Man Kills Two Teens Robbers

[quras]

So, hypothetically, let's say you have a teenage son. He sneaks out of his room at night to go clubbing, dancing, whatever young folks do nowadays. He sneaks back in through a window he left slightly open. You hear the whole ordeal and, in your panic-driven state, you fear for the lives of your family. You sneak to a hallway next to the window, get your gun ready, and shoot as soon as your son comes into view. Good job, you just killed your son because you couldn't be bothered to spend a few fucking seconds to assess the situation properly. Is that a justified killing?

I understand that kind of a scenario is highly unlikely but I still think it illustrates my point. You have a gun in your hands, you have an element of surprise. The situation is under your control. When do you shoot? When you see a legitimate weapon in their hands, or when it's clear you're actually IN danger.

Also, what I was asking for was a source on the statement that "most home invasions the home owner dies". I find that like...I dunno, hard to believe maybe?

Not quite as far fetched as you might think in the end results. While not exactly the same I bet it has happened as you describe somewhere out there.


http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...k-shiny-object

It will probably go down like this guy says:

Justified in a legal sense? Yes. The guy in that situation wouldn't do any time.

Though I've no doubt it'd fuck up his state of mind for likely the rest of his days.

Probably best to just not break into homes for whatever the reason.

[BurningSkies2018]

Ah sorry I was referring less about legal justification and more about justifying the idea of shooting first. I understand the need to have a means to protect yourself, so I'm not technically against gun rights, but it's become a huge problem I think. We have a right to protect our household, not slaughter people in it.

The problem is (if the story is right of course..) that even AFTER shooting the first suspect, the second followed. Why would she follow knowing what is most likely going to happen? I understand wholeheartedly about knowing your target before you shoot though and agree with you. But according to the article, the man heard glass break and it happen upstairs and as far as I knew didn't have kids living with him. You can't compare apples to oranges here.

[Themius]

What was he supposed to do? Call the cops so they could come tell him he probably will never see his car again? Why are we rooting for the bad guys?

Um call the cops and give the license plate number instead of fucking killing him when he wasn't a threat.

"What was he suppose to do? Actually let the thief steal his car and not try to kill him? lol"

[bekilrwale]

Soooooooo after she got shot his gun jammed and she LAUGHED at him? This girl had literally no common sense whatsoever. And they broke into his house, he had the right to defend himself. I see no problem other than MAYBE that he went in for a kill shot, but if I just shot someone robbing my house and they began laughing at me I would think they were clearly on something and are capable of anything crazy. Don't know why he tried to stash the bodies, I would have called the cops.

[Orangetai420]

Um call the cops and give the license plate number instead of fucking killing him when he wasn't a threat.

Fuck that. Ever seen American History X? That's what I would have done. Boo hoo, a dead thief, one less scumbag to worry about.

EDIT: Just want to clarify that I'm not racist, the planet is grossly overpopulated and one less scumbag will do us all a favor.

[BurningSkies2018]

Um call the cops and give the license plate number instead of fucking killing him when he wasn't a threat.

I have a hard time thinking you are serious. I've had more things stolen that I have worked for than I even want to admit. Everything I own I've put in my hard time and money, I'm not going to stand by and let thugs just take whatever they want. But different people have different beliefs. The majority of the time stolen items are never recovered, and unless you know who done it, they are free to continue doing it. I think we as whole are a bit too lenient. Killing someone over things, especially a car is probably too far. Though I would shoot to injure severely if I seen someone stealing it. Once they enter my home though it's shoot to kill.

[Themius]

Fuck that. Ever seen American History X? That's what I would have done. Boo hoo, a dead thief, one less scumbag to worry about.

EDIT: Just want to clarify that I'm not racist, the planet is grossly overpopulated and one less scumbag will do us all a favor.

Are you sure the thief is the scumbag in a scenario were he's killed when he poses a threat to a car? Also we're not over populated.

[-aiko-]

The problem is (if the story is right of course..) that even AFTER shooting the first suspect, the second followed. Why would she follow knowing what is most likely going to happen? I understand wholeheartedly about knowing your target before you shoot though and agree with you. But according to the article, the man heard glass break and it happen upstairs and as far as I knew didn't have kids living with him. You can't compare apples to oranges here.

