Excessive Force? This guy needs a lawyer

[remauto1187]

Just finished listening to this B$#tard's statement, and it is pretty disgusting... Stone cold murderer... No wonder the Jury took only 3 hours to sentence this guy... Unbelievable...
Lets see,

1. Innocence... NOPE (who was the Aggressor... AT the time of the killing)
2. Imminence of Immediate threat of Grave injury or Death... NOPE
3. Proportionality: Response of force in proportion to the PERCEIVED Threat of Force... NOPE
4. Reasonableness: Would the reasonable and Prudent person respond similarly in a similar situation? NOPE
5. Avoidance: (only element where SYG is involved...) Did he have a reasonable avenue of Retreat? NOPE (Although MINN has a so called Stand your Ground Statute, it has not been consistently followed and there have been a number of cases where it has not been followed based on circumstance) relates to the commission of a forcible felony in one's place of abode there is no duty to retreat.

Additionally involved significant preparation on Smith's part as well as the "laying in wait"... That is a chilling, chilling initial statement to the Investigator... Cold Cold Cold...

I agree....but "statement, hell" Wanna hear the actual audio of the psycho fk himself? Along with the audio of the actually shooting? Warning!!! Quite disturbing!
Court releases audio of the murders of two teen burglars by Byron Smith | Mail Online

 

[IN_Sheepdog]

These were the audio recordings I was referring to... as I said, Cold, Heartless B&*^stard ! In the interview room he shows absolutely NO remorse in taking the lives of two teenagers... almost sounds proud as heck... Die in Prison, POS...

 

[Motorhead302]

that was really disturbing. sounds like he may have been a sociopath, or in some other way really imbalanced, just going through the motions to look normal, until the break ins made him snap.

that little apology about the pistol jamming while the girl lay groaning after the first shot, that to me was the most chilling moment. that kind of icy calm, polite tone, clearly he was well beyond sane.

 

[Robjps]

He's clearly crazy, take away the crazy parts and shooting and killing them is within reason. Play stupid games win stupid prizes. I think that covers both sides of this conflict.

 

[Robjps]

Just finished listening to this B$#tard's statement, and it is pretty disgusting... Stone cold murderer... No wonder the Jury took only 3 hours to sentence this guy... Unbelievable...
Lets see,

1. Innocence... NOPE (who was the Aggressor... AT the time of the killing)
2. Imminence of Immediate threat of Grave injury or Death... NOPE
3. Proportionality: Response of force in proportion to the PERCEIVED Threat of Force... NOPE
4. Reasonableness: Would the reasonable and Prudent person respond similarly in a similar situation? NOPE
5. Avoidance: (only element where SYG is involved...) Did he have a reasonable avenue of Retreat? NOPE (Although MINN has a so called Stand your Ground Statute, it has not been consistently followed and there have been a number of cases where it has not been followed based on circumstance) relates to the commission of a forcible felony in one's place of abode there is no duty to retreat.

Additionally involved significant preparation on Smith's part as well as the "laying in wait"... That is a chilling, chilling initial statement to the Investigator... Cold Cold Cold...

1. They must have broke in to give him a turkey dinner since he was home alone, clearly they had no bad intentions.
2. See #1
3. Perhaps an old man that can barely walk should have chased the manchild with the book he was reading?
4. See #3
5. Are you serious he should have to run away in his own home from dope head teenagers breaking into his house?

Laying in wait perhaps but is that not what you are told to do by authorities try to hide and defend yourself if necessary ?

The audio tape of bat **** crazy and not calling the police until the next day is what makes him wrong not the defending yourself part. I think you seriously underestimate the physical power of a teenager and potential threat to an old man.

Think about it, if those cute teenagers broke into your grandparents house and your grandpa shot them instead of gambling his life. Would you still be saying he was in the wrong? Assuming your grandpa isn't/wasn't bat **** crazy?

 

[remauto1187]

1. They must have broke in to give him a turkey dinner since he was home alone, clearly they had no bad intentions.
2. See #1
3. Perhaps an old man that can barely walk should have chased the manchild with the book he was reading?
4. See #3
5. Are you serious he should have to run away in his own home from dope head teenagers breaking into his house?

Laying in wait perhaps but is that not what you are told to do by authorities try to hide and defend yourself if necessary ?

The audio tape of bat **** crazy and not calling the police until the next day is what makes him wrong not the defending yourself part. I think you seriously underestimate the physical power of a teenager and potential threat to an old man.

