Which is what I would do as well if my house was broken into 4 times before.
Turn to a life of crime and stuff happens. End of story.
after they were no longer a threat. —
I’ve seen enough ‘80s movies where the bad guy comes back to life...more than once, even.
Hollywood is right, got to make sure.
Note to self: never say anything incriminating on tape.
My Father did this after 3 break-ins at our pharmacy. He sat in a chair in the dark and waited night after night, thankfully, I finally convinced him to get a taser instead of taking his gun. In the end, after a night there was an attempted break-in when he was not there, the police set up a trap the following night and got the would be burglar. Guess what? No conviction... Probation, no jail time, and no repayment of damages to our business. And this is going on with the police station in the same building literally 3 doors down, less than 25 yards away, from our business. Drugs were the reason, and addiction. But can you imagine the idiocy?
Moral of the story: don’t break into other people’s houses and just maybe you won’t be shot. It’s not exactly rocket science.
Yes, he should have called the police before the break in occurred so they could tell him there was nothing they could do about it.
He also should have asked the suspects if they wanted him to stop shooting at them. They could have discussed this with him at the kitchen table over coffee.
He may have set a trap for them but THEY entered HIS house for the sole purpose of robbing it..game..set..match..you do the crime, you pay the price
If an unarmed teenage girl broke into my house to rip me off, I would be pretty angry.
But, being a normal human being I wouldn't shoot her.
Nor would I shoot her and then put her on a tarp rather than call 911.
Nor would I shoot her, put her on a tarp, not call 911, and then shoot her two more times.
Nor would I shoot her, put her on a tarp, not call 911, shoot her two more times, and then leave the room to find another weapon so I could shoot her point blank under the chin.
Nor would I shoot her, put her on a tarp, not call 911, shoot her two more times, leave the room to find another weapon so I could shoot her point blank under the chin, and then wrap up the tarp,eat dinner and watch TV.
Byron Smith is the subhuman one in this story.
He was in his house. The perps broke in. He didn’t pursue them in the house, but waited in his basement. They went to where he was, one of them dumb enough to go down there after the first one had been shot. Now they are dead. Justice has been served. Leave it at that.
And the problem with that is?
Cute kids, sad story.
The home owner is correct.
So the police had several opportunities to catch the thugs breaking into this man’s house and they failed to do so?
These two are dead because of their own willful criminal acts.
No break and enter, no dead.
Did he force them to break into his home?
Sounds like a good plan to me.
Here is the actual law.
**************
2013 Minnesota Statutes
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.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.065
*****************
Here is the actual law.
I am all in favor of good shoots on violent or threatening criminal offenders. The original take down shots are defensible. The subsequent executions were not.
I can see some situations were they would be. Anarchy. War. Remote isolation coupled with other imminent threats. Gangs with backup.
This was a Minnesota suburb.
Manslaughter or diminished capacity is all this guy has got.
This news story doesn’t tell the *whole* story. I read a transcript yesterday of the tape that was running while this guy actually killed the would-be burglars. It is very apparent that he lay in wait for them, killed the first one deliberately, with no warning, then when the girl came in, also killed her with no warning. He shot them seveeral times to make sure they were dead, after they were on the floor and apparently (judging by his own tape) absolutely no threat. He dragged them around on tarps to keep them from staining his carpeting. Then he waited a whole day to report it.
This is NOT a case of a homeowner in fear of his life. This is a case of revenge (and also incredible stupidity, for taping the whole thing, but I for one am glad he did). He murdered two people (low-lifes, perhaps, but he murdered them). To defend this man’s actions makes all *responsible* gun-owners look bad.
The threshold - legal and moral - is self-defense.
However, as everyone knows, LEOs regularly fill people with holes on self-defense arguments no other person but a LEO could even remotely get away with.
And I have always believed that non-LEOs should be given more leeway in “going too far” because of the fact that they are not trained in wartime threat from firearms, and so can easily have an emotional reaction that is excessively violent, paranoid or lethal, because of the condition the PERP put them in by threatening them. This is solely the perp’s fault.
But... when you have someone acting as cold-blooded and methodical as this guy did, the uttermost limits of even that emotional trauma argument are stretched to the breaking point.
The bottom line is that the guy - pay attention here - has every right to be a nasty, unbalanced, vindictive asshole in his own home, hurting no one. If someone chooses to repeatedly break in and terrorize someone that unstable, I don’t think he has any responsibility to become a psychologically balanced person before he takes care of the threat to his life (as he perceives it).
On the other hand, the law cannot allow people to look at visitors and say “I feel threatened by you” and blow them away for fun or psychosis reasons either. And while these two were certainly not mere visitors, and certainly were not invited, playing with the line of how far someone can go on their own property is beyond important.
So I’d say that what looks like an easy case in either direction (depending on your preference), is not, actually, so easy after all.
‘Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us..
But if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.’
Tough to see those words in the context of a trial, but regardless of the legal outcome:
I pray that Bryon and the parents of the intruders can be reconciled in time knowing we all must forgive to be forgiven, regardless of what the courts rule.
Seems like after eight break ins, he couldn’t forgive the 9th trespass of his house being broken into...
even Peter asked is not seven times enough to forgive?
Not seven times , but seventy times seven was His reply..
And the parents, mercy, can’t imagine having to forgive the man who killed your child, regardless of the circumstances..
And neither the homeowner or their parents have the two kids back to say I am sorry, forgive me..
Sad case.