Minnesota: Man Charged in Deaths of Intruders

[Madcap_Magician]

Originally Posted by Gbro

The one thing that i feel certain of is there is no need in playing by someone Else's rules when defending yourself in your own home.

It's very interesting that the strongest and most vehement arguments in favor of Smiths' actions seem to come from other Minnesotans on the gun boards.

I certainly can't tell you what you should or shouldn't do, but I can tell you that refusal to play by the rules established by state law will get you in the same situation Byron Smith now finds himself.

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by Madcap_Magician

It's very interesting that the strongest and most vehement arguments in favor of Smiths' actions seem to come from other Minnesotans on the gun boards.

Just for the record: emphatically not from this one. As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Smith is a murderer.

ETA: That said, I suspect the reason some Minnesotans think Mr. Smith's actions may have been justified is that the Minnesota laws are poorly worded; I hope this case prompts revisions that replace "taking of life" with "use of deadly force." It's an important distinction.

[steve4102]

As pointed out already, MN law says the "Taking of a Life" is justified when preventing the Commission of a felony in someones place of abode.

The question is, what constitutes "prevention"?

These are comments from another MN gun owner, any Legal basis for his "Opinion"?

If the burglary was the felony justification for the defense of dwelling, the crime is ongoing while the burglar is in the dwelling. Therefore the teens were still committing the crime until they were dead.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by steve4102

As pointed out already, MN law says the "Taking of a Life" is justified when preventing the Commission of a felony in someones place of abode.



The question is, what constitutes "prevention"?



These are comments from another MN gun owner, any Legal basis for his "Opinion"?



If the burglary was the felony justification for the defense of dwelling, the crime is ongoing while the burglar is in the dwelling. Therefore the teens were still committing the crime until they were dead.

That's a ridiculous claim. By that logic, he could have captured them and been justified in doing just about anything he wanted to them as long as he kept them in his house.

It saddens me that this situation even creates an argument. These are the actions of a calculating murderer, not a home defender.

[steve4102]

...but that's not what he did, he killed them. Was he justified in doing so according to MN Law?

He did not have to fear for his life and he did not have to stop a physical "Threat".

[OldMarksman]

Posted by steve4102:...the teens were still committing the crime until they were dead.

I think that the "reasonable persons" who will try the case would find that statement ludicrous on its very face.

More importantly, I would most assuredly not want a statement of that kind attributed to me, should I ever find myself in the position of having used deadly force against another human being.

[Gbro]

Firing a triple tap could easily be deemed reasonable, especially if you had prior training that emphasized that as a response.

Aguila Blanca, those are interesting word you added there.
And that is why i posted what i did about the double/triple tap.
AND, that is why i am interested in Smiths past State Dept. training!
And i haven't seen anything so far on any training Cmnt might have had.
As posted a while back someone thought maybe he should have a FOID card taken away, well here in Minnesota there is no requirements for any training or registration to own and use a firearm in home defense and any other legal activity related to firearms outside of the Personal Protection act (Permit to carry).
And do i think Cmnt went to far, Certainly I do, but i also was not the one walking in his shoes.
Back in 2003 one of the first Permit to carry cards that was lost by a Minnesotan was when he was defending his person and property, called 911 and then went into his house to retrieve his handgun. He put a couple of rounds into the front of his brothers car as his brother was ramming property, and then when the brother pulled away another shot was fired at the fleeing vehicle. That was a violation of the defense of life or property.
He was held to a higher standard because he was trained and failed to act within that training.

[manta49]

Posted by steve4102:...the teens were still committing the crime until they were dead.

It's that type of thinking and some trying to defend his actions that give gun owners a bad name. Ok they shouldn't have being in his house does that justify a death sentence and a self appointed executioner. I am sure there self defence shootings that people should defend the actions of the person that protected themselves this is not one of them. That's not forget that two teenagers died here they were in the wrong but most right thinking people do not like to see another person killed unless absolutely necessary. I personally would not pull the trigger unless absolutely necessary its something I would have on my conscience the rest of my life even if I had no choice.