Think about it, if those cute teenagers broke into your grandparents house and your grandpa shot them instead of gambling his life. Would you still be saying he was in the wrong? Assuming your grandpa isn't/wasn't bat **** crazy?

3. Perhaps you havent seen the courthouse video. He walks just fine.
4. It is not reasonable to shoot someone AFTER they are ALREADY down. That is called MURDER.
5. They had NO WEAPONS.... Hold at gunpoint?


Maybe you should listen and read the whole story. He parked his truck away from the house intentionally to make it look like the home was unoccupied. He stayed there in the basement in the chair....waiting. Premeditation is the word that comes to mind which is usually the element that has to be proven for....wait for it....Murder. If you dont find the audio of the girl getting shot....one after another and her pleading....very disturbing then you might want to seek help for yourself.
As a matter of fact....anyone on this forum is a liar if they say that if this happened to their own 18yr old and that they would think it was ok and legal for it to happen the way it did with these 2 kids that screwed up and obviously had a drug probelm. These 2 kids were assasinated after they were no longer a threat. That is why the POS is going to sit in jail for the rest of his life.

 

[Robjps]

3. Perhaps you havent seen the courthouse video. He walks just fine.
4. It is not reasonable to shoot someone AFTER they are ALREADY down. That is called MURDER.
5. They had NO WEAPONS.... Hold at gunpoint?


Maybe you should listen and read the whole story. He parked his truck away from the house intentionally to make it look like the home was unoccupied. He stayed there in the basement in the chair....waiting. Premeditation is the word that comes to mind which is usually the element that has to be proven for....wait for it....Murder. If you dont find the audio of the girl getting shot....one after another and her pleading....very disturbing then you might want to seek help for yourself.
As a matter of fact....anyone on this forum is a liar if they say that if this happened to their own 18yr old and that they would think it was ok and legal for it to happen the way it did with these 2 kids that screwed up and obviously had a drug probelm. These 2 kids were assasinated after they were no longer a threat. That is why the POS is going to sit in jail for the rest of his life.

The guy is bat **** crazy as i already said, im not defending that fact or his actions after his gun jams and he switches to the handgun. I am saying he was fully justified in opening fire on them. Where he parked, where he was sitting doesn't matter. I also seen a picture of him with a cane which is where i assumed he had trouble walking.

Holding someone at gunpoint when unknown person(s) are roaming your house? Are you serious? Is that what you would tell your wife or elderly to do? Gamble with their life in hopes everyone wants tea till the police magically arrive? How do you know who is armed or not, they broke into your house and i doubt they are there to give him his Thanksgiving dinner.

If the guy wasn't bat **** crazy and the media did the spin on you if someone broke into your house. Claiming that since your car wasn't visible in your drive way either parked in the street or the garage. You were pretending to not be home to invite break ins ? Really ? Or that you were in a certain room just to lay and wait to kill people? IN YOUR OWN HOUSE? Think about it how are you waiting to murder people in your own house. Anyone with a firearm must be laying in wait to murder, same as anyone with a fire extinguisher must be waiting to start a fire.

If you break into someones house you should be expecting the chance of a homeowner firing upon you. Would it really make you feel better if they were a couple years older and in there 20's? I'd be willing to bet if drugs would have aged them to look like these fine up standing citizens no one would care. All but one of those people are 20-30 by the way.

http://www.thestarpress.com/article...action_ref_map=["artsharetop"]&nclick_check=1

 

[remauto1187]

The guy is bat **** crazy as i already said, im not defending that fact or his actions after his gun jams and he switches to the handgun. I am saying he was fully justified in opening fire on them. Where he parked, where he was sitting doesn't matter. I also seen a picture of him with a cane which is where i assumed he had trouble walking.

Holding someone at gunpoint when unknown person(s) are roaming your house? Are you serious? Is that what you would tell your wife or elderly to do? Gamble with their life in hopes everyone wants tea till the police magically arrive? How do you know who is armed or not, they broke into your house and i doubt they are there to give him his Thanksgiving dinner.

If the guy wasn't bat **** crazy and the media did the spin on you if someone broke into your house. Claiming that since your car wasn't visible in your drive way either parked in the street or the garage. You were pretending to not be home to invite break ins ? Really ? Or that you were in a certain room just to lay and wait to kill people? IN YOUR OWN HOUSE? Think about it how are you waiting to murder people in your own house. Anyone with a firearm must be laying in wait to murder, same as anyone with a fire extinguisher must be waiting to start a fire.