It's highly suspect. I don't really buy his story and personally believe he did a lot worse. I could also be wrong.
I've kind of derailed the discussion though. I wasn't really trying to compare apples and oranges, I just kind of got there when I started talking about the shooting first mentality. Going off of his story which is all we have really, it's more about excessive use of force. If his story is actually true, I'm less upset about him shooting in the first place and more upset about the executions. It's so confusing.

[BurningSkies2018]

Fuck that. Ever seen American History X? That's what I would have done. Boo hoo, a dead thief, one less scumbag to worry about.

EDIT: Just want to clarify that I'm not racist, the planet is grossly overpopulated and one less scumbag will do us all a favor.

Agree 100% with you. Call the cops so they can use my tax money to give them a bed and 3 meals a day, so they can eventually get out and do it again?

[Themius]

I have a hard time thinking you are serious. I've had more things stolen that I have worked for than I even want to admit. Everything I own I've put in my hard time and money, I'm not going to stand by and let thugs just take whatever they want. But different people have different beliefs. The majority of the time stolen items are never recovered, and unless you know who done it, they are free to continue doing it. I think we as whole are a bit too lenient. Killing someone over things, especially a car is probably too far. Though I would shoot to injure severely if I seen someone stealing it. Once they enter my home though it's shoot to kill.

So because you worked hard for your things shooting people to cause massive injury or death is fine? Right yeah... call cops, have them arrested, if we had a better prison system they could become productive members.

---------- Post added 2012-11-27 at 04:18 PM ----------

Agree 100% with you. Call the cops so they can use my tax money to give them a bed and 3 meals a day, so they can eventually get out and do it again?

Yeah so just kill them because we're totally in the medieval times, oh wait no, the punishment for theft then wasn't even murder.

[BurningSkies2018]

It's highly suspect. I don't really buy his story and personally believe he did a lot worse. I could also be wrong.
I've kind of derailed the discussion though. I wasn't really trying to compare apples and oranges, I just kind of got there when I started talking about the shooting first mentality. Going off of his story which is all we have really, it's more about excessive use of force. If his story is actually true, I'm less upset about him shooting in the first place and more upset about the executions.

Absolutely. Once they were down and he knew that, I do think blatantly putting a gun to their head and pulling the trigger was way too far. If they were in that bad of shape he could have made sure they didn't have a weapon on them while calling the cops.

I really have no idea why he didn't notify authorities sooner than they were however.

[Sealed Shut]

This reminds me of this old story almost 10 years ago. A man was in his house and his car was being stolen, so he ran outside and killed the thief. Lots of people agreed with him because he worked hard for his car.

lol, you are so full of it

[Orangetai420]

Are you sure the thief is the scumbag in a scenario were he's killed when he poses a threat to a car? Also we're not over populated.

Wow, what an isolated world you must live in. I wish I could share your blissful ignorance.

I think I'll add this to my sig lol

[Atrea]

And most of your argument is speculation.

Let's drop the 'speculation', then

Byron Smith (the shooter), alleges that around noon on November 22, 2012, two individuals - Halie Kifer (18) and Nicholas Brady (17) broke into his home.

Fact: Byron Smith did not call the police after fatally shooting the two alleged intruders.
Fact: Byron Smith's neighbour called the police, more than 24 hours after the fatal shooting, after he quote "was acting strangely".
Fact: Byron Smith claims that he shot one individual, then another a few minutes later, in similar fashion - as they descended basement stairs.
Fact: Byron Smith moved both bodies from the scene of the shooting, into his workshop, where they were found by police.

Let's examine these facts, shall we?

Fact: Byron Smith (the shooter), did not call the police after fatally shooting two individuals.

Claiming that he 'panicked', Byron Smith did not notify the police after being the alleged victim of a break-in, nor did he notify the police after a shooting had taken place on his property. He later added that he "didn't want to disturb them on the holiday".

If he had, in fact, acted in self-defense, what would he have to panic about? What, if he believed he was doing the right thing, did he have to worry about?

Fact: Byron Smith's neighbour called the police, more than 24 hours after the fatal shooting, after he quote "was acting strangely".

Byron Smith's unnamed neighbour received one or more phone calls from Byron Smith the day following the shooting, during which Smith requested advice on seeking legal counsel. After speaking with Smith, the neighbour decided to contact the police.

