Self defense or murder?

[Green Eyed Lady]

Apples to oranges.  Rape isn't self-defense.  Shooting home invaders before they shoot you is self-defense.

[Deleted]

Apr 22, 2014 14:29:25 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Apr 22, 2014 14:23:17 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

... But once they broke into his house with the intent to steal they gave up the protections of law.

They were his to do with anything he wished once they broke in? Then he would be within his rights to have captured them, raped them, tortured them, whatever? Or is killing them his only right?

You know I'm not as outraged by that idea as I would have been not too long ago.

[Deleted]

Apr 22, 2014 14:38:00 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Apr 22, 2014 14:29:25 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

They were his to do with anything he wished once they broke in? Then he would be within his rights to have captured them, raped them, tortured them, whatever? Or is killing them his only right?

You know I'm not as outraged by that idea as I would have been not too long ago.

You crazy Canucks. 

[billisonboard]

Apr 22, 2014 14:37:12 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Apples to oranges.  Rape isn't self-defense.  Shooting home invaders before they shoot you is self-defense.

So it isn't that the invaders gave up their protections under the law?

[Green Eyed Lady]

I don't know anything about their protection under the law.  I just think Mr. Smith exercised his protection under the law and that is the protection that allows him to defend himself and his home.

We'll see.  Could be an interesting trial.  I just read where they played the audiotape of the shooting in court.  If the reporting is accurate, it was pretty chilling.

[Green Eyed Lady]

In a better attempt to answer your question?  I don't know what, if any, protections are extended to criminals in the act of committing their crime.  So I guess I don't have an answer to your question. 

[billisonboard]

Apr 22, 2014 15:39:38 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

In a better attempt to answer your question?  I don't know what, if any, protections are extended to criminals in the act of committing their crime.  So I guess I don't have an answer to your question. 

Well, from what you said it would seem that you think they are still protected from being raped and tortured. Is that correct?

[Virgil Showlion]

An interesting question, albeit a bit sordid (please bear with the lengthy explanation):


Suppose that instead of lying in wait and repeatedly shooting the two intruders with a .22, Mr. Smith had gone out and bought a .45 (or similarly powerful gun), lain in wait, and dropped each intruder with a single shot to the head.

The difference is obvious: surveillance videos show men shot six times with a .22 revolver who can still run, duck, fight back, etc. (supposedly a .22 slug doesn't even have enough energy to penetrate a human skull unless fired perfectly straight-on, point blank) whereas a .45 will blow a chunk of a man's head clean off or punch a gaping hole in his chest. One is a disabling weapon, the other is a killing weapon.

In this case, many of us are specifically faulting Mr. Smith for executing the two intruders, even after they were disabled. And regardless of whether or not we feel the execution was justified, I think everyone here agrees that Smith's intent was to make absolutely sure the intruders were dead.

But as I've pointed out, another effective way of executing intruders would have been Mr. Smith lying in wait with a more powerful weapon, where one shot would more or less guarantee one kill. Different modus operandum, but the very same results.

Which begs the question for those of us (myself included) who would convict Mr. Smith of murder: If these events had played out with Smith purchasing a .45 and dropping each intruder with a single shot, would we change our verdicts?

If so, why? Clearly in both cases the intent and the outcome are the same: there is no messing around, there is no willingness by Smith to disable rather than kill, and the intruders are shot dead.

If not, would you outlaw "execution weapons" like .45's? After all, the primary difference between a .45 and a .22 is that the .45 is practically guaranteed to kill. It is an "execution weapon" by design. And if using an execution weapon to kill intruders (rather than disable them) is tantamount to murder, then why should such weapons even be legal in the first place?

[Green Eyed Lady]

Apr 22, 2014 15:42:50 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Apr 22, 2014 15:39:38 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

In a better attempt to answer your question?  I don't know what, if any, protections are extended to criminals in the act of committing their crime.  So I guess I don't have an answer to your question. 

Well, from what you said it would seem that you think they are still protected from being raped and tortured. Is that correct?

Of course.  I see what you are saying.  You couldn't call rape and torture self-defense.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Apr 22, 2014 15:46:19 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

An interesting question, albeit a bit sordid (please bear with the lengthy explanation):


Suppose that instead of lying in wait and repeatedly shooting the two intruders with a .22, Mr. Smith had gone out and bought a .45 (or similarly powerful gun), lain in wait, and dropped each intruder with a single shot to the head.

