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.
fair point. Juries can be complete and total scumbag crap.
you never know.
Though this is a man, not a woman, so I doubt juries will be similar hoodwinked.
i for one would always find a person guilty if they didn't take reasonable steps to remove themselves from a situation.
He would have had to live in a motel to remove himself from that situation (specifically that of repeated home invasions). His last actions were very ill advised, but this will not be as easy a case for the prosecution as some posters here think. I will not be surprised by either a guilty or not guilty verdict. BTW, I don't think it is decent to insult dedicated jurors as you did. I would say those labels/names more likely apply to people that work every trick in the book to get out of serving, not those who do. Agree to disagree.
In this case there were two intruders in the home, too. The defense attorney will be repeating that over and over again...both in the testimony phase and the closing arguments. People in small towns despise home invaders with more passion than those in larger cities IMO. For some, it was a major reason they live there and/or moved there. It is not supposed to happen there, but as we all should know can happen anywhere.
If convicted, I'll bet he gets the minimum sentence instead of the maximum.
Here's a Minneapolis Startribune story on how the town of Little Falls is being affected by the trial.
Good article. I can understand why locals are being careful and a bit on edge and avoid discussing it as it is a close knit small town of 8,300 people. If someone that knew and liked the defendant talks about the case with someone that knew and liked the two teenagers, sparks could certainly fly.
Hope all of us can appreciate the jury's eventual decision regardless of our personal viewpoints. Thanks for sharing this.
Last edited by chessgeek; 04-27-2014 at 05:02 PM..
Reason: Improved phrasing of a sentence.
I wonder if the defense could raise some doubt over whether the girl was already dead when he shot her the last time. That would give the jury a reason to acquit if they were uncomfortable convicting a person for killing two habitual home invaders.
The threshold for pain is 130 , for Pete's sake. Granted that's constant noise. A chainsaw 30 ft away is around 110. Mythbusters had suppressors at 128.
Have you been around suppressors?
Of course they reduce the sound a LOT.
The frequency changes also, I agree.
But it not's like you're thinking. And if you knew me around my college years living in apts., no way a .22 would go unnoticed with a suppressor .....unless the music & quarter bounce games drowned it out. Thin walls that they were.....
Way too much TV for you; I have a .22 Sig with a built in suppressor custom made. About as loud as your standard firecracker (with magnum rounds). You can hear THAT in the apt. next door......
BTW, I could prob'ly fire my antique .32 Winchester next door with your vacuum cleaner going.....you might hear it.....no suppressor.
And the point of the suppressor or as the law and sellers of the item call it silencer is to lower the sound and help disguise it.
People who hear something sound like a firecracker or other similar sounding loud noise don't presume it to be gun fire. For a firework to get called in as a gun shot it has to be a pretty powerful one like a mortar shell. Otherwise it isn't reported.
Someone who knows what gunfire sounds like would be off put as to the noise of the suppressed round whereas non suppressed they can often tell caliber as well as what it was being fired from. Three years ago in my neighborhood July 4 it sounded like Nam with all the full auto being fired off from AK-47s. Yes it was full auto bursts. Someone not familiar with gunfire would think firecrackers due to the date.
I wonder if the defense could raise some doubt over whether the girl was already dead when he shot her the last time. That would give the jury a reason to acquit if they were uncomfortable convicting a person for killing two habitual home invaders.
Smith does claim to have had his home broken into on several past occasions, and he did report one previous break in. However, we don't know if either of the two people he shot were habitual home invaders. It's possible that they were responsible for previous break ins, but that doesn't seem to have been established as being the case.
Smith's own testimony has made it clear that the girl was alive when he delivered the shot at point-blank range. From the coverage I've read of the trial, the prosecution called medical experts to address each individual shot in an attempt to determine which shot would likely have been fatal to each of those killed.
The prosecution argued that Smith's actions leading up to the killings constituted premeditation, thus the first degree murder charge.
I wonder if the defense could raise some doubt over whether the girl was already dead when he shot her the last time. That would give the jury a reason to acquit if they were uncomfortable convicting a person for killing two habitual home invaders.
The guys statements to the police establish that she was still alive at that point.
It is just an assumption on my part. I have seen few cases where a guilty verdict on a lesser charge was not possible in cases like this. Like you, I do not see a 1st degree conviction. Given his age the prosecution would be nuts to charge him with 1st degree if a conviction on a lesser charge was not possible.
I hope you are right. I do not know how the charges will be presented.
Smith does claim to have had his home broken into on several past occasions, and he did report one previous break in. However, we don't know if either of the two people he shot were habitual home invaders. It's possible that they were responsible for previous break ins, but that doesn't seem to have been established as being the case.
Smith's own testimony has made it clear that the girl was alive when he delivered the shot at point-blank range. From the coverage I've read of the trial, the prosecution called medical experts to address each individual shot in an attempt to determine which shot would likely have been fatal to each of those killed.
The prosecution argued that Smith's actions leading up to the killings constituted premeditation, thus the first degree murder charge.
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.
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.
