The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: mystery-ak on April 21, 2014, 08:51:41 pm
-
http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/defense-man-who-shot-teens-scared-in-own-home (http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/defense-man-who-shot-teens-scared-in-own-home)
(http://newsbcpcol.stb.s-msn.com/amnews/i/be/0f667f1a7259fa637e69313882d90/_h353_w628_m6_otrue_lfalse.jpg)
In this Nov. 26, 2012 file photo, a keep out sign stands at the property of Byron David Smith, in Little Falls, Minn.
AP 2 hr ago By AMY FORLITI of Associated Press
Byron Smith, 65, of Little Falls, is charged with first-degree premeditated murder in the slayings of 17-year-old Nick Brady and 18-year-old Haile Kifer on Thanksgiving Day in 2012. The killings rocked the small central Minnesota city of about 8,000 and stirred debate about how far a person can go in defending their home.
Smith has claimed self-defense, saying he feared the teens were armed and he was on edge after earlier repeated break-ins at his home. Under Minnesota law, a person may use deadly force to prevent a felony from taking place in one's home or dwelling, but authorities have said Smith crossed a line when he continued to shoot the teens after they were no longer a threat.
"This is not a case of whodunit," defense attorney Steve Meshbesher told jurors Monday. "Mr. Smith is the person who shot and killed those two people, but he is not criminally responsible for the deaths. He is not guilty of murder."
Assistant Washington County Attorney Brent Wartner told jurors that Smith thought a neighbor girl had been breaking into his home, so on that Thanksgiving Day, Smith sat in his basement, waiting. Evidence in the case will include Smith's statements and audio from a recorder that Smith had set up in a bookcase the day of the break-in, Wartner said.
"He's down in the basement, in a chair, tucked between two bookcases at the bottom of the stairs. He said he was down there reading a book ... with his Mini-14, a .22-caliber revolver, some energy bars and a bottle of water," Wartner said.
Wartner said Smith heard the door of his house rattle at about 12:30 p.m., then someone walking across the deck, then a window breaking.
"And he waited," Wartner said.
But Meshbesher said his client was hiding after break-ins that had gotten increasingly more violent.
"He became frightened and scared to live in his own home," he said of Smith, later adding, "He began to wear a holster and pistol in his own house. That is how afraid he is, and became."
Prosecutors say as Brady descended the basement steps, Smith shot him in the chest, then in the back while Brady fell, Wartner said. Smith fired a final shot into Brady's head, the bullet passing through Brady's hand, Wartner said. Smith put Brady's body on a tarp so he wouldn't get blood on his carpet, dragged the body into his workshop, reloaded his Mini-14 rifle and sat down again, the prosecutor said.
A few minutes later, Kifer walked down the stairs and Smith shot her, Wartner said. He tried another shot, but his rifle jammed, Wartner said, and Smith told police he believed Kifer laughed at him.
"He was angry," Wartner said. He said that Smith then pulled out his revolver and he shot her twice in the head, once in the left eye and once behind the left ear.
Smith dragged Kifer's body into the workshop and laid it on top of Brady's, Wartner said. Smith told investigators he thought he heard Kifer gasping, so he placed his revolver under her chin and fired what he told police was a "good clean finishing shot to the head," the assistant prosecutor said.
Smith is a retired security engineer for the U.S. Department of State. Kifer and Brady were cousins. The two were well-known in the community, and both were involved in sports.
After their deaths, authorities said a car linked to Brady and Kifer contained prescription drugs that had been stolen from another house, apparently the day before they were killed. Court documents from another case show Brady had burglarized Smith's property at least twice in the months before he was killed.
-
Smith is going to prison. It's one thing to defend one's self in one's home and quite another to put a "finishing shot to the head."
-
I wonder if, when he was premeditating, he considered calling cops as well?
The story as written indicates he was hell-bent on killing them totally dead, not injured etc.
-
I wonder what the charges would be if this same series of events had occurred in Texas...
-
What the hell where they doing in the mans house to begin with?
-
I wonder what the charges would be if this same series of events had occurred in Texas...
Probably interfering with a crime scene at most for when he wrapped the first one up in a tarp.
