DHan Posted April 21, 2014 at 09:32 PM Share Posted April 21, 2014 at 09:32 PM Did he overreact? most of the comments after the article are supportive. http://news.yahoo.com/prosecutor-minn-homeowner-lay-wait-teens-163213122.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warped Posted April 21, 2014 at 09:43 PM Share Posted April 21, 2014 at 09:43 PM Yes he overreactedThat's not self defensethat's execution Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tango7 Posted April 21, 2014 at 09:57 PM Share Posted April 21, 2014 at 09:57 PM As a former MN NR CCW holder, I don't recall anything in the law that prohibits someone from sitting in their house, even if the good prosecutor wants to attempt to lend an aura of premeditation to being seated between two bookcases at the bottom of the stairs while reading a book with a rifle, and handgun, some energy bars and a bottle of water. What kind of energy bars were they? Why not introduce their band names into evidence? Defense of household can be as premeditated as anyone wants, and it's not criminal, despite his smarmy attitude. That said: "Smith told investigators he thought he heard Kifer gasping, so he pulled out his revolver for what he told police was a "good clean finishing shot to the head".\ That crosses the line so far it's already in the next state. Yeah, hope you enjoy institutional food. pal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patriots & Tyrants Posted April 21, 2014 at 10:24 PM Share Posted April 21, 2014 at 10:24 PM From the sounds of it first shooting was justified, second was questionable until the finishing shot. I don't see how they get him on 2 counts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockman Posted April 21, 2014 at 10:57 PM Share Posted April 21, 2014 at 10:57 PM If he indeed made those statements attributed to him, he has put forth evidence agaist himself that he intended to kill them regardless of circumstances. The evidence tampering will also be damning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
narcoden Posted April 21, 2014 at 11:25 PM Share Posted April 21, 2014 at 11:25 PM I'm all for taking a shot at someone breaking into your house... Once you have stopped the threat, it becomes murder to shoot someone in the head that is still gasping. At that point, she wasn't a threat and 911 should have been dialed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firepiper Posted April 22, 2014 at 01:27 AM Share Posted April 22, 2014 at 01:27 AM Wasn't there a similar case of a pharmacist and a robber?Came from behind the counter and popped the guy while on the floor.Don't remember location.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mqqn Posted April 22, 2014 at 03:41 AM Share Posted April 22, 2014 at 03:41 AM This was premeditated, there was testimony from Brady himself saying that he fired "a good clean finishing shot" into Kifer's head as she was gasping for air.... http://www.mprnews.org/story/2013/04/25/news/little-falls-shooter-byron-smith-charged It is going to be hard to show he was defending his property when firing a coup de grâce into the eye of a wounded and incapacitated person. best mqqn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WtJen Posted April 22, 2014 at 09:51 AM Share Posted April 22, 2014 at 09:51 AM I have zero sympathy for the two dead burglars. I'm glad they are on a slab. As to the shooter. With a little foresight he could have set this up so that it would have appeared to be a legal shoot. Bragging to the LEO about finishing shots and piling bodies up does not lend itself to a legal shoot outcome. As a juror, I would vote not guilty on a first degree murder charge though. The two burglars set this chain of events into motion by breaking into the guy's house a second time. I might vote guilty on a lessor charge but I'm no sure about that. I view my home as a sacrosanct royal palace, that none may enter without my permission, even though it is just a typical suburban home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFC Stu Posted April 22, 2014 at 11:15 AM Share Posted April 22, 2014 at 11:15 AM Moral of the story: Don't break into other peoples houses and you may not be shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bitter Clinger Posted April 22, 2014 at 02:31 PM Share Posted April 22, 2014 at 02:31 PM I agree, lying in wait in your basement for the criminals to break in is no problem.But bragging about putting the finishing shots on them while they were dying and then piling their bodies in another room goes a bit too far. I'm more concerned as to why that Mini-14 jammed since I was thinking about getting one. Does this make me a bad person? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagt48 Posted April 22, 2014 at 02:48 PM Share Posted April 22, 2014 at 02:48 PM Wasn't there a similar case of a pharmacist and a robber? Came from behind the counter and popped the guy while on the floor. Don't remember location.... This was my thought as well. It was deemed a clean shoot until he walked behind the counter, got a second firearm and executed the robber as he was dying on the floor. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/43710936/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/oklahoma-pharmacist-sentenced-life-killing-would-be-robber/#.U1Z_WPldWSo What is the moral of these stories? A firearm is a defensive tool to be used to stop a threat ONLY. That does not give anyone a license to "finish the job" like they do in the movies. The point again is to stop a threat, not to shoot somebody until they are dead. If they die from the initial wounds, then that is one thing. Both of these men unnecessarily fired more rounds into a non-threatening person. That's what got the pharmacist life, and what will probably happen to Byron Smith. This sort of behavior is what gets people riled up against firearms and stand-your-ground laws (even when they don't apply) in the first place. A few idiots do this, and suddenly they equate gun ownership with "the right to blow people away." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barryware Posted April 22, 2014 at 03:35 PM Share Posted April 22, 2014 at 03:35 PM Bitter Clinger, on 22 Apr 2014 - 09:31 AM, said:I'm more concerned as to why that Mini-14 jammed since I was thinking about getting one. Does this make me a bad person? Not in the least. I was thinking the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tms119 Posted April 23, 2014 at 12:02 AM Share Posted April 23, 2014 at 12:02 AM I don't have much sympathy for the teens when this was their THIRD time breaking into this guy's house. Here's a question.... Why aren't the prosecutors and police not being held liable for failing to do a dang thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duwen10 Posted April 23, 2014 at 03:00 AM Share Posted April 23, 2014 at 03:00 AM Bitter Clinger, on 22 Apr 2014 - 09:31 AM, said: I'm more concerned as to why that Mini-14 jammed since I was thinking about getting one. Does this make me a bad person? Not in the least. I was thinking the same thing.Number 1 problem I've had with a mini is the magazine. The gun itself has been unstoppable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted April 23, 2014 at 12:07 PM Share Posted April 23, 2014 at 12:07 PM I'm all for taking a shot at someone breaking into your house... Once you have stopped the threat, it becomes murder to shoot someone in the head that is still gasping. At that point, she wasn't a threat and 911 should have been dialed. That's where I'm leaning. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mostholycerebus Posted April 23, 2014 at 12:59 PM Share Posted April 23, 2014 at 12:59 PM Would they be dead if they hadnt invaded his house? Two teen criminals vs a 65yo man, plenty of legal justification here. Dont talk to police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windchaser Posted April 23, 2014 at 03:18 PM Share Posted April 23, 2014 at 03:18 PM Would they be dead if they hadnt invaded his house? Two teen criminals vs a 65yo man, plenty of legal justification here. Dont talk to police. Once on the floor gasping they were no longer a threat. Protecting your home does not give you permission to execute someone which is what this guy did after his initial shots. He also screwed up when he moved the bodies. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted April 23, 2014 at 03:37 PM Share Posted April 23, 2014 at 03:37 PM Yup, you shoot to stop the threat not to kill. Man times stopping the threat will end up in their death, but that is on their hands. If the threat is stopped and you walk up and execute them then that does seem rather murdery to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
really?_ILivehere Posted April 23, 2014 at 04:15 PM Share Posted April 23, 2014 at 04:15 PM No, you shoot to kill with the hope of stopping a threat. If the threat ceases but is still alive, you hold your weapon on them (in case they become a threat again) until someone comes to help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaKoncepts aka CGS Posted April 23, 2014 at 04:29 PM Share Posted April 23, 2014 at 04:29 PM Just because you could doesn't mean you should. I never ever want to shoot somoeone even if I am legally justifiable. If I see someone in my house with my TV, that is a forcible felony and my lay man interpretation of the criminal code, I would be justified in shooting. However, I would politely demand that they leave. Just because you could doesn't mean you should. And let's forget the whole Coup de grâce "shoot 'em 'til ya run outta bullets!" attitude. That's immediate jail time and in most cases, rightfully so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaKoncepts aka CGS Posted April 23, 2014 at 04:33 PM Share Posted April 23, 2014 at 04:33 PM No, you shoot to kill with the hope of stopping a threat. If the threat ceases but is still alive, you hold your weapon on them (in case they become a threat again) until someone comes to help.Personally speaking I think you have it backwards. Here is the way I look at it... I am shooting to stop a threat. I am going to aim for somewhere vital because that is the best way to stop the threat. In aiming for a vital area, the aggressor is likely to expire. If the threat dies, so be it. However death to the aggressor is not my goal. I am not a killer, so I do not shoot to kill. Really, we are agreeing, however there are some very specific and subtle difference between how I am saying it and how you are saying it. The difference may be what keeps one of us out of jail or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted April 23, 2014 at 04:47 PM Share Posted April 23, 2014 at 04:47 PM He's not on trial for home defense. He's on trial for using deadly force against people who were, by his own admission, not believed to be a threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGDEESUL Posted April 23, 2014 at 04:49 PM Share Posted April 23, 2014 at 04:49 PM No, you shoot to kill with the hope of stopping