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

[Jeff H]

If for nothing else, this guy is going away for a long time for that "finishing shot".

I could find plausible excuses for the majority of his other behavior, but an execution is still an execution.

 

[Sam1911]

So if you were sitting in that chair in the dark corner you had prepared, hearing the footsteps upstairs that you were hoping for, you, also, would simply shoot them on-sight as they descended the stair ... just to be safe.

Actually, this is a good point to discuss "vocalization" and the idea of a defensible position, as it SHOULD be, not how this guy used it.

We often discuss how you should have a strong point to which you can retreat and give yourself positional advantage in cases of a home invasion. Usually a bedroom or maybe a pinch point in your home's layout so that you can be best hidden and shielded by your walls and/or furniture, and yet can see what's approaching. Even using lighting to keep yourself in shadow and the bad guy in a lit space. That's a good thing. And it MIGHT sound a bit like what this guy did, in a way.

But then the point is to keep the bad guy away from you (not to lure them in), and a strong command voice shout to let your intruder know that you're there, armed, and the police are on their way should be used if at all humanly possible, to give them (and you!) the chance to avoid lethal force.

(Not talking about a face-to-face standoff where you're discussing the finer points of etiquette and giving them a chance to get the drop on you. Simply a shouted warning, from a distance, from cover, that they've been discovered and should leave RIGHT NOW.)

You should be doing (and be seen as having done) everything to avoid having to use your firearm, not setting a trap to get the chance to use your firearm. HUGE difference.

 

[Jason_W]

I would be very surprised if this guy isn't convicted of something. The only real question is if that something will be first degree murder or something slightly lesser.

In my ideal world, castle doctrine would mean no quarter for home invaders (home invasion is one of the few criminal acts on which I have hard line, zero tolerance attitude). After all, as long as there is still breath in an enemy's lungs, they are technically a threat. For better or worse, however, the law does not agree with my sentiments and if you want to avoid jail, you have to abide by that law.

 

[BSA1]

Akita1,

Do yourself a favor and research the following elements required for self-defense:

1. Opportunity
2. Ability
3. Jeopardy

You are fortunate to have some courtroom experience but a criminal trial is far different when it is you life and freedom hanging in the wind.

To expand on Sam1911 excellent comments why do you think Police yell “Police Officer” and “Stop”, “Don’t Move”, “Drop the Gun”? It’s not to show they have great lungs. In addition to making sure the suspect hears them it is also to create as many witnesses as possible that they did everything they could to avoid using force.

You have said “but I'm not yelling "freeze" either (when my PDW light goes on it's plenty of warning)” and “my family is terrified behind me.” How did you warn your family of the danger? Did you tell then to run to another room or hide behind you? Maybe you told them to get out of the way. In doing so you used verbal commands.

BUT WAIT, you just said you are not yelling “freeze” because you are too scared. You warned your family but seconds later you were too scared to warn the suspect? Your job is too be convincing to the jury. Are the members of the jury that have children going to believe that one second you are composed enough to warn your family of the danger yet a few seconds late youwere too scared not to warn the suspect?

I’m not saying what you did was wrong. It is about what the jury thinks you did.

 

[Akita1]

So if you were sitting in that chair in the dark corner you had prepared, hearing the footsteps upstairs that you were hoping for, you, also, would simply shoot them on-sight as they descended the stair ... just to be safe.

Wow!

"Wow" is right my expat friend. Please reread my previous posts - I say no set-up ambush, this dude is crazy, etc. He still walks on the first shot charges, IMHO, and goes to jail for the rest of his life on the kill shots, crime scene tampering, etc. That does NOT mean I'm in an exposed position while trying to defend my family...hoping a perp is in the mood for polite conversation.

Hypothetical - does my German Shepherd "ambush" a perp because he sleeps on the tile in front of a door and doesn't fire a warning bark before he shreds flesh? Does he chat the perp up a bit to determine intent and assess threat level? Does he yell "freeze" in Mishka language to give the perp a chance to either shoot him or surrender? No mate, he rips the perp's throat out no questions asked.