-
If this is at all accurate, regardless how it started or what happened in the middle, it ended in an execution.
-
What matters is that they are both dead. It does not matter whether what he did was right or wrong.
What criminals and punks have to understand, is that the guy they choose may not behave rationally. If you frighten someone, everything becomes unpredictable.
They were screwing with someone and they got shot. As a criminal you have to understand this. Shit happens. If you cannot understand the risks, you should not be in the game.
Being stupid will get you killed, especially when you start f***ing with people you do not know. Eventually, you are going to run into someone who is crazier, more scared, more stupid, or more deadly than you are. That is just the way it works. That is just part of the game.
-
What matters is that they are both dead. It does not matter whether what he did was right or wrong.
What criminals and punks have to understand, is that the guy they choose may not behave rationally. If you frighten someone, everything becomes unpredictable.
They were screwing with someone and they got shot. As a criminal you have to understand this. Shit happens. If you cannot understand the risks, you should not be in the game.
Being stupid will get you killed, especially when you start f***ing with people you do not know. Eventually, you are going to run into someone who is crazier, more scared, more stupid, or more deadly than you are. That is just the way it works. That is just part of the game.
Agreed. But then, the law and judicial system is left to sort it out.
-
I wonder what the charges would be if this same series of events had occurred in Texas...
Murder in the second degree. I live in Texas and am the biggest gun nut there is.
But, once a perp is neutralized, deciding to "finish them off" is a separate act.
Also, the fact that he didn't call the cops after taking down the first offender will definitely work against him.
-
Agreed. But then, the law and judicial system is left to sort it out.
The ultimate bottom line is that if they had not been in his house, they would not be dead. No matter what any law says, they are ultimately at fault for the whole thing. This guy is old, and scared. They should have just left him alone. And now, these punks have probably ruined the rest of his life, for something he did not have any desire or intention to ever do.
They brought it on themselves, and changed his entire life by their own stupidity. There is no such thing as being "fair" or "thoughtful" when you live alone and there are known prowlers in your house.
-
Again, what you say has merit. But, then what?
-
Again, what you say has merit. But, then what?
Involuntary manslaughter under duress. Some kind of light probation...case closed. Give the guy the remaining years of his life. I cannot catagorize this guy as any kind of menace to society. (well, unless you break into his house in the middle of the night and start taking his stuff. Then you might be in trouble. But who is going to do something that stupid?)
-
The ultimate bottom line is that if they had not been in his house, they would not be dead. No matter what any law says, they are ultimately at fault for the whole thing. This guy is old, and scared. They should have just left him alone. And now, these punks have probably ruined the rest of his life, for something he did not have any desire or intention to ever do.
They brought it on themselves, and changed his entire life by their own stupidity. There is no such thing as being "fair" or "thoughtful" when you live alone and there are known prowlers in your house.
Are you kidding? He had no desire or intention to kill anybody? He was WAITING IN HIS BASEMENT for somebody to come in his house. And he had two fully-loaded weapons at the ready.
65 is not "old." He may have been scared, but a dog with a big bark would have run these two kids off.
He was perfectly justified in taking down the first perp. But, at that point, he should have called the cops. Laying in wait for the second perp might also pass muster.
But, "finishing her off" will get him a jail sentence. The fact that he could do that after she was immobilized makes it OK with me that he won't be imposing his form of justice on anybody else.
-
Involuntary manslaughter under duress. Some kind of light probation...case closed. Give the guy the remaining years of his life. I cannot catagorize this guy as any kind of menace to society. (well, unless you break into his house in the middle of the night and start taking his stuff. Then you might be in trouble. But who is going to do something that stupid?)
Nope. That final shot will get him a murder charge.
-
Negative. The man cannot be judged on his actions in those moments. He was not thinking rationally. He was not in his right mind. His actions are mitigated by the extreme nature of the situation he was forced into by the two perps.
He did not set out to do anything 'premeditated'. The only thing he wanted was to be left alone, which is his right. The perps brought the situation to him, there is no arguement that it was the other way around. Even if he was waiting for them, which I reject, they still came. That is not his fault.
