i don't hunt, but isn't what this man did basically the same thing deer hunters do? scout and find a spot where deer are known to appear, then just sit and wait? i don't at all condone what these kids did, but this man wasn't protecting himself, he was hunting.
hunting in his own house ? after mulitpul break in's ? you'd have hard time proving that in court.
Godfather.
I agree. Although I get the deer stand analogy, this guy wasn't exactly 'lying in wait' inside his own home considering he had been reduced to wearing a sidearm and fearing another break in for some time prior to that evening.
I believe the guy was fearful for another break in, prepared for one, and encountered one. I saw pictures of his home and it was isolated- not offering the piece of mind that having good neighbours sometimes brings.
We shouldn't discount the type of stress that likely played with the guy's mind. I would think the emotions generated when forced to deal with the previous break ins, the mounting tension as he braced for another, and the stress of the moment placed this guy in a mindset that is hard to define or understand from our sofas.
Don't get me wrong, he clearly needed to check himself before murdering the young woman. I'm just saying the old guy was pushed into a corner and we don't like how he responded. Maybe he shouldn't have been pushed there?
agreed, some people react differently than others say they would and to put his gun under the guy's chin and end it with a good clean kill shot tells me he was either very pist or very scard that if they lived they might come back and kill him, I have to see it this way; if a person or persons break into a home they are taking a huge risk and something like this could happen to themso the real moral of the story is "if ain't yours dont mess with it".
build a bonfire, spotlights/motion sensor lights, play music over outdoor speakers mounted 30 ft up trees, get large dogs, paint your house camoflauge or & with pink stripes or & polkadots & moonbeams, dig a moat, constantine wire your fucking shit, dude, have frankenstein over to use your small ass bathroom & let him sleep in your little shed, have 19 clowns park their rather economical little car in your driveway & they'll be your security team
!!this guy is a fucking asshole!!
seems to me he very easily could have prevented more break-ins but he didn't.
A country dance was being held in a garden I felt a bump and heard an "Oh, beg your pardon" Suddenly I saw polka dots and moonbeams All around a pug-nosed dream
The music started and was I the perplexed one I held my breath and said "May I have the next one?" In my frightened arms, polka dots and moonbeams Sparkled on a pug-nosed dream
There were questions in the eyes of other dancers As we floated over the floor There were questions but my heart knew all the answers And perhaps a few things more
Now in a cottage built of lilacs and laughter I know the meaning of the words "Ever after" And I'll always see polka dots and moonbeams When I kiss the pug-nosed dream
build a bonfire, spotlights/motion sensor lights, play music over outdoor speakers mounted 30 ft up trees, get large dogs, paint your house camoflauge or & with pink stripes or & polkadots & moonbeams, dig a moat, constantine wire your fucking shit, dude, have frankenstein over to use your small ass bathroom & let him sleep in your little shed, have 19 clowns park their rather economical little car in your driveway & they'll be your security team
!!this guy is a fucking asshole!!
seems to me he very easily could have prevented more break-ins but he didn't.
they(the dead burglers) could have very easily made a wiser choice other than to break into a mans home but because they did not make that wiser choice they are dead and it ends there, if the punks had killed the old man would you demand their life's in some fashion or another ? what ever the old man ends up with in court matters not to the burglers...because they're dead.
btw has anybody read if these dead douch bags had drug habbits they were trying to support ? or were they just a few people that made bad choices in life ?
also isn't sad that someone would have to ">build a bonfire, spotlights/motion sensor lights, play music over outdoor speakers mounted 30 ft up trees, get large dogs, paint your house camoflauge or & with pink stripes or & polkadots & moonbeams, dig a moat, constantine wire your fucking shit, dude, have frankenstein over to use your small ass bathroom & let him sleep in your little shed, have 19 clowns park their rather economical little car in your driveway & they'll be your security team......just to feel safe in thier own home ?
yep he executed them because he was terrified the kids would come back & kill him ..... wow!
question - paint chips & mercury
do you think this old asshole eats paint chips & breaks thermometers for the mercury to smoke in his old guy pipe?
murdering somone just because they break into your house is ridiculous. your guy here is going to prison for being a dipshit
Chadwick...
We know of several home invasions that have not gone well at all for the homeowners- one, in particular, has bothered both you and I extensively.
I think it's unreasonable for a homeowner, inside his own home, to ascertain intent before applying deadly force. We are all making assumptions that if the kids had encountered the man inside the home and the man was not prepared to use force, that things would have finished much more pleasantly. They likely would have, but expecting the old man to make that assumption at the point of conflict is unreasonable- he had no idea where things would get to if he tried to plead with the intruders to leave peacefully.
