Minnesota Man kills two teens breaking into his house. Trial Underway

[von Richthofen]

It's hard to imagine how the defendant ended up in the mental state he did, where he seemingly had no second thoughts about ending the lives of two burglars, but he did suffer numerous break ins in the preceding months. I still have PTSD and night terrors from when some asshole was fleeing from the police and broke into my house, and that was over twenty years ago. For years after, I was always on edge, scared of any odd sounds heard at night. It's making me nauseous just thinking about it. Thank God the officers were right on his trail and got him before he made it all the way up the basement stairs.

[Speaknoevil]

I read the article twice.

I've got no issue with someone waiting in their home and staying awake to protect their house. I have no issue with someone using a gun to protect their home (I'd love a lot more restrictive gun laws in this country but if the rule ain't on the books, I don't have an issue with someone doing what they want legally). I have no qualms over intruders being killed. If there is more information this case (I will admit I have read nothing but the article given by the OP) then I'd reconsider my evaluation. However, if this is a case of someone emptied a clip into an intruder until they were dead to feel safe-- I don't see the issue.

As a gun owner who would kill to defend herself if necessary, statements resembling yours make me second guess whether or not the average person should be allowed to own firearms.

[Deleted]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz303Rw9cFA

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-basement.html

I recommend reading both if you're interested in the case.

Dailymail.

You recommend reading something from the Dailymail? You legit son?

[Themius]

Dailymail.

You recommend reading something from the Dailymail? You legit son?

I posted a dailymail article about this when I made the original topic. It didn't stray or sensationalize the story, some things they get correct.

[The Casualty]

So basically the kids broke into the wrong guys home. How was he to not now that they were armed? Nobody wants to put themselves into the hot seat. What if someone broke into your home? Would you give the the chance to harm you or your family? I wouldn't. Generally if someone breaks into your home they are not their to shake your hand and congratulate you on winning the lotto. It sucks what happened to those kids but they should not have broke into the guys home. You should know the dangers of breaking into someones home.

Again, you are missing the point. As Endus pointed out, even us liberal types are in agreement that as a homeowner trying to protect himself he was in his right to shoot the intruders (as you point out, they could have been armed), multiple times if necessary, to subdue them. The problem is once they are incapacitated, any use of force after that is in cold blood.
Add into that all of the recordings of the act, and the lying in wait to "kill them" as he put it, and it's just so damning.

Had this man shot them until they were subdued, called the police after or before the weapon discharge (hell he could have taunted them all he liked until the police arrived), and even had they even died of their initial wounds - this wouldn't be a news article nor a thread on MMO-C.

[satimy]

This would all be solved if you understood what an opinion is.



Yeah, please explain what felony two incapacitated teens are going to commit as they bleed out on the floor? His entire justification for shooting them is that he already failed to prevent breaking an entry, so presumably he can only prevent them from harming them or taking his stuff, which was already accomplished before he killed them.

Well lets establish some things here

1. Do you agree that he was legally allowed to shoot them?
2. Is your only disagreement that he shot them more than once?

I would probably agree that walking over to a wounder person and shooting them in the head is wrong and should be punished but all the guy is going to say is I saw them reach for something and assumed it was a weapon.

[Deleted]

Well lets establish some things here

1. Do you agree that he was legally allowed to shoot them?
2. Is your only disagreement that he shot them more than once?

I would probably agree that walking over to a wounder person and shooting them in the head is wrong and should be punished but all the guy is going to say is I saw them reach for something and assumed it was a weapon.

I'm pretty sure his disagreement is with the execution of two incapacitated individuals.

[Stop Pretending]

Well lets establish some things here

1. Do you agree that he was legally allowed to shoot them?
2. Is your only disagreement that he shot them more than once?

I would probably agree that walking over to a wounder person and shooting them in the head is wrong and should be punished but all the guy is going to say is I saw them reach for something and assumed it was a weapon.

Except the guy didn't say anything to that effect. He flat out already admitted to executing them. There have been plenty of links to establish this fact, how you keep trying to add details, that have not been mentioned by him/prosecution, is getting old.

[HAcoreRD]

Ok, so....these 2 break into another person's house, person 1 (male) gets shot twice, and executed. Person 2 (girl) goes after person 1 and gets killed in 1 shot(?).

I can see the uproar, as he finished off a 'defenseless' target (person 1). Person 2 for all he (the home owner) could've known, posed a threat still. In America, the judical system is beyond flawed. Wounding them and letting them survive is a guaranteed lawsuit. Seriously, a would be thief can break in, trip and hurt themselves, and sue, and this wouldn't be any different.

In the end, I think between the 2 big choices, wounding or killing, he picked the right one. Hopefully he'll get off, because at the end of the day, these 2 would be thieves would be alive and well if they didn't break the law first and invade another person's home.

Yes, he could've shouted "I got a gun, get out of my house or I'll shoot and/or call the cops", but if he's in the basement that translates to "Hi, I'm down here, close the door, lock and or barricade it, and steal as much crap as you can in 3 minutes and flee."

[satimy]

I disagree that he shot them at all and think he poorly handled the whole situation, but I agree that he had a right to shoot them initially. That he shot them at all is not ideal compared to trying to get a peaceful surrender, but it's at least defensible. Where he clearly overstepped his rights, and the primary point of contention, was when he deliberately acted in a manner not consistent with self-defense to mock and execute them. The law in MN clearly states you must be reasonably afraid of severe harm, which he pretty clearly wasn't. He's not allowed to kill them just because he wants to or to finish them off or whatever. He's only allowed to prevent a felony or neutralize a threat to himself, which was accomplished before they died.

