Man to spend life in prison for killing teens in burglary

[HumblePie]

That's a serious misunderstanding of the law when it comes to premeditation. First, determining what is or is not premeditation has nothing to do with the second amendment, and preparing to kill people can absolutely be considered premeditation, depending on the circumstances.

In Minnesota, premeditation simply requires evidence that the offender to consider or determine to act prior to the commission of the crime. Dragging them to the other room was in and of itself easily enough. There's a reason why the jury took almost no time to convict.

EDIT: Sorry, I see you said later that the dragging was premeditation and I agree. An important thing to note is that his prior actions are ALSO evidence of premeditation. They might not have been sufficient in and of themselves, but preparing the house in the way he did may very well have ended up with a conviction of premeditated murder as well.

No because the slippery slope is that owning a gun could then be a premeditation to murder. The act of purchasing a gun to defend your house with, can be considered premeditation. That is what I am trying to argue against here as many people in this thread are seeming to spout something similar to this statement with statements such as "burglary is not deserving of a death sentence" as well as other slippery slope statements.

Preparation to defense of your home, even if the results of such actions would end in the death of a home invader, should never be considered premeditation for murder. When saying things like him parking his car elsewhere is evidence for premeditation of murder, is simply not true. It is evidence of him preparing for defense of his home in a manner he see's fit.

The premeditation part is him deciding to drag off neutralized threats to put them down with another shot. Had he simply let them bleed out to death instead he would not in most states be convicted of murder at all. Nor should that be the outcome if he had just decided to let them bleed out to death. No law in any place I know of state that after shooting a home invader do I have to call for medical assistance for them or even attempt to lend a helping hand. Again that would be a slippery slope that would open a home owner up to possible civil action.

 

[Rakehellion]

Whoah, I just listened to the audio recording. This guy is nuts.

https://soundcloud.com/nydailynews/...-smith-killing-two-teens-who-tried-to-rob-him

 

[fskimospy]

No because the slippery slope is that owning a gun could then be a premeditation to murder. The act of purchasing a gun to defend your house with, can be considered premeditation. That is what I am trying to argue against here as many people in this thread are seeming to spout something similar to this statement with statements such as "burglary is not deserving of a death sentence" as well as other slippery slope statements.

Preparation to defense of your home, even if the results of such actions would end in the death of a home invader, should never be considered premeditation for murder. When saying things like him parking his car elsewhere is evidence for premeditation of murder, is simply not true. It is evidence of him preparing for defense of his home in a manner he see's fit.

This doesn't fit with the legal definition of premeditation. Preparing to kill those who may enter your home is absolutely evidence that you are considering such an action ahead of time. If someone can show that such preparations were general and not related to premeditation for that particular crime they might not be counted, but preparations ahead of time would absolutely be considered as evidence for premeditation.

By the way yes, purchasing a gun can also be used as evidence for premeditation. Since it is fundamentally about determining a person's state of mind all their actions are taken into account. No second amendment violation, just the way things work.

The premeditation part is him deciding to drag off neutralized threats to put them down with another shot. Had he simply let them bleed out to death instead he would not in most states be convicted of murder at all. Nor should that be the outcome if he had just decided to let them bleed out to death. No law in any place I know of state that after shooting a home invader do I have to call for medical assistance for them or even attempt to lend a helping hand. Again that would be a slippery slope that would open a home owner up to possible civil action.

I agree.

 

[HumblePie]

Whoah, I just listened to the audio recording. This guy is nuts.

https://soundcloud.com/nydailynews/...-smith-killing-two-teens-who-tried-to-rob-him

Yep, but that doesn't mean he loses his right to defend his house with potentially lethal force just because he's a bit whacko. Still, his mental state is probably the reason he decided to drag the teens off to be shot again with a "clean" death giving shot as he describes it. Which is the whole reason he is a murderer and rightfully so.

 

[HumblePie]

This doesn't fit with the legal definition of premeditation. Preparing to kill those who may enter your home is absolutely evidence that you are considering such an action ahead of time. If someone can show that such preparations were general and not related to premeditation for that particular crime they might not be counted, but preparations ahead of time would absolutely be considered as evidence for premeditation.

