Man shoots teen burglars in basement (MN) - now on trial

FrankBauer

weirder still, i dont believe he was trying to hide anything. he claimed he didnt want to call the cops on thanksgiving night and instead reported the breakin/deaths the next day. he couldve painted a different story...one less incriminating...at least setting something up that makes it look like it was self defense (say like one of the kids grabbed a kitchen knife when they heard him). the police also has all his audio tapes (bc he bugged his own house)...whether or not this information was given up voluntarily or not, he couldve destroyed the tapes at least. its just a strange situation all around.

Cosmo said:

...
Again, we agree. There are hundreds of scenarios he could have considered. One of them being, calling 911 as soon as he heard them outside his home. This would have alerted authorities and brought them on scene. Scared them off with blast of his rifle when they were still outside. If he was so worried about future break-ins... Costco sells security camera systems to record them in the act, evidence for the police to handle.
But, yeah... they were subdued and not a threat. It is difficult to hide behind the 'Fearing for my life' defense when you are the only one with a gun and the perpetrators are wounded and laying on the floor.

Cosmo

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Cosmo said:

unsung said:

Cosmo said:

unsung said:

I fully support his right to defend his property with whatever force will stop the threat.
Once the threat has been eliminated/incapacitated he should have called 911. But he didn't.

...
Hey... we agree!!!
He could have done a lot of things differently... rather than laying in wait. Executing the girl and trying to claim compassion for her suffering... no. Excution is execution.

I have no issue with him waiting. My issue is if he shot them and they were alive but not a threat he should have called 911. It appears he didn't make the call until after he shot them again, and it appears he executed them.

I'd only shoot to end the threat, I wouldn't aim to wound. He wounded to where they could do him no harm, but he didn't stop.

...
Again, we agree. There are hundreds of scenarios he could have considered. One of them being, calling 911 as soon as he heard them outside his home. This would have alerted authorities and brought them on scene. Scared them off with blast of his rifle when they were still outside. If he was so worried about future break-ins... Costco sells security camera systems to record them in the act, evidence for the police to handle.
But, yeah... they were subdued and not a threat. It is difficult to hide behind the 'Fearing for my life' defense when you are the only one with a gun and the perpetrators are wounded and laying on the floor.

I'm not disagreeing with you on the use of excessive force- in particular when the intruders were definitely subdued. But, I don't get the sense form your posts that you feel the youths may have had a bit of a hand in this scenario. He didn't 'go looking for trouble'. He was in his own home and feeling insecure in it as well given the recent break-ins.

It's pretty easy to dismiss his fear from afar and safely removed from the situation. Of course things could have been different... like... the kids could have found other leisure pursuits. Getting shot while breaking into someone's home is a distinct possibility.

This one is difficult to definitively assess.

...
I'm not relenquishing responsibility from those kids... they would not be dead if they were not in his home. They have a large role in this thing.
I'm just saying that there were a lot of different options available, than the option that was chosen. The option to execute them while they lay wounded was a poor option... in my opinion. He is trying to make it sound like an act of compassion by putting them out of their misery... like you would do to a dog or coyote. The thing he should have with that logic was, they were not dogs or coyotes.

unsung

I'm the first one that will say that I will shoot someone for breaking into my house. I don't know what their intent is and I won't give them the chance to show me. I am pro gun and pro self-defense.

That said if I shot someone and they were no longer a threat I would call 911 and start CPR until an ambulance got there.

You don't "finish them off".

josevolution

unsung said:

josevolution said:

He def could of shot a warning shot or called for help as soon as he heard the breaking of window with that being said when you decide to brake into someone's house you should be expecting repercussions i chalk this up to Idiocy ......

A warning shot? Seriously?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fla-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots/

Yeah i'm naive so i guess the only way is to actually shoot to kill ....

Cosmo

unsung said:

I'm the first one that will say that I will shoot someone for breaking into my house. I don't know what their intent is and I won't give them the chance to show me. I am pro gun and pro self-defense.

That said if I shot someone and they were no longer a threat I would call 911 and start CPR until an ambulance got there.

