Self defense or murder?

[billisonboard]

Apr 30, 2014 14:37:40 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Apr 30, 2014 14:35:33 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

I think teenage laziness is a factor also. 

'tolly.  boredom.  something like that.  it is amazing how much trouble the idle can get into.

I was thinking more like dealing with the owner being home is an added hassle. Why do it if you can avoid it?

[zibazinski]

Already going to appeal and I'm sure the result will be different. But, wow, what a tape. 

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

People committing crimes don't want to get caught. If you know the homeowner is home odds are good you're going to get caught.

That's why they recommend you have someone pick up your mail or arrange to have it held at the post office when you are gone for extend periods of time. The mail piling up on your porch is a good sign you're not home making your house an easy mark.

These kids were looking for pills. Since they weren't armed they probably were not in the house with the intent to harm the homeowner. Knowing the homeowner is home makes it less likely they'd find pills and get out without the cops showing up.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 30, 2014 14:40:52 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Apr 30, 2014 14:37:40 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

'tolly.  boredom.  something like that.  it is amazing how much trouble the idle can get into.

I was thinking more like dealing with the owner being home is an added hassle. Why do it if you can avoid it?

i think it is more than an added hassle.  it is a buzzkill.

[Green Eyed Lady]

My point exactly.  Despite positive and quite hardy assertions to the contrary, criminals DO think about what they are going to do in advance and they DO think about the consequences.  (Not every single case, of course...always exceptions.)  Do we now agree?

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

I never said they don't think, I said they don't think they will get caught. Teens breaking into what is assumed to be an unoccupied house aren't considering they'll get blown away by an old man hiding in the basement.

For his behavior to be a deterrent you'd need every criminal to assume there is somebody hiding somewhere in the house waiting to blow their heads off. Which tends to be the exception rather than the norm.

So the majority criminals are still going to chance breaking into an apparently empty house based on the good/average odds no one is home and they won't get caught. Same as they will avoid homes that appear occupied.

If that makes any sense.

[mmhmm]

Apr 30, 2014 14:54:43 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

My point exactly.  Despite positive and quite hardy assertions to the contrary, criminals DO think about what they are going to do in advance and they DO think about the consequences.  (Not every single case, of course...always exceptions.)  Do we now agree?

Not in the way you're thinking, GEL.  The only things those kids were thinking about with regard to consequences was there was nobody home; therefore, there would be no consequences because they wouldn't get caught.  Unlike you, or I, they couldn't picture anything else.  They couldn't picture themselves paying the consequences of their actions.

[Green Eyed Lady]

I know, Drama.  I was referring specifically to DJs post #384:

i can pretty much guarantee it won't. criminals are not thinking about being caught. that is why they are criminals: they are fundamentally stupid.

The possibility of getting one's ass shot off has, and will be in the future, a deterrent to some criminals.  It is distasteful, I agree.  But true, nonetheless.  To say it isn't because "criminals don't think about getting caught" isn't reality.  They DO think about it.  They just feel the risk is worth the chance.  In the last several years, it had reached the point where now they aren't so sure.  Of course, not every criminal thinks this way.  If we knew how they all thought, we'd probably have a better chance of stopping them.  Some experts say this is a deterrent.  Some say it isn't.  Depends on what you believe.  I believe it is.  The only "proof" I know of is when the criminal tells you that himself.  "No way, man.  I didn't do that one.  Not chancing geting my ass shot off by some gun-happy suburb dude."  

[Green Eyed Lady]

Sorry that didn't "quote" right.  My part is inside the quote with DJs post.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Not getting caught is important, why?  Because we don't want to suffer the consequences. 

Pleasant discussion all.  I have to figure out who murdered the nurse in the book I'm reading.  I hate getting to the end without figuring it out beforehand.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 30, 2014 14:54:43 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

My point exactly.  Despite positive and quite hardy assertions to the contrary, criminals DO think about what they are going to do in advance and they DO think about the consequences.  (Not every single case, of course...always exceptions.)  Do we now agree?

i knew what you were getting at.  but it has nothing to do with my point.

i never said that criminals don't think about consequences.  i am sure they do.  i said that they don't think about getting caught.

would you prefer that i put it this way: "they make reasonable efforts to not be caught"?

and, no- i really don't think this shows even a glimmer of intelligence, really.

edit: DramaQueen made precisely the same point a couple of posts ago.

[djAdvocate]

as far as these kids go, i would imagine getting killed doing this figured into their thinking about as much as the house being sucked into a tornado and carried off to Oz did.

will kids think this way in the future?  i doubt it.  again, i think they are imagining NOT GETTING CAUGHT.

[mmhmm]

Kids like this do think about consequences.  What they don't do is actually consider those consequences.  Why should they?  They're not going to have to suffer them.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Not getting caught is important, why? Because we don't want to suffer the consequences.

True, but criminals don't think in hypotheticals. In general if a home appears un-occupied. . it is.

Now you and me, especially after reading this thread would be thinking of a bazillion hypothetical situations and decide it isn't worth it.

Criminals are going to play the odds and seize the opportunity. For example if my car is gone and my mail is piled up on my porch odds are good someone is going to try to bust in. They are not going to stop for a second and think "What if she is home hiding in a closet waiting to blow my brains out?".

This guy is an exception, not the norm. Crimes are often of opportunity, not ones that are carefully planned out with all possible hypothetical outcomes discussed and planned for.

That's why making it appear you are home is a deterrent because they KNOW someone is potentially in there, the opportunity to get in/get out is gone. Unless they mean you physical harm they will avoid your house.

