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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I also agree 100% of Silicosys4's analysis.

I haven't seen anyone here say the guy did anything right.
All he did was put the CD in a bad light and to make legal gun owners look like vigilantes.
 
I also agree 100% of Silicosys4's analysis.

I haven't seen anyone here say the guy did anything right.
All he did was put the CD in a bad light and to make legal gun owners look like vigilantes.
Click to expand...

No...they won't come right out and say it, but there's been a lot of people posting on this topic who have tried to mitigate what he's done. For example, check out some of these stinky nuggets of willful ignorance from just the first ten (10) posts on this topic:

If someone breaks into my home----I am not going to sit down with them for a how do you do----THEY WILL BE SHOT
Click to expand...

Old man simply got the steps WRONG (when calling 911, etc.)
Click to expand...

I don't like the concept of pre mediated murder though. That should not be a charge if you're in you own home and the "victims" are strangers. They did not have to break into your home and you didn't know they were coming.
Click to expand...

I don't think this guy is a 100% in the right, but I don't like the fact that they are claiming he was planning an ambush.
Click to expand...

It is in the news here a lot. They and or others had broken into his house 11 times, the kids had a long criminal and drug history. Both facts not admissible. The Judge like other Judges around here like to stack the deck….
Click to expand...

And no...these are not out of context and you can verify it for yourself.

Ya' know, it's on days like this when I'd like to kick the late Col Jeff Cooper right in the goolies for that dictum of his: "It's always better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6". This dictum encapsulates the willful ignorance that's mad a lot of unnecessary, stupid bloodshed.

Also, I'm thinking about creating a brand of soap called Jeff Cooper Clean. It will be soap on a rope and have the dictum "Judged by 12" etched on the side of the bar. It should come in handy in prison.
 
he's done.... "kill shot", tampering with evidence alone will send him away for decades....
 
Here's another, Bill:

This reminds me to be proficient in my shooting. For me the blame lies with the people breaking and entering, and him not keeping his mouth shut.
Click to expand...

We really do not need people voicing such sentiments here.
 
Anyone have anything new to add or are we ready to close this one?
 
This gentleman was wrong for the finishing shot and tampering with evidence.

But I truly believe that if you are going to invade someone's home, unannounced and uninvited for illegal means, it is reasonable for you to understand you may forfeit your life. If you don't wish to die like that don't invade homes.
 
bill_shelton said:
I'm thinking about creating a brand of soap called Jeff Cooper Clean. It will be soap on a rope and have the dictum "Judged by 12" etched on the side of the bar. It should come in handy in prison.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking about creating a brand of soap called "Bill Shelton Clean". It will be soap on a rope and have the dictum "Carried by 6" etched on the side of the bar. It'll come in handy to throw in the casket of your loved ones killed by home invaders to keep them smelling nice just before the casket is closed.

My personal bet would be that your soap outsells mine with members of this forum. I know that I'll buy yours a LONG time before I'll willingly buy mine!
 
Last edited:
Wow, this is the first I've heard of this. That's all really disturbing. I don't blame him for shooting intruders, but the things he said are pretty dark. If you shoot someone and incapacitate them, you should call 911 immediately to get them medical aid.

Really sad when something like this happens. Makes us all look bad, and two lives are ended as a result. This is a good example of what not to do, and I agree whole heartedly with silicosys4's assesment.
 
Last edited:
Altering a crime scene screams "guilt". Period. Any time, any jurisdiction.

Waiting to the next day to call the police on the excuse he did not want to disturb them on a holiday (Thanksgiving) screams......something. Screws loose maybe.

And he was not an ordinary gun owner mind you. From the Wikipedia article on the Byron David Smith Killings:
Smith, 64, was retired from the U.S. State Department[1] and had a history of international travel to Moscow, Bangkok and Beijing.[2] Smith's brother described him as a retired security engineering officer. ...[3]

_________________________
1. Madeleine Baran, "Little Falls shooter protected U.S. embassies from terrorists and spies", MPR News, 28 Nov 2012 http://minnesota.publicradio.org/di...oter-protected-us-embassies-terrorists-spies/

2. Curt Brown, "Little Falls teen shooting deaths called 'cold-blooded’", Star Tribune', 27 Nov 2012
http://www.startribune.com/180853761.html

3. Amy Forliti, "Minn. man charged in teens' slayings admits firing 'more shots than I needed' to stop break-in", Associated Press, 26 Nov 2012.
http://www.startribune.com/nation/180844251.html
Click to expand...

He is an establishment person, government ex-official, the kind of privileged person that many gun control advocates would not question their right to own a gun under even some of the more restrictive plans* (which are aimed at us hoi paloi, not the hoitie toitie).

I have had armed family chase off unarmed intruders (in one case detaining a burglar at gunpoint for arrest) a few times over the years. (One was advised by a cop she should have shot the two men and saved everyone trouble, but she just wanted them to stand off while she escaped.) I read the Smith indictment, and news reports quoting Byron David Smith, and I do not have any sympathy for him. You obvious don't, I don't, most posters on this thread don't, except some who don't follow links and post w/o a background on the case. What makes "us" look bad is anyone on our side showing support for Smith.