You don't "finish them off".

...
And guess what? I'd support your stance.
I support your 2nd Amendment right to own a gun... and I support your right to use whatever force is required to stop an intruder in your home.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Cosmo said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Cosmo said:

unsung said:

Cosmo said:

unsung said:

I fully support his right to defend his property with whatever force will stop the threat.
Once the threat has been eliminated/incapacitated he should have called 911. But he didn't.

...
Hey... we agree!!!
He could have done a lot of things differently... rather than laying in wait. Executing the girl and trying to claim compassion for her suffering... no. Excution is execution.

I have no issue with him waiting. My issue is if he shot them and they were alive but not a threat he should have called 911. It appears he didn't make the call until after he shot them again, and it appears he executed them.

I'd only shoot to end the threat, I wouldn't aim to wound. He wounded to where they could do him no harm, but he didn't stop.

...
Again, we agree. There are hundreds of scenarios he could have considered. One of them being, calling 911 as soon as he heard them outside his home. This would have alerted authorities and brought them on scene. Scared them off with blast of his rifle when they were still outside. If he was so worried about future break-ins... Costco sells security camera systems to record them in the act, evidence for the police to handle.
But, yeah... they were subdued and not a threat. It is difficult to hide behind the 'Fearing for my life' defense when you are the only one with a gun and the perpetrators are wounded and laying on the floor.

I'm not disagreeing with you on the use of excessive force- in particular when the intruders were definitely subdued. But, I don't get the sense form your posts that you feel the youths may have had a bit of a hand in this scenario. He didn't 'go looking for trouble'. He was in his own home and feeling insecure in it as well given the recent break-ins.

It's pretty easy to dismiss his fear from afar and safely removed from the situation. Of course things could have been different... like... the kids could have found other leisure pursuits. Getting shot while breaking into someone's home is a distinct possibility.

This one is difficult to definitively assess.

...
I'm not relenquishing responsibility from those kids... they would not be dead if they were not in his home. They have a large role in this thing.
I'm just saying that there were a lot of different options available, than the option that was chosen. The option to execute them while they lay wounded was a poor option... in my opinion. He is trying to make it sound like an act of compassion by putting them out of their misery... like you would do to a dog or coyote. The thing he should have with that logic was, they were not dogs or coyotes.

Agreed.

But we have the luxury of hindsight. Caught in the moment, things would have been much more unclear.

Again, I'm not absolving him of anything- I'm just saying things must have been chaotic.

Cosmo

josevolution said:

unsung said:

josevolution said:

He def could of shot a warning shot or called for help as soon as he heard the breaking of window with that being said when you decide to brake into someone's house you should be expecting repercussions i chalk this up to Idiocy ......

A warning shot? Seriously?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fla-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots/

Yeah i'm naive so i guess the only way is to actually shoot to kill ....

...
Along with gun ownership comes grave responsibility.
If you decide to point a gun at someone... even an intruder in your home... you should have already come to the realization that you are ready to pull the trigger and face all of the consequences that come with that action. You accept respnsibility and accountability for your actions and decisions. That is why a responsible gun owner will use the gun option only after all other options are off the table.
It does not mean you HAVE to shoot to kill... it just means that decision to shoot to kill has to be factored in when you first decide to draw your weapon.

goingtoverona

when I took my carry conceal class, the instructor didn't come right out and say it, but subtly hinted that it's better to shoot and kill than to shoot and wound because people can,have, and will sue you for getting injured in your home.
i'm pretty sure but not positive that not rendering aid to someone you just shot is the wisest thing to do because if any of your actions (cpr or ar) cause more damage, you could be sued for bodily harm or something like that.

most of those suits lose or get thrown out, but just having to get a lawyer and deal with all the legal bull shit sucks and is expensive.

g under p

"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. Smith put Brady's body on a tarp so he wouldn't get blood on his carpet, dragged it into his workshop, reloaded his rifle and sat down again, the prosecutor said.

A few minutes later, Kifer walked down the stairs and Smith shot her, Wartner said. His rifle jammed when he tried a second shot, and Smith told police he believed Kifer laughed at him.

