Posted on 11/27/2012 7:59:37 AM PST by Uncle Chip
Apologists are so cute.
Guess how many 9-11s I had called in against my beater hubby before the cops actually did something (by arresting ME - 4’11 vs 6’4, but who’s counting).
And our local keystones refused to admit they had police reports until my dear mummy provided case numbers, pictures and cop names “Oh, THOSE reports...” Yeah, we misplaced THOSE....
Uh HUH. Spare me. Dog killing, lazy-assed cops who can’t wait to get their names in the papers. Facts only matter when the TRUTH bitch slaps them. F’em all. where do I send money to the defense fund in MN?
Hold on a second, the only report that these two actually broke into the house is from the guy who executed them and waited until after Thanksgiving to report it..........So who ya gonna believe?
unlike everyone else...
my house, my rules..and yeah...my SHOVELS.
Not our place to help rehabbers dodge bullets when they relapse and break the law...
But we have plenty of turf and plenty of river landscape.
Missouri Boat Rides, beyotches....
Hold on a second, the only report that these two actually broke into the house is from the guy who executed them and waited until after Thanksgiving to report it..........?
Good thing the execution didn't occur on Dec. 24, by Jan. 2 they would have started smelling something bad...........
Condescension.
Guess how many 9-11s I had called in against my beater hubby before the cops actually did something (by arresting ME - 4’11 vs 6’4, but who’s counting).
Unverifiable personal anecdote.
Uh HUH. Spare me. Dog killing, lazy-assed cops who can’t wait to get their names in the papers. Facts only matter when the TRUTH bitch slaps them. F’em all. where do I send money to the defense fund in MN?
A lot of ranting in this post. Not much thinking.
What's the argument? That because bureaucracies are unreliable, there is no point filing a police report?
Homeowners file police reports for burglaries not solely because they believe that the police will vigilantly pursue the burglars and recover the stolen property (although this actually does happen on occasion), but because they have an interest in documenting the burglary for insurance purposes.
If I were actually burgled eight times, I would want to file those reports.
But if I wanted to create extenuating circumstances for myself after I committed a murder, I would want to make up seven more burglaries than actually happened in order to lend weight to my case.
The suspect is one of those "keystones" you profess to despise. He knows how to work the system as well as anyone.
They broke into a man’s home and got killed for it. Seems about right.
Yes. It is his story. The only one we have right now. Unlike all of your baseless conjecture.
He spent two days with their corpses in his house and never called the police. Nothing about this "seems right."
No, it doesn't.
According to that article, the man 'had worked worldwide doing security for the State Department, including overseeing as many as 50 people'.
Also, omitted is that people who are trained to deal with terrorists, as I would think this fellow likely was (admittedly speculation) are trained to kill the terrorist unless they are after something of intelligence value.
The part which will work against him is the failure to call 911, and his own statement about a finishing shot.
Correct. Which is why I assuming that it is accurate, despite several implausible features.
Unlike all of your baseless conjecture.
I haven't conjectured.
I have pointed out certain flawed assumptions - for example, the assumption that Smith has the expert knowledge to assess that someone is beyond the reach of medical help.
As you commented earlier, Smith is "highly intelligent" and a "retired professional" - in point of fact, a retired professional in the field of law enforcement.
If a highly intelligent retired LEO had killed two intruders on perfectly justifiable grounds, then he would have naturally followed protocol - armed himself, then called 911 when he heard what he thought were burglars' footsteps, then taken any necessary actions in self-defense.
His actions were pretty close to the opposite of what a highly intelligent retired LEO would do if he were innocent of wrongdoing.
The story he told - after two days of living with corpses rather than reporting the break-in - is likely the least damning story a "highly intelligent" man in his situation could come up with, that would still fit the physical evidence.
As you say, his story is the only coherent account of the incident we have so far - but it is just barely coherent.
And an observer has to wonder why.
You're wrong. According to Minnesota law:
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.
You are only authorized to use deadly force if you reasonably believe you are "expose[d] . . . to great bodily harm or death," or that you are "preventing the commission of a felony" in your home. In this case, that (a) clearly applies to the first shot(s) taken at the male intruder and then at the female intruder, (b) may apply to the subsequent shots taken at the male intruder, and (c) clearly does NOT apply to the subsequent shots taken at the female intruder. The shooter clearly admitted as such to police:
Smith stated several minutes later he again heard footseps on the main floor of his house. Smith stated that another person came down the stairs into the basement where he was sitting. Smith said he waited until he could see her hips and then he shot her. After shooting the person she stumbled down the steps. Smith stated that he tried to shoot her again with hte Mini 14 but the gun jammed. Smith stated that, after the gun jammed, the woman laughed at him. Smith stated that it was not a very long laugh because she was already hurting. Smith acknowledged that this made him upset. Smith told Investigator Luberts, "If you're trying to shoot somebody and they laugh at you, you go again." Smith then pulled out his .22 caliber 9-shot revolver that he was wearing, and he shot the female several times in the chest. Smith acknowledged that he fired "more shots than I needed to." Smith stated that he then dragged the female's body into his office workshop and placed her body next to the man's. Smth stated that the female was still gasping for air. Smith stated at this point he placed the handgun under the woman's chin and shot her "under the chin up into the cranium." Smith described it as "a good clean finishing shot."