------------------------
* Before Sarah Brady became head of Handgun Control, Inc. (now renamed "The Brady Campaign"), her predecessor, the late Nelson T. "Pete" Shields, explained his plan to The New Yorker in 1976:
"We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily, given political realities, going to be very modest. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns in the United States, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition -- except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors _ totally illegal." --Richard Harris, "A Reporter at Large: Handguns," New Yorker, July 26, 1976.
Under such a scheme, a retired State Department official, in particular a security engineering officer, would probably be the last to have his guns taken, if at all.
 
Last edited:
This gentleman was wrong for the finishing shot and tampering with evidence.

But I truly believe that if you are going to invade someone's home, unannounced and uninvited for illegal means, it is reasonable for you to understand you may forfeit your life. If you don't wish to die like that don't invade homes.
Click to expand...

The "finishing shot" and the "tampering" of which you speak was the conclusion of the Ambush and Vengeance Killing this guy engineered. If this guy didn't want those kids in his house, he could have easily kept them out. But...he wanted those kids in his house - so he could murder them!

All this guy had to do when that girl knocked on the door to make sure no one was at home was to shout at her to get the hell out of there and call the police.

So...the "killing shot" and the "tampering" aren't the only thing he did wrong, is it?
 
All this guy had to do when that girl knocked on the door to make sure no one was at home was to shout at her to get the hell out of there and call the police.
Click to expand...

All she had to do was stay away from houses that didn't belong to her.

Not making excuses for Smith, but it seems to me that a couple of low-lifes ran across a nut job and it didn't end well for all concerned. That's one of the risks you take breaking into other people's property and stealing from them.
 
All she had to do was stay away from houses that didn't belong to her.

Not making excuses for Smith, but it seems to me that a couple of low-lifes ran across a nut job and it didn't end well for all concerned. That's one of the risks you take breaking into other people's property and stealing from them.
Click to expand...
While that is certainly true, there are two facets at play which are not necessarily tied to each other:

1) Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. There is no guarantee that if you do something illegal, unethical, socially unacceptable, and/or morally wrong, that you won't suffer terrible consequences. Just because it is utterly unlawful for someone to set a trap for you, ambush you, and execute you in cold blood, doesn't mean they WON'T ANYWAY. We go through this occasionally in discussions of trespassing. Just because you cannot LAWFULLY shoot someone just for trespassing, doesn't mean that trespassing is a safe and sane thing to do. Someone might just be stupid, uneducated (or wrongly educated), and just plain evil to do so anyway.

Of course, NOT doing illegal things is no guarantee that you won't come to a bad end, either, but it does seem to increase the risk.

2) Just because some criminal/vandal/dumb-arse "has it coming" for whatever bit of naughty badness they're intent on committing does not excuse anyone from strictly following the law in how they respond. What that thief, trespasser, vandal -- or even potential murderer -- did or might do that breaks the law and/or violates your property and makes you furious does NOTHING to excuse a lethal-force response UNLESS that act is reasonably believed to be utterly required to prevent immediate death (or a very few other grievous felonies).


We really need to divorce the two sets of bad actions in how we consider these things. That's hard, clearly, but when we start looking at the "defender's" act as some sort of natural outcome of the intruder's actions, we get into the weeds.

And that goes back to the question of why the judge would refuse to allow certain testimonies to be submitted at trial. The accused gets no "breaks" or benefit of doubt because of the ner-do-well nature of the deceased.
 
All she had to do was stay away from houses that didn't belong to her.

Not making excuses for Smith, but it seems to me that a couple of low-lifes ran across a nut job and it didn't end well for all concerned. That's one of the risks you take breaking into other people's property and stealing from them.
Click to expand...

Yeah...you are trying to make excuses for Smith, and I can tell by this comment and your other comments that this trial has pretty much shaken you up. Well...Good! I hope it does shake you up and make you think a bit more about the true nature of self defense versus the consequences of engaging in vengeance.

When you get the "will to vengeance" out of your system - that self-righteous, stinky vengeance, you'll see just how tragic this is.
 
Posted by 45_auto: All she had to do was stay away from houses that didn't belong to her.

Not making excuses for Smith, but it seems to me that a couple of low-lifes ran across a nut job and it didn't end well for all concerned.
Click to expand...
If a person who had not been committing burglary had been murdered , would you be inclined to say something like...
  • All he had to do was avoid leaving a baseball game late after extra innings...
  • All she had to do was find a job that did not involve working in a quick-shop at night...
  • All he had to do was do something other than delivering pizza...
  • All she had to do was stay away from hospital parking lots at night...

You see, people are killed when they are not breaking into homes, too.

Either way, murder is murder.

More importantly, (1) the criminal action of the victims does not justify the use of excessive force, and (2) private citizens may not judge guilt, pass sentence, or carry out punishment.

The only question at hand was, did Smith have to shoot the fatal shots?

