2 teens killed after allegedly breaking into home;

[greenfarmer]

I think a lot of this was the parents not parenting. The jury siding with the sympathetic side of the families.

The whole "premeditated" murder just burns me. It flat out chaps my butt. The way they are stating it. (and granted the fishwrap factory can really misconstrue things) they are basically saying that you can't protect your family and home from basically anything. Basically they are telling the criminals that read it, to go and steal anything they want, because the homeowner can't protect his home and family. So when you go and break into someones house, the homeowner better step to the side, let you do your business, and walk out. If he pulls a gun on you and it's loaded, it's basically "premeditated"... That's what the fishwrap factory is saying. And that's just terrible!

I have a feeling that there's going to be a point when the old joke of "shoot, shovel, shut up" actually does come into play. A guy shouldn't laugh about it. But, when you sit back and think about it, it probably is your best thing you could do if you want to make sure your protecting your family and home. Because the way it reads, if you have that weapon ready, and are prepared to shoot someone that puts your family in harms way inside of your home, basically it's premeditated murder.

"Efforts were made to obfuscate what this was and turn it into some type of referendum about being able to protect one’s home, Orput said.

“This was a case about where the limits are,” Sheriff Michel Wetzel said in news conference after the verdicts."

A case about what and where the limits are? So the limits are saying if your gun is loaded it's premeditated!

"In closing arguments Tuesday, Orput hammered home the idea that Smith, 65, plotted the killings of the intruders as they descended his basement steps about 10 minutes apart on that fateful Thanksgiving Day in 2012. After repeated break-ins to his home and his adjacent property throughout that fall, Smith set up an ambush, the prosecutor argued.

His gun was loaded; he moved his truck from his garage; he got a book, food and water, as he waited at the bottom of his basement steps. All of that points to premeditation, Orput said."

Yep, you can't have your gun loaded to protect your family and home!

[xd ED]

The jury convicted him, not strib readers.
The prosecutor did his job well, and didn't have a lot to work against. The guy's extraordinary actions were the most damning evidence.
Keeping a loaded gun at hand is one thing. Starting out by setting up - as the prosecutor said " a deer stand " in his basement, and then shooting, execution style while recording the event….hard not to see some premeditation there.

[jshuberg]

The guilty verdict was obvious under MN law. It shouldn't surprise anyone, and it was well deserved.

The reason that Smith was guilty is the same reason that George Zimmerman was innocent. The reason was that there were multiple, distinct encounters that comprised the entirety of the incident. In the case of Zimmerman, following Martin was perfectly legal, and did not violate being a reluctant participant, as no violence had yet been introduced. Once violence was introduced, a new encounter began, where deadly force was justified under FL law.

In this situation with Smith and the burglars, there were also two distinct encounters. In the first encounter, Smith was justified in shooting in self defense and/or defense of dwelling. However, where Smith went wrong was that after the girl was injured and down, and the threat had been stopped, he continued to shoot with the intent of killing her. That was wrong, both legally and morally. Once he became aware that the threat had ended, he was no longer justified in shooting. You cannot shoot with the intent to kill a person, you can only shoot with the intent to stop the threat.

In fact if memory serves, he told the cops that after she was down that he put his gun under her chin and made a "finishing shot". That shot was unnecessary, it was premeditated in that he intended to kill her when it wasn't necessary, and it was the shot that killed her. He committed murder.

Were the burglars that broke into his home innocent? Absolutely not. Could the situation have happened where they both died of their wounds and he would have been justified? Absolutely, if they died from the shots that were necessary to end the threat. However, killing them when they were down and no longer a threat isn't justified, and constitutes murder.

The jury got it right. The strib (as expected) completely got it wrong and misreported why it was that he was guilty, but he was guilty nonetheless.

[LePetomane]

I'm sure the champagne is flowing at Protect Minnesota Command Center.

[Nougat]

premeditated? yeah he noticed that his property was being violated ''often'' then once he was ready? should he have been sleeping instead so he could have been killed if the intruders felt like it?

once again I'll say I don't like it but I just hope it was more because of not just defending himself but more about dragging the intruders around and stuff after disabling them and then executing them.

I kind of feel that they signed all their rights away when they broke in and everyone with the over nothing opinion needs some quality company so they could learn about what not having that feeling of security feels like? this guy was obviously not feeling safe on his own property and the dismissive comments from the police sort of making it sound like he was more guilty for not abandoning his propery or something because he knew there were break ins because he reported them?

gaa I'll just tell myself I don't know enough about it.... but the news blecch, propaganda is right? isn't it supposed to be ''just the facts'' with a couple ''opinion pieces'' here and there

[Rodentman]

I think "just the facts" went out with Walter Cronkite, maybe before that. Maybe it went out with Huntley/Brinkley. I can't watch the "news" anymore. 30 min newscast has 12 minutes of commercials for Rx drugs and Depends. I DVR "Nurse Jackie" and "Californication" and watch those in place of the "news." The Rodentwoman thinks those shows ARE the news. Bless her!

