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.
Minnesota has a pretty clear definition of what it means to "defend your home and yourself" as regards justification for lethal force. The perpetrator's actions do not appear to fall within that definition.
He claims he did not know if more were upstairs. His defense team may argue that he was scared and his actions were in the heat of the moment. I really don't care. I think if he executed them in cold blood he is an evil dude but that is between him and God. The law, however, can't judge him based on that and should be on his side.
I do not want the law to try to split hairs over something like this. So every time some.guy defends his home we have to ask things like: How big a gun did he use? How many shots? Did he have a smirk on his face? Did he say "die ****" as he did it? How many minutes passed before he called the cops? Those details should mostly be irrelevant.
There's tons of stuff he didn't know. Making that the foundation of his defense is not a good idea.
Quote:
His defense team may argue that he was scared and his actions were in the heat of the moment.
Of course they will. So? "I was scared" is not a get-out-of-murder-charges card.
There's a "reasonable person" standard in place, and if you're not too scared to drag a wounded teenage girl across the floor, then you can't argue that your subsequently placing your gun under her chin and firing a bullet into her brain was done because now you thought you were in lethal danger all of a sudden.
Quote:
I think if he executed them in cold blood he is an evil dude but that is between him and God.
Well, God can intervene whenever He finds it convenient. He hasn't, yet.
Quote:
The law, however, can't judge him based on that and should be on his side.
It is 100% the law's job to look at a violent killing like this and judge whether it was justified. They can judge him. It's right there in the job description.
Quote:
I do not want the law to try to split hairs over something like this.
Too bad, because that's how US law works.
Quote:
So every time some.guy defends his home we have to ask things like: How big a gun did he use? How many shots? Did he have a smirk on his face? Did he say "die ****" as he did it? How many minutes passed before he called the cops? Those details should mostly be irrelevant.
The state of mind of the perpetrator is what separates 2nd degree murder from a justifiable homicide in self defense. So yes, we need those questions answered. (Oh, and he didn't call the police. He told a friend a day later, and the friend called the police.)
He claims he did not know if more were upstairs. His defense team may argue that he was scared and his actions were in the heat of the moment. I really don't care. I think if he executed them in cold blood he is an evil dude but that is between him and God. The law, however, can't judge him based on that and should be on his side.
I do not want the law to try to split hairs over something like this. So every time some.guy defends his home we have to ask things like: How big a gun did he use? How many shots? Did he have a smirk on his face? Did he say "die ****" as he did it? How many minutes passed before he called the cops? Those details should mostly be irrelevant.
I wouldn't care if he shot these folks and instantly killed them. I support him and am on his side. He did what he needed to. At least he didn't shoot them in the back running away across his lawn or something or chase them down in the street like Zimmerman.
The thing is, when you shoot someone and they are injured and on the ground and no longer a threat to you, you can't continue attacking them. That is beyond the scope of self defense. You can't empty your weapon into someone, then reload, then empty it again while they are laying on the ground bleeding and no longer a threat to you. That is when you are no longer defending yourself and it turns into murder.
I would say his lawyers probably should make the case that he felt that there were more intruders or that the ones that were down were really playing possum or were reaching for a weapon still or something. But it is hard to see how in the "heat of the moment" he would drag a body across a room putting them next to each other, then shoot them up through the bottom of their head.
I bet he wishes he was a better shot and killed them instantly, that's for sure. Although from the details it sounded like he took a lot of satisfaction from it as well.
Please be aware that in some cases rationality and sanity join hands and leave the room when the bullets start flying. It seems he was defending himself and went crazy doing it.
There's tons of stuff he didn't know. Making that the foundation of his defense is not a good idea.
Of course they will. So? "I was scared" is not a get-out-of-murder-charges card.
There's a "reasonable person" standard in place, and if you're not too scared to drag a wounded teenage girl across the floor, then you can't argue that your subsequently placing your gun under her chin and firing a bullet into her brain was done because now you thought you were in lethal danger all of a sudden.
Well, God can intervene whenever He finds it convenient. He hasn't, yet.
It is 100% the law's job to look at a violent killing like this and judge whether it was justified. They can judge him. It's right there in the job description.
Too bad, because that's how US law works.
The state of mind of the perpetrator is what separates 2nd degree murder from a justifiable homicide in self defense. So yes, we need those questions answered. (Oh, and he didn't call the police. He told a friend a day later, and the friend called the police.)
All that sounds great to look back on and dissect but I do not think there would be this much hand wringing over it had the kids been older or not white or one not a woman.
I want to believe that you are right and the law does not support depravity such as this but I do not think a jury can decide when someone has crossed the line just because they were not able to kill someone with one bullet.
All that sounds great to look back on and dissect but I do not think there would be this much hand wringing over it had the kids been older or not white or one not a woman.
I want to believe that you are right and the law does not support depravity such as this but I do not think a jury can decide when someone has crossed the line just because they were not able to kill someone with one bullet.
Well, too bad, because the jury will be charged to do just that.
Dear Lord, the a-hole even found it suitable to utter an action-hero one-liner before killing the second victim - "You're dying, b.tch", to be precise.
He claims he did not know if more were upstairs. His defense team may argue that he was scared and his actions were in the heat of the moment. I really don't care. I think if he executed them in cold blood he is an evil dude but that is between him and God. The law, however, can't judge him based on that and should be on his side.
I do not want the law to try to split hairs over something like this. So every time some.guy defends his home we have to ask things like: How big a gun did he use? How many shots? Did he have a smirk on his face? Did he say "die ****" as he did it? How many minutes passed before he called the cops? Those details should mostly be irrelevant.
Of course the law can--and should--judge him . It's naive to suggest that his actions should be ignored based upon the idea that someone's god will take care of the judgement.
Smith had the right to defend himself, and even to defend his personal property. He did not have the right to summarily execute two people after they had been immobilized. His own accounting of what happened that Thanksgiving, as well as the recordings he made, make it clear that his actions went well beyond those necessary to protect himself and his home.
This was not a naive, frightened, docile old man. Smith was a retired security engineer for the US Department of State. He had helped with the protection of US embassies around the world. Although Smith wasn't an armed security officer, it is absolutely certain that he had some training in defending himself with weapons.
He was an expert at installing and operating security and surveillance devices. The prosecution is claiming that he likely observed potential intruders outside of his home and retreated to the basement with guns and snacks to wait for a break-in. He could have scared the intruders away, he could have detained them, he could have shot them once to incapacitate them--and then called the police. He chose to unilaterally administer the death penalty.
I don't know what his financial situation is like, but one of Minneapolis' most prominent defense attorneys is representing him, and I don't imagine that service to be pro bono.
Smith is a murderer. I wouldn't be opposed to knocking the charge down to second degree murder given the circumstances, but any lesser determination would turn Minnesota into Florida--giving free reign to every gun-worshiping psychopathic vigilante in the state.
"Smith dragged Kifer's [female] body into the workshop and laid it on top of Brady's, Wartner said. Smith told investigators he thought he heard Kifer gasping, so he placed his revolver under her chin and fired what he told police was a "good clean finishing shot to the head," the assistant prosecutor said."
That's not self-defense in any world. Except in the mind of crazies. Crazy's going down.
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.
What a charming fellow this guy is...