It would depend to me on when the kill shot was fired, if he shot someone 3 times in a short time frame thats different from firing 2 wounding and walking over shooting them in the head, still isn't first degree murder in my mind but it is homicide. But the article the OP linked didn't say that, it just said he "wanted them dead" which would be consistant with someone thats scared when people break into their house. I also find it suspicious that the prosecution claims he wanted it to happen, how did he plan for people to break into his house? The guy could by all means be a scumbag, but in the article that was linked I didn't see any conclusive evidence that he executed anyone, just that he shot intruders. Could you link as to where it says maybe in a different article that the 3rd shot took place well after the first 2?

[Endus]

Also, it's a small detail, but from the articles, it sounds like he probably shot her closer to ten or so times using two different firearms

It's not so small a detail. In criminal cases like this, switching weapons, clearing a misfire, or reloading a weapon are all usually considered to be a point where you re-evaluate the situation. Emptying a gun in panic is arguable. Reloading or switching weapons or the like means it isn't panic or adrenaline, it's intent.

[Stop Pretending]

I'm also having a VERY hard time believing that this girl was laughing at/mocking him. When she decided to come down stairs she has heard the gun shots, and what teenage girl do you know is going to laugh at someone when a gun pointed at them, doesn't fire. I'm also pretty sure she is hysterical at that point, seeing her dead cousin is right the fuck there. This man is a cold individual, and i really cannot wait until prison justice catches up with him.

[Anyael]

I think both sides are in the wrong, and while I would prefer the kids be alive its better that all of them get punished.

[numerius]

If the teenagers didn't illegally break into the house then perhaps they wouldn't of been shot in the first place.

There's a legal way to break into a house?

Defending your home is one thing but I think this guy went beyond "defending". After reading the article, it certainly sounds like it was an ambush and that does not qualify as defending your home imo.

[The Casualty]

Ok, so....these 2 break into another person's house, person 1 (male) gets shot twice, and executed. Person 2 (girl) goes after person 1 and gets killed in 1 shot(?).

I can see the uproar, as he finished off a 'defenseless' target (person 1). Person 2 for all he (the home owner) could've known, posed a threat still. In America, the judical system is beyond flawed. Wounding them and letting them survive is a guaranteed lawsuit. Seriously, a would be thief can break in, trip and hurt themselves, and sue, and this wouldn't be any different.

In the end, I think between the 2 big choices, wounding or killing, he picked the right one. Hopefully he'll get off, because at the end of the day, these 2 would be thieves would be alive and well if they didn't break the law first and invade another person's home.

Yes, he could've shouted "I got a gun, get out of my house or I'll shoot and/or call the cops", but if he's in the basement that translates to "Hi, I'm down here, close the door, lock and or barricade it, and steal as much crap as you can in 3 minutes and flee."

Except that's not how it happened. Here's an excerpt from a news article:

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

Smith said he tried to shoot her again with his Mini 14 rifle, but that the gun jammed and Kifer laughed at him.

"Smith stated that it was not a very long laugh because she was already hurting," according to the complaint.

Smith said he then shot Kifer in the chest several times with a .22-caliber revolver, dragged her next to Brady, and with her still gasping for air, fired a shot under her chin "up into the cranium."

So he had time to shoot her once with a rifle, address a gun jam, switch weapons and shoot her several more times with a revolver, drag her body and then perform a "good clean finishing shot".

To address your other point - Lord, if only it worked that way. Only a moron would trade an altercation and all the possibilities that come with it to protect their "things". Regardless, he was in no duty to warn the perpitrators.

Although Nicholas Brady and Haile Kifer would be alive had they not broke into his home, Byron Smith shares equal part of the burden of the outcome of the events that night. For that, he will be punished, and rightfully so.

[Jaxi]

It amazing to me how many people say the kids got what was coming to them. They were kids who made a dumb mistake and should have been punished by the law, not executed. I thought human life was supposed to be valuable?

I agree, but we still live in a world where there are consequences to your actions. They live in a country where a good deal of individuals own firearms in self-defense, yet they still decided to break into this man's house. Ideally I would have liked them to have been punished by their parents, maybe even the law, but I don't sympathize with people that are completely responsible for their own situation.

[Speaknoevil]

but I don't sympathize with people that are completely responsible for their own situation.

They were not capable of being completely responsible at that age.

[Super Friendly Kitty Cat]

It amazing to me how many people say the kids got what was coming to them. They were kids who made a dumb mistake and should have been punished by the law, not executed. I thought human life was supposed to be valuable?

Uh, your own actions right now posting in this thread is a pretty good indication that you don't think human life is valuable. If you thought it was so valuable, you would actively be doing something, not posting on a sub-forum of a shit-tier MMO game.

[Speaknoevil]

Lashing out at a medium for discourse is silly.

[cubby]

Should be a VERY interesting case. If the article is in any way accurate, this guy will be trying out some good and bad law. Defending your home vs lying in wait for with a trap set.

Granted, the teens had no business breaking in. Period. But his comments are disturbing, to say the least. And, if I'm remembering right from my law school days, there is a general "rule" against setting deadly traps in one's house. But that was awhile ago and it may be either old, bad or irrelevant law at this juncture.