Posted on 04/29/2014 1:57:58 PM PDT by TurboZamboni
It certainly has, Skippy.
With regards to breaking in and the consequences, no issues...what I have an issue with is the ambush.
Would the kids have broken in if they saw his car in the driveway and lights on? Maybe, maybe not, it’s beyond that.
Once they were gutshot and he determined they weren’t armed or posed a threat, shooting one in the face and then shooting the other in the chest and then a coup de grace shot under the chin while calling her a bitch go beyond anything I find reasonable.
Callous, cruel, calculated, sadistic...
Agreed...if he had just gutshot them and then called the police, these 2 probably would have been on colostomy bags for the rest of their lives...but to shoot one in the face as he lay helpless and then, after she’s down, shoot the girl in the chest a few times and as she lay struggling for life, call her a bitch and then shoot her under the chin?
I just can’t go there...
(1) That isn't a defense to murder in the US, and never has been.
(2) If you believe the New Testament is Scripture, then that principle is no longer morally operative (Matthew 5:38).
(3) Even if this principle were legally and theologically current, Byron Smith violated it.
She did not shoot him five times. She broke into his house and didn't actually take anything. The proper "eye for an eye" revenge would have been for him to break into her house.
Whether it was merciful or not, if the pair had not been in his house illegally, they would not have been shot.
Correct. What you are missing is this: you seem to be well aware that these teens were independent moral agents who had control over their actions and made their own deliberate bad decisions - yet you simultaneously maintain that Byron Smith was not an independent moral agent, that he had no control over his actions, and that he was incapable of making his own decisions.
The reality is that Byron Smith was in complete control of the situation from start to finish, and he deliberately and carefully planned to act immorally and to break the law.
Anyone who takes the Christian Bible seriously should be filled with horror at his actions.
Isolated, alone, never very successful at initiating or maintaining human relationships, who nurse grudges or even perceived slights - a situation that makes some people dehumanize others and also become obsessed (i.e. imagining and fantasizing about) extreme responses to provocations.
The question is: What are the limits of what he could do to them? Do you think there are none?
You say "noise" but what it means is "undeniable facts that completely destroy my thesis."
Would Byron Smith have been entitled to treat his victims the way Ariel Castro treated Amanda Berry and Gina DeJesus?
No, it’s not “petty drama”...but I sense you can’t or won’t “go there” to address the sadism and cruelty of Byron Smith after he had the perps down...
If he had shot them dead as they were coming down the stairs, I probably wouldn’t care so much. It’s what he did AFTER he had them down that I reject.
“The facts of the case show that everything he did was carefully planned.”
In other words, he knew, before they broke in, that they were going to break in. Is that correct?
Because if that’s correct, he’s guilty. If it isn’t, and they broke in - whatever happens after that point is a tragedy, but within his rights.
If the state will not provide a deterrent to crime, the people must.
Again, heads on pikes, set on fire, big sign out front. Has worked for centuries.
Ah, yes... well. That does indeed paint a different picture than the posted story.
Thank you for your clarification.
In his mind, he absolutely knew.
Before they even entered his house he is on tape, practicing what he is going to say to his attorney about killing them.
He was certain they were coming, and he planned exactly what he would do when they came, bought new tarps and everything.
If the state will not provide a deterrent to crime, the people must.
After this case it's possible some burglars may think twice, but I would guess most burglars would think "next time I bring a gun."
Also, after this case, most homeowners in the area will probably think: "I'd rather lose insured valuables than spend the rest of my life in prison."
My pleasure. I’ve been following the story for a bit, but I definitely learned new details on this thread too.
“Also, after this case, most homeowners in the area will probably think: “I’d rather lose insured valuables than spend the rest of my life in prison.”
In other words, we have come to the point where the people realize that the state is now protecting the criminals.
Planning what you’d do for a home invasion is smart. Everyone should do it. Everyone should have contingencies.
Put another way, the line is currently drawn thus: steal on a less systematic basis, and you can do so with impunity.
Steal systematically, and the government will look upon you as a competitor.
Sorry, unless he knew, specifically, that those two were going to enter his home at that date in time, his actions were justified, no matter how heinous.
Unless it is that, or every otherwise law abiding citizen will hesitate at the very moment your life and the lives of your loved ones are in the balance and the time for planning is over.
No, we've come to the point that a homeowner who should have known better tried to use the legitimate legal protection of self-defense as a cover for murder.
And, as you and many others have done, the general public has taken away a confused message.
In reality, if Smith had called the police, the two would have been arrested for multiple crimes.
But he was the only criminal who survivied that day, so the law was only able to prosecute him for his crimes.
I know what the law says about self-defense and I will avail myself of it if the need arises.
But many people, who do not know what the law says and who did not inquire too deeply into Smith's moral turpitude, will now be cowed.
That's not the law's fault.
That's Smith's fault.
Not while things are relatively 'normal'. Who knows if the SHTF, but for now, no.
Perfectly put. How many other twisted Zeds are out there who would be sporting wood if they found themselves in the same situation?
nifong rides again.
If you're going to insult the prosecutor that aggressively, you have a lot more homework to do on this case.
It could not be more clearly the opposite of the Duke case in terms of the way the state conducted its investigation and went to trial.
So rape and torture: A-Okay!
I posted it in #124.
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.