Fact: Byron Smith claims that he shot one individual, then another a few minutes later, in similar fashion - as they descended basement stairs.

This is from the statement released by the Morrison County Sheriff's Department:

Smith said he was in his basement when he heard a window breaking upstairs, followed by footsteps that eventually approached the basement stairwell. Smith said he fired when Brady came into view from the waist down.

After the teen fell down the stairs, Smith said he shot him in the face as he lay on the floor.

"I want him dead," the complaint quoted Smith telling an investigator.

Smith said he dragged Brady's body into his basement workshop, then sat down on his chair. After a few minutes, Kifer began coming down the stairs and he shot her as soon as her hips appeared, he said.

After shooting her with both the Mini 14 and the .22-caliber revolver, he dragged her next to Brady. With her still gasping for air, he fired a shot under her chin "up into the cranium," the complaint says.

"Smith described it as 'a good clean finishing shot,'" according to the complaint.

So we are meant to believe that the first alleged intruder began descending the stairs, was shot - fell down the stairs - and then the second alleged intruder did the same thing? This doesn't add up. We are expected to believe that a second person who, after hearing a gunshot (especially if they were intruding on a house), came in and investigated the shooting unannounced? How did he know that a second person was even in the house?

I'm sorry, but this doesn't make any sense. And the capriciousness with which he describes the actions leads me to believe the shooter to have serious detachment issues.

Fact: Byron Smith moved both bodies from the scene of the shooting, into his workshop, where they were found by police.

As evidenced in the above quote, Smith moved both bodies from where they allegedly fell. There seems to be no real reason for this, and if he had left the bodies where they had fallen, it would have corroborated his story. Certainly, if the second individual had seen the dead body of the first, she may have ran, or at the very least announced herself and her intent. It seems convenient that they both fell down the stairs too - any bruising or signs of struggle would therefore be explained by this fall.


Now, let's summarize.

We have a shooter who claims two people broke into his house in broad daylight on Thanksgiving. He claims he was in his basement when he heard glass breaking, and then movement above him, and that he armed himself with a rifle and a pistol, and waited at the door to the basement, gun in hand. He claims he shot the first person he saw descending the stairs, and then when that person fell down the stairs, he shot them in the face a few times because he didn't like them looking at him. He then claims he dragged the body into his workshop, and then went back to whatever it was he was doing. He then stated that he heard a second intruder, and when the second intruder began descending the same stairs, in silence - after the first one was already shot but dragged away (presumably not leaving a mess of blood a the bottom of the stairs) - at which point he shot her too. She also fell down the stairs, and he attempted to shoot her again, but his rifle jammed - which she laughed at, apparently - so he shot her a few times in the chest with his pistol. He then dragged her into the workshop as well, where she still appeared to be alive - so he put the pistol under her chin and blew her brains out.

He then went about his business for the rest of the day, presumably slept in his house that night - a house that he claims was burglarized eight times (although he only reported it once, a few weeks prior) - and a house that had (presumably) at least one broken window or other point of entry.
The following day, he contacted his neighbour and asked his neighbour if he knew a 'good lawyer'; at which point the neighbour alerted the police.
The police arrived, and found the bodies - and were given this story.

Now, if you believe that this happened as he stated - then I have a bridge for sale, over some swamp land in Florida.

I don't know what those kids were doing in his house. Maybe they were invited. Maybe they really did break in. Maybe he killed them somewhere else, and brought them there, and staged the whole thing. But it sure as fuck didn't happen like he said it did. It doesn't make any logical sense, and

So the question then becomes, why would he lie about it?

Obviously there is more to this story than we know. And my point, after all this - is that it is wrong of us to assume that these two individuals were guilty of any crime, until there is some clear evidence of it.

Byron Smith is innocent until proven guilty. His testimony surely paints him as such, as even he freely admitted that he went too far.
However, Halie Kifer and Nicholas Brady have not been proven guilty of anything. It is morally wrong to simply assume that they were doing something wrong, and it is disgraceful that so few people are even questioning this.

The Sheriff's department has NOT confirmed Smith's account of the events that took place on November 22, and until they do, you should be ashamed of yourself if you think these two individuals 'got what they deserved', when the simple fact of the matter is, we don't even know if they were doing anything wrong.

