• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Man Executes Two Teen Intruders

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Biw

The One Who Knocks
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
2,463
Reaction score
3,299
Points
113
3double1125.jpg


LITTLE FALLS, MINN. - Insisting the case crosses the line from self-defense to a cold-blooded double execution, Morrison County authorities filed second-degree murder charges Monday against a 64-year-old man who killed two teenage cousins after they'd broken into his home on Thanksgiving.

This woodsy central Minnesota town of 8,000 was jolted as the gruesome details spilled out in a criminal complaint, 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."

Smith, who according to a friend and a relative had endured previous break-ins, sat shackled in an orange jail jumpsuit as County Attorney Brian Middendorf accused him of "cold-blooded murder of two teenagers under circumstances that are appalling and far beyond any self-defense claim."

Sheriff Michel Wetzel said Monday that he believes the teenagers were committing a burglary but said Smith's reaction went beyond legal protections of Minnesota law that allows crime victims to use reasonable force to protect themselves and their property during a felony.

"We understand and respect that right exists, but what happened in this case went further," Wetzel said. "The law doesn't permit you to execute somebody when there's no possible way the crime can continue."

And the law requires people to notify police, said Wetzel, who learned about the shooting from a neighbor the next day. The sheriff said the reason Smith gave for never calling police was "it was Thanksgiving and he didn't want to bother us on a holiday."

Hamline University School of Law professor Joseph Olson, who has studied self-defense laws, noted that the number of Smith's shots will make it difficult for him to claim self-defense in court.

"I think the first shot is justified," Olson said. "After the person is no longer a threat because they're seriously wounded, the application of self-defense is over."

High bail set

Judge Douglas P. Anderson set bail at $2 million or $1 million with conditions that Smith, a retired U.S. State Department employee, surrender his passport and firearms and not leave the state. Prosecutors cited Smith's years of international travel to Moscow, Bangkok and Beijing among the reasons for the high bail.

Smith's attorney, Gregory Larson, did not immediately contest the bail and a jail worker said Smith informed the staff he doesn't plan to post bail.

About a dozen friends and relatives of the victims attended Smith's 10-minute hearing, including 16-year-old Serina Poppen, who wore a brown Little Falls Auto and Transmission sweatshirt. Nicholas Brady, 17, the first shooting victim, lent her the sweatshirt a month ago when she was cold and the two had dated in recent months.

"No amount of bail is fair and no amount will bring them back," Poppen said. "He took it way too far. He could have just showed them his gun and told them to sit still until he called police."

Tessa Ruth, Brady's aunt, also was at the hearing and acknowledged outside the court room that "it wasn't right to be in the house and, yes, he has a right to defend himself, but not to execute them like that."

John Lange, who describes himself as Smith's best friend, was in the courtroom and visited Smith in jail.

"Byron is holding up just fine, but he shouldn't be in there, " Lange said. "You have the right to defend your home, and he's been through hell."

Lange said Smith's house has been broken into six times, although authorities says they have only one report of a break-in, in October.

"They tortured him and targeted him, and it's not good," Lange said. "If you've been broken into one time, that would be enough. But it's terrible."

Smith's brother, Bruce Smith, said about $10,000 worth of guns, electronic gear and cash were stolen in October.

Wetzel, the sheriff, declined to discuss what was taken in the October theft and said they have no suspects. He also declined to say whether the teens knew Smith, insisting the investigation is ongoing.

'I want him dead'

According to the complaint, Smith told police that he heard someone breaking into his house at noon on Thanksgiving. He showed police the window he says Brady and his cousin, Kifer, used to enter his house, which he said had been broken into several times before. Lange, his friend, said he kept his valuables downstairs.

Smith told police he armed himself with a rifle and a handgun and waited downstairs until he saw the first person's feet, then legs, then hips.

He said he fired and the first victim, Brady, tumbled down the stairs. While Brady looked up at him, he shot him in the face, according to the complaint.

"I want him dead," he told investigators.

He put Brady's body on a tarp and dragged him into his basement workshop and sat back down in his chair.

