It just occurred to me... This guy was a retired 'Security Engineer' from the U.S. State Department. Do you know that Security Engineers set up and maintain security systems for U.S. Embassies and Consulates in foriegn countries? So... he was able to set up security systems in foriegn countries to keep would be terrorists from breaking into our embassies... but, he could not set up a sytem to keep teenagers from breaking into his home? ... I guess that would explain what happened in Benghazi.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
So what did we learn from this story? Dig a nice hole and bury them and continue life as if nobody broke into your house for the umpteenth time and you didn't hear a thing.
The poison from the poison stream caught up to you ELEVEN years ago and you floated out of here. Sept. 14, 08
So what did we learn from this story? Dig a nice hole and bury them and continue life as if nobody broke into your house for the umpteenth time and you didn't hear a thing.
he may be and probably is a sick fuck but the fact remains the two fools that came to rob him are not much different in their own way...they gambled and lost,makes you wonder what other stupid shit they were up to and how many people have they robbed or hurt in some way to support their drug habbits ? yes drugs are bad.
he may be and probably is a sick fuck but the fact remains the two fools that came to rob him are not much different in their own way...they gambled and lost,makes you wonder what other stupid shit they were up to and how many people have they robbed or hurt in some way to support their drug habbits ? yes drugs are bad.
Does that make Smith less culpable for his actions?
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
Does that make Smith less culpable for his actions?
No. But it's unfortunate that reckless behaviour has led to this entire situation.
Let's acknowledge that they forced Smith's hand and he played it very poorly. They would still be alive if they had chosen not to break into his house.
I'm not absolving Smith, but the true moral of the story is: don't break into people's homes.
Does that make Smith less culpable for his actions?
No. But it's unfortunate that reckless behaviour has led to this entire situation.
Let's acknowledge that they forced Smith's hand and he played it very poorly. They would still be alive if they had chosen not to break into his house.
I'm not absolving Smith, but the true moral of the story is: don't break into people's homes.
And the other moral is people need to realize how fked it is to blow people away when it didn't need to happen.
I agree that the moral of the story is: It is a dangerous path you take, passing through locked doors. You never know which room in Hell you may be entering. (Take the easy path... raid your own parent's medicine chest and trade your Dad's Viagra for for the Valium.)
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Does that make Smith less culpable for his actions?
No. But it's unfortunate that reckless behaviour has led to this entire situation.
Let's acknowledge that they forced Smith's hand and he played it very poorly. They would still be alive if they had chosen not to break into his house.
I'm not absolving Smith, but the true moral of the story is: don't break into people's homes.
And the other moral is people need to realize how fked it is to blow people away when it didn't need to happen.
No. But it's unfortunate that reckless behaviour has led to this entire situation.
Let's acknowledge that they forced Smith's hand and he played it very poorly. They would still be alive if they had chosen not to break into his house.
I'm not absolving Smith, but the true moral of the story is: don't break into people's homes.
I think summarizing the "moral" of this case in that way completely absolves Smith.
We're not talking about the right to defend your home or your family. We're talking about the right to do it in a way that Smith did.
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
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
No. But it's unfortunate that reckless behaviour has led to this entire situation.
Let's acknowledge that they forced Smith's hand and he played it very poorly. They would still be alive if they had chosen not to break into his house.
I'm not absolving Smith, but the true moral of the story is: don't break into people's homes.
I think summarizing the "moral" of this case in that way completely absolves Smith.
We're not talking about the right to defend your home or your family. We're talking about the right to do it in a way that Smith did.
You would dispute the notion that they would still be alive if they had not broken into the home? In hindsight... this whole incident would not have occurred if people had not violated someone's sanctuary. It's one thing to get robbed outside a service station, but I think it's quite another to become a victim inside your own home.
Let's be honest... if they had remained law abiding and had not persisted with their reckless criminal behaviour... this would not be a 4 page thread right now. The incident spiralled out of control with Smith eventually taking the lead in poor behaviour, but from my perspective... the incident was initiated fully by the teens with their intent to break into the home- they started the fire.
After recurring break-ins, Smith was fully prepared for them, so we'll never know what might have happened if the kids had broken into the home and surprised Smith. Would have they said, "Whoops. Sorry" and left without incident to face legalities afterwards? Would they have feared legal repercussions and escalate their criminal behaviour to preserve their freedom? We are (at least I have been) assuming the best of these kids when there have been countless other incidents where 'good kids' have acted very badly in stressful situations.
