Excessive Force? This guy needs a lawyer

[lipster]

Pedantic to you and me, but not Byron Smith, who will be in the defendant's chair. Pretty real to him. The word pedantic will not even cross his mind. Pedantic did not cross Joan of Arc's mind. They still lit the sticks.
I will try to avoid being a martyr.

 

[lipster]

Jury nullification??
Three words: Not A Chance.

 

[maxmayhem]

This was a 64 year old man that had a predetermined outcome for the next intruders who came into his home...I think he was already a bitter old man...when the girl laughed at him he just snapped...After the adrenalin wore off he realized he was going to jail and decided to enjoy thanksgiving aka his last day of freedom....there is some important detail missing from this story..i would also like to say that I am glad I sold my mini 14's after this guys jammed up...they arent that great of a rifle

 

[maxmayhem]

Griffin

Griffin I think everyone is getting on you because you have a flare for justice but you dont seem to have the same flare (at the moment) for mercy or compassion especially once the fight is over...you would probably jump all over a cop if he hit a guy once he was handcuffed but this is much worse....I hope you feel bad for the kids and the guy who all played a part in this tragedy...i hate to see these kids shot...i hate to see this person's life end in prison....i get no joy or satisfaction from the story...yes you are right the kids caused their own deaths in part by their actions but you need to work on your rhetoric

I didn't say I didn't see anything wrong with the actions of this guy. That doesn't change the fact that the actors ARE DEAD! You and their family can say all you want that what the guy did was wrong, but it doesn't change the fact that they ARE DEAD because of what THEY did. THEY broke into his house.

He didn't go looking for trouble. He was spending a quiet Thanksgiving home alone when THEY committed a felony on him and his property.

So if it makes you and the parents feel good in the knowledge that the homeowner will go to jail, fine. But the actors ARE DEAD. So even though he's in jail they still don't win because they ARE DEAD. Anyone who cries and says the guy went too far is missing the bigger picture. When you break into a house, there may be someone on the other side who makes sure you don't leave alive.

 

[maxmayhem]

You know you have enough posts for the classifieds now? It is 50 not 1500...dont drink and post

There was one root cause here. They broke into someone else's house.

When you break into a house, there may be someone on the other side who makes sure you don't leave alive.

Actions have consequences. I hope those two learned that.

 

[maxmayhem]

well

The girl was no longer a threat...he was not longer on defense but now on offense......If you have the upper hand with a teenage girl then why would you shoot her in the head with a 22 after she was down...It was a cowardly, self serving act that was unjust...

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.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Griffin I think everyone is getting on you because you have a flare for justice but you dont seem to have the same flare (at the moment) for mercy or compassion especially once the fight is over...you would probably jump all over a cop if he hit a guy once he was handcuffed but this is much worse....I hope you feel bad for the kids and the guy who all played a part in this tragedy...i hate to see these kids shot...i hate to see this person's life end in prison....i get no joy or satisfaction from the story...yes you are right the kids caused their own deaths in part by their actions but you need to work on your rhetoric

This is one of those times I find myself taking the middle ground. I have to agree with Griffin that the fundamental cause of death was the decision to commit a felony against someone who most certainly did not deserve it. I also agree with most everyone else that deliberately making sure that they were dead after they ceased to represent a credible threat was not acceptable. What I find interesting is that the prevailing opinion is largely reversed in the incident in which the police pumped 137 rounds into a car containing two unarmed individuals who, granted, had broken the law and resisted apprehension, but in the end the question is raised of how in the universe could it be argued that the police could possibly have expected anyone to come out of a car that had 137 rounds pumped into it in any condition other than stone cold dead, yet this is more acceptable at the hands of police who hadn't been violated in any way similar to being burglarized. I find the situational ethics alarming.

 

[88GT]

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.

I don't recall anybody arguing otherwise.

Pedantic to you and me, but not Byron Smith, who will be in the defendant's chair. Pretty real to him. The word pedantic will not even cross his mind. Pedantic did not cross Joan of Arc's mind. They still lit the sticks.
I will try to avoid being a martyr.

