Rifle jammed, she laughed, so he killed her with a pistol [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Rifle jammed, she laughed, so he killed her with a pistol


Pages : [1] 2

TBO
11-26-2012, 10:48
http://www.startribune.com/local/180853761.html

HoldHard
11-26-2012, 10:52
Open Carry would have prevented this...

HH

Legion Etrangere
11-26-2012, 10:58
Open Carry would have prevented this...

HH



Elaborate please?

FullClip
11-26-2012, 10:59
They broke into his house...and he capped them...the guy screwed up by not contacting the cops ASAP. Hope he doesn't get screwed too bad, but am afraid they'll make an example of him.

Brucev
11-26-2012, 11:00
He played the stupid game. Now... he get the stupid prize.

TBO
11-26-2012, 11:02
609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.
The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06 (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes?year=2006&id=609.06#stat.609.06), except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.
History: 1963 c 753 art 1 s 609 (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws?doctype=Chapter&year=1963&type=0&id=753).065; 1978 c 736 s 1 (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws?doctype=Chapter&year=1978&type=0&id=736); 1986 c 444

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.065&year=2006

devildog2067
11-26-2012, 11:03
They broke into his house...and he capped them...the guy screwed up by not contacting the cops ASAP.

I'd argue he screwed up by, you know, executing them with headshots after they were already down.

Tvov
11-26-2012, 11:05
That's just a weird situation. Makes me think there is more to it than reported.

Altaris
11-26-2012, 11:06
If it was a shoot, fall down the stair, and immediately shoot again, “as they were trying to get up to come at me”, then he would be fine.

Him shooting, then waiting, then doing a head shot, then waiting a day to call the cops is going to get him screwed.

fnfalman
11-26-2012, 11:06
Some people just don't know when to shut up.

fnfalman
11-26-2012, 11:07
They broke into his house...and he capped them...the guy screwed up by not contacting the cops ASAP. Hope he doesn't get screwed too bad, but am afraid they'll make an example of him.

When he said to the cops "I wanted him dead" and "I shot her more than I needed to"...well...I can't say that I have much sympathy for the old dude.

Gun Shark
11-26-2012, 11:08
What a sick ****... That said, who would laugh in that situation? I would never burglarize someone's home. But I can guarantee, that if someone points a gun at me, and it jams, I am most certainly not going to be laughing.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

Hailstorm
11-26-2012, 11:09
This is the wrong way to do it for sure. He will be in jail a long time. The problem was taking additional shots while they lay on the ground.

Center mass, how hard is it? You shoot to stop the threat. If you wound and plug'em again while they lay there. Your gonna go away for a while.

If he woudl have made the first shot count for each. He would not be in such trouble, making him delay in calling the local PD.

fnfalman
11-26-2012, 11:13
This is the wrong way to do it for sure. He will be in jail a long time. The problem was taking additional shots while they lay on the ground.

Center mass, how hard is it? You shoot to stop the threat. If you wound and plug'em again while they lay there. Your gonna go away for a while.

If he woudl have made the first shot count for each. He would not be in such trouble, making him delay in calling the local PD.

My opinion is that this dude is a nutjob looking for an excuse to kill somebody and he got it.

Not that the punks didn't deserve to get shot or even killed, mind you, but this crazy dude went out of his way to kill these two punks.

If it were me, I'd probably pop'em too but I wouldn't execute them while they were wounded and unable to present themselves as threats.

SGT HATRED
11-26-2012, 11:16
How often we hear how thieves get their justice when a homeowner fatally shoots them. And how often we hear the praise here on Glocktalk of the homeowners actions. I fail to see how this is any different, yet this guy is a monster... He was still eradicating someones who broke into his home.

janice6
11-26-2012, 11:19
These criminals were shot multiple times and executed, as punishment for past experiences of the homeowner, not for this specific breaking they were engaged in.

Executing an individual is not allowed for any reason, by a citizen.

As TBO posted, the law sees no acceptable reason for a citizen to "Punish" another. Only defend themselves from potential harm. In spite of actuality, only the law is permitted to "punish" citizens.

If the BG dies in the commission of his crime while the GG is defending himself, it is an incidental result of the defense, not the intent of the defense. Then, you are GTG.

He is toast.

Not a cop, not a lawyer, didn't stay at a Howard Johnsons.

fnfalman
11-26-2012, 11:20
How often we hear how thieves get their justice when a homeowner fatally shoots them. And how often we hear the praise here on Glocktalk of the homeowners actions. I fail to see how this is any different, yet this guy is a monster... He was still eradicating someones who broke into his home.

You don't see the difference between shooting somebody in self-defense and the perps died versus wounding the perps then executed them?

SGT HATRED
11-26-2012, 11:21
You don't see the difference between shooting somebody in self-defense and the perps died versus wounding the perps then executed them?

I see the difference, but what really is different? His proximity to the shooting? So he was point blank instead of through the front door or sliding glass patio door. Some states say it's ok to shoot someone attempting to break in, where's the threat of bodily harm there?

Lampshade
11-26-2012, 11:28
I see the difference, but what really is different?

One is justifiable homicide, the other is murder.

Roger1079
11-26-2012, 11:28
He neutralized the threat with the first shots. No need for the second shots. Also, no need to wait overnight to call the authorities. He obviously knew he was in trouble when he asked to lawyer up with the call to police. Yet another tarnishing mark on gun owners everywhere.

PrecisionRifleman
11-26-2012, 11:29
So what, they took the risk breaking into his home and it just so happened they screwed with the wrong home/man. He home owners statements were stupid, but it doesn't change the fact that had they not broken the law and infringed on that mans dwelling they would still be alive. Had those kids shot beaten and or killed the old man everyone would be singing a different song.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

Dubble-Tapper
11-26-2012, 11:30
lots of unknowns, but either way, he didnt have to execute them.

a few questions...

1.) what the hell were the kids doing committing burglary in broad daylight?

2.) what kind of sick 18 yr old girl laughs at a jamming rifle intended for her after already having been shot?

3.) why didnt he call the cops immediately?

either way, from the sounds of it, the world could do without any of them, so 3 birds with one stone.

devildog2067
11-26-2012, 11:31
I see the difference, but what really is different?

"I see the difference, except I don't."

I'm pretty sure this is one of those things that, if you don't get it, no amount of explaining is going to help.

If someone breaks into my house and I shoot them while they are doing so, I am shooting to stop the threat. If they die because I shot them, so be it.

If they DON'T die, and are then incapacitated on the floor, and I walk over put a pistol under their chin and execute them, now I have committed murder. They were no longer a threat to me, but I shot them anyway.

It's pretty simple.

Lampshade
11-26-2012, 11:31
He home owners statements were stupid, but it doesn't change the fact that had they not broken the law and infringed on that mans dwelling they would still be alive.

And had he not broken the law and infringed on their right not to be murdered, he would not have been charged.


Had those kids shot beaten and or killed the old man everyone would be singing a different song.

Nobody is suggesting that the man didn't have the right to defend himself.

devildog2067
11-26-2012, 11:32
He home owners statements were stupid, but it doesn't change the fact that had they not broken the law and infringed on that mans dwelling they would still be alive.

And if the man had called the police after shooting and incapacitating them, everyone would be alive and only the bad guys would be in jail.

The fact that some of you don't understand how self-defense and executing the wounded are different sickens and saddens me.

Henry Kane
11-26-2012, 11:34
2.) what kind of sick 18 yr old girl laughs at a jamming rifle intended for her after already having been shot?



Considering the rest of the shooter's comments being reported, I'm doubtful that the female actually laughed at him. Of course, weirder things have happened. :dunno:

TBO
11-26-2012, 11:35
lots of unknowns, but either way, he didnt have to execute them.

a few questions...

1.) what the hell were the kids doing committing burglary in broad daylight? - That's when most burglaries are committed.

2.) what kind of sick 18 yr old girl laughs at a jamming rifle intended for her after already having been shot? -We only have his comments, so who knows what really happened. People who experience massive physical trauma/shock can respond in unexpected/unusual ways.

3.) why didnt he call the cops immediately? - Who knows. Perhaps a sense of guilt, perhaps a complete lack of GAF.

either way, from the sounds of it, the world could do without any of them, so 3 birds with one stone.
.....

fnfalman
11-26-2012, 11:38
I see the difference, but what really is different? His proximity to the shooting? So he was point blank instead of through the front door or sliding glass patio door. Some states say it's ok to shoot someone attempting to break in, where's the threat of bodily harm there?

The difference is that he purposely killed them after they ceased being a threat. In his own words, he wanted them dead. In his own words, he said that he shot the girl more than needed to.

I don't know how else to explain it to you.

SMOKEin
11-26-2012, 11:41
Somewhat unbelievable that a few of you are unable to see the difference between a "good shoot" and what is being reported in this case.

Hines57
11-26-2012, 11:42
The other article doesn't make the kids out to be the little angels that the first one does.


http://www.startribune.com/local/east/180785621.html

Dubble-Tapper
11-26-2012, 11:42
Somewhat unbelievable that a few of you are unable to see the difference between a "good shoot" and what is being reported in this case.

right? and these people own/carry firearms!

Henry Kane
11-26-2012, 11:51
The fact that some of you don't understand how self-defense and executing the wounded are different sickens and saddens me.

Very worrisome indeed! As for the morality of it, I agree with what you said earlier; it can't be explained to one who doesn't already understand. <-- And by this, I mean the moral obligation to follow the law as much as the morality (or lack of) of executing the intruders.

That said, it's enough worrying about the red-tape, the anti-constitutional bureaucrats, and the growing public sentiment that would happily remove our rights to defense. We have to worry about legally armed citizens who cannot see the difference between self-defense and murder, too? :faint:

Lampshade
11-26-2012, 11:54
The other article doesn't make the kids out to be the little angels that the first one does.


There's nothing in the original article that makes them out to be little angels.

Dennis in MA
11-26-2012, 11:57
They broke into his house...and he capped them...the guy screwed up by not contacting the cops ASAP. Hope he doesn't get screwed too bad, but am afraid they'll make an example of him.

:wow:

I'd argue he screwed up by, you know, executing them with headshots after they were already down.

He's old, he's a bad shot and he was aiming at the kneecaps to stop them. :rofl:

He also tried to shoot the weapons out of their hands. That was ineffective as well. Despite multiple shots to attempt it.

This guy is going down. Too bad. The question is: Why did the chippy keep coming after hearing gunfire????

TBO
11-26-2012, 11:59
She might have been outside the house at that time, maybe even a bit of distance away waiting. The sound(s) she may have heard might only have sounded like her partner tossing the place, or her partner in trouble (falling down, stuck in a locked room, etc).

All speculation, but possible.

elliotb33
11-26-2012, 12:00
This guy is my new hero!

coqui33
11-26-2012, 12:04
May I point out that you guys are assuming that the homeowner shot the thugs more than absolutely necessary based solely on a news report?

Based solely on a news report!

As if we did not have overwhelming evidence that the newsmedia routinely fabricates stuff that they think will sell..

390ish
11-26-2012, 12:04
This guy is wacko. He was so angry that his words of pride in executing those people is what is going to convict him. Wow.

RJ1670
11-26-2012, 12:05
Someone forgot to teach him the 3 S's.

Lampshade
11-26-2012, 12:07
May I point out that you guys are assuming that the homeowner shot the thugs more than absolutely necessary based solely on a news report?

Based solely on a news report!

As if we did not have overwhelming evidence that the newsmedia routinely fabricates stuff that they think will sell..

A news report which quotes the man himself saying he shot them more than necessary.

Now, if you have some evidence to suggest that his admission was fabricated, do tell.

devildog2067
11-26-2012, 12:09
May I point out that you guys are assuming that the homeowner shot the thugs more than absolutely necessary based solely on a news report?


Since none of us were there, the news report is the information we have to work with.

Generally, news reports that contain direct quotes can be trusted to at least get those right. The man's own statements are the most damning evidence.

Yes, if the news report turns out to be materially wrong and it turns out he was framed by the KGB, the opinions already stated will probably change. I'm pretty sure that's implied, which is why no one included a disclaimer in their post, but if it really makes you feel better maybe we can petition the entire internet to include the words "opinions subject to change on the basis of new information" in every post.

Feel better?

Harper
11-26-2012, 12:11
The fact that some of you don't understand how self-defense and executing the wounded are different sickens and saddens me.

Maybe they feel if any restriction is placed on the home owner they are somehow losing their right to self defense. Some people are simple minded. Perhaps being able to make that differentiation is too complex for them.

John Rambo
11-26-2012, 12:13
Good riddance. I hope he gets a minimal sentence.

vart
11-26-2012, 12:15
The fact that some of you don't understand how self-defense and executing the wounded are different sickens and saddens me.

Seriously, there are some sick puppies here...:shocked:

fnfalman
11-26-2012, 12:17
The other article doesn't make the kids out to be the little angels that the first one does.


http://www.startribune.com/local/east/180785621.html

Nobody claimed that the two deads were angels. They probably deserved what they got. However that wasn't the point. The point was that the home owner executed them and then blabbed about it.