You would dispute the notion that they would still be alive if they had not broken into the home? In hindsight... this whole incident would not have occurred if people had not violated someone's sanctuary. It's one thing to get robbed outside a service station, but I think it's quite another to become a victim inside your own home.
Let's be honest... if they had remained law abiding and had not persisted with their reckless criminal behaviour... this would not be a 4 page thread right now. The incident spiralled out of control with Smith eventually taking the lead in poor behaviour, but from my perspective... the incident was initiated fully by the teens with their intent to break into the home- they started the fire.
After recurring break-ins, Smith was fully prepared for them, so we'll never know what might have happened if the kids had broken into the home and surprised Smith. Would have they said, "Whoops. Sorry" and left without incident to face legalities afterwards? Would they have feared legal repercussions and escalate their criminal behaviour to preserve their freedom? We are (at least I have been) assuming the best of these kids when there have been countless other incidents where 'good kids' have acted very badly in stressful situations.
No, I would dispute the notion that what's at issue is anything but Smith's actions. The framing of the issue is not: "the kids would be alive if THEY did something different"; it's "the kids would be alive if SMITH did something different." That's why he was charged (and convicted, mind you).
I take issue with framing this case as being about anything but Smith's actions. Speculating about what might have happened is an exercise in futility, and quite frankly, usually done with only one goal in mind: justifying a preconceived idea about gun rights, property rights etc. I'm not sure what's gained by persisting in a discussion about what might have happened, other than to try and justify your view about "being a victim in your own home or not."
Thankfully, that's why we have trials, and the fact is: Smith was on trial for his actions that day. Period. Any discussion of the actions of the victims is and should be enveloped within a broader discussion about the reasonableness and criminal liability of his conduct, not theirs.
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 would dispute the notion that they would still be alive if they had not broken into the home? In hindsight... this whole incident would not have occurred if people had not violated someone's sanctuary. It's one thing to get robbed outside a service station, but I think it's quite another to become a victim inside your own home.
Let's be honest... if they had remained law abiding and had not persisted with their reckless criminal behaviour... this would not be a 4 page thread right now. The incident spiralled out of control with Smith eventually taking the lead in poor behaviour, but from my perspective... the incident was initiated fully by the teens with their intent to break into the home- they started the fire.
After recurring break-ins, Smith was fully prepared for them, so we'll never know what might have happened if the kids had broken into the home and surprised Smith. Would have they said, "Whoops. Sorry" and left without incident to face legalities afterwards? Would they have feared legal repercussions and escalate their criminal behaviour to preserve their freedom? We are (at least I have been) assuming the best of these kids when there have been countless other incidents where 'good kids' have acted very badly in stressful situations.
No, I would dispute the notion that what's at issue is anything but Smith's actions. The framing of the issue is not: "the kids would be alive if THEY did something different"; it's "the kids would be alive if SMITH did something different." That's why he was charged (and convicted, mind you).
I take issue with framing this case as being about anything but Smith's actions. Speculating about what might have happened is an exercise in futility, and quite frankly, usually done with only one goal in mind: justifying a preconceived idea about gun rights, property rights etc. I'm not sure what's gained by persisting in a discussion about what might have happened, other than to try and justify your view about "being a victim in your own home or not."
Thankfully, that's why we have trials, and the fact is: Smith was on trial for his actions that day. Period. Any discussion of the actions of the victims is and should be enveloped within a broader discussion about the reasonableness and criminal liability of his conduct, not theirs.
Hold it...
You are correct that the precise 'issue' on hand is dedicated to deliberating the appropriateness of Smith's actions. Most on here are not denying the fact that Smith was brutal, cold, and callous. Yes. He should have acted differently.
I'm not sure why you think the fact that these kids broke into this guy's house has no part in discussing this case? I'm not a gun proponent and I do not condone what Smith did. I'm stating the obvious and- in this case- what has been understated in this thread: the kids broke into someone's home and found themselves in a shitstorm.
If this case doesn't serve as an excellent example to illustrate the potential danger of breaking into someone's home... then I'm not sure what could. And, to overlook these kids' part in this incident to focus solely on Smith and his brutality minimizes the grievous error they committed. Period.
Exactly right, Thirty. For the purposes of the trial, vant0037 may well be right. But the fact remains that these miscreant, criminal kids made the first ill-advised move which ultimately led to their demise. They bear a lot of the blame for their own deaths here. Unless they were operaing with diminished mental capacity, they knowingly broke laws and paid a heavy price. Smith overreacted and will pay for those actions, but for me the criminals brought their fate upon themselves. None of the parties here won, but maybe society is ultimately better off. A trigger-happy dude is behind bars, and a couple of scumbags are no longer doing home invasions.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
You are correct that the precise 'issue' on hand is dedicated to deliberating the appropriateness of Smith's actions. Most on here are not denying the fact that Smith was brutal, cold, and callous. Yes. He should have acted differently.
