Man Executes Two Teen Intruders

[Shakalu M.D.]

This wasn't their first break-in apparently...

In a statement Wednesday, Nov. 28, Morrison County Sheriff Michel Wetzel said a search of a red Mitsubishi Eclipse seized after Haile Kifer and Nicholas Brady were shot and killed by Byron David Smith, authorities found prescription drugs and other items reported stolen from another Little Falls home.

That's not at all surprising.

 

[Adam]

Not sure what the general mentality is in Britain, but in the US many states have moved toward a "castle doctrine" that allows one to legally take action to protect one's abode that would be considered murder in other situations. People aren't generally expected to upgrade home security as much as they are to protect their homes. If someone has ACTUALLY broken into his home multiple times, it's his prerogative to upgrade security OR lie in wait and legally kill the people breaking in.

This guy likely abused his rights.

We currently are possibly too much in favour of the rights of the invader, but there is talk moving towards a more aggrssive stance, a few years a go an old man killed two gypsy boys who broke into his home and he was done for murder. he might not get as harsh a term in the current climate, although obviously guns cross a line in the UK

 

[Chris]

Almost feel like b00bie at times?


You even stated the guy likely abused his rights, yet, there someone is to point out the difference of what he did and what you said you're allowed to do.


Nah, he should have just shot them in the chest once each. Then called the cops.

That's fine with me, he would not have been in the wrong if he did so...

Personally, I would see it as a tragedy in that case because taking the lives of two 18 year olds even if they are troubled, to me, is a tragedy ...

 

[The Oi]

Almost feel like b00bie at times?


You even stated the guy likely abused his rights, yet, there someone is to point out the difference of what he did and what you said you're allowed to do.


Nah, he should have just shot them in the chest once each. Then called the cops.

I'm not sure of what you're arguing and I think you (and possibly others) think I'm arguing something I'm not.

I'm saying, based on the "facts" that have been presented, the argument that I think his attorney needs to make to get him off. Everything I'm saying is coming from the point of view that I think his attorney, him and a jury would need to have in order for him to get off. I've expressed my opinion that I think he abused his rights, that him and the kids are crazy and that he probably shouldn't have killed them. And the problem with the law, by the way, is that it can always be interpreted multiple ways...especially newer ones.

Not sure what that has to do with b00bie.

Relatedly, I'd be interested to know what a jury would think about this argument:

So let's say there really was a rash of break-ins in the neighborhood and some of them were really in his house. He's an old single guy living at home. He's annoyed. He's fearful. He thinks people in drugs are bound to break in and he thinks that they're a serious threat to his life. Kids break in. Adrenaline is pumping. Shots the first kid whotumbles down the stairs. In his eyes, maybe he's exacted revenge on the neighborhood druggies just by killing that kid.

On the other hand...maybe he thinks that this kid poses such a serious threat to him that incapacitating him isn't enough and could lead to the kid coming out of his unconsciousness- or whatever state he was in, presuming he wasn't dead and could still kill him.

Let's say he also knows that there's someone else in the house. So now if he doesn't kill the first one, he's going 1 vs 2 and he thinks he doesn't have much of a chance if there's another drugged up teenage guy coming down the stairs. He cuts his losses and kills the first guy, doesn't see any other option. Now another druggie is definitely coming down the stairs and might intend to kill him. He shoots this one and almost kills her. Again, he's not sure what she's capable of, so he then kills her and in his mind, did what he had to do to protect himself from a serious threat. He saw no other option but to kill them, because druggies are capable of anything, especially if they're doped up when they come in the house.

Let's say also, that it was his duty to incapacitate them and notify the police. What if there's no phone in the area and he'd have to go to another room to find one. If he truly believes these druggies are dangerous enough to survive a couple gunshots, why couldn't he have been afraid to leave the room because they might come out of it and kill him when he comes back.

I'm not sure that's the way it went down, and the "took more shots than I needed to" quote indicates he already knew one of them was incapacitated or dead, but I wonder if a jury would be receptive to that argument. It would make me think twice IF I bought it.

 

[Otsego Mar]

When people start becoming the "monday morning armchair quarterback" is when we start having problems.

This quote sums it up, IMHO:

"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."

As long as the prosecutors can prove that they (the criminals who broke into his home) didn't pose a threat after the first shots, I think this guy is going to get voluntary manslaughter...and he probably deserves it - of course I'd like to hear more about it. I have no remorse for the kids....really. You break into someone's house 6 times....you really have no clue what you're doing. I'm all for castle doctrine rights and everything and I would NEVER want to protect rights of criminals, EVER, but if the threat is over....I have to think you immediately call 911 and either leave the house (not likely) or continue to monitor the situation. If, then, the kids continued to pose a threat (who knows, maybe they did at that point and didn't care for their lives - maybe they didn't in the first place) then I would recommend further action.

PS - chick is hot...I would have saved her life...literally.

 

[bcort]

I'm not sure of what you're arguing and I think you (and possibly others) think I'm arguing something I'm not.

I'm saying, based on the "facts" that have been presented, the argument that I think his attorney needs to make to get him off. Everything I'm saying is coming from the point of view that I think his attorney, him and a jury would need to have in order for him to get off. I've expressed my opinion that I think he abused his rights, that him and the kids are crazy and that he probably shouldn't have killed them. And the problem with the law, by the way, is that it can always be interpreted multiple ways...especially newer ones.

Not sure what that has to do with b00bie.

First, I wasn't commenting on what you think of the case. I was only commenting on how people take what you say and insinuate that it means something else.