But if my house appears empty, they're not going to stop and think I might be hiding waiting to shoot them.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 30, 2014 15:43:39 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Kids like this do think about consequences.  What they don't do is actually consider those consequences.  Why should they?  They're not going to have to suffer them.

thank you, mmhmm.  that was a very succinct way of putting it.

kids think they are invincible.  that is because nothing has ever really gone wrong for them before.  in some cases, that is kinda endearing.  they will pull two allnighters in a row.  they will try to ride skateboards while balancing on their heads.  and some will break into houses they think are empty.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

EVERYBODY tends to think they are the exception when bad things happen to others. We're too smart to do that, we're too cautious to risk that, etc. We all engage in that thought process from time to time. Just look at YM.

Criminals may hear about the old guy blowing two teens away, but they aren't thinking "Oh shit that could be me". They are thinking they much too clever/quick for that to ever happen to them. They won't make the same mistake those stupid teens did.

[billisonboard]

And any of this is based on the questionable assumption the teenager "X" is even aware of this case.

[Spellbound454]

Its Mr Smith who didn't think it through.

What did he think was going to happen to his property whilst he was locked up for the rest of his life?

I agree with those who think he was a nutter.

[Virgil Showlion]

There once was a fellow named Byron,
who shot up two thieves and kept fyron,
He'd shot his good sense
and thus shot his defense,
but at least has a shot at retyron.

[billisonboard]

Apr 30, 2014 17:52:28 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

There once was a fellow named Byron,
who shot up two thieves and kept fyron,
He'd shot his good sense
and thus shot his defense,
but at least has a shot at retyron.

Seems like some of that is as big a stretch as the self defense claim.

[zibazinski]

That's right. HE'S alive because he protected himself. He gets another chance and will probably get a slap on the wrist when the facts about the criminals history will be taken into account. I don't want to shoot anyone either but I will if I have to and take m y chances wi the legal system. I can hire very expensive and very good lawyers. I don't need some court appointed legal schmo selling me down the river. 

[EVT1]

The history will never come in- not relevant- and the rules of evidence on this are very clear.  The judge made no error.   You can take that to the bank.

Looking at an article on the jury- they were at guilty of murder right out of the gate with only one person wavering.  Think it was the NRA member?


 

[billisonboard]

Apr 30, 2014 19:16:49 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

... He gets another chance and will probably get a slap on the wrist when the facts about the criminals history will be taken into account. ...

Do you have any link to anyone with any legal expertise claiming the judge erred by excluding that history?

[Tennesseer]

Apr 30, 2014 19:16:49 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

That's right. HE'S alive because he protected himself. He gets another chance and will probably get a slap on the wrist when the facts about the criminals history will be taken into account. I don't want to shoot anyone either but I will if I have to and take m y chances wi the legal system. I can hire very expensive and very good lawyers. I don't need some court appointed legal schmo selling me down the river. 

Saving this quote for posterity.  Will bring it up again after his conviction is upheld.

He's alive because his life was never in danger in the first place.

[Tennesseer]

If Smith was really in fear for his life, which he was not, but if he was, he could have continued driving his vehicle even further away from home and to safety.

[billisonboard]

I can't find specific mention to reference but it was my understanding that the first shot into each individual was taken prior to the shoulders, let alone the head, becoming visible to Smith (which was offered as evidence he couldn't know if they were armed). If that is true, then he was shooting generic invaders and thus the personal histories of those generic persons becomes even less relevant.

[Tennesseer]

Apr 30, 2014 20:13:54 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

I can't find specific mention to reference but it was my understanding that the first shot into each individual was taken prior to the shoulders, let alone the head, becoming visible to Smith (which was offered as evidence he couldn't know if they were armed). If that is true, then he was shooting generic invaders and thus the personal histories of those generic persons becomes even less relevant.

Do not know ìf the medical examiner's testimony will help your above post, but here is a recap.

Medical examiner testifies on teens' autopsy reports

[EVT1]

I have some legal expertise- the judge followed the law of evidence.

The easiest way to explain it is that whether or not these victims were burglars in the past has no probative value- there is nothing that it can help prove or disprove when it comes to the elements of the crime charged. 

Or as I would like to explain it to people- just because you might have killed a dirtbag doesn't absolve you of being a dirtbag.  One thing is for sure- they may have been burglars- but they weren't murderers.  He is a murderer.

[billisonboard]

Apr 30, 2014 20:29:22 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Apr 30, 2014 20:13:54 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

I can't find specific mention to reference but it was my understanding that the first shot into each individual was taken prior to the shoulders, let alone the head, becoming visible to Smith (which was offered as evidence he couldn't know if they were armed). If that is true, then he was shooting generic invaders and thus the personal histories of those generic persons becomes even less relevant.

Do not know ìf the medical examiner's testimony will help your above post, but here is a recap.

Medical examiner testifies on teens' autopsy reports

Doesn't prove it but looks like it would have been possible for it to be true.

[EVT1]

Personal histories are not relevant at all.  This is applied to both the defendant and the victims.

We went down this road in the Zimmerman case-  doesn't matter one bit whether the kid was a discipline problem or came to school late, and on the same token doesn't matter that Zimmerman was a hot head or was arrested in the past.

Few exceptions exist- and not a one was present in this case.  I do not see a single thing that would result in reversible error- i.e. a new trial. 
 
Zib would be bounced as a juror in about ten seconds- by both sides