[solvability]

The home owner was wrong. He shows a pathological psychopathic response to the threat under the color of law. I would not want him free in my community.

[sfwusc]

I know nothing about the case.

If they broke into his house, then they signed over the rights to their lives to him while they were in his house.

I don't care what he did... I would have a very hard time finding him guilty of anything if I was on the jury.

What is the moral of the story? Don't break into people's houses.

[steve4102]

Ok they shouldn't have being in his house does that justify a death sentence and a self appointed executioner. I am sure there self defence shootings that people should defend the actions of the person that protected themselves this is not one of them.

Maybe?

MN Law says that Killing may be justified in the Prevention of a Felony In one's abode. He did not need to defend himself or feel his life was in danger. MN laws says the Felony Burglary is cause for killing.

[manta49]

I know nothing about the case.

If they broke into his house, then they signed over the rights to their lives to him while they were in his house.

I don't care what he did... I would have a very hard time finding him guilty of anything if I was on the jury.

What is the moral of the story? Don't break into people's houses

You think for breaking into someone's house the person deserves to be executed. I am surprised by the callous disregard some seem to have for human life. I don't think that type of attitude does anything for the pro gun cause.

MN Law says that Killing may be justified in the Prevention of a Felony In one's abode. He did not need to defend himself or feel his life was in danger. MN laws says the Felony Burglary is cause for killing.

Maybe, but just because you have right to do something does not mean its the right thing to do.

[steve4102]

You think for breaking into someone's house the person deserves to be executed. I am surprised by the callous disregard some seem to have for human life. I don't think that type of attitude does anything for the pro gun cause.

Doesn't really matter what you or I think,it matters what the Law says.

609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.
The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.

[WyMark]

The jury will be instructed to rule on the evidence as it's presented, and only the evidence before them, and within the context of MN law. So there's probably a better than even chance that Steve is right and Smith will walk.

[steve4102]

I'm bettin Hung Jury.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by steve4102: Doesn't really matter what you or I think,it matters what the Law says.

What matters is what the law means, which is a matter for the courts, and what Smith did.

[(Quoting from the statute)]"....when necessary in...preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode."

The laws in quite a number of states provide for the use of force, and in some cases, deadly force, to prevent felonies. Not all of them limit that provision to a domicile or "place of abode." Some of them specify what kinds of felonies fall under that provision.

I am not aware of any other state in which the law justifies the "intentional taking of life" by a private citizen under any circumstance. Minnesota appears to be an outlier in that regard. One has to wonder what the legislators thought they were doing.

The key words in the statute are "necessary" and "preventing."

Smith could have argued, probably successfully, that he had been justified in shooting, to the extent that it had been necessary, to prevent a felony after the two persons had entered his home uninvited. But surely any reasonable person would conclude that, once he had stopped them, he had effectively prevented them from committing any felonies in the house. Thus, he was not justified in the further use of force of any kind.

There is, of course, some possibility that the jury, or another jury in the event that this one is unable to reach a verdict, will decide otherwise. But it is more likely that he will ultimately be convicted.

If he is, I suppose he might appeal, probably on the basis that the unusually clumsy wording in the statute somehow permitted his deliberate action. The appellate court could rule against him. That would establish case law that would clarify the meaning of the law.

Or it could rule in his favor (I am not aware whether Minnesota is one of those states in which the courts must abide by the wording in the law if the wording is reasonably clear). Should that happen, I think we can reasonably expect the legislature to amend the law to address the use of force rather than the "intentional taking of life." That has happened in at least one other state in which the highest court was forced to rule on the basis of the wording in the code.

If I were a betting man, my money would not be on Mr. Smith. His future looks very dim indeed.

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by steve4102

Doesn't really matter what you or I think,it matters what the Law says.

609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.
The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.