I'm not sure why you think the fact that these kids broke into this guy's house has no part in discussing this case? I'm not a gun proponent and I do not condone what Smith did. I'm stating the obvious and- in this case- what has been understated in this thread: the kids broke into someone's home and found themselves in a shitstorm.
If this case doesn't serve as an excellent example to illustrate the potential danger of breaking into someone's home... then I'm not sure what could. And, to overlook these kids' part in this incident to focus solely on Smith and his brutality minimizes the grievous error they committed. Period.
The whole point of the criminal justice system is to serve as a punitive measure and deterrent for future criminal activity, not future victim activity. In other words, the message from a verdict like this is intended for potential defendants, not victims.
So I focus on the defendant's actions because that is the precise operation of law. And while it's true that the kids' actions were a part of the case (which I never disputed), I'm only interested in them in so far as they justified Smith's actions or not.
And so if we all agree that whatever the kids' actions were, they did NOT justify Smith's actions (at least the jury and most here thought so), then what do we gain by flipping a criminal verdict on it's head and claiming it as a message to victims/potential victims? Perhaps it's semantics, but I am very concerned about this verdict being used as a message for victims rather than offenders, if only because doing so would allow, logically, for doing so in any number of situations. Does the victim of domestic violence get what she "deserved" because she started the argument with the abuser? Does the rape victim "ask" to be raped because she dressed provocatively? Or does the law draw a line in the sand and outlaw particular acts? Semantics? Maybe, but I find it very troubling that some would want to use this verdict as a way to chastise victims and not offenders. The criminal justice system is only as good as it's ability to deter criminals, not people from being victims.
So if it feels good to continue to focus on the victims actions and say these kids deserved it, fine. Go ahead. But as a firm believer in the rule of law, I'll take away the lesson that there are limits on your right to defend your property and should you go too far, you will be punished.
If you'd rather hope that all the potential victims in the world are getting a message out of this case, so be it. I'll simultaneously hope that all the potential defendants are also listening.
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 are correct that the precise 'issue' on hand is dedicated to deliberating the appropriateness of Smith's actions. Most on here are not denying the fact that Smith was brutal, cold, and callous. Yes. He should have acted differently.
I'm not sure why you think the fact that these kids broke into this guy's house has no part in discussing this case? I'm not a gun proponent and I do not condone what Smith did. I'm stating the obvious and- in this case- what has been understated in this thread: the kids broke into someone's home and found themselves in a shitstorm.
If this case doesn't serve as an excellent example to illustrate the potential danger of breaking into someone's home... then I'm not sure what could. And, to overlook these kids' part in this incident to focus solely on Smith and his brutality minimizes the grievous error they committed. Period.
The whole point of the criminal justice system is to serve as a punitive measure and deterrent for future criminal activity, not future victim activity. In other words, the message from a verdict like this is intended for potential defendants, not victims.
So I focus on the defendant's actions because that is the precise operation of law. And while it's true that the kids' actions were a part of the case (which I never disputed), I'm only interested in them in so far as they justified Smith's actions or not.
And so if we all agree that whatever the kids' actions were, they did NOT justify Smith's actions (at least the jury and most here thought so), then what do we gain by flipping a criminal verdict on it's head and claiming it as a message to victims/potential victims? Perhaps it's semantics, but I am very concerned about this verdict being used as a message for victims rather than offenders, if only because doing so would allow, logically, for doing so in any number of situations. Does the victim of domestic violence get what she "deserved" because she started the argument with the abuser? Does the rape victim "ask" to be raped because she dressed provocatively? Or does the law draw a line in the sand and outlaw particular acts? Semantics? Maybe, but I find it very troubling that some would want to use this verdict as a way to chastise victims and not offenders. The criminal justice system is only as good as it's ability to deter criminals, not people from being victims.
So if it feels good to continue to focus on the victims actions and say these kids deserved it, fine. Go ahead. But as a firm believer in the rule of law, I'll take away the lesson that there are limits on your right to defend your property and should you go too far, you will be punished.
If you'd rather hope that all the potential victims in the world are getting a message out of this case, so be it. I'll simultaneously hope that all the potential defendants are also listening.
It does not 'feel good' to focus on the victims' actions and I never said or even implied they deserved it.
