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.
Yes and No. The facts at the scene of the shooting raised questions that had to be answered. His answers to those questions were a bit much.
Period, end of story....or should have been.
Is there a law that states how many times you can shoot a perp who breaks into your home?
For a victim to have his life destroyed, a criminal has to get lucky just once for a second. The victim must be alert, on guard, and physically capable of defending himself 24/7, 365, for life.
Only dead criminals can't come back when you're asleep, sick or injured.
He should have buried the bodies and kept his mouth shut.
As for me... Yes I would have shot them.... I would have done it in a way that insured that they could not attack or escape. i would have placed my shots in the lower torso and or legs.
But to place a kill shot under chin through the head to a young 100 pound girl.... That’s going to far... This man enjoyed the kills.
That might have been his intent, up to the point where the police visited his house and asked if he had seen the two, whose car was parked up the block.
I'm sure that is exactly what those whom lives are in danger and reacting accordingly, are standing there thinking.
"Hmmmm, are they still a threat?" If they're still breathing then yes, they are.
Those questions did not have to be answered, al least not then. He should have simply admitted firing the shots and refused to say anything more until he obtained an attorney and consulted with that attorney. That’s particularly true here where he apparently fired multiple times after the threats apparently ended and killed both perps. In any case like that the the homeowner is at risk of some serious charges and needs to consult an attorney before saying anything to the cops.
It's the young, cute 100 pound girls who are the most dangerous, because they can recruit horny 200 pound guys to do their bidding.
Welcome to the new America. Perhaps we are sick and tired of these a$$holes getting away with their crimes.
If they were to survive they would sue him into bankruptcy.
Hope he gets a great attorney.
Bingo. His only problem is that he said too much.
Ah, didn’t catch that. Defending your property is one thing. Executing them is another.
I'm sure that entered his mind but he couldn't get the bodies out of the basement without help. That may be why he called his brother after it happened to come down to help him.
He’d had most of his guns stolen already. All he’d had left were a Mini-14 and a .22 pistol.
He shot each of them as they came down the stairs. The woman was only wounded and possibly still a threat and his rifle jammed so he switched to the pistol.
He thought he’d killed her. As he was moving her body to the side, he noted she was still alive and choking to death on her own blood. Rather than let her expire painfully, he ended it for her with a single .22 shot into her brain.
Is that psychopathic? Are you sure?
Under MN law, he’s screwed. He’s going to jail forever.
However, these thieves deserved to die the minute they broke into his home. Period. We can quibble over method until the cows come home...
If that's why he executed them then the law up there needs to be changed to prevent civil action after a self defense shooting.
A .22 will not blow your head off.
Why all the sympathy for a drug abusing thief?
If they didn’t want to get shot dead, they shouldn’t have broken into his house.
I do not care how much she weighed.
True. Unfortunately the laws we have seem to protect the perps instead of the victims.
Some times bad behaviour catches up to people and they get Trayvon’ed.
Yes. Actually, the law is pretty clear on this matter. You can use lethal force to stop a threat. What you can't do is execute people regardless of whether or not one believes they deserved to be removed from the gene pool.
And Byron Smith will soon be joining Jerome Ersland as teaching examples to those among us who still remain confused.
If you break into my home, I don’t see how my method of killing you is the states business. If he had only been armed with a butter knife what was he suppose to do, stap them in the ankle only?
If you break into my home, I don’t see how my method of killing you is the states business. If he had only been armed with a butter knife what was he suppose to do, stab them in the ankle only?
you’re right, ask bernard goetz who was SUED by his attacker! AND WON!
If he and his lawyer are smart he can say that when he moved her she threatened him. You know like “I’m going to kill you old man!” That would get a not guilty from me.
I wouldn't use the word "Trayvoned" to describe it. It demeans what Zimmerman did.
Zimmerman was being assaulted. He had no other choice. His life hung in the balance. He then only shot Trayvon once to neutralize the threat. He didn't then get up and pump more bullets into him but reached for his phone to call the police.
This guy did none of that. He neutralized the threat and then while they lay there helpless he with deliberation murdered them.
His only mistake was talking too much.
“I was in fear for my life”. Period end of story. Hire an attorney and keep your mouth shut.
I remember that one from my self defense course I took years ago.....STFU!
Yeh but he was just dying to answer them, particularly the question on why he didn't call the police after he shot them.
Blew her head off with a .22?