Minn. man convicted of murder in home invasion

[midtennchip]

I believe we discussed this one shortly after it happened in 2012. Homeowner was convicted today of murder following a home invasion:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/04/29/minn-homeowner-convicted-premeditated-murder/?intcmp=latestnews

[Oh Shoot]

"...with Smith saying, "You're dying." It's followed soon after by another shot, which investigators said Smith described as "a good, clean finishing shot."

 

That right there alone would do it in TN too.  As we've discussed here many times, our "castle doctrine" does not license you to execute a perp. If it can be demonstrated that you were no longer in reasonable fear of death or serious injury, the default supposition of that evaporates for your actions past that point.

 

- OS

Edited April 30, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[RED333]

The man did wrong, you can not "kill" someone that is not a threat.

[dralarms]

Knew this was going to happen. He did wrong and now has to pay for it.

[hipower]

Well, the facts as outlined, and his own tape recording of the events certainly don't leave much of an out for him.

Would take a most liberal interpretation of "Castle" not to convict him.

[Jonnin]

the moron recorded it?  Bwahahaha.

[JWKilgore]

He set up a comfortable chair, started a tape recorder going, and waited in ambush. After shooting them from across the room he followed with a contact "finishing" shot to the head. This was NOT self-defense in any form. Even though the teens were far from innocent (they did break into his home and steal stuff multiple times), this was clearly pre-meditated murder.

 

However, reading the transcripts from the recording almost makes me lean toward an "insanity" plea. The old guy just doesn't seem right in the head.

Edited April 30, 2014 by JWKilgore

[Randall53]

He is guilty in my eyes. I'd have voted guilty on that jury. He could have held them for police. They were unarmed. They were in the wrong, but he went way over on this.

[Hershmeister]

Thats one evil mother_____

[Troutburger]

I think he snapped mentally. A man can only take so much. He needs to be locked up in a looney bin not a prison.

[bersaguy]

To me that was a clear cut case of premeditation and he should have been found guilty of all charges. He could have and should have dialed 911 when he heard them attempting to enter his home and if the police did not arrive in time than he would have had right to defend himself if he was threaten with fear of his life. I don't condone what the two teenagers were doing and it was only a matter of time before they would be caught or killed but that was a planned execution and not a self defense situation.........jmho

[RobertNashville]

"...with Smith saying, "You're dying." It's followed soon after by another shot, which investigators said Smith described as "a good, clean finishing shot."

 

That right there alone would do it in TN too.  As we've discussed here many times, our "castle doctrine" does not license you to execute a perp. If it can be demonstrated that you were no longer in reasonable fear of death or serious injury, the default supposition of that evaporates for your actions past that point.

 

- OS

Which is as it should be...we have the right to stop the threat; not kill.  I'm afraid there are more than a few who don't truly understand the difference.

[molonlabetn]

A few thoughts....

"Finishing Shot"? That's all I needed to hear to know this guy had crossed the line from self defense to execution.

Premeditated? No. At least no more than you or I are premeditating violence against an intruder. The perpetrators had a choice whether or not to engage in criminal behavior, and as such are subject to any and all consequences for their actions, epecially while engaging in them.

What this guy did wrong was not to shoot intruders in his house, or be prepared for them in response to previous criminal activity... His mistake was choosing to use deadly force after the threat was eliminated, out of vengeance or anger. That is not justifiable, morally or legally, and he should have gotten murder in the second degree.

I sincerely hope that I am never the victim of actual or attempted violence by a minor, there is never a winner.

[Luke E.]

We all "plan ahead" such as if I hear someone coming through the front door I will_____ to defend my family or if I hear window busted on the backside of the house I will_____ to defend my family but that much different than hearing one of those sounds and setting up for the kill all the while rubbing your palms together with insane happiness. This guy was as guilty as the teens were I think and I believe the conviction was correct. The insanity deals are in fact insane themselves because if we let murderers on by reason of insanity then we most assuredly have to let them all plead insanity because anyone that makes the decision to kill when another option could easily replace it is insane. 

[Patton]

To be honest, I don't think this guy really cares if he is convicted or not. Somewhere I read that he is on over a dozen medications, he know has free health care. If he wanted to plea insanity with his list of meds he could have gotten it.

[DaveTN]

Goes to show there is no “free shoot”.

This was a burglary not a home invasion. I doubt these guys expected to run into the home owner.

I have absolutely no compassion for a burglar and can remember when we could shoot them in Illinois. There should have been only one side of the story; his. But by executing them and then admitting it, plus recording it; he convicted himself.

A 17 & 18 year old aren’t kids they are men. Two dirt bags got exactly what they deserved and now a home owner gets to go to prison for it. Justice….. not hardly.

[Patton]

A 17 & 18 year old aren’t kids they are men. Two dirt bags got exactly what they deserved and now a home owner gets to go to prison for it. Justice….. not hardly.

Technically a man and a woman, but I know what you are saying.

[JAB]

Goes to show there is no “free shoot”.

This was a burglary not a home invasion. I doubt these guys expected to run into the home owner.