This case is an extraordinary one and I spoke to an aspect of it that I felt was significant. I have not disagreed that Smith was criminally responsible for his actions. At the same time, I haven't ignored the fact that these kids placed themselves in danger. What they did was reckless and foolish.
The law was successfully there to bring justice to this incident. Unfortunately, good judgement wasn't there prior to this incident to save it from happening in the first place.
You are correct that the precise 'issue' on hand is dedicated to deliberating the appropriateness of Smith's actions. Most on here are not denying the fact that Smith was brutal, cold, and callous. Yes. He should have acted differently.
I'm not sure why you think the fact that these kids broke into this guy's house has no part in discussing this case? I'm not a gun proponent and I do not condone what Smith did. I'm stating the obvious and- in this case- what has been understated in this thread: the kids broke into someone's home and found themselves in a shitstorm.
If this case doesn't serve as an excellent example to illustrate the potential danger of breaking into someone's home... then I'm not sure what could. And, to overlook these kids' part in this incident to focus solely on Smith and his brutality minimizes the grievous error they committed. Period.
The whole point of the criminal justice system is to serve as a punitive measure and deterrent for future criminal activity, not future victim activity. In other words, the message from a verdict like this is intended for potential defendants, not victims.
So I focus on the defendant's actions because that is the precise operation of law. And while it's true that the kids' actions were a part of the case (which I never disputed), I'm only interested in them in so far as they justified Smith's actions or not.
And so if we all agree that whatever the kids' actions were, they did NOT justify Smith's actions (at least the jury and most here thought so), then what do we gain by flipping a criminal verdict on it's head and claiming it as a message to victims/potential victims? Perhaps it's semantics, but I am very concerned about this verdict being used as a message for victims rather than offenders, if only because doing so would allow, logically, for doing so in any number of situations. Does the victim of domestic violence get what she "deserved" because she started the argument with the abuser? Does the rape victim "ask" to be raped because she dressed provocatively? Or does the law draw a line in the sand and outlaw particular acts? Semantics? Maybe, but I find it very troubling that some would want to use this verdict as a way to chastise victims and not offenders. The criminal justice system is only as good as it's ability to deter criminals, not people from being victims.
So if it feels good to continue to focus on the victims actions and say these kids deserved it, fine. Go ahead. But as a firm believer in the rule of law, I'll take away the lesson that there are limits on your right to defend your property and should you go too far, you will be punished.
If you'd rather hope that all the potential victims in the world are getting a message out of this case, so be it. I'll simultaneously hope that all the potential defendants are also listening.
It does not 'feel good' to focus on the victims' actions and I never said or even implied they deserved it.
This case is an extraordinary one and I spoke to an aspect of it that I felt was significant. I have not disagreed that Smith was criminally responsible for his actions. At the same time, I haven't ignored the fact that these kids placed themselves in danger. What they did was reckless and foolish.
The law was successfully there to bring justice to this incident. Unfortunately, good judgement wasn't there prior to this incident to save it from happening in the first place.
Again, I'd ask so what? Criminal justice is about defendants. A trial is about whether a crime was committed. To belabor the point that a victim should've acted differently too, in the aftermath, paves the way for arguments like in described above (e.g. "The crime didn't happen but for the victim's actions..."). That type of thinking is pretty scary if we are truly worried deterrence...
Semantics or not, I think it's counterproductive and perhaps downright dangerous to persist in arguing that way if we're truly interested in this type of thing not happening again.
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 are correct that the precise 'issue' on hand is dedicated to deliberating the appropriateness of Smith's actions. Most on here are not denying the fact that Smith was brutal, cold, and callous. Yes. He should have acted differently.
I'm not sure why you think the fact that these kids broke into this guy's house has no part in discussing this case? I'm not a gun proponent and I do not condone what Smith did. I'm stating the obvious and- in this case- what has been understated in this thread: the kids broke into someone's home and found themselves in a shitstorm.
If this case doesn't serve as an excellent example to illustrate the potential danger of breaking into someone's home... then I'm not sure what could. And, to overlook these kids' part in this incident to focus solely on Smith and his brutality minimizes the grievous error they committed. Period.
The whole point of the criminal justice system is to serve as a punitive measure and deterrent for future criminal activity, not future victim activity. In other words, the message from a verdict like this is intended for potential defendants, not victims.
So I focus on the defendant's actions because that is the precise operation of law. And while it's true that the kids' actions were a part of the case (which I never disputed), I'm only interested in them in so far as they justified Smith's actions or not.
