# Minnesota Man Guilty of Murder shooting burglars



## granfire (Apr 29, 2014)

Minnesota man convicted of premeditated murder

discuss.


----------



## Big Don (Apr 29, 2014)

IIRC, Lying in wait counts as special circumstances in CA, making that eligible for the death penalty. Otoh, had the "victims" not broken into his house, he would have been bored in the basement for the night and they would have lived to commit some other crimes.


----------



## wimwag (Apr 29, 2014)

I'm going to have to argue the "lying in wait" comment.  California is not a place where laws are rational.  If you are in your home, that is your place of last retreat.  You have absolutely nowhere to hide after that.

However, delivering a coup de gras behind the ear of a critically wounded and unresponsive human being is murder.  Hiding the bodies and only telling someone about it the next day is proof of guilt of murder.

I doubt he felt threatened.  I've been the victim of a home invasion.  The man walked through my door right in front of me.  I ran upstairs and got my 12 gauge.  I racked the pump and tried to cut him off.  I had a clean shot, could have sent him to hell.  Why didn't I?  No need to kill over an unlawful entry.

I could be wrong, but his hiding the bodies after delivering a bullet behind the girls ear and however he did the boy in suggests to me that he planned to kill them regardless.


----------



## wimwag (Apr 29, 2014)

What I mean to say in my last sentence was: I could be wrong about the way the confrontation unfolded


----------



## granfire (Apr 30, 2014)

wimwag said:


> What I mean to say in my last sentence was: I could be wrong about the way the confrontation unfolded



I gather it was pretty chilling...the old man recorded himself.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 30, 2014)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ings-spark-debate-over-self-defense-laws.html


Thats the obvious part about last weeks killing of 17-year-old Nicholas Brady and 18-year-old Haile Kifer, gunned down after they allegedly broke into Smiths home in the 8,000-population town of Little Falls, in central Minnesota. Had Smith only fired two shots that dayone at each of the intrudersno one would question his right to do so. Minnesota statute 609.065 allows the intentional taking of the life of another if resisting or preventing the commission of a felony in the actors place of abode. Its been that way since 1969. Smith had a right to shoot, and he had a right to shoot to kill.

We understand that right. We respect that right. We know that right exists, said Morrison County Sheriff Michel Wetzel in a press conference following Smiths arrest.

Now Smith is in jail, facing charges of second-degree murder, and while what happened in that basement while people across America were whipping up mashed potatoes might sound clearly to some a case of cold-blooded murder, as County Attorney Brian Middendorf later described it, the right to self-defense is actually a very complex topic, and its laws vary state-by-state.

First, the facts, at least those described in a criminal complaint filed by Middendorf and reviewed by The Daily Beast: Smith was by himself in his home around midday on Thanksgiving, sitting in his basement, he told police. He heard footsteps, then a window breaking upstairs, then more footsteps down the hallway. Smith looked up to see a person walking down the stairwell into the basement, aimed his rifle, and shot that person, who turned out to be 17-year-old Nicholas Brady. Brady fell down the stairs, at which point he was looking up at the homeowner. Smith shot the boy in the face, he told police, explaining, I want him dead.

Smith then dragged Bradys body on a tarp, into the basement workshop, he told police, and sat back down in his chair. A few minutes later came more footsteps, down the stairs and into the basement. Smith waited until he could see her hips and fired again, at which point 18-year-old Haile Kifer tumbled down the stairs. He tried to shoot her again but the rifle jammed, at which point he claimed the girl laughed at him.

Smith acknowledged this made him upset, according to the complaint. Smith told (the investigator) If youre trying to shoot somebody and they laugh at you, you go again. So he reached for the .22 caliber revolver strapped to his chest, aimed it at the girl, and shot her in the chest several times, with more shots than I needed to, according to what he told police.

Then, as Kifer lay gasping for air, Smith put his handgun under her chin and shot herhis wordsunder the chin up into the cranium a good clean finishing shot to end her suffering.

At some point, legal experts who have reviewed the case told The Daily Beast, Smith was acting in self-defense, in full accordance with Minnesota law. The Little Falls sheriff, in a press conference this week, did his best to clarify the point at which he believed Smith stepped over the line.

Theres a great deal of confusion that can occur in a case like this, he said. People are going to wonder what can we do and what cant we do to defend ourselves.


----------



## wimwag (Apr 30, 2014)

granfire said:


> I gather it was pretty chilling...the old man recorded himself.



 Dale Gribble...


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 30, 2014)

I'm not familiar with the details beyond what's in the article, so there may be things missing -- but in the article, I see a person creating an enticing situation to encourage them to burglarize the house, then laying in wait for them to do so.  When they break in, I see no attempt to avoid the use of lethal force or to simply detain them -- I see clear intent to kill them.  He then waits 24 hours to report it via a third party.  (He kept two bleeding, decaying bodies around the house, it seems?!  Maybe his attorneys missed the boat by not going after a not guilty by mental defect...)  