I have absolutely no compassion for a burglar and can remember when we could shoot them in Illinois. There should have been only one side of the story; his. But by executing them and then admitting it, plus recording it; he convicted himself.

A 17 & 18 year old aren’t kids they are men. Two dirt bags got exactly what they deserved and now a home owner gets to go to prison for it. Justice….. not hardly.

 

The really weird thing is that it sounds like - just by altering a few of the actions he took - this could have been a legal shooting that would probably not have ended with the home owner even being prosecuted.  For instance, it could have gone more like:

 

"I was working in my basement when the first intruder came down the stairs.  Fearing for my life, I grabbed a 12 gauge pump that I keep down there and fired two shots at him.  I then went upstairs to call 911 and that is where I encountered the second intruder.  I had brought the shotgun with me in case there were multiple intruders and, still afraid for my life, I fired two more shots at the second intruder in self defense.  I then proceeded to call 911 and request that police and an ambulance be sent to my house."

 

That series of events would not be so 'premeditated', would fall in line with the law and would leave the home owner firmly in the role of victim.  Also, after taking a 'double tap' of 00 buckshot to the chest/torso area it is pretty unlikely that an 'execution' shot would have entered into the picture.

 

I have as little hesitation about defending myself and my home as the next guy.  I will even go so far as to say that I would support a change in TN law to be more like Texas law in that the use of deadly force would be legal in defense of property (but due to current TN law I wouldn't use such force to protect property unless such a change were made.)  That said, shooting the first intruder, administering a coup de grace, hiding the body and waiting for a second intruder is not something I would feel was reasonable under similar circumstances.  I also don't think I could bring myself to execute a home invader once he (or she) was obviously down and no longer a threat.  I realize that neither age nor gender prevents someone from posing a threat to my life.  I also believe that I could pull the trigger to defend myself against a threat to my life regardless of the age or gender of that threat.  Still, I really, really don't think I could walk up to an 18 year old young woman who was already injured and likely not a threat, hear her screaming in pain, tell her that she was dying and then execute her.  In fact, I have to say that I pretty much hope that I wouldn't be able to bring myself to do that.

 

Not calling 911 after shooting the first intruder and in fact not even notifying authorities until the next day, hiding the body and waiting calmly for a second intruder (which kind of goes against the idea of 'in fear for his life') and recording himself executing both of them was probably already a slam dunk for prosecutors.  Honestly, though, right or wrong I can't help but think that the fact that one of the home invaders that he 'executed' was a pretty, 18 year old "girl" (because you just know that the prosecution referred to her as a 'girl' and not a 'woman') likely played a role if not in the verdict then probably in the sentence he received.  I am not saying that should be the case but I would be surprised if it wasn't.

Edited May 1, 2014 by JAB

[BigK]

Sounds like a clear-cut case of premeditated murder to me as well. The "finishing shot" makes him a monster in my book and I hope his final years in prison are miserable. That being said, I have absolutely zero sympathy for Brady and Kifer, though. Considering their criminal past, the world is better off without them, even though the circumstances of their deaths is illegal.

 

If every would-be criminal had a reasonable fear of the same outcome, they'd think twice about a life of crime. It's obvious that fear of the legal consequences isn't stopping them.

Edited May 1, 2014 by BigK

[tnguy]

Something seems odd about the fact that he turned in this recording. Did he just not understand that it would remove any doubt or was he just trying to prove a point?

[Hershmeister]

[quote name="tnguy" post="1144876" timestamp="1398960760"]Something seems odd about the fact that he turned in this recording. Did he just not understand that it would remove any doubt or was he just trying to prove a point?[/quote] There is no understanding crazy

[Oh Shoot]

Something seems odd about the fact that he turned in this recording. Did he just not understand that it would remove any doubt or was he just trying to prove a point?

 

Why didn't Nixon destroy the tapes?

 

- OS

[Erik88]

Question- let's say he didn't "execute" them but he did wait in his house for them knowing they would arrive. Is that still a crime?

 

If my house was broken into several times you bet your ass I'd be trying to catch these people in the act. If that involves them dying, so be it. Where this guy crossed the line is by murdering them when they were down and not calling the cops.

[tnguy]

Arguably, by moving his truck, he encouraged them to break in whilst knowing he would be there. And the law doesn't allow deadly force in defense of property.

 

Though personally, I have little sympathy for thieves.

 

I'm sure we could have a whole discussion what happens when the government allows the rule of law to break down and people don't feel they're being adequately protected by the legal and justice systems. I'll leave that to others.

[midtennchip]

Question- let's say he didn't "execute" them but he did wait in his house for them knowing they would arrive. Is that still a crime?
 
If my house was broken into several times you bet your ass I'd be trying to catch these people in the act. If that involves them dying, so be it. Where this guy crossed the line is by murdering them when they were down and not calling the cops.

In that limited circumstance, I would imagine that it would be a crime (under TN law). The issue is that there has to be a fear of great bodily injury or death. Tennessee provides for a presumption of that fear in the home, but an actual lack of that fear makes a shooting criminal. It is a state of mind issue. If your are sitting and waiting for them, I would expect that fear not to be there. Obviously, that has to be proven in court, but as a factual matter, without the fear it is criminal.