when self defense/home invasion turns into 1st degree murder

Black Butte said:

INCORRECT. Nowhere did I "attempt to justify or explain away what this guy did." Posting false statements adds nothing the discussion.

In fact, I even wrote: "The whole "finishing shot" thing is a different story and definitely supported his conviction." Reading before commenting is always a good policy.

Click to expand...

Uhhh...likewise.
Did you read the facts of the case before commenting?
I'm not sure you did if you think the fact that he moved his vehicle prior to the burglary don't support his charges or conviction, given his INTENT in moving it.....and the fact that his moving his vehicle for the robbery indicated that he had significant suspicions that a robbery was going to take place, giving him plenty of time to find a non lethal alternative...which further points to the premeditated murder conviction and away from any reasonable justification of self defense.

I mean, its a pretty done deal at this point, verdict is in. Premeditated murder. There is really nothing to be picked apart or complained about, justice has been pretty clearly served.
Thank god, imo.
it would have been a perfect banner to wave against the castle doctrine and self defense if the jury had acquitted.

silicosys4 said:

... if you think that him having moved his vehicle prior don't support his charges or conviction, given his INTENT in moving it.

Click to expand...

I think you meant to write "doesn't support."

Is the assertion that circumstantial evidence can support an assumption of intent correct? Yes.

Is it also true that care must be taken in drawing inferences from circumstantial evidence that can be interpreted in different ways? Yes.

Does my suggesting that care must be taken in drawing inferences from circumstantial evidence imply that I think this man is innocent? No.

I did mean "doesn't". Thank you

What circumstantial evidence, pray tell?
Because the fact that he moved his truck was not circumstantial.
It was deliberate.
We don't have to infer anything. The man admitted to moving his truck with knowledge of the impending break in. Regardless of his stated reason, we know his intent in moving it.

I will repeat again.
You do not have to worry about braving a murder charge or conviction by moving your vehicle.
Unless you are moving your vehicle in preparation of or in the process of committing.....wait for it....murder.
Moving your truck won't turn a self defense charge into a murder charge. Murdering someone will.
I feel this is very simple and self evident.

silicosys4 said:

Because the fact that he moved his truck was not circumstantial.
It was deliberate.

Click to expand...

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact. Unless the defendant explicitly tells you the reason for moving the truck, you must draw an inference as to why he moved the truck. My point is that we must be careful in drawing inferences from circumstantial evidence when different interpretations are plausible.

Fact: There is an ax in Joe's backyard.
Inference #1: Joe meant to cut down a dead tree.
Inference #2: Joe meant to dismember his neighbor's dog when the dog next pooped on Joe's lawn.

Does the ax in this case suggest premeditation? How do we know that Joe wasn't planning on cutting down his dead tree when the neighbor's ferocious dog attacked him?

Black Butte said:

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact. Unless the defendant explicitly tells you the reason for moving the truck, you must draw an inference as to why he moved the truck. My point is that we must be careful in drawing inferences from circumstantial evidence when different interpretations are plausible.

Fact: There is an ax in Joe's backyard.
Inference #1: Joe meant to cut down a dead tree.
Inference #2: Joe meant to dismember his neighbor's dog when the dog next pooped on Joe's lawn.

Click to expand...

Im sorry, but is there a dead dog somewhere on Joe's property? Because there were two dead people in the guys basement. You seem to be missing that point. Dead bodies. Not parked cars.
The fact that there was an ax in Joe's backyard means nothing without a dead dog, and a dead dog is the important factor...the ax is just evidence.

We are talking about actions that have already happened therefore we can absolutely draw inferences upon what his intent in moving the truck was based on the conclusion of fact, and the interpretation has clearly been made by a jury.
I can see you aren't even addressing the issue at hand anyways....your insistence that investigating a car that was moved by the shooter prior to two shootings that went unreported was somehow unreasonable. As far as drawing inferences...there wasn't much to infer. It wasn't exactly a whodunnit game of clue.