Had they not shown up he would have been just some crazy guy waiting in his basement, and nothing at all would happen. He was fighting for his home, and his right to privacy and dignity. That is the oldest law known to mankind.
-
Query whether the charges can stick if the two were dead, or would have inevitably died, from just the initial shots that were clearly fired in self-defense. If they were already dead, or would have died imminently, from just the shots fired in self-defense, then it seems to me the worst he could get is abuse of a corpse for the later shots because the two were already dead. Also, I don't really see the sort of planning and cold, calculated decision-making that ought to be the touch-stone of premeditated murder. I see at most negligent homicide or something similar. The guy's getting railroaded because someone wants to use him as a political stepping-stone.
-
I'm not going to argue with you further. You're all emotion and into defending the shooter.
I'm willing to bet considerable coin that he will be charged with, and convicted of, second degree murder. First degree is premeditation. There was none of that.
But "finishing her off" is not manslaughter. It's a willful intent to kill.
-
I'm not going to argue with you further. You're all emotion and into defending the shooter.
I'm willing to bet considerable coin that he will be charged with, and convicted of, second degree murder. First degree is premeditation. There was none of that.
But "finishing her off" is not manslaughter. It's a willful intent to kill.
However, if the initial shot would have killed her in very short order all by itself - i.e., so soon that there was no possibility of any life-saving help arriving - then at most you would have attempt, because the killing had already been done, and that by a shot that was justified. It's an interesting split because generally the finishing off shot comes at the end of a shooting that was illegal from start to finish, so there really isn't much difference; here I think there might be a difference, not that it'll stop the prosecutor from grand-standing on this guy.
-
What you are describing is a classic conundrum in Law School. The story goes...
A guy jumps off the roof of an apartment building. As the jumper is falling a guy in one of the apartments shoots at his wife. He misses, and shoots throught the window, and kills the guy who is falling. The wife seeing the guy falling, leans out to grap him and falls to her death. Who is guilty of what? What are the counts?
This is a real question.
-
What you are describing is a classic conundrum in Law School. The story goes...
A guy jumps off the roof of an apartment building. As the jumper is falling a guy in one of the apartments shoots at his wife. He misses, and shoots throught the window, and kills the guy who is falling. The wife seeing the guy falling, leans out to grap him and falls to her death. Who is guilty of what? What are the counts?
This is a real question.
yup. it's always fun to play around with.
-
I'm not going to argue with you further. You're all emotion and into defending the shooter.
I'm willing to bet considerable coin that he will be charged with, and convicted of, second degree murder. First degree is premeditation. There was none of that.
But "finishing her off" is not manslaughter. It's a willful intent to kill.
Willful intent to kill is not criminal in and of itself. There are times when a 'willful intent to kill' is fully justified. We do not know and cannot know what was going on or if the shooter continued to feel threatened. We just do not know what really happened, and that is doubt, especially when it comes to murder. Prove to me that she was still alive. Prove to me that even the shooter knew what he was doing.
What we know is that they were in his house. We know that he was afraid. Anything else is speculation. I can guarantee there will be no murder change. That would be stupid. No way. If this guy is convicted of 'murder', it would cheapen the whole concept of what murder is.
-
Smith dragged Kifer's body into the workshop and laid it on top of Brady's, Wartner said. Smith told investigators he thought he heard Kifer gasping, so he placed his revolver under her chin and fired what he told police was a "good clean finishing shot to the head," the assistant prosecutor said.
Whoops. Serves me right for not reading more carefully. That is premeditated murder. I have no doubt that the prosecutor is still going to grand-stand on this, but I also believe this guy is very likely going to be convicted for premeditated murder, and that would be a reasonable thing for a jury to do.
Once he incapacitated the intruders the justification of self-defense evaporated and he should have been calling the cops, not practicing his kill-shot skills.
-
Whoops. Serves me right for not reading more carefully. That is premeditated murder. I have no doubt that the prosecutor is still going to grand-stand on this, but I also believe this guy is very likely going to be convicted for premeditated murder, and that would be a reasonable thing for a jury to do.