And so if we all agree that whatever the kids' actions were, they did NOT justify Smith's actions (at least the jury and most here thought so), then what do we gain by flipping a criminal verdict on it's head and claiming it as a message to victims/potential victims? Perhaps it's semantics, but I am very concerned about this verdict being used as a message for victims rather than offenders, if only because doing so would allow, logically, for doing so in any number of situations. Does the victim of domestic violence get what she "deserved" because she started the argument with the abuser? Does the rape victim "ask" to be raped because she dressed provocatively? Or does the law draw a line in the sand and outlaw particular acts? Semantics? Maybe, but I find it very troubling that some would want to use this verdict as a way to chastise victims and not offenders. The criminal justice system is only as good as it's ability to deter criminals, not people from being victims.
So if it feels good to continue to focus on the victims actions and say these kids deserved it, fine. Go ahead. But as a firm believer in the rule of law, I'll take away the lesson that there are limits on your right to defend your property and should you go too far, you will be punished.
If you'd rather hope that all the potential victims in the world are getting a message out of this case, so be it. I'll simultaneously hope that all the potential defendants are also listening.
It does not 'feel good' to focus on the victims' actions and I never said or even implied they deserved it.
This case is an extraordinary one and I spoke to an aspect of it that I felt was significant. I have not disagreed that Smith was criminally responsible for his actions. At the same time, I haven't ignored the fact that these kids placed themselves in danger. What they did was reckless and foolish.
The law was successfully there to bring justice to this incident. Unfortunately, good judgement wasn't there prior to this incident to save it from happening in the first place.
Again, I'd ask so what? Criminal justice is about defendants. A trial is about whether a crime was committed. To belabor the point that a victim should've acted differently too, in the aftermath, paves the way for arguments like in described above (e.g. "The crime didn't happen but for the victim's actions..."). That type of thinking is pretty scary if we are truly worried deterrence...
Semantics or not, I think it's counterproductive and perhaps downright dangerous to persist in arguing that way if we're truly interested in this type of thing not happening again.
Are we truly arguing? Van, I have agreed with most everything you've said.
Where we seem to differ lies with you acknowledging that the teens were reckless and reckless behaviour is sometimes met with disastrous results.
The pair would not have been killed had they not broken into Smith's house. You can say 'so what' if you wish, but this simple fact remains.
What do you wish for me to say? Home invasions are deadly business. The 'failed execution' thread that was introduced tonight details a home invasion that went poorly for the homeowners. When people break into other people's houses, it's not as if they are stealing hubcaps. It's life and death in some cases and most times we read of the homeowner dying.
I'm not arguing Smith isn't criminally responsible for what he did. I'm saying better judgement would have prevented the entire incident. How can you argue against this?
Exactly right, Thirty. For the purposes of the trial, vant0037 may well be right. But the fact remains that these miscreant, criminal kids made the first ill-advised move which ultimately led to their demise. They bear a lot of the blame for their own deaths here. Unless they were operaing with diminished mental capacity, they knowingly broke laws and paid a heavy price. Smith overreacted and will pay for those actions, but for me the criminals brought their fate upon themselves. None of the parties here won, but maybe society is ultimately better off. A trigger-happy dude is behind bars, and a couple of scumbags are no longer doing home invasions.
We've all done dumb shit. There was a good chance with proper punishment and help those very young humans could have been rehabilitated. This was not a home invasion.
You're saying "but-for the actions of the victims, this wouldn't have happened.". I'm saying that line of thinking does absolve Smith and potentially lots of other defendants. It's precisely what Smith's attorneys argued. I'm not making a technical argument here.
Persisting in saying the teens actions had a role in this is fine, because it's true. But I question the philosophical value in doing so. If you can say in this instance that the teens were partly culpable, then you can also say that virtually any crime victim is partly culpable. Logically, it makes criminal acts "less criminal" because it adds a level of justification that isn't present in the law. If Smith wasn't entirely culpable for his acts, there would be an exception to the law afforded him.
So of course better judgment would have prevented this. But again, to what end does that statement lead you? I'm not disputing the cause and effect relationship between any act in the universe; I'm disputing the idea that focusing on the victim and not the defendant is a productive way to process a guilty verdict like this. I'll go even further and say it's dangerous.
The law isn't equipped for the type of nuanced evaluation you're suggesting. He was either guilty or not guilty, and once he's been found guilty, to focus on the victim and not the defendant, you undermine the significance of that verdict. Like I said, a philosophical point, but unless we're prepared to provide moral justification for a myriad of criminals, a necessary one.
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
No. But it's unfortunate that reckless behaviour has led to this entire situation.
