2 teens killed after allegedly breaking into home;

[20mm]

This guy is going away for life. Not because he shot some felons in his home, but rather because he's a psychopath and his actions were recorded on video tape.

[TomS]

A trial date has been set for Monday, April 21 in the case of the state versus Byron David Smith of Little Falls.

http://mcrecord.com/tag/byron-david-smith/

[my1stpistol]

http://www.startribune.com/local/182840451.html

Court documents show a Little Falls man accused of fatally shooting two teenagers had a surveillance system that recorded video of the cousins as they broke into his home Thanksgiving Day.

The St. Cloud Times reports (http://on.sctimes.com/Z5KILg) that search warrants reveal 64-year-old Byron David Smith also made an audio recording of the shootings. Smith is charged with murdering Nick Brady and Haile Kifer.

Woah!

After reading this it sounds more like he WAS just waiting for someone to break in again so he could ambush them.

[TomS]

Trial started yesterday.

http://www.startribune.com/local/255975891.html

http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/25294685/self-defense-vs-murder-strategies-at-play-in-little-falls

For the prosecution, it's not the break-in -- but the breakdown of events afterward -- that could close the case.
"The emphasis is going to be on what took place after they were already shot,"

The break-in will be the focal point for the defense, . . . the fact that the trial is in a rural area will be an asset for that argument. "A lot of times, you'll see defendants trying to move their trials," . . . "This is a case, I think, they wanted to have in a rural area because you have a lot of cabin owners and homeowners who do feel vulnerable out in the rural areas in which they live."

The jury is comprised of half men, half women, and at least one NRA member.

[BigBlue]

It will be very interesting to see how it plays out. I think he is probably guilty simply because he shot them after they were down. Threat was over. The fact he had time to put them on a tarp and drag them away before the final shot means he could easily have checked them for weapons and/or tied them up and then called 911. I can't see how any jury would be able to feel his actions were reasonable throughout the situation. If he is found innocent it will give the antis more fuel to their push against stand-your-ground.

BB

[jshuberg]

If he is found innocent it will give the antis more fuel to their push against stand-your-ground.

We don't have stand-your-ground right now. Even if we did, it wouldn't apply since this happened in his home, where there is already no duty to retreat. No one will argue that a non-existant law in an inapplicable circumstance has anything to do with this.

And I agree, the guy was in the wrong. It's possible that an extremely good lawyer might be able to get him off (OJ Simpson, etc), but from my chair he is both morally and legally guilty of murder. He was no longer defending himself or his home after he stopped the threat.

[bstrawse]

Keep in mind the argument that Heather Martens from ProtectMN used in 2012 before the state legislature (unsuccessfully) about stand your ground:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90RSHllMnWE

[jshuberg]

She's going to cackle about guns being evil no matter what happens. My point is that a reasonable person can't blame a law that doesn't exist for allowing someone to commit murder. By the same reasoning she could blame Santa Claus for this guys actions. Which is pretty much where Heather Martens already is.....

[BigBlue]

If he is found innocent it will give the antis more fuel to their push against stand-your-ground.

We don't have stand-your-ground right now. Even if we did, it wouldn't apply since this happened in his home, where there is already no duty to retreat. No one will argue that a non-existant law in an inapplicable circumstance has anything to do with this.

And I agree, the guy was in the wrong. It's possible that an extremely good lawyer might be able to get him off (OJ Simpson, etc), but from my chair he is both morally and legally guilty of murder. He was no longer defending himself or his home after he stopped the threat.

OK, wrong wording. I meant against using a weapon in self defense.

[MNGunGuy]

It's possible that an extremely good lawyer might be able to get him off (OJ Simpson, etc), but from my chair he is both morally and legally guilty of murder. He was no longer defending himself or his home after he stopped the threat.

Doesn't he have one of the best criminal lawyers in MN? Even with the best I'd guess it's going to be pretty hard to get a jury to look past his own words while he was acting the way he did.

Gun shots are heard again, as well as the sound of Haile Kifer falling. Smith quickly says “Oh, sorry about that.”

“Oh my god! Oh” Kifer screams.

“You’re dying,” Smith responds amid more gunshots. “Bitch.”

[Bearcatrp]

Am not going to comment on whether he is innocent or guilty. Thats the juries job. My question though is, what is the law in minnesota in reguards to shooting a burglar inside your own home? We don't have stand your ground law and we don't have the castle law. So are we to leave the house for the intruder to do as they please? I don't know what the law is so am asking.

[farmerj]

MN high Courts have decisions both ways.

[jshuberg]

There is a lot of misunderstanding on this. We don't have castle doctrine by statute, but we do have it by case law. There are two justifications for using deadly force in a persons home - self defense and defense of dwelling. The MN supreme court has established that neither of these defenses require a duty to retreat:

We agree that when acting in self-defense in the home, a person should not be required to retreat from the home before using reasonable force to defend himself, regardless of whether the aggressor is also rightfully in the home.   Thus we adopt the following rule:  There is no duty to retreat from one's own home when acting in self-defense in the home, regardless of whether the aggressor is a co-resident.   But the lack of a duty to retreat does not abrogate the obligation to act reasonably when using force in self-defense.   Therefore, in all situations in which a party claims self-defense, even absent a duty to retreat, the key inquiry will still be into the reasonableness of the use of force and the level of force under the specific circumstances of each case.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mn-supreme-c ... 72291.html

A duty to retreat does not attach to defense of dwelling claims. So long as a person claiming defense of dwelling meets all of the criteria for making his or her claim – that the killing was done in the belief that it was necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling, that the person's judgment as to the gravity of the situation was reasonable under the circumstances, and that the person's election to defend his or her dwelling was such as a reasonable person would have made in light of the danger to be apprehended – the person need not have attempted to retreat from his or her home.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/MNSP ... efense.pdf

[bstrawse]

Am not going to comment on whether he is innocent or guilty. Thats the juries job. My question though is, what is the law in minnesota in reguards to shooting a burglar inside your own home? We don't have stand your ground law and we don't have the castle law. So are we to leave the house for the intruder to do as they please? I don't know what the law is so am asking.

MN 609.06 - Reasonable Force
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.06

MN 609.065 - Justifiable Taking of Life

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.

In addition to the two cases jshuberg references, there is also State v. Pendleton in which the court held that fear of death or great bodily harm is not an element of a "defense of dwelling" claim.
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archi ... 952162.htm


The key element in this case is that there's an obvious threat with the two individuals in the home. He used deadly force, likely lawfully, to repel that threat - but his actions after that threat was ended went *way* over the line based on my understanding of the facts.

[bstrawse]

MN high Courts have decisions both ways.

What cases other than the two jshuberg referenced and the one I referenced are you referring to?
b