Self defense or murder?

[billisonboard]

Apr 25, 2014 15:04:22 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Apr 25, 2014 14:51:25 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

You missed the part where human beings, at times, step in and do something about a wolf who kills in a situation in which it is deemed unacceptable.

All wolves are unacceptable to sheep. There are always more wolves, it's part of what we are. The problem is the sheep have to become wolflike to handle the wolves, creating more. (I for one, wouldn't want to take the side of the argument that wants to socialize the critters that reside at the top of the food chain.)

"socialize"? Pen, train, and/or euthanize is what we humans do to animals.

[Deleted]

Apr 25, 2014 15:15:02 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Apr 25, 2014 15:04:22 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

All wolves are unacceptable to sheep. There are always more wolves, it's part of what we are. The problem is the sheep have to become wolflike to handle the wolves, creating more. (I for one, wouldn't want to take the side of the argument that wants to socialize the critters that reside at the top of the food chain.)

"socialize"? Pen, train, and/or euthanize is what we humans do to animals.

Euthanize ? UH OH !   That's killing.  So it's OK on your terms ?

[billisonboard]

I can understand how the sheep and wolves analogy is appealing to those who perceive themselves as wolves, but it is not really all that helpful when looking at complex human behaviors.

[billisonboard]

Apr 25, 2014 15:19:10 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Apr 25, 2014 15:15:02 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

"socialize"? Pen, train, and/or euthanize is what we humans do to animals.

Euthanize ? UH OH !   That's killing.  So it's OK on your terms ?

Yes, always okay on my terms. I also understand that my terms are not always that which society determines as okay and accept that at times killings will take place without consequence outside of what I consider appropriate.

[billisonboard]

And then there is always:

[Value Buy]

Memory serves me there was another case somewhere, where several teenagers, after school broke into a home thinking no one was home.

A two story home.

The owner was asleep upstairs, woke up, shot one intruder dead, as the kids were fleeing down the stairs when they realized someone was home. The teenagers ranged in age of 16 years and up.

All the survivors were charged with home invasion, robbery, and some degree of murder, in perpetration of a crime, found guilty, and serving hard time in prison, even though the teens were unarmed.

One teenager, refused to participate in the robbery, did not go in the house, but waited outside (not even as a "look out") and is serving time for the crime.

Since he waited, the prosecutor felt he was part of the group and just as culpable as the ones who entered the home.

Sometimes life is just not fair.

Cannot remember if it was in Michigan......

[Spellbound454]

You missed out the sheep in sheeps clothing......who just happen to have a gun.

[EVT1]

Apr 26, 2014 11:21:38 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Memory serves me there was another case somewhere, where several teenagers, after school broke into a home thinking no one was home.

A two story home.

The owner was asleep upstairs, woke up, shot one intruder dead, as the kids were fleeing down the stairs when they realized someone was home. The teenagers ranged in age of 16 years and up.

All the survivors were charged with home invasion, robbery, and some degree of murder, in perpetration of a crime, found guilty, and serving hard time in prison, even though the teens were unarmed.

One teenager, refused to participate in the robbery, did not go in the house, but waited outside (not even as a "look out") and is serving time for the crime.

Since he waited, the prosecutor felt he was part of the group and just as culpable as the ones who entered the home.

Sometimes life is just not fair.

Cannot remember if it was in Michigan......

Sounds fair to me.  Felony murder applies no matter who gets killed. 

Must not be rich kids  if they are doing hard time though   They could have bought probation.

Now had they been shot in the back on the way out the door I would have made a thread on it.

[zibazinski]

Don't commit the crime if you're not willing to pay the price.

[billisonboard]

Apr 26, 2014 11:21:38 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Memory serves me there was another case somewhere, where several teenagers, after school broke into a home thinking no one was home.

A two story home.

The owner was asleep upstairs, woke up, shot one intruder dead, as the kids were fleeing down the stairs when they realized someone was home. The teenagers ranged in age of 16 years and up.

All the survivors were charged with home invasion, robbery, and some degree of murder, ...

So the individuals who broke in were charged with the murder of their fellow criminal who was shot by the homeowner? I can't see how that one is logical.