Let's acknowledge that they forced Smith's hand and he played it very poorly. They would still be alive if they had chosen not to break into his house.
I'm not absolving Smith, but the true moral of the story is: don't break into people's homes.
I think summarizing the "moral" of this case in that way completely absolves Smith.
We're not talking about the right to defend your home or your family. We're talking about the right to do it in a way that Smith did.
the way he delivered the last kill shot was a sign that killing is easy for him and that takes a.... special kind of person I know I couldn't that but still he did it for the reason of protecting his life and property (in this case) and if the court finds him guilty of murder or agrivated manslauter then he will pay the price for his "special ability" ...that just blows my mind that someone can deliver a final shot to the head like that to make sure thier attacker is dead after they were already pretty much down but that's just me, but all n all he was protecting himself and his home and his method may not be popular with most but is it legally wrong ?...it was surly effictive and they will never rob or hurt anybody again .....look at the money he saved the tax payers LOL! no long drug out court cost and no housing , feeding and medical cost for detaining them...I know I know sounds barbaric but at the end of the day I'm right..that is unless he is found guilty and now the tax payers have to foot the bill for his incarseration,
He was convicted, all 4 counts. Two concurrent life sentences.
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're saying "but-for the actions of the victims, this wouldn't have happened.". I'm saying that line of thinking does absolve Smith and potentially lots of other defendants. It's precisely what Smith's attorneys argued. I'm not making a technical argument here.
Persisting in saying the teens actions had a role in this is fine, because it's true. But I question the philosophical value in doing so. If you can say in this instance that the teens were partly culpable, then you can also say that virtually any crime victim is partly culpable. Logically, it makes criminal acts "less criminal" because it adds a level of justification that isn't present in the law. If Smith wasn't entirely culpable for his acts, there would be an exception to the law afforded him.
So of course better judgment would have prevented this. But again, to what end does that statement lead you? I'm not disputing the cause and effect relationship between any act in the universe; I'm disputing the idea that focusing on the victim and not the defendant is a productive way to process a guilty verdict like this. I'll go even further and say it's dangerous.
The law isn't equipped for the type of nuanced evaluation you're suggesting. He was either guilty or not guilty, and once he's been found guilty, to focus on the victim and not the defendant, you undermine the significance of that verdict. Like I said, a philosophical point, but unless we're prepared to provide moral justification for a myriad of criminals, a necessary one.
While the two are inextricably intertwined as fate and fortune would have it, I completely understand and accept that they are separate incidents from a legal perspective. However, we are not sitting opposed to each other in a court of law bound by the legal process... we're sitting in a pub (so to speak).
Of course the kids breaking into Smith's home never justified the slayings- this is not what I have ever said. The kids breaking into the home initiated the sequence of events that led to their slayings. While this statement might not have its place in court given that it has no bearing on Smith's actions, it's more than fair and very accurate in this thread as adults from around the world attempt to make sense of an awful incident that happened very close to you. Allow me to lament the young people's poor choices for what they were and what resulted from them without admonishment.
I'm very pleased with the verdicts. I think you said your friend was prosecuting the case? He has done good work.
Most importantly, I'm very sad for those two kids and their families. I have heard them called many things typically associated with the most unsavory of people, but when I remember their faces in the pictures I have seen... I see two beautiful kids that made some bad choices and one fatal mistake.
He was convicted, all 4 counts. Two concurrent life sentences.
all that because two unarmed bored teenagers broke into his house snooping around. he made a great choice by lying in wait for (a) burglur(s) & executing them both. goodnight, mr. evil
Exactly right, Thirty. For the purposes of the trial, vant0037 may well be right. But the fact remains that these miscreant, criminal kids made the first ill-advised move which ultimately led to their demise. They bear a lot of the blame for their own deaths here. Unless they were operaing with diminished mental capacity, they knowingly broke laws and paid a heavy price. Smith overreacted and will pay for those actions, but for me the criminals brought their fate upon themselves. None of the parties here won, but maybe society is ultimately better off. A trigger-happy dude is behind bars, and a couple of scumbags are no longer doing home invasions.
We've all done dumb shit. There was a good chance with proper punishment and help those very young humans could have been rehabilitated. This was not a home invasion.
