Excessive Force? This guy needs a lawyer

[Tinner666]

He went too far. Shooting somebody coming down the stairs toward you before you can see their hands, and before they can confront you may have been the correct course of action for the first shot or two. Not the others though.
Hard to believe she didn't hestitate or something after hearing that mini go off. They are loud.
As for the 'kids', how many more heists would they pull before killing someone? Just saying.
The whole thing is sad.
On the other hand.......
The two that got into my neighbor's place were unarmed. Despite that fact, they managed to cleave his head and chest many times with an axe of his. He's dead and they're in prison.

 

[deviljunkie]

Assuming Minn law is similar to Indiana Castle Doctrine, he was justified in shooting an INTRUDER in his own home if he had a reasonable person's (if that's possible to be said in this guys case what is 'reasonable') fear of his own life... That is, he does not have to determine whether the intruder is armed or not before firing to STOP the Threat. Not likely as it could equally be assumed that someone brazen enough to break into the home of another, would also likely be armed with some type of weapon... It just happens that in this case, they were unarmed.... Imagine:

"Excuse me young man, but as I am armed and am going to shoot, would you please show me any and all weapons you may have at your disposal... including the hammer and other tools which might be located in my workshop. Also can you tell me whether you have other accomplices along with you, and whether they are in fact armed..."

At the moment he fired and they fell down the steps, (incapacitated) that should have been the last of it.... (Stay down, or I will shoot you again...etc) He then should have been on the phone Immediately to inform LE of the burglary and stayed a safe distance away from them... If they got up and made for the door, so be it... Let them go!! the cops would surely find them later... if they made a move toward him, he would be justified in firing again... TO STOP the Threat!!! His actions (at least according to the news accounts) beyond the first shots when they went to the floor are NOT justified...

As to the girl, same circumstances, he likely did not know whether the OTHER intruder was armed or not (or perhaps whether she was male or female), and so therefore the first shot (when coming down the stairs was reasonable) Beyond that, and certainly the "finishing shot" were completely unnecessary, without indication of continued attack.... and changes a self defense situation into a 2nd degree murder ....

I hear the Turkey in Minn is usually served pretty cold in correctional facilities...


Bottom line to all who take upon themselves the grave responsibility to carry a firearm for self defense, to take that responsibility absolutely seriously, be trained as much as you can, and KNOW the law for when to employ the use of deadly force... You don't have to be a lawyer but you darn well better know the laws when it comes to Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy when drawing that weapon from the holster... Or you could be having Turkey dinner courtesy of the IND Dept of Corrections as well.

i agree on every point

 

[Caleb]

Something about "putting her out of her misery" bothers me, it really does. I really don't think I could bring myself to putting somebody out of their misery, let alone shoot them in the first place.

If I shoot somebody, it's because they left me with no other choice...

 

[Baditude]

Another reason why I use .40 HP for HD and train to "double tap" when I shoot. Good luck walking away from 2 in the chest.

I think he went overboard with the multiple shots from different guns and the shot to put her out of her misery = murder.

Question arises if he shoots them to incapacitate each and they live more than likely he will be sued and will lose the civil suits

 

[pirate]

I find it amusing some here apparently have no problem whatsoever killing someone breaking into their home to do who knows what, but draws the line on finishing them off once they are bleeding out and about to die; even though they would not go out of their way to save them from said bullet holes. What a moral conundrum.

I'm not saying this guy was stable, or even what he did was legal...All that is irrelevant to this post. I just find interesting the lines in the sand some gun owners here draw on windy days.

 

[beararms1776]

The term neutralized threat meant nothing to this guy. I think the story clearly reads that way.

 

[downzero]

Another reason why I use .40 HP for HD and train to "double tap" when I shoot. Good luck walking away from 2 in the chest.

80% of those shot with handguns survive.

If you are "double tapping," you have no clue what you are doing.

 

[GlockPaperScissors]

80% of those shot with handguns survive.

If you are "double tapping," you have no clue what you are doing.

This is what we use. It should only take one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=W9iiaXoRaRY#t=180s

 

[michaeladkins]

I was at work when I found out about this story. Actually, a co-worker said, since you are hunter, how do you feel about this. I told her I had not heard the story. She explained what happened. I then said, why would a hunter ever feel this is right? The man was defending his family and property. He had the right to do that, but he intentionally killed one. This has nothing to do with hunting. Oh man, is this how most non-hunters see us hunters? As killers who is just wanting someone to step in our home so we can finish them off. I sure hope not.

Lock this dude up and toss the key.