"He was angry," Wartner said, then describing that Smith pulled out his revolver and shot her twice in the head, once in the left eye and once behind the left ear.

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."

Just tuning into this story and sounds like something from a movie.

What the hell got into this guy. He committed a crime somewhere in that house.

This was an execution. By his own admission, the girl posed absolutely no threat to him when she was executed.

Peace

EarlWelsh

g under p said:

"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. Smith put Brady's body on a tarp so he wouldn't get blood on his carpet, dragged it into his workshop, reloaded his rifle and sat down again, the prosecutor said.

A few minutes later, Kifer walked down the stairs and Smith shot her, Wartner said. His rifle jammed when he tried a second shot, and Smith told police he believed Kifer laughed at him.

"He was angry," Wartner said, then describing that Smith pulled out his revolver and shot her twice in the head, once in the left eye and once behind the left ear.

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."

Just tuning into this story and sounds like something from a movie.

What the hell got into this guy. He committed a crime somewhere in that house.

This was an execution. By his own admission, the girl posed absolutely no threat to him when she was executed.

Peace

But she laughed at him, dude! @-)

callen

unsung said:

I'm the first one that will say that I will shoot someone for breaking into my house. I don't know what their intent is and I won't give them the chance to show me. I am pro gun and pro self-defense.

That said if I shot someone and they were no longer a threat I would call 911 and start CPR until an ambulance got there.

You don't "finish them off".

Fair enough.

callen

goingtoverona said:

when I took my carry conceal class, the instructor didn't come right out and say it, but subtly hinted that it's better to shoot and kill than to shoot and wound because people can,have, and will sue you for getting injured in your home.
i'm pretty sure but not positive that not rendering aid to someone you just shot is the wisest thing to do because if any of your actions (cpr or ar) cause more damage, you could be sued for bodily harm or something like that.

most of those suits lose or get thrown out, but just having to get a lawyer and deal with all the legal bull shit sucks and is expensive.

That's fucked up but don't think that's why you shoot to kill. Unsung?

Cosmo

goingtoverona said:

when I took my carry conceal class, the instructor didn't come right out and say it, but subtly hinted that it's better to shoot and kill than to shoot and wound because people can,have, and will sue you for getting injured in your home.
i'm pretty sure but not positive that not rendering aid to someone you just shot is the wisest thing to do because if any of your actions (cpr or ar) cause more damage, you could be sued for bodily harm or something like that.

most of those suits lose or get thrown out, but just having to get a lawyer and deal with all the legal bull shit sucks and is expensive.

...
That is true... but, it does not stop their family from suing you for wrongful death.
That is why you really need to condition yourself to already be prepared to face all of the possible consequences of pulling the trigger, including the real fact that you may have to face losing your freedom in a court room. The gun should not be the first line of defense. It is basically, the nuclear option and demands a hell of a lot of consideration beforehand.

vant0037

unsung said:

I fully support his right to defend his property with whatever force will stop the threat.

Once the threat has been eliminated/incapacitated he should have called 911. But he didn't.

Whoa. We agree. After the first shot was fired on the young man, the threat was neutralized and police should've been called. That's exactly what the focus of this trial is.

If you follow the entire trial, there have been lots of details released. Just a really creepy situation.

The county attorney in my county is prosecuting this one (Little Falls is 2-3 hours away from the Twin Cities), so I hope to get the full details after. Expected to finish early next week.

unsung

callen said:

goingtoverona said:

when I took my carry conceal class, the instructor didn't come right out and say it, but subtly hinted that it's better to shoot and kill than to shoot and wound because people can,have, and will sue you for getting injured in your home.
i'm pretty sure but not positive that not rendering aid to someone you just shot is the wisest thing to do because if any of your actions (cpr or ar) cause more damage, you could be sued for bodily harm or something like that.

most of those suits lose or get thrown out, but just having to get a lawyer and deal with all the legal bull shit sucks and is expensive.

That's fucked up but don't think that's why you shoot to kill. Unsung?

Your shot should be a well placed center mass, which generally is the area of the heart.