If you break into someones house you should be expecting the chance of a homeowner firing upon you. Would it really make you feel better if they were a couple years older and in there 20's? I'd be willing to bet if drugs would have aged them to look like these fine up standing citizens no one would care. All but one of those people are 20-30 by the way.

http://www.thestarpress.com/article...action_ref_map=["artsharetop"]&nclick_check=1

"we" arent in my home...."we" are in Byron Smith's home and he was sitting in his basement waiting to ambush someone with intent to kill. PREMEDITATED. Why do you think he chose the ambush sight to be in his basement? So he didnt have to worry about the possibility of someone ambushing him while he shot the first VICTIM (multiple times). But all this is NOT about the first shot fired at each kid. This is all about him firing AFTER the threat no longer is valid...which is once each VICTIM was shot once and fell down the stairs and to the basement floor. That is when a resonable person can blatantly see that the wounded person DID NOT have a weapon. Once again...If you say that it is ok for me to kill your 18yo (or whatever age) son, daughter, sister...whatever... the way Smith did....then I will call you a liar to your face! You are a bold-face liar if you sit there and tell me that you would say it was legal/moral/the right thing to do to your relative. Shooting once and then they are down is one thing....that IS not what happened in Smiths' case.

That is why the POS will spend the rest of his life in prison for 2 counts of 1st degree MURDER and 2 counts of 2nd degree MURDER.

BTW... There is no question that Smith intentionally ambushed them 2. No question that he moved his vehicle out of sight to ambush those 2. That is not a question...that is ALL fact that was given during his police questioning session and testimony by his own dumb a$$ during court.

 

[Robjps]

"we" arent in my home...."we" are in Byron Smith's home and he was sitting in his basement waiting to ambush someone with intent to kill. PREMEDITATED. Why do you think he chose the ambush sight to be in his basement? So he didnt have to worry about the possibility of someone ambushing him while he shot the first VICTIM (multiple times). But all this is NOT about the first shot fired at each kid. This is all about him firing AFTER the threat no longer is valid...which is once each VICTIM was shot once and fell down the stairs and to the basement floor. That is when a resonable person can blatantly see that the wounded person DID NOT have a weapon. Once again...If you say that it is ok for me to kill your 18yo (or whatever age) son, daughter, sister...whatever... the way Smith did....then I will call you a liar to your face! You are a bold-face liar if you sit there and tell me that you would say it was legal/moral/the right thing to do to your relative. Shooting once and then they are down is one thing....that IS not what happened in Smiths' case.

That is why the POS will spend the rest of his life in prison for 2 counts of 1st degree MURDER and 2 counts of 2nd degree MURDER.

BTW... There is no question that Smith intentionally ambushed them 2. No question that he moved his vehicle out of sight to ambush those 2. That is not a question...that is ALL fact that was given during his police questioning session and testimony by his own dumb a$$ during court.

So you finally agree he had the right to defend himself and fire on them. Also read what i said in my first paragraph i don't agree with his bat **** crazy actions. Please do tell me how you can tell instantly people are unarmed just because its not in their hands doesn't mean they aren't armed. Also have you ever seen a police shooting, they don't just fire once and stop. Where smith is wrong is hes crazy, he took joy in killing, moved bodies/destroyed evidence in the progress/ didn't inform authorities.

Do i feel bad for the intruders ? No not at all. If my kids broke into someones house and were fired on i wouldn't hold it against the person. Play stupid games win stupid prizes. Smith is crazy and does deserve to be in straightjacket.

Let me ask you question, An old man has his detached garage broken into he hears the perp and watches him walk out of the garage with his chainsaw through the kitchen window. The old man calls the cops and goes and sits in his garage in the dark with his 357 waiting on the police or the intruder to show up. Is that the same as Mr. Smith to you?

 

[IN_Sheepdog]

1. They must have broke in to give him a turkey dinner since he was home alone, clearly they had no bad intentions.
2. See #1
3. Perhaps an old man that can barely walk should have chased the manchild with the book he was reading?
4. See #3
5. Are you serious he should have to run away in his own home from dope head teenagers breaking into his house?



Laying in wait perhaps but is that not what you are told to do by authorities try to hide and defend yourself if necessary ?

The audio tape of bat **** crazy and not calling the police until the next day is what makes him wrong not the defending yourself part. I think you seriously underestimate the physical power of a teenager and potential threat to an old man.

