2 teens killed after allegedly breaking into home;

[Rmfcasey]

If the burglary was the felony justification for the defense of dwelling, the crime is ongoing while the burglar is in the dwelling. Therefore the teens were still committing the crime until they were dead.
He may be guilty of not reporting or desecrating a dead body but according to the statute the crime of burglary consists of the initial breaking and entering and continues as long as the burglar is in the dwelling.
Rmfcasey

[gunsmith]

If the burglary was the felony justification for the defense of dwelling, the crime is ongoing while the burglar is in the dwelling. Therefore the teens were still committing the crime until they were dead.
He may be guilty of not reporting or desecrating a dead body but according to the statute the crime of burglary consists of the initial breaking and entering and continues as long as the burglar is in the dwelling.
Rmfcasey

I like this explanation. (but what do I know)

[steve4102]

If the burglary was the felony justification for the defense of dwelling, the crime is ongoing while the burglar is in the dwelling. Therefore the teens were still committing the crime until they were dead.
He may be guilty of not reporting or desecrating a dead body but according to the statute the crime of burglary consists of the initial breaking and entering and continues as long as the burglar is in the dwelling.
Rmfcasey

This is what I thought as well, but I cannot find any MN Legal mumbo-jumbo to support it.

Got any?

[LePetomane]

Gunsmith, It is unfortunate that Dobermans get such a bad rap and are portrayed to be such aggressive animals. Mrs. LePetomane has a friend with two of them and they are some of the nicest dogs I have been around.

[xd ED]

If the burglary was the felony justification for the defense of dwelling, the crime is ongoing while the burglar is in the dwelling. Therefore the teens were still committing the crime until they were dead.
He may be guilty of not reporting or desecrating a dead body but according to the statute the crime of burglary consists of the initial breaking and entering and continues as long as the burglar is in the dwelling.
Rmfcasey

So,
A an armed homeowner confronts a burglar inside his home,
burglar surrenders -raises hands/ lays down on floor, is now passive.
Without further provocation homeowner then shoots burglar several times before he expires
there is audio/ video record of the encounter and shooting.

You expect the DA to not charge, and most juries to acquit of something from manslaughter- -murder?
I am not neccesarily trying to draw a parallel to the current case being discussed, merely a scenario that could occur within the bounds of the law according to the interpretation you offer.
By such an interpretation, one could justly 'kneecap' the burglar, and then continue to shoot him as he could not possibly exit the dwelling.

[steve4102]

So,
A an armed homeowner confronts a burglar inside his home,
burglar surrenders -raises hands/ lays down on floor, is now passive.
Without further provocation homeowner then shoots burglar several times before he expires
there is audio/ video record of the encounter and shooting.

Prolly not, but this is not what happened here.

They were indeed committing a Felony, they did not hold their hands up and surrender, What does MN law say?

[xd ED]

So,
A an armed homeowner confronts a burglar inside his home,
burglar surrenders -raises hands/ lays down on floor, is now passive.
Without further provocation homeowner then shoots burglar several times before he expires
there is audio/ video record of the encounter and shooting.

Prolly not, but this is not what happened here.

They were indeed committing a Felony, they did not hold their hands up and surrender, What does MN law say?

I cannot cite the law. As I wrote, I was responding to the interpretation presented.

You can nuance the hell out of this in order to prove…what?
The fact remains, that this guy's actions will likely leave him broke, homeless(lawyers got to eat to), and unless the jury deems him to have been reasonable,at his age - a life sentence in jail.

[steve4102]

So,
A an armed homeowner confronts a burglar inside his home,
burglar surrenders -raises hands/ lays down on floor, is now passive.
Without further provocation homeowner then shoots burglar several times before he expires
there is audio/ video record of the encounter and shooting.

Prolly not, but this is not what happened here.

They were indeed committing a Felony, they did not hold their hands up and surrender, What does MN law say?

I cannot cite the law. As I wrote, I was responding to the interpretation presented.

You can nuance the hell out of this in order to prove…what?
The fact remains, that this guy's actions will likely leave him broke, homeless(lawyers got to eat to), and unless the jury deems him to have been reasonable,at his age - a life sentence in jail.

I'm not trying to Prove a darn thing. I am just presenting what little facts I know along with some uneducated opinion.

Fact:

609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.
The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.

The "Justifiable Taking of a Life" is clumsy wording and may just get Smith a Get out of Jail Free card. To be clear, it should be changed to "Use of Deadly Force", but for now it does not. It says "Taking of a Life" which is what Smith did.

He did what the statute allowed, he "Killed" two people that were in commission of a Felony in his home.

[Lumpy]

My rule of thumb is "would you be outraged if a cop did the same thing?". If the facts are that he summarily executed two people for B&E when that was unnecessary force, then it's murder.

[steve4102]

My rule of thumb is "would you be outraged if a cop did the same thing?". If the facts are that he summarily executed two people for B&E when that was unnecessary force, then it's murder.

Maybe, but show us MN State Statute that "unnecessary force" is a limiting factor in "Taking of a Life" according to 609.065 as far as Felony Burglary is concerned?

[Mn01r6]

My rule of thumb is "would you be outraged if a cop did the same thing?". If the facts are that he summarily executed two people for B&E when that was unnecessary force, then it's murder.

Maybe, but show us MN State Statute that "unnecessary force" is a limiting factor in "Taking of a Life" according to 609.065 as far as Felony Burglary is concerned?

It is not a statute - it is case law, and it says you have to be reasonable in your actions.