The difference is obvious: surveillance videos show men shot six times with a .22 revolver who can still run, duck, fight back, etc. (supposedly a .22 slug doesn't even have enough energy to penetrate a human skull unless fired perfectly straight-on, point blank) whereas a .45 will blow a chunk of a man's head clean off or punch a gaping hole in his chest. One is a disabling weapon, the other is a killing weapon.

In this case, many of us are specifically faulting Mr. Smith for executing the two intruders, even after they were disabled. And regardless of whether or not we feel the execution was justified, I think everyone here agrees that Smith's intent was to make absolutely sure the intruders were dead.

But as I've pointed out, another effective way of executing intruders would have been Mr. Smith lying in wait with a more powerful weapon, where one shot would more or less guarantee one kill. Different modus operandum, but the very same results.

Which begs the question for those of us (myself included) who would convict Mr. Smith of murder: If these events had played out with Smith purchasing a .45 and dropping each intruder with a single shot, would we change our verdicts?

If so, why? Clearly in both cases the intent and the outcome are the same: there is no messing around, there is no willingness by Smith to disable rather than kill, and the intruders are shot dead.

If not, would you outlaw "execution weapons" like .45's? After all, the primary difference between a .45 and a .22 is that the .45 is practically guaranteed to kill. It is an "execution weapon" by design. And if using an execution weapon to kill intruders (rather than disable them) is tantamount to murder, then why should such weapons even be legal in the first place?

What if the medical examiner (or whatever you call the person) determines that the girl would have died anyway - even if he hadn't fired the "kill shot"?  Is he still a murderer?

[jkapp]

Apr 22, 2014 13:18:03 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

On that day, he moved his truck away from his house, sat in his basement “and he waited,” Wartner said. minnesota.cbslocal.com/2014/04/21/trial-begins-for-man-accused-of-murdering-2-teens/

If it is a proven fact presented in court that he normally parks at his place of residence but on this occasion did park his truck in a non-obvious location other than that, I am not sure I would need more than that to find premeditation if I were on the jury.

I usually close the garage door at night...but if I didn't, would that mean I'm inviting people to break into my house?

[justme]

Which begs the question for those of us (myself included) who would convict Mr. Smith of murder: If these events had played out with Smith purchasing a .45 and dropping each intruder with a single shot, would we change our verdicts?

If so, why? Clearly in both cases the intent and the outcome are the same: there is no messing around, there is no willingness by Smith to disable rather than kill, and the intruders are shot dead.

I'm not sure I would convict him of murder, but I think he went beyond the upper limit of what falls under self defense (given what I've read). To me, the single shot makes all the difference. Actually, not even the single shot. Hitting them a few times when they were farther away I'm ok with, that's self defense. Dragging them closer to him so he could get a kill shot in nice a close once they were already incapacitated (I would assuming he would have mentioned if they were fighting back while they were being dragged) goes beyond it, in my opinion. And the mitigating factors, like parking his truck somewhere else and waiting 24 hours to alert authorities, makes it sit all the worse with me.

I would feel the same if say, he had the .45 and shot them in the stomach or something. Causing them to fall down the stairs and a lot of damage, but they're not quite dead yet. And he then dragged them closer and did a kill shot with a .45.

It's the dragging them closer to him when they were incapacitated (baring any testimony that they were fighting back) and the kill shots after being incapacitated that bothers me, not so much the fact that they're dead. As I said, if he left them down there without the kill shots, called the cops, and they died. Sucks for them.

[Spellbound454]

If the law doesn't execute for burglary........How can a house holder do it?

His only reasonable defence for their deaths would be if he was in fear of his life and he shot them before they got him.
" I took my gun in fear..     and it went off as they approached me" sort of thing.
It wouldn't matter what type of gun it was......just would need proof they he didn't load the biggest gun he could find and lie in wait.....because then it would be premeditated.

...but on his own admission he laid in wait, put several rounds in their heads..... then interfered with the bodies by moving them.... for his own gratification.

He executed them.

Burglary is not a capital offence....the state wouldn't execute them and he shouldn't have that right either..... unless he was in fear of his life.

[jkapp]

Apr 22, 2014 16:06:28 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

If the law doesn't execute for burglary........How can a house holder do it?

