Carolina Shooters Forum banner
  • Please post in our Community Feedback thread for help with the new forum software! If you are having trouble logging in, please Contact Us for assistance.

1 - 20 of 156 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
765 Posts
Here is another article on it.

http://www.pagunblog.com/2012/11/26/home-defense-how-not-to-do-it/

Hat tip to Joan Peterson for this story on a guy who shot two burglars execution style, and is being charged with murder. It is not often I agree with Joan, but I do agree that the homeowner's behavior here was criminal and reprehensible. But I do want to explain the law here, especially as it relates to Castle Doctrine, so that we may dispel some common myths. First, from the story:
Brady fell down the stairs and was looking up at Smith when the homeowner shot him in the face.
"I want him dead," Smith explained to the investigator for the additional shot.
Smith put Brady's body on a tarp and dragged him to an office workshop.
A few minutes later, Smith heard footsteps above him. As in Brady's case, Kifer too started down the stairs and was shot by Smith by the time he saw her hips, sending her tumbling down the stairs.
Smith attempted to shoot her again, but his rifle jammed, prompting Kifer to laugh.
Upset, Smith, pulled out a revolver he had on him and shot her "more times than I needed to" in the chest, he said.
Smith dragged Kifer next to Brady as she gasped for her life. He pressed the revolver's barrel under her chin and pulled the trigger in what he described as a "good, clean finishing shot" that was meant to end her suffering.
Smith acknowledged leaving the bodies in his home overnight before calling a neighbor to ask about a lawyer and to request that authorities be notified.
In nearly all 50 states, including Minnesota, the mere use of deadly force in the circumstance of someone feloniously entering your home is, generally speaking, legitimate self-defense. In many states, forced entry into an occupied dwelling is considered prima facie evidence that a deadly threat exists. Minnesota, following traditional common law, allows for deadly force to be used to prevent the commission of a felony, though in MN limited to one's place of abode, and burglary is a felony in Minnesota. Minnesota law states:
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.
Regardless of whether castle doctrine has passed in Minnesota or not, there is already an absolute unqualified right (qualified by a duty to retreat in some circumstances in the home imposed by judicial fiat) to respond to burglars invading an occupied home in Minnesota with deadly force, but only if the purpose of such force is to prevent the continuing felony, or to protect life and limb. Murder is never lawful, and Minnesota, like most states, defines (in this case 2nd degree) murder as when someone "causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation," (emphasis mine). As soon as you say something like this to the police:
"I want him dead," Smith explained to the investigator for the additional shot.
[...]
Upset, Smith, pulled out a revolver he had on him and shot her "more times than I needed to" in the chest, he said.
Smith dragged Kifer next to Brady as she gasped for her life. He pressed the revolver's barrel under her chin and pulled the trigger in what he described as a "good, clean finishing shot" that was meant to end her suffering.
That's the intentional infliction of death, which is murder. The intent in self-defense is never to inflict death, but to stop the attack, or in the case of Minnesota law, to prevent to commission of a felony. Once they are down, they are no longer a threat and no longer committing a felony. To take a "finishing shot," becomes murder. This is regardless of the Castle Doctrine law.
I say this because our opponents characterization of this law as "shoot first," and "license to kill," creates the very real danger, when combined with an ignorant and unquestioning media willing to repeat their rhetoric, that some fool or whack job may actually believe it. This man confessed his crime willingly to the police. Why would he do that if he did not believe he was in the right? Let us not continue to peddle the myths about deadly force laws. Murder is always illegal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,030 Posts
Only thing he did wrong was talk to the Police without an attorney.
You're joking, right?

As for Mr. Smith - go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.

Yes, you have right to defend yourself, but this man's actions go WAY beyond that. He went beyond defending himself and executed two people. I hope he likes the color orange, because he is going to be wearing it for a long, long time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
178 Posts
Just call them the way I see them.

You break into my house , threaten my family,livelihood,health. I will try my best to end of the night with only be one side of the story. Mine.

I also thought he was courteous not calling the Law until after the Holidays.
 

·
Zombie Task Force
Joined
·
1,972 Posts
I didn't see anything in the article which demonstrated he was ever threatened.

Sure he could shoot the intruder for breaking into his home with the castle doctrine, but execution is murder.
 

·
RWVA Instructor
Joined
·
2,218 Posts
There were several shots fired at the boy. These shots were apparently fired from a Mini 14, which is about as loud as Godzilla. Shortly thereafter, the girl appears at the top of the stairs and starts coming down. She didn't hear the shots? I can't believe that. So why'd she come down the stairs? If I'm a prosecutor, I'm going to try to show that the shooter lured her down somehow: he told her her boyfriend was hurt, he needed her help, he wouldn't shoot, he'd let her go, etc, etc, and then he shot her in cold blood. Realistically, that's the only sensible explanation for what happened. First degree murder. Do they have the death penalty in MN?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,207 Posts
Not really, his first shot against both intruders was lawful self defense... Shooting them while they were down and no longer a threat was murder.
We are agreed on this point, i'm saying that the anti 2A will have a field day lumping everyone who utilises firearms for self defense into this guy's category.

Except he was not a responsible gun owner and we would do well to point that out.
I wasn't referring to the shooter there, I was referring to nader.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
If it was a one shot, one kill - then this wouldn't be a problem. However, it seems he didn't just execute them - but took pleasure in it. I don't care how much you want to defend you home, taking pleasure in ending the life of another human being is wrong. If you HAVE to do the action, be grateful your family and home is safe - but if you take pleasure in the action then that shows potential for something much deeper inside you. What he did was murder. To end someones life and take pleasure in it - what happens when he decides he wants that thrill again and no one is breaking into his home? He wasn't just trying to end it with one side. IF he really wanted that and the first shot didn't do it - a follow up shot would have been enough to end it. However, he took several shots. The fact that he moved the bodies and was okay with them being in his house for a while really bothers me. Sick individual. You break into my home, odds are I may have to put you down - but it will not be something I take joy in doing and I will lose a few nights of sleep over it. And anyone who says they won't are fooling themselves or they are messed up just like this guy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,207 Posts
Just call them the way I see them.

You break into my house , threaten my family,livelihood,health. I will try my best to end of the night with only be one side of the story. Mine.

I also thought he was courteous not calling the Law until after the Holidays.
Two interesting points you mention are threats and family. Had it been your little girl breaking into someone's home unarmed, you might hope they would use no more force than was necessary, but that's a generous assumption in your case.
 
1 - 20 of 156 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top