Think about it, if those cute teenagers broke into your grandparents house and your grandpa shot them instead of gambling his life. Would you still be saying he was in the wrong? Assuming your grandpa isn't/wasn't bat **** crazy?

As most know, The Castle Doctrine is handed down to us through the English Court System. Which is rather Ironic actually since now there are several cases in England that have shown a Duty to Retreat and several people in defending their home, have ended up going to jail for long periods of time...


Referring to comments (Robjps) under number 5, YES I am Serious...
In some states there IS a duty to Retreat, if it is an available alternative and therefore there is no or a weak "Castle Doctrine" and/or SYG. The best one is our "capital" Washington DC. I think Vermont and perhaps NM? are others. Other states have a much more watered down application of the Castle Doctrine as it is done through Case Law (legal Precedent) and is not part of the States actual Statutes. Effectively leaves them looking at every incident on a case by case basis. Minnesota in the Bryon Smith case also has a Castle Doctrine, but they also have had several cases where a "Duty to Retreat" even in one's home was upheld....
Crazy I know...
Thankfully Indiana is not one of them.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Where smith is wrong is hes crazy, he took joy in killing, moved bodies/destroyed evidence in the progress/ didn't inform authorities.

That, and he executed someone who was no longer a threat and he KNEW was no longer a threat. Just because the first shot is justified doesn't mean the second one is. Just because the second shot is justified doesn't mean the third one is, etc. Each shot is, in effect, its own decision. Now before you say "how do you know", that's where the reasonable person standard comes in. Would a reasonable person perceiving what the shooter perceives and knows at the time believe the force to be necessary. Clearly when apologizing to someone about how the pistol just jammed, one is no longer in fear for their life, and the shots after that are 100% absolutely murder in both legal and ethical terms, REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENED UP TO THAT POINT.

 

[Crbn79]

That, and he executed someone who was no longer a threat and he KNEW was no longer a threat. Just because the first shot is justified doesn't mean the second one is. Just because the second shot is justified doesn't mean the third one is, etc. Each shot is, in effect, its own decision. Now before you say "how do you know", that's where the reasonable person standard comes in. Would a reasonable person perceiving what the shooter perceives and knows at the time believe the force to be necessary. Clearly when apologizing to someone about how the pistol just jammed, one is no longer in fear for their life, and the shots after that are 100% absolutely murder in both legal and ethical terms, REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENED UP TO THAT POINT.

That guy is 10 pounds of crazy in a 2 pound sack. I think fear for your life ends some time before dragging bodies around your basement and performing "Finishing shots".

 

[Robjps]

That, and he executed someone who was no longer a threat and he KNEW was no longer a threat. Just because the first shot is justified doesn't mean the second one is. Just because the second shot is justified doesn't mean the third one is, etc. Each shot is, in effect, its own decision. Now before you say "how do you know", that's where the reasonable person standard comes in. Would a reasonable person perceiving what the shooter perceives and knows at the time believe the force to be necessary. Clearly when apologizing to someone about how the pistol just jammed, one is no longer in fear for their life, and the shots after that are 100% absolutely murder in both legal and ethical terms, REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENED UP TO THAT POINT.

If you go through my posts i say clearly that his actions after the gun jams are not justifiable. The people saying he was wrong to open fire, should have ran away, then you have people saying you cant fire more then 1 shot which tell me is that how you were trained? Just making excuses because the kids since the kids were cute.

 

[Denny347]

then you have people saying you cant fire more then 1 shot which tell me is that how you were trained?

No, there is no minimum/maximum round count that we are required to fire. Just like BBE said, it is the Graham v. Connor "reasonableness" standard that we train to. If I am forced to shoot at someone and I fire 1,2, or 3 rapid shots to neutralize the threat, I'll be fine, legally. However, once my suspect is no longer a threat, any force I apply after that is unreasonable, thus illegal. This is pretty universal when it comes to all levels of force. I fire a volley of 3 shots at a person with my Pepperball gun and they go down, I then fire one more after they are down, I'm wrong. Every application of force must be accounted for and legal on its own merits.

 

[IndyDave1776]

No, there is no minimum/maximum round count that we are required to fire. Just like BBE said, it is the Graham v. Connor "reasonableness" standard that we train to. If I am forced to shoot at someone and I fire 1,2, or 3 rapid shots to neutralize the threat, I'll be fine, legally. However, once my suspect is no longer a threat, any force I apply after that is unreasonable, thus illegal. This is pretty universal when it comes to all levels of force. I fire a volley of 3 shots at a person with my Pepperball gun and they go down, I then fire one more after they are down, I'm wrong. Every application of force must be accounted for and legal on its own merits.

