Self defense or murder?

[Virgil Showlion]

Apr 29, 2014 17:26:13 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Those things are irrelevant to this particular situation, kent.  That's not an unusual exclusion in any way.  What happened yesterday, or a week ago, or a year ago is not relevant to what actually happened today.

It's relevant. It's just not admissible. Too prejudicial.

There's a world between what is relevant and what is admissible in court.

As for the verdict, I can't say I'm disappointed. I doubt it could be clearer that the shooting was premeditated and motivated by vengeance.

But I also think that Mr. Smith got exactly what he wanted: an opportunity to reveal to the world his contempt for the thieves and put his vengeance against them on public exhibit. He made no attempt to conceal any detail of the murders, and went out of his way to meticulously document others. I wonder if it was worth it to him?

[Virgil Showlion]

Apr 29, 2014 18:42:44 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Apr 29, 2014 18:38:53 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Don't know if the kids tried the door, dj.  From what I read, Brady entered the house by breaking a window from the back deck.  The rest of it you've got about right.

not sure how much more i need to know.  this is a nice counterweight to SYG.  gives the NRA something to bitch about.

Has the NRA officially sided with Mr. Smith?

I can't see even the NRA backing this guy.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 29, 2014 18:52:30 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Apr 29, 2014 18:42:44 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

not sure how much more i need to know.  this is a nice counterweight to SYG.  gives the NRA something to bitch about.

Has the NRA officially sided with Mr. Smith?

I can't see even the NRA backing this guy.

evidently you have a slightly less jaundiced view of the NRA than i do. 

that is rather odd, considering how we generally fall in that continuum.

[Virgil Showlion]

Apr 29, 2014 18:58:38 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Apr 29, 2014 18:52:30 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Has the NRA officially sided with Mr. Smith?

I can't see even the NRA backing this guy.

evidently you have a slightly less jaundiced view of the NRA than i do. 

that is rather odd, considering how we generally fall in that continuum.

They're pro-gun, but even they have limits.

In this case, just be glad they haven't publicly declared that if the thieves had taken the sensible precaution of arming themselves, this tragic double homicide might well have been averted.

[mmhmm]

It's relevant. It's just not admissible. Too prejudicial.

I haven't seen anything, anywhere that says these two kids had been actually found guilty of anything, Virgil.  If you haven't been found guilty, you're innocent until you are found guilty; therefore, anything of which you have been accused (but not found guilty) is irrelevant.

[tallguy]

Absolutely the correct verdict.  And for those arguing that the history of break-ins by the teenagers is relevant, I would suggest that it WOULD have been admissible in their trials for breaking and entering and burglary.  That is, if they hadn't been, you know, executed first.    

[mmhmm]

I have a little, niggling brain-worm that wonders if Mr. Smith might not be just a bit addled ... perhaps, in the early stages of dementia.  Some of the things he said on the recording that was brought into evidence, something about his expressions ... I dunno.  Sometimes, something just sets my brain-worm to wigglin'.

[mmhmm]

Apr 29, 2014 19:17:07 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Absolutely the correct verdict.  And for those arguing that the history of break-ins by the teenagers is relevant, I would suggest that it WOULD have been admissible in their trials for breaking and entering and burglary.  That is, if they hadn't been, you know, executed first.    

Thanks, tallguy.  That's exactly the point I was trying to make.

[EVT1]

The NRA wouldn't touch this guy with a 10 foot rifle

One of the jurors was an NRA member and the prosecutor didn't bounce 'em.

On the relevance issue:

A) Prior burglaries of his residence- relevant
B) Prior history of the victims- irrelevant

Prejudice is a valid reason to exclude this information- we went down the same road in the Zimmerman case- when someone shoots a stranger it matters not one iota what their history is- only the parts relevant to the self-defense claim.  Attacking the victim is real shitty- and if you want to know how bad it can be look into rape shield laws and why they came about.

 

[tallguy]

Yeah, I was going to change my earlier post from WOULD to MAY, but it had already been quoted.