Reality has nothing to do with my point. Arguing that the law's existence is sufficient justification for the law's existence is a stupid and pedantic argument is my point. Smith will get the book thrown at him. But I don't have to agree with what's in the book just because it's written in the book.

Jury nullification??
Three words: Not A Chance.

That I wouldn't nullify a murder charge with an acquittal vote or that you don't think I'm smart enough to get on a jury with my position on jury nullification?


I know you're trying to get 50 posts, but we do have the multi-quote feature. It not only saves time, but quoting the post to which you are responding is generally good practice.

 

[7urtle]

Ok so you are saying it is ok to shoot an unarmed 13yr old girl/14yr old boy/80yr old woman, etc????

If so then you have no business with a gun yourself if that is your mental capability.

Just because someone breaks into your house just does not justify (even though it may be legal to do so) someone shooting them until they are dead.

If a 13yr old little girl broke into your house and had nothing in her hands would you shoot her? Would it be OK to do so, in your warped mind? If a 14yr old boy walked into your backdoor and had no weapons would it be ok then? How about a 16yr old girl or boy? Where does it stop? Where is the cutoff? How about if a 80yr old unarmed man/woman opened your (unknown to you) unlocked front door is it then ok to unload a magazine on them? 65? 55?

friend in high school got jumped by a kid who thought he was a skin head(shaved head because he signed up for the marines). my friend is blind in one eye and has brain damage. no weapons just knocked him down kicked him in the head repeatedly. if someone broke in i would shoot them.. probably not repeatedly. plus walkers hurt

 

[griffin]

MaxMayhem, pay attention. You might learn something. (For other readers, all of his posts were directed at me).

This was a 64 year old man that had a predetermined outcome for the next intruders who came into his home.

Perhaps, perhaps not. You have neither proof nor evidence for your assertions. But in the larger scheme of things it makes no difference. You fail to see the bigger picture. Actions have consequences, and people need to learn that other people may not play by the rules.

Griffin I think everyone is getting on you because you have a flare for justice but you dont seem to have the same flare (at the moment) for mercy or compassion especially once the fight is over

I don't remember everyone getting on me. But even if my memory is faulty, it doesn't change the totality of the circumstances. Actions have consequences, and people need to learn that other people may not play by the rules.

you are right the kids caused their own deaths in part by their actions but you need to work on your rhetoric

Um, no. I don't.

Actions have consequences. I hope those two learned that. People need to learn that other people may not play by the rules.

And what's with your name Maximum Mayhem? Are you a Sons of Anarchy member who's murdered multiple people?

Keep swimming until you can't see land.

 

[lipster]

I know you're trying to get 50 posts, but we do have the multi-quote feature. It not only saves time, but quoting the post to which you are responding is generally good practice.

Yeah, two people dead, another in jail, and I'm trying to get my post count up?
I look at this site once every couple months, and could give a rat's ass about my post count. This thread caught my attention because I live very close, and know people involved. What happens at 50 posts that you think I give a crap about?

 

[beararms1776]

I really don't get how some people can't recognize the difference between neutralize and overkill.

 

[Caleb]

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.

you wouldn't convict somebody for shooting a finishing shot at somebody after they are no longer the threat?

 

[remauto1187]

I really don't get how some people can't recognize the difference between neutralize and overkill.

Even worse, I dont understand why certain people in this forum think that they are holier than life and cannot comprehend the term "second chance". People make mistakes, we ALL have. Kids are well known to do it.

Anyone here that says its ok that I shoot their kid with a .223 twice in the chest just for breaking into my house is a liar! (Ill leave out the kill shot scenario since its pretty much already been determined here to be outright murder).

IT IS NOT AN AUTOMATIC LICENSE TO KILL JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE BREAKS INTO YOUR HOME. The law may say it is legal to shoot but morality and compassion should steer you towards other options IF POSSIBLE.

ANYONE that has it programmed into their brains that if ANYONE breaks into their home they will be shot and killed no matter what does NOT need a firearm in their possession because they are UNFIT to make life/death decisions logically.