This is comforting. I recall a video being posted in which an officer emptied his high capacity handgun into a suspect who was on the ground with the first shot. Needless to say, the suspect was carried away dead, and I caught a truckload of hell from several of our INGO neighbors for having a problem with the mag dump into a non-moving (aside from involuntary jerking), on the ground suspect.

 

[Robjps]

No, there is no minimum/maximum round count that we are required to fire. Just like BBE said, it is the Graham v. Connor "reasonableness" standard that we train to. If I am forced to shoot at someone and I fire 1,2, or 3 rapid shots to neutralize the threat, I'll be fine, legally. However, once my suspect is no longer a threat, any force I apply after that is unreasonable, thus illegal. This is pretty universal when it comes to all levels of force. I fire a volley of 3 shots at a person with my Pepperball gun and they go down, I then fire one more after they are down, I'm wrong. Every application of force must be accounted for and legal on its own merits.

I already knew the answer, my point was you aren't trained to fire a shot then wait and see. Don't think i was trying to goad you officers into an argument i was trying to make the point that you aren't required to fire a single shot and then wait to see if it worked.

Pepperball guns i remember being trained on them my rib cage hurt for a week.

 

[Denny347]

I already knew the answer, my point was you aren't trained to fire a shot then wait and see. Don't think i was trying to goad you officers into an argument i was trying to make the point that you aren't required to fire a single shot and then wait to see if it worked.

Pepperball guns i remember being trained on them my rib cage hurt for a week.

Sorry, you are correct. Yes, I took 4 shots to the chest at 20ft wearing a sweatshirt during my certification. That hurt SO BAD!!! 1-2 of the hits broke the skin.

 

[remauto1187]

I already knew the answer, my point was you aren't trained to fire a shot then wait and see. Don't think i was trying to goad you officers into an argument i was trying to make the point that you aren't required to fire a single shot and then wait to see if it worked.

Pepperball guns i remember being trained on them my rib cage hurt for a week.

You obviously fail to understand (Did you not listen to the freakin audio?) the whole point. There is no question Smith had the legal right to shoot the 2 people that walked in to his house (even though it could be construed as morally wrong). The problem lies in that he shot them and once they fell to the basement floor (listen to the audio and the PAUSES) and then he continued to fire upon them while they were down and NO LONGER A THREAT. If a police officer shot a robbery suspect and the suspect fell to the ground, the police CANNOT just pause for 10seconds plus and decide well they are still moving (even though they arent grabbing for anything but moving out of pain from a gunshot wound) so they are going to resume the target shoot. They sure as hell cant legally inflict "good clean finishing shots" either. Thats all called judge, jury, executioner. You must be either one very dense individual or cold as Ice to fail to see the problem in this case. I hope you and your family never makes a MISTAKE and someone Ices you or your family member over it. Geez...Some of the people that stand on the same planet as I do ....make me f'n sick!

 

[Robjps]

You obviously fail to understand (Did you not listen to the freakin audio?) the whole point. There is no question Smith had the legal right to shoot the 2 people that walked in to his house (even though it could be construed as morally wrong). The problem lies in that he shot them and once they fell to the basement floor (listen to the audio and the PAUSES) and then he continued to fire upon them while they were down and NO LONGER A THREAT. If a police officer shot a robbery suspect and the suspect fell to the ground, the police CANNOT just pause for 10seconds plus and decide well they are still moving (even though they arent grabbing for anything but moving out of pain from a gunshot wound) so they are going to resume the target shoot. They sure as hell cant legally inflict "good clean finishing shots" either. Thats all called judge, jury, executioner. You must be either one very dense individual or cold as Ice to fail to see the problem in this case. I hope you and your family never makes a MISTAKE and someone Ices you or your family member over it. Geez...Some of the people that stand on the same planet as I do ....make me f'n sick!

Is reading my responses (all of them not cherry picking) so hard for you? After you finally admitted he had the legal right to open fire on them, you have been only been arguing with yourself. Perhaps its time for you to walk away.

The only difference is i don't feel sorry for the intruders, they didn't make the "MISTAKE" as you are implying they did in the above quote. They are druggies and burglars just because they are/were cute, does not give them a pass. The lovely quote from INGO "Play stupid games win stupid prizes" takes the cake. They ran into a psycho who killed them. I don't feel bad for them i'm just glad it wasn't a defenseless person.