Once he incapacitated the intruders the justification of self-defense evaporated and he should have been calling the cops, not practicing his kill-shot skills.
That is what I said in #2 above.
-
That is what I said in #2 above.
Like I said, shame on me for not reading the original story more carefully.
-
Again people, he was not rational. That gasp he heard is something I regret to say that I have heard myself. What he heard was what is called the 'death rattle'. It is the final stage of death. He is in no way qualified to judge what he heard.
All that is described here is what he may of may not have intended to do. Not what he actually did. Furthermore, he was not in a sane state of mind to know what he was doing, or to describe to the police what happened. What he thought was muder was not what he thought it was.
Also, why would anyone say that they did something like this unless they are impaired. After being abused by these people, he was only trying to gain some kind of macho points. He may have done this, but she was already dead.
-
Again people, he was not rational. That gasp he heard is something I regret to say that I have heard myself. What he heard was what is called the 'death rattle'. It is the final stage of death. He is in no way qualified to judge what he heard.
All that is described here is what he may of may not have intended to do. Not what he actually did. Furthermore, he was not in a sane state of mind to know what he was doing, or to describe to the police what happened. What he thought was muder was not what he thought it was.
Also, why would anyone say that they did something like this unless they are impaired. After being abused by these people, he was only trying to gain some kind of macho points. He may have done this, but she was already dead.
In this case I have to disagree. It doesn't matter whether it was a death rattle or an actual gasp - he thought it was a gasp and he intentionally fired a killing shot. If she was already dead, then he is still guilty of attempt, even if he couldn't actually complete the crime because of a factual impossibility.
-
The 'rattle' does really sound like a deep gasp. And it will freak you out. He thought she was going to wake up, freaked out, because he was scared out of his mind, and reacted in a way which was not optimal. If he even did it at all.
Again, at least some of his description has to be fake bravado to the police about what a 'bad ass' he is. I take his version with a grain of salt. I doubt it. I think he was reacting out of fear, and nothing more. Of course he will not say this to the police.
It may very well be that these punks may have found the wrong person the screw with, as I said. But, even so, they came to him. They were in HIS house. He did not asked them there or invite them in. They did it to themselves. I cannot see how any of this is his fault.
It is absurd to think that I would find an intruder in my house, and shoot him, and then apply first aid to the guy I just shot. My world does not work that way.
-
In this case I have to disagree. It doesn't matter whether it was a death rattle or an actual gasp - he thought it was a gasp and he intentionally fired a killing shot. If she was already dead, then he is still guilty of attempt, even if he couldn't actually complete the crime because of a factual impossibility.
I'm going with 240b on this. Got a guy already nervous and frightened, he's shot intruders, then a death rattle? They sound like a tractor starting up. Loud as bleep and completely unexpected. Not going to say the guy was right - he wasn't. But I'm not going to blame him for a perfectly natural response.
-
I suspect - in Minnesota no less - his state of mind after he dragged and stacked the bodies will matter nil. He fired an intended execution shot. He will spend time in prison.
-
Minnesota man convicted of premeditated murder
By AMY FORLITI of Associated Press
April 29, 2014
LITTLE FALLS, Minn. (AP) — A Minnesota homeowner who shot and killed two teenagers during a break-in was convicted Tuesday of premeditated murder.
Byron Smith had claimed he was simply defending himself during the break-in at his home in the small city of Little Falls on Thanksgiving Day 2012. Smith's attorney said the 65-year-old was fearful after previous burglaries.
But prosecutors argued that Smith waited in his basement and intended to kill the teens. A total of nine shots were fired at 17-year-old Nick Brady and 18-year-old Haile Kifer.
Jurors began deliberating Tuesday morning and within three hours had a verdict: Guilty on two counts each of first-degree and second-degree murder. Mothers of the teens cried as the verdicts were read, while Smith showed no emotion. Defense attorney Steve Meshbesher said he would appeal.
The teens' killings stirred debate around the state and in Little Falls — a Mississippi River city of 8,000 about 100 miles northwest of Minneapolis — about how far a homeowner can go in responding to a threat. Minnesota law allows deadly force to prevent a felony from taking place in one's home or dwelling, but one's actions must be considered reasonable under the circumstances.