For example, you say "People aren't generally expected to upgrade home security as much as they are to protect their homes." and get this response:

Yeah, but there's a pretty big difference between killing someone while protecting your home and executing them after they've already been incapacitated.

That seems to be a response to someone who is arguing all the guy was doing is "protecting his home." Obviously, this isn't what you were saying. You were just explaining to someone who lives outside the US what can happen in the US.


How that compares to b00bie? What b00bie says and what people take it as gets mixed up all the time.

Here..
b00bie:

Meh, Shazier is a beast and all....but you can't really tell how much better or worse than he is than anyone else based tackles.

LB numbers always seem to be pretty subjective in that regard.

Some other poster:

So Te'O is better because of interceptions that fell in his lap?

Of course, b00bie had a pretty good response:

Yes.

By saying that LB statistics are subjective and don't paint a good picture of who is the better overall player, clearly I meant that his interceptions make him better than Shazier.

Anyways, this is getting off topic.

 

[KI4MVP]

When people start becoming the "monday morning armchair quarterback" is when we start having problems.

This quote sums it up, IMHO:



As long as the prosecutors can prove that they (the criminals who broke into his home) didn't pose a threat after the first shots, I think this guy is going to get voluntary manslaughter...and he probably deserves it - of course I'd like to hear more about it. I have no remorse for the kids....really. You break into someone's house 6 times....you really have no clue what you're doing. I'm all for castle doctrine rights and everything and I would NEVER want to protect rights of criminals, EVER, but if the threat is over....I have to think you immediately call 911 and either leave the house (not likely) or continue to monitor the situation. If, then, the kids continued to pose a threat (who knows, maybe they did at that point and didn't care for their lives - maybe they didn't in the first place) then I would recommend further action.

PS - chick is hot...I would have saved her life...literally.

you're assuming two things
- his house was actually broken into 6 times despite his only reporting it once? Who is going to not report having their house broken into 5 different times.

- that the people he shot were the same ones who broke in before

 

[Otsego Mar]

you're assuming two things
- his house was actually broken into 6 times despite his only reporting it once? Who is going to not report having their house broken into 5 different times.

- that the people he shot were the same ones who broke in before

OK, let's assume they were not the same kids. Does it change anything from a criminal standpoint? Not really. But you're right, there is always tons of speculation.

 

[Lee]

This wasn't their first break-in apparently...

In a statement Wednesday, Nov. 28, Morrison County Sheriff Michel Wetzel said a search of a red Mitsubishi Eclipse seized after Haile Kifer and Nicholas Brady were shot and killed by Byron David Smith, authorities found prescription drugs and other items reported stolen from another Little Falls home.

I am sure we will find out these two were not good kids. But it really was an execution. He really seems crazy to me by definition, as he really doesnt get why his actions crossed the line...ie he has no concept of right or wrong right now.

I am also guessing a pill and meth habit had allot to do with the break-ins.

 

[Lee]

PS - chick is hot...I would have saved her life...literally.

That is a picture before her meth habit. I bet she was not nearly as hot before she was killed. I am guessing she looked like any old crack whore out there. But she still deserved the right to straighten up her life. He should have detained them, not executed.

 

[Shakalu M.D.]

I'm thinking this line here is enough to make sure he gets sent away.

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

Doesn't sound remotely like defense to me.

 

[Otsego Mar]

I'm thinking this line here is enough to make sure he gets sent away.



Doesn't sound remotely like defense to me.

Here's a tip for anybody. NEVER talk to the police if you have the opportunity. Just don't do it. It can only incriminate you. (I'm not talking about a little traffic stop really)

 

[Mac]

Regardless of what anyone is saying in here. Putting a gun to someone's chin and blowing her head off is ridiculous. Tell people to stop breaking into peoples' homes, sure. Try to defend this guy's act, I have no respect for you.

Defending punk thug felons, I have no respect for you. They got exactly what they deserved, they had zero respect for another's property and committed a felony and got caught. Deal with it. They made the choice, they paid the price.

Is the guy nuts? Probably. But you break into my home, I get to do with you what I wish if I gain the upper hand. And thankfully the law in Ohio allows us to protect our home.

Jigo seemed to look at the statutes, by law (obviously we aren't in deep detail), I don't see how the guy is arrested for murder.

 

[Pick6]

Defending punk thug felons, I have no respect for you. They got exactly what they deserved, they had zero respect for another's property and committed a felony and got caught. Deal with it. They made the choice, they paid the price.

Is the guy nuts? Probably. But you break into my home, I get to do with you what I wish if I gain the upper hand. And thankfully the law in Ohio allows us to protect our home.

Jigo seemed to look at the statutes, by law (obviously we aren't in deep detail), I don't see how the guy is arrested for murder.

Because he handled it wrong. His actions PROBABLY exceeded his legal capacity. Dragging their bodies in a tarp into his shed and leaving it over night? He should of first called his lawyer then the cops. Situation could have been handled much better by him, which is why potential murder is in the question.

 

[Shakalu M.D.]

Defending punk thug felons, I have no respect for you. They got exactly what they deserved, they had zero respect for another's property and committed a felony and got caught. Deal with it. They made the choice, they paid the price.

Is the guy nuts? Probably. But you break into my home, I get to do with you what I wish if I gain the upper hand. And thankfully the law in Ohio allows us to protect our home.

Jigo seemed to look at the statutes, by law (obviously we aren't in deep detail), I don't see how the guy is arrested for murder.

You're allowed to use reasonable force to defend your home. Executing them after they were already subdued goes far past that. Look I'm not defending the kids at all, they deserved to be punished. I just don't think blowing two kids' heads off was remotely called for.