Preclusion -- what could you have done other than use lethal force -- is a major factor.  The Castle Doctrine allows you to assume that anyone breaking into your home intends you harm, but isn't a blanket excuse for lethal force.  It doesn't, for example, generally let you hunt the burglar through your house.  He could have done everything else he did -- and simply called 911 when they broke in.  Hell, had he even called 911 right before shooting them, he'd have had a stronger case.

This looks like a pretty clear case of premeditated murder.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Apr 30, 2014)

As jks9199 said, only knowing what is in the article, he articulated no reason for killing the boy other than wanting him dead.  That's not enough.  He expressed no further feeling of danger.  With the girl, given his own statement on the matter, it is even more clear that he was not in fear, but simply wanted to kill her, to put her out of what he perceived as her misery.  I doubt any castle or self defense laws in the USA allow killing when you perceive no further danger from the person you kill.


----------



## Carol (Apr 30, 2014)

wimwag said:


> I doubt he felt threatened.  I've been the victim of a home invasion.  The man walked through my door right in front of me.  I ran upstairs and got my 12 gauge.  I racked the pump and tried to cut him off.  I had a clean shot, could have sent him to hell.  Why didn't I?  No need to kill over an unlawful entry.



Very glad no one was hurt in your incident. :asian:  

If someone invaded my home, I would feel threatened.  A 3 room condo is not that big.  I wouldn't attack a cat burglar I caught escaping with my camera or my TV....those are just things.  Things can be insured, things can be replaced.  But if someone breaks in, I don't know if they are just after things or after me instead.  I hope I never find out.


----------



## wimwag (Apr 30, 2014)

Ok I heard a clip of the recordings on the news this morning...he was trying to justify to himself why he killed them.  He said he doesn't see them as human...it's pretty clear why the jury took very little time to convict.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 30, 2014)

What is legal and what is not varies from state to state.  In Florida, for example, it seems that "Stand your ground" would have legalized his actions.  In Minnesota, "duty to retreat" would seem to indicate that you need to limit your response once the threat has ended.  I can understand arguments for both, but I'm not sure what approach is better.  I do feel that this man crossed the line and that the jury's verdict is justified...


----------



## granfire (Apr 30, 2014)

Makalakumu said:


> What is legal and what is not varies from state to state.  In Florida, for example, it seems that "Stand your ground" would have legalized his actions.  In Minnesota, "duty to retreat" would seem to indicate that you need to limit your response once the threat has ended.  I can understand arguments for both, but I'm not sure what approach is better.  I do feel that this man crossed the line and that the jury's verdict is justified...



I think 'stand your ground' goes out the door when your 'attacker' is on his/her back, bleeding, unarmed and unable to get away. 
deliberate kill shots aimed at incapacitated humans is generally frowned upon in our society. Even in combat, am I correct?


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 30, 2014)

Makalakumu said:


> What is legal and what is not varies from state to state.  In Florida, for example, it seems that "Stand your ground" would have legalized his actions.  In Minnesota, "duty to retreat" would seem to indicate that you need to limit your response once the threat has ended.  I can understand arguments for both, but I'm not sure what approach is better.  I do feel that this man crossed the line and that the jury's verdict is justified...



You may want to go actually read the stand your ground law in fla before making that statement.  You cant just execute someone for entering your home


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 30, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> You may want to go actually read the stand your ground law in fla before making that statement.  You cant just execute someone for entering your home



I'm basing this off of what I read in this article.

Minnesota Killings Spark Debate over Self-Defense Laws - The Daily Beast



> Not in Minnesota, anyway. In Florida, or other states with so-called &#8220;Stand Your Ground&#8221; laws&#8212;also known as &#8220;Castle&#8221; doctrines (as in &#8220;my home is my castle&#8221 a jury might never have gotten to consider a case like Smith&#8217;s.
> *&#8220;It&#8217;s possible he might not have even been charged here,&#8221; said Joelle Moreno, a professor of law at Florida International University&#8217;s school of law* and a member of the statewide task force that made recommendations to alter the Sunshine State&#8217;s Stand Your Ground law in the wake of George Zimmerman&#8217;s shooting of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin in March. &#8220;*Just by virtue of those teenagers entering his home, the fear of imminent deadly force was reasonable. Just because they broke into his home, that&#8217;s all you need [in Florida]*.&#8221;



Is that incorrect?


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 30, 2014)

Makalakumu said:


> I'm basing this off of what I read in this article.
> 
> Minnesota Killings Spark Debate over Self-Defense Laws - The Daily Beast
> 
> ...



There a difference between defense of youryourself and home and walking up to a wounded person and putting a bullet in their head


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 30, 2014)

Stand your ground isn't a license to just shoot people

Orlando Sentinel


----------



## wimwag (Apr 30, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Stand your ground isn't a license to just shoot people
> 
> 
> 
> Orlando Sentinel






The media portrays it as such and spreads it around to garner support for their condemnation of "white Hispanics," a term that they made up to avoid admitting they confused a Peruvian with a man of European descent.