More ------> http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/minnesota-man-convicted-of-premeditated-murder
-
http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/minnesota-man-convicted-of-premeditated-murder
-
Minnesota law allows deadly force to prevent a felony from taking place in one's home or dwelling, but one's actions must be considered reasonable under the circumstances.
He gave them the entire house and retreated into the basement.
They came into the basement.
Where does one retreat to from a basement?
I have to be missing something here.
-
He gave them the entire house and retreated into the basement.
They came into the basement.
Where does one retreat to from a basement?
I have to be missing something here.
The teens were not armed.
I'm guessing what convinced the jury were the multiple shots fired at each teenager, including a "finishing shot" on the girl as she struggled for life.
Making sure each teen was dead was his objective, which is not "reasonable under the circumstances."
-
I'm wondering if he doesn't have a good chance at winning on appeal.
My reasoning: he was convicted of "premeditated" murder, when [I think] the indictment should have been for second degree murder, manslaughter or negligent homicide.
Might be worth a try by a good criminal defense lawyer.
Get the right appellate judge or judges, and I think he has a chance.
Not to escape prosecution, mind you -- but to get the existing conviction thrown out, a new trial ordered, and perhaps conviction on lesser charges. Or perhaps even a "plea"...
-
I'm wondering if he doesn't have a good chance at winning on appeal.
My reasoning: he was convicted of "premeditated" murder, when [I think] the indictment should have been for second degree murder, manslaughter or negligent homicide.
Might be worth a try by a good criminal defense lawyer.
Get the right appellate judge or judges, and I think he has a chance.
Not to escape prosecution, mind you -- but to get the existing conviction thrown out, a new trial ordered, and perhaps conviction on lesser charges. Or perhaps even a "plea"...
Doubtful. Laying in wait for someone is premeditation.
He could have pled this case. He doesn't think he did anything wrong.
-
The evidence must be compelling, it seems to me. He moved his vehicle to make it appear he was gone. The teens broke the law, but he set a trap and waited with lethal force available. Then, the coup de grace shot. He did not testify. Compelling to a jury and an easy story to weave by a capable prosecutor.
-
I'm wondering if he doesn't have a good chance at winning on appeal.
My reasoning: he was convicted of "premeditated" murder, when [I think] the indictment should have been for second degree murder, manslaughter or negligent homicide.
Might be worth a try by a good criminal defense lawyer.
Get the right appellate judge or judges, and I think he has a chance.
Not to escape prosecution, mind you -- but to get the existing conviction thrown out, a new trial ordered, and perhaps conviction on lesser charges. Or perhaps even a "plea"...
I agree 100%. If I were the defense, I would not be completely unhappy with the verdict. Premeditated murder is way out of bounds for the circumstances of this case. Premeditated would be if he invited them into his home and then shot them. Premeditated would be if he stalked them or hired a hit-man to kill them. That is premeditated.
What he did was done out of blind fear, combined with defense of his home. From his point of view, because they had robbed him once or several times before, he felt violated, and he thought that they would keep coming back until he put a stop to it. Unfortunately his method of choice to 'stop it', was in fact over the top. But how can it be 'premeditated' if his entire so called plan depended entirely on the actions of the punks?
Someone keeps stealing my bread. If I poision my bread, for example, leave for work and someone breaks into my home and eats my bread, did I kill that guy? Premeditated?
I think it is not over and that he will come out better on appeal. Furthermore, the judge withheld critical details from the jury including that these punks were known criminals and had broken into his house and the homes of other neighbors before this incident. It is the punk perps who were menacing their community, not this guy, who worked with kids at the local high-school. He was defending his home and property.
Regardless of all the custie pictures and testimonials, these were two drug obessed burglars and juvenile delinquents with a talent for B&E. They happen to pick on the wrong guy, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. But it would have happened to them somehow some way anyway. It was the life path they themselves chose.
-
He gave them the entire house and retreated into the basement.
They came into the basement.
Where does one retreat to from a basement?
I have to be missing something here.
