Skip to comments.Little Falls shooting: Killing of 2 teens sparks homeowner rights controversy
Posted on 11/28/2012 7:28:26 AM PST by Uncle ChipEdited on 11/28/2012 7:35:26 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — Local officials knew the grisly killings of two teenagers who broke into a man's home on Thanksgiving Day would stir up strong emotions in their small central Minnesota town.
Some believed the homeowner went too far by repeatedly shooting the unarmed teens, including one victim as she gasped for breath. But others said 64-year-old Byron Smith was within his rights to protect his remote Little Falls home.
(Excerpt) Read more at brainerddispatch.com ...
Gee Uncle Chip, thanks for providing another platform to launch 245 “feel the love” posts from.
The guy had a rigjht to use deadlyu force to defend himself and his home but not to act as an executioner. He went too far.
Did the homeowner freak, or what? The prey becomes the hunter.
Defending your person and or property is one thing but to put a bullet through a person’s brain who is nearly dead is not defense - its sick (if the report is true).
Preliminary findings suggest that Nick Brady, 17, and Haile Kifer, 18, were involved in another break-in Wednesday night, 6 miles south of the home where Byron Smith claims he shot them in self-defense, said Morrison County Sheriff Michel Wetzel. Smith, 64, a retired U.S. State Department worker, is charged with second-degree murder in the double shooting, which Wetzel has characterized as "cold-blooded" executions carried out after the teens were disabled by initial shots.
In the latest development, investigators are piecing together evidence recovered from a red Mitsubishi Eclipse that Brady had been driving, and which was discovered Friday parked a block away and around the corner from Smith's property, 3 miles north of Little Falls.
That same car was seen in a driveway last Wednesday evening 3 miles south of Little Falls, in the vicinity of a house belonging to Richard L. Johnson, a retired Little Falls High School teacher who had been in Spain until Sunday evening.
> so he fired what he called a “good clean finishing shot” under her chin “up into the cranium,
I call it “putting an end to a public menace”, esp as there is evidence that the two clowns had robbed other houses recently.
Unlawful entry into someone else’s house, should have lethal consequences as a possibility. It wouldn’t bother me how many times they were shot. In this scenario, there are those in the right, and those in the wrong. The criminal activity is clearly on one side.
NO! NO! NO! Homeowner has NO DUTY to retreat.
At least in Castle Doctrine states, like NC.
Uuhh..he shot up a teenage girl and when she was bleeding out he put the gun under her chin and blew her head off. We don’t. Even do that to enemy combatants on the battlefield. Much less 100 pound girls.
Which he described as a "good clean kill". Some grizzly dark humor in that phrase.
I certainly understand the desire to shoot them even when they are down. They can always come after you when they are better. They were criminals and he has a right to defend his property.
Trying to muster up some sympathy for those young soon to be career criminals, but it seems I cannot.
If you break into someones home, you should expect to be killed. He was an elder, they were both young and could certainly over power him. His home was already broken into previously.
2 less commie voters. Boohoo.
Sounds like he talked too much. You know when questioned they’re going to ask you tricky little things to trip you up and make a case against you. Just say “My life was threatened and I reacted and acted until I no longer felt threatened”. Then ask for your lawyer.
In this case, just firing multiple times is not out of the ordinary. Nothing say’s I need to shoot to maim first or I can only fire one shot or I have to fire a warning shot. That being said, there is no reason for a ‘good clean finishing’ shot when the victim is immobilized.
ABCS .... Assess, breath, control, shutup.
So law-abiding citizens are only limited to one bullet per criminal?
When the agressor is no longer a threat you no longer have the right to shoot. The purpose of the initial shot is to stop the agression.
If the attackers continue to threaten you with a weapon you can stop them from further attacks.
This looks like murder.
Home invaders choose home of elderly killer.
Execution is murder, when they are down and defenseless you use the time to call the cops to fill out the paperwork, not execute them.
They all were wrong. As a DA I would try like heck to get the homeowner charged with a felony to remove his guns from him, and then put him on parole, no sentence.
It is psycopathic to put a gun to a persons head and kill them in cold blood.
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.