a threat. If the threat ceases but is still alive, you hold your weapon on them (in case they become a threat again) until someone comes to help. 1000% backwards. Please don't open your mouth if you ever have to use your firearm defensively because your mouth will put you in prison. You shoot to stop the threat. Death is a side effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted April 23, 2014 at 05:17 PM Share Posted April 23, 2014 at 05:17 PM Yeah, and maybe delete that comment. I could be a liability later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcloud Posted April 23, 2014 at 05:50 PM Share Posted April 23, 2014 at 05:50 PM Wow, the number of people on here trying to justify this man's actions is staggering. The guy admits to executing the girl as she lay gasping on the ground. He even recorded the whole thing, and transcripts from the event show him taunting them as he killed them. I get that they were criminals. I get that he was p***** about multiple burglaries. I get that he had may have had justification for the initial shooting. But you have to be pretty demented to think that executing a coup de grâce on someone is justified. For those of you who argued it's not okay, sorry for wasting your time with this rant. But it's a poor reflection on the gun community as a whole when people like this guy execute someone, and those within our ranks support him. /end rant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagt48 Posted April 23, 2014 at 05:58 PM Share Posted April 23, 2014 at 05:58 PM Wasn't there a similar case of a pharmacist and a robber? Came from behind the counter and popped the guy while on the floor. Don't remember location.... This was my thought as well. It was deemed a clean shoot until he walked behind the counter, got a second firearm and executed the robber as he was dying on the floor. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/43710936/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/oklahoma-pharmacist-sentenced-life-killing-would-be-robber/#.U1Z_WPldWSo What is the moral of these stories? A firearm is a defensive tool to be used to stop a threat ONLY. That does not give anyone a license to "finish the job" like they do in the movies. The point again is to stop a threat, not to shoot somebody until they are dead. If they die from the initial wounds, then that is one thing. Both of these men unnecessarily fired more rounds into a non-threatening person. That's what got the pharmacist life, and what will probably happen to Byron Smith. This sort of behavior is what gets people riled up against firearms and stand-your-ground laws (even when they don't apply) in the first place. A few idiots do this, and suddenly they equate gun ownership with "the right to blow people away." Wow, the number of people on here trying to justify this man's actions is staggering. The guy admits to executing the girl as she lay gasping on the ground. He even recorded the whole thing, and transcripts from the event show him taunting them as he killed them. I get that they were criminals. I get that he was p***** about multiple burglaries. I get that he had may have had justification for the initial shooting. But you have to be pretty demented to think that executing a coup de grâce on someone is justified. For those of you who argued it's not okay, sorry for wasting your time with this rant. But it's a poor reflection on the gun community as a whole when people like this guy execute someone, and those within our ranks support him. /end rant Which is basically what I was saying above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potomuss Posted April 23, 2014 at 06:00 PM Share Posted April 23, 2014 at 06:00 PM In agreement with the 'shoot to stop the threat' then 'call 911' crowd. The kill shots were definitely out there, especially his choice of shot placement. Makes me a bit sick to my stomach actually. As far as bragging about it, forensics probably would have figured out how it went down. Probably didn't make much difference. Premeditated murder? Probably. Manslaughter? Definitely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
really?_ILivehere Posted April 23, 2014 at 06:20 PM Share Posted April 23, 2014 at 06:20 PM Long ago I learned that if you ever point a gun at a person, you better be intent on killing that person. That's what guns were made to do, kill people, not cripple them. Should the situation hopefully never come about where I'm threatened enough to point a loaded gun at someone, I'm going to shoot to kill that person. I understand how words can be used against me, that's why I intend to never say anything more than my name, I feared for my life and there's the gun. It's in the lawyer's hands after that. This reminds me of the argument over loading #4 birdshot up front on a shotgun followed by buckshot and then slugs. So I take a less lethal shot with #4 birdshot and my gun jams, what now? I apologize for sounding coarse, but the first thing that's coming out of my HD shotgun is a segmented slug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karim18 Posted April 23, 2014 at 06:57 PM Share Posted April 23, 2014 at 06:57 PM No, you shoot to kill with the hope of stopping a threat. If the threat ceases but is still alive, you hold your weapon on them (in case they become a threat again) until someone comes to help. So if someone was coming at you, you drew your firearm and they immediately stopped... you would still shoot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.