----------



## Big Don (Apr 30, 2014)

jks9199 said:


> I'm not familiar with the details beyond what's in the article, so there may be things missing -- but in the article, I see a person creating an enticing situation to encourage them to burglarize the house, then laying in wait for them to do so.  When they break in, I see no attempt to avoid the use of lethal force or to simply detain them -- I see clear intent to kill them.  He then waits 24 hours to report it via a third party.  (He kept two bleeding, decaying bodies around the house, it seems?!  Maybe his attorneys missed the boat by not going after a not guilty by mental defect...)
> 
> Preclusion -- what could you have done other than use lethal force -- is a major factor.  The Castle Doctrine allows you to assume that anyone breaking into your home intends you harm, but isn't a blanket excuse for lethal force.  It doesn't, for example, generally let you hunt the burglar through your house.  He could have done everything else he did -- and simply called 911 when they broke in.  Hell, had he even called 911 right before shooting them, he'd have had a stronger case.
> 
> This looks like a pretty clear case of premeditated murder.


Making it look as if you aren't home is creating an enticing situation?
Hell no.


----------



## Big Don (Apr 30, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> There a difference between defense of youryourself and home and walking up to a wounded person and putting a bullet in their head





Aim center mass, using a shotgun at conversational distance, there shouldn't have been any wounded to dispatch... someone tried to get fancy


----------



## granfire (Apr 30, 2014)

Big Don said:


> Aim center mass, using a shotgun at conversational distance, there shouldn't have been any wounded to dispatch... someone tried to get fancy



lousy shot. never heard of gun control...


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 30, 2014)

Big Don said:


> Aim center mass, using a shotgun at conversational distance, there shouldn't have been any wounded to dispatch... someone tried to get fancy



Had he killed them at first then yeah he probably would have been ok.  Shooting people that are no longer a threat to you and not reporting it immediately he's a murderer.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 30, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> There a difference between defense of youryourself and home and walking up to a wounded person and putting a bullet in their head



There's also a difference between reacting to an unexpected burglary, and setting up circumstances to invite one, then laying in wait to cap the burglars as they break in.  As I said -- at the very least, he'd have had a stronger case if he'd called 911 as they broke in.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 30, 2014)

Big Don said:


> Making it look as if you aren't home is creating an enticing situation?
> Hell no.



Let's change a few elements -- and see what you think.

The police tell a person to leave their house, and put them up in a nearby hotel.  Meanwhile, the police wait hidden in the house for someone to burglarize it.  Is it entrapment?

He created an impression he wasn't home, then hid inside to catch burglars.  I'm *not *justifying the burglary; no matter how enticing the target, that's still illegal and wrong.  But did he create a situation to invite someone to burglarize his house?  Yes, he did.  Does that go to the question of whether he intended to kill any burglar?  Yes, it does.  I'd pat him on the back if he set up a camera to get their picture as they entered.  I've said it could have boosted his case if he'd simply called it in as they entered.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 30, 2014)

jks9199 said:


> The police tell a person to leave their house, and put them up in a nearby hotel.  Meanwhile, the police wait hidden in the house for someone to burglarize it.  Is it entrapment?



I would say no. Entrapment is when the police actively entice a person to commit a crime they would otherwise been unlikely to commit. I can leave my front door wide open with a bag of cash on the landing....nobody has the "right" to enter and take it.  

I can put a unlocked bike against a phone pole and arrest people who try to take it. If I approach a person and tell him "that bike over there is unlocked..." that's a different matter.

Putting a downed burglar "out of her misery" with no active threat, and not calling authorities for hours? Murder.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 30, 2014)

Tgace said:


> I would say no. Entrapment is when the police actively entice a person to commit a crime they would otherwise been unlikely to commit. I can leave my front door wide open with a bag of cash on the landing....nobody has the "right" to enter and take it.
> 
> I can put a unlocked bike against a phone pole and arrest people who try to take it. If I approach a person and tell him "that bike over there is unlocked..." that's a different matter.
> 
> ...



I realize it's not technically entrapment -- but would many people interpret it that way?  Yeah.  Which was my point; it wasn't entrapment -- but it was certainly setting the stage for murder since he apparently had no intent to do anything but shoot anyone who entered.


----------



## wimwag (Apr 30, 2014)

Big Don said:


> Making it look as if you aren't home is creating an enticing situation?
> Hell no.






I do that every time someone knocks on my door.  Its good tactics.


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 30, 2014)

jks9199 said:


> Let's change a few elements -- and see what you think.
> 
> The police tell a person to leave their house, and put them up in a nearby hotel.  Meanwhile, the police wait hidden in the house for someone to burglarize it.  Is it entrapment?
> 
> He created an impression he wasn't home, then hid inside to catch burglars.  I'm *not *justifying the burglary; no matter how enticing the target, that's still illegal and wrong.  But did he create a situation to invite someone to burglarize his house?  Yes, he did.  Does that go to the question of whether he intended to kill any burglar?  Yes, it does.  I'd pat him on the back if he set up a camera to get their picture as they entered.  I've said it could have boosted his case if he'd simply called it in as they entered.



Hope not because I've done it.  Not the hotel part but we have hidden in a coffee shop that was broken into 3 fridays in a row.  Guy wasn't smart because when he came in on the 4th Friday he had a few of us waitimg.


----------