The kids had no business being inside that home and as such... they played a deadly game. If they had broken into your home or mine... they would have fared better. As it was though, they broke into a home owned by an old man who lived by himself and was scared given his experiences.
Again, this all fell down for the old guy when he dealt with the young girl: he went from victim acting as the law affords to being a murderer.
thirty i think the old man had an idea where things would get to when he parked his car a few houses down the street
The whole world will be different soon... - EV
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
thirty i think the old man had an idea where things would get to when he parked his car a few houses down the street
This is one aspect of the story that certainly lends evidence towards the idea of him lying in wait. I wouldn't go so far to say that he invited the intruders though and it doesn't discount the fact that this was a home invasion.
Realistically, upon hearing the first noises, the guy should have called the cops, raced to the noise, flashed his weapon, and growled at the kids. I'm as disappointed as anyone for the way things went down. Based on what I have read, I feel he is guilty of murder.
I just have a difficult time blaming him for the entire situation. We can criticize him for not placing cameras up or for anticipating a break in, but the bottom line is none of this would have happened if the kids had not broke into his house.
I'm not sure if it has been determined whether or not these were the same people who had previously broke into his place or not. If it was indeed them... then they had a serious lack of judgement. It's one thing to brazenly break into a home... it's quite another to keep coming back to the same home with the assumption things were not being done within that home to deal with the recurring situation.
yep he executed them because he was terrified the kids would come back & kill him ..... wow!
question - paint chips & mercury
do you think this old asshole eats paint chips & breaks thermometers for the mercury to smoke in his old guy pipe?
murdering somone just because they break into your house is ridiculous. your guy here is going to prison for being a dipshit
my guy ?...not so much but his right to defend himself is something I believe in strongly and if the evedience in court states he is guilty of murder then he will be delt with according to the laws of that state and federal guide lines if I like it or not...or if you like it or not (remember the Trayvon Martin case ?),if I expected to be burgerlized (again) as he did I would prepare myself because the police will not respond until a crime has been commited and by that time the old man could very well be dead. it's a shame these kids are dead but they played a game that had this possible outcome and maybe they didn't take this ending into concideration because they were "stupid bored kid's" but the old man knew well what could happen to him if he did not prepare himself but either way I have to believe these kid's knew better but like kid's will sometimes do they made the wrong choice.
yeah paint chips & mercury... the old man eats paint chips off old farm houses & smokes mercury in his corn cob old man pipe
this old ass is more bored than the teenagers. now he will spend some quality grumpy & miserable old man time behind bars
i can hear him now, "get off my lawn you whipper - snappers" as he has been on his front porch lying in wait for them since 3:50am. quite a number of old ppl don't sleep much, therefore, they are grouchy & some are obviously trigger happy little clowns
If he was so scared what is he doing there waiting for them? All the excuses in the world can be made to justify it, this guy was waiting to murder like a kid trying to catch santa clause. He has enough forethought to bug his home (did a good job too, can't have been super easy) but he doesn't think to buy or even borrow a large dog to scare away and protect? He doesn't think to install a good security system and create a saferoom? NO! He thought of those things and decided against them in favor of getting even with a gun. The tapes say it all. I am so sad to live in a world where "private property" is worth more than a life.
If he was so scared what is he doing there waiting for them? All the excuses in the world can be made to justify it, this guy was waiting to murder like a kid trying to catch santa clause. He has enough forethought to bug his home (did a good job too, can't have been super easy) but he doesn't think to buy or even borrow a large dog to scare away and protect? He doesn't think to install a good security system and create a saferoom? NO! He thought of those things and decided against them in favor of getting even with a gun. The tapes say it all. I am so sad to live in a world where "private property" is worth more than a life.
Your suggestions for good precautionary measures are sound suggestions and ones most on here would take in the event we found ourselves continually broken into. I'm not so sure about designing a safe room though so that one can hide inside their own home. Private property is definitely worth more than a life, but as a husband and father of two... I can tell you that if someone broke into my home... while my family was sleeping... I would not be playing 20 questions to ascertain 'intent'. My 3 iron would be placed into action and my concern would not be for the personal well-being of the intruders. I would not be collecting everyone and hushing us into the bathroom to tremble, cry and hope everything goes well.