I'll meet you half way - if the perp stays downstairs he can take everything and we'll settle with the insurance company (and get another dog). If he gets near my family I'll do my best to put one in his kneecap and then render aid, first being sure to pat him down for weapons...

Or perhaps I'll follow the dog's plan on this one, as he's not clouded by the academic exploration of wide ranging variables in hindsight. We're monday morning QBing this big-time because we can, not at all interested in finding out who's right.

 

[Akita1]

see above

 

[Akita1]

Akita1,

Do yourself a favor and research the following elements required for self-defense:

1. Opportunity
2. Ability
3. Jeopardy

You are fortunate to have some courtroom experience but a criminal trial is far different when it is you life and freedom hanging in the wind.

To expand on Sam1911 excellent comments why do you think Police yell “Police Officer” and “Stop”, “Don’t Move”, “Drop the Gun”? It’s not to show they have great lungs. In addition to making sure the suspect hears them it is also to create as many witnesses as possible that they did everything they could to avoid using force.

You have said “but I'm not yelling "freeze" either (when my PDW light goes on it's plenty of warning)” and “my family is terrified behind me.” How did you warn your family of the danger? Did you tell then to run to another room or hide behind you? Maybe you told them to get out of the way. In doing so you used verbal commands.

BUT WAIT, you just said you are not yelling “freeze” because you are too scared. You warned your family but seconds later you were too scared to warn the suspect? Your job is too be convincing to the jury. Are the members of the jury that have children going to believe that one second you are composed enough to warn your family of the danger yet a few seconds late youwere too scared not to warn the suspect?

I’m not saying what you did was wrong. It is about what the jury thinks you did.

BSA1 - not arguing the merits, which is why I made the laity comment. I am not an attorney and don't play one on TV (sometimes I do at work because I can draft language that everyone understands instead of just the illuminati). I am not a police officer either, although I have in the past and currently have many family members who were/are. Guess what advice they give when no one is listening?

To answer your other questions, we have an alarm, a big GSD and an actual plan if someone breaks in or there's a home invasion so taking that private info for granted when I made those comments (apologies for the lack of disclosure). You're 100% right on the face of your BUT WAIT comment, just don't agree that trying to deep think a chaotic scary event is realistic in the moment. To your point, guess that's one of the reasons good defense attorneys are so expensive.

Totally get you on your last comment, but show me a civilian who isn't scared when confronted with the possibility of shooting another human being and I'll show you a moron (or a totally cold soul). My heart still beats pretty hard looking at a big buck though a scope, and that's just a deer.

 

[Baron_Null]

I would be very surprised if this guy isn't convicted of something. The only real question is if that something will be first degree murder or something slightly lesser.

In my ideal world, castle doctrine would mean no quarter for home invaders (home invasion is one of the few criminal acts on which I have hard line, zero tolerance attitude). After all, as long as there is still breath in an enemy's lungs, they are technically a threat. For better or worse, however, the law does not agree with my sentiments and if you want to avoid jail, you have to abide by that law.

That might be one of the most disgusting things I've read in a long time. In your views it doesn't matter if a person is completely paralyzed and unable to move, as long as they are able to breath and keep up the biological functions of maintaining life they are a "threat".

Perhaps you see it differently, but what I see you advocating is making people who break into houses completely and fully lose their status as a human being with basic rights. It's in essence making every single person judge, jury, and executioner not based off of belief that an innocent person is about to be hurt, but because they took a certain act.

It is one thing to shoot a home invader because you believe that they are an immediate threat to you, a loved one, or another innocent person, but another thing completely to decide that they deserve to be executed on the spot regardless of their status as a threat.

Edited to add: I want to avoid the asinine argument that goes along the lines of "what are you going to do? sit there and ask them if they have any weapons?"

Note that I am marking a difference between a potential attacker being in a physical state in which they are able to attack you or another innocent person close to them vs bleeding out on the ground and completely immobilized.

 

[earlthegoat2]

This makes me think of Ender's Game.

You win the fight by incapacitating them. Then you win every other fight by beating them so thoroughly they will never wish to fight you again. Or in this case, just kill them.

Which brings up a philosophical question of how do we, as a society, finish the fights we are involved in for now and ever? Who has the authority to make that kind of a decision? Is it working?