No, that is not the only question. The real question is, did Smith have to shoot at all? Underlying that question is, did Smith knowingly and willfully create a situation that led to his use of deadly force?

The character and actions of his victims are completely irrelevant to any of those questions.
 
bill shelton said:
Yeah...you are trying to make excuses for Smith
Click to expand...

Nope, he's a murderer, most likely he'll get what he deserves.

The burglars made their own choice to put the value of Smith's belongings above the value of their lives by breaking into his home. Once they made that choice, it was just a matter of luck and circumstances whether they left the premises with his belongings or their lives. They're into illegal activities, why not expect the homeowner to be into illegal activities also? Seems that their luck ran out.

kleanbore said:
If a person who had not been committing burglary had been murdered , would you be inclined to say something like...

All he had to do was avoid leaving a baseball game late after extra innings...
Click to expand...

Yep, if he left the baseball game and broke into someone's home.

kleanbore said:
All she had to do was find a job that did not involve working in a quick-shop at night...
Click to expand...

Yep, if her "work" involved breaking into the quick-shop at night.

kleanbore said:
All he had to do was do something other than delivering pizza...
Click to expand...

Yep, if he broke into someone's home to "deliver" the pizza.

kleanbore said:
All she had to do was stay away from hospital parking lots at night...
Click to expand...

Yep, if she was breaking into someone's home adjacent to the hospital parking lot.

kleanbore said:
You see, people are killed when they are not breaking into homes, too.

Either way, murder is murder
Click to expand...

Yep. People die lots of ways that they don't intend do.

Here's a couple of hints:

Don't want to risk dying when your parachute doesn't open? - Don't skydive.

Don't want to risk drowning when your air tanks run out? - Don't scuba dive.

Don't want to risk dying from a stingray sting or lion bite? - Don't become a wild animal show host.

Don't want to risk getting murdered by an irate homeowner? - Don't break into people's houses.

You get to pick the value you put on your life. If you value the thrill of skydiving more than your life, go for it. Same for scuba diving, wild animal training, car racing, motorcycle racing, burglary, etc, etc, etc.

kleanbore said:
The only question at hand was, did Smith have to shoot the fatal shots?

No, that is not the only question. The real question is, did Smith have to shoot at all? Underlying that question is, did Smith knowingly and willfully create a situation that led to his use of deadly force?

The character and actions of his victims are completely irrelevant to any of those questions.
Click to expand...

Why is that even a question? Obviously he didn't HAVE to, he didn't HAVE to do anything. The burglars made their illegal choices, Smith made his illegal choices. Low lives, meet nut-job. Don't be surprised at the result.
 
Last edited:
roughly three hours of deliberation...guilty of all four counts of first degree murder
that was quick.
It is worth noting that there was actually an NRA member on the jury. Apparently, people here and in a few other forums had hopes about that person being the holdout "upholding home defense rights", helping to free the defendant.

The prosecutor said, when asked about this,
"I would try this case in front of 12 NRA members"

It seems the prosecutor had more faith in the average NRA member's ethics than many gunowners who chimed in.
 
Last edited:
I would say it's safe to assume there will be an Appeal, I predict that the outcome of the appeal could reverse the decision of the jury. "Not that I believe that he was innocent". I just think that if the higher courts look at tis , that the judges will have a different interpretation of the law, than the jury did.
Lets wait a year and see how it goes. At this point things likely can't get worse for the defendant, but all to often I have seen these types of cases reversed or a different end result occur on appeal.
When they allow the evidence in, that they excluded from the jury, IMHO, it will just be a matter of the letter of the law rather than the emotional outcome that it became.
 
Last edited:
gym said:
When they allow the evidence in, that they excluded from the jury, IMHO, it will just be a matter of the letter of the law rather than the emotional outcome that it became.
Click to expand...


The only side showing an overabundance of emotion were those arguing in favor of the defendant, imo.....ignoring the facts of the case and the letter of the law to pursue their negative feelings towards the burglars.

I don't see any facts to bring to a higher court that would change the ruling of this case.

What evidence did they exclude from the jury that would change the legality of this case?
 
When they allow the evidence in, that they excluded from the jury, IMHO, it will just be a matter of the letter of the law rather than the emotional outcome that it became.
Click to expand...
Was there pertinent evidence you know of that was left out?

We've already discussed the questions of the teenagers' backgrounds and habits being excluded, but that SHOULD have been left out as it wasn't pertinent to the defendant's claim of self-defense. (Or, in my opinion, would have severely harmed that claim, if admitted.)

What else was excluded?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Man Aquitted of first degree murder under "make my day" law
2 3 4 5
Replies
102
Views
5K
Arethusa
A
W
  • Locked
When is Self Defense Murder?
Replies
5
Views
659
frankie_the_yankee
F
K
  • Locked
Home Invasion... Very Odd
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
Cosmoline
C
D
  • Locked
(MI) Man Killed in Hazel Park Home Invasion
Replies
6
Views
880
ProficientRifleman
P
U
  • Locked
Defense for mag and lock and guns for home protection - 13 yo shootout with Burglar
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
sequins
sequins
Back
Top