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

One more time.
You aren't going to get charged and convicted of murdering someone after you move your vehicle unless you murder someone after moving your vehicle....or come so close to it that you have no room to complain about the authorities microanalyzing ALL your activities leading up to that point, including your parking job.
If you didn't actually murder someone after parking your vehicle, parking your vehicle will not lead to you being charged or convicted of murder

Am I getting through at all?

silicosys4 said:

We are talking about actions that have already happened.

Click to expand...

I am talking about interpreting circumstantial evidence in general. Hence "we must be careful in interpreting circumstantial evidence for which different interpretations are plausible." I've explicitly indicated THREE times now that I didn't think this guy was innocent. Perhaps you missed it while you were banging your head.

Answer my question, then.
Given the evidence at hand, do you think it was reasonable for the police to be suspicious of the motives for Mr. Smith moving his vehicle?

silicosys4 said:

If you didn't actually murder someone after parking your vehicle, parking your vehicle will not lead to you being charged or convicted of murder.

Click to expand...

How do you know you did or didn't murder somebody after parking your car if you're basing your assumption of murder on the fact that you parked your car. Your reasoning is circular.

As I stated earlier, you could have a justified self-defense shooting where somebody just happened to move their car? Is it now murder because they moved their car? I would hope not. Again, my original point stands. Care must be taken in interpreting circumstantial evidence.

silicosys4 said:

Answer my question, then.
Given the evidence at hand, do you think it was reasonable for the police to be suspicious of the motives for Mr. Smith moving his vehicle?

Click to expand...

What's important is the interpretation by the jury, not the suspicions of the police.

Black Butte said:

How do you know you did or didn't murder somebody after parking your car if you're basing your assumption of murder on the fact that you did park your car. You reasoning is circular.

Click to expand...

The police did not "base their assumption of murder" on the fact that he parked his car. It merely helped confirm murder.
My reasoning is absolutely not circular. If you do not commit murder, you most likely will not be convicted of murder no matter where you park your car, unless parking your car is part of a plan to commit murder.

As I stated earlier, you could have a justified self-defense shooting where somebody just happened to move their car? Is it now murder because they moved their car? I would hope not. Again, my original point stands. Care must be taken in interpreting circumstantial evidence.

Click to expand...

You could definitely have a justified self defense shooting where someone just happened to have moved their car.
I really don't know where you are getting the idea that just happening to park your car is going to cause a murder charge or conviction
The parking of the car is unlikely to be a determining factor. Nowhere in any state law does the position of your parked vehicle, where you parked it, how long ago it was parked, or how many times it had been parked there determine your guilt.
They are far more likely to base their murder charge and conviction off of suspected intent to commit murder, and use the parking of your car to help either confirm or deny your intent. If your parking supports their case, it supports it. If it doesn't support their case, it doesn't.

I agree, care must be taken in interpreting circumstantial evidence, which is why police conduct investigations that take multiple factors into consideration to determine your intent, not just the position of your parked car.

Smiths parking job helped lead to his conviction, and pointed away from a reasonable self defense plea. Period.

silicosys4 said:

If you do not commit murder, you will not be convicted of murder no matter where you park your car, unless parking your car is part of your plan to commit murder.

Click to expand...

... but when you are making the inference of murder based on parking the car, the reasoning is circular.

For example: If you take the money without the intent to steal it, you have nothing to worry about. In your case, however, you intended to steal the money because you took it.

Your rebuttal is regurgitated. Your examples are nonsensical and not pertinent or comparable to the case under discussion.
See my prior post #211
Please read up on the case if you insist on posting further. A fantasy about presumptions of murder based solely on parked cars does not a worthwhile argument make.

silicosys4 said:

Your examples are nonsensical and not pertinent or comparable to the case at hand.

Click to expand...

With some people, you have to repeat yourself. Again, "I am talking about interpreting circumstantial evidence in general." As I stated, "I support this conviction."

See my post #192 and #207, which were both prior to your post #211.

Oh good lord, STOP IT. If you don't understand how an otherwise seemingly random and lawful act like where you park can be entered into evidence as part of a pattern of behavior suggesting state of mind and motive, go back and re-read the thread carefully. Where you park won't get you thrown in prison -- especially if you don't kill anyone.