I can understand the frustration of living somewhere in which you have to put up with break ins and other crime on a regular basis. I understand even more the desire to do something about it. Even something extreme. Something that the neighborhood will talk about and remember. Something to remind everyone there are consequences to actions.

But in this case it was most likely out and out murder as our laws define it and the defendant, as an assumedly law abiding citizen up until this point should have been well aware of the laws that governed his use of deadly force to defend his home.

To think, if he would have just said those things to himself in his head this trial could go easily in his favor. Who knows how many folks who have successfully defended their homes with lethal results did the very same thing in the heat of the moment and are still perfect free members of society to this day.

Kind of makes an argument against having a security system actually. First, the security system could be used by a prosecution to justify you NOT using deadly force just by its very existence. Second, it seems that in this case, it recorded statements that may or may not have been within context. No one will really know.

Either way this guy is no saint. He did way too many unwise things that night. Moving the bodies so they would not bleed on his floor? He was asking for it from the get go.

 

[Jason_W]

That might be one of the most disgusting things I've read in a long time. In your views it doesn't matter if a person is completely paralyzed and unable to move, as long as they are able to breath and keep up the biological functions of maintaining life they are a "threat".

Perhaps you see it differently, but what I see you advocating is making people who break into houses completely and fully lose their status as a human being with basic rights. It's in essence making every single person judge, jury, and executioner not based off of belief that an innocent person is about to be hurt, but because they took a certain act.

It is one thing to shoot a home invader because you believe that they are an immediate threat to you, a loved one, or another innocent person, but another thing completely to decide that they deserve to be executed on the spot regardless of their status as a threat.

Edited to add: I want to avoid the asinine argument that goes along the lines of "what are you going to do? sit there and ask them if they have any weapons?"

Note that I am marking a difference between a potential attacker being in a physical state in which they are able to attack you or another innocent person close to them vs bleeding out on the ground and completely immobilized.

Hey, the law agrees with you and I will always stay within the bounds of the law.

That said, I do personally believe there are are a small handful of criminal acts so heinous that the victim or intended victim should not be obligated to grant quarter. Home invasion is one of those criminal acts.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

That said, I do personally believe there are are a small handful of criminal acts so heinous that the victim or intended victim should not be obligated to grant quarter. Home invasion is one of those criminal acts.

I think you may need to clarify what you mean by "home invasion."

What the two victims in question were committing was burglary in the first degree (Entering a building without consent and with the intent to commit a crime, where the building is a dwelling and another person not an accomplice is present in the building when the burglar enters or at any time the burglar is in the building).

"Home invasion" is not a crime defined by Minnesota criminal statutes, but I would consider it to be a burglary where the burglars are armed and aware the home is occupied and one of the crimes the burglars intend on committing is a violent crime.

That's very different from the Byron Smith situation, where there is no evidence the burglars were aware the home was occupied, the burglars were not armed, and the apparent goal was theft.

 

[Jason_W]

"Home invasion" is not a crime defined by Minnesota criminal statutes, but I would consider it to be a burglary where the burglars are armed and aware the home is occupied and one of the crimes the burglars intend on committing is a violent crime.

I'm pretty sure most states don't recognize home invasion as a crime. I define it as forcibly entering a home that isn't yours while the occupant or occupants are present (regardless of whether or not the perpetrator(s) were aware of the occupant(s) presence. Whether they are armed or not is irrelevant to me since the average home is full of items that can be used as a weapon in a pinch.

Also, situations involving the criminal element can go south in a heartbeat. Maybe the initial motivation of an intruder is theft, but upon entry they add a little rape and murder to the menu.

Breaking into a home is dangerous predatory behavior and I feel that the law should allow victims to act with impunity in response. I've already acknowledged that the law does not agree with me and that Smith will almost certainly spend the rest of his natural life in prison.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

Jason W, I agree with a lot of your views. I have no sympathy for home invaders and don't feel sorry for them one bit when they meet armed homeowners who are able and willing to use lethal force.

However, I question the sanity of a person who plans like this guy did, who says little one liners like he's on a damn tv show and casually puts a finishing head shot on an incapacitated person, then describes it to the police as a "good clean finishing shot."
There's got to be a screw loose in the head of someone who is that callous.