His only reasonable defence for their deaths would be if he was in fear of his life and he shot them before they got him.
" I took my gun in fear..     and it went off as they approached me" sort of thing.
It wouldn't matter what type of gun it was......just would need proof they he didn't load the biggest gun he could find and lie in wait.....because then it would be premeditated.

...but on his own admission he laid in wait, put several rounds in their heads..... then interfered with the bodies by moving them.... for his own gratification.

He executed them.

Burglary is not a capital offence....the state wouldn't execute them and he shouldn't have that right either..... unless he was in fear of his life.

And if you had been burglarized twice before, and knew you would be again, and the police would do nothing to stop it...what would you do then?

[zibazinski]

I appreciate that he took care of what the state refused to. Perpetual criminals.

[mmhmm]

Apr 22, 2014 15:46:19 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

An interesting question, albeit a bit sordid (please bear with the lengthy explanation):


Suppose that instead of lying in wait and repeatedly shooting the two intruders with a .22, Mr. Smith had gone out and bought a .45 (or similarly powerful gun), lain in wait, and dropped each intruder with a single shot to the head.

The difference is obvious: surveillance videos show men shot six times with a .22 revolver who can still run, duck, fight back, etc. (supposedly a .22 slug doesn't even have enough energy to penetrate a human skull unless fired perfectly straight-on, point blank) whereas a .45 will blow a chunk of a man's head clean off or punch a gaping hole in his chest. One is a disabling weapon, the other is a killing weapon.

In this case, many of us are specifically faulting Mr. Smith for executing the two intruders, even after they were disabled. And regardless of whether or not we feel the execution was justified, I think everyone here agrees that Smith's intent was to make absolutely sure the intruders were dead.

This is only one of my problems with what Mr. Smith did, Virgil.  I'm also disgusted by what appears to be premeditation.  If he'd gone out and purchased a .45 specifically for this purpose, I'd still see him as I now see him (based only upon what's been offered in the media).  If a .45 was what he happened to have when his house was invaded, I'd probably see it differently, depending on the circumstances.  If, however, he'd made a call to police when he heard the window break, I'd be looking at the whole thing from a different angle.

But as I've pointed out, another effective way of executing intruders would have been Mr. Smith lying in wait with a more powerful weapon, where one shot would more or less guarantee one kill. Different modus operandum, but the very same results.

Which begs the question for those of us (myself included) who would convict Mr. Smith of murder: If these events had played out with Smith purchasing a .45 and dropping each intruder with a single shot, would we change our verdicts?

If so, why? Clearly in both cases the intent and the outcome are the same: there is no messing around, there is no willingness by Smith to disable rather than kill, and the intruders are shot dead.

If not, would you outlaw "execution weapons" like .45's? After all, the primary difference between a .45 and a .22 is that the .45 is practically guaranteed to kill. It is an "execution weapon" by design. And if using an execution weapon to kill intruders (rather than disable them) is tantamount to murder, then why should such weapons even be legal in the first place?

I'll be very interested in this trial.  I'd very much like to know more before I'll opine further.  At this point, there are points that make me feel this was a premeditated murder; however, there is probably a great deal of information about which I know nothing.

[billisonboard]

Apr 22, 2014 15:53:49 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Apr 22, 2014 15:42:50 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Well, from what you said it would seem that you think they are still protected from being raped and tortured. Is that correct?

Of course.  I see what you are saying.  You couldn't call rape and torture self-defense.

So it is possible for a crime to be committed against someone who is in a house illegally. So that is the "boundary" on one side. I think we can also agree that if the person in the house illegally is aiming a gun at someone it is legal for that person to be shot and killed. There is the other "boundary". Now there is space in between. If the person is unable to determine for certain whether the other is armed, can he shoot? If a person has caught the person in his house and securely bound him, can the person then pull out his pistol and shot the person? Can he go to the store, fill out the paperwork, wait three days, take possession of a gun, go back and shot the person? Seems to me that there are many shades for grey.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Very interesting indeed.  I could certainly understand whichever way it swings.

[billisonboard]

Apr 22, 2014 15:46:19 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

...
Suppose that instead of lying in wait and repeatedly shooting the two intruders with a .22, ...

Starts with a false statement so it not applicable to this case but go on.

[Spellbound454]

And if you had been burglarized twice before, and knew you would be again, and the police would do nothing to stop it...what would you do then?