"I would not be playing 20 questions to ascertain 'intent'. My 3 iron would be placed into action and my concern would not be for the personal well-being of the intruders. I would not be collecting everyone and hushing us into the bathroom to tremble, cry and hope everything goes well."
I mentioned something similar about intent earlier in the thread. I have no idea what my state of mind would be after multiple break-ins; I've never experienced one myself but can imagine that sense of violation. Self-protection and vengeance are two different things - seems like (and is there any disagreement here about this?) he demonstrated both and will / should deal with those consequences.
Thirty Bills - as to your last sentence, it reminded me of the folks who called 911 from the bathroom while their cat went nuts
If he was so scared what is he doing there waiting for them? All the excuses in the world can be made to justify it, this guy was waiting to murder like a kid trying to catch santa clause. He has enough forethought to bug his home (did a good job too, can't have been super easy) but he doesn't think to buy or even borrow a large dog to scare away and protect? He doesn't think to install a good security system and create a saferoom? NO! He thought of those things and decided against them in favor of getting even with a gun. The tapes say it all. I am so sad to live in a world where "private property" is worth more than a life.
Your suggestions for good precautionary measures are sound suggestions and ones most on here would take in the event we found ourselves continually broken into. I'm not so sure about designing a safe room though so that one can hide inside their own home. Private property is definitely worth more than a life, but as a husband and father of two... I can tell you that if someone broke into my home... while my family was sleeping... I would not be playing 20 questions to ascertain 'intent'. My 3 iron would be placed into action and my concern would not be for the personal well-being of the intruders. I would not be collecting everyone and hushing us into the bathroom to tremble, cry and hope everything goes well.
I think most everyone will agree that he murdered the female.
In deciding if Smith also murdered the male, it's interesting to note his injuries. Smith stated that he saw the male's lower half when he shot. The male fell then. There were three shots total (the first that knocked him down), two of which went through his fingers. It's speculation, but two of those three shots sound like a hand was raised in defense. If it's true that the male was on the ground/stairs ("fallen") when those second and third shots were fired and they went through his hands (because they were raised in front of him, it's a stretch to say that the kid was still a threat. I think that's where I'd draw the line.
Knowing what we know, Smith was probably justified in taking that first shot. But once the guy is down, Smith probably should've called the police.
As far as the victims' backgrounds, yeah, they were drug-seeking burglars. If the facts show that Smith didn't act in self-defense, the type of lives these kids were leading is irrelevant.
I think it's a closer call with the male, but I think after that first shot, its unreasonable to believe - given what we know about the injuries and Smith's behavior that day - to think he was acting in self-defense.
Just my take.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
I think most everyone will agree that he murdered the female.
In deciding if Smith also murdered the male, it's interesting to note his injuries. Smith stated that he saw the male's lower half when he shot. The male fell then. There were three shots total (the first that knocked him down), two of which went through his fingers. It's speculation, but two of those three shots sound like a hand was raised in defense. If it's true that the male was on the ground/stairs ("fallen") when those second and third shots were fired and they went through his hands (because they were raised in front of him, it's a stretch to say that the kid was still a threat. I think that's where I'd draw the line.
Knowing what we know, Smith was probably justified in taking that first shot. But once the guy is down, Smith probably should've called the police.
As far as the victims' backgrounds, yeah, they were drug-seeking burglars. If the facts show that Smith didn't act in self-defense, the type of lives these kids were leading is irrelevant.
I think it's a closer call with the male, but I think after that first shot, its unreasonable to believe - given what we know about the injuries and Smith's behavior that day - to think he was acting in self-defense.
Just my take.
Van...
Your take is a very important one.
Knowing there was another intruder in the house... could an argument be made that Smith was acting in his defence and unwilling to take any chances with a wounded assailant and another one still at large?
Remember... the gun was a .22. These guns aren't exactly known for their ability to take down an elephant. Barring a fatal shot to the head or heart, a strong person- such as this young male- could recover to some degree and create more problems.
I think what would be important to know is how close Smith was to the male. If he had assumed his first shot would have incapacitated his assailant... then discovered he was very conscious... and then fired two more shots from where he was while the boy had his hands up to shield himself from the shots... I think that would be different than walking up to the kid, placing a gun to his temple, and executing him.
"I would not be playing 20 questions to ascertain 'intent'. My 3 iron would be placed into action and my concern would not be for the personal well-being of the intruders. I would not be collecting everyone and hushing us into the bathroom to tremble, cry and hope everything goes well."