 

[GBExpat]

That does NOT mean I'm in an exposed position while trying to defend my family...hoping a perp is in the mood for polite conversation.

So who said anything about being in "an exposed position" while trying to initiate a "polite conversation" with an intruder?

 

[Akita1]

So who said anything about being in "an exposed position" while trying to initiate a "polite conversation" with an intruder?

Acknowledged GBExpat - a bit of poetic license on my part to make a point.

 

[pwhfirefighter]

That might be one of the most disgusting things I've read in a long time. In your views it doesn't matter if a person is completely paralyzed and unable to move, as long as they are able to breath and keep up the biological functions of maintaining life they are a "threat".

Perhaps you see it differently, but what I see you advocating is making people who break into houses completely and fully lose their status as a human being with basic rights. It's in essence making every single person judge, jury, and executioner not based off of belief that an innocent person is about to be hurt, but because they took a certain act.

It is one thing to shoot a home invader because you believe that they are an immediate threat to you, a loved one, or another innocent person, but another thing completely to decide that they deserve to be executed on the spot regardless of their status as a threat.

Edited to add: I want to avoid the asinine argument that goes along the lines of "what are you going to do? sit there and ask them if they have any weapons?"

Note that I am marking a difference between a potential attacker being in a physical state in which they are able to attack you or another innocent person close to them vs bleeding out on the ground and completely immobilized.

First, I think this homeowner went way too far when he fired the "kill shot". He should be put away. What he did gives a black eye to law abiding gun owners. And I agree with what you said.

But as far as rights go, a law abiding citizen should have the right to feel safe in their own home. As per state law, I have the right to defend myself anywhere I have a legal right to be, as long as I am not the aggressor (we DO NOT have a "duty to retreat" in MS). If I am in my home with my family, where would I retreat to? How long would it take to gather up my wife and all my kids to gather in one closet? I can not see how anyone could NOT feel threatened and fear great bodily harm with someone breaking in to their home.

If a person is at home with thier family and someone tries to force their way into said home, the only place of sanctuary in this world, I can't see where the home owner should be concerned with the "rights" of the felon. As stated, any person who breaks into someone's home is completely stupid or arrogant to not realize they could face a gun owner, at least around here. The home owner should, and by law here could, resist any such attempt with force. If successful in stopping the threat, the call for an ambulance for them should be made.

In my opinion, the only "right" for someone who breaks into someone's house should only be the right to not be finished off with a "kill shot" if they survive the initial stopping of the threat.

Hopefully, I have made the point that defending your home and family does not justify execution by using a kill shot, but I firmly believe in the use of force to stop the threat. As far as I am concerned, my "right" to defend my family overrides any "rights" of someone forcing their way into my house. If the perp survives the force used to stop them, well that is good for him, point is the threat is stopped. Not tried, sentenced, and executed on the spot

 

[Baron_Null]

First, I think this homeowner went way too far when he fired the "kill shot". He should be put away. What he did gives a black eye to law abiding gun owners. And I agree with what you said.

But as far as rights go, a law abiding citizen should have the right to feel safe in their own home. As per state law, I have the right to defend myself anywhere I have a legal right to be, as long as I am not the aggressor (we DO NOT have a "duty to retreat" in MS). If I am in my home with my family, where would I retreat to? How long would it take to gather up my wife and all my kids to gather in one closet? I can not see how anyone could NOT feel threatened and fear great bodily harm with someone breaking in to their home.

If a person is at home with thier family and someone tries to force their way into said home, the only place of sanctuary in this world, I can't see where the home owner should be concerned with the "rights" of the felon. As stated, any person who breaks into someone's home is completely stupid or arrogant to not realize they could face a gun owner, at least around here. The home owner should, and by law here could, resist any such attempt with force. If successful in stopping the threat, the call for an ambulance for them should be made.

In my opinion, the only "right" for someone who breaks into someone's house should only be the right to not be finished off with a "kill shot" if they survive the initial stopping of the threat.

