question, can I shoot a BG that broke into my home or not?

That's the wrong question. Shoot someone when you MUST shoot them and you'll never (should never) be on the wrong side of the law.

Always make every reasonable effort to avoid shooting someone. Never shoot someone when you could have reasonably expected a safe alternative.

Shooting someone is a terrible, terrible thing that will change your life forever. Avoid it at all costs, except when your life is at stake and it won't matter if you "can" shoot someone. If you have no other choice, the laws in every state in America allow for the use of deadly force.

[Sure Shot Mc Gee]

It ain't over till its over. According to the defense attorney Meshbesher he intends to petition the MN State Supreme Court for a Miss Trial. This Morrison County trial Judge pre-trial instructions to the attorneys. Do not to bring up past police history known about the deceased perpetrator's during Smith's trial.

[Frank Ettin]

Three hours is a very short amount of time to deliberate in this kind of case. That suggest to me that the jury did not have to spend much time considering any arguments that Smith was justified. The defense apparently fell flat with this jury.

Originally Posted by steve4102

...Same Question, can I shoot a BG that broke into my home or not?...

And same answer as always -- sometimes yes, and sometimes no. If you're not clear on how to distinguish between the two, perhaps you need to study the subject further. In post 203 pax gave you some links that can help.

Originally Posted by steve4102

...MN 609.065 has been posted on here several times. It clearly states that Taking of a Life is Justified to stop the commission of a felony...

But to look at the question another way, Smith went further than stopping the commission of a felony.

He stopped the commission of the felony, and the two kids were still alive. Then killing them was not necessary to stop the commission of a felony.

Originally Posted by Sure Shot Mc Gee

...This Morrison County trial Judge pre-trial instructions to the attorneys. Do not to bring up past police history known about the deceased perpetrator's during Smith's trial.

That was probably appropriate. In general their criminal histories would not be relevant to deciding if Smith was justified unless it can be shown that Smith knew of their histories.

[jimbob86]

MN 609.065 has been posted on here several times. It clearly states that Taking of a Life is Justified to stop the commission of a felony. MN appeals court also says that Self Defense and Fear for One's Life is not a criteria for Taking of a Life in one's home to stop the commission of a felony.

I don't live in MN, but I doubt that the State of Minnesota views "laying on the floor and struggling to breathe" as a felony.

IANAL, but IMO, the Homowner was well within his rights to defend himself with deadly force .... even to shoot felons caught in the act, if in MN and the law you referenced is the Law there..... but once they are laying on the floor, no longer a threat, even to property? Putting a gun under the chin and pulling the trigger at that point is pretty well cut and dried murder .....

[tipoc]

Now and again you have to figure that if a person has to read the law or read online opinions to decide if something is right or wrong then maybe they don't know the difference to begin with. It is seldom about the law.

This wasn't and isn't about the law. It's about morality.

You learn this stuff when you are a kid. Or ya don't. Some folks don't.

Some maybe ought to stay away from guns.

tipoc

[Mike1234]

Originally Posted by tipoc

Now and again you have to figure that if a person has to read the law or read online opinions to decide if something is right or wrong then maybe they don't know the difference to begin with. It is seldom about the law.

This wasn't and isn't about the law. It's about morality.

You learn this stuff when you are a kid. Or ya don't. Some folks don't.

Some maybe ought to stay away from guns.

I get SO SICK of having to make quotes MANUALLY. It's silly!!

Anyway, I agree except that some folks CAN'T learn right from wrong... at least not in their hearts. Some folks are nothing short of psychopathic like the man who did this heinous crime.

[steve4102]

^^^

My Question was in response to this,

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

This case is a cautionary tale for those who think the law allows them to shoot first and worry about the consequences later.

and this.

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

If the felony was to steal some jewelry, and he's on his way out the door, no.

If the felony is to stab you, probably so. There is a difference.

Isn't the "way out the door s "still In commission of a felony"? Does not MN 609.065 justify "Taking of a Life" to stop said Felony?

[jimbob86]

Does not MN 609.065 justify "Taking of a Life" to stop said Felony?

It very well may .... if so, MN, would not be alone in justifying deadly force in defense of property .... and I think that such a thing is a GOOD THING ...... that still does not justify what happened in this case, which amounted to an execution of defeated assailants ....

[Oysterboy]

Smith may be within his right in killing the burglars and I think there will be an appeal in that regard. What convicted him is the way he carried out the death sentences. He failed to call 911 in a timely manner and he moved the bodies which is a nono.

The mini 14 is a .223 caliber rifle am I correct? A couple of shots from it will surely stop the threat, from the hydraulic shock alone. That's when the stop occurred. Same with the girl but he kept on, leading into murder instead of self defense.

Also he recorded everything that went on which I don't get unless he's got a death wish on himself.

[steve4102]

It ain't over till its over. According to the defense attorney Meshbesher he intends to petition the MN State Supreme Court for a Miss Trial.

Would this go directly to the MN SC? Wouldn't this have to pass several hurdles and appeals Courts before landing in the Lap of the MN SC?

[OldMarksman]

Posted by steve4102: Isn't the "way out the door s "still In commission of a felony"?

Of course not.

[steve4102]

Originally Posted by OldMarksman

Quote:
Posted by steve4102: Isn't the "way out the door s "still In commission of a felony"?
Of course not.

Why Not?
When doe the Felony Burglary no longer become a Felony Burglary?

Note: "Way out the door" is NOT out side the home, as I read it.

If the BG is outside the Home, then yes, I agree with you, Still inside heading for the door, Nope.

[jimbob86]

I agree with steve- if MN law says "during commisssion of a felony", fleeing with stolen property is that.

It's the execution of the wounded that is going to hang this guy out to dry.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by steve4102: If the BG is outside the Home, then yes, I agree with you, Still inside heading for the door, Nope.

Study the subject of fleeing felons, and tell us whether you learn any relevant facts about doors.

[Uncle Buck]

I think either a lot of people are not understanding the entire case (or maybe I am not understanding the case), but the points that really jump out to me are:

1. He waited for them.
-- He parked his vehicle elsewhere and then walked back to the house.
-- He waited patiently in his basement.
-- He heard them outside the house and did not call anyone.
-- He armed himself fully expecting someone to break into the house.

2. He continued to shoot after the threat had ended.
-- He admits he shot the girl to put her out of her misery.

3. He waited more than 24 hours to notify anyone of what had happened.

I think the case would have turned out differently if it had been a simple case of catching someone breaking in to your house and stopping a felony.

For me, my ideal actions in a case where two people have broken into my house is I retreat to my safe room, call the police and let the intruder know I am home and I am armed. I hope I never have to shoot anyone, ever.

[Tom Servo]

It ain't over till its over. According to the defense attorney Meshbesher he intends to petition the MN State Supreme Court for a Miss Trial. This Morrison County trial Judge pre-trial instructions to the attorneys. Do not to bring up past police history known about the deceased perpetrator's during Smith's trial

I don't know what grounds he might have for appeal. His statements to police are still in evidence, and he does not contest their presentation of the facts.

Criminal history of the victims isn't particularly relevant, and I don't think that would have helped his case in the face of that.

I agree with steve- if MN law says "during commisssion of a felony", fleeing with stolen property is that.

I hope you never have to test that in front of a jury. That said, the reasonableness standard still applies.

[jimbob86]

Study the subject of fleeing felons, and tell us whether you learn any relevant facts about doors.

You sound as if you know a bit about this field .... tell us .... Do the laws of the state where the incident occurred have any bearing in the matter? Or are yo applying the laws you are familiar with universally?