I think that what sank him was the fact that he, as he put it in his own words, put his gun under the girl's head while she was unconscious and gave her a "clean killing shot." That is premeditated murder and wholly unreasonable to boot.
-
The teens were not armed.
I'm guessing what convinced the jury were the multiple shots fired at each teenager, including a "finishing shot" on the girl as she struggled for life.
Making sure each teen was dead was his objective, which is not "reasonable under the circumstances."
Yeah, based on what I've seen, that's how I see it. It will likely be appealed, but I don't think any state law would permit an execution by a private citizen, which is what appears to have happened.
-
Re: premeditated murder
A snippet from the original news item:
* * *
A few minutes later, Kifer walked down the stairs and Smith shot her, Wartner said. He tried another shot, but his rifle jammed, Wartner said, and Smith told police he believed Kifer laughed at him.
"He was angry," Wartner said. He said that Smith then pulled out his revolver and he shot her twice in the head, once in the left eye and once behind the left ear.
Smith dragged Kifer's body into the workshop and laid it on top of Brady's, Wartner said. Smith told investigators he thought he heard Kifer gasping, so he placed his revolver under her chin and fired what he told police was a "good clean finishing shot to the head," the assistant prosecutor said.
* * *
The part in bold is, in my view, the damning event.
Under Minnesota law, first degree murder includes
609.185 MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE.
(a) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of murder in the first degree and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life:
(1) causes the death of a human being with premeditation and with intent to effect the death of the person or of another;
* * *
second degree murder includes
609.19 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
Subdivision 1.Intentional murder; drive-by shootings.
Whoever does either of the following is guilty of murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:
(1) causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation; or
* * *
If his actions weren't premeditated, then he still faces at least 40 years in prison because his actions were definitely second-degree murder.
Minnesota law defines premeditation thusly:
609.18 DEFINITION.
For the purposes of sections 609.185, 609.19, 609.2661, and 609.2662, "premeditation" means to consider, plan or prepare for, or determine to commit, the act referred to prior to its commission.
* * *
Further, under Minnesota caselaw, premeditation can take place within moments - i.e., the heat of the moment - and in no wise requires calm reflection on the matter. From a 1978 Minn. case, State v. Marsyla:
The question of intent and premeditation is stated well in 9 McCarr, Minnesota Practice, Criminal Law and Procedure, § 1521, p. 187:
"All the time needed for premeditation or deliberation is that required to form the intent to kill. Thus, the following instruction was sustained in State v. Prolow [98 Minn. 459, 461, 108 N.W. 873, 874 (1906)]: "The `premeditation may be formed at any time, moment or instant before the killing. Premeditation means thought of beforehand for any length of time, no matter how short. There need be no appreciable space of time between the intention of killing and the act of killing. They may be as instantaneous as the successive thoughts of the mind.'
(emphasis mine)
This poor guy thought of giving the girl a "good clean finishing shot to the head" and then did so. Under Minnesota law he committed premeditated murder.
-
Thank you O.
-
Yeah, based on what I've seen, that's how I see it. It will likely be appealed, but I don't think any state law would permit an execution by a private citizen, which is what appears to have happened.
I'm quite sure there will be an appeal. For example, the trial judge excluded documentary evidence that the guy had broken into this man's house before; I would think one basis for appeal would be to claim that was reversible error because the fact that this particular guy had broken into the house before would reasonably affect how this man saw the situation - it would be quite reasonable for him to assume that the guy was there to do it again - and so the info should have come in. I don't think it's a winning argument but it's certainly a non-laughable argument.
At the end of the day, though, I agree that it was the last shot, the "good clean killing shot", that sank this man; there is simply no way to shoe horn that into self-defense. It seems to me that the right to use lethal force in self-defense with respect to a particular person ends at the point that the person is incapacitated or no longer capable of posing an immediate threat to the person defending themselves. Here, this man already knew they were incapacitated and no longer a threat to him - he dragged them around like sacks of potatoes - and there is simply no rational way he could have legitimately perceived them as a continuing threat to him.
-
This whole case is based on his 'state of mind'. Was he reasonable or rational? His own words and deeds prove that he was not. He was not in a rational normal state of mind. His own recording proves that. He was in every respect 'out of his mind'. He was not insane, but it could be viewed as a 'crime of passion' in the sense that he was not thinking clearly.