May I point out that you guys are assuming that the homeowner shot the thugs more than absolutely necessary based solely on a news report?

Based solely on a news report!

As if we did not have overwhelming evidence that the newsmedia routinely fabricates stuff that they think will sell..

Very true. The reporter could have made it all up.

However, I doubt that cops would be pressing manslaughter/murder charges without something that gave them cause to do.

As far as didn't call the cops right away because he was too distraught after the fact? The dude better pray that he has a medical reason to preclude him picking up the phone and dial 911.

skinny99
11-26-2012, 12:20
"I see the difference, except I don't."

I'm pretty sure this is one of those things that, if you don't get it, no amount of explaining is going to help.

If someone breaks into my house and I shoot them while they are doing so, I am shooting to stop the threat. If they die because I shot them, so be it.

If they DON'T die, and are then incapacitated on the floor, and I walk over put a pistol under their chin and execute them, now I have committed murder. They were no longer a threat to me, but I shot them anyway.

It's pretty simple.

Dead on. I have no sympathy for the dead criminals. But there is a line between defending your life and property and executing a robber. We are not judge,jury and executioner, nor should we be.

With that said if I am defending myself or catch someone breaking into my home I will be firing multiple shots very quickly. I will take no chances with my life by giving any consideration to the preservation of the assailant/criminals life.

Glock20 10mm
11-26-2012, 12:24
They taught us at the 2 day defensive handgun course at FrontSight that what this man did is legally defined as an assassination. How this came up is someone asked about the two in the chest one in the head method and the reply was that would get you in hot water really quick. He's screwed and no one to blame but himself.

PrecisionRifleman
11-26-2012, 12:27
And had he not broken the law and infringed on their right not to be murdered, he would not have been charged.




Nobody is suggesting that the man didn't have the right to defend himself.

I'm not saying he acted ethically, or wisely, but who cares? Its his home. Don't screw with people in their own homes and you wont get crapped on.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

Jon_R
11-26-2012, 12:27
I don't support his actions as described but under FL law I don't see how he could be charged related to the actual shooting. I am not aware of the laws in his state.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0900-0999/0943/Sections/0943.10.html)(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

fnfalman
11-26-2012, 12:29
They taught us at the 2 day defensive handgun course at FrontSight that what this man did is legally defined as an assassination. How this came up is someone asked about the two in the chest one in the head method and the reply was that would get you in hot water really quick. He's screwed and no one to blame but himself.

Depends on how you do the Mozambique drill.

If it's "blam, blam, blam" then that's just your reaction based on your training.

If it's "blam, blam" then walk up to the guy, take dead aim at the head and "blam"...yeah, you may just go to jail for that.

devildog2067
11-26-2012, 12:29
How this came up is someone asked about the two in the chest one in the head method and the reply was that would get you in hot water really quick.

I don't know that I believe that--Mozambiques are designed to be a quick string of fire. I guess if you wait to deliver the "one to the head" after the target falls down, that's one thing, but I can't imagine that three shots at a mobile target are going to get you into legal trouble. Following that logic, you'd have to fire single shots and wait to see if the target falls down before firing again.

Bren
11-26-2012, 12:30
They broke into his house...and he capped them...the guy screwed up by not contacting the cops ASAP. Hope he doesn't get screwed too bad, but am afraid they'll make an example of him.

Well, no, he screwed up by shooting an unarmed girl, already wounded and on the floor, several times in the chest with a pistol. Then he screwed up by dragging her to a convenient spot and putting another one under her chin into the brain because she was still breathing, for "'a good clean finishing shot." He also screwed up by admitting he wanted to kill her because she laughed at him when his POS Mini-14 jammed after the first time he shot her. Heck, he even screwed up when he shot the male in the face as he lay on the floor, then dragged his body into the workshop and sat down to wait for a shot at the girl. The he screwed up by admitting all of that to the police (not that he could get away with it anyhow).

"Not contacting the cops ASAP" is what you got from that story about a psychopathic maniac who should never be on the street another day in his life? Really?

fnfalman
11-26-2012, 12:31
I don't support his actions as described but under FL law I don't see how he could be charged related to the actual shooting. I am not aware of the laws in his state.


I'm not a lawyer, but I'm fairly certain that the DA isn't going to charge him for shooting them in the beginning, but probably charges him for putting a gun under the girl's jaws and pull the trigger to finish her off.

Bren
11-26-2012, 12:33
What a sick ****... That said, who would laugh in that situation? I would never burglarize someone's home. But I can guarantee, that if someone points a gun at me, and it jams, I am most certainly not going to be laughing.



Especially after he already shot her in the hip with a .223 and she fell down the stairs. She may have been as tough as some of those action movie characters -

...until she met a guy crazy as some of those slasher movie characters.

Geko45
11-26-2012, 12:34
"opinions subject to change on the basis of new information" in every post.

Feel better?

That's sig line material right there.

Bren
11-26-2012, 12:35
I don't support his actions as described but under FL law I don't see how he could be charged related to the actual shooting. I am not aware of the laws in his state.

If you believe that the law you posted - or any law in any state in the U.S....or Somalia...could make this shooting legally justifed, no matter how far you stretch erring on the side of the shooter, you have no business carrying a gun until you learn about the law that applies.

RPVG
11-26-2012, 12:44
If you believe that the law you posted - or any law in any state in the U.S....or Somalia...could make this shooting legally justifed, no matter how far you stretch erring on the side of the shooter, you have no business carrying a gun until you learn about the law that applies.
That seems to sum it up nicely.

Jon_R
11-26-2012, 12:45
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm fairly certain that the DA isn't going to charge him for shooting them in the beginning, but probably charges him for putting a gun under the girl's jaws and pull the trigger to finish her off.

I just don't know what the charge would be under Florida Law. Common sense I agree with you but I don't see anything in the statute that a person that forced entry ever becomes a non threat to you. Sort of like un-ringing a bell.

Charge the person with Manslaughter and their defense is under Castle Doctrine they were a serious threat because they forced entry as defined in the statute and I deployed deadly force as I am allowed to do when seriously threatened.

Might be able to get the person on tampering with a crime scene.

TBO
11-26-2012, 12:46
MN law, post #6

Sent from the capacitor of my Taser using Tapatalk 2

Jon_R
11-26-2012, 12:51
If you believe that the law you posted - or any law in any state in the U.S....or Somalia...could make this shooting legally justifed, no matter how far you stretch erring on the side of the shooter, you have no business carrying a gun until you learn about the law that applies.

I think the actions where disgusting and I am always trying to understand the law better. What am I missing? I cut and pasted the statute not a summary or slanted version just the law on the books. Yes it was terrible but in a state with strong castle doctrine like FL what would be the charge?

John Rambo
11-26-2012, 12:58
"Not contacting the cops ASAP" is what you got from that story about a psychopathic maniac who should never be on the street another day in his life? Really?

Break into someone else's house and you'll likely find a psychopathic maniac, too.

Darkangel1846
11-26-2012, 13:02
He executed the girl, and that says it all! That dumb *** needs to go away forever!

Bren
11-26-2012, 13:06
I think the actions where disgusting and I am always trying to understand the law better. What am I missing? I cut and pasted the statute not a summary or slanted version just the law on the books. Yes it was terrible but in a state with strong castle doctrine like FL what would be the charge?

The charge would be Murder.

You cited a presumption (not a justification statute) that the home owner was in danger of death or injury. A presumption means it is legally presumed that is the case, unelss there is evidence to disprove it. he admitted the male was wounded and laying on the floor when he shot him in the face and the female was wounded and laying on the floor when he shot her several times in the chest with a pistol then put one more in her brain to finish her off - presumption overcome and conviction assured.

There is nothing in Florida law that allows you to shoot a wounded and disabled burglar to make sure they are dead. Even in Kentucky, where we can use deadly force just against a burglar, without being in danger, and we have no "reasonableness" requirement (possibly the only state that allows that - we can only used when "immediately necessary to prevent" the burglary or burglary attempt. When the burgolar is unconscious on the floor and near death, no court or jury is likely to find the force "necessary."

Florida law allows deadly force when you are in danger of death or serious injury and it has a presumption that you are in such danger when a burglar enters your house by force - however, it does not allow you to shoot anybody after they are no longer a threat and the presumpion is overcome by evidence to show they were not a danger, as in this case.

Back to what I said about learning some law, because you SERIOUSLY misunderstand Florida's law (to start with, the statute you posted, which we have here, does not actually allow a justified shootng - it supports justifications found in other statutes, with legal presumptions).

Bren
11-26-2012, 13:09
Break into someone else's house and you'll likely find a psychopathic maniac, too.

Then I'd likely find someone who'll spend the rest of his life in prison, and deserve it, like the guy in this story. Did you read it? You thought the part where the girl he shot multiple times in the chest while she was laying on the floor, wounded, and then got another one under the chin and through the brain because she was "still breathing," after he dragged the bodies into another room, sounded like the reaction you expect from a burgled homeowner? Really?:upeyes:

Mrs.Cicero
11-26-2012, 13:29
Home invaders deserve to die. So I'm not sorry they got what was coming to them. It's just too bad for the homeowner that it wasn't legal.

And that bit about how the druggie git was "just turning her life around"? Yeah, I can see how turned around she was breaking into someone's house on Thanksgiving.

No, I'm not going to shoot someone who is already down. But only because I don't need the legal trouble that would bring me or the fallout on my family. Not out of any misplaced sympathy for the crooks.

Pawcatch@aol.co
11-26-2012, 13:34
He went a little too far,but the DA would have a hard time getting a murder conviction if that happened in my county.

Even with all the evidence,I'm not sure I would vote guilty.

Bren
11-26-2012, 13:34
I never thought I'd be the kinder gentler one on this forum. What did they call that place superman went to, where everything was the opposite? Bizarro World?

Of course, if the police had responded to a 911 call from the homeowner and had shot these kids 1 time each as they were coming down the stairs, many of the same posters would be talking about how the "cops need to go to prison just like I would if I shot unarmed people."

The victims/criminals (I'm thinking when it goes from self-defense to a clear murder, it's OK to call them victims again), some time before they went out "jackin' folks and doin' hood rat stuff." Ages 17 and 18.

http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2012/11/26/602291_304560426310954_1608_540x405.jpg

countrygun
11-26-2012, 13:36
I'm thinking that it is a "Win/Win" all the way around for society in general.

cangler
11-26-2012, 13:42
That is very strange, teenagers break in and you automatically shoot them without seeing a threat? That is just weird in my opinion. I would never shoot anyone unless I saw a clear threat for my life. This old dude may have some serious mental issues. Don't dog on me, just my opinion. He will do time, but probably not as long as he deserves. Now, if the teenagers had weapons/guns in their hands that's another story. Maybe the teenagers were high on drugs, why would you laugh once you were already shot? Strange story!

Pawcatch@aol.co
11-26-2012, 13:49
Just because these kids looked harmless doesn't mean they weren't dangerous.
IMO,it was just a matter of time untill they pulled a Wichita massacre type crime with the way they were headed.

Jon_R
11-26-2012, 13:51
Okay so the presumption ends when a person (reasonable person standard?) should no longer be in fear of their life.

Outside the home it is presumed a person is not a threat unless a reasonable person thinks they are. Probably leans a little more towards a person is not a threat.

Inside the home a person is presumed a threat until a reasonable person should know they are not. Probably leans a little more towards the person is a threat.

That works. Thanks.


The charge would be Murder.

You cited a presumption (not a justification statute) that the home owner was in danger of death or injury. A presumption means it is legally presumed that is the case, unelss there is evidence to disprove it. he admitted the male was wounded and laying on the floor when he shot him in the face and the female was wounded and laying on the floor when he shot her several times in the chest with a pistol then put one more in her brain to finish her off - presumption overcome and conviction assured.

There is nothing in Florida law that allows you to shoot a wounded and disabled burglar to make sure they are dead. Even in Kentucky, where we can use deadly force just against a burglar, without being in danger, and we have no "reasonableness" requirement (possibly the only state that allows that - we can only used when "immediately necessary to prevent" the burglary or burglary attempt. When the burgolar is unconscious on the floor and near death, no court or jury is likely to find the force "necessary."

Florida law allows deadly force when you are in danger of death or serious injury and it has a presumption that you are in such danger when a burglar enters your house by force - however, it does not allow you to shoot anybody after they are no longer a threat and the presumpion is overcome by evidence to show they were not a danger, as in this case.

Back to what I said about learning some law, because you SERIOUSLY misunderstand Florida's law (to start with, the statute you posted, which we have here, does not actually allow a justified shootng - it supports justifications found in other statutes, with legal presumptions).

Sharky7
11-26-2012, 13:54
Reminds me of the Oklahoma Pharmacist shooting a bit....Sad all around for everyone involved in this.