[gunsmith]

My Sticking Point is:

How does the state expect a person to be....REASONABLE.....even for a moment when they discover a younger more powerful Invader with COMPLETELY UNKNOWN INTENT coming at you down the hall.

The Invader is well within the 21 foot Tueller Zone of defenselessness.

Someone with military or self-defense hand to hand training MAY SCORE HIGHER ON A TEST OF ABILITIES in a home invader scenario.....

BUT I'M BEGINNING TO THINK THAT IT IS UNREASONABLE TO EXPECT JOE HOMEOWNER TO BE ABLE TO BE REASONABLE IN WHAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE AN END OF HIS LIFE CHALLENGE.

And we need to adopt Texas's position that:

Just proving that everything is bigger in Texas, our law extends the "Castle Doctrine" beyond your residence to include your occupied vehicle and workplace.
Inside your"castle," under certain circumstances, Texas law presumes you acted reasonably and justifiably if you use force or deadly force to defend yourself against an intruder who enters your occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment. What are the circumstances that will give you this important legal presumption?

The first is where an individual unlawfully and with force, enters or attempts to enter your occupied habitation, vehicle or place of business or employment. The second situation is if an individual unlawfully and with force, removes or attempts to remove you from your occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment.

If you are ever confronted with either of these situations, Texas law will presume that you acted reasonably and were justified in using force or deadly force.


Therefore, in order for you to be convicted of any crime, a prosecutor would have to overcome this presumption in order to prove that you did not act reasonably. Overcoming this presumption is nearly an impossible task in a court of law.

http://www.texasguntalk.com/forums/texa ... 101-a.html

What About People Who are Only Trespassers?

Make sure that you do not fall victim to the common misconception that the Castle Doctrine gives you carte blanche to use deadly force merely because someone is on your property.It does not. Many people think that the law allows you to use deadly force against a mere trespasser. In fact, Texas law says the exact opposite. TexasPenal Code §9.41 allows you to use force, not deadly force, that is reasonably necessary to prevent or terminate another's trespass on your land.

OK, I guess my position is that we need to move to 'the right' and adopt Texas's standard....a presumption of reasonableness reviewed by a grand jury.

https://www.texasfirearmscoalition.com/ ... e-doctrine
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas ... 676412.php

[xd ED]

My Sticking Point is:

How does the state expect a person to be....REASONABLE.....even for a moment when they discover a younger more powerful Invader with COMPLETELY UNKNOWN INTENT coming at you down the hall.

The Invader is well within the 21 foot Tueller Zone of defenselessness.

Someone with military or self-defense hand to hand training MAY SCORE HIGHER ON A TEST OF ABILITIES in a home invader scenario.....

BUT I'M BEGINNING TO THINK THAT IT IS UNREASONABLE TO EXPECT JOE HOMEOWNER TO BE ABLE TO BE REASONABLE IN WHAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE AN END OF HIS LIFE CHALLENGE.

And we need to adopt Texas's position that:

Just proving that everything is bigger in Texas, our law extends the "Castle Doctrine" beyond your residence to include your occupied vehicle and workplace.
Inside your"castle," under certain circumstances, Texas law presumes you acted reasonably and justifiably if you use force or deadly force to defend yourself against an intruder who enters your occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment. What are the circumstances that will give you this important legal presumption?

The first is where an individual unlawfully and with force, enters or attempts to enter your occupied habitation, vehicle or place of business or employment. The second situation is if an individual unlawfully and with force, removes or attempts to remove you from your occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment.

If you are ever confronted with either of these situations, Texas law will presume that you acted reasonably and were justified in using force or deadly force.


Therefore, in order for you to be convicted of any crime, a prosecutor would have to overcome this presumption in order to prove that you did not act reasonably. Overcoming this presumption is nearly an impossible task in a court of law.

http://www.texasguntalk.com/forums/texa ... 101-a.html

What About People Who are Only Trespassers?

Make sure that you do not fall victim to the common misconception that the Castle Doctrine gives you carte blanche to use deadly force merely because someone is on your property.It does not. Many people think that the law allows you to use deadly force against a mere trespasser. In fact, Texas law says the exact opposite. TexasPenal Code §9.41 allows you to use force, not deadly force, that is reasonably necessary to prevent or terminate another's trespass on your land.

OK, I guess my position is that we need to move to 'the right' and adopt Texas's standard....a presumption of reasonableness reviewed by a grand jury.

https://www.texasfirearmscoalition.com/ ... e-doctrine
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas ... 676412.php

The key thought might be that a reasonable response to a large, able bodied aggressor is not the same as a reasonable response to an incapacitated person, with several holes in him, lying on the basement floor, no matter where you are.
Of course all that is ultimately continent on your ability to …'reason'.. with the DA and likely the jury.

[gunsmith]

The key thought might be that a reasonable response to a large, able bodied aggressor is not the same as a reasonable response to an incapacitated person, with several holes in him, lying on the basement floor, no matter where you are.
Of course all that is ultimately continent on your ability to …'reason'.. with the DA and likely the jury.

And....to zoom in to details.....what If I've had 4 shots of Brandy before going to bed...if woken up by the sound of breaking glass and the presence of 2 intruders.......would I have any ability WHAT-SO-EVER to act 'reasonably'

It's my home....the one place where I'm allowed full blown drunkenness.

[Vashjir]

...full blown drunkenness.

The one state when no one, under any circumstances, should be handling a weapon, because you are incapable of acting reasonably.