Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thats the beauty of being a criminal , when you are breaking and entering someones house , well then you are gambling the consequences. Want to stay alive? Then dont commit crimes
You are wrong 100%. These teens were not taught a lesson, they were executed. This man deserves to rot in prison for life.
Seems to me that he is allowed to "premeditate" here or that there is no way that applies. Seems to me the law allows someone to buy a gun and blast away when someone comes in. There is no way he knew that they were coming at that moment.
He is allowed to plan to get his gun and shoot anyone that breaks into his house. Is that premeditated? Maybe, but seems to me that is legal. The only question is whether or not you can continue shooting when it appears that the threat has been dealt with.
The prosecution has argued that Smith intentionally parked his vehicle several blocks away for the express purpose of making the home look unoccupied, and that he then retreated to his basement with guns and snacks--watching on his surveillance system, in effect, waiting for the opportunity to use his guns on someone. That is why the charge is first degree murder, as opposed to a lesser charge of homicide. Ultimately, the jury will determine whether or not his actions constituted premeditation.
Minnesota is not a "castle doctrine" state. The fact that someone has illegally entered your home does not give you the right to act with impunity and kill without legal consequence. This may work in the social construct of The Tea Party/NRA mindset, but with the notable exception of a former congresswoman, we don't have too many of those folks around here.
There is, in Minnesota, a "duty to retreat". While that may be open to some interpretation, it is generally argued to mean that when a threat to one's safety has been abated, that the right to kill via a justifiable homicide claim has also passed. Essentially, you have the right to use lethal force to protect yourself if you have a reasonable belief that you are in danger. You do not have a right to exact revenge. Once again, a jury will decide if Smith's reactions were reasonable under the circumstances.
The prosecution has argued that Smith intentionally parked his vehicle several blocks away for the express purpose of making the home look unoccupied, and that he then retreated to his basement with guns and snacks--watching on his surveillance system, in effect, waiting for the opportunity to use his guns on someone. That is why the charge is first degree murder, as opposed to a lesser charge of homicide. Ultimately, the jury will determine whether or not his actions constituted premeditation.
I agree but I don't think there is anything illegal with being prepared for another invasion.
Quote:
Minnesota is not a "castle doctrine" state. The fact that someone has illegally entered your home does not give you the right to act with impunity and kill without legal consequence. This may work in the social construct of The Tea Party/NRA mindset, but with the notable exception of a former congresswoman, we don't have too many of those folks around here.
Well, I was trying to simply discuss this without the stupid political cracks. Thanks to those who were able to discuss this while keeping politics separate.
I agree but I don't think there is anything illegal with being prepared for another invasion.
Well, I was trying to simply discuss this without the stupid political cracks. Thanks to those who were able to discuss this while keeping politics separate.
The term "invasion" is probably overstating the matter a bit. He was pissed off--I would be too. However, there is a difference between being prepared for a break in, and creating a scenario where one may occur-- simply to kill the intruder. I'm not suggesting that I have any insight into what the guy was thinking and feeling. However, his own statements have suggested that he put a significant amount of thought into the idea of killing a potential intruder. That said, I would probably have been more comfortable with a charge of second degree murder.
Of course this is about politics. About half of the states in the country have stand your ground/castle doctrine laws. These laws came about through the lobbying efforts of The NRA and various other right wing political groups. In Minnesota, those are the very elements which have been attempting to put Minnesota into that category. It is what it is. People can disagree on this issue in general, or this case in particular. However, it is naive to suggest that these laws and these attitudes are unrelated to political ideologies.
The case has nothing to do with politics. The current law is the current law and there is no state in the union that allows you to execute a downed criminal.
Now, if you think individuals should be able to execute a downed criminal seek legislative action. I do not think you will find much support.
The term "invasion" is probably overstating the matter a bit. He was pissed off--I would be too. However, there is a difference between being prepared for a break in, and creating a scenario where one may occur-- simply to kill the intruder. I'm not suggesting that I have any insight into what the guy was thinking and feeling. However, his own statements have suggested that he put a significant amount of thought into the idea of killing a potential intruder. That said, I would probably have been more comfortable with a charge of second degree murder.
Of course this is about politics. About half of the states in the country have stand your ground/castle doctrine laws. These laws came about through the lobbying efforts of The NRA and various other right wing political groups. In Minnesota, those are the very elements which have been attempting to put Minnesota into that category. It is what it is. People can disagree on this issue in general, or this case in particular. However, it is naive to suggest that these laws and these attitudes are unrelated to political ideologies.
Sorry. People have ideas and they are not derived from some group.
The case has nothing to do with politics. The current law is the current law and there is no state in the union that allows you to execute a downed criminal.
I've shown already where you can. In my earlier example she shot her boyfriend while he was sleeping. She then shot him again when he was running away. She was at no more of a risk of harm in either scenario than this guy.
Quote:
Now, if you think individuals should be able to execute a downed criminal seek legislative action. I do not think you will find much support.
You are thinking only in terms of how you see this particular example. The facts of the case will determine the outcome but laws are not written with only one scenario in mind.
A person breaks into someone's home where they beat the homeowner, ties her down and rapes her. In the course of riffling through her home she escapes and gets the gun from her dresser. He comes at her and she shoots him. He goes down and she thinks it's over. While calling 911 he gets up and starts attacking her again. She fires again and he goes down. I don't think anyone would convict her if she put one in the back of his head this time.
A person breaks into someone's home where they beat the homeowner, ties her down and rapes her. In the course of riffling through her home she escapes and gets the gun from her dresser. He comes at her and she shoots him. He goes down and she thinks it's over. While calling 911 he gets up and starts attacking her again. She fires again and he goes down. I don't think anyone would convict her if she put one in the back of his head this time.
A lot of people can forgive heat of the moment, and afraid scenarios as you present. Maybe you should read up more on the facts of this case.
#1 the guy was never touched. no rape as you present, no beating. nada
#2 he told the people they were dying...then shot them.
You're trying to link completely different defense fantasies to somehow make executing this teenager reasonable.
Seriously you're trying to make excuses to the point where its laughable.
A lot of people can forgive heat of the moment, and afraid scenarios as you present. Maybe you should read up more on the facts of this case.
I'm not arguing the facts of this case. I'm arguing that there are times you can shoot someone while they are down and not get convicted. I've never argued he would go free.
Quote:
#1 the guy was never touched. no rape as you present, no beating. nada
#2 he told the people they were dying...then shot them.
You're trying to link completely different defense fantasies to somehow make executing this teenager reasonable.
Seriously you're trying to make excuses to the point where its laughable.
You seem to think that anything in a scenario like this is reasonable. People move because their house was broken into. Is that reasonable? It is to the person it happened to. People act outside of what one would consider reasonable in stressful situations.
Will the jury find that way here? I have no idea, I'm simply arguing the idea that this isn't as clear cut as some would imply. People have been found guilty for doing things they normally wouldn't.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