Several minutes later, he heard more footsteps and saw Kifer coming down the stairs. He waited until he saw her hips, then fired. She also fell down the stairs, but then his rifle jammed and Kifer laughed.

That angered Smith. "If you're trying to shoot someone and they laugh at you, you go again," he told police.

He then pulled out the .22-caliber, nine-shot revolver that he was wearing, and fired "more shots than I needed to." He dragged Kifer into the workshop, placed her next to Brady and noticed she was still gasping for air.

"Smith stated at this point he placed the handgun under the woman's chin and shot her ... up into the cranium ... a good clean finishing shot."


He told police neither of the teens were armed but he feared they might have had a weapon.

He asked a neighbor the next morning if he knew any lawyers, and that neighbor apparently called police.

Larson, Smith's lawyer, declined to discuss the case as he left the hearing, saying he needed more time to respond to the county attorney's accusations.

Middendorf, the county attorney, asked community members "not to rush to judgment. This is a terrible tragedy for the whole community," he said. "And Mr. Smith is entitled to a fair process."

'Keep out'

At Smith's house, where a "keep out" sign blocked the driveway, kids drove by who knew the victims.

They remembered two teenage cousins who were inseparable and texted each other thousands of times.

"Nick was always energetic," said Alex Janey, 18. "They had so much more to give and to just shoot them like that, it just isn't right."

Other kids rumored that drugs might have been involved, a subject authorities declined to get into, saying the case is ongoing.

Poppen said her close friend, who lent her the sweatshirt she was wearing, "was always hilarious and lived for the moment."

Throughout the town of Little Falls, stunned residents weighed in.

"This ...doesn't happen in our community," said Liberty Nunn, 20, a friend of Brady's sister. "If it was 3 o'clock in the morning, I'm a shoot first and ask questions later kind of person.

"But this was the middle of Thanksgiving Day and to not bother to call the cops? It's just not right to take a life. ... He got to shut the basement door and go on with his Thanksgiving," Nunn said, "while two families were grieving."

http://www.startribune.com/local/180853761.html?page=all&prepage=1&c=y#continue



I can't defend breaking into someone's house, but Jesus...
 
Last edited:
Only in America
 
On topic, it's murder... obviously the guy is deranged. But the kids brought it on themselves. You break into a man's home, repeatedly (hell even once), you should totally expect to die if you get caught.

I'd say the kids might have been equally as deranged as the man who executed them, especially if his account that the girl was laughing after being shot and hearing her cousin murdered is accurate.
 
Better hope somebody like me isn't on that jury, no way In hell I am voting guilty because he protected his home.

You break into a man's home, you pay the price for what happens when he catches you.

Tough luck
 
Better hope somebody like me isn't on that jury, no way In hell I am voting guilty because he protected his home.

You break into a man's home, you pay the price for what happens when he catches you.

Tough luck

Shooting someone in self defense is one thing, but making sure that they're good and dead in the way he did is crazy, and in no way would I want someone like that out free.
 
Yeah, he should go to prison. Shooting them? I'm perfectly alright with. The problem is the second shot to the girl's head. Odd "What if"... If the shotgun didn't jam, and he simply fired another round into her (not up close), then called the cops, would he still be looking to go to jail? Probably not, but that's not what happened.
 
The kids are white and he's white, so this story will go away quickly. In addition to that, the guy has been very forthcoming with his motivations, so he's not leaving many questions un-answered. There really appears to be no mystery here other than whether (a) anyone really had broken into the guy's house in the past and (b) whether it was these two. So, my analysis here comes with the caveat that it's based on the facts as they're presented right now, obviously my opinion could change as more details come out.