I mentioned something similar about intent earlier in the thread. I have no idea what my state of mind would be after multiple break-ins; I've never experienced one myself but can imagine that sense of violation. Self-protection and vengeance are two different things - seems like (and is there any disagreement here about this?) he demonstrated both and will / should deal with those consequences.
Thirty Bills - as to your last sentence, it reminded me of the folks who called 911 from the bathroom while their cat went nuts
This statement succinctly describes the situation: Self-protection and vengeance are two different things - seems like (and is there any disagreement here about this?) he demonstrated both and will / should deal with those consequences.
If he was so scared what is he doing there waiting for them? All the excuses in the world can be made to justify it, this guy was waiting to murder like a kid trying to catch santa clause. He has enough forethought to bug his home (did a good job too, can't have been super easy) but he doesn't think to buy or even borrow a large dog to scare away and protect? He doesn't think to install a good security system and create a saferoom? NO! He thought of those things and decided against them in favor of getting even with a gun. The tapes say it all. I am so sad to live in a world where "private property" is worth more than a life.
Your suggestions for good precautionary measures are sound suggestions and ones most on here would take in the event we found ourselves continually broken into. I'm not so sure about designing a safe room though so that one can hide inside their own home. Private property is definitely worth more than a life, but as a husband and father of two... I can tell you that if someone broke into my home... while my family was sleeping... I would not be playing 20 questions to ascertain 'intent'. My 3 iron would be placed into action and my concern would not be for the personal well-being of the intruders. I would not be collecting everyone and hushing us into the bathroom to tremble, cry and hope everything goes well.
What? No AR-15 for you?
Peace.
No way, man.
Peace to you!
* By the way... I love Halifax. I've been there three times for basketball and the vibe there is really cool. Great people. Beautiful city. I plan to go back to enjoy versus caught up in competition.
If he was so scared what is he doing there waiting for them? All the excuses in the world can be made to justify it, this guy was waiting to murder like a kid trying to catch santa clause. He has enough forethought to bug his home (did a good job too, can't have been super easy) but he doesn't think to buy or even borrow a large dog to scare away and protect? He doesn't think to install a good security system and create a saferoom? NO! He thought of those things and decided against them in favor of getting even with a gun. The tapes say it all. I am so sad to live in a world where "private property" is worth more than a life.
Your suggestions for good precautionary measures are sound suggestions and ones most on here would take in the event we found ourselves continually broken into. I'm not so sure about designing a safe room though so that one can hide inside their own home. Private property is definitely worth more than a life, but as a husband and father of two... I can tell you that if someone broke into my home... while my family was sleeping... I would not be playing 20 questions to ascertain 'intent'. My 3 iron would be placed into action and my concern would not be for the personal well-being of the intruders. I would not be collecting everyone and hushing us into the bathroom to tremble, cry and hope everything goes well.
What? No AR-15 for you?
Peace.
No way, man.
Peace to you!
* By the way... I love Halifax. I've been there three times for basketball and the vibe there is really cool. Great people. Beautiful city. I plan to go back to enjoy versus caught up in competition.
Yes, Halifax is an awesome place. Would love to go back and see Pearl Jam there again but who knows if they'll ever do another tour again, unless its festival shows I guess.
Again, from my perspective, as others here have stated, he could have done a number of things prior to resorting to using a firearm. A dog chained to the porch with enough line to protect all accessible windows, his car in the driveway, lights on motion sensors and timers, a dog in the house. How many people break into houses with a barking dog? Lying in wait? How about being on the phone to the police as soon as he heard someone on the porch? Still with his gun but on the phone and shouting to the intruders that he was on the phone with the cops? If they continued to advance, fire a shot but after they were no longer a threat, executing them? He should do serious time if he's found guilty. I also wonder how often he complained to local law enforcement and requested additional patrols in his neighborhood or spoke with his neighbors about keeping an eye out, etc.
Knowing there was another intruder in the house... could an argument be made that Smith was acting in his defence and unwilling to take any chances with a wounded assailant and another one still at large?
Remember... the gun was a .22. These guns aren't exactly known for their ability to take down an elephant. Barring a fatal shot to the head or heart, a strong person- such as this young male- could recover to some degree and create more problems.
I think what would be important to know is how close Smith was to the male. If he had assumed his first shot would have incapacitated his assailant... then discovered he was very conscious... and then fired two more shots from where he was while the boy had his hands up to shield himself from the shots... I think that would be different than walking up to the kid, placing a gun to his temple, and executing him.