By the way yes, purchasing a gun can also be used as evidence for premeditation. Since it is fundamentally about determining a person's state of mind all their actions are taken into account. No second amendment violation, just the way things work.

In some states they certainly have used that claim of the purchase of a gun for defense would be considered premeditation for murder. That doesn't pass Constitutional mustard though as stated in DC vs Heller since one of the major points of the 2nd amendment is such a use.

Actions taken to potentially kill a person that may enter your domicile in most places can not be considered a premeditation for murder. And shouldn't be according to SCOTUS. If their rulings in recent gun rights cases there is applied unilaterally. No one is forcing the home invader to enter the home. If there was such a force, and the home owner knew about it, then preparation for using deadly force to stop the home invader should then be considered premeditation for murder. I really hope you can see this distinction.

What I am trying to point out here is the following. If he had let the teens bleed out to death, or done an initial mag dump to kill them, he would have not been convicted. The prosecution would probably have still tried to use the facts that he parked his car elsewhere and turned out the lights as planned actions for premeditation, but those aren't actual evidence of such. They are evidence the home owner took steps that he thought he needed to defend his home properly and nothing more.

 

[alkemyst]

No, I own a gun for the defense of my domicile so that if an invader breaks in, I will use the amount of force I deemed needed to stop any potential threat. That is how the law reads in my area and how I will apply it. I will shoot until the target stops twitching, if it twitches again after I shoot I will shoot again. I will interpret any action on part of a home invader as a potential threatening action. I am shooting to stop such a threat. There is a slimmest chance they survive, but that chance is at the approach of the 0 asymptote. I really hope you understand the exact definition I am using here because it is how the law is written in most places in the US.

I doubt you will have ever a need to do so.

However; you are a problem.

WOW at you bringing math into this.

You are a major issue with gun ownership.

Do you even really own one?

 

[waggy]

This doesn't fit with the legal definition of premeditation. Preparing to kill those who may enter your home is absolutely evidence that you are considering such an action ahead of time. If someone can show that such preparations were general and not related to premeditation for that particular crime they might not be counted, but preparations ahead of time would absolutely be considered as evidence for premeditation.

By the way yes, purchasing a gun can also be used as evidence for premeditation. Since it is fundamentally about determining a person's state of mind all their actions are taken into account. No second amendment violation, just the way things work.

you both are taking it to a the edges. Yes purchasing a gun can be used as evidence of a premeditated murder. Such as you buy a gun then go over to someones house and shoot them.

purchasing a gun because people are breaking and entering your house is not premeditation. that is protection and totally legal. Also that is not what the guy did anyway. a normal person even one who is willing to defend themselves with deadly force is not going to lay a tarp down and move a already wounded person over to it for a "clean kill".

I would not find someone owning a gun and keeping it loaded and ready for a break in (even when he knows people are likely to do it) premeditation.

 

[HumblePie]

I doubt you will have ever a need to do so.

However; you are a problem.

WOW at you bringing math into this.

You are a major issue with gun ownership.

Do you even really own one?

No, you are the problem with forcing a home owner to have to question their decisions to use anything but the most expedient form of defense if they ever need to. You are probably one of those idiots that prefer stupid "must exhaust every possible form of retreat" laws that many places used to have and a few still do. Fuck you and your idiocy.

 

[fskimospy]

In some states they certainly have used that claim of the purchase of a gun for defense would be considered premeditation for murder. That doesn't pass Constitutional mustard though as stated in DC vs Heller since one of the major points of the 2nd amendment is such a use.

Exercising a constitutional right can most certainly be used as evidence for premeditation. Saying "I think I'm going to find someone to murder after work" is simply exercising your 1st amendment rights, and is most certainly evidence for premeditation.

So the constitutional case there is easy, of course a gun purchase can be considered evidence for premeditation. It all depends on the context for how it was purchased.

 

[HumblePie]

you both are taking it to a the edges. Yes purchasing a gun can be used as evidence of a premeditated murder. Such as you buy a gun then go over to someones house and shoot them.

purchasing a gun because people are breaking and entering your house is not premeditation. that is protection and totally legal. Also that is not what the guy did anyway. a normal person even one who is willing to defend themselves with deadly force is not going to lay a tarp down and move a already wounded person over to it for a "clean kill".