Ring the police, hold them prisoner until the police arrived, shout a warning for them to get out of your house...shoot them in the legs so they didn't get away?
Change the locks, get a big dog
There is loads of options.

He killed them and he enjoyed it........Who made him God?

[billisonboard]

Apr 22, 2014 15:59:47 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Apr 22, 2014 13:18:03 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

On that day, he moved his truck away from his house, sat in his basement “and he waited,” Wartner said. minnesota.cbslocal.com/2014/04/21/trial-begins-for-man-accused-of-murdering-2-teens/

If it is a proven fact presented in court that he normally parks at his place of residence but on this occasion did park his truck in a non-obvious location other than that, I am not sure I would need more than that to find premeditation if I were on the jury.

I usually close the garage door at night...but if I didn't, would that mean I'm inviting people to break into my house?

Please give me more details of the night in question. That one single factor does not provide enough.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Apr 22, 2014 16:14:25 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Apr 22, 2014 15:53:49 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Of course.  I see what you are saying.  You couldn't call rape and torture self-defense.

So it is possible for a crime to be committed against someone who is in a house illegally. So that is the "boundary" on one side. I think we can also agree that if the person in the house illegally is aiming a gun at someone it is legal for that person to be shot and killed. There is the other "boundary". Now there is space in between. If the person is unable to determine for certain whether the other is armed, can he shoot? If a person has caught the person in his house and securely bound him, can the person then pull out his pistol and shot the person? Can he go to the store, fill out the paperwork, wait three days, take possession of a gun, go back and shot the person? Seems to me that there are many shades for grey.

Many shades...which I assume is why this case is being tried.  It will be interesting to hear the verdict.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Apr 22, 2014 16:16:44 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

And if you had been burglarized twice before, and knew you would be again, and the police would do nothing to stop it...what would you do then?

Ring the police, hold them prisoner until the police arrived, shout a warning for them to get out of your house...shoot them in the legs so they didn't get away?
Change the locks, get a big dog
There is loads of options.

He killed them and he enjoyed it........Who made him God?

Ring the police?  And what do you do until they get there?  Hide behind your bookshelf and hope against hope the intruder is also willing to wait for the police instead of killing you then and there?

Shout a warning?  That's a great idea.  Let the intruder know exactly where you are located so he can take better aim.

Shoot them in the legs so they don't get away?  Are you serious?  You do know people don't need their legs to shoot back at you, right?

Change the locks?  I'm not sure that was a factor since they broke the window to get in. 

All these "options" suck and won't do you one bit of good in this case.  You are a sitting (and possibly dead) duck.

[zibazinski]

Of course if he had booby trapped his house, those criminals could have sued him and won. Who made him GOD? The same people who protect criminals instead of law abiding citizens.

[zibazinski]

I always wonder if the do gooders on this board who preach to others ever feel the consequences of their choices? Always kinda hope they do because a different song would be sung for sure. 

[Spellbound454]

Do you think we don't have burglaries over here?.......Oddly enough very few people get killed.

The perpetrators get caught and they go to prison....Householder claims on the insurance.

We are talking about human beings here.

[billisonboard]

Apr 22, 2014 16:28:34 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Of course if he had booby trapped his house, those criminals could have sued him and won. Who made him GOD? The same people who protect criminals instead of law abiding citizens.

A person who commits premeditated murder isn't a law abiding citizen. There is trial ongoing to determine whether that is the case in this situation.

[Tennesseer]

Apr 22, 2014 12:25:39 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

Apr 22, 2014 12:10:34 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Maybe I missed it but neither linked article stated the teens were actively on drugs at the time of their deaths.  Drugs found in their car is not the same as being high on drugs when they were killed.

Moot point.  How is the home owner supposed to know that they are NOT on drugs, especially since this was their goal for breaking into the house?

Immaterial. I don't care what the shooter thought at the time. 

You said, "2 teenagers (on drugs) vs a 65 year old man."  Reread your post. As I said, there is no indication the two youths were on drugs at the time of their deaths. 

[zibazinski]

Apr 22, 2014 16:31:51 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

Do you think we don't have burglaries over here?.......Oddly enough very few people get killed.

The perpetrators get caught and they go to prison....Householder claims on the insurance.

We are talking about human beings here.

No, we aren't. We are talking career criminals here. Just because they're young and ute doesn't mean they're any good as human beings. They WERE a waste of DNA. Now they're not.

[zibazinski]

Cute.