Glock20 10mm
11-26-2012, 13:56
I don't know that I believe that--Mozambiques are designed to be a quick string of fire. I guess if you wait to deliver the "one to the head" after the target falls down, that's one thing, but I can't imagine that three shots at a mobile target are going to get you into legal trouble. Following that logic, you'd have to fire single shots and wait to see if the target falls down before firing again.

I think it has to do with delivery... it's been a while but I do remember the discourse between the instructor and student. Maybe I am not remembering the exact verbiage correctly.

Bren
11-26-2012, 13:56
Just because these kids looked harmless doesn't mean they weren't dangerous.
IMO,it was just a matter of time untill they pulled a Wichita massacre type crime with the way they were headed.

I didn't see anything about their criminal history, other than possibly 1 prior theft by the girl, or them being armed or attempting to do anything violent in the articles I read. Did you?

countrygun
11-26-2012, 13:56
Around here, Juries generally figure, with an unknown perpetrator, or one known with malicious intent, the homeowner generally gets the first two shots, that connect, without need for explanation.

If, it turns out, as one poster speculated, that it was someone "harmless??" it still doesn't make the shooting a crime, just a matter of conscience.

kahrguy
11-26-2012, 13:57
Two cops shot at the guy in NY city 40 times (Deablo case I think) more than absolutely necessary no jail time one is working as a fire man

Sharkey
11-26-2012, 13:59
I'm thinking that it is a "Win/Win" all the way around for society in general.

Yep.
At least "life in prison" won't be that long.
I guess they should have listened when he told them to get off his lawn.

Pawcatch@aol.co
11-26-2012, 14:00
I didn't see anything about their criminal history, other than possibly 1 prior theft by the girl, or them being armed or attempting to do anything violent in the articles I read. Did you?

No,I didn't,but they were still young.
What if they had got the drop on this man?

devildog2067
11-26-2012, 14:01
Two cops shot at the guy in NY city 40 times (Deablo case I think) more than absolutely necessary no jail time one is working as a fire man

His name was Diallo.

The circumstances were totally different. I'll let you google it (Amadou Diallo) if you're genuinely interested in learning about it.

The most relevant detail, and the way that it was entirely different from this shooting, is that all of the 41 shots were fired in a matter of seconds. No one walked over and popped him in the head after he was down.

oldgraywolf
11-26-2012, 14:03
I'm 100% for stopping someone who's posing an active threat. Other than that, not so much. As a society, we live under a framework of law, take that away and damn few of us would like what follows. Bren is right on the money.

devildog2067
11-26-2012, 14:04
No,I didn't,but they were still young.
What if they had got the drop on this man?

You fail to recognize that NO ONE in this thread has argued that the intruders should not have been shot. The initial shooting was fine. It's the dragging them into another room and then shooting them in the face that's not ok.

Jon_R
11-26-2012, 14:07
Back to what I said about learning some law, because you SERIOUSLY misunderstand Florida's law (to start with, the statute you posted, which we have here, does not actually allow a justified shootng - it supports justifications found in other statutes, with legal presumptions).

I just keep it simple. If I feel I am in threat of death or grave bodily harm or people with me (family, etc.) I hope I am able to deploy force up to deadly force. I don't need or have any desire to push any laws to the limit or live in grey area and would be perfectly happy never hurting anyone. If I had to deploy the force it is because I felt it was required and the rest can be sorted out after the fact.

In the situation in the story I would have been happy to not shoot them regardless of the law as long as I could see their hands and they gave me no reason to fire through compliance while waiting on the police.

From a practical side they can't carry out more money worth of stuff than it would cost to clean up the mess from shooting them so from pure logic I would only shoot if I had to in order to survive.

Pawcatch@aol.co
11-26-2012, 14:07
You fail to recognize that NO ONE in this thread has argued that the intruders should not have been shot. The initial shooting was fine. It's the dragging them into another room and then shooting them in the face that's not ok.

No,I didn't fail to reconize that.I'm saying that they were capable of violence.
What did YOU think I was trying to say?

Bren
11-26-2012, 14:08
Okay so the presumption ends when a person (reasonable person standard?) should no longer be in fear of their life.

Outside the home it is presumed a person is not a threat unless a reasonable person thinks they are. Probably leans a little more towards a person is not a threat.

Inside the home a person is presumed a threat until a reasonable person should know they are not. Probably leans a little more towards the person is a threat.

That works. Thanks.

Basically, yes, but you still aren't seeing the difference between the justification statute (the one that says you didn't commit a crime by shooting) and the presumption statute (the one that reverses the burden of proof, so it is assumed you were in fear of death or serious injury until the prosecutor disproves the presumption). The presumption ends when there is evidence proving you were not really in fear of death or serious injury (or, in FL, that a reasonable person would not have been).

The justification and presumption work independantly of each other - for example, wherever you are, you are justified in using deadly force in self defense, if you reasonably believe you are in danger of death or serious injury. The prosecutor has the burden of proving you intentionally killed somebody, then you have the burden of proving you were justified by giving evidence that you had a reasonable fear the person was about to kill you. But in certain situations, like in your home, the presumption statute you cited reverses the burden of proof, so the prosecutor has to present evidence that 1-you intentionally killed somebody and 2-you were not in reasonable fear of death or serious injury when you did it, before it ever gets to your part of the case. Failing to do that, the judge could direct a not guilty verdict at the close of the prosecutor's case.

In this case, the prosecutor would present evidence that Byron Smith intentionally killed the 2 burglars, by the physicqal evidence and his own statements. Then he would present evidence to overcome the presumption that Smith believed he was in imminent danger of death or serious injury using the fact that he moved them around his house after they were shot and that he finished them off with head shots after they were down and apparently harmless.

Smith, on the other hand, had best hope a psychiatrist will agree that he is insane.

Bren
11-26-2012, 14:09
No,I didn't fail to reconize that.I'm saying that they were capable of violence.
What did YOU think I was trying to say?

The only evidence in the story was that they were down and harmless when he killed them - not "capable of violence." The fact that he was able to drag the girl to another room and prop her up and all she was doing was breathing when he shot her in the head is a hint.

No,I didn't,but they were still young.
What if they had got the drop on this man?

So you didn't even read the story? because it clearly says that didn't happen, according to the shooter's own story.

Bren
11-26-2012, 14:14
Around here, Juries generally figure, with an unknown perpetrator, or one known with malicious intent, the homeowner generally gets the first two shots, that connect, without need for explanation.

If, it turns out, as one poster speculated, that it was someone "harmless??" it still doesn't make the shooting a crime, just a matter of conscience.

Well this homeowner fired a lot more than 2 shots and even "around there" I'll bet a jury would take a dim view of shooting a teenage girl in the chest several times while she's laying on the floor wounded, then dragging her to another room and propping her up so you can put a pistol under her chin and shoot her in the head. Is that allowed where you live?

Pawcatch@aol.co
11-26-2012, 14:14
The only evidence in the story was that they were down and harmless when he killed them - not "capable of violence." The fact that he was able to drag the girl to another room and prop her up and all she was doing was breathing when he shot her in the head is a hint.



So you didn't even read the story? because it clearly says that didn't happen, according to the shooter's own story.

I clearly said what if? I never claimed it happened like that.
Yes,I read the story.

devildog2067
11-26-2012, 14:15
No,I didn't fail to reconize that.I'm saying that they were capable of violence.
What did YOU think I was trying to say?

What you were trying to say is fairly obvious. You think they deserved to die.

He went a little too far,but the DA would have a hard time getting a murder conviction if that happened in my county.
Even with all the evidence,I'm not sure I would vote guilty.

You keep saying "what if"?

What if they had got the drop on this man?
Just because these kids looked harmless doesn't mean they weren't dangerous.
IMO,it was just a matter of time untill they pulled a Wichita massacre type crime with the way they were headed.

The facts seem to be that this man executed two people who had ceased to be a threat to him. It's pretty simple.

Pawcatch@aol.co
11-26-2012, 14:20
What you were trying to say is fairly obvious. You think they deserved to die.

I'm glad they're not a threat to anyone anymore.



You keep saying "what if"?

Yes,what if they did this to another man?



The facts seem to be that this man executed two people who had ceased to be a threat to him. It's pretty simple.


If they had been Creek indians during the early 1800s and he did the same thing would he have been prosecuted?

devildog2067
11-26-2012, 14:24
I'm glad they're not a threat to anyone anymore.


I am too.

I still recognize the fact that it's not ok that they were executed.

If someone went around murdering drug dealers, I might be morally ok with it, but I still recognize the fact that if the cops ever catch up to the guy he's going down for murder, and that's as it should be.

Yes,what if they did this to another man?

What if they had a scare, learned their lesson, and grew up to live productive lives and cured cancer? "What if" is stupid. What happened, happened.

Leigh
11-26-2012, 14:26
Bren is right on the money.

Absolutely.

countrygun
11-26-2012, 14:27
Well this homeowner fired a lot more than 2 shots and even "around there" I'll bet a jury would take a dim view of shooting a teenage girl in the chest several times while she's laying on the floor wounded, then dragging her to another room and propping her up so you can put a pistol under her chin and shoot her in the head. Is that allowed where you live?

Never said it was????:dunno:

Just citing my experience from being on both a homiced trial Jury and Grand Jury.

Gun Shark
11-26-2012, 14:29
It truly amazes me and scares me how many people think this was ok and or don't have a problem with what he did. And even more so, that there is a debate about the legality of it. IMHO if someone honestly thinks that what this guy did is ok, then they have no business with weapons of any kind. And should be examined by a mental health professional.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

Bren
11-26-2012, 14:31
[/B]


If they had been Creek indians during the early 1800s and he did the same thing would he have been prosecuted?

If aliens came from space and hypnotized him and made him shoot, would he be prosecuted?:rofl:

MAC702
11-26-2012, 14:31
There is way more to the story than we are being told. There must clearly be some history between these individuals.

But what is clear is that after he shot to stop the threat, he then committed murder. And based on his confession, it will be difficult to chalk it up to the heat of the battle.

Bren
11-26-2012, 14:40
There is way more to the story than we are being told. There must clearly be some history between these individuals.

It does seem fishy. They have jobs and the girl seems to have had some fairly minor issues - no mention of a real criminal history for either. The paper said all they found was that the girl once stole something from her cousin's house. They are not the gangsta thug home invaders I originally assumed. At worst, giving the shooter the benefit of the doubt, they were some unarmed burglars trying to steal from what they apparently thought was an unoccupied house.

Pawcatch@aol.co
11-26-2012, 14:45
I am too.

I still recognize the fact that it's not ok that they were executed.

If someone went around murdering drug dealers, I might be morally ok with it, but I still recognize the fact that if the cops ever catch up to the guy he's going down for murder, and that's as it should be.

Yes,I pretty much agree now.
However,I should note that my grandfather was the victim off assault under similar circumstances five years ago.
That may be why I feel so strongly about this.

What if they had a scare, learned their lesson, and grew up to live productive lives and cured cancer? "What if" is stupid. What happened, happened.

Agreed,but I don't think it's too far off to think these kids might have been dangerous.

costanza187
11-26-2012, 14:48
I agree that the the line here was obvious and it was crossed.

The shooting of intruders (whether they live or die as a result) was 100% justified.

The execution is murder.

tsmo1066
11-26-2012, 14:52
Shooting to end an immediate threat to your life = acceptible.

Killing people execution style with a followup bullet to the head or multiple shots to the chest after they have stopped being an immediate threat = murder.

This isn't a tough one to figure out.

vart
11-26-2012, 15:00
[/B]


If they had been Creek indians during the early 1800s and he did the same thing would he have been prosecuted?

http://www.hawaiianisland.com/catalog/crazy_train_dvd.jpg

Mrs.Cicero
11-26-2012, 15:14
Yes, yes, it was murder. It was also bleach in the gene pool, because, once again, anyone lacking either the moral standard or the intelligence to avoid invading another person's home, shouldn't be reproducing, or raising anyone else's children. Home invaders shouldn't be given a free pass for being white, or for being young, or for being pretty, or for being your kids' swim coach, of for any other excuse you'd like to come up with. What they did was completely beyond stupid teenager tricks. It was criminal.

Play stupid games...

fnfalman
11-26-2012, 15:20
Yes, yes, it was murder. It was also bleach in the gene pool, because, once again, anyone lacking either the moral standard or the intelligence to avoid invading another person's home, shouldn't be reproducing, or raising anyone else's children. Home invaders shouldn't be given a free pass for being white, or for being young, or for being pretty, or for being your kids' swim coach, of for any other excuse you'd like to come up with. What they did was completely beyond stupid teenager tricks. It was criminal.

Play stupid games...

In this case, the society wins. Except the psychopathic old coot probably bred a few already.

John Rambo
11-26-2012, 15:28
Then I'd likely find someone who'll spend the rest of his life in prison, and deserve it, like the guy in this story. Did you read it? You thought the part where the girl he shot multiple times in the chest while she was laying on the floor, wounded, and then got another one under the chin and through the brain because she was "still breathing," after he dragged the bodies into another room, sounded like the reaction you expect from a burgled homeowner? Really?:upeyes:

I would not, personally, have done what he did. But I would have dispatched them both without hesitation, thats for sure. And I wouldn't be using some POS Mini 14 to do it.

