2 teens killed after allegedly breaking into home;

[gunsmith]

I suggest you move to Texas.

You're one of the best informed guys on this forum....True or False: "Texas citizens can 'do things' that law enforcement can not"

Texas is still a mystery to me....'Things are different in Texas' I know things are different in New York...I used to work in Manhattan and wonder 'What the hell would Times Square be like with hundreds and hundreds of Permit holders"....it leaves me speechless.

[jshuberg]

My point was that if you want Texas style justice, you're going to have to move to Texas.

I'm by no means an expert on Texas firearm or use of force laws, and may be wrong on this, so please someone correct me if I'm wrong.

My understanding is that according to statute, Texas stand your ground laws apply only to self defense. You do not have to retreat, but you cannot advance in self defense unless that is somehow the safer option, or if you are coming to the defense of another. The legal ability to use deadly force to prevent a property crime is still limited to a persons home. According to statute anyway.

However, when someone is charged and has his day in court, the prosecution presents their version of events, and the defense argues theirs. What tends to happen is Texas is that when someone shoots a bad guy in self defense or defense of property, but goes beyond what the law allows and themself commits a crime in doing so, the jury will tend to believe the defense version of events. Even if the version of events presented by the defense seems to defy common sense, a Texas jury will often decide to believe the defense if they see the shooter was a "good guy" who shot a "bad guy".

The law doesn't allow a person to chase after and shoot someone outside the home to prevent a property crime, but a Texas jury may acquit someone who does this despite what the law actually is if they believe the guy was morally in the right. Think of it as jury nullification of the charges.

The effect of this may be interpreted as citizens having additional rights to defend themself or their property beyond what the police have. The police have to adhere to the letter of the law and may not get the same level of sympathy as a non-LEO if he finds himself having to defend his actions in court. Texas juries just tend to respect a person who stands up for himself and defends himself against bad guys. They are willing to forgive an otherwise good guy who breaks the law in standing up to a criminal. It's a very Texas specific phenomenon, as I don't see the same type thing happening much anywhere else.

It's not that Texas laws are significantly different than other places, it's that Texas juries tend to nullify criminal charges against a person protecting himself or his property and who crosses the line in doing so.

If this incident were to have happened in Texas, I still think that he would most likely be found guilty. You just can't assassinate an already downed and injured burglar as punishment for breaking into your home. Even in Texas I think that it would be really hard to sell to a jury.

[gunsmith]

The law doesn't allow a person to chase after and shoot someone outside the home to prevent a property crime, but a Texas jury may acquit someone who does this despite what the law actually is if they believe the guy was morally in the right. Think of it as jury nullification of the charges.

The effect of this may be interpreted as citizens having additional rights to defend themself or their property beyond what the police have. The police have to adhere to the letter of the law and may not get the same level of sympathy as a non-LEO if he finds himself having to defend his actions in court. Texas juries just tend to respect a person who stands up for himself and defends himself against bad guys. They are willing to forgive an otherwise good guy who breaks the law in standing up to a criminal. It's a very Texas specific phenomenon, as I don't see the same type thing happening much anywhere else.

It's not that Texas laws are significantly different than other places, it's that Texas juries tend to nullify criminal charges against a person protecting himself or his property.

Emphasis Mine.

Good points. I'd say offer to write an Op-Ed for the Strib but save it for a better case.

The Houston Chronicle article that I cited mentioned that Grand Jury proceedings are secret and therefore little insight into what goes on was available. The Joe Horn No Bill verdict was a surprise but maybe not in Texas.

The Little Falls teen shooting is just an ugly mess....can't wait for that to be over....So....the jury of 7 gets to slide the lever from Intentional 1st degree with no parole to 4 years for manslaughter. I'd bet the Minnesota Jury does something just under 'Splitting the difference'

The fact that he has a 'bad dye job' on his hair makes me doubt him a little.

[gunsmith]

Defense rests.
Jury instructions this afternoon.
Closing arguments Tuesday AM
Verdict by Wed 4:00 pm
Manslaughter

609.195 MURDER IN THE THIRD DEGREE.
(a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.

609.205 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both:

609.20 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE FIRST DEGREE.
Whoever does any of the following is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 15 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $30,000, or both:

(1) intentionally causes the death of another person in the heat of passion provoked by such words or acts of another as would provoke a person of ordinary self-control under like circumstances, provided that the crying of a child does not constitute provocation;

(2) violates section 609.224 and causes the death of another or causes the death of another in committing or attempting to commit a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor offense with such force and violence that death of or great bodily harm to any person was reasonably foreseeable, and murder in the first or second degree was not committed thereby;

(3) intentionally causes the death of another person because the actor is coerced by threats made by someone other than the actor's coconspirator and which cause the actor reasonably to believe that the act performed by the actor is the only means of preventing imminent death to the actor or another;

(4) proximately causes the death of another, without intent to cause death by, directly or indirectly, unlawfully selling, giving away, bartering, delivering, exchanging, distributing, or administering a controlled substance classified in Schedule III, IV, or V; or

(5) causes the death of another in committing or attempting to commit a violation of section 609.377 (malicious punishment of a child), and murder in the first, second, or third degree is not committed thereby.