[jshuberg]

There is plenty of case law that demonstrates that it is lawful to shoot someone for breaking into your home. Don't consider this case to be any sort of loss of our rights to defend ourselves or our homes, it isn't. This case doesn't change existing law at all. All this case does is reinforce the fact that once the threat has been stopped, that any further use of force is no longer necessary or justified, and therefore is no longer considered self defense or defense of property.

[xd ED]

There is plenty of case law that demonstrates that it is lawful to shoot someone for breaking into your home. Don't consider this case to be any sort of loss of our rights to defend ourselves or our homes, it isn't. This case doesn't change existing law at all. All this case does is reinforce the fact that once the threat has been stopped, that any further use of force is no longer necessary or justified, and therefore is no longer considered self defense or defense of property.

Had Smith been acquitted, I suspect much of what you just said would be subject to change. As most do not understand, and confuse Castle Doctrine, Stand Your Ground, and Defense of Dwelling, while the media and most politicians do little other than obfuscate the issues, there would have been an outcry to further restrict the use of deadly force in defense of one's self and home, as the antis seized the bully pipit.

[Mn01r6]

There is plenty of case law that demonstrates that it is lawful to shoot someone for breaking into your home. Don't consider this case to be any sort of loss of our rights to defend ourselves or our homes, it isn't. This case doesn't change existing law at all. All this case does is reinforce the fact that once the threat has been stopped, that any further use of force is no longer necessary or justified, and therefore is no longer considered self defense or defense of property.

Had Smith been acquitted, I suspect much of what you just said would be subject to change. As most do not understand, and confuse Castle Doctrine, Stand Your Ground, and Defense of Dwelling, while the media and most politicians do little other than obfuscate the issues, there would have been an outcry to further restrict the use of deadly force in defense of one's self and home, as the antis seized the bully pipit.

That is the most astute observation in this thread. Guilty verdicts for guilty people preserves the defenses we have for those that truly deserve them.

[greenfarmer]

so if there was no recording. none whatsoever. And he shot the boy 3-4 times quickly, and then fired several into (6 I believe), as fast as he could. Then both layed there dead.

Would he still be guilty?

Would he still remain guilty because he shot and defended his home?

Or guilty because the amount of times he shot them?

The thing is, he should be guilty because he wrapped them into the canvas. Because he "finished her off" after she was already down.

He shouldn't be guilty because he moved his truck, or because it was "premeditated" because he had his gun loaded and ready just in case. He shouldn't be guilty because he shot those two CRIMINALS. He should be guilty because of the manner in which he finished them off, and in a way made a mockery of them in the manner it was done.

That's what should have been explained better by the jury. Because the way the news reports it, now every criminal out there is thinking they have a chance to steal again, and do bad things because they feel they don't have to worry as much about what the homeowner can do.

[xd ED]

I can't second guess the jury, but it would seem Smith's chances of spending tonight at home would have greatly improved had he immediately summoned the police, and rendered aid, once the burglars hit the floor.
The jury did the right thing, quite possibly for the right reason.
I'm not sure they are obligated to explain their decision, and even if a message had been sent, bad guys, being bad guys, will do bad stuff, regardless of the law.

[Bearcatrp]

It should be appealed. Check this link at kstp. Scroll down to bottom and read what the judge EXCLUDED from the trial.
http://kstp.com/news/stories/S3417138.shtml?cat=1
WHY?

[gunsmith]

Potentially Dumb Question:

Why wasn't this televised? Even on Cable.

Seeing the Zimmerman trial you looked through the lens of the camera as if you were on trial and saw that Battle Axe of a Witch judge rule unfairly against Zimmermans lawyers.

This is my favorite photo from the trial:

[MNGunGuy]

It should be appealed. Check this link at kstp. Scroll down to bottom and read what the judge EXCLUDED from the trial.
http://kstp.com/news/stories/S3417138.shtml?cat=1
WHY?

What about past break-ins or any other wrong doings the two teens did changes the definition of murder or makes it justifiable?

[jshuberg]

Both sides acknowledged the two were burglars. Evidence of that doesn't make any difference in whether Smith killing them, after they were already down and injured was justified.

I really don't understand the defense wanting to present it. If anything it shows he wasn't acting in the moment to prevent the current crime, but as punishment for the previous burglaries. If anything it would actually bolster the prosecutions argument that this was a revenge killing.

He should have pled guilty to a lesser charge in hopes of ever seeing the outside of a prison ever again. The case against him was damn near air tight.