[EVT1]

Apr 29, 2014 19:17:07 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Absolutely the correct verdict.  And for those arguing that the history of break-ins by the teenagers is relevant, I would suggest that it WOULD have been admissible in their trials for breaking and entering and burglary.  That is, if they hadn't been, you know, executed first.    

Want to add a point- this guy was a surveillance expert- and had a pretty good setup- showed the intruders plain as day.  So my question is, if he was certain he would be burglarized when he was not home- why did he not actually leave and let the cameras catch them in the act?  Seems to me he knew that no one was going to break in when he was home- so he had to set the stage.  Just that alone should suggest to him that these particular criminals were not looking for a confrontation.  That's what I would do- catch their ass on candid camera and have them arrested.  The jury obviously saw that he was baiting a trap- and I am surprised it went murder one and that fast- probably more will come out about it that will show why.  

[zibazinski]

Well, I'm sorry for the guy but glad some career criminals have been stopped. He made the ultimate sacrifice. I'm sure he will appeal and wiser heads will prevail.

[tallguy]

I could probably be persuaded to feel sorry for the families of these three idiots, but that's about it.  Sounds like the three of them combined don't add up to a decent person.   

[Tennesseer]

Apr 29, 2014 20:06:18 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Well, I'm sorry for the guy but glad some career criminals have been stopped. He made the ultimate sacrifice. I'm sure he will appeal and wiser heads will prevail.

A jury of his peers, one being a member of the NRA, are not wise enough for you?

Wiser heads may prevail and most likely uphold his conviction.  Which they should. The man is a monster.

[EVT1]

I'm not sure 17 and 18 year olds can be called career criminals. 

As far as appeals- the facts are done and over with and any appeals will have to rely on 'errors' in the trial.  "Wiser heads" do not get to throw out a jury verdict in favor of their own. 

I can't understand how anyone can defend what he did- and I fully support the right to shoot intruders.

Lessons here for everyone- don't break into houses or you might be killed, self-defense laws are not a license to execute people. 

This case reminds me of the Dunn case- both men killed and both men did not call the police- that is not what reasonable people do.  Reasonable people call 911.  

[mmhmm]

I've gotta agree, EVT.  Calling two teenagers "career criminals" is a bit of an exaggeration.  They're not old enough to have careers in anything, including crime.

[EVT1]

Apr 29, 2014 20:54:30 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I've gotta agree, EVT.  Calling two teenagers "career criminals" is a bit of an exaggeration.  They're not old enough to have careers in anything, including crime.

They were both in high school- at best they were part-time criminals.  

[djAdvocate]

Apr 29, 2014 20:06:18 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Well, I'm sorry for the guy but glad some career criminals have been stopped.

you don't know anything of the kind.  one of those kids may have been a Nobel Lauriate someday, for all you know.  or, as Gandalf once said “Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.”

He made the ultimate sacrifice. I'm sure he will appeal and wiser heads will prevail.

i think wisdom has little to do with it.  nobody was wise in this situation: not the old guy with the gun, and not the thrill seeking kids.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 29, 2014 20:54:30 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I've gotta agree, EVT.  Calling two teenagers "career criminals" is a bit of an exaggeration.  They're not old enough to have careers in anything, including crime.

it is presumptuous in the extreme.  lots of kids do stupid things.  they grow up.  some become Senators.  some become millionaires.  some fall into poverty.  some end up in prison.  sentencing kids to death for breaking and entering is....i don't really have the right words for it.

wrong?

[mmhmm]

Apr 29, 2014 22:17:40 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Apr 29, 2014 20:54:30 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I've gotta agree, EVT.  Calling two teenagers "career criminals" is a bit of an exaggeration.  They're not old enough to have careers in anything, including crime.

it is presumptuous in the extreme.  lots of kids do stupid things.  they grow up.  some become Senators.  some become millionaires.  some fall into poverty.  some end up in prison.  sentencing kids to death for breaking and entering is....i don't really have the right words for it.

wrong?