However, I empathize with how the man must have felt. If I were on the jury I'd give the guy a pass on everything but the failing to report part. Far as I'm concerned (and the Castle Doctrine, for that matter), people who break into houses deserve to die. I won't concern myself with the details of how they spend their last moments.


Also, to your post of the picture, remember the pictures about the good school child Trayvon Martin that the media whored around, then the real pictures of him came out? Pictures are worth 0 words. The broad was a pill-head and a criminal and the guy wasn't much better from what the news stories say.

devildog2067
11-26-2012, 15:32
If I were on the jury I'd give the guy a pass on everything but the failing to report part.

You don't get to make that decision as a jury member. That's not what juries are empowered to do.

Far as I'm concerned (and the Castle Doctrine, for that matter), people who break into houses deserve to die. I won't concern myself with the details of how they spend their last moments.

The details are totally irrelevant? That's idiotic. What if he raped or tortured them before killing them, would that matter? Of course it would.

countrygun
11-26-2012, 15:37
You don't get to make that decision as a jury member. That's not what juries are empowered to do.



.

That would depend on how the afidavit and the charges are written. If they are seperate or "lesser included" etc.

devildog2067
11-26-2012, 15:40
That would depend on how the afidavit and the charges are written. If they are seperate or "lesser included" etc.

Well then I defer to the experts, I guess. I'm not a lawyer or an expert on the law.

John Rambo
11-26-2012, 15:48
You don't get to make that decision as a jury member. That's not what juries are empowered to do.


True enough. Fine, then. I'd put my vote in for not guilty on all counts. :wavey:


The details are totally irrelevant? That's idiotic. What if he raped or tortured them before killing them, would that matter? Of course it would.Rape and torture are both illegal. Lets keep the discussion on how they leave this world, I.E. the homicide itself.

devildog2067
11-26-2012, 15:52
Rape and torture are both illegal. Lets keep the discussion on how they leave this world, I.E. the homicide itself.

The details of the homicide itself are what determines whether or not it's legal or illegal.

Shoot someone who's a threat to you, and they die: legal.

Shoot someone who's no longer a threat to you by walking up to them, dragging the body to another room, and putting your pistol under their chin: illegal.

This is very, very simple.

dherloc
11-26-2012, 15:57
"Not contacting the cops ASAP" is what you got from that story about a psychopathic maniac who should never be on the street another day in his life? Really?

I heard he got some advice from a place called GNG that advised "Don't talk to the cops" :supergrin:

Also,

I love this statement

"Nicholas was smart, and he knew right from wrong. Kids are kids, and they all do stupid things."

Apparently Nicholas failed the right from wrong portion of the test.

John Rambo
11-26-2012, 16:08
The details of the homicide itself are what determines whether or not it's legal or illegal.

Shoot someone who's a threat to you, and they die: legal.

Shoot someone who's no longer a threat to you by walking up to them, dragging the body to another room, and putting your pistol under their chin: illegal.

This is very, very simple.

If they're in your house when they shouldn't be and still able to move in any way, shape, or form, they're a threat.

This is even simpler.

devildog2067
11-26-2012, 16:10
If they're in your house when they shouldn't be and still able to move in any way, shape, or form, they're a threat.

Are you insane?

If you can drag them around from room to room, they're not a threat.

John Rambo
11-26-2012, 16:13
Are you insane?

If you can drag them around from room to room, they're not a threat.

Like I said, I don't concern myself with the details. I wouldn't have done the same, but more power to him for ridding the world of two violent criminals. :wavey:

devildog2067
11-26-2012, 16:14
Like I said, I don't concern myself with the details. I wouldn't have done the same, but more power to him for ridding the world of two violent criminals.

The details don't matter, except when they do, except when they don't. Got it.

So, you ARE insane. Good to know.

John Rambo
11-26-2012, 16:16
The details don't matter, except when they do, except when they don't. Got it.

So, you ARE insane. Good to know.

I just don't give a **** about how violent criminals are killed. 1 shot. 4 shots. Whatever. Shoot 'em until they stop moving.

devildog2067
11-26-2012, 16:17
I just don't give a **** about how violent criminals are killed. 1 shot. 4 shots. Whatever. Shoot 'em until they stop moving.

Right. Until they stop moving. Which he did.

Then he walked over, dragged them into another room and shot them in the face.

turretg
11-26-2012, 16:22
She might have been outside the house at that time, maybe even a bit of distance away waiting. The sound(s) she may have heard might only have sounded like her partner tossing the place, or her partner in trouble (falling down, stuck in a locked room, etc).

All speculation, but possible.


Yeah but, possible don't make it so.

John Rambo
11-26-2012, 16:29
Right. Until they stop moving. Which he did.

Then he walked over, dragged them into another room and shot them in the face.

I know. Sure beats having to pay for their trauma care, rehab, and housing, don't it?

Gun Shark
11-26-2012, 16:30
I know. Sure beats having to pay for their trauma care, rehab, and housing, don't it?

I sincerely hope you are using some form of dark twisted humor.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

John Rambo
11-26-2012, 16:33
I sincerely hope you are using some form of dark twisted humor.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

Yes. But its driven by a sheer hatred of people like them.

di11igaf
11-26-2012, 16:39
I just don't give a **** about how violent criminals are killed. 1 shot. 4 shots. Whatever. Shoot 'em until they stop moving.
Shooting until someone stops moving is fine. Someone breaks in, your not sure if they're gonna kill you or not, unload on them. THEN, call the cops. What he did was different, he even makes it sound like he enjoyed it. Not only that, they weren't violent, yet. Maybe they had no intentions of hurting anyone, maybe not. There's no way we will ever know.
Right. Until they stop moving. Which he did.

Then he walked over, dragged them into another room and shot them in the face.
Exactly. Not only that, after he shot the girl and his rifle jammed, he then thought it was appropriate to shoot her in the face with his revolver to 'end her suffering'.
If someone breaks into a house, they should be ready for the consequence to be death. But, Does anyone really think this will look good to the rest of the us for gun owners? Not even close. It only shows exactly what some want to portray, that gun owners can't wait to kill somebody, that they HOPE this thing happens so they can 'teach the bad guys a lesson.'
Guys like this are the ones who really shouldn't own a gun, cause that stereotype is reality to them.

Harper
11-26-2012, 16:54
Yes. But its driven by a sheer hatred of people like them.

That's why discussing this with you is a waste of time. You can't reason with someone "driven by sheer hatred".

Bren
11-26-2012, 17:01
Like I said, I don't concern myself with the details.

A common theme in your opinions.

cangler
11-26-2012, 17:01
Some of you people need help...:crazy:

Averageman
11-26-2012, 17:03
You break in to peoples houses enough and eventually you are gonna end up on a tarp in some crazy old Mans basement.
I'm always amazed that everyone who commits a crime was right on the verge of being saved and becomming an asset to society. These were two drug addicts commiting a home invasion and more than likely have been in that house before. As the article said, he had been burglarized before.
I really not care how normal they looked in their Junior yearbook photo, that isnt reality. They were drug addicts and burglars.
You play stupid games long enough and you are going to run up against someone crazier than you, who doesn't care if you're 17, white and your aunt thinks you're a good kid.
I really wonder if this old guy wasn't harmless until he got ripped off too many times and had to deal with having his guns and pain meds stolen?
Perhaps in the end we will never know, heck if that old guy would have had a backhoe we might not know now.

FPS
11-26-2012, 17:11
I hope the old-timer gets away with it.

.

frank4570
11-26-2012, 17:32
" Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn't have ****ed with? That's me. "

KalashniKEV
11-26-2012, 17:35
Except the psychopathic old coot probably bred a few already.

Haha... You really think?

Alone on Thanksgiving in the basement rubbing down his Mini with oil?

Shoots random person walking down the steps as soon as the hips were visible, second shot to the face, and drags him over to an old tarp???

Then goes savage on lil blondie complete with a "clean finishing shot?"

Predictions:

1) He was in the foreign service- probably got hooked on pedophilia in the Far East and other crazy places.

2) He was molesting the girl and her BF was coming over to kill the old perv/psycho. He got him first and probably didn't kill her as quickly as in the story.

Hints:

Laughing/ Humiliation - didn't happen but was a hallucination or an expression of his subconscious, i.e. pretty girls laughed at him his whole pathetic life and this one has to pay

Massive Overkill - crime of passion, emotion is involved, either because she was about to go public or simply because she was likely to have an easy life ahead of her and he "had it so hard."

NDCent
11-26-2012, 17:40
If only his wood chipper had started... :fred:

DaneA
11-26-2012, 17:42
lots of unknowns, but either way, he didnt have to execute them.

a few questions...

1.) what the hell were the kids doing committing burglary in broad daylight?
"Nicholas was smart, and he knew right from wrong. Kids are kids, and they all do stupid things."

3.) why didnt he call the cops immediately?
because "it was Thanksgiving. He didn't want to trouble us on a holiday."

either way, from the sounds of it, the world could do without any of them, so 3 birds with one stone.

This guy will not spend a day in jail. He will claim PTSD and off his meds or something. Really, how can a guy be found sane with a comment like this:

what he described as a "good, clean finishing shot"

It reminds me of the case where the old guy shot a kid for crossing his lawn. (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1600570/posts)

TBO
11-26-2012, 17:44
His rifle jammed because it wasn't mil-spec.

Ruggles
11-26-2012, 17:53
"Brady fell down the stairs and was looking up at Smith when the homeowner shot him in the face.

"I want him dead," Smith explained to the investigator for the additional shot.

Smith put Brady's body on a tarp and dragged him to an office workshop.

A few minutes later, Smith heard footsteps above him. As in Brady's case, Kifer too started down the stairs and was shot by Smith by the time he saw her hips, sending her tumbling down the stairs.

Smith attempted to shoot her again, but his rifle jammed, prompting Kifer to laugh.

Upset, Smith, pulled out a revolver he had on him and shot her "more times than I needed to" in the chest, he said."

Crap I have no legal training nor do I watch legal shows on TV and I could prosecute this one. Sometimes you just gotta shut up.

Airborne Infantryman
11-26-2012, 17:55
They broke into his house...and he capped them...the guy screwed up by not contacting the cops ASAP. Hope he doesn't get screwed too bad, but am afraid they'll make an example of him.

"Afraid of making an example of him"? The stupid old fart executed them.

Guess what? The intruders were in the wrong, however, it doesn't matter what state you reside in, you are not within the limits of the law to "execute" someone once they're no longer a threat. You can argue all day long, but in the end, this man will die in prison where he belongs.

There are a number of screwed up things in this story. Something is NOT adding up here.

If they DID break in, the old man had every right to shoot them.

However, to walk up to someone and execute them? That's no good.

Hopefully he gets the death penalty, but I'm not sure how MN law works, nor am I an expert on law whatsoever.

However, with that said, I'd LOVE to be the one who pumped him full of Potassium Chloride on the day of his execution. I'd also LOVE to look into his eyes as the life left his body, and to hear the last breath he takes.

**** like this brings the dark side out in me. I have no sympathy for someone who has the audacity to execute someone in cold blood. I hope he burns in Hell.

countrygun
11-26-2012, 17:56
His rifle jammed because it wasn't mil-spec.

Next time he'll get something with a bayonet lug.

KalashniKEV
11-26-2012, 18:10
I'd LOVE to be the one who pumped him full of Potassium Chloride on the day of his execution. I'd also LOVE to look into his eyes as the life left his body, and to hear the last breath he takes.

**** like this brings the dark side out in me. I have no sympathy for someone who has the audacity to execute someone.

:rofl:

Cavalry Doc
11-26-2012, 18:10
If it was a shoot, fall down the stair, and immediately shoot again, “as they were trying to get up to come at me”, then he would be fine.

Him shooting, then waiting, then doing a head shot, then waiting a day to call the cops is going to get him screwed.


I'm thinking the same way. The details are very scant so far, but it looks like he is heading to prison.

KalashniKEV
11-26-2012, 18:11
Next time he'll get something with a bayonet lug.

Probably some bargain bucket crap-spec AR that will jam on the first round instead...

countrygun
11-26-2012, 18:13
Probably some bargain bucket crap-spec AR that will jam on the first round instead...

Hence the bayonet

TBO
11-26-2012, 18:15
:rofl:

Sent from the toe of my jack boot using Tapatalk 2

Roering
11-26-2012, 18:18
I think we all learned a valuable lesson here.

Never keep the Bravia in the basement.

Airborne Infantryman
11-26-2012, 18:21
:rofl:

You know what I mean. :impatient:

noway
11-26-2012, 18:22
My only question, what GT member did this ?

:dunno:

countrygun
11-26-2012, 18:22
I have no sympathy for someone who has the audacity to execute someone.[/B] I hope he burns in Hell.


Irony is ironic.