I would not find someone owning a gun and keeping it loaded and ready for a break in (even when he knows people are likely to do it) premeditation.

Lol, I'm not taking it at the edges since I'm specifically stating what the law in most places is and how it is applied in the US in terms of legal gun ownership and usage for defense.

As you stated, buying a gun for an act of assault to carry out a murder or attempt one is premeditation as you pointed out. But that wasn't on discussion here. The discussion here is based on the defense and initial actions by the home owner in the OP in defense of his home. Nothing there can be considered for premeditation in most places nor should it be. The only thing would be the dragging off to "finish" the teens off for good is and rightfully so.

 

[HumblePie]

Exercising a constitutional right can most certainly be used as evidence for premeditation. Saying "I think I'm going to find someone to murder after work" is simply exercising your 1st amendment rights, and is most certainly evidence for premeditation.

So the constitutional case there is easy, of course a gun purchase can be considered evidence for premeditation. It all depends on the context for how it was purchased.

FFS, read what I wrote!! Purchasing a gun FOR DEFENSE can't be used premeditation or it would certainly violate the 2nd amendment. Wow you twit.

 

[fskimospy]

FFS, read what I wrote!! Purchasing a gun FOR DEFENSE can't be used premeditation or it would certainly violate the 2nd amendment. Wow you twit.

Nope, still has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.

All you're saying is a truism: it's a meaningless statement. Since self defense is legal, a gun determined to be purchased for self defense isn't going to be viewed as premeditation for something illegal. What the purpose of a gun purchase was is determined by the courts and juries, however.

 

[Oldgamer]

If you haven't heard the video then you won't know just how demented this old fucker is. I am glad he got sentenced with premeditated murder.

 

[HumblePie]

Nope, still has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.

All you're saying is a truism: it's a meaningless statement. Since self defense is legal, a gun determined to be purchased for self defense isn't going to be viewed as premeditation for something illegal. What the purpose of a gun purchase was is determined by the courts and juries, however.

No, you did not read DC vs Heller then? In which was stated that one of the purposes of the 2nd amendment was for defense. That purchasing a gun for defense is a constitutional right. And to use the purchase of a firearm for defense that results in a death can not be considered premeditation for murder. That is where you are wrong and flatly so. Nor can any other actions for defense be considered premeditation.

If I go outside and put a big sign in my yard that states, "This place has no alarm system" and I shoot someone breaking into my home that the sign is not a premeditation action for murder. That would be the same thing as saying what a woman wears can be considered an invitation to rape.

If a person is planning to kill someone and goes out to buy a gun for that specific purpose, then that is not buying a gun for defense and that action can be considered as premeditation for murder. I am trying to show you the distinction here. Because I am trying to point out that all the other actions by the home owner in this article mean nothing in accordance with the law when it comes to the actual act of the murder. The only action that matters is after shooting them initially and determining they were not a threat any longer, he dragged them off to shoot them again to put them down for good. That is all that matters in this case. Driving the car else where, turning off the lights, and even making that video tape prior to having his home broken into are not precursor events for murder. Not can they be considered as such.

 

[fskimospy]

No, you did not read DC vs Heller then? In which was stated that one of the purposes of the 2nd amendment was for defense. That purchasing a gun for defense is a constitutional right. And to use the purchase of a firearm for defense that results in a death can not be considered premeditation for murder. That is where you are wrong and flatly so. Nor can any other actions for defense be considered premeditation.

I don't think you understand what I wrote and I think that in this case (as in other cases involving legal matters) your grasp of the law is poor. Yet again, this has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.

The reason why self defense is legal is not due to the 2nd amendment. If the purchase of a gun is determined to have been out of a desire to defend yourself and not to murder someone then it is not evidence of premeditated murder for precisely the reason that it was determined not to be purchased with the intent of committing a murder, not because of any other reason. The same logic holds true for you taking karate lessons, purchasing a substance that someone might later ingest and die from, or anything else.

You are mistaking a finding by the jury for some sort of judgment based on constitutional rights. It's nothing of the sort.

