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

Man Executes Two Teen Intruders

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
I wonder at which point there's a cut off in what you can do to someone committing a crime on your property. Surely, you can't bind and torture someone to death.

KI just read your post. That's the part I'm questioning too. I don't see anything in the law indicating that he can't shoot her again when she's laying there gasping. Surely there's some kind of time cut-off or incapacitation cut off or something though.

I'm not sure how you could say my conclusions are incorrect. My conclusions are based on the law I cited. My conclusions probably aren't incorrect until someone can demonstrate that we did is considered cold blooded murder under the law.
 
Last edited:
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.

Did you read the last part of my post above? I looked up the statutes. The last paragraph is why I think he'll get off.

And "defending" him doesn't make me, his attorney or anyone else a psycopath if they're using the law to argue it. And "defending" him is not what I'm doing either. I'm citing the law and stating my guess as to what his attorney will argue.

I personally think the guy is crazy. It's a matter of how the law is used to demonstrate whether his supposed craziness is relevant or enough to overturn what, on the surface, appears to be a case that COULD be argued to suggest he's within his rights.
 
Last edited:
Did you read the last part of my post above? I looked up the statutes. The last paragraph is why I think he'll get off.

Call me fucking naive, but I'd be shocked if he got off on cold blooded execution. Legalities bore me to tears and I'm not about to go searching through pages and pages of laws and statutes but this guy is going to get serious time.

Seriously, when the perp is on the ground choking on their own blood, I think the "commission of a felony" has been prevented. There is nothing in there that should get this guy off for putting a gun under a person's chin (a person who is dying and will die without medical help) and squeezing the trigger. I don't see what you see, apparently.
 
Last edited:
Did you read the last part of my post above? I looked up the statutes. The last paragraph is why I think he'll get off.

And "defending" him doesn't make me, his attorney or anyone else a psycopath if they're using the law to argue it. And "defending" him is not what I'm doing either. I'm citing the law and stating my guess as to what his attorney will argue.

I personally think the guy is crazy. It's a matter of how the law is used to demonstrate whether his supposed craziness is relevant or enough to overturn what, on the surface, appears to be a case that COULD be argued to suggest he's within his rights.

I wasn't saying you were defending him. I know you are simply trying to analyze the law and see where he stands, legally. The guy is clearly nuts as is anyone else defending his actions.
 
I wonder at which point there's a cut off in what you can do to someone committing a crime on your property. Surely, you can't bind and torture someone to death.

KI just read your post. That's the part I'm questioning too. I don't see anything in the law indicating that he can't shoot her again when she's laying there gasping. Surely there's some kind of time cut-off or incapacitation cut off or something though.

I'm not sure how you could say my conclusions are incorrect. My conclusions are based on the law I cited. My conclusions probably aren't incorrect until someone can demonstrate that we did is considered cold blooded murder under the law.

he had already prevented the crime, those shots were allowed. The law doesn't allow for the subsequent execution.
 
Last edited:
Call me fucking naive, but I'd be shocked if he got off on cold blooded execution. Legalities bore me to tears and I'm not about to go searching through pages and pages of laws and statutes but this guy is going to get serious time.

Seriously, when the perp is on the ground choking on their own blood, I think the "commission of a felony" has been prevented. There is nothing in there that should get this guy off for putting a gun under a person's chin (a person who is dying and will die without medical help) and squeezing the trigger. I don't see what you see, apparently.

Who's asking you to read through pages and pages? I cites the statutes right there for you.

If you're not going to read the statutes, you're even leas qualified to argue whether he'll get off than me. And I'm not qualified enough to have anything other than an opinion.

People have a bad habit of being so blinded by emotion and personal belief that they'll develop and maintain an opinion on what will happen to someone legally without being able to distinguish it from what's morally "right" or wrong.

I'm telling you what the law states and how I think his attorney will use it, not whether I trust the guy amongst society. (I don't.)

It's a bad habit that's easy to fall into when people get emotional. I used to do it too.
 
I wasn't saying you were defending him. I know you are simply trying to analyze the law and see where he stands, legally. The guy is clearly nuts as is anyone else defending his actions.

Ok, now we're on the same page. I don't like his actions or statements either.


he had already prevented the crime, those shots were allowed. The law doesn't allow for the subsequent execution.

When you say "the law," whose law are you referring to and have you seen a statute that I haven't? I'd like to think there's a way to bust him too, but I haven't seen anything that definitively states he can't do what he did. Logically, I'd think there should be.
 
Last edited:
Who's asking you to read through pages and pages? I cites the statutes right there for you.

If you're not going to read the statutes, you're even leas qualified to argue whether he'll get off than me. And I'm not qualified enough to have anything other than an opinion.