Hopefully, I have made the point that defending your home and family does not justify execution by using a kill shot, but I firmly believe in the use of force to stop the threat. As far as I am concerned, my "right" to defend my family overrides any "rights" of someone forcing their way into my house. If the perp survives the force used to stop them, well that is good for him, point is the threat is stopped. Not tried, sentenced, and executed on the spot

Just like I predicted, and even made an effort to rectify before the issue was raised, my point is missed completely.

As per my moral values, I agree with you for the most part. Though I believe the act of breaking into an occupied dwelling itself is not reason to use lethal force, I also believe that it is neigh impossible to determine the intenet of someone breaking into your dwelling while you are in it, and as such usually have reasonable belief to use lethal force. Note that I do have reservations. If a person is very obviously retreating or is otherwise incapacitated, you have no right to use lethal force. Note that not one single time did I question the right to use of lethal force, nor implied that you have a duty-to-retreat.

However, I fully and completely resent being treated as if I implied that people don't have a natural right to self defense because I don't believe that people should be ~wait for it~ EXECUTED on the spot.

Also, situations involving the criminal element can go south in a heartbeat. Maybe the initial motivation of an intruder is theft, but upon entry they add a little rape and murder to the menu.

Agreed 100%, which is why I don't support the line of thought that one should be forced to retreat even when it puts their lives in danger. However, the mental gymnastics it takes to go from "you should have the right to use lethal force if threatened" to "you should have the right to execute a completely immobilized person" utterly astonishes me.

Breaking into a home is dangerous predatory behavior and I feel that the law should allow victims to act with impunity in response. I've already acknowledged that the law does not agree with me and that Smith will almost certainly spend the rest of his natural life in prison.

The way I see this is that you're making an arbitrary decision about which crimes are "severe" enough that you can ignore every natural right the offending party has. Where do you draw the line in terms of which crimes are severe enough to not only warrant use of lethal force, but also to allow one to execute other people with impunity? If one is not a direct threat to ones well being and safety, what becomes the new line past which lethal force is justified? Who gets to decide what behaviors are "predatory" enough? What happens to the right to a fair trial? What happens to the rest of our natural rights when one of the most fundamental ones we have is done away with?

 

[lilguy]

Putting all other points aside, those two predators will no longer be a problem to society.

 

[shockwave]

BSA1 has a good take, and I agree with him.

For argument's sake, let's flip this around and look at it from the invader's point of view. Let's say, because this happens from time to time, that what we have is a drunk person (or Alzheimer's patient, mentally ill person, etc.) who enters a home by accident.

This supposes that the door is unlocked and no obvious threat is posed by your entering. You're just walking in, mistaking the premises as being a place you're allowed to be. To this point, you've just made an error. This happens. Should you be shot? Executed? You haven't threatened the life of the homeowner or occupants, you're just in a place you aren't supposed to be.

In this case, Castle Doctrine doesn't seem to apply. Sure, you can make the case that CD doesn't require you to make that determination, but if you're on the stand and in defense of your freedom in court the prosecutor and judge will be examining that, so good luck.

Now, let's look at the case where the door is locked. You knock, ring the bell, request entry. Worst case would be the Hattori shooting in Baton Rouge, which you can read about here.

This is all way different from breaking a window and attempting forcible entry. Which is this case under discussion. But remember, you are the bad guy here, breaking into a home. What should be your expectation? If you're attempting to enter a locked home, breaking a locked window and crashing your way into a home, what should you expect to happen?

Hopefully, nobody's home and you get in and steal whatever you like. If somebody's inside that house, you should expect to get shot.

You should have zero expectation that there will be verbal challenges and the like. From the moment you're breaking glass, you're announcing your intent to enter with violence and willing to break any and all laws to commit a felony. It is not the homeowner's burden to prove that your violent entry of the home is a peaceful and harmless act. Castle Doctrine applies.

So you get shot. At this point, the homeowner has to stop shooting if you stop entering. If you turn and try to exit, there should be no barrier to your retreat. Homeowner should be calling 911 and reporting the event.

If you keep entering and approaching the homeowner, then he or she is justified in continuing to shoot until you stop or are dead. Castle Doctrine applies.

