Minnesota Man Guilty of Murder shooting burglars
- Thread starter granfire
- Start date
IIRC, Lying in wait counts as special circumstances in CA, making that eligible for the death penalty. Otoh, had the "victims" not broken into his house, he would have been bored in the basement for the night and they would have lived to commit some other crimes.
I'm going to have to argue the "lying in wait" comment. California is not a place where laws are rational. If you are in your home, that is your place of last retreat. You have absolutely nowhere to hide after that.
However, delivering a coup de gras behind the ear of a critically wounded and unresponsive human being is murder. Hiding the bodies and only telling someone about it the next day is proof of guilt of murder.
I doubt he felt threatened. I've been the victim of a home invasion. The man walked through my door right in front of me. I ran upstairs and got my 12 gauge. I racked the pump and tried to cut him off. I had a clean shot, could have sent him to hell. Why didn't I? No need to kill over an unlawful entry.
I could be wrong, but his hiding the bodies after delivering a bullet behind the girls ear and however he did the boy in suggests to me that he planned to kill them regardless.
However, delivering a coup de gras behind the ear of a critically wounded and unresponsive human being is murder. Hiding the bodies and only telling someone about it the next day is proof of guilt of murder.
I doubt he felt threatened. I've been the victim of a home invasion. The man walked through my door right in front of me. I ran upstairs and got my 12 gauge. I racked the pump and tried to cut him off. I had a clean shot, could have sent him to hell. Why didn't I? No need to kill over an unlawful entry.
I could be wrong, but his hiding the bodies after delivering a bullet behind the girls ear and however he did the boy in suggests to me that he planned to kill them regardless.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ings-spark-debate-over-self-defense-laws.html
Thats the obvious part about last weeks killing of 17-year-old Nicholas Brady and 18-year-old Haile Kifer, gunned down after they allegedly broke into Smiths home in the 8,000-population town of Little Falls, in central Minnesota. Had Smith only fired two shots that dayone at each of the intrudersno one would question his right to do so. Minnesota statute 609.065 allows the intentional taking of the life of another if resisting or preventing the commission of a felony in the actors place of abode. Its been that way since 1969. Smith had a right to shoot, and he had a right to shoot to kill.
We understand that right. We respect that right. We know that right exists, said Morrison County Sheriff Michel Wetzel in a press conference following Smiths arrest.
Now Smith is in jail, facing charges of second-degree murder, and while what happened in that basement while people across America were whipping up mashed potatoes might sound clearly to some a case of cold-blooded murder, as County Attorney Brian Middendorf later described it, the right to self-defense is actually a very complex topic, and its laws vary state-by-state.
First, the facts, at least those described in a criminal complaint filed by Middendorf and reviewed by The Daily Beast: Smith was by himself in his home around midday on Thanksgiving, sitting in his basement, he told police. He heard footsteps, then a window breaking upstairs, then more footsteps down the hallway. Smith looked up to see a person walking down the stairwell into the basement, aimed his rifle, and shot that person, who turned out to be 17-year-old Nicholas Brady. Brady fell down the stairs, at which point he was looking up at the homeowner. Smith shot the boy in the face, he told police, explaining, I want him dead.
Smith then dragged Bradys body on a tarp, into the basement workshop, he told police, and sat back down in his chair. A few minutes later came more footsteps, down the stairs and into the basement. Smith waited until he could see her hips and fired again, at which point 18-year-old Haile Kifer tumbled down the stairs. He tried to shoot her again but the rifle jammed, at which point he claimed the girl laughed at him.
Smith acknowledged this made him upset, according to the complaint. Smith told (the investigator) If youre trying to shoot somebody and they laugh at you, you go again. So he reached for the .22 caliber revolver strapped to his chest, aimed it at the girl, and shot her in the chest several times, with more shots than I needed to, according to what he told police.
Then, as Kifer lay gasping for air, Smith put his handgun under her chin and shot herhis wordsunder the chin up into the cranium a good clean finishing shot to end her suffering.
At some point, legal experts who have reviewed the case told The Daily Beast, Smith was acting in self-defense, in full accordance with Minnesota law. The Little Falls sheriff, in a press conference this week, did his best to clarify the point at which he believed Smith stepped over the line.
Theres a great deal of confusion that can occur in a case like this, he said. People are going to wonder what can we do and what cant we do to defend ourselves.
Thats the obvious part about last weeks killing of 17-year-old Nicholas Brady and 18-year-old Haile Kifer, gunned down after they allegedly broke into Smiths home in the 8,000-population town of Little Falls, in central Minnesota. Had Smith only fired two shots that dayone at each of the intrudersno one would question his right to do so. Minnesota statute 609.065 allows the intentional taking of the life of another if resisting or preventing the commission of a felony in the actors place of abode. Its been that way since 1969. Smith had a right to shoot, and he had a right to shoot to kill.
We understand that right. We respect that right. We know that right exists, said Morrison County Sheriff Michel Wetzel in a press conference following Smiths arrest.
Now Smith is in jail, facing charges of second-degree murder, and while what happened in that basement while people across America were whipping up mashed potatoes might sound clearly to some a case of cold-blooded murder, as County Attorney Brian Middendorf later described it, the right to self-defense is actually a very complex topic, and its laws vary state-by-state.
First, the facts, at least those described in a criminal complaint filed by Middendorf and reviewed by The Daily Beast: Smith was by himself in his home around midday on Thanksgiving, sitting in his basement, he told police. He heard footsteps, then a window breaking upstairs, then more footsteps down the hallway. Smith looked up to see a person walking down the stairwell into the basement, aimed his rifle, and shot that person, who turned out to be 17-year-old Nicholas Brady. Brady fell down the stairs, at which point he was looking up at the homeowner. Smith shot the boy in the face, he told police, explaining, I want him dead.