I have plenty of words for it, dj, but most of them aren't printable!  There's nobody here who's never done anything wrong.  None of us is perfect, and we're not even close to acceptable when we're teens!  Our brains aren't even fully developed and we're put to death for it?  No.  No way.  Even the thought is disgusting to me.

[EVT1]

There you go- better to be judged by twelve than carried by six- well twelve of your peers have spoken- life without parole.  Enjoy jail you sick fuck.

[Virgil Showlion]

Apr 29, 2014 22:47:16 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Apr 29, 2014 22:17:40 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

it is presumptuous in the extreme.  lots of kids do stupid things.  they grow up.  some become Senators.  some become millionaires.  some fall into poverty.  some end up in prison.  sentencing kids to death for breaking and entering is....i don't really have the right words for it.

wrong?

I have plenty of words for it, dj, but most of them aren't printable!  There's nobody here who's never done anything wrong.  None of us is perfect, and we're not even close to acceptable when we're teens!  Our brains aren't even fully developed and we're put to death for it?  No.  No way.  Even the thought is disgusting to me.

Not that I think death is an appropriate penalty for burglary, but as for "none of us is perfect, and we're not even close to acceptable when we're teens", speak for yourself.

I didn't run afoul of the law as a teenager. I certainly never stole drugs, broke into people's homes, or wantonly trespassed on others' property. I daresay I was "close to acceptable" as a teenager, and I'm hardly exceptional in that regard.

As for "fully developed", how developed does one have to be to understand that breaking into an old man's house and stealing his drugs is wrong? Three years old? We give minors a break because they're impulsive, susceptible to peer pressure, and more likely to repent of bad behaviours if properly disciplined/rehabilitated. But I assure you that my conceptions of right and wrong were more than sufficiently developed by age 13 to make me accountable for my actions. Any 6-year-old of average IQ possesses the mens rea for breaking and entering.

Did this couple deserve to be executed? No.

Were they just doing the kind of "stupid things" teenagers are expected to do? No.

Were their minds sufficiently developed to recognize the wrong they were committing? Indubitably.

Is getting shot be a foreseeable consequence of breaking and entering? Should it be? Therein lies the question.

[mmhmm]

Apr 30, 2014 0:06:15 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Apr 29, 2014 22:47:16 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I have plenty of words for it, dj, but most of them aren't printable!  There's nobody here who's never done anything wrong.  None of us is perfect, and we're not even close to acceptable when we're teens!  Our brains aren't even fully developed and we're put to death for it?  No.  No way.  Even the thought is disgusting to me.

Not that I think death is an appropriate penalty for burglary, but as for "none of us is perfect, and we're not even close to acceptable when we're teens", speak for yourself.

I didn't run afoul of the law as a teenager. I certainly never stole drugs, broke into people's homes, or wantonly trespassed on others' property. I daresay I was "close to acceptable" as a teenager, and I'm hardly exceptional in that regard.

Neither did I; however, I wasn't even close to an acceptable adult as a teen.  Teens aren't supposed to be adults.  They're supposed to be teens.  They do dumb things.  Just because you didn't do the same dumb things these kids did doesn't mean you didn't do dumb things ... or, maybe you didn't.  Maybe you're one of those perfect people who have been perfect since they first graced the earth with their presence.

As for "fully developed", how developed does one have to be to understand that breaking into an old man's house and stealing his drugs is wrong? Three years old? We give minors a break because they're impulsive, susceptible to peer pressure, and more likely to repent of bad behaviours if properly disciplined/rehabilitated. But I assure you that my conceptions of right and wrong were more than sufficiently developed by age 13 to make me accountable for my actions. Any 6-year-old of average IQ possesses the mens rea for breaking and entering.

The human brain doesn't complete its development until around the age of 25, give or take a year or two, Virgil.  It's the part of brain that measures for consequences against the desire to do something.  Risk-taking and that sort of thing.  That's why the army likes to get them young.