He has to show that what he did was reasonable, so I'm not sure an argument that "I was unwilling to take chances" really proves much. For instance, a paranoid person might be far less willing to take chances than a reasonably prudent person. Even if it's true that he was unwilling to take chances doesn't make what he did, in light of everything else we know, any more or less reasonable.
I think it's a tough sell that what he did was reasonable if you take all the facts together. He was probably lying in wait (he moved his car, he was sitting in direct view of the door with a gun etc). The victim was on his back, likely with his hands up by the 2nd and 3rd shots (injuries to fingers, shots to head at close range etc). There was approximately 5-10 minutes between shooting the guy and the girl.
Put all that together, it's hard to say that (1) it was reasonable to shoot the girl (but no one's really disputing that), and if we believe his statements to police, (2) that it was also reasonable to shoot the guy.
Like I said, I think the law probably entitled him, even with the creepy statements on tape and the moving of his car beforehand, to shoot once, maybe even twice at the boy. But if the forensics are showing that the boy was shot while on his back, with his hands raised at close range (which it looks like they are) it's tough to argue that the kid was still a legitimate threat OR that he couldn't have called the police first. Both of which would be factors a jury might consider in deciding if it's reasonable or not for Smith to act as he did. I'm very confident that the jury will discuss that latter fact/speculation ("why didn't he call the police right away?") during their deliberation.
All that goes to reasonableness, which is the essence of self-defense. One shot might have been reasonable. I think the facts are showing that anything beyond that wasn't.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
You can only get away with stuff like this if you live in Florida. Luckily for society, he did this in Minnesota.
anyone from florida care to fill us in a bit?
hello?
Yes, its a fact that Florida happens to be jealous of this case chadwick. This man would get away with it if he were in my fine state. Then again, he probably would've shot the kid as he set foot on his property if this had happened in FLA. But we don't have basements.
If you just look at the many things this guy did-- parking down the street and not calling the cops for a whole day. Its obvious he's got a screw loose.
However, I will say that my house was burglarized a few years ago in the middle of the night. Luckily I wasnt home. But immediately after the burlgary, I was angry as hell and wished I had a chance to defend my stuff. I wanted revenge to be honest. I thought about finding the guy who did it. Then after my insurance took care of some of it, and I replaced a few things, I just got sad that I ever dreamed of revenge. Its just stuff. And the guy who robbed my house ended up in jail for something else a year later.
Knowing there was another intruder in the house... could an argument be made that Smith was acting in his defence and unwilling to take any chances with a wounded assailant and another one still at large?
Remember... the gun was a .22. These guns aren't exactly known for their ability to take down an elephant. Barring a fatal shot to the head or heart, a strong person- such as this young male- could recover to some degree and create more problems.
I think what would be important to know is how close Smith was to the male. If he had assumed his first shot would have incapacitated his assailant... then discovered he was very conscious... and then fired two more shots from where he was while the boy had his hands up to shield himself from the shots... I think that would be different than walking up to the kid, placing a gun to his temple, and executing him.
He has to show that what he did was reasonable, so I'm not sure an argument that "I was unwilling to take chances" really proves much. For instance, a paranoid person might be far less willing to take chances than a reasonably prudent person. Even if it's true that he was unwilling to take chances doesn't make what he did, in light of everything else we know, any more or less reasonable.
I think it's a tough sell that what he did was reasonable if you take all the facts together. He was probably lying in wait (he moved his car, he was sitting in direct view of the door with a gun etc). The victim was on his back, likely with his hands up by the 2nd and 3rd shots (injuries to fingers, shots to head at close range etc). There was approximately 5-10 minutes between shooting the guy and the girl.
Put all that together, it's hard to say that (1) it was reasonable to shoot the girl (but no one's really disputing that), and if we believe his statements to police, (2) that it was also reasonable to shoot the guy.
Like I said, I think the law probably entitled him, even with the creepy statements on tape and the moving of his car beforehand, to shoot once, maybe even twice at the boy. But if the forensics are showing that the boy was shot while on his back, with his hands raised at close range (which it looks like they are) it's tough to argue that the kid was still a legitimate threat OR that he couldn't have called the police first. Both of which would be factors a jury might consider in deciding if it's reasonable or not for Smith to act as he did. I'm very confident that the jury will discuss that latter fact/speculation ("why didn't he call the police right away?") during their deliberation.
All that goes to reasonableness, which is the essence of self-defense. One shot might have been reasonable. I think the facts are showing that anything beyond that wasn't.
For this particular case, I get all of what you are saying and I agree with it.