In my completely non-expert opinion, the (likely) applicable Minnesota statutes for authorized use of force and justifiable taking of life read:

609.06 AUTHORIZED USE OF FORCE.
(4) when used by any person in lawful possession of real or personal property, or by another assisting the person in lawful possession, in resisting a trespass upon or other unlawful interference with such property; or

So he's authorized to use force in resisting the trespass according to that law. Question remains as to whether killing them was reasonable force to resist the trespass or if a lower level of action would have done the job sufficiently. Need more facts to argue either way. But based on what he himself has confessed, it sounds to me as if killing them was unreasonable force. So if I had to make a (non-expert) argument defending him, I'd say that shooting the first individual when he saw his hips would be reasonable. PARTICULARLY because seeing their hips might indicate that he was trying to inflict a wound on the lower half of their body, leaving less risk of inflicting a mortal wound. Waiting until he saw their chest and head could indicate that he intended to kill them from the beginning. If I could argue that he intended to shoot them in the lower half of the body to incapacitate them and stop the crime, I'd guess we'd have a pretty good shot to demonstrate reasonable force.

To continue on to the next part of the authorized use of force sub-division.

609.06 AUTHORIZED USE OF FORCE.
reasonable force may be authorized...

(5) when used by any person to prevent the escape, or to retake following the escape, of a person lawfully held on a charge or conviction of a crime; or


Again, shooting them below the chest seems to be an easy reasonable force argument. It would be reasonable to expect that to stop their escape. What seems to me to be an added wrench, is that neither of the teens appeared to have been attempting to escape or even physically capable of escape after the first shot(s). I'm guessing (5) doesn't help them very much here, because preventing escape may have been moot.

The next (likely) applicable statute:


609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.
The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 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.

If ONLY the first part of that sentence existed, "when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonable believes exposes the actor...to great bodily harm or death," he might not get off. Reason being, the prosecution would probably demonstrate that by the time he killed them, he wouldn't reasonable believe he was exposed to bodily harm or death. They didn't have any weapons and it sounds as if they were completely incapacitated by the first shot(s). HOWEVER, the second half states, "or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode."

At this point, it becomes cut and dry in my opinion legally. They were committing 2nd degree burglary which MN law defines as:

609.582 BURGLARY.

Subd. 2.Burglary in the second degree. (a) Whoever enters a building without consent and with intent to commit a crime, or enters a building without consent and commits a crime while in the building, either directly or as an accomplice, commits burglary in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both, if:
(1) the building is a dwelling;


Their crime satisfies the second degree burglary definition and is thus a felony. Statute 609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE authorizes an individual in their place of abode to take a life if it prevents commission of a felony.

That's what he did. And that's why I think he'll get off.
 
Last edited:
Better hope somebody like me isn't on that jury, no way In hell I am voting guilty because he protected his home.

You break into a man's home, you pay the price for what happens when he catches you.

Tough luck

There's a big difference between defending yourself and firing "more shots than I needed to" followed by a coup de grace on an 18-year old girl gasping for air. This guy is fucking nuts and should be put away... and I say that as someone who believes in gun rights and the right to self-defense.
 
Better hope somebody like me isn't on that jury, no way In hell I am voting guilty because he protected his home.

You break into a man's home, you pay the price for what happens when he catches you.

Tough luck

Retarded. Kids should've gotten into trouble. You just justified shooting someone under the chin into the brain. That is execution. Internet hard-ass.
 
Something about the story does not add up. One goes down the stairs, he shoots a couple times. Then the girl goes down the same way, and gets shot. WTF? Were they not together?
 
The man will probably be set free, but I feel like some sort of penalty should be arranged. What happened with the girl shows that he took it a step further than self defense. She was laying there, probably bleeding out, harmless and he shot her in the head. Completely unnecessary and pretty brutal. Of course the two kids are not in any way innocent, but I'm not sure I would want this kind of guy living in the same town as me (with only 8000 people I think it said). I mean, if my neighbor came to my house asking if I knew any lawyers because he just killed two teenagers, I would be a little unsettled...
 
The kids are white and he's white, so this story will go away quickly. In addition to that, the guy has been very forthcoming with his motivations, so he's not leaving many questions un-answered. There really appears to be no mystery here other than whether (a) anyone really had broken into the guy's house in the past and (b) whether it was these two. So, my analysis here comes with the caveat that it's based on the facts as they're presented right now, obviously my opinion could change as more details come out.