Did this couple deserve to be executed? No.

On this we agree.

Were they just doing the kind of "stupid things" teenagers are expected to do? No.

While teens aren't expected to be found breaking and entering, they are found quite often doing exactly that.  Maybe not into someone's home, but into the school to get into a bit of mischief, or into the parents liquor supply, etc.  Maybe, we're back to you being so perfect and all, eh? 

Were their minds sufficiently developed to recognize the wrong they were committing? Indubitably.

Did they know it was wrong?  Yes.  Did they thoroughly consider the consequences should they be caught?  No.

Is getting shot be a foreseeable consequence of breaking and entering? Should it be? Therein lies the question.

As I said, I wouldn't kill someone in order to save "stuff".  YMMV

[Virgil Showlion]

Just because you didn't do the same dumb things these kids did doesn't mean you didn't do dumb things ... or, maybe you didn't. Maybe you're one of those perfect people who have been perfect since they first graced the earth with their presence.

Define "dumb things".

I missed exams. One exam I missed due to miscopied date cost me a $32K scholarship during my undergrad degree. I took a turn into a garage too sharply and damaged my parents' Isuzu truck. I once ate so much food at a party that I spent the night vomiting. I hacked into an administrator account at my school and gave my friends permission to play all of the network games, which resulted in my being suspended for two days. I wrote a cruel poem about a teacher, which brought her to tears and which I later deeply regretted.

Those were all dumb things. And yes, I'd wager that everyone has a few of them.

They're still not criminally dumb. Not repeatedly-breaking-into-an-old-man's-house-and-stealing-his-drugs "dumb".

Moreover, I'm ashamed of the dumb things I did as a teenager. I shouldn't have done them. To heck with this "They're supposed to be teens. They do dumb things." attitude, as though teenagers are supposed to break the law or take an outlandish risk every once in a while.

A teenager should always be held to an acceptable standard of conduct. Yes, we sometimes exercise lenience/jurisprudence when dealing with teenage failures, but that doesn't mean we compromise our standards.

The human brain doesn't complete its development until around the age of 25, give or take a year or two, Virgil.

Which would be a relevant fact if you, I, or anyone needed to be 100% cognitively developed to make moral judgments. Fortunately we don't. Moreover, my moral views have shifted and matured more during the past six years than they did between age 13 and age 25. That hardly means I wasn't morally accountable at age 25.

Maybe not into someone's home, but into the school to get into a bit of mischief, or into the parents liquor supply, etc. Maybe, we're back to you being so perfect and all, eh?

I didn't break into any schools or liquor supplies, if that's what you mean. And if I had and been punished for it, I wouldn't contest that punishment now (unless it was grossly disproportionate to the crime, which it was for the victims in this case).

Did they thoroughly consider the consequences should they be caught? No.

Does any criminal? Should a criminal's diligence in forethought to the consequences of getting caught have any bearing on his/her punishment?

As I said, I wouldn't kill someone in order to save "stuff". YMMV

I wouldn't either. It's not Christian, and besides that, it's not in my nature.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 30, 2014 0:06:15 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Is getting shot be a foreseeable consequence of breaking and entering? Should it be? Therein lies the question.

what's your answer?

[djAdvocate]

Apr 30, 2014 0:57:30 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Moreover, I'm ashamed of the dumb things I did as a teenager. I shouldn't have done them. To heck with this "They're supposed to be teens. They do dumb things." attitude, as though teenagers are supposed to break the law or take an outlandish risk every once in a while.

just to be clear, this is NOT my attitude.  my attitude is that the vast majority of teens will make some minor mistake.  nothing approaching this.  some will be clean as a whistle.  some will smoke pot and play hookey.  some will have unprotected sex.  fewer still will do petty crimes.  fewer even still will break into houses just for kicks and steal stuff.  fewer still will shoot up schools with AR-15's.