*obviously if someone breaks into your home with a firearm/knife and is waving it/or not then obviously you need to defend yourself/family with lethal force if need be*

 

[lipster]

Very well put. A lot of opinion I am reading is black and white thinking.
Life is lots of shades of gray, which you point out. So is the law.

 

[wild willy]

ANYONE that has it programmed into their brains that if ANYONE breaks into their home they will be shot and killed no matter what does NOT need a firearm in their possession because they are UNFIT to make life/death decisions logically.*

I am not the Lone Ranger...Bu,t I suppose to be fair to the intruder that just busted in my door..... I should give him have a chance to get his weapon out and maybe get a shot off at me, my wife....my 9 or my 11 yr old.

Not gonna happen.......You lost all rights when you entered my home. I am not going to execute you......But I am gonna shoot you. Get out of the house with my family and call 911.

 

[beararms1776]

I am not the Lone Ranger...Bu,t I suppose to be fair to the intruder that just busted in my door..... I should give him have a chance to get his weapon out and maybe get a shot off at me, my wife....my 9 or my 11 yr old.

Not gonna happen.......You lost all rights when you entered my home. I am not going to execute you......But I am gonna shoot you. Get out of the house with my family and call 911.

There is a difference between being shot and dying from the wound/s and being shot, then executed.

 

[wild willy]

There is a difference between being shot and dying from the wound/s and being shot, then executed.

Absolutely

 

[lipster]

There is a difference between being shot and dying from the wound/s and being shot, then executed.

You are right, but there you go into the gray area again. He likes it black and white.

 

[IN_Sheepdog]

ANYONE that has it programmed into their brains that if ANYONE breaks into their home they will be shot and killed no matter what does NOT need a firearm in their possession because they are UNFIT to make life/death decisions logically.

*obviously if someone breaks into your home with a firearm/knife and is waving it/or not then obviously you need to defend yourself/family with lethal force if need be*

Why not just sit down with them over a cup of coffee and convince them of the error of their ways, and to turn away from their Criminal behavior?

What is "programming in your brain"? One word... TRAINING... You will not rise to the occasion, but rather fall back to the level of preparation and training... so yes, training is effectively preprograming your brain... not to shoot and kill... but to shoot and STOP the threat. (which has already been discussed)
You actually believe the decision/reaction to pull that trigger on another human being is a LOGICAL, THOUGHTFUL, and FULLY Considered decision??? To say that someone who has this mindset is UNFIT to carry a firearm -- is naive' at best on your part, and a deadly trap at worst...


This "decision making process" of which you speak is the additional fault in the thought process (delay) which will allow the intruder the additional seconds of indecisiveness (on your part), which may be necessary to end the scenario NOT in your favor... Is it a teenager?, a woman?, are they armed?, do they want to just rob you or are they going to eliminate all witnesses, are they on drugs? what is their mental state? will they be as kind and merciful to us as we are to them by not shooting them because everything is not known and we don't know their conditions when they broke into YOUR house and threatened YOUR family? Maybe you will act later, when they have you tied up and helpless? Then you will act...? I dont think so... What is the limit before you are willing to take that grave responsibility of pulling the trigger on another person?

Contrary to your position, if you are NOT willing to act decisively and with extreme violence in response for their first felony act (the entry) you do not have the mindset to be able to make this kind of life and death situation in the first place, and will therefore end up dead... If you are not willing to make that "line" in the sand which is not to be crossed, of entering your own home, you will NOT be able to do it, regardless of the situation and will end up just providing them with another weapon for their next stop somewhere else.

It is not bluster, or tough talk, postering, or Monkey Dancing (ref. Col. Grossman and others ), and this is not meant to start a personal confrontation.... it is deadly Reality!...

The Castle Doctrine is a codification of this exact line that is not to be crossed... You do not know all the details of a situation or the person threatening you, nor can you be expected to... the standard is how would the "reasonable person" in the same situation react?

AIAAL, IANYL, YMMV