Mike

 

[lipster]

For your reading and listening pleasure, here is an actual copy of the 2nd degree murder charges against Bryon Smith. Actual charges and description are found about a third of the way down the web page. Also, the authorities explaining, in their view, why charges are warranted.
http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_22067764/little-falls-man-describes-finishing-teenagers-shots-heads
Just sayin....

 

[IndyDave1776]

This is the first I have heard of this story and wow did that guy go a bit far.

I would agree that he went too far, but funny thing, while that was the consensus in this case, we have a significant number of INGO members defending the police for firing 137 rounds into a car occupied by two unarmed individuals.

 

[Napalm217]

I would agree that he went too far, but funny thing, while that was the consensus in this case, we have a significant number of INGO members defending the police for firing 137 rounds into a car occupied by two unarmed individuals.

137 rounds sounds like it would be total overkill but I don't know the story about that incident. Anyone have a link to it they could share?

 

[IndyDave1776]

137 rounds sounds like it would be total overkill but I don't know the story about that incident. Anyone have a link to it they could share?

Here it is. Any way you slice it, I don't see how anyone could pump that much lead into a car and expect the most remote chance of anyone emerging alive.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...s_after_pursuit_in_east_cleveland_2_dead.html

 

[IndyDave1776]

Thanks for sharing that. I still can't believe that the police would of fired that many times at a vehicle.

I know. It doesn't seem to do much for the image of the profession.

 

[88GT]

The root cause of the problem is two people breaking and entering and attempting to steal from this man a second time. Never would have happened if they weren't there in the first place. He went too far though. way, way too far.

No kidding. She was probably going to die from the other wounds anyway so the anchoring shot was just superfluous. What a waste of a bullet. (I can't decided i that should be purple or not.)

I have an overactive sense of natural justice, I guess, but I can't find it in me to convict the man for what he did. I don't condone it (I think it's morally wrong according to my moral code), and I think the same result could have been done in compliance with the legal restrictions for defending one's life/property. But rooster is right, this all could have been avoided had the two idiot kids made better decisions. Classic case of play stupid games, win stupid prizes. I loathe the idea that I have to conform to some silly set of "play nice" rules in the defense of my life or property.

 

[Caleb]

No kidding. She was probably going to die from the other wounds anyway so the anchoring shot was just superfluous. What a waste of a bullet. (I can't decided i that should be purple or not.)

I have an overactive sense of natural justice, I guess, but I can't find it in me to convict the man for what he did. I don't condone it (I think it's morally wrong according to my moral code), and I think the same result could have been done in compliance with the legal restrictions for defending one's life/property. But rooster is right, this all could have been avoided had the two idiot kids made better decisions. Classic case of play stupid games, win stupid prizes. I loathe the idea that I have to conform to some silly set of "play nice" rules in the defense of my life or property.

I see your point, however indiana law say we can act in self defense if we feel threatened and by indiana law, I mean eliminate threat. If the girl stops advancing or being a threat, such as when she was down and unarmed, yet he shoots her in the head, that's murder.

I think if he would not have taken that one last shot and left the bodies laying there for a while before calling authorities, he would had a much better chance at convincing the jury that this was self defense...

 

[88GT]

I see your point, however indiana law say we can act in self defense if we feel threatened and by indiana law, I mean eliminate threat. If the girl stops advancing or being a threat, such as when she was down and unarmed, yet he shoots her in the head, that's murder.

I think if he would not have taken that one last shot and left the bodies laying there for a while before calling authorities, he would had a much better chance at convincing the jury that this was self defense...

Yes, I know all that. But I think using the law for justification is just a little pedantic at times. It's murder because the law says it is. That's not my point. He's guilty as hell according to the law, but I wouldn't convict him for it.

 

[lipster]

And during jury selection, you would never be seated.
The law is the law.

 

[88GT]

And during jury selection, you would never be seated.
The law is the law.

Two words: jury nullification.

Like I said, pedantic.

 

[lipster]

Just looked up George Zimmerman and he is still living a life of he'll, even though he has not gone to trial, whatever the facts are. So all this talk about whether Smith will or will not be convicted is strange to me. If he walks or not, his life as he knew it is over. He is 64. Found guilty or innocent, his over reacting to people incapacitated at the foot of his stairs have changed his life forever. You may think it is unfair, government over reaching, or whatever, but it is not going to change. Ever.
Be careful when you pull that trigger. Be careful what you say afterwards. "I wanted him dead" and "finishing shot in the cranium" , no matter what you think or believe, will cause you to die in prison. What you think or believe doesn't matter. Only the law does, like it or not.