2 teens killed after allegedly breaking into home;

[Mn01r6]

Because he was shooting to stop the commission if a (violent) felony and when the threat of that violent felony being committed no longer existed, it would no longer be reasonable to keep shooting.

[gunsmith]

Because he was shooting to stop the commission if a (violent) felony and when the threat of that violent felony being committed no longer existed, it would no longer be reasonable to keep shooting.

I am a bit pissed that the judge has NOT ALLOWED the defense to present a firearms expert....a reasonable juror would benefit from that testimony.

Massad Ayoob, is brilliant. I don't think his field experience comes from time in the military but as a state trooper and I've listened in rapt attention everytime he is on the radio. He was approached for the Zimmerman case but for some reason was not a part of the trial.

His assessment of the Zimmerman trial on his blog made a week after the vertict is the best I've read.

This will get you started: https://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadA ... ct-part-1/

THE ZIMMERMAN VERDICT, PART 1
Saturday, July 13th, 2013

Minutes ago as I write this, justice has triumphed in a courtroom in Sanford, Florida. I wish to congratulate six brave, honest, intelligent jurors. And two fine defense lawyers. And the honest cops and witnesses who testified, and the many who contributed to the defense fund for a wrongfully accused armed citizen.

Several blog followers have asked me why I haven’t written here (or spoken anywhere) on this, the most important armed citizen case of our time. The answer is this:

I did write on it once, on Friday, March 23, 2012. The following day, I received a phone call from Craig Sonner, George Zimmerman’s original legal counsel, to retain me on the case as an expert witness for the defense.

The weeks wore on. Attorney and client parted ways. I was subsequently contacted by Mark O’Mara, the new defense lawyer. Late in May of 2012, I met with him in his office, along with his co-counsel Don West. I also attended the bail hearing in which Zimmerman’s bond was revoked. During the hearing, TV cameras swept the courtroom. Some folks saw that, recognized me, and apparently assumed I was involved with the case.

In fact, I don’t take expert witness cases until I’ve seen all the evidence, and the prosecution was extremely slow in providing that. I wound up not being involved. However, having been retained by one of the defendant’s lawyers and consulted with another, I felt bound by confidentiality and did not think it would be professional to comment directly on the matter from then on.

I’ve been biting my tongue ever since, because there was much that I wanted to say.

The verdict is now in, and I’m gonna smooth those teethmarks off my tongue, and in the next few entries here will discuss some elements of the Zimmerman case which have been widely and profoundly misunderstood.

In the meantime, to get the commentary and analysis of the case that most of the mainstream media denied you, go to the excellent day by day writing of Andrew Branca, an attorney who specializes in this sort of case, at http://www.legalinsurrection.com.

Your commentary is more than welcome here.

[steve4102]

Because he was shooting to stop the commission if a (violent) felony and when the threat of that violent felony being committed no longer existed, it would no longer be reasonable to keep shooting.

Is Burglary considered a "Violent" Felony? Duno, just askin.

[gunsmith]

Gunsmith,

Thanks for the pictures of the Doberman Pinschers. They are beautiful dogs.

I used to have a towing company tow cars for me. They also yanked cars from posted parking lots and owners would show up at the office facing a $$$$ hefty towing bill. They had a plexiglass protected office area w/ cash window. I had the occasion to talk casually with the owners and they had a PAIR of Dobermans...with the cut tail and trimmed ears. And I observed them on numerous occasions

I don't think it's just training but those dogs had a very specific temperament. Strictly obedient to the boss, very perceptive / intelligent with a clear idea of Friend/Foe. And a frightfully intimidating physique... a 100 pound 4 legged meatgrinder. AND the fact that there were TWO of them more than doubled the effect. They obviously had been thoroughly trained as the would hold a position watching the boss for a signal even though you could see their eagerness to act...no leash either.

It's like the two of them were enforcing 'Peace Through Strength'
(Reagan Doctrine) vs Obama Doctrine (weakness breeds agression)

The overwhelming display of strength of the dual Dobermans surely saved the owners confrontation with unhappy campers.

Haven't seen a Doberman in 20 years....could be behind the scenes the insurance companies are seriously penalizing the possession of certain breeds.