However, if you're involved in a shooting, especially one where the reasonableness of your actions is called into question, expect EVERY facet of your movements and decisions leading up to that event to be closely scrutinized for patterns and indications of mindset and motive. And if the case goes to trial, to have every one of those movements and decisions presented to the jury as evidence as part of building a case against you.

[strike]If another mod wants to reopen this, that's fine by me. But for a few moments now, I'm stopping this silly merry-go-round.[/strike]

EDIT: Ok, open again. Are there any further questions of law to discuss here?

Was he charged with conspiracy to commit murder, or just murder 1?
If he was proved to have set a trap to lure them in, then one of the charges should have been conspiracy to commit murder. That charge would be standard procedure.

Let's simplify this down to a very basic fact that needs to be grasped if you own a firearm and intend to ever use it for self defense.

You can not, ever, no matter what, use lethal force against an unarmed and nonthreatening person. It doesn't matter if they were actively trying to kill you thirty seconds before. When the threat stops, so does your right to use force.

When this man decided to put a finishing shot into a wounded and unarmed girl he murdered her. FULL STOP.

If you have rock solid legal justification to use force to defend yourself and you shoot a person, then while they are laying bleeding on the ground with no weapon and are no threat to anyone anymore... and you decided to walk over and put one into their head. You have murdered them, with premeditation.

End of discussion.

Well he must have told someone or how did they know he laid in wait? Did he confess to waiting there to kill them, if so then he's dumber than wood?

I was just looking at the comments in the local Minnesota paper, they are about 50/50, as far as agreeing with the ruling. I think that this is only going to cause more problems with people who really don't know or don't car about what the law says. You are going to see many more people being shot by homeowners in the coming year, it's happening right now in FL. It's very dangerous and very tricky to expect people who just got fed up and refused to take it anymore, to follow rules when they start shooting.
I was reading an article from Gabrial Suarez about this where he said that the average person is going to shoot a lot of bullets once they start shooting, which makes sense, if you have ever seen a police interview after a shooting, they almost never remember how many rounds they fired, and the gun is usually empty.
So if he was mentally deranged, should he have still been allowed to own a gun?
And if you say yes, then how can you also say he was guilty? We as a whole are against mental tests, "I know I am against any test", so is this just a consequence of an armed society?

Frank beat me to it.
Conspiracy involves two or more people planning a crime.

Him sitting at home planning it is malice aforethought.

So is the formal charge 1st degree murder?

We as a whole are against mental tests, "I know I am against any test", so is this just a consequence of an armed society?

Click to expand...

See my sig line.

gym said:

I was reading an article from Gabrial Suarez about this where he said that the average person is going to shoot a lot of bullets once they start shooting, which makes sense, if you have ever seen a police interview after a shooting, they almost never remember how many rounds they fired, and the gun is usually empty.

Click to expand...

That's not what happened here and not why he was convicted of murder.

He shot the girl several times coming down the stairs. Right or wrong, he could at least make a defense claiming self defense against an intruder that could be argued in court. But, after he shot her and she was laying on the floor wounded, unarmed and no threat to anyone. When he walked over to her, assessed her condition and made the choice to kill her, that's when he went beyond any argument of self defense and straight into murder. He was no longer in the heat of the engagement. He was no longer reacting to a present threat. He stopped. He assessed the situation. And then he made the choice to kill a person who presented no threat what so ever to him or anyone around him.

That's murder.

Wow, listen to the audio, on this site, it's long but he basically convicted himself,
,http://www.startribune.com/local/257265331.html?page=2&c=y
You have to hear this if you haven't, the guy is insane, no doubt, you can't fake this.

Quote: I felt like I was cleaning up a mess vomit, spilled food, Diarrhea, I was doing my civic duty, I had to do it, your dead. They are Vermin, social misfits, problems, I don't see them as killing, this Bitch was going to go through life spoiling things for other people, social misfits. It's cool fun exiting until somebody shoots you. End Quote
http://www.startribune.com/local/257265331.html?page=2&c=y#, Click on where it just says AUDIO-

I am not sure if I am listentig to the same audio you are referring too, but I am listening to audio presented to the jury. And wow. He will die in prison as he should.