Keep in mind that case law (how the law has been interpreted in the past) matters as much as the law as it's written in the statute. The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled the use of deadly force under section 609.065 must be reasonable:

"There is no duty to retreat from one's own home when acting in self defense in the home, regardless of whether the aggressor is a co-resident. But the lack of a duty to retreat does not abrogate the obligation to act reasonably when using force in self-defense. Therefore, in all situations in which a party claims self-defense, even absent a duty to retreat, the key inquiry will still be into the reasonableness of the use of force and the level of force under the specific circumstances of each case." State v. Glowacki, 630 N.W.2d 392, 402 (Minn. 1991).

To justify the taking of a life, the "killing must have been done in the belief that it was necessary to avert death or grievous bodily harm"; the 'judgment of the defendant as to the gravity of the peril to which he was exposed must have been reasonable under the circumstances"; the "defendant's election to kill must have been such as a reasonable man would have made in light of the danger to be apprehended." State v. Richardson, 670 N.W.2d 267, 277-78 (Minn. 2003).

http://www.leg.state.mn.us/archive/v...veto_ch126.pdf

The wording you quote matters a lot less than how the courts have interpreted it, and it's hard to see how Mr. Smith's actions meet any standard of reasonableness.

Originally Posted by WyMark

The jury will be instructed to rule on the evidence as it's presented, and only the evidence before them, and within the context of MN law. So there's probably a better than even chance that Steve is right and Smith will walk.

The prosecuting attorneys in this case can fairly be assumed to understand Minnesota law (both statutes and case law) better than we do. Prosecutors very seldom bring charges in cases they don't think they'll win.

[steve4102]

"There is no duty to retreat from one's own home when acting in self defense in the home, regardless of whether the aggressor is a co-resident. But the lack of a duty to retreat does not abrogate the obligation to act reasonably when using force in self-defense. Therefore, in all situations in which a party claims self-defense, even absent a duty to retreat, the key inquiry will still be into the reasonableness of the use of force and the level of force under the specific circumstances of each case." State v. Glowacki, 630 N.W.2d 392, 402 (Minn. 1991).

To justify the taking of a life, the "killing must have been done in the belief that it was necessary to avert death or grievous bodily harm"; the 'judgment of the defendant as to the gravity of the peril to which he was exposed must have been reasonable under the circumstances"; the "defendant's election to kill must have been such as a reasonable man would have made in light of the danger to be apprehended." State v. Richardson, 670 N.W.2d 267, 277-78 (Minn. 2003).

This pertains to MN 609.065 as to Self Defense, yes?

According to MN Appeals Court, SD and Fear for one's life is NOT a requirement for Taking of a Life to Prevent the Commission of a Felony. So, I do not see how this applies.

According to MN case Law Smith did not have to fear for his life and he did not have claim Self Defense". The simple Felony act of the two teen was justification enough, No self defense required.

. Fear of death or great bodily harm is not an element of a "defense of dwelling" claim. Minn. Stat. § 609.065.

http://mn.gov/lawlib/archive/supct/9708/c6952162.htm

[DubbytheGreat]

While I do believe he went over the line when he finished off the intruders. I can see the defense emphasizing the age of the homeowner and the threat of multiple attackers. If the first intruder wasnt as injured as he thought he could be dealing with a 2 on 1 situation. Not to mention he had been burglarized multiple times leading up to the shooting and guns were stolen from his home. I could see how he would be extremely fearful. I wouldn't want to be on that jury. I want more facts

[OldMarksman]

Posted by steve4102: The simple Felony act of the two teen was justification enough,...

No, no, no.

One more time----The defender must have reason to believe that his action is necessary to prevent a felony in the home. NECESSARY. PREVENT.

The decedents had been disabled and could not have committed a felony.

Whether they had already committed a felony or felonies is completely irrelevant. A private citizen may not judge guilt, or establish or execute a sentence, or exact revenge.

By the way, reasonableness is a key aspect of justification in use of force law. It makes no difference on which particular section of the use of force statutes on which the appellate court ruled. The ruling in the case of an appeal under one section would almost certainly establish precedent under any other. Do you honestly believe that the courts would require the exercise of reason in acting in the fundamental human right of self defense, but not in the prevention of a felony?