Smith admitted that, after the female stumbled down the steps, he tried to shoot her again, his gun jammed, she laughed, and he got upset and shot her again with another gun. Then, he dragged her into another room, and THEN, when she was "gasping for air," he "placed the handgun under the woman's chin and shot her under the chin up into the cranium." At that point, there was no way he could have reasonably believed that his life was in danger or that he was preventing the commission of a felony. Castle doctrine or not, there is no self-defense justification for a "clean finishing shot."
His statement, particularly with regard to the shots he took at the female intruder AFTER she was gravely wounded, is nothing less than a confession to murder under Minnesota law.
Leaving aside the issue of whether this guy was qualified to determine if she was "already on the edge of death" or could be saved if transported to a hospital, what right did he have to "end her suffering"? Shooting someone to "end her suffering" is clearly murder under Minnesota law (and in every other state):
609.19 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE
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.
“He spent two days with their corpses in his house and never called the police.”
Maybe he had a dog he didn’t want shot.
Couldn’t tell you what his motivations were after he shot the people breaking into his home. Don’t really care. They broke in, he killed them. I’ve got no problem with that.
Maybe there’s some nanny-state law they could charge him with for not calling the police right away?
Here in the state of Washington the presence of an intruder in your house is reason enough to shoot them to stop the threat. There are also cases of intruders fleeing and shot in the back (dead) as they are fleeing and the homeowner is not guilty. (Has to do with preventing the intruder from doing additional harm).
However, even in Washington State, treating them like a wounded animal with a “coup de grace” shot would be illegal.
You seem to be unclear on the distinction between self-defense and murder. Fortunately, our laws can still distinguish the two - for now.
Well, then...I guess in MN, the only good thief is a dead thief! :)
....just not execution style.
One really doesn’t know what they’ll do till faced with the actual situation.
Texas laws allow you to protect your home, its inhabitants and your stuff. The law is on the side of the victim, in other words.
I'm with you. These idiots broke into a man's house and got Trayvon'ed. Perhaps he should have been a "nice guy" about it, but these 2 idiots created the situation.
I would have as much sympathy for someone who throws rocks at a hornets nest and gets stung to death.
Zimmermann acted in self-defense but is being accused of murder.
Smith committed murder, and confessed to murder, but confused posters are trying to shoehorn in a bogus claim of self-defense.
Conflating the two cases is promoting sloppy thinking and moral bankruptcy, as well as undermining 2A rights.
Permit me to preface my remarks with this: We don't know all the facts of the case, and guilt is for a jury to decide.
I have no sympathy for thieves of any stripe. I have lost thousands of dollars worth of stuff and cash to thieves, some government officials, some not. I'd just as soon see them all riding the stake like Vlad the Impaler would have had them do.
By any standard, since he has apparently confessed to the killings, and in such a manner it would indeed appear to be murder, it is difficult to defend Smith's actions, especially with a claim of self-defense. Administering a coup-de-grace to a wounded suspect is not an action excusable by law, nor is continuing wound disabled and unarmed suspects.
Most evident is the absence of any prompt call to authorities during or after the events which took place, perhaps the most damning aspect of all.
I'll grant the 'children' appeared by all accounts to be hooligans, with no respect for the property of others, but I cannot, once they had been wounded and it was ascertained they had no weapons, agree with killing them. We'll see what the autopsies reveal, there may have been more to this than meets the eye.
I didn't conflate the 2 cases, but you are. I simply used the word "Trayvon'ed" and you ran with it like a liberal, telling me what I "really meant". But since you went down that road, your 2 hoodlums, like young gentle Trayvon, started something they could not finish, and ended up like Trayvon.
The posters you dismiss as "confused" simply don't feel sorry for the 2 criminals, as if they were trick or treaters who got lost. Breaking into an inhabited house is an aggressive and threatening act, but I suspect you know that. The old man should never have been forced into in that situation by these two. Good riddance to rubbish.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.