Sorry, instead of home invasion would you prefer burglary of an occupied home by multiple perpetrators? I certainly wouldn't want to unduly disparage those former future leaders of their generation. My dumb shit never involved felonies, or crimes against people, so perhaps I'm not a in a good position to be sympathetic and understanding of their indescretions. Perhaps they could have been rehabilitated. Perhaps they were about to escalate their stupidity and kill people. Who knows? I only know they fucked up badly, and are no longer with us. And had they not chosen to commit the crimes they'd still be alive.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
the way he delivered the last kill shot was a sign that killing is easy for him and that takes a.... special kind of person I know I couldn't that but still he did it for the reason of protecting his life and property (in this case) and if the court finds him guilty of murder or agrivated manslauter then he will pay the price for his "special ability" ...that just blows my mind that someone can deliver a final shot to the head like that to make sure thier attacker is dead after they were already pretty much down but that's just me, but all n all he was protecting himself and his home and his method may not be popular with most but is it legally wrong ?...it was surly effictive and they will never rob or hurt anybody again .....look at the money he saved the tax payers LOL! no long drug out court cost and no housing , feeding and medical cost for detaining them...I know I know sounds barbaric but at the end of the day I'm right..that is unless he is found guilty and now the tax payers have to foot the bill for his incarseration,
Godfather.
... This is the only thing I can agree with you, sir: "sounds barbaric"
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Comments
This guy was a retired 'Security Engineer' from the U.S. State Department. Do you know that Security Engineers set up and maintain security systems for U.S. Embassies and Consulates in foriegn countries?
So... he was able to set up security systems in foriegn countries to keep would be terrorists from breaking into our embassies... but, he could not set up a sytem to keep teenagers from breaking into his home?
...
I guess that would explain what happened in Benghazi.
Hail, Hail!!!
The poison from the poison stream caught up to you ELEVEN years ago and you floated out of here. Sept. 14, 08
Godfather.
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
Let's acknowledge that they forced Smith's hand and he played it very poorly. They would still be alive if they had chosen not to break into his house.
I'm not absolving Smith, but the true moral of the story is: don't break into people's homes.
It is a dangerous path you take, passing through locked doors. You never know which room in Hell you may be entering.
(Take the easy path... raid your own parent's medicine chest and trade your Dad's Viagra for for the Valium.)
Hail, Hail!!!
We're not talking about the right to defend your home or your family. We're talking about the right to do it in a way that Smith did.
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
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
Let's be honest... if they had remained law abiding and had not persisted with their reckless criminal behaviour... this would not be a 4 page thread right now. The incident spiralled out of control with Smith eventually taking the lead in poor behaviour, but from my perspective... the incident was initiated fully by the teens with their intent to break into the home- they started the fire.
After recurring break-ins, Smith was fully prepared for them, so we'll never know what might have happened if the kids had broken into the home and surprised Smith. Would have they said, "Whoops. Sorry" and left without incident to face legalities afterwards? Would they have feared legal repercussions and escalate their criminal behaviour to preserve their freedom? We are (at least I have been) assuming the best of these kids when there have been countless other incidents where 'good kids' have acted very badly in stressful situations.
I take issue with framing this case as being about anything but Smith's actions. Speculating about what might have happened is an exercise in futility, and quite frankly, usually done with only one goal in mind: justifying a preconceived idea about gun rights, property rights etc. I'm not sure what's gained by persisting in a discussion about what might have happened, other than to try and justify your view about "being a victim in your own home or not."
Thankfully, that's why we have trials, and the fact is: Smith was on trial for his actions that day. Period. Any discussion of the actions of the victims is and should be enveloped within a broader discussion about the reasonableness and criminal liability of his conduct, not theirs.
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 are correct that the precise 'issue' on hand is dedicated to deliberating the appropriateness of Smith's actions. Most on here are not denying the fact that Smith was brutal, cold, and callous. Yes. He should have acted differently.
I'm not sure why you think the fact that these kids broke into this guy's house has no part in discussing this case? I'm not a gun proponent and I do not condone what Smith did. I'm stating the obvious and- in this case- what has been understated in this thread: the kids broke into someone's home and found themselves in a shitstorm.
If this case doesn't serve as an excellent example to illustrate the potential danger of breaking into someone's home... then I'm not sure what could. And, to overlook these kids' part in this incident to focus solely on Smith and his brutality minimizes the grievous error they committed. Period.
So I focus on the defendant's actions because that is the precise operation of law. And while it's true that the kids' actions were a part of the case (which I never disputed), I'm only interested in them in so far as they justified Smith's actions or not.
