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

Thirty Bills Unpaid

hedonist said:

"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.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Halifax2TheMax said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

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.

chadwick

i am very positive .22s kill more ppl than any other round

Halifax2TheMax

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

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.

Too many people think guns are the only solution.

Peace.

vant0037

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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.

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.

JonnyPistachio

chadwick said:

Jason P said:

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.

chadwick

thank you, johnnyp for the humor & story on your own being a victim of a burglary

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?

JonnyPistachio

chadwick said:

thank you, johnnyp for the humor & story on your own being a victim of a burglary

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?

haha, yeah buddy.
Florida needs basements to see the quality of bands get better. We've got nowhere to practice!

Thirty Bills Unpaid

vant0037 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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.

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?

vant0037

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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.

Cosmo

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.

even flow - question mark

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.

callen

even flow - question mark said:

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.

Learned there are some sick fks in this world.

callen

Oh and drugs are bad.

Godfather.

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.

Godfather.

callen

Godfather. said:

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.

Godfather.

Agree. They were idiots and they took this risk.

vant0037

callen said:

Agree. They were idiots and they took this risk.

Does that make Smith less culpable for his actions?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

vant0037 said:

callen said:

Agree. They were idiots and they took this risk.

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.

callen

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

vant0037 said:

callen said:

Agree. They were idiots and they took this risk.

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.

Cosmo

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.)