As used in this section, a "person of ordinary self-control" does not include a person under the influence of intoxicants or a controlled substance.

http://www.mncriminaldefenseblog.com/vo ... a-law.html

Voluntary & Involuntary Manslaughter Under Minnesota Law

In Minnesota, manslaughter is defined as the killing of a person in a manner less culpable than murder. The relevant manslaughter statutes differentiate the seriousness of the offense based upon the state of mind of the defendant at the time of the killing. Manslaughter may be voluntary or involuntary under Minnesota law.

In a voluntary manslaughter situation, the perpetrator must have an intent to cause death or serious injury. Liability for the death, however, may be reduced in light of the specific circumstances surrounding the actions and the state of mind of the individual who is charged. For example, a "heat of passion" killing (such as responding with deadly force upon witnessing an abusive act upon a child) may involve a voluntary manslaughter charge.

With involuntary manslaughter (sometimes involving negligent or criminal vehicular homicide) no intent to kill or cause serious injury is necessary. Instead, the death of another may result from reckless disregard for the rights and safety of others – such as causing the death of a driver in a motor vehicle accident.

Under the Minnesota manslaughter statutes there are three types of manslaughter charges:
First Degree Manslaughter
Second Degree Manslaughter
Criminal Vehicular Homicide and Injury

[Mn01r6]

You forgot the one he is guilty of:

609.19 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
Subdivision 1.Intentional murder; drive-by shootings. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:
(1) causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation

If it wasn't macabre, I would offer to make a friendly wager on the verdict.

[BigBlue]

Verdict reached. In a very small amount of time. I've got a guess what it will be...

Apologies for the Red Star link...

http://www.startribune.com/local/257169671.html

[xd ED]

Guilty of 2 counts of 1st degree murder, per ch 5/ kstp

[MNGunGuy]

Guilty of 2 counts of 1st degree murder, per ch 5/ kstp

Which means life without the possibility of release given the premeditation.

[Nougat]

I don't like how the story starts with he waited at the bottom of the stairs. what was he supposed to do hire a guard to do the same? would that have made it ok?

I guess thats not where he really went wrong to be found guilty though? that wording just seems like a push toward not being allowed to defend domicile to me though

[bstrawse]

No one should be surprised that he was found guilty. Once the facts were known, this outcome and conviction was exactly what a reasonable person should have seen coming....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TomS]

From Twitter

"My son died horribly, and for nothing," His mother said. http://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bma04-5CQAAlCxi.jpg

I don't think home invasion is "nothing"

[greenfarmer]

I really don't like how the fish wrap factory describes it... They call it premeditated because he had guns loaded and ready.

We'll I'm sorry, but if I have a gun loaded, in my house, next to my bed, and I know if someone breaks in and threatens someone in my family, and I shoot him. Is that premeditated then because I already know what I would do?

Are they saying that every gun of mine should be locked up in the same, and when someone breaks in and tries to harm someone in my family, that I'm supposed to blow my whistle, call for a time out, tell the assailant that I'm going to now run to my safe, take out a weapon, then run to my ammo stash, load a mag, then run back to my original position, and whistle again and yell out game on and continue where we left off?

What a joke! Yes, he's guilty.. But if the police would have done something after the initial break ins, maybe their own surveillance, or something like that, it wouldn't have come to this.

I guess I now have a new way to protect my home. It involves a weapon, excavator, can of gas, and a match. Obviously it doesn't pay to report it. Because obviously if you plan to protect your home no matter what they can call that premeditated murder! If you load your weapon in advance of shooting someone that broke in, it's premeditated according to their definition of it.

He's guilty of murder. I do agree with that. He took it to far. He didn't need to kill them. Atleast he didn't need to put so many bullets into them. And the audio of what he says during the process hurt his case. But I feel this case is a joke. That's the definition of premeditated murder, we'll that just opened it up for criminals then to break in. Once they break in, and you have a gun by your bed, and loaded, they already have you for premeditated attempted murder. What a joke!

[BigBlue]

Agree with greenfarmer. Smith is guilty, but a lot of the wording and the terminology stinks. It should be made abundantly clear that he is guilty of shooting the perps after the immediate threat from them ceased, nothing more.

It really sucks the way they say "the kids were killed for nothing". Home invasion is not nothing.

BB

[hunterfreakhd]

It really sucks the way they say "the kids were killed for nothing". Home invasion is not nothing.

BB

I agree of course the media always puts up his mug shot next to two very nice pictures of the home invaders. I wasn't there and have no clue what really went down but the media always spins it so the"gun owners" look like the criminals.

[farmerj]

Man 1 sure. Premeditated... I'd say the media twisted this one good. Would have been interesting to sit in the gallery