1.) ARCHERXP - 04/30/2014

[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/29/us-usa-crime-minnesota-idUSBREA3S16M20140429?feedType=RSS[/url]

2.) Triton Rich - 04/30/2014

[B]For me, if someone breaks into your house, they should be considered a threat. I cannot fathom how they could possibly convict of first degree.[/B]

3.) Bob Peck - 04/30/2014

A short story news blurb like that one leaves out so many important details which we hope roll up into an educated verdict it's impossible to tell precisely what went down. There is a hint of premeditation but who knows in our "sound byte" society. Many states have some form of a "castle doctrine" which is not a defined law but a set of principles which is incorporated in some form in the law. Basically, it's your "castle" and you have a right to defend it up to and including deadly force.

Typically deadly force is considered justified, and a defense of justifiable homicide applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to him or herself or another".

All we know for sure is there are two dead teenagers and an old man going to prison for the rest of what's left of his life. Sad.

4.) Deerminator - 04/30/2014

I agree with the old guys decision to protect him self and his home. Which was broken into. But I think he got kinda trigger happy.
But granted ya don't want someone laied up in the hospital for 6 months planning revenge.
Breaking into someones home is asking for it.

5.) DParker - 04/30/2014

This story has been followed closely on a couple of sites that I frequent, and Bob is correct that there are significant details missing from that Reuters summary. By the man's own admission he not only lured in the intruders for the express purpose of shooting them, he intentionally delivered a final kill shot after they were down and no longer a threat. He might have been OK even with the ambush, but he crossed the line from self-defense to murder when he decided to execute them when they were unarmed and incapacitated...and even admitted it to the police.

I'm as supportive of the use of deadly force in defense of you and yours as anyone, and have no sympathy for theives or anyone else who would prey on others, but what this guy did was premeditated murder.

6.) DParker - 04/30/2014

[QUOTE=Bob Peck;19332]A short story news blurb like that one leaves out so many important details which we hope roll up into an educated verdict it's impossible to tell precisely what went down. There is a hint of premeditation but who knows in our "sound byte" society. Many states have some form of a "castle doctrine" which is not a defined law but a set of principles which is incorporated in some form in the law. Basically, it's your "castle" and you have a right to defend it up to and including deadly force.

Typically deadly force is considered justified, and a defense of justifiable homicide applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to him or herself or another".

All we know for sure is there are two dead teenagers and an old man going to prison for the rest of what's left of his life. Sad.[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately for Minnesota residents (at least for the law-abiding ones) their state has not enacted any statutory implementation of the Castle Doctrine. The good news is that , while the case law has been somewhat mixed on the issue, the MN Supreme Court has reversed at least two lower court convictions that were based on what the high court held to be erroneous instructions to the jury about duty to retreat rather than use deadly force in the home. But the rulings were not terribly clear-cut on the matter, and held that in some cases there IS in fact a duty to retreat in the home. This is why statutes implementing the Castle Doctrine (and Stand Your Ground) are so important. Not to encourage the willy-nilly use of deadly force, but to prevent unjust prosecution of those who employ it when appropriate. This, among other things, is what the opponents of such laws fail to understand.

Although even a Castle Doctrine statute (at least not any reasonably well crafted one) would not have saved Smith in this case.

7.) Triton Rich - 04/30/2014

[B]Of course, I was going to put a disclaimer in my response about what we don't know in the case but I was running late![/B]

8.) DParker - 05/01/2014

Here's one of the things that surely sealed his fate. For some bizarre reason (the sake of posterity, perhaps?) he opted to make an audio recording of the ambush, complete with bits of narrative and taunting of the thieves after he'd dropped them with the initial shots and they were still alive. Here it is (definitely not safe for work, by the way):

[URL="https://soundcloud.com/pioneerpress/audio-from-byron-smiths-house"]https://soundcloud.com/pioneerpress/audio-from-byron-smiths-house[/URL]

The first shots at the male are fired at around 3:15, with the female being taken down at about 13:40 or so. The rest is mostly silence with the occasional odd-ball commentary by the shooter. The guy is nuttier than a squirrel turd.

9.) DParker - 05/02/2014

BTW, also recently in the news is another textbook example of what does NOT constitute justifiable use of deadly force in the home...

[URL="http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/teen-shot-killed-mans-garage-germany-23500791"]Montana Man Charged With Homicide in Teen Shooting[/URL]

The salient points:

[LIST=1]
[*]Homeowners are angry and frustrated (understandably) after being burglarized twice in the span of three weeks.
[*]Homeowners devise relatively elaborate plan to entice a burglar into their garage by leaving the door open with a purse in plain view, hoping that said burglar will steal the purse.
[*]Husband tells an acquaintance that he's been sitting up at night "waiting to shoot a kid".
[*]When alerted by their electronic monitoring gear that there is likely someone in the garage, husband enters the garage from the house and blindly fires four blasts of buckshot into the dark at what he claims was a sound of some kind, with no idea what/who he's shooting at, killing one of the trespassers (which was all he was at that point).
[/LIST]

I predict that this will also result in significant prison time, at least for the husband. The wife might get lucky with some sort of plea deal, but I wouldn't count on it. Again, I have no sympathy for thieves (or even would-be thieves), but this course of action was just pure irresponsible stupidity.

10.) Ventilator - 05/02/2014

Yes, even with my strong opinions on protecting your castle, I would give a guilty verdict on that jury.

11.) ARCHERXP - 05/04/2014

the tough part for me is that the defense didn't go with a insanity plea...y'all said it already, that he sounds like he's a few feathers short of a headdress.

12.) crookedeye - 05/04/2014

[QUOTE=DParker;19402]BTW, also recently in the news is another textbook example of what does NOT constitute justifiable use of deadly force in the home...

[URL="http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/teen-shot-killed-mans-garage-germany-23500791"]Montana Man Charged With Homicide in Teen Shooting[/URL]

The salient points:

[LIST=1]
[*]Homeowners are angry and frustrated (understandably) after being burglarized twice in the span of three weeks.
[*]Homeowners devise relatively elaborate plan to entice a burglar into their garage by leaving the door open with a purse in plain view, hoping that said burglar will steal the purse.
[*]Husband tells an acquaintance that he's been sitting up at night "waiting to shoot a kid".
[*]When alerted by their electronic monitoring gear that there is likely someone in the garage, husband enters the garage from the house and blindly fires four blasts of buckshot into the dark at what he claims was a sound of some kind, with no idea what/who he's shooting at, killing one of the trespassers (which was all he was at that point).
[/LIST]

I predict that this will also result in significant prison time, at least for the husband. The wife might get lucky with some sort of plea deal, but I wouldn't count on it. Again, I have no sympathy for thieves (or even would-be thieves), but this course of action was just pure irresponsible stupidity.[/QUOTE]

blindly fires into the garage...?? who says so?? no one really no's.... if I was on the jury I would have to take a lunch break and have a jimmy john no. 7 surpreme before I thought rationally....

13.) DParker - 05/04/2014

[QUOTE=crookedeye;19430]blindly fires into the garage...?? who says so?? no one really no's....[/QUOTE]

Says the guy who did the shooting. I'm assuming he knows. From the story that I linked to...

[Quote]"He said he did not see anyone in the darkened garage and did not communicate with anyone before sweeping the garage with four shotgun blasts."[/quote]