A Tommy Gun and a Doberman...This guy is ready for the Japanese.



Appropriate Chew Toy:


Hold on to your Gonads:


http://www.amazon.com/War-Dogs-Pacific- ... B001FAXM1I

Anyway one of Smith's friends should have just told him to 'Get a Dog'

[Randygmn]

prosecutor....
"Your first shot killed the attacker, why did you shoot him 15 times?"

Defendent...
"because my magazine doesn't hold 16 rounds."

If you TELL them that you practice the mozambique drill, they WILL nail you. You PRACTICED what you would do.

The correct answer, shut up and let your lawyer answer. Past that, "I was afraid for my life and shot to stop the action." End of answer, rinse and repeat.

I actually 'practice' 'Talking to the police' ....'Biting one's Tongue' after making the 'I feared for my LIfe' statement is important.

'Never Talk To The Police' 'Never Talk To The Police' 'Never Talk To The Police' 'Never Talk To The Police' 'Never Talk To The Police' 'Never Talk To The Police' 'Never Talk To The Police' 'Never Talk To The Police' 'Never Talk To The Police' 'Never Talk To The Police' 'Never Talk To The Police' 'Never Talk To The Police' 'Never Talk To The Police' 'Never Talk To The Police'

Nice reminder time...

Brutal

[jshuberg]

A felony does not need to be a violent crime in order for defense of dwelling to apply. If any crime were committed in the dwelling after the original trespass, the crime is elevated to felony burglary. It's MN's version of a home invasion statute.

A person is legally authorized to use deadly force to prevent a felony occurring in their home, provided no lesser force would suffice at preventing the crime.

However, once the threat of the crime (in this case burglary) is eliminated, any further use of force is no longer lawful. Once the crime has been stopped, the homeowners use of force must also stop.

This being said, it's ridiculously stupid to shoot someone over a property crime. The legal fees will likely completely overshadow the value of anything stolen. Not to mention time in jail, the risk of the loss of job/friends/spouse, etc. and the fact that immunity from civil liability only exists for self defense, not defense if dwelling. If you shoot someone over a property crime, expect the bad guy or their next if kin will sue you and could end up with everything you own, not just the few trinkets involved in the original burglary.

When this piece of garbage shot the girl after he had already stopped the burglary, it was murder. Plain and simple. At least according to the facts as I understand them.

[steve4102]

When this piece of garbage shot the girl after he had already stopped the burglary, it was murder. Plain and simple. At least according to the facts as I understand them.

Maybe so, but the ME testimony indicates that both of them were not "Incapacitated" until Smith delivered the "kill shots. Those shots would be #3 for him and #5 for her. When Smith delivered #6 to her, she was already dead.

[Mn01r6]

A felony does not need to be a violent crime in order for defense of dwelling to apply.

They still have to act reasonably as determined by a jury in a defense of dwelling case. I don't have faith that a mn jury would say you acted reasonably if you killed someone preventing a felony property crime if you weren't in reasonable fear of your life. We tend to value life over property here, unlike, say, Texas.

[gunsmith]

Is this trial being televised?

Watching the Zimmerman trial you got a very clear idea what AN IGNORANT PIG the judge was.

[jshuberg]

A felony does not need to be a violent crime in order for defense of dwelling to apply.

They still have to act reasonably as determined by a jury in a defense of dwelling case. I don't have faith that a mn jury would say you acted reasonably if you killed someone preventing a felony property crime if you weren't in reasonable fear of your life. We tend to value life over property here, unlike, say, Texas.

The MN Supreme Court has established case law specifically stating that fear of great bodily injury or death is not a requirement of a defense of dwelling claim. There have been numerous subsequent cases that have used this standard.

Also, whether or not a bad guy has been incapacitated plays absolutely no role in whether a shooting was legal or not. If the threat of great bodily harm or death ends for any reason, a person cannot continue to use deadly force in self defense. Likewise once the felony is no longer being performed for any reason, a person cannot continue to use deadly force in defense of dwelling.