[Tennesseer]

Well Value Buy's story is true about the youths.  They were charged and convicted of their cohort's death.  It was in Lockhart, Indiana.

The Elkhart Four and the Unjust Application of the Felony Murder Rule on Teens


They are now called the Elkhart Four 

Appeals Update #7 — The Brief of the Indiana Public Defender Council


Reduce the sentences, especially the younger teens.  Ridiculous sentences.

[billisonboard]

Apr 26, 2014 18:22:43 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Well Value Buy's story is true about the youths.  They were charged and convicted of their cohort's death.  It was in Lockhart, Indiana.

The Elkhart Four and the Unjust Application of the Felony Murder Rule on Teens


They are now called the Elkhart Four 

Appeals Update #7 — The Brief of the Indiana Public Defender Council


Reduce the sentences, especially the younger teens.  Ridiculous sentences.

Tenn, Thanks for the link.

Okay, I can understand that when two people are robbing a store and one shoots the clerk that both should be charged with murder but I have to admit I find it twisted that if the clerk is the one that does the shooting,that the surviving one can be charged with murder.

[truthbound]

Apr 26, 2014 15:15:45 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Don't commit the crime if you're not willing to pay the price.

[billisonboard]

Apr 26, 2014 15:15:45 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Don't commit the crime if you're not willing to pay the price.

Clearly something Smith should have considered before he took the actions that he did.

[Virgil Showlion]

We've all heard the saying "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."

In this case, I guess it's "If you can't take a shot, don't rob the spot."

Of maybe, "If you can't take multiple shots from a vengeful, homicidally insane homeowner waiting to shoot you in the face, don't rob the place."  Of course that might be hard to fit onto a bumper sticker.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Everyone makes really good points in this thread and they are certainly all food for thought.  As I've said before, some things bother me.  Still, I can't see a murder charge here.  This is why:

1.    Maybe he did lure them into his home.  But unless he actually dragged them in there, they came on their own free will.  You can do anything you want to encourage someone to do something, but it is up to them whether they do it or not.

2.    Did he plan to kill whomever broke into his home?  It appears so.  But they came into his home with committing a crime in mind.  I can't tell you I wouldn't do the same thing.  Guns were stolen in a previous burglary.  They could very well have been in possession of those stolen guns.   I've seen a couple of posts that state he should have known after shooting the first couple of times they were unarmed.  I can't see from the articles where he searched them.  Unless he took the time to do that - there is no reason to believe he knew they were unarmed and unable to access a weapon that could very well have been on their person.  Just because it wasn't drawn doesn't mean it wasn't there. 

3.    Was he downright pissed off at being victimized?  It appears so.  Can't say as I blame him there either.

What it comes down to for me is this:  If those criminals hadn't entered his home without a right to do so, with the intent to commit a theft, they wouldn't be dead.  That's the bottom line.  Should the victim be punished for that?  I can't say as I'm not on the jury, privy to facts we may or may not have seen yet.  I believe in our justice system and I believe the jury will come to a decision as best they can.  They were there intending to do harm - whether that harm was to property or person - they intended to do harm.  They suffered the consequences. 

Believe it or not, I don't support a vigilante type of justice.  I really do still have faith in our law enforcement agencies.  I'm just realistic enough to know that no matter how hard they try, they can't always get there in time. 

[billisonboard]

Apr 27, 2014 14:43:36 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

... You can do anything you want to encourage someone to do something, but it is up to them whether they do it or not.
...

Is this a proposed legal standard that should be established? For example, should you be able, without consequence, give them money to kill someone?

[Green Eyed Lady]

It's still up to the person whether they kill or not.  No question.  I never said another person shouldn't be punished.  My post was about personal choices. As for your example, it's apples and oranges.  This guy wasn't working with anyone else.  Had he paid someone else to wait in his basement, with explicit instructions to kill anyone who came down, then yes.  He should be punished and that would be an appropriate comparison.  I'm not smart enough to suggest legal standards so I wouldn't even try.

Do you think these criminals would be dead if they hadn't broken into that man's home?  Yes or no?

[billisonboard]

Apr 27, 2014 15:16:45 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

... My post was about personal choices. ...

So is mine.

[Spellbound454]

The bottom line for me is that you cannot kill someone for property theft.

The state can't do it... and neither can individuals.