Now, this case we're talking about with the teenagers, how does any of the above apply? "Finishing shots"? Dragging bodies on tarpaulins? Waiting a day to call the cops? Castle Doctrine is out the window. Homeowner should expect life in prison, at best.

 

[Jason_W]

The way I see this is that you're making an arbitrary decision about which crimes are "severe" enough that you can ignore every natural right the offending party has. Where do you draw the line in terms of which crimes are severe enough to not only warrant use of lethal force, but also to allow one to execute other people with impunity? If one is not a direct threat to ones well being and safety, what becomes the new line past which lethal force is justified? Who gets to decide what behaviors are "predatory" enough? What happens to the right to a fair trial? What happens to the rest of our natural rights when one of the most fundamental ones we have is done away with?

I respect your point of view on this even if I don't agree with it 100%

I personally draw the line at any unprovoked violent crime especially rape, kidnapping, home invasion, etc. Anyone who violently attacks another human being or violently invades their "nest" is of a predatory mentality and human by genetics only. They're not human like you and I are.

It really is in very limited situations in which I feel the above applies. For example, I still believe that Zimmerman and Michael Dunn were completely in the wrong (that's another can of worms for a different thread).

I assert that there have been too many home invasion cases like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders

And this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wichita_Massacre . . .

. . . to expect homeowners to grant any sort of mercy to invaders. In the above examples, if the victims had, at some point gained the upper hand and killed their attackers even after said attackers had been incapacitated, would they have really been morally wrong?

I concede that a potential sticking point are cases where people get blackout drunk and accidentally wander into the wrong house. That's stupidity, not malevolence. Drunk people don't typically pry locked windows and doors open, though.

 

[Jason_W]

However, I question the sanity of a person who plans like this guy did, who says little one liners like he's on a damn tv show and casually puts a finishing head shot on an incapacitated person, then describes it to the police as a "good clean finishing shot."
There's got to be a screw loose in the head of someone who is that callous.

I'll give you that. His comments indicated a disturbing glee.

It could be that the case in question is a matter of one brand of bad people (home invaders) encountering another brand of bad person (psychopath looking for an excuse to kill).

 

[BSA1]

For argument's sake, let's flip this around and look at it from the invader's point of view. Let's say, because this happens from time to time, that what we have is a drunk person (or Alzheimer's patient, mentally ill person, etc.) who enters a home by accident.

This supposes that the door is unlocked and no obvious threat is posed by your entering. You're just walking in, mistaking the premises as being a place you're allowed to be. To this point, you've just made an error. This happens. Should you be shot? Executed? You haven't threatened the life of the homeowner or occupants, you're just in a place you aren't supposed to be.

In this case, Castle Doctrine doesn't seem to apply. Sure, you can make the case that CD doesn't require you to make that determination, but if you're on the stand and in defense of your freedom in court the prosecutor and judge will be examining that, so good luck.

Thank you for the most excellent point. This is proof great minds think alike.

The biggest thing that has stuck out in my mind is how few people understand the difference between trespass, burglary and armed invasion.

Trespass is an unlawful act committed on the person, property, or rights of another; especially : a wrongful entry on real property without the permission of the owner. It is a non-violent action.

Burglary is the criminal offense of breaking and entering any dwelling or building illegally with the intent to commit a felony or crime.

Burglary laws vary by state. It is a crime against property. Depending on the gravity of the offense, it can be classified into different degrees. Degrees of burglary are defined by each state's laws. In this incident the information provided so far was the intent was to steal property.

In Kansas Aggravated burglary is a crime against property. Aggravated burglary is knowingly and without authority entering into or remaining within any building, manufactured home, mobile home, tent or other structure, or any motor vehicle, aircraft, watercraft, railroad car or other means of conveyance of persons or property in which there is a human being, with intent to commit a felony, theft or sexual battery therein.

However home invasion is actually a crime against persons. Aggravated robbery is a robbery, as defined in K.S.A 21-3426 and amendments thereto, committed by a person who is armed with a dangerous weapon or who inflicts bodily harm upon any person in the course of such robbery.

Notice that the intent of the actor determines the severity of the crime.