And so if we all agree that whatever the kids' actions were, they did NOT justify Smith's actions (at least the jury and most here thought so), then what do we gain by flipping a criminal verdict on it's head and claiming it as a message to victims/potential victims? Perhaps it's semantics, but I am very concerned about this verdict being used as a message for victims rather than offenders, if only because doing so would allow, logically, for doing so in any number of situations. Does the victim of domestic violence get what she "deserved" because she started the argument with the abuser? Does the rape victim "ask" to be raped because she dressed provocatively? Or does the law draw a line in the sand and outlaw particular acts? Semantics? Maybe, but I find it very troubling that some would want to use this verdict as a way to chastise victims and not offenders. The criminal justice system is only as good as it's ability to deter criminals, not people from being victims.
So if it feels good to continue to focus on the victims actions and say these kids deserved it, fine. Go ahead. But as a firm believer in the rule of law, I'll take away the lesson that there are limits on your right to defend your property and should you go too far, you will be punished.
If you'd rather hope that all the potential victims in the world are getting a message out of this case, so be it. I'll simultaneously hope that all the potential defendants are also listening.
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
This case is an extraordinary one and I spoke to an aspect of it that I felt was significant. I have not disagreed that Smith was criminally responsible for his actions. At the same time, I haven't ignored the fact that these kids placed themselves in danger. What they did was reckless and foolish.
The law was successfully there to bring justice to this incident. Unfortunately, good judgement wasn't there prior to this incident to save it from happening in the first place.
Semantics or not, I think it's counterproductive and perhaps downright dangerous to persist in arguing that way if we're truly interested in this type of thing not happening again.
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
Where we seem to differ lies with you acknowledging that the teens were reckless and reckless behaviour is sometimes met with disastrous results.
The pair would not have been killed had they not broken into Smith's house. You can say 'so what' if you wish, but this simple fact remains.
What do you wish for me to say? Home invasions are deadly business. The 'failed execution' thread that was introduced tonight details a home invasion that went poorly for the homeowners. When people break into other people's houses, it's not as if they are stealing hubcaps. It's life and death in some cases and most times we read of the homeowner dying.
I'm not arguing Smith isn't criminally responsible for what he did. I'm saying better judgement would have prevented the entire incident. How can you argue against this?
Persisting in saying the teens actions had a role in this is fine, because it's true. But I question the philosophical value in doing so. If you can say in this instance that the teens were partly culpable, then you can also say that virtually any crime victim is partly culpable. Logically, it makes criminal acts "less criminal" because it adds a level of justification that isn't present in the law. If Smith wasn't entirely culpable for his acts, there would be an exception to the law afforded him.
So of course better judgment would have prevented this. But again, to what end does that statement lead you? I'm not disputing the cause and effect relationship between any act in the universe; I'm disputing the idea that focusing on the victim and not the defendant is a productive way to process a guilty verdict like this. I'll go even further and say it's dangerous.
The law isn't equipped for the type of nuanced evaluation you're suggesting. He was either guilty or not guilty, and once he's been found guilty, to focus on the victim and not the defendant, you undermine the significance of that verdict. Like I said, a philosophical point, but unless we're prepared to provide moral justification for a myriad of criminals, a necessary one.
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
the way he delivered the last kill shot was a sign that killing is easy for him and that takes a.... special kind of person I know I couldn't that but still he did it for the reason of protecting his life and property (in this case) and if the court finds him guilty of murder or agrivated manslauter then he will pay the price for his "special ability" ...that just blows my mind that someone can deliver a final shot to the head like that to make sure thier attacker is dead after they were already pretty much down but that's just me, but all n all he was protecting himself and his home and his method may not be popular with most but is it legally wrong ?...it was surly effictive and they will never rob or hurt anybody again .....look at the money he saved the tax payers LOL! no long drug out court cost and no housing , feeding and medical cost for detaining them...I know I know sounds barbaric but at the end of the day I'm right..that is unless he is found guilty and now the tax payers have to foot the bill for his incarseration,
Godfather.
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
Of course the kids breaking into Smith's home never justified the slayings- this is not what I have ever said. The kids breaking into the home initiated the sequence of events that led to their slayings. While this statement might not have its place in court given that it has no bearing on Smith's actions, it's more than fair and very accurate in this thread as adults from around the world attempt to make sense of an awful incident that happened very close to you. Allow me to lament the young people's poor choices for what they were and what resulted from them without admonishment.
I'm very pleased with the verdicts. I think you said your friend was prosecuting the case? He has done good work.
Most importantly, I'm very sad for those two kids and their families. I have heard them called many things typically associated with the most unsavory of people, but when I remember their faces in the pictures I have seen... I see two beautiful kids that made some bad choices and one fatal mistake.
Have a good day.
"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
This is the only thing I can agree with you, sir:
"sounds barbaric"
Hail, Hail!!!