TK-421
11-26-2012, 18:26
I see the difference, but what really is different? His proximity to the shooting? So he was point blank instead of through the front door or sliding glass patio door. Some states say it's ok to shoot someone attempting to break in, where's the threat of bodily harm there?

The difference? The difference would be that you shoot to stop the threat. If the person dies, oh well. But you don't keep shooting once the threat is over. He shot the guy, the guy fell down the stairs, as the story reads, the threat was over. He then proceeded to shot the guy again. Which is a huge no-no.

The girl walks down the stairs, he shoots her, she tumbles down the stairs, as the story reads, the threat is over. He then tries to shoot her again with his rifle, it jams, she laughs, he pulls out a pistol and shoots her again, and again, and again, after the threat was long over, which is a huge no-no.

The difference being in a totally self defense situation, you shoot until the threat stops. This started out as a self defense situation, and then entered into the realm of execution style killings. Which is murder.

He didn't just defend himself, defending himself would be shooting to stop the threat, and then quit shooting when the threat is over. As the story reads, these were execution killings, that started out as self defense and then went way too far, when he kept shooting even after the threat was over and he had no legal justification to continue shooting. As the story reads at least.

It's entirely possible that the guy tried to get up and keep coming after the old man, but I highly doubt it, seeing as how the old man says he stood over the guy and shot him in the face while the guy was laying on the ground. That's not self defense, that's murder.

Cavalry Doc
11-26-2012, 18:28
"Afraid of making an example of him"? The stupid old fart executed them.

Guess what? The intruders were in the wrong, however, it doesn't matter what state you reside in, you are not within the limits of the law to "execute" someone once they're no longer a threat. You can argue all day long, but in the end, this man will die in prison where he belongs.

There are a number of screwed up things in this story. Something is NOT adding up here.

If they DID break in, the old man had every right to shoot them.

However, to walk up to someone and execute them? That's no good.

Hopefully he gets the death penalty, but I'm not sure how MN law works, nor am I an expert on law whatsoever.

However, with that said, I'd LOVE to be the one who pumped him full of Potassium Chloride on the day of his execution. I'd also LOVE to look into his eyes as the life left his body, and to hear the last breath he takes.

**** like this brings the dark side out in me. I have no sympathy for someone who has the audacity to execute someone in cold blood. I hope he burns in Hell.


Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

I'm a committed agnostic, and somehow that seemed to fit better than any other response I could think of. Get some help with that anger management. The guy that did this certainly seems to need a close look, and probably some prosecution. Don't sink to his level.


Well, not unless you can handle it without letting it get to you anyway.

ChuteTheMall
11-26-2012, 18:29
And I wouldn't be using some POS Mini 14 to do it.



You got that part right.

I've often heard that the little .223 varmint round was adopted as a military caliber to wound, not necessarily to kill, in order to inconvenience the enemy.

7.62 x (anything) or above would have prevented this.

One round of 00 buckshot to each in the chest might have had better results, as would calling 911 as soon as the dead cellphone battery was recharged.
And leave the explanations to a lawyer.:fred:

TBO
11-26-2012, 18:31
He who laughs last...

Sent from the toe of my jack boot using Tapatalk 2

Roger1079
11-26-2012, 18:31
I would not, personally, have done what he did. But I would have dispatched them both without hesitation, thats for sure. And I wouldn't be using some POS Mini 14 to do it.

However, I empathize with how the man must have felt. If I were on the jury I'd give the guy a pass on everything but the failing to report part. Far as I'm concerned (and the Castle Doctrine, for that matter), people who break into houses deserve to die. I won't concern myself with the details of how they spend their last moments.


Also, to your post of the picture, remember the pictures about the good school child Trayvon Martin that the media whored around, then the real pictures of him came out? Pictures are worth 0 words. The broad was a pill-head and a criminal and the guy wasn't much better from what the news stories say.What? Really?

Lets take age, gender, criminal history, and those innocent looking pictures out of the equation.

The homeowner hears a commotion upstairs while he is in the basement of his home. He sees someone coming down the stairs and before he can assess whether they are armed he shoots the first in the leg. He would likely get a pass on that on the premise that even if he were in a state that does not have the castle doctrine on the premise that he likely could not retreat being in a basement as well as the assumption that anyone breaking into your house would intend to do harm to you if confronted. Intruder two descends the stairs and gets the same treatment. Both threats neutralized at this point, the homeowner should have immediately dialed 911 assuming he had not already done so.

Had it went down that way, the guy would likely be home tonight and those teenagers in the hospital. He may have had liability in a civil suit but I highly doubt he would have been brought up on criminal charges.

That being said, he executed two people who at that point had been rendered harmless. He obviously showed no remorse for his actions and even bordered on seeming proud of what he did when talking to police. This guy deserves whatever criminal charges he is brought up on and I hope the sentencing after he is certain to be convicted is to the fullest extent allowed whether that is life imprisonment or the death penalty.

Again, jackholes like this guy are the reason the liberals want to disarm us. Every time we take a step forward in protecting our Constitutional rights, someone like this guy comes around and hands these politicians more ammunition (no pun intended) to strip us of those rights.

frank4570
11-26-2012, 18:37
However, with that said, I'd LOVE to be the one who pumped him full of Potassium Chloride on the day of his execution. I'd also LOVE to look into his eyes as the life left his body, and to hear the last breath he takes.

**** like this brings the dark side out in me. I have no sympathy for someone who has the audacity to execute someone in cold blood. I hope he burns in Hell.

:uglylol:

RPVG
11-26-2012, 18:39
"... Every time we take a step forward in protecting our Constitutional rights, someone like this guy comes around and hands these politicians more ammunition (no pun intended) to strip us of those rights..."
Amen to that.

larry_minn
11-26-2012, 18:51
How often we hear how thieves get their justice when a homeowner fatally shoots them. And how often we hear the praise here on Glocktalk of the homeowners actions. I fail to see how this is any different, yet this guy is a monster... He was still eradicating someones who broke into his home.
Please get some training, (and religion might help) before you handle firearms, cars,anything PLEASE.
IF he had grabbed his phone, called 911, laid it on counter/chair/// Then as they guy came down stairs yelled out. "I have called the POLICE, Get out of my house now" Then if guy kept comming down/shot him CM and yelled at phone "Send a ambulance to (this address). He kept comming" Then if gal came down/warn her/shoot if needed.

Someone post the pharmacist who turned a good shoot into murder. When attacked by armed robbers he drove one off injured another. (he was fine till t hen) But he went (IIRC) and go another gun and finished off robber who was not moving/gun was not in his hand.

The Maggy
11-26-2012, 18:52
[/B]

Agreed,but I don't think it's too far off to think these kids might have been dangerous.

At what point, in your opinion, are these kids no longer dangerous?

countrygun
11-26-2012, 18:54
At what point, in your opinion, are these kids no longer dangerous?

Somewhere between 98.6 degrees and room temperature.

Roger1079
11-26-2012, 18:57
At what point, in your opinion, are these kids no longer dangerous?I would say when they were laying at the base of the stairs with the initial gunshot wounds.

From the homeowner's own confession, this is substantiated.

Airborne Infantryman
11-26-2012, 19:14
I would say when they were laying at the base of the stairs with the initial gunshot wounds.

From the homeowner's own confession, this is substantiated.

Unfortunately, some of the fat ass ****ers here seem to think it is socially acceptable to put the "coup de gras" on someone who is already down for the count.

I hope one day, they are on the receiving end of their "thoughts" on this matter. :upeyes:

Wanna know what would happen if I did that while deployed? I'd be in jail.

mortpes
11-26-2012, 19:17
A person is in shock or an altered state of mind following an event. Watch the mouth even on the 911 call.

Bren
11-26-2012, 19:20
A person is in shock or an altered state of mind following an event. Watch the mouth even on the 911 call.

This guy doesn't seem too shocked - besides moving the bodies and the executions, he waited a day or two before he told anybody, so the immediate shock doesn't seem like the reason for his remarks - more like the long-term crazy.

The Maggy
11-26-2012, 19:23
I would say when they were laying at the base of the stairs with the initial gunshot wounds.

From the homeowner's own confession, this is substantiated.

I am fully aware of that and that is my point.

In my opinion, this man's recounting of the events would be similar to the police putting the man on his knees next to the two suspected home invaders and putting a bullet through the back of his head.

Roger1079
11-26-2012, 19:31
Unfortunately, some of the fat ass ****ers here seem to think it is socially acceptable to put the "coup de gras" on someone who is already down for the count.

I hope one day, they are on the receiving end of their "thoughts" on this matter. :upeyes:
I wouldn't wish that on anyone, especially for having a different opinion than my own.

With that being said, it does surprise me though that so many here think it is justifiable to turn a self defense situation into homicide after the need for deadly force is no longer present. Even if it comes out later that the homeowner actually needed to fire subsequent rounds to the initial ones, which from the information available now seems highly unlikely, the method in which he did it and his waiting a day to report the shooting to the authorities will definitely be his undoing when the DA decides whether or not to prosecute.

I foresee this guy spending the rest of his life in a prison or institution if capital punishment is not an available option in MN.

Roger1079
11-26-2012, 19:37
The other thing that strikes me as odd about this though is that the girl laughed as this guy was making an active attempt to kill her and his firearm malfunctioned, after he had already shot her once.

I would imagine I would be begging for my life at this point, but then again as a previous poster stated, shock can do odd things to a persons train of thought.

Bren
11-26-2012, 19:37
I am fully aware of that and that is my point.

In my opinion, this man's recounting of the events would be similar to the police putting the man on his knees next to the two suspected home invaders and putting a bullet through the back of his head.

The main difference being that killing Byron Smith would have probably done more to make the world safe than killing the 2 burglars.

Averageman
11-26-2012, 19:38
Wonder what work this guy did for the State Department?

countrygun
11-26-2012, 19:43
I wouldn't wish that on anyone, especially for having a different opinion than my own.

With that being said, it does surprise me though that so many here think it is justifiable to turn a self defense situation into homicide after the need for deadly force is no longer present. Even if it comes out later that the homeowner actually needed to fire subsequent rounds to the initial ones, which from the information available now seems highly unlikely, the method in which he did it and his waiting a day to report the shooting to the authorities will definitely be his undoing when the DA decides whether or not to prosecute.

I forsee this guy spending the rest of his life in a prison or institution if capital punishment is not an available option in MN.

We don't know all of the details or the forensics yet but I highly doubt that capital punishment would even come to the radar screen if it were an option.

Think about a jury considering the facts

The initial shooting was probably justified under the law so if they had died as a result of the first shot it wouldn't have been a crime.

They, apparently, wouldn't have been shot except for their own decision to enter someone else's house.

The death penalty is hard enough to have appied if they had killed him in the commission of a burglary. As far as we know a this point, speculation aside, they brought the trouble. A Jury or Judge might give jail or mental confinement/treatment, but not capital punishment for a person who didn't initiate the crime, was justified in using deadly force and just used too much of it.

SCHADENFREUDE
11-26-2012, 19:43
Wonder what work this guy did for the State Department?

He flunked out of the assassin school. Then rode a desk until retirement. All the pent up anger and resentment at his failure in life led to this. He just needed some meds but his HMO wouldn't cooperate.

TBO
11-26-2012, 19:45
MN doesn't have the death penalty.

Sent from the toe of my jack boot using Tapatalk 2

Harper
11-26-2012, 19:47
With that being said, it does surprise me though that so many here think it is justifiable to turn a self defense situation into homicide after the need for deadly force is no longer present.

Yes, it's disturbing. We're not talking about self-defense (as the home owner admitted) people here are literally advocating that it is OK to execute someone in your basement. I think Al Quaeda just cuts off a hand. Hopefully people on this forum are just expressing some angst internet style and don't really think the guy was justified.

Foxterriermom
11-26-2012, 20:18
Count me as one who believes this guy committed two murders.

*ASH*
11-26-2012, 20:23
Count me as one who believes this guy committed two murders.

agreed , and which GT'ER WAS IT :whistling:







J/K J/K

John Rambo
11-26-2012, 20:23
The main difference being that killing Byron Smith would have probably done more to make the world safe than killing the 2 burglars.

The tramp wasn't even legal and was already out burglarizing houses and slamming back hard drugs with a criminal history. The jerkoff guy she was with may have just been an idiot along for the ride, or may have been the muscle behind the operation, but he was also committing felonies at the age of 18.

What had Byron, in all his years of life, done to harm anyone? The news report didn't list anything, I figure you must have had the inside scoop to post something so bold.

GVFlyer
11-26-2012, 20:39
It has been my experience during 26 years in the military and 4 shooting conflicts, that some people have a hard time shooting another human being - particularly the first time. This guy had no difficulty walking up to a wounded 17 year old girl, looking her in the eyes and administering a coup de grace as she writhed in pain from his first assaults on her body. It makes you wonder what he did as a "security officer" for State in Beijing, Bangkok and Moscow.

tantrix
11-26-2012, 20:45
Smith "could have just held them there and called police," said Schaeffel, of Apple Valley, who is a sister to Brady's mother and was not at the hearing.