He is not a menace to society, who needs to be locked-up for public safety. Quite the opposite, the drug addled punks he killed were the ones menacing society.
-
Thanks for clearing this up for me guys.
I didn't pay a whole lot of attention to the case.
-
This whole case is based on his 'state of mind'. Was he reasonable or rational? His own words and deeds prove that he was not. He was not in a rational normal state of mind. His own recording proves that. He was in every respect 'out of his mind'. He was not insane, but it could be viewed as a 'crime of passion' in the sense that he was not thinking clearly.
He is not a menace to society, who needs to be locked-up for public safety. Quite the opposite, the drug addled punks he killed were the ones menacing society.
You're kidding, right?
A "crime of passion"? He sat in his basement, waiting. When the male came down the stairs, he shot him, several times, the rolled his body up in a tarp and dragged him to the side.
The female came down, he shot her several times, but she wasn't dead. In fact, she was begging for her life. So, he puts down the rifle and picks up a handgun and administers the "finishing shot" under the chin.
The fact that he recorded the whole thing means that he WANTED others to hear what he had done, or, maybe he thought he'd get a thrill out of listening to his killings later. No, he was of clear mind. He wanted to kill two teenagers that night, and he did it.
Defending this idiot ought to make those who do cringe, but obviously it doesn't. He'll get what he deserves when he's sentenced.
-
I agree. The recording of the whole thing only proves to me that he is a 'crazy old man', in the classic sense. What kind of 'premeditated' criminal would do that?
In saying, crime of passion, I was only pointing out that he was irrational and reacting to the moment and not according to anything he had thought out.
In the end, these were obviously two hoodlums who were picking on an unstable guy. It is their actions that ruined his life. He did nothing, nothing at all, 'active', to interfere with their life. All of his involvement is completely passive. They came to him. They were the bullies.
He wanted nothing to do with them, at all, until they shattered a window, entered his home, and then headed for the basement presumably to look for more weapons like the ones they stole the first time they broke in.
They ruined his life by what 'they' did. He was not seeking to interject anything into their life. He just wanted to be left alone. They would not give him that peace.
This whole incident is not in any way his fault. It was brought to him. He did not seek it out. The two perps brought it to him. And now his life is ruined because of decisions that they made.
-
This whole case is based on his 'state of mind'. Was he reasonable or rational? His own words and deeds prove that he was not. He was not in a rational normal state of mind. His own recording proves that. He was in every respect 'out of his mind'. He was not insane, but it could be viewed as a 'crime of passion' in the sense that he was not thinking clearly.
He is not a menace to society, who needs to be locked-up for public safety. Quite the opposite, the drug addled punks he killed were the ones menacing society.
His state of mind was this: he shot two people whom he was afraid of; he dragged their bodies into the cellar; he believed he heard the girl still breathing so he gave her a "good clean killing shot". That was premeditated; premeditation has nothing to do with how wound up you are, it has to do with whether you took the time to think about doing something - and that does not mean you sat and reflected on the philosophical issues, it merely means that you decided you were going to kill someone, and then you went and did it.
A "good clean killing shot" takes some skill; I doubt if I could administer one of those without bollixing everything up, even when I'm calm as a cucumber.
He thought through what he was going to do when he administered that coup de grace and he cannot justify that action as self-defense because no rational person - and that is what you are tested against, the hypothetical rational person - could have believed that the girl was a threat to him any longer. Absolutely no one.
Whether the rest of his actions were justified or not, executing the girl cannot ever be justified. He committed premeditated murder when he executed her.
-
Oceander quotes Minnesota law above:
[[ "All the time needed for premeditation or deliberation is that required to form the intent to kill. Thus, the following instruction was sustained in State v. Prolow [98 Minn. 459, 461, 108 N.W. 873, 874 (1906)]: "The `premeditation may be formed at any time, moment or instant before the killing. Premeditation means thought of beforehand for any length of time, no matter how short. There need be no appreciable space of time between the intention of killing and the act of killing. They may be as instantaneous as the successive thoughts of the mind.' ]]
"An instant before the killing" seems to try to blur the distinction between "premeditated" and a "spontaneous crime of passion".