I have a feeling like you will continue to argue this indefinitely and I have no desire to do so. So feel free to have the last word on this if you want, but you should be clear that your understanding of the 2nd amendment and how it applies to premeditation here is badly wrong.

 

[Daverino]

As far as I can tell, nothing that happened here had anything to do with the 2nd Amendment.

As I've pointed out, the means by which Mr. Smith killed the two is irrelevant. He could have beat them with a bat, slit their throats, suffocated them or whatever. The fact that he used a gun to execute them does not mean he gets some special leeway from the 2nd Amendment.

There were two separate actions here. First, he defended himself by shooting the two burglars. That's all good and fine. The second action is murdering the two after they were defenseless. Whatever means he chose to do that doesn't change the fact that it was murder.

 

[HumblePie]

I don't think you understand what I wrote and I think that in this case (as in other cases involving legal matters) your grasp of the law is poor. Yet again, this has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.

The reason why self defense is legal is not due to the 2nd amendment. If the purchase of a gun is determined to have been out of a desire to defend yourself and not to murder someone then it is not evidence of premeditated murder for precisely the reason that it was determined not to be purchased with the intent of committing a murder, not because of any other reason. The same logic holds true for you taking karate lessons, purchasing a substance that someone might later ingest and die from, or anything else.

You are mistaking a finding by the jury for some sort of judgment based on constitutional rights. It's nothing of the sort.

I have a feeling like you will continue to argue this indefinitely and I have no desire to do so. So feel free to have the last word on this if you want, but you should be clear that your understanding of the 2nd amendment and how it applies to premeditation here is badly wrong.

Ugh no, go re-read the previous posts along this discussion. I was pointing out that the actions of the home owner prior to the initial shooting and defense in this case can not be considered premeditation. Those actions are owning a gun, having it ready to defend his house, making tapes about shooting at anyone breaking into his house to kill them, moving his truck away, turning off the lights, and so forth. Any actions prior to the break-in are not actual evidence of premeditation for murder. The only action that is premeditation for murder in this case is his actions after he initially shot and neutralized the invaders into his home. To call ANY the previous actions premeditations is what I defined as a slippery slope because to do so may infringe upon Constitutional rights. You have some how lost the whole point of the post of the argument I made and tried to us strawman arguments about a person buying a gun specifically for a murder which is completely different than what I was posting about. Again strawman argument on your part doesn't defense your position nor undermine what post.

The point being, anyone that is using his actions prior to the break-in as proof to murder is being stupid. Could they be considered disturbing? Sure. Crazy? Sure. Stupid? Sure. Illegal? No. Evidence for an illegal action in this case? No.

 

[lotus503]

I listened to the audio the sick fuck is going to prison where he belongs.

The jury is proof reasonable actions are what counts, dudes actions were not reasonable.

 

[WelshBloke]

Ugh no, go re-read the previous posts along this discussion. I was pointing out that the actions of the home owner prior to the initial shooting and defense in this case can not be considered premeditation. Those actions are owning a gun, having it ready to defend his house, making tapes about shooting at anyone breaking into his house to kill them, moving his truck away, turning off the lights, and so forth. Any actions prior to the break-in are not actual evidence of premeditation for murder. The only action that is premeditation for murder in this case is his actions after he initially shot and neutralized the invaders into his home. To call ANY the previous actions premeditations is what I defined as a slippery slope because to do so may infringe upon Constitutional rights. You have some how lost the whole point of the post of the argument I made and tried to us strawman arguments about a person buying a gun specifically for a murder which is completely different than what I was posting about. Again strawman argument on your part doesn't defense your position nor undermine what post.

The point being, anyone that is using his actions prior to the break-in as proof to murder is being stupid. Could they be considered disturbing? Sure. Crazy? Sure. Stupid? Sure. Illegal? No. Evidence for an illegal action in this case? No.

I think that the argument made is that prior to the breakin he's decided that he's going to kill them and that he's planned how to do it.
He's not included informing the police or warning the burglars, he's plain out decided to kill them if they break in regardless of anything else.

 

[MongGrel]

As far as I can tell, nothing that happened here had anything to do with the 2nd Amendment.

As I've pointed out, the means by which Mr. Smith killed the