:rofl:

Don't bet on it woman...

Roger1079
11-26-2012, 20:45
What had Byron, in all his years of life, done to harm anyone? The news report didn't list anything, I figure you must have had the inside scoop to post something so bold.I would say that the execution of two incapacitated people (by his own admission to the police) should be right around the top of the list. Every criminal or lunatic had a starting point. This may very well have been his.

How many of Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy's friends and neighbors were appaled that such nice people could have possibly commited such terrible acts.

Let's throw in the 9/11 hijackers too. Their neighbors painted them with such a nice brush and were shocked to learn they were living next to the people who committed the most horrible terrorist attack to ever occur on American soil.

AK_Stick
11-26-2012, 20:56
While he was wrong, I find it hard to feel bad for a case of shot theives.

If more of them got shot, I wonder if we'd see less of it. Certainly less repeat offenders.

Harper
11-26-2012, 21:00
The tramp wasn't even legal and was already out burglarizing houses and slamming back hard drugs with a criminal history. The jerkoff guy she was with may have just been an idiot along for the ride, or may have been the muscle behind the operation, but he was also committing felonies at the age of 18.

What had Byron, in all his years of life, done to harm anyone? The news report didn't list anything, I figure you must have had the inside scoop to post something so bold.

This isn't "It's a Wonderful Life".

We can't as a society allow someone to carry out executions in their basement because they deem someone with substance abuse to be unfit to live. It doesn't matter what type of person they were outside of that basement.

AK_Stick
11-26-2012, 21:01
Unfortunately, some of the fat ass ****ers here seem to think it is socially acceptable to put the "coup de gras" on someone who is already down for the count.

I hope one day, they are on the receiving end of their "thoughts" on this matter. :upeyes:

Wanna know what would happen if I did that while deployed? I'd be in jail.

Well, situationally dependent. There are some lets say classes of people and situations where I would do the same.

However, this was not any of those.

I'll also point out, down is not always out.

JerryO
11-26-2012, 21:25
The tramp wasn't even legal and was already out burglarizing houses and slamming back hard drugs with a criminal history. The jerkoff guy she was with may have just been an idiot along for the ride, or may have been the muscle behind the operation, but he was also committing felonies at the age of 18.

What had Byron, in all his years of life, done to harm anyone? The news report didn't list anything, I figure you must have had the inside scoop to post something so bold.

If the two had lived, I expect they would have killed and burned the man in his house.

BTW, Has it been mentioned that they had robbed this house before?


JerryO

Harper
11-26-2012, 21:35
If the two had lived, I expect they would have killed and burned the man in his house.



After suffering gun shot wounds and falling to the bottom of the stairs? That seems like a strange expectation.

Roger1079
11-26-2012, 21:43
After suffering gun shot wounds and falling to the bottom of the stairs? That seems like a strange expectation.

I have to agree. If there was sarcasm intended in JerryO's post, I sure missed it.

countrygun
11-26-2012, 21:47
If the two had lived, I expect they would have killed and burned the man in his house.

BTW, Has it been mentioned that they had robbed this house before?


JerryO

That hasn't come up before now and if true it puts a different perspective on the psychology of the pair.

TBO
11-26-2012, 21:53
Source?

Sent from the toe of my jack boot using Tapatalk 2

dkochan
11-26-2012, 22:16
That is very strange, teenagers break in and you automatically shoot them without seeing a threat? That is just weird in my opinion. I would never shoot anyone unless I saw a clear threat for my life. This old dude may have some serious mental issues. Don't dog on me, just my opinion. He will do time, but probably not as long as he deserves. Now, if the teenagers had weapons/guns in their hands that's another story.
If someone breaks in my house while I'm home, they will be shot on sight because:
1) They are a threat.
2) Just because they don't have weapons in their hands doesn't mean that they don't have weapons on their person.
3) Most importantly I have a wife & children to protect.


Sent from my HTCEVODesign4G using Tapatalk 2

goldenlight
11-27-2012, 01:51
I'd argue he screwed up by, you know, executing them with headshots after they were already down.

I don't think this would be a good shoot even in Texas, or any Castle Doctrine state.

Like the pharmacist who shot a guy in his store, went outside, and came back in and finished off the guy as he was laying on the floor, he's going to be charged with murder.

Then, he didn't call the police, but apparently told his neighbor THE NEXT DAY??? WTF was he thinking???

And the moron told the police that he finished them off in cold blood, so he's a complete and total idiot, too, and deserves to be convicted.

The perps weren't exactly your 4 time loser, hardened criminals, either. I'm not saying what they did was in any way excusable, but in Minnesota, the burden of proof for a good shooting has to be PROVABLE, by him.

I have no sympathy for him AT ALL.

mnglocker
11-27-2012, 02:11
From what I've read in the local yocal papers, not a thing adds up. Sounds like the guy was cracked, thought he knew who broke into his house before, perhaps invited them over and then smoked them. Maybe he figured he'd leave them in the basement a few days before making lampshades and other leather goods. Everything in the guys story seems too smooth for reality. 18y/o girl watches her boy toy get shot and then continues towards the guy who shot him? I say BS.

mnglocker
11-27-2012, 02:17
Haha... You really think?

Alone on Thanksgiving in the basement rubbing down his Mini with oil?

Shoots random person walking down the steps as soon as the hips were visible, second shot to the face, and drags him over to an old tarp???

Then goes savage on lil blondie complete with a "clean finishing shot?"

Predictions:

1) He was in the foreign service- probably got hooked on pedophilia in the Far East and other crazy places.

2) He was molesting the girl and her BF was coming over to kill the old perv/psycho. He got him first and probably didn't kill her as quickly as in the story.

Hints:

Laughing/ Humiliation - didn't happen but was a hallucination or an expression of his subconscious, i.e. pretty girls laughed at him his whole pathetic life and this one has to pay

Massive Overkill - crime of passion, emotion is involved, either because she was about to go public or simply because she was likely to have an easy life ahead of her and he "had it so hard."


Pretty much what I'm lean'n towards too. This guy is off, in that "we should probably run a sonar around the yard and bring in shovels" kind of way.

Bren
11-27-2012, 04:38
If someone breaks in my house while I'm home, they will be shot on sight because:
1) They are a threat.
2) Just because they don't have weapons in their hands doesn't mean that they don't have weapons on their person.
3) Most importantly I have a wife & children to protect.


Sent from my HTCEVODesign4G using Tapatalk 2

I agree with that.

That still does nothing to excuse what Byron Smith, in this story, did.

If the two had lived, I expect they would have killed and burned the man in his house.

BTW, Has it been mentioned that they had robbed this house before?


JerryO

No, it hasn't been mentioned that they robbed (burglarized) his house before - the stories I read said they didn't know who burglarized his house before and there seemed to be some question about whether it happened, since only 1 of the burglaries he claimed had been reported to the police.

2 unarmed teenagers with no criminal history and you speculate "they would have killed and burned the man in his house" based on nothing but your imagination? That would be a very, very unusual thying for burglars to do - most steal and run away if caught. Since there isn't even a statistic to base that on, it says more about your imagination than the burglars.


The tramp wasn't even legal and was already out burglarizing houses and slamming back hard drugs with a criminal history. The jerkoff guy she was with may have just been an idiot along for the ride, or may have been the muscle behind the operation, but he was also committing felonies at the age of 18.

What had Byron, in all his years of life, done to harm anyone? The news report didn't list anything, I figure you must have had the inside scoop to post something so bold.

Your typical response. Well done. I have never thought you had any credibility and you are rapidly convincing everyone else.


I'll also point out, down is not always out.

Well, how about you're a 120 lb. teenage girl, laying on the floor with a .223 through your hip, several .22 bullets in your chest, and apparently unconscious enough that a guy can drag you to the next room and prop up your head for a better head shot...is that "out"?

dkochan
11-27-2012, 05:27
That still does nothing to excuse what Byron Smith, in this story, did.
?

I agree with you. The homeowner should have immediately called the cops after he exercised his right to self-defense and, not have executed the home invaders.
Sent from my HTCEVODesign4G using Tapatalk 2

Roger1079
11-27-2012, 06:28
Well, how about you're a 120 lb. teenage girl, laying on the floor with a .223 through your hip, several .22 bullets in your chest, and apparently unconscious enough that a guy can drag you to the next room and prop up your head for a better head shot...is that "out"?Apparently not in some of these peoples eyes. I still can't begin to wrap my head around how people in this thread are still condoning what this guy did. I also don't want to think about the fact that we are posting on a firearm forum and everyone here with this attitude likely owns a gun.

Those of you who believe the execution (Notice i said execution, not shooting. I believe the shots that sent them rolling down the stairs were justified.) of two incapacitated people was justified need to seek mental help as well as familiarizing yourselves with the laws in your state. This would not have been a good shoot ANYWHERE in the country the minute he decided to pull the trigger again killing the intruders rather than dialing 911 and reporting the incident.

ChuteTheMall
11-27-2012, 07:04
A full sized caliber would have prevented this.

:whistling:




That means the fat ones on the ends:



http://i50.tinypic.com/1601ji9.jpg

.308, .223, 5.45x39, 7.62x39


MOVED to Caliber Corner

KalashniKEV
11-27-2012, 07:13
I still can't begin to wrap my head around how people in this thread are still condoning what this guy did.

It's GT- everything anyone ever does with a gun is a good shoot, even George Zimmerman.

The comforting fact here is that the majority of posters are just limpstroking, and would never randomly shoot an unidentified pair of legs descending the stairs of their domicile/ cabin in the woods/ cave/ doomsday bunker.

Homeowner failed target identification and threat assessment, and will be punished.

Roger1079
11-27-2012, 07:26
It's GT- everything anyone ever does with a gun is a good shoot, even George Zimmerman.

The comforting fact here is that the majority of posters are just limpstroking, and would never randomly shoot an unidentified pair of legs descending the stairs of their domicile/ cabin in the woods/ cave/ doomsday bunker.

Homeowner failed target identification and threat assessment, and will be punished.I actually think he would be home right now had he quit after the inital shots and notified authorities rather than doing what he did.

My thought pattern is along the lines of if someone is breaking into my house thinking it is empty, I would believe that the intent to harm me is there upon them figuring out I am home. I likely would have taken a shot too had I made it clear I was there, armed, and intended to shoot if they did not retreat and continued coming down the stairs. Immediately after I assesed that there was no further immediate threat to me, no further shots would be fired. The police/paramedics would be left to do their job at that point.

From the information we have, this differs greatly from the Zimmerman case. That idiot went looking for a problem and got it. He was not on his property when that incident occured making it a totally different animal. He should never have been in that situation to begin with. It appears from the info we have so far that this guy did not have a choice to avoid the situation, at least when it started.

badge315
11-27-2012, 07:32
However, I empathize with how the man must have felt. If I were on the jury I'd give the guy a pass on everything but the failing to report part. Far as I'm concerned (and the Castle Doctrine, for that matter), people who break into houses deserve to die. I won't concern myself with the details of how they spend their last moments.

So, a burglar deserves to die, but a cold-blooded murderer deserves a pass?:dunno:

What had Byron, in all his years of life, done to harm anyone?

Well, he committed two murders. I'm pretty sure most people rank that just slightly more evil than residential burglary. :upeyes:

If the two had lived, I expect they would have killed and burned the man in his house.

At this point, that sounds like exactly what he deserves.

Santa CruZin
11-27-2012, 07:32
Seems to me the home owner may have been consumed with a grudge against whoever broke into his home previously, and acted out his revenge on these two burglars to the point of ultimate payback.

Knock 'em to the ground/incapacitate them = good shoot.
Take someone who's then incapacitated and methodically execute them = good luck with Bubba in prison, because that's where you're headed and that's where you belong.

4TS&W
11-27-2012, 07:43
"Afraid of making an example of him"? The stupid old fart executed them.

Guess what? The intruders were in the wrong, however, it doesn't matter what state you reside in, you are not within the limits of the law to "execute" someone once they're no longer a threat. You can argue all day long, but in the end, this man will die in prison where he belongs.

There are a number of screwed up things in this story. Something is NOT adding up here.

If they DID break in, the old man had every right to shoot them.

However, to walk up to someone and execute them? That's no good.

Hopefully he gets the death penalty, but I'm not sure how MN law works, nor am I an expert on law whatsoever.

However, with that said, I'd LOVE to be the one who pumped him full of Potassium Chloride on the day of his execution. I'd also LOVE to look into his eyes as the life left his body, and to hear the last breath he takes.

**** like this brings the dark side out in me. I have no sympathy for someone who has the audacity to execute someone in cold blood. I hope he burns in Hell.

Wait. He's no longer a threat. ;)


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

tantrix
11-27-2012, 07:45
Knock 'em to the ground/incapacitate them = good shoot.
Take someone who's then incapacitated and methodically execute them = good luck with Bubba in prison, because that's where you're headed and that's where you belong.

This.