Smith then dragged Bradys body on a tarp, into the basement workshop, he told police, and sat back down in his chair. A few minutes later came more footsteps, down the stairs and into the basement. Smith waited until he could see her hips and fired again, at which point 18-year-old Haile Kifer tumbled down the stairs. He tried to shoot her again but the rifle jammed, at which point he claimed the girl laughed at him.
Smith acknowledged this made him upset, according to the complaint. Smith told (the investigator) If youre trying to shoot somebody and they laugh at you, you go again. So he reached for the .22 caliber revolver strapped to his chest, aimed it at the girl, and shot her in the chest several times, with more shots than I needed to, according to what he told police.
Then, as Kifer lay gasping for air, Smith put his handgun under her chin and shot herhis wordsunder the chin up into the cranium a good clean finishing shot to end her suffering.
At some point, legal experts who have reviewed the case told The Daily Beast, Smith was acting in self-defense, in full accordance with Minnesota law. The Little Falls sheriff, in a press conference this week, did his best to clarify the point at which he believed Smith stepped over the line.
Theres a great deal of confusion that can occur in a case like this, he said. People are going to wonder what can we do and what cant we do to defend ourselves.
Dale Gribble...
I'm not familiar with the details beyond what's in the article, so there may be things missing -- but in the article, I see a person creating an enticing situation to encourage them to burglarize the house, then laying in wait for them to do so. When they break in, I see no attempt to avoid the use of lethal force or to simply detain them -- I see clear intent to kill them. He then waits 24 hours to report it via a third party. (He kept two bleeding, decaying bodies around the house, it seems?! Maybe his attorneys missed the boat by not going after a not guilty by mental defect...)
Preclusion -- what could you have done other than use lethal force -- is a major factor. The Castle Doctrine allows you to assume that anyone breaking into your home intends you harm, but isn't a blanket excuse for lethal force. It doesn't, for example, generally let you hunt the burglar through your house. He could have done everything else he did -- and simply called 911 when they broke in. Hell, had he even called 911 right before shooting them, he'd have had a stronger case.
This looks like a pretty clear case of premeditated murder.
Preclusion -- what could you have done other than use lethal force -- is a major factor. The Castle Doctrine allows you to assume that anyone breaking into your home intends you harm, but isn't a blanket excuse for lethal force. It doesn't, for example, generally let you hunt the burglar through your house. He could have done everything else he did -- and simply called 911 when they broke in. Hell, had he even called 911 right before shooting them, he'd have had a stronger case.
This looks like a pretty clear case of premeditated murder.
oftheherd1
Senior Master
- Joined
- May 12, 2011
- Messages
- 4,685
- Reaction score
- 817
As jks9199 said, only knowing what is in the article, he articulated no reason for killing the boy other than wanting him dead. That's not enough. He expressed no further feeling of danger. With the girl, given his own statement on the matter, it is even more clear that he was not in fear, but simply wanted to kill her, to put her out of what he perceived as her misery. I doubt any castle or self defense laws in the USA allow killing when you perceive no further danger from the person you kill.
Very glad no one was hurt in your incident. :asian:
If someone invaded my home, I would feel threatened. A 3 room condo is not that big. I wouldn't attack a cat burglar I caught escaping with my camera or my TV....those are just things. Things can be insured, things can be replaced. But if someone breaks in, I don't know if they are just after things or after me instead. I hope I never find out.
Ok I heard a clip of the recordings on the news this morning...he was trying to justify to himself why he killed them. He said he doesn't see them as human...it's pretty clear why the jury took very little time to convict.
What is legal and what is not varies from state to state. In Florida, for example, it seems that "Stand your ground" would have legalized his actions. In Minnesota, "duty to retreat" would seem to indicate that you need to limit your response once the threat has ended. I can understand arguments for both, but I'm not sure what approach is better. I do feel that this man crossed the line and that the jury's verdict is justified...
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2010
- Messages
- 10,480
- Reaction score
- 1,246
You may want to go actually read the stand your ground law in fla before making that statement. You cant just execute someone for entering your home
I'm basing this off of what I read in this article.
Minnesota Killings Spark Debate over Self-Defense Laws - The Daily Beast
Not in Minnesota, anyway. In Florida, or other states with so-called “Stand Your Ground” laws—also known as “Castle” doctrines (as in “my home is my castle”a jury might never have gotten to consider a case like Smith’s.
“It’s possible he might not have even been charged here,” said Joelle Moreno, a professor of law at Florida International University’s school of law and a member of the statewide task force that made recommendations to alter the Sunshine State’s Stand Your Ground law in the wake of George Zimmerman’s shooting of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin in March. “Just by virtue of those teenagers entering his home, the fear of imminent deadly force was reasonable. Just because they broke into his home, that’s all you need [in Florida].”
Is that incorrect?
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2010
- Messages
- 10,480
- Reaction score
- 1,246
There a difference between defense of youryourself and home and walking up to a wounded person and putting a bullet in their head
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2010
- Messages
- 10,480
- Reaction score
- 1,246
The media portrays it as such and spreads it around to garner support for their condemnation of "white Hispanics," a term that they made up to avoid admitting they confused a Peruvian with a man of European descent.
Making it look as if you aren't home is creating an enticing situation?
Hell no.
Aim center mass, using a shotgun at conversational distance, there shouldn't have been any wounded to dispatch... someone tried to get fancy