[Tennesseer]

Apr 27, 2014 14:43:36 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Everyone makes really good points in this thread and they are certainly all food for thought.  As I've said before, some things bother me.  Still, I can't see a murder charge here.  This is why:

1.    Maybe he did lure them into his home.  But unless he actually dragged them in there, they came on their own free will.  You can do anything you want to encourage someone to do something, but it is up to them whether they do it or not.

2.    Did he plan to kill whomever broke into his home?  It appears so.  But they came into his home with committing a crime in mind.  I can't tell you I wouldn't do the same thing.  Guns were stolen in a previous burglary.  They could very well have been in possession of those stolen guns.   I've seen a couple of posts that state he should have known after shooting the first couple of times they were unarmed.  I can't see from the articles where he searched them.  Unless he took the time to do that - there is no reason to believe he knew they were unarmed and unable to access a weapon that could very well have been on their person.  Just because it wasn't drawn doesn't mean it wasn't there. 

3.    Was he downright pissed off at being victimized?  It appears so.  Can't say as I blame him there either.

What it comes down to for me is this:  If those criminals hadn't entered his home without a right to do so, with the intent to commit a theft, they wouldn't be dead.  That's the bottom line.  Should the victim be punished for that?  I can't say as I'm not on the jury, privy to facts we may or may not have seen yet.  I believe in our justice system and I believe the jury will come to a decision as best they can.  They were there intending to do harm - whether that harm was to property or person - they intended to do harm.  They suffered the consequences. 

Believe it or not, I don't support a vigilante type of justice.  I really do still have faith in our law enforcement agencies.  I'm just realistic enough to know that no matter how hard they try, they can't always get there in time. 

He had total access to the male's body while he was down and out laying on the basement floor.  Complete and total access.  Very easy to check for weapons.

After he initially shot the young woman, and as she tumbled down the stairwell, he would have been able to see if she had a weapon in hand.  Additionally, the first thing anyone does when they find themselves falling is to try and grasp something to stop the fall.  If the young woman had a gun in her hand, she would not be able to grasp anything and the gun would have been visible to Smith.

And as I mentioned in an earlier post, knowing the two were down and out, even before Smith fired the final shot into the young woman's head, Smith could have gone upstairs, locked the basement door or blocked the door from being opened from below.  Neither youth was in any shape to amble up the stairwell and fight to get a door open. 

Smith then could have called the police from either inside the home or outside.  He could also have driven away to get away from them if he was still scared of them and called the police from elsewhere.

Additionally, he had cameras filming the action of the intruders in his home.  He had ample proof they were in his home.  Heck, he didn't even have to be home and the cameras would still be operating, watching the two youths in his home.  The police have the videos of the youths walking through his home.  That alone is plenty of proof they were in his home.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Apr 27, 2014 16:04:49 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Apr 27, 2014 15:16:45 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

... My post was about personal choices. ...

So is mine.

You didn't answer my question.  Yes.....or no?

[billisonboard]

Apr 27, 2014 18:40:35 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Apr 27, 2014 16:04:49 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

So is mine.

You didn't answer my question.  Yes.....or no?

It is not answerable.

[Green Eyed Lady]

He did have total access to the man's body, Tenn, but the problem was, there was somebody else upstairs.  He knew that.  He probably didn't know if it was one more person or three more people or if they were male or female.  I can't fault him for not searching the man instead of shooting him again when he knew someone else could be coming down the stairs any second.  Additionally, I'm not going to take the chance of getting up close and personal to someone who is still moving.  That gun I didn't see could be pulled out in a second.  

Again, yes, it would have been very easy to see check the woman's hand to see if she had a gun once she fell down the stairs.  The problem is, guns aren't always carried in the hands.  She could have had a gun in her waist band in front, down the back of her pants or in her sock.  Just because they didn't have a weapon in their hands doesn't mean they didn't have one.  Again, he didn't know if there were others in his home or not.  He didn't know she was the last one to be coming.  I believe one article I read said that he told police that was one of the reasons he sat and waited...because he didn't know if more were coming or not.