In the heat of things and with the adrenaline pumping it isn't the easiest thing to do.

But yes, you don't shoot someone with intent to injure.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Cosmo said:

goingtoverona said:

when I took my carry conceal class, the instructor didn't come right out and say it, but subtly hinted that it's better to shoot and kill than to shoot and wound because people can,have, and will sue you for getting injured in your home.
i'm pretty sure but not positive that not rendering aid to someone you just shot is the wisest thing to do because if any of your actions (cpr or ar) cause more damage, you could be sued for bodily harm or something like that.

most of those suits lose or get thrown out, but just having to get a lawyer and deal with all the legal bull shit sucks and is expensive.

...
That is true... but, it does not stop their family from suing you for wrongful death.
That is why you really need to condition yourself to already be prepared to face all of the possible consequences of pulling the trigger, including the real fact that you may have to face losing your freedom in a court room. The gun should not be the first line of defense. It is basically, the nuclear option and demands a hell of a lot of consideration beforehand.

His locked doors and windows were his first line of defence, Cosmo. I don't have a problem with him using his weapon against people who had broken into the sanctity of his house. I have a problem with him using his weapon after his intruders had been subdued- in particular... the young girl.

He may have felt that he was still in danger with the male. Being older and weaker than the young man who may have looked like he still had some fight left in him. The girl, on the other hand, deserved better than what she got. She likely could have been scared out of the house with a showing of the weapon upon coming down the stairs before he shot her the first time. The second time he shot her was not so much for fear as it was for anger and frustration. Incredulously, he had a third opportunity to be merciful, but he seemed determined to put an end to the incident.

As bad a decision that breaking into the home was, I am still puzzled why the girl came down the stairs? Clearly time had elapsed (the body of the male was dragged away). Clearly something had gone very badly. Why was she so brazen to confront what she likely knew she was to find?

Jason P

My friend in once heard someone entering his house. He had a .357 magnum and swung around the corner and yelled for the person to freeze ... turns out it was a drunk person in town to visit his neighbor and drunkenly entered the wrong house. He said it he was very close to pulling the trigger and he had to down a half bottle of whiskey to calm his nerves to comprehend what almost could have happened.

Shooting for the kill is not always the best strategy unless you make positive ID on the threat.

JonnyPistachio

Wow, I just cant get over the fact that this guy said to the authorities that he thought the girl laughed at him so he shot her again. He really just wants to go to jail I think. It really does sound like something out of a movie. This guy is mentally unbalanced... and used to work security jobs in our government ahaha

Jason P

A sound home defense strategy is a shotgun with the first round being rock salt. If a perpertrater doesn't get the message after the first round, then go Dirty Harry on them.

It can prevent a horrible mistake and still offer fine home protection.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Some of my questions have been answered with the following dialogue introduced in court (from audio clips taken from the house):

“Nick,” said the voice before another gunshot is fired and Kifer is heard tumbling down the stairs.

“Oh, sorry about that,” Smith says.

“Oh my God!” the teen screams.

“You’re dying,” Smith tells her as more gunfire erupts. “B---h.”

The sound of another body getting dragged can be heard in the crystal-clear audio clip before Smith speaks to his victim again.

“B---h,” he says, before firing another round.


This is disturbing news and not as complicated as I had initially thought. While I typically feel very little for hardened criminals who reap what they sow... I am saddened by the cold, callous actions of this man who needed to demonstrate even the most remote level of decency for two kids who, in reality, were more mischievous than criminally inclined.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/jury-listens-chilling-audio-minnesota-man-fatally-shooting-teen-intruders-article-1.1765846

In all aspects of life, the adults are typically the ones that demonstrate patience and understanding for our youth sector given we have the benefit of experience to draw from- treatment all adults have had the benefit of enjoying as youths. We anticipate kids making mistakes and we help them grow from these mistakes. There was no opportunity for these kids to learn from this though: in their foolishness, they crossed paths with a man very prepared for them.

While I can still understand Smith shooting the young man. I cannot understand shooting the young girl- especially degrading her, gloating over his accomplishment, and then 'finishing her off'.