In my completely non-expert opinion, the (likely) applicable Minnesota statutes for authorized use of force and justifiable taking of life read:

609.06 AUTHORIZED USE OF FORCE.
(4) when used by any person in lawful possession of real or personal property, or by another assisting the person in lawful possession, in resisting a trespass upon or other unlawful interference with such property; or

So he's authorized to use force in resisting the trespass according to that law. Question remains as to whether killing them was reasonable force to resist the trespass or if a lower level of action would have done the job sufficiently. Need more facts to argue either way. But based on what he himself has confessed, it sounds to me as if killing them was unreasonable force. So if I had to make a (non-expert) argument defending him, I'd say that shooting the first individual when he saw his hips would be reasonable. PARTICULARLY because seeing their hips might indicate that he was trying to inflict a wound on the lower half of their body, leaving less risk of inflicting a mortal wound. Waiting until he saw their chest and head could indicate that he intended to kill them from the beginning. If I could argue that he intended to shoot them in the lower half of the body to incapacitate them and stop the crime, I'd guess we'd have a pretty good shot to demonstrate reasonable force.

To continue on to the next part of the authorized use of force sub-division.

609.06 AUTHORIZED USE OF FORCE.
reasonable force may be authorized...

(5) when used by any person to prevent the escape, or to retake following the escape, of a person lawfully held on a charge or conviction of a crime; or


Again, shooting them below the chest seems to be an easy reasonable force argument. It would be reasonable to expect that to stop their escape. What seems to me to be an added wrench, is that neither of the teens appeared to have been attempting to escape or even physically capable of escape after the first shot(s). I'm guessing (5) doesn't help them very much here, because preventing escape may have been moot.

The next (likely) applicable statute:


609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.
The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 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.

If ONLY the first part of that sentence existed, "when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonable believes exposes the actor...to great bodily harm or death," he might not get off. Reason being, the prosecution would probably demonstrate that by the time he killed them, he wouldn't reasonable believe he was exposed to bodily harm or death. They didn't have any weapons and it sounds as if they were completely incapacitated by the first shot(s). HOWEVER, the second half states, "or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode."

At this point, it becomes cut and dry in my opinion legally. They were committing 2nd degree burglary which MN law defines as:

609.582 BURGLARY.

Subd. 2.Burglary in the second degree. (a) Whoever enters a building without consent and with intent to commit a crime, or enters a building without consent and commits a crime while in the building, either directly or as an accomplice, commits burglary in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both, if:
(1) the building is a dwelling;


Their crime satisfies the second degree burglary definition and is thus a felony. Statute 609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE authorizes an individual in their place of abode to take a life if it prevents commission of a felony.

That's what he did. And that's why I think he'll get off.

I'm not sure your conclusions are right. They would be right had he killed them with the first shot. He probably wouldn't even be charged. But what he did here

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."

is quite clearly murder, for which he should be convicted.
 
Something about the story does not add up. One goes down the stairs, he shoots a couple times. Then the girl goes down the same way, and gets shot. WTF? Were they not together?

And starts laughing after she falls down the stairs? What? Weird story, to say the least.

Anyone defending this guy is just as much of a psychopath as him, but I question some of the "facts" of this case. I am one of those people that is all for the use of deadly force when people break into your home, because there is NO way for you to know what their intent is, what sort of weapons they have, etc. If you don't want to be on the business end of a shotgun, don't break into peoples' homes.

On the other hand, there is ZERO- and I mean zero justification for cold blooded execution as described in this case.
 
The man will probably be set free, but I feel like some sort of penalty should be arranged. What happened with the girl shows that he took it a step further than self defense. She was laying there, probably bleeding out, harmless and he shot her in the head. Completely unnecessary and pretty brutal. Of course the two kids are not in any way innocent, but I'm not sure I would want this kind of guy living in the same town as me (with only 8000 people I think it said). I mean, if my neighbor came to my house asking if I knew any lawyers because he just killed two teenagers, I would be a little unsettled...

I don't see how people think this guy will be set free. Do you all know a ton more about the legal system than me? Probably, but he blatantly describes how he executed two kids in cold blood. I mean, come on.
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top