Ultimately, that's what did this guy in.

alleging Byron David Smith put a handgun under the chin of wounded and gasping 18-year-old Haile Kifer for what he told police was a "good clean finishing shot."

If you can walk up and place a handgun under someone's chin and 'finish' them off, they were no longer a threat and it then crosses the line into homicide.

And even if he didn't admit to it, the prosecutor is still going to want to know how he was in fear for his life, while someone has powder burns under their chin from where he casually walked up and executed them.

If he really wanted them dead, he should have done it the first few shots he got off. Forensics will always know if, and how many times, you shot someone while they were lying down...and that's going to be bad news for you when it comes to a claim of self-defense.

Bren
11-27-2012, 08:09
If he really wanted them dead, he should have done it the first few shots he got off.

He had a Mini-14 and they were all the way across the room - would have just been luck to hit anything vital at that range with a Ruger.:whistling:

tantrix
11-27-2012, 08:15
He had a Mini-14 and they were all the way across the room - would have just been luck to hit anything vital at that range with a Ruger.:whistling:

:rofl:

HKLovingIT
11-27-2012, 08:21
According to the statements he has given and what I read of it so far, he did the wrong thing, a vicious and sadistic thing even.

He's going to prison or a nuthouse.

He deserves it, if it went down like he says.

He sounds like he's got some "issues" going on there in ye ole brain pan.

Yes. The kids did the wrong thing too (allegedly). Yes, we know, if you don't want to risk getting shot don't go breaking into people's houses when the owner is home. That's a given and common sense.

Where this guy took it after the initial encounter in the home was into whacko-sadist-ville.

But I will also add this:

Some of the things he said that went down sound crazy. (Yeah, no kidding)

1. He shoots the boy and instead of fleeing the girl comes downstairs too? Really? Guns are loud and scary, most people would flee. Dunno.

2. She laughs at him after getting shot and tumbling down the stairs? Whut? Maybe, but it sounds like a really weird element to his story.

For all we know, was this really a burglary?
Was something else going on?
Did he lure them there?

I don't know. Just spitballing here.

Santa CruZin
11-27-2012, 08:48
I'm not buying the "she laughed at me" line.

Drain You
11-27-2012, 08:52
Can't see the article, too busy trying to figure out why people say that Chrome is faster at loading pages.

HKLovingIT
11-27-2012, 08:55
I'm not buying the "she laughed at me" line.

Me neither. Methinks that it only happened in his head or is some kind of weird "excuse" he came up with to splain his actions.

"Well Sheriff, she laughed after I done shot her with the rifle and it jammed, so I had to go to my backup piece and git it done."

"Oh, well okay then citizen, that is perfectly understandable, after all, she did laugh at your rifle."

Whut? Duh? Frig?

NOLA_glock
11-27-2012, 08:56
Judging by some of these completely reasonable and not at all insane posts in this thread, I have no idea how anyone can get the idea that some gun owners are bloodthirsty maniacs with a wet dream of killing an assailant.

It's always good to protect yourself, your family—even though it's never a good thing to have to shoot someone, necessary though it may be. More than that, its certainly not cool to then walk over to the floor where the ones you've shot are collapsed in a heap, drag them to another room, and pop one in their heads. That's when you cease to be defending yourself and become a murderer.

costanza187
11-27-2012, 09:04
The more I think about this, the more things seem a "off"...and it poses some questions to me.

Was the boyfriend coming over to administer an ass-kicking for something this guy had done in the past? (a question posed in a previous post)

Had these kid seen "Natural Born Killers" too many times and were inspired to start with this old man?

What motive would these kids have had to break into this guys house? It is one thing to TP his trees or soap his windows...but break in, that seems highly unlikely.

I cannot help but wonder if they might have been invited in. The "broken window" could have easily been staged after the fact.

Were these 3 involved in some drug or sex scandal and the guy did this to "shut them up"? I have a hard time believing that 2 teenagers (not known previously as criminals) would just randomly pick some old guy's residence to just "break in" and start becoming criminals. Could the possibility of stealing prescription drugs entice the kids to try to get into his house?

NOBODY this whole ordeal had a criminal record, did they?

There is probably A LOT more to this story. We will probably never know what really happened.

DustyJacket
11-27-2012, 09:10
This is the wrong way to do it for sure. He will be in jail a long time. ...
No.
He is 68 - he won't be there long. He'll be in a box soon enough.

I found this quote to be self contradictory:
"Kifer had recently returned to school and had been trying to straighten out her life, Shaeffel said, adding that Kifer had stolen Adderall pills from Shaeffel's home."


And from a GTer:

"Hopefully he gets the death penalty"

At his age, any sentence 5 years or over IS the death penalty.

tantrix
11-27-2012, 09:10
It's always good to protect yourself, your family—even though it's never a good thing to have to shoot someone, necessary though it may be. More than that, its certainly not cool to then walk over to the floor where the ones you've shot are collapsed in a heap, drag them to another room, and pop one in their heads. That's when you cease to be defending yourself and become a murderer.

This.

If I ever had to do it to defend myself or my family, I definitely wouldn't be finishing them off after they were down...I'm going to be creating more distance between them and I while on the phone getting police and EMS en route.

One of my best friends shot and killed his mother's boyfriend in their home when he was about 12 years old. The man was trying to stab his mom with a knife in the kitchen and he did what he thought he had to do to save his mom's life. He shot the guy 1 time with a 12ga, then grabbed his mom and went into a bedroom and dialed 911. He never went back to 'finish' the guy, although he died where he fell after the 1st shot.

My buddy still remembers it like it was yesterday, and he's 33 now. It's never a pleasure to kill another human being.

cangler
11-27-2012, 10:29
It's never a pleasure to kill another human being.

Amen to that, you don't want to have to do this especially young people who have time to change their life around!

AK_Stick
11-27-2012, 11:19
My buddy still remembers it like it was yesterday, and he's 33 now. It's never a pleasure to kill another human being.


Part of his issue. Is likely that he was so young at the time.


Shooting someone is not necessarily a super tramatic experience that stays with someone forever.

noway
11-27-2012, 11:41
The same clown in this thread that are hi-5'in this guy actions are the same clown that think they can chase a felon down and "stop" him/her. They also are the same clowns you spout the Shoot Shutup and Shovel.

What this guy did, is just amazing and down right stupid and does nothing positive for gun owners, CCW, OpenCarry or anything pro-Gun imho

Mayhem like Me
11-27-2012, 12:08
My take, This guy went mental.

Seriously he knew what he was doing was wrong but he was caught up in the anger he had.
No excuse for the Coupe de gras....x2

Mayhem like Me
11-27-2012, 12:10
This.

If I ever had to do it to defend myself or my family, I definitely wouldn't be finishing them off after they were down...I'm going to be creating more distance between them and I while on the phone getting police and EMS en route.

One of my best friends shot and killed his mother's boyfriend in their home when he was about 12 years old. The man was trying to stab his mom with a knife in the kitchen and he did what he thought he had to do to save his mom's life. He shot the guy 1 time with a 12ga, then grabbed his mom and went into a bedroom and dialed 911. He never went back to 'finish' the guy, although he died where he fell after the 1st shot.

My buddy still remembers it like it was yesterday, and he's 33 now. It's never a pleasure to kill another human being.

Wow that is like a reverse Sling Blade,, Hope he got the help he needed that is a very traumatic experience.

Leigh
11-27-2012, 16:05
He had a Mini-14 and they were all the way across the room - would have just been luck to hit anything vital at that range with a Ruger.:whistling:


Whoa there, Bren...I actually owned an early Mini-14 (circa 1976-77) that wasn't the proverbial "boat anchor!"

I guess I got lucky. :supergrin:

MAC702
11-27-2012, 17:13
He had a Mini-14 and they were all the way across the room - would have just been luck to hit anything vital at that range with a Ruger.:whistling:

Ain't Internet lore great?

I guess I should get rid of all five of mine. I keep forgetting what inaccurate pieces of crap they are every time I shoot them.

Good thing there are people on the Internet to remind me.

glock_collector
11-27-2012, 17:15
I'm with noway on this...story is incomplete, kinda odd ol man or crazy. Self defense is one thing but was she a threat?? Do ya wait and bait someone and kill them over your household items. No winners here...

mnglocker
11-27-2012, 17:51
Most here in MN who understand our courts don't think he'll even stand trial. It'll probably be off to St. Peter to wear a white robe and be watched by men in white coats with nets.

Bren
11-27-2012, 18:13
Whoa there, Bren...I actually owned an early Mini-14 (circa 1976-77) that wasn't the proverbial "boat anchor!"

I guess I got lucky. :supergrin:

I owned a couple, ranch and government and a Mini-30, plus shooting numerous issued Mini-14's from 2 different law enforcement agencies. I've even been a certified Mini-14 LE rifle instructor. Guess I didn't get lucky with any og those - aside from accuracy, in my week of instructor school I went through 3 and the 3rd one was broken at the final qual.

Ain't Internet lore great?

I guess I should get rid of all five of mine. I keep forgetting what inaccurate pieces of crap they are every time I shoot them.

Good thing there are people on the Internet to remind me.

Yep, aside from using them as a duty rifle back to 1988 and being a rifle instructor with them, I learned all I know from the internet. :upeyes:

Fox
11-27-2012, 20:31
My opinion is that this dude is a nutjob looking for an excuse to kill somebody and he got it.

Not that the punks didn't deserve to get shot or even killed, mind you, but this crazy dude went out of his way to kill these two punks.

If it were me, I'd probably pop'em too but I wouldn't execute them while they were wounded and unable to present themselves as threats.

He was not crazy, he was angry about the numerous burglaries to his home and he wanted revenge.

I agree that it went beyond self defense. It was execution and it was over the line.

zoyter2
11-28-2012, 00:25
Some of the posters in this thread really cause me to fully and completely understand the stances of some anti-gun idiots.

Specifically, just how the hell do we keep the guns out of the hands of the completely insane, mentally ill, and criminally inclined.

countrygun
11-28-2012, 00:34
Some of the posters in this thread really cause me to fully and completely understand the stances of some anti-gun idiots.

Specifically, just how the hell do we keep the guns out of the hands of the completely insane, mentally ill, and criminally inclined.

The same way we keep them from getting their hands on cars, hammers, knives, clotheslines, diesel fuel and fetilizer.

floorburn_21
11-28-2012, 03:18
This is my neck of the woods. People up here really are crazy I think. I know, I know, they are crazy everywhere. The thing is, we have a higher percentage of crazies with how small the population is in comparison.

On a side note, stories like this keep my in laws from thinking I am crazy for carrying everywhere.

singularity35
11-28-2012, 03:41
Here in the Philippines, home invasion type robberies and ordinary burglaries often have a tendency to get lethal for the home owner at the slightest bit of inconvenience for the robbers.

It would be nice if the robbers take the same risk(of dying by execution) that they put the home owners in with their nefarious activities.

floorburn_21
11-28-2012, 03:46
Here in the Philippines, home invasion type robberies and ordinary burglaries often have a tendency to get lethal for the home owner at the slightest bit of inconvenience for the robbers.

It would be nice if the robbers take the same risk(of dying by execution) that they put the home owners in with their nefarious activities.

Not to be a jerk, but this isn't the Philippines. This is small town USA.

singularity35
11-28-2012, 03:56
Not to be a jerk, but this isn't the Philippines. This is small town USA.

Understood, but I guess home owners don't die by home invasions there. :whistling:

What I mean is that when people through their malicious intent put other people at risk, it is only fitting that they undergo the same risk.

Bren
11-28-2012, 04:16
Here in the Philippines, home invasion type robberies and ordinary burglaries often have a tendency to get lethal for the home owner at the slightest bit of inconvenience for the robbers.

It would be nice if the robbers take the same risk(of dying by execution) that they put the home owners in with their nefarious activities.

A couple of unarmed teenagers who the guy doesn't claim were a threat to him are hardly comparable to armed home invaders.

There is nothing in any version of the story that says they put Byron Smith at risk "of dying by execution."

Roger1079
11-28-2012, 04:28
A couple of unarmed teenagers who the guy doesn't claim were a threat to him are hardly comparable to armed home invaders.

There is nothing in any version of the story that says they put Byron Smith at risk "of dying by execution."It's like talking to a wall, isn't it?

singularity35
11-28-2012, 04:31
A couple of unarmed teenagers who the guy doesn't claim were a threat to him are hardly comparable to armed home invaders.

There is nothing in any version of the story that says they put Byron Smith at risk "of dying by execution."

I dunno how it is there but the lot of home invaders here have a new MO to deny their intent. First thing they do upon entering the premises is to go to the kitchen and get some knives. That way they deny intent if they get caught.

It's like talking to a wall, isn't it?

Haha!

Roger1079
11-28-2012, 04:36
I don't believe for a second that this guys confession doesn't leave out many details that would explain what happened much more clearly. There are so many things in his confession that make any sense at all.