of that list, only one is worthy of instant death, imo.  in all cases, catching and punishing these kids gives them a second chance- a chance to not have their entire lives ruined by a single mistake.  i am generally in favor of that, even for adults- but especially for kids.  i don't think that they should be made part of the permanent underclass of people who have felonies on their record for one stupid mistake- particularly if they do the time and show genuine remorse and a desire to get beyond it.

my brother was a wild teen.  he did all sorts of unimaginable stuff.  but he was a great young man.  he would never hurt a fly, let alone anyone else.  unfortunately, he died in a motorcycle accident at 23- but he got a second chance, and he took it.  he would have made a great adult, had he lived long enough.

i think it is right to expect more of teens than the behavior these two exhibited.  i would be disappointed and ashamed if my boy did this.  but i can tell you plainly that if he did, he would be the kind of person you would trust with your life at 23 if i had anything to do with it.  and judging by the reactions of the parents, i am thinking they felt the same way about their teens.

[Shooby]

He was convicted of premeditated murder:

www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/minnesota-homeowner-byron-smith-convicted-premeditated-murder-n93166

[Shooby]

This wasn't self defense.  He shot each teen MULTIPLE times.  He wanted to shoot and kill them.  He lied in wait for them.  I hope he rots in jail.

[mmhmm]

Apr 30, 2014 1:36:28 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Apr 30, 2014 0:57:30 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Moreover, I'm ashamed of the dumb things I did as a teenager. I shouldn't have done them. To heck with this "They're supposed to be teens. They do dumb things." attitude, as though teenagers are supposed to break the law or take an outlandish risk every once in a while.

just to be clear, this is NOT my attitude.  my attitude is that the vast majority of teens will make some minor mistake.  nothing approaching this.  some will be clean as a whistle.  some will smoke pot and play hookey.  some will have unprotected sex.  fewer still will do petty crimes.  fewer even still will break into houses just for kicks and steal stuff.  fewer still will shoot up schools with AR-15's.

of that list, only one is worthy of instant death, imo.  in all cases, catching and punishing these kids gives them a second chance- a chance to not have their entire lives ruined by a single mistake.  i am generally in favor of that, even for adults- but especially for kids.  i don't think that they should be made part of the permanent underclass of people who have felonies on their record for one stupid mistake- particularly if they do the time and show genuine remorse and a desire to get beyond it.

my brother was a wild teen.  he did all sorts of unimaginable stuff.  but he was a great young man.  he would never hurt a fly, let alone anyone else.  unfortunately, he died in a motorcycle accident at 23- but he got a second chance, and he took it.  he would have made a great adult, had he lived long enough.

i think it is right to expect more of teens than the behavior these two exhibited.  i would be disappointed and ashamed if my boy did this.  but i can tell you plainly that if he did, he would be the kind of person you would trust with your life at 23 if i had anything to do with it.  and judging by the reactions of the parents, i am thinking they felt the same way about their teens.

Precisely, dj, and thank you.  These kids will never have the chance to regret what they did.  They'll never have the opportunity to be productive citizens.  They'll never have kids to love, and their families have lost the children they loved, all because some old man decided he'd be judge, jury and executioner.  If that's okay with some people, that's their prerogative.  I don't choose to see it that way.  Murdering a teen isn't holding them morally accountable.  These kids won't be protesting their punishment once they reach adulthood.  They'll never have that chance.  I'm out of this thread.  It's disgusting me.

[zibazinski]

Well, they were career criminals. They had done it repeatedly and with no consequences. Now their parents are whining? Should have done a better job of raising them. Too bad, so sad. They were bad seeds and the world is better off. My heart goes out to the guy who'd had enough and my hat is off to him for ridding the world of two wastes of DNA. More wastes gone, world safer and better. Criminals do these things over and over and nothing is ever done to them. This is why people take the law into their own hands, because the law protects the criminals, not their victims. They weren't little kids. Even my immature children/slash adults knew enough to not break into people's homes when they were a lot younger than these punks.