For clarity, let's use another case where two people break into a person's home. Say the homeowner confronts the intruders and attacks the first intruder with a 3 iron. The weapon proves to be effective- bringing the first intruder to the ground. Prior to leaving to deal with the second intruder... the injured assailant demonstrates a level of consciousness that 'might' make dealing with the second intruder problematic (the homeowner is concerned the wounded intruder is capable of making a recovery). Fearing a renewed confrontation and stressed beyond belief... the homeowner strikes the wounded intruder and kills him.
Now let's say the second intruder is scared off without further incident and the homeowner calls the police. They arrive and the story gets told as is. The force used to deal with the first intruder proved to be deadly, but do we extend the benefit of the doubt to the homeowner or do we call his actions excessive? In my opinion, there are many variables here that need to be considered, but I feel the homeowner is within his rights.
Is it our expectation that the homeowner escalate his level of defence only to the degree of threat he and his family face? Or do we afford some latitude to the homeowner who, fearing the worst, seizes the opportunity to definitively suppress the threat while he is capable of doing so?
Let's also not forget the fact that any person 'forced' into such a scenario is placed under considerable stress. To expect them to respond in the most appropriate manner like a Navy Seal might is a little unreasonable.
I could see a scenario where, in the situation I have described above, the homeowner, being conscientious of the law, leaves the first intruder 'injured' only to eventually lose control of the situation. With the upper hand established, the intruders capitalize on their fortunes: inflicting severe or fatal damages to the homeowner(s) either by original intent or as 'revenge' for the physical attack he executed on the first intruder.
Why should we expect the homeowner to assume the risk of such a scenario playing out- as improbable or probable as it might be?
For this particular case, I get all of what you are saying and I agree with it.
For clarity, let's use another case where two people break into a person's home. Say the homeowner confronts the intruders and attacks the first intruder with a 3 iron. The weapon proves to be effective- bringing the first intruder to the ground. Prior to leaving to deal with the second intruder... the injured assailant demonstrates a level of consciousness that 'might' make dealing with the second intruder problematic (the homeowner is concerned the wounded intruder is capable of making a recovery). Fearing a renewed confrontation and stressed beyond belief... the homeowner strikes the wounded intruder and kills him.
Now let's say the second intruder is scared off without further incident and the homeowner calls the police. They arrive and the story gets told as is. The force used to deal with the first intruder proved to be deadly, but do we extend the benefit of the doubt to the homeowner or do we call his actions excessive? In my opinion, there are many variables here that need to be considered, but I feel the homeowner is within his rights.
Is it our expectation that the homeowner escalate his level of defence only to the degree of threat he and his family face? Or do we afford some latitude to the homeowner who, fearing the worst, seizes the opportunity to definitively suppress the threat while he is capable of doing so?
Let's also not forget the fact that any person 'forced' into such a scenario is placed under considerable stress. To expect them to respond in the most appropriate manner like a Navy Seal might is a little unreasonable.
I could see a scenario where, in the situation I have described above, the homeowner, being conscientious of the law, leaves the first intruder 'injured' only to eventually lose control of the situation. With the upper hand established, the intruders capitalize on their fortunes: inflicting severe or fatal damages to the homeowner(s) either by original intent or as 'revenge' for the physical attack he executed on the first intruder.
Why should we expect the homeowner to assume the risk of such a scenario playing out- as improbable or probable as it might be?
That's exactly why the test for self-defense is always about reasonableness. All of those variables you mentioned would be factored in to determining whether the self-defense exception applies.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
Comments
Godfather.
!!this guy is a fucking asshole!!
seems to me he very easily could have prevented more break-ins but he didn't.
A country dance was being held in a garden
I felt a bump and heard an "Oh, beg your pardon"
Suddenly I saw polka dots and moonbeams
All around a pug-nosed dream
The music started and was I the perplexed one
I held my breath and said "May I have the next one?"
In my frightened arms, polka dots and moonbeams
Sparkled on a pug-nosed dream
There were questions in the eyes of other dancers
As we floated over the floor
There were questions but my heart knew all the answers
And perhaps a few things more
Now in a cottage built of lilacs and laughter
I know the meaning of the words "Ever after"
And I'll always see polka dots and moonbeams
When I kiss the pug-nosed dream
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
yep he executed them because he was terrified the kids would come back & kill him ..... wow!
question - paint chips & mercury
do you think this old asshole eats paint chips & breaks thermometers for the mercury to smoke in his old guy pipe?
murdering somone just because they break into your house is ridiculous. your guy here is going to prison for being a dipshit
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
We know of several home invasions that have not gone well at all for the homeowners- one, in particular, has bothered both you and I extensively.