If, as people assert, these criminals were lured into that home by a man making them believe the house was empty, they probably wouldn't have had their weapons drawn (if they had them).  If they were carrying weapons, they might have had them in a pocket or anywhere because they weren't expecting to run into somebody.  Just because they weren't in their hands doesn't mean he was safe from being fired upon if they got up.

He could have done a lot of things differently.  I agree.  But he didn't.  I suspect there is more wrong with this guy than him just being angry.  Some of the things he did make no sense to me either, but making sure the intruders were dead is not one of them.  Just about everything he did afterwards was questionable, but it could also be attributed to some pretty serious trauma.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Apr 27, 2014 18:42:00 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Apr 27, 2014 18:40:35 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

You didn't answer my question.  Yes.....or no?

It is not answerable.

Yes it is.  You just don't want to answer it because you know what your answer will mean...that those kids are dead and it's not anybody else's fault but their own.

[billisonboard]

Apr 27, 2014 18:40:35 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Apr 27, 2014 16:04:49 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

So is mine.

You didn't answer my question.  Yes.....or no?

It is also a boring aspect of the situation. Two young punks are shot and killed robbing a house.

Now - The shooter in this case apparently undertook conscious premeditated steps to create the illusion that no one was home. In addition it appears he positioned himself so that if someone were to be in the house illegally he would be able to shoot them easily. Further, he fired shots which may not have been necessary when viewed with the idea of "self-defense". Then there are his recorded verbalizations from the time of the break-in/shootings. Are the actions that he undertook acceptable within our society or not? That is an interesting question. 

[billisonboard]

Apr 27, 2014 18:57:01 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Apr 27, 2014 18:42:00 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

It is not answerable.

Yes it is.  You just don't want to answer it because you know what your answer will mean...that those kids are dead and it's not anybody else's fault but their own.

There are many possible ways they could have ended up dead. It doesn't seem they were too bright.

[billisonboard]

Apr 27, 2014 18:56:15 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

... Just about everything he did afterwards was questionable, but it could also be attributed to some pretty serious trauma.

That is why it is important to look at what he did prior to the shootings.

[Value Buy]

Apr 26, 2014 18:22:43 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Well Value Buy's story is true about the youths.  They were charged and convicted of their cohort's death.  It was in Lockhart, Indiana.

The Elkhart Four and the Unjust Application of the Felony Murder Rule on Teens


They are now called the Elkhart Four 

Appeals Update #7 — The Brief of the Indiana Public Defender Council


Reduce the sentences, especially the younger teens.  Ridiculous sentences.

Thank you Tennesseer.

How could I forget this was in my home state.......The Elkhart Four.

Believe it or not, there was little to no local coverage in my part of the state on this case when it was prosecuted.

Elkhart is near South Bend/ Fort Wayne Indiana, and I live in the northwest corner of the state.....

And this had nothing to do with a stand your ground case for the homeowner and happened will before Florida, hoodies, and skittles, although it was a crime rather than standing your ground, but the homeowner pretty much butchered the teen in this case.

[Tennesseer]

Apr 28, 2014 7:36:49 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Apr 26, 2014 18:22:43 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Well Value Buy's story is true about the youths.  They were charged and convicted of their cohort's death.  It was in Lockhart, Indiana.

The Elkhart Four and the Unjust Application of the Felony Murder Rule on Teens


They are now called the Elkhart Four 

Appeals Update #7 — The Brief of the Indiana Public Defender Council


Reduce the sentences, especially the younger teens.  Ridiculous sentences.

Thank you Tennesseer.

How could I forget this was in my home state.......The Elkhart Four.

Believe it or not, there was little to no local coverage in my part of the state on this case when it was prosecuted.

Elkhart is near South Bend/ Fort Wayne Indiana, and I live in the northwest corner of the state.....

And this had nothing to do with a stand your ground case for the homeowner and happened will before Florida, hoodies, and skittles, although it was a crime rather than standing your ground, but the homeowner pretty much butchered the teen in this case.

Just a minor correction VB on your sequence of events/dates. If you are referring to the murder of Trayvon Martin by reference to 'ìt' happened before Florida, hoodies, and Skittles, Trayvon Martin was killed on February 26, 2012.  The Elkhart Four incident happened in October, 2012 and this Smith guy killing the two youths (subject of this thread), occurred on Thanksgiving Day, 2012.