I see a challenge here in the federal courts -- the law is simply too vague.
-
bkmk
-
Oceander quotes Minnesota law above:
[[ "All the time needed for premeditation or deliberation is that required to form the intent to kill. Thus, the following instruction was sustained in State v. Prolow [98 Minn. 459, 461, 108 N.W. 873, 874 (1906)]: "The `premeditation may be formed at any time, moment or instant before the killing. Premeditation means thought of beforehand for any length of time, no matter how short. There need be no appreciable space of time between the intention of killing and the act of killing. They may be as instantaneous as the successive thoughts of the mind.' ]]
The intent to kill is not illegal. Anyone who shoots anyone has an ostensible 'intent to kill'. It is similar to calling something a 'hate crime'. All crimes are hate crimes. This is no such thing as a 'love crime' except the one Jeb Bush just made up. How could anyone argue, "Yes, I killed him. But I did not 'hate' him at the time of the crime." That is even worse!
In that sense, there is not anyone who shoots at anyone without a 'defacto' intent to kill. How could anyone argue, "Yes, I shot him. But I did not mean to hurt him." Under this law, all shootings everywhere are 'premeditated murder', if the person happens to die from it.
-
Agreed. But then, the law and judicial system is left to sort it out.
Yeah... I agree.
The problem is that it can't get sorted out and judged from the perspective of having been robbed several times previously, and facing the situation under the amount of adrenaline that one who is actually making the decisions at the time of the killing was experiencing.
I'm not sure what I would do faced with the same circumstances.
-
Oceander quotes Minnesota law above:
[[ "All the time needed for premeditation or deliberation is that required to form the intent to kill. Thus, the following instruction was sustained in State v. Prolow [98 Minn. 459, 461, 108 N.W. 873, 874 (1906)]: "The `premeditation may be formed at any time, moment or instant before the killing. Premeditation means thought of beforehand for any length of time, no matter how short. There need be no appreciable space of time between the intention of killing and the act of killing. They may be as instantaneous as the successive thoughts of the mind.' ]]
"An instant before the killing" seems to try to blur the distinction between "premeditated" and a "spontaneous crime of passion".
I see a challenge here in the federal courts -- the law is simply too vague.
So, in Minnesota, if faced with a similart charge, one's defense should ALWAYS be "I aimed for the knees, but they squatted"?
Does that sound about right?
-
The intent to kill is not illegal. Anyone who shoots anyone has an ostensible 'intent to kill'. It is similar to calling something a 'hate crime'. All crimes are hate crimes. This is no such thing as a 'love crime' except the one Jeb Bush just made up. How could anyone argue, "Yes, I killed him. But I did not 'hate' him at the time of the crime." That is even worse!
In that sense, there is not anyone who shoots at anyone without a 'defacto' intent to kill. How could anyone argue, "Yes, I shot him. But I did not mean to hurt him." Under this law, all shootings everywhere are 'premeditated murder', if the person happens to die from it.
Intent coupled with one or more actions taken to carry that intent out is illegal. That's called attempt.
You're more than welcome to start tilting at the deeply-established concept of premeditated murder, but you'll soon envy Don Quixote.
The difference here is that he didn't just fire off a couple of additional shots, he carefully considered what kind of shot he was going to fire. That is a pretty good illustration of the difference between first degree murder and premeditated murder.
More generally: if an argument escalates to violence and one person gets so angry that he yanks out his firearm and shoots at the other person, that is not premeditated murder. On the other hand, suppose that person knew the other person was a hothead and that he would yank out his bowie knife if he got mad enough. Suppose that this person instigated an argument and pushed it to the point where he knew the other person would pull out his knife, so that he could then shoot that other person and claim self-defense, that is premeditation. Even if the plan forms half-way through the argument, there was premeditation. It's sort of like the difference between general intent and specific intent.
-
There are times when premeditated is not only legal but condoned.
I take a team out on a run - we are not going out to give hugs and kisses. We are also not doing anything wrong, legally.