I think it's unreasonable for a homeowner, inside his own home, to ascertain intent before applying deadly force. We are all making assumptions that if the kids had encountered the man inside the home and the man was not prepared to use force, that things would have finished much more pleasantly. They likely would have, but expecting the old man to make that assumption at the point of conflict is unreasonable- he had no idea where things would get to if he tried to plead with the intruders to leave peacefully.
The kids had no business being inside that home and as such... they played a deadly game. If they had broken into your home or mine... they would have fared better. As it was though, they broke into a home owned by an old man who lived by himself and was scared given his experiences.
Again, this all fell down for the old guy when he dealt with the young girl: he went from victim acting as the law affords to being a murderer.
i think the old man had an idea where things would get to when he parked his car a few houses down the street
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
I just have a difficult time blaming him for the entire situation. We can criticize him for not placing cameras up or for anticipating a break in, but the bottom line is none of this would have happened if the kids had not broke into his house.
I'm not sure if it has been determined whether or not these were the same people who had previously broke into his place or not. If it was indeed them... then they had a serious lack of judgement. It's one thing to brazenly break into a home... it's quite another to keep coming back to the same home with the assumption things were not being done within that home to deal with the recurring situation.
my guy ?...not so much but his right to defend himself is something I believe in strongly and if the evedience in court states he is guilty of murder then he will be delt with according to the laws of that state and federal guide lines if I like it or not...or if you like it or not (remember the Trayvon Martin case ?),if I expected to be burgerlized (again) as he did I would prepare myself because the police will not respond until a crime has been commited and by that time the old man could very well be dead.
it's a shame these kids are dead but they played a game that had this possible outcome and maybe they didn't take this ending into concideration because they were "stupid bored kid's" but the old man knew well what could happen to him if he did not prepare himself but either way I have to believe these kid's knew better but like kid's will sometimes do they made the wrong choice.
paint chips and mercury ?
Godfather.
this old ass is more bored than the teenagers. now he will spend some quality grumpy & miserable old man time behind bars
i can hear him now, "get off my lawn you whipper - snappers" as he has been on his front porch lying in wait for them since 3:50am. quite a number of old ppl don't sleep much, therefore, they are grouchy & some are obviously trigger happy little clowns
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
I am so sad to live in a world where "private property" is worth more than a life.
I mentioned something similar about intent earlier in the thread. I have no idea what my state of mind would be after multiple break-ins; I've never experienced one myself but can imagine that sense of violation. Self-protection and vengeance are two different things - seems like (and is there any disagreement here about this?) he demonstrated both and will / should deal with those consequences.
Thirty Bills - as to your last sentence, it reminded me of the folks who called 911 from the bathroom while their cat went nuts
Peace.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
hello?
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
In deciding if Smith also murdered the male, it's interesting to note his injuries. Smith stated that he saw the male's lower half when he shot. The male fell then. There were three shots total (the first that knocked him down), two of which went through his fingers. It's speculation, but two of those three shots sound like a hand was raised in defense. If it's true that the male was on the ground/stairs ("fallen") when those second and third shots were fired and they went through his hands (because they were raised in front of him, it's a stretch to say that the kid was still a threat. I think that's where I'd draw the line.
Knowing what we know, Smith was probably justified in taking that first shot. But once the guy is down, Smith probably should've called the police.
As far as the victims' backgrounds, yeah, they were drug-seeking burglars. If the facts show that Smith didn't act in self-defense, the type of lives these kids were leading is irrelevant.
I think it's a closer call with the male, but I think after that first shot, its unreasonable to believe - given what we know about the injuries and Smith's behavior that day - to think he was acting in self-defense.
Just my take.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
Your take is a very important one.
Knowing there was another intruder in the house... could an argument be made that Smith was acting in his defence and unwilling to take any chances with a wounded assailant and another one still at large?
Remember... the gun was a .22. These guns aren't exactly known for their ability to take down an elephant. Barring a fatal shot to the head or heart, a strong person- such as this young male- could recover to some degree and create more problems.
I think what would be important to know is how close Smith was to the male. If he had assumed his first shot would have incapacitated his assailant... then discovered he was very conscious... and then fired two more shots from where he was while the boy had his hands up to shield himself from the shots... I think that would be different than walking up to the kid, placing a gun to his temple, and executing him.
Peace to you!