Think about how bad you'd feel, if you found out later that they were kidnapped or something. Kidnapped and murdered, and that Smith tried to paint them as intruders, so that HIS crimes could go unpunished.

Think about that, and then tell me "they got what they deserved", and that you'd "do the same".

[Themius]

lol, you are so full of it

Updated: Wednesday, Sep. 3, 2003 - 6:53 PM EDT.

LAUREL -- A 16-year-old boy is dead and a 23-year-old man has been wounded after they were shot by a man who told police they were breaking into his car.

The shooting happened at about 2:30 Wednesday morning at the Fox Rest apartments in Laurel.

A resident tells police he was awakened by his car alarm and saw two people trying to break into his SUV. Police say the man took a gun outside and confronted the alleged car thieves and shot them both. The 16-year-old died at the scene and the 23-year-old was taken to a hospital, where he's listed in critical condition.

Come again?

[kjcasey]

If people would not take what does not belong to them we would not be having this conversation. And people would not be defending criminals

So because you worked hard for your things shooting people to cause massive injury or death is fine? Right yeah... call cops, have them arrested, if we had a better prison system they could become productive members.

---------- Post added 2012-11-27 at 04:18 PM ----------



Yeah so just kill them because we're totally in the medieval times, oh wait no, the punishment for theft then wasn't even murder.

[quras]

And if it's dark? And your son wore dark clothes that night? His face is out of view? Don't mean to argue so much but can you see how shooting first can lead to a huge tragedy? That's what I feel happened to these teens. They weren't given a chance.

There chance was to not break into a home that was not theres. Pretty simple.

[duskylol]

Wow. Just wow.

In some ways, I understand defending my home. Having two kids in my house, if someone broke in, I'm not aiming to injure...I'd be aiming to kill. I don't know what types of weapons the thieves may possess so eliminating the threat as quickly as possible would be my best solution.

But what this guy did was uncalled for. Had I injured the thief and saw he was no longer a threat, I wouldn't go up to him point blank and execute him for the break-in. Hell, if he was weaponless or lost his weapon in the process I'd call an ambulance. But, it's easy to speculate what I'd do when it hasn't happened.

Edit: And as far as the family's "outrage", some of it is warranted. But these two are made out to be the victims entirely by the family it seems. Common sense tells you, if you don't break into a man's house (a house that has been broken into before, and they must've known this) you won't get shot.

[kjcasey]

Give them a chance to what kill the homeowner first. They made a bad choice one they wont make again

There chance was to not break into a home that was not theres. Pretty simple.

---------- Post added 2012-11-27 at 03:26 PM ----------

I agree with you.

Wow. Just wow.

In some ways, I understand defending my home. Having two kids in my house, if someone broke in, I'm not aiming to injure...I'd be aiming to kill. I don't know what types of weapons the thieves may possess so eliminating the threat as quickly as possible would be my best solution.

But what this guy did was uncalled for. Had I injured the thief and saw he was no longer a threat, I wouldn't go up to him point blank and execute him for the break-in. Hell, if he was weaponless or lost his weapon in the process I'd call an ambulance. But, it's easy to speculate what I'd do when it hasn't happened.

Edit: And as far as the family's "outrage", some of it is warranted. But these two are made out to be the victims entirely by the family it seems. Common sense tells you, if you don't break into a man's house (a house that has been broken into before, and they must've known this) you won't get shot.

[Themius]

Wow, what an isolated world you must live in. I wish I could share your blissful ignorance.

I think I'll add this to my sig lol

The whole human race can fit in texas but we're over populated? I am not ignorant you're the one who is. The only problem we really have is a resource one which can be solved through scientific advancements, once those are made we wouldn't be over populated at even 20b people.

---------- Post added 2012-11-27 at 04:27 PM ----------

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't work to give things away to thieves. And when it happens repeatedly - yes, yes I am going to defend what I own on my own property. I have absolutely no feelings for someone stealing.

Aww how ridiculous. You're more attached to your things and can't see killing a person over a tele is ridiculous. I worked hard for my computer and I have some sentimental things on here. I wouldn't kill someone over it though, that's just fucking nuts.