People have a bad habit of being so blinded by emotion and personal belief that they'll develop and maintain an opinion on what will happen to someone legally without being able to distinguish it from what's morally "right" or wrong.

I'm telling you what the law states and how I think his attorney will use it, not whether I trust the guy amongst society. (I don't.)

It's a bad habit that's easy to fall into when people get emotional. I used to do it too.

Again, I know you aren't defending his actions.

I was saying I don't have the patience to go looking for statutes that prove your conclusions wrong. But I guarantee that something exists to prevent a psychopath like this guy from getting away with murder. The law is very thorough. In fact, even going from what is in your post, the "commission of a felony" had clearly been prevented when the perpetrator was on the ground choking on blood. Nothing it said there authorized the execution of the injured perp.

I'm sure like you said there is probably something that further dictates just how far your actions can go in defending your home. As you or someone else said, obviously you can't bind and torture someone to death who broke into your home. So where are the laws and statutes regarding that?
 
Chris...you and I are done here. :chuckles:

We're 100% in agreement.
 
Ok, now we're on the same page. I don't like his actions or statements either.




When you say "the law," whose law are you referring to and have you seen a statute that I haven't? I'd like to think there's a way to bust him too, but I haven't seen anything that definitively states he can't do what he did. Logically, I'd think there should be.

I'm referring to the law you quoted

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.

when he took life, the felony had already been prevented. The first shots prevented the felony, from his own statements the last shot wasn't necessary to prevent the felony and he wasn't in any threat to "great bodily harm". The last shot should get him convicted and I don't see how it's protected under 609.065.

The article even makes the same conclusion

"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."

Also, his statements of "I want him dead" and "more shots than I needed to." and when that proved to not be enough, because one victim was 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." Even ignoring the rest, that last shot was quite clearly outside the law.
 
Last edited:
A good lawyer could argue both sides of the case effectively. I guess I don't see it as a no-brainer that the man will receive time. Demographics could play a part as well. Maybe this town is hardcore in favor of gun ownership and broad self defense statutes. The composition of the jury could reflect this.

You never know with the legal system.
 
I'm referring to the law you quoted



when he took life, the felony had already been prevented. The first shots prevented the felony, from his own statements the last shot wasn't necessary to prevent the felony and he wasn't in any threat to "great bodily harm". The last shot should get him convicted and I don't see how it's protected under 609.065.

The article even makes the same conclusion



Also, his statements of "I want him dead" and "more shots than I needed to." and when that proved to not be enough, because one victim was 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." Even ignoring the rest, that last shot was quite clearly outside the law.

The guy is an absolute moron for saying anything at all about the case. I still think he's going to argue that he could reasonably believe that he was still in danger when he killed her. She was committing a felony when he discovered her and I'm not sure when her attempt is defined as stopped and she's defined as incapacitated. It would seem to me that she was, but the argument is whether he thought that she was. Him saying she was gasping for air or that he took a good cleaning finishing shot or that he wanted the other guy dead don't by themselves tell me that the crime was over and they were incapacitated.

I personally think they were definitely incapacitated and that the crime was over, but my thoughts don't matter. His and a jury's do.
 
The guy is an absolute moron for saying anything at all about the case. I still think he's going to argue that he could reasonably believe that he was still in danger when he killed her. She was committing a felony when he discovered her and I'm not sure when her attempt is defined as stopped and she's defined as incapacitated. It would seem to me that she was, but the argument is whether he thought that she was. Him saying she was gasping for air or that he took a good cleaning finishing shot or that he wanted the other guy dead don't by themselves tell me that the crime was over and they were incapacitated.

I personally think they were definitely incapacitated and that the crime was over, but my thoughts don't matter. His and a jury's do.



He might be innocent by reason of temporary insanity. I don't want to defend him too much, because it goes way far, but the fact he didn't remorse the victims in the police interview and he had been burglarized 6 previous times shows a definite diminished mental capacity. That will be the only defense, and if I was his lawyer, that is the way I would go. He most likely will still be locked up for life, but that way its a mental institution instead of max security prison.

That said, if he fries, I wont feel bad, just saying there is a slight angle the defense attorneys can take.
 
I think most of us can agree that the extra shots were unnecessary. Now can we just agree that we are not lawyers and we will not know what the outcome of this situation is until he goes to court and that's over with?
 
I think most of us can agree that the extra shots were unnecessary. Now can we just agree that we are not lawyers and we will not know what the outcome of this situation is until he goes to court and that's over with?

Some of us have allot of experience with the law for different reasons, and after all, its a message board. What is the point of a message board if we cant discuss these things?
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top