* By the way... I love Halifax. I've been there three times for basketball and the vibe there is really cool. Great people. Beautiful city. I plan to go back to enjoy versus caught up in competition.
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
Again, from my perspective, as others here have stated, he could have done a number of things prior to resorting to using a firearm. A dog chained to the porch with enough line to protect all accessible windows, his car in the driveway, lights on motion sensors and timers, a dog in the house. How many people break into houses with a barking dog? Lying in wait? How about being on the phone to the police as soon as he heard someone on the porch? Still with his gun but on the phone and shouting to the intruders that he was on the phone with the cops? If they continued to advance, fire a shot but after they were no longer a threat, executing them? He should do serious time if he's found guilty. I also wonder how often he complained to local law enforcement and requested additional patrols in his neighborhood or spoke with his neighbors about keeping an eye out, etc.
Too many people think guns are the only solution.
Peace.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I think it's a tough sell that what he did was reasonable if you take all the facts together. He was probably lying in wait (he moved his car, he was sitting in direct view of the door with a gun etc). The victim was on his back, likely with his hands up by the 2nd and 3rd shots (injuries to fingers, shots to head at close range etc). There was approximately 5-10 minutes between shooting the guy and the girl.
Put all that together, it's hard to say that (1) it was reasonable to shoot the girl (but no one's really disputing that), and if we believe his statements to police, (2) that it was also reasonable to shoot the guy.
Like I said, I think the law probably entitled him, even with the creepy statements on tape and the moving of his car beforehand, to shoot once, maybe even twice at the boy. But if the forensics are showing that the boy was shot while on his back, with his hands raised at close range (which it looks like they are) it's tough to argue that the kid was still a legitimate threat OR that he couldn't have called the police first. Both of which would be factors a jury might consider in deciding if it's reasonable or not for Smith to act as he did. I'm very confident that the jury will discuss that latter fact/speculation ("why didn't he call the police right away?") during their deliberation.
All that goes to reasonableness, which is the essence of self-defense. One shot might have been reasonable. I think the facts are showing that anything beyond that wasn't.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
If you just look at the many things this guy did-- parking down the street and not calling the cops for a whole day. Its obvious he's got a screw loose.
However, I will say that my house was burglarized a few years ago in the middle of the night. Luckily I wasnt home. But immediately after the burlgary, I was angry as hell and wished I had a chance to defend my stuff. I wanted revenge to be honest. I thought about finding the guy who did it. Then after my insurance took care of some of it, and I replaced a few things, I just got sad that I ever dreamed of revenge. Its just stuff. And the guy who robbed my house ended up in jail for something else a year later.
florida is also jealous that up north it snows & gets cold as shit
northerners are jealous they can't be crazy under palm trees vs' under snowflakes
florida needs basements installed to be used as shooting galleries, yes/no?
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
Florida needs basements to see the quality of bands get better. We've got nowhere to practice!
For clarity, let's use another case where two people break into a person's home. Say the homeowner confronts the intruders and attacks the first intruder with a 3 iron. The weapon proves to be effective- bringing the first intruder to the ground. Prior to leaving to deal with the second intruder... the injured assailant demonstrates a level of consciousness that 'might' make dealing with the second intruder problematic (the homeowner is concerned the wounded intruder is capable of making a recovery). Fearing a renewed confrontation and stressed beyond belief... the homeowner strikes the wounded intruder and kills him.
Now let's say the second intruder is scared off without further incident and the homeowner calls the police. They arrive and the story gets told as is. The force used to deal with the first intruder proved to be deadly, but do we extend the benefit of the doubt to the homeowner or do we call his actions excessive? In my opinion, there are many variables here that need to be considered, but I feel the homeowner is within his rights.
Is it our expectation that the homeowner escalate his level of defence only to the degree of threat he and his family face? Or do we afford some latitude to the homeowner who, fearing the worst, seizes the opportunity to definitively suppress the threat while he is capable of doing so?
Let's also not forget the fact that any person 'forced' into such a scenario is placed under considerable stress. To expect them to respond in the most appropriate manner like a Navy Seal might is a little unreasonable.
I could see a scenario where, in the situation I have described above, the homeowner, being conscientious of the law, leaves the first intruder 'injured' only to eventually lose control of the situation. With the upper hand established, the intruders capitalize on their fortunes: inflicting severe or fatal damages to the homeowner(s) either by original intent or as 'revenge' for the physical attack he executed on the first intruder.
Why should we expect the homeowner to assume the risk of such a scenario playing out- as improbable or probable as it might be?
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2