Trespassing is not a felony. You can only use deadly force to stop a felony, in this case burglary. The moment that the girl stopped engaging in burglary, he was required under law to cease using deadly force. He was also required under law to provide aid to the shooting victims, either directly himself or by calling 911 and requesting an ambulance. Not only did he not provide aid, he killed the girl after she ceased being an active burglar.

Even if a good guy shoots a bad guy, and he immediately dies as the result of his wounds, the good guy should call 911 and request an ambulance. Doing so supports the position that the use of deadly force was to prevent the crime, and not that it was your intent to kill the bad guy.

[Mn01r6]

A felony does not need to be a violent crime in order for defense of dwelling to apply.

They still have to act reasonably as determined by a jury in a defense of dwelling case. I don't have faith that a mn jury would say you acted reasonably if you killed someone preventing a felony property crime if you weren't in reasonable fear of your life. We tend to value life over property here, unlike, say, Texas.

The MN Supreme Court has established case law specifically stating that fear of great bodily injury or seat is not a requirement of a defense of dwelling claim.

I didn't say that fear of great bodily injury or death was a requirement. I said the requirement was that you act reasonably under the circumstances.

[jshuberg]

That's true, and shooting someone for a property crime is an incredibly bad idea.

However from a strictly legal standpoint, using deadly force to prevent a home invasion style burglary has been determined multiple times by juries to be reasonable. In contrast, shooting your roommate for felony tax evasion would be something that would almost certainly be considered an unreasonable level of force for the crime being committed. The intent of defense of dwelling is that you can defend your home and it's contents against an intruder that threatens it with a felony crime, such as burglary, arson, etc.

I agree though that the further away the scenario gets from an obvious claim of self defense, the more you're rolling the dice that a jury isn't going to be looking for a way to convict you.

[gunsmith]

I want to believe in:

THE SALVO DOCTRINE

The definition will be fine tuned but basically either 4 shots (two controlled pairs / double taps...whatever) or a full mag dump equals: ............................ 1 'shot'

Above I posted the explanation by Jeff Cooper of the Mozambique Drill. He describes Double Tap vs Controlled pair and how the actual Double Tap with the same entry point and sight picture would amplify the shock of the 2 rounds into a greater effect than just a controlled pair.

Generating more shock from your 9mm bullet...as if it were larger caliber at higher velocity causing greater trauma.

This is tedious detail but I was in a shoot out once and I know there will be no possibility of 'thinking' on the spot....my actions will be what I practice.

And right now it's:

In the Home: Full magazine center mass: 14 rounds of 45 Hollowpoint with 2 additional magazines at the ready.

On the Street: Boom/Boom...Boom/Boom and then 'try to think'. (4 remaining rounds) (2 spare 7 round 9mm mags on body)

That's exactly what transpired when I was mugged.

Knocked to the ground / in 'sucker punch' fashion.
Realized Sh!t had hit the fan
Fired four shots in the direction of the BG
STOPPED TO GET MY BEARINGS
Aimed carefully with laser at BG's head, then his shoulder and then heart (still laying on my back on the ground)
Pulled the trigger carefully just once.
Bullet entered his chest about 2 inches to his right of center line at nipple level.
He was in his truck and fled
while still on the ground I fired my remaining 2 shots into his right (passenger side) rear quarter panel.
That was a 'crazed' attempt to push him and his SUV away
(I guess that was 'baby-thinking' or 'crazy thinking'...I wanted the muzzle flash and the loud bang to push him away)

This ad for Viridian laser is the closest illustration to the action I could find...I was tangled up in my bike as well.

Bottom Line:
What I want to be able to distill from the Smith Trial and Verdict is what are the 'Reasonable expectations in a defensive use of deadly force' so I can adjust If necessary, my defensive firearm training.

I know from experience 'Thinking' will not be possible.

[texasprowler]

It is sad to see the teen drug epidemic with many reports of burglarized homes all over southern MN. Your cozy, safe way of life with unlocked doors is soon coming to an end.

The best thing I see here is an innocent verdict to send a strong message to all would be intruders "DONT DO IT".

And I keep lots of warning signs like CHAINSAW GASSED AND READY, DOUBLE DARE YOU.

[gunsmith]

Maybe he should have just tossed the bodies in his freezer and dealt with them next year.

He'd still be enjoying his retirement.