Here are a couple of real life possibilities to think about;

In many newer subdivisions houses are built pretty much alike. The owner has a choice of three or four house plans with strict rules on how the exterior of the home will look like. Paint colors, the shingles, bushes, lawn ornaments, vehicles parked in the driveway, etc. are governed by strict rules and enforced by busybody Home Owners Associations. I have drove through these housing additions and they are boring! Every home look alike. Plus the house numbers are often hard to read.

So consider this;

For those who parents are alive do you knock everytime you go visit them? When my parents live close by none of the kids did. We would just walk in and if they weren’t in the room we would usually holler “Hello.” So what if they lived in one of those cookie cutter housing additions and we walked into the neighbors house which was built on the same plan by mistake because it was dark and the weather was bad.

Or let’s say the same neighbor has some relatives from out of town visiting. They don’t know the neighborhood and, as I said the house numbers are hard to read. So they walk into your home by accident because both houses look alike.

Since they are in your home without your permission does that means it is legal that they should be executed as said in Post 53 or gunned down without a verbal warning?

I would also make the point that just because it is legal to do something doesn't mean you have to do it or that it is wise (using good judgment) to do so.

 

[climbnjump]

Maybe they were the scum of the earth, and you suspect them of everything from smuggling untaxed cigarettes across state lines to plotting the overthrow of the US government. And you suspect them of breaking into your home before. That does not change the circumstances under which you as a private citizen may use lethal force, and does not extend your justification for violent action one inch beyond stopping a presumed lethal attack on you.

I agree with that and - as most others have already stated - also believe that Mr. Smith crossed over the line of self defense.

And I realize that the following comments are off topic from the original intent of the post, but here goes anyway...

The two "kids" were after prescription drugs among other things they could sell. They targeted homes with older inhabitants and had burglarized a number of homes in the community. The vehicle they used that night contained stolen property from another home. More stolen property was found later.

The "they were nice kids" schtick in the press is just that - a schtick. They were seasoned criminals. They were fully aware that what they were doing was wrong and they chose to continue doing it. Given their history, it is possible that if they had not been stopped by Mr. Smith, they may have eventually met a similar fate in another home.

Yes, this event was a tragedy on many different levels.

But those two kids were in charge of their own lives and THEY made the choice to repeatedly invade homes and take what was not theirs.

Ultimately - however wrong Mr. Smith's actions were on that night - because of the choices they made, those kids killed themselves just as surely as if they had overdosed on the drugs they were stealing.

 

[silicosys4]

There are a lot of "shoot first ask questions later" people here, who say they would open fire immediately in the event of an intruder into their home.
I lived in a pretty crappy neighborhood, and had a neighbor who said the same thing..."these damn thieves better watch out for MY house".
He ended up shooting his wife 6 times with an sks when she came home late one night without calling.
Of course, he never called out a warning, didn't turn on the light, verify his target, all he knew was there was a shadow in the dark and he felt scared.

I was "renting" space in a friends garage for my home business. Product kept coming up missing, so I decided to pitch a tent in the garage for a few nights and see what was going on. Sure enough, someone busted open the window early in the morning and stepped on me while climbing in...my tent was underneath the window. I rolled out of the tent and yea, there was a burgler there with me, I had a gun, and I could have shot him. It sounds like a lot of people here would have. We eyeballed each other, he was pissing in his pants scared, and he jumped back outside the window.
I would have shot a 14 year old boy who's father was a pastor

Nobody says you have to stand there with balloons and flowers for the burgler...but if you don't have the mental ability to use a teensy weensy bit of threat assessment while under stress before you pull the trigger, I don't think you have the mental agility to responsibly use a firearm for self defense.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by climbnjump: The "they were nice kids" schtick in the press is just that - a schtick. They were seasoned criminals. They were fully aware that what they were doing was wrong and they chose to continue doing it. Given their history, it is possible that if they had not been stopped by Mr. Smith, they may have eventually met a similar fate in another home.

That is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

The law rightfully does not permit the use of greater than necessary force in an incident that would justify the lawful use of necessary force.

It is also important to understand that the use of force by private citizens to mitigate the risk of future offenses, or for the purpose of exacting punishment, is unlawful.

That applies whether the persons against whom force is used are "seasoned criminals" or first time offenders.