I do however believe that we will never know the rest of the story as there were no witnesses and the DA already has a slam dunk confession that will either institutionalize this guy for the rest of his life or send him to prison for the rest of his life. My bet is on institution after a psychiatric evaluation.

This guy obviously wanted credit for what he did, felt no remorse, and went way above and beyond self defense and bragged about it to the people in charge of putting together the evidence to send him away for life. These are far from the actions of any sane person I have ever seen.

singularity35
11-28-2012, 04:43
I don't believe for a second that this guys confession doesn't leave out many details that would explain what happened much more clearly. There are so many things in his confession that make any sense at all.

I do however believe that we will never know the rest of the story as there were no witnesses and the DA already has a slam dunk confession that will either institutionalize this guy for the rest of his life or send him to prison for the rest of his life. My bet is on institution after a psychiatric evaluation.

This guy obviously wanted credit for what he did, felt no remorse, and went way above and beyond self defense and bragged about it to the people in charge of putting together the evidence to send him away for life. These are far from the actions of any sane person I have ever seen.

Yeh, the old man definitely had a lot of psycho things that he said.

Roger1079
11-28-2012, 04:47
I dunno how it is there but the lot of home invaders here have a new MO to deny their intent. First thing they do upon entering the premises is to go to the kitchen and get some knives. That way they deny intent if they get caught.
There was no mention of knives by the only living witness or the news outlets. Maybe they intended to take deniability a step farther by just killing him with their bare hands if push came to shove as from what I heard they were highly trained ninja assassins who got their home invasion training from the experts in the Phillipines.

Read the story. The first was shot descending the stairs and fell to the bottom. The second came down the stairs too. Really???? After just hearing a gunshot and subsequent noise from the fall? Yeah, ok. "Home invader" 2 who is apparently deaf descends the stairs and gets shot also falling to the bottom. The homeowner points his rifle at her and *click*. Wounded home invader 2, not in any fear for her life, thinks the malfunction is funny and laughs at the homeowner since she is sure that he will now give up on trying to kill her. How wrong she was. Do you really believe this???? If so I have some wonderful real estate in the Everglades for you to build a vacation home on.

singularity35
11-28-2012, 04:53
There was no mention of knives by the only living witness or the news outlets. Maybe they intended to take deniability a step farther by just killing him with their bare hands if push came to shove as from what I heard they were highly trained ninja assassins who got their home invasion training from the experts in the Phillipines.

Read the story. The first was shot descending the stairs and fell to the bottom. The second came down the stairs too. Really???? After just hearing a gunshot and subsequent noise from the fall? Yeah, ok. "Home invader" 2 who is apparently deaf descends the stairs and gets shot also falling to the bottom. The homeowner points his rifle at her and *click*. Wounded home invader 2, not in any fear for her life, thinks the malfunction is funny and laughs at the homeowner since she is sure that he will now give up on trying to kill her. How wrong she was. Do you really believe this???? If so I have some wonderful real estate in the Everglades for you to build a vacation home on.

I guess you would have preferred him to just give the burglars a pat on the back. :rofl:

What's that they say about arguing on the interwebs and the special olympics?

Elvis has left the building.

ModGlock17
11-28-2012, 05:13
Technicality: was he advised of his Miranda right ? Kept talking without council?

In any case, it seems he was living in hell. Now, it is free room and board for a long time, not much to lose at his age.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

Roger1079
11-28-2012, 07:23
I guess you would have preferred him to just give the burglars a pat on the back. :rofl:

What's that they say about arguing on the interwebs and the special olympics?

Elvis has left the building.No, I would not have preferred him give them a pat on the back. He should have called the police after firing the initial shots that incapacitated the intruders.

This is not complicated to understand:

NO FURTHER THREAT = NO NEED TO PULL THE TRIGGER AGAIN

Once you do, you cross the line from legal self defense to murder, which in every state I am aware of is against the law. If you know different, please feel free to correct me.

But you won't. You have no logical basis for your argument justifying what this guy did, so you reduce yourself to insults and leave the thread. Typical behavior of people like you on the "interwebs". At least tell me what even your Special Olympics gold medal came from before you go.

cowboy1964
11-28-2012, 07:56
I'd rather live next door to those two teenage "criminals" than to that POS old man.

singularity35
11-28-2012, 07:57
Ok, let's do this since it's obvious you covet that medal from the special olympics.

Are you by any chance reading comprehension challenged(eligible for special olympics)? Or did you just not read my post well?

There was no mention of knives by the only living witness or the news outlets. .

You could not have known what they intended to do when they entered. You can not even be sure what would have happened if the intruders gained the upper hand in a struggle even if they had no intent when they started the B&B.

I never said that these particular intruders were a threat. All I stated in my posts was the situation where I live in. To wit, burglars making for the kitchen knives. Again, I did not state that the particular burglars in this case were armed with knives or were even an immediate threat

However, the fact remains, that burglars no matter how benign, have a disturbing possibility of turning into murderers when they become compromised and happen to get the upper hand over homeowners.




Maybe they intended to take deniability a step farther by just killing him with their bare hands if push came to shove as from what I heard they were highly trained ninja assassins who got their home invasion training from the experts in the Phillipines.

.


You talk about insults when you were the first with the snark after I posted about a situation where I live.

No, I would not have preferred him give them a pat on the back. He should have called the police after firing the initial shots that incapacitated the intruders. .

I agree with this point but my point was not whether the homeowner was wrong or right in what he did. Where do you find in my posts that I said so?

My point only was that home invaders should have to take the same risk that they put the home owners through. Namely, that of untimely and violent death.


Once you do, you cross the line from legal self defense to murder, which in every state I am aware of is against the law. If you know different, please feel free to correct me. .

Again, where do you find in my posts that I said that it was legal for the homeowner to commit murder?

But you won't. You have no logical basis for your argument justifying what this guy did, so you reduce yourself to insults and leave the thread. Typical behavior of people like you on the "interwebs". At least tell me what even your Special Olympics gold medal came from before you go.

More insults, but then that's not surprising for a guy who answers a respectful post with snark.

drew4691
11-28-2012, 08:12
When he said to the cops "I wanted him dead" and "I shot her more than I needed to"...well...I can't say that I have much sympathy for the old dude.

+1 I guess people don't know what "You have the right to remain silent" means.:dunno: You ratted yourself out.. have fun with that.

floorburn_21
11-28-2012, 08:27
:upeyes:Anyone taking bets on how long it takes the novelty account to get banned?

Bren
11-28-2012, 08:43
It's like talking to a wall, isn't it?

Glock Talk is ALWAYS like talking to a wall.


What's that they say about arguing on the interwebs and the special olympics?


Something about how I always have to argue with retards, best I remember.

whoops dude
11-28-2012, 13:39
This guy is gonna rot in jail. Forget hardcore libs and anti gunners. It's mentalities of this guy and people like him even in this thread that puts our 2nd amendment rights at risk.

singularity35
11-28-2012, 19:12
Something about how I always have to argue with retards, best I remember.

I guess it takes one to argue with one. ;)

pesticidal
11-28-2012, 19:26
http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/381637/

Sheriff: Car that Brady drove in Little Falls had stolen items in it

singularity35
11-28-2012, 19:39
Nice update, thanks.

tantrix
11-28-2012, 19:51
Glock Talk is ALWAYS like talking to a wall.

After being in GNG for almost 10 years, I think i could argue with a wall and actually win. :rofl:

singularity35
11-28-2012, 20:23
After being in GNG for almost 10 years, I think i could argue with a wall and actually win. :rofl:

That's sig line material right there. :supergrin:

bushjumper
11-28-2012, 22:46
It's a tough call. On the one hand, he'd been broken into multiple times (10?). I've heard people who that has happened to say it made them felt violated. I've had friends who still have mental problems from the stress of this.

On the other hand, they were just stupid kids. It's possible they would have grown up and become productive and good members of society and not wastes of space.

In this case, all of them did something stupid and their lives are ruined.

Gut feeling, I side with the old man. I feel bad for the punk kids but they made their choice and they paid the price.

J-Pat
11-28-2012, 23:50
I'm wondering if drugs aren't mixed up in this story on one side of the aisle or both. I've seen people f'ed up on scripts and dope...It's never pretty and their sense of pain virtually goes away, as well as senses of right and wrong. Perhaps this is a dangerous line of thinking, but considering that the car was found with other stolen drugs inside of it, a large part of me wonders if they weren't doped up when they broke in.

Sane people that are shot don't laugh- Somebody that's drugged or out of their mind does though. Maybe they were shot and tried to get up.

Similarly, sane people don't execute people who are bleeding to death on their basement steps- burglar or not. That is just borderline psycho. If that is indeed the case, by all means, justice must be served

I also get the feeling the quotes might be getting taken out of context to make a huge media story. Quite frankly, shooting somebody more than a few times(1, 2, 3...etc) is probably more than unnecessary. The final shot could have been a euthanization. I realize we can sit here and do the "what-if thing" forever- but if you've been burgled and have had guns stolen in the past, your response might be a lot more violent than somebody who hasn't. Imagine if one of the kids would have stood up after being shot twice or three times and killed the old man with one of his own guns they had stolen previously, then bled to death.

I don't want to cheer for either side in this really screwed up story. Everybody has lost in this. Both teens (though criminals) have lost their lives. The old man has likely lost what's left of his- and we, as gun owning Americans, run this risk of having our freedoms suppressed when things like this happen. In short- I dearly hope the old man made the right choice. From what is being reported, it doesn't look like he did, but we can hope that for his sake (and ours), that he did.

SpectreRider
11-29-2012, 07:35
Homeowner is a talkative moron OR the story he told is a lie to cover something worse.

If the story he tells is true, he is fool on several counts:

1) Can't clear a jam on the rifle?
2) Commit a murder.
3) Sit on it for a day and then asks a neighbor for advice.

Get in a situation this stupid and your only question should be, "Where can I rent a backhoe?"

KalashniKEV
11-29-2012, 07:55
Perhaps this is a dangerous line of thinking, but considering that the car was found with other stolen drugs inside of it, a large part of me wonders if they weren't doped up when they broke in.

If it's the same "stolen drugs" from the other report it's Adderall. Even if it were some kind of opiate, it's not like there's some kind of prescription psychadelic out there that makes getting shot with a 5.56 round funny.

(Although Limbaugh does say some whacked out trippy stuff a lot of the times) :supergrin:

In short- I dearly hope the old man made the right choice. From what is being reported, it doesn't look like he did, but we can hope that for his sake (and ours), that he did.

Shooting without PID is never the right choice. Shooting without threat assessment is just plain stupid.

I hope he gets locked up in a cage with some one just as sick as he is and gets a "good clean finishing shot" nightly... until he dies.

Bren
11-29-2012, 07:58
Homeowner is a talkative moron OR the story he told is a lie to cover something worse.


That kind of jumps out at you. The story is crazy. Telling it is even crazier. But maybe he killed them for another reason and decided that he could get out of it by claiming they were burglars, so he made up a story that went along with the evidence. That's pure speculation, but it seems as likely as the crazy crap he told and it would explain the obvious flaws in his story that several have pointed out, as well as moving the bodies and not calling the police.

1911austin
11-29-2012, 08:09
I don't feel bad for anyone involved.

Roger1079
11-29-2012, 08:14
That kind of jumps out at you. The story is crazy. Telling it is even crazier. But maybe he killed them for another reason and decided that he could get out of it by claiming they were burglars, so he made up a story that went along with the evidence. That's pure speculation, but it seems as likely as the crazy crap he told and it would explain the obvious flaws in his story that several have pointed out, as well as moving the bodies and not calling the police.That would make about as much sense as the rest of his story. Admitting to the police that you executed them after they were already subdued is a case that anyone could prosecute and get a conviction. Not much of a way out of that by any thought process I can think of.

The only defense that might work for this guy at this point is an insanity plea. This will still get him locked up indefinitely, but not in a prison.

TBO
11-29-2012, 08:30
Lots of folks consider their castle their ultimate domain, and any/all things inside subject to their control.
Not surprising a guy could live as long as he did and not wig out & kill someone in the street.
Now in his castle, that's another story, this story.

Sent from the capacitor of my Taser using Tapatalk 2

costanza187
11-29-2012, 08:50
http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/381637/

Sheriff: Car that Brady drove in Little Falls had stolen items in it

This evidence certainly incriminates the two "victims", these kids were definitely not innocent victims. I have heard before that many times older people's homes are targeted for the express purpose stealing prescription drugs.

Getting yourself killed is one of the hazards of breaking into peoples houses. They were unlucky enough to (yes it is cliche) "mess with the wrong guy". He is old, he is grouchy, he had been burglarized before, he had enough and he snapped.

I am not saying what he did was justified, because it was clearly WRONG. The man was obviously driven by anger and was not thinking clearly because he made A LOT of mistakes.

It is a sad situation for all those involved. Effectively, 3 people lost their lives that day.

pesticidal
11-29-2012, 09:15
I've heard rumors that there's more to the story than the news media is letting loose with that will make the case against the shooter pretty tough to beat.