One cannot rely on the wording of a single statute, taken out of context, to interpret the law. There is the entire fabric of the law; there are long standing legal principles.

Sometimes, state codes clearly set forth some of the relevant factors, and sometimes they do not. In Texas, for example, the code clearly states that verbal threats alone do not justify the use of force, deadly or otherwise; in many other states, those words are not contained in the code, and a defendant who acts otherwise will find that out the hard way.

[steve4102]

Originally Posted by OldMarksman

One more time----The defender must have reason to believe that his action is necessary to prevent a felony in the home. NECESSARY. PREVENT.

The decedents had been disabled and could not have committed a felony.

The ME has testified that Brady was not Incapacitated after shots one and two and could still be a threat.

On cross-examination, defense attorney Steven Meshbesher pointed out that before the fatal shots, both Kifer and Brady would have been able to move and could have been perceived as threats. He said Brady could have grabbed a weapon if he had one.

http://www.twincities.com/localnews/...n-murder-trial

So, whether these to were actually disabled or not is still not clear. According to the ME, prolly not.

[Tom Servo]

That said, I suspect the reason some Minnesotans think Mr. Smith's actions may have been justified is that the Minnesota laws are poorly worded

I also suspect that part of it is a "they got what they deserved" bit of confirmation bias. We're certainly seeing no shortage of it in this thread.

The problem is, what they did or didn't deserve wasn't Smith's call to make. If it were, I'd truly fear for us as a society. If I'm reading the Minnesota statutes correctly, Smith may have a defense.

In any case, expect calls to change that law if he walks.

[Evan Thomas]

According to MN Appeals Court, SD and Fear for one's life is NOT a requirement for Taking of a Life to Prevent the Commission of a Felony. So, I do not see how this applies.

According to MN case Law Smith did not have to fear for his life and he did not have claim Self Defense". The simple Felony act of the two teen was justification enough

Please to cite the case (not the statute) on which you're basing this claim.

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

If I'm reading the Minnesota statutes correctly, Smith may have a defense.

The case law does stress that even under MN 609.065, the force used by a defender must meet the "reasonable man" test relative to the danger the defender faces; I don't think executing an injured person meets that test anywhere, and Minnesotans, by and large, are a pretty reasonable lot.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by steve4102: On cross-examination, defense attorney Steven Meshbesher pointed out that before the fatal shots, both Kifer and Brady would have been able to move and could have been perceived as threats. He said Brady could have grabbed a weapon if he had one.

And a statement by an attorney advocating for the defendant tells us what?

[steve4102]

^^^

Sorry, does not the link to MN Appeals court provided in my post suffice?

Here it is again.

http://mn.gov/lawlib/archive/supct/9708/c6952162.htm

S Y L L A B U S

1. Fear of death or great bodily harm is not an element of a "defense of dwelling" claim. Minn. Stat. § 609.065.

2. Jury instructions that required the jury to find that the defendant feared great bodily harm or death to justify his use of deadly force in preventing the commission of a felony in his place of abode were in error, and the error was not harmless.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Heard, considered and decided by the court en banc.

O P I N I O N

GARDEBRING, Justice.

This case presents the issue of whether the standard jury instructions for "defense of dwelling," given in this case, improperly require that the defendant must have feared great bodily harm or death to justify his use of deadly force in defending his home.

Akeem Pendleton was charged with attempted second-degree murder, Minn. Stat. § 609.17 (1996), Minn. Stat. § 609.19(1) (1992) and first- and second-degree assault, Minn. Stat. §§ 609.221 and 609.222, subd. 2 (1996), in the December 10, 1994 shooting of Tony Caine. At trial, Pendleton claimed the shooting was in self defense, or in the alternative, in defense of his home. He requested that the standard jury instructions on self defense be modified to make clear that the fear of great bodily harm or death required for a self defense claim was not an element of a claim of "defense of dwelling." The trial court refused, and gave the standard jury instructions, which include the fear of great bodily harm or death element for both "defense of dwelling" and self defense. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on the first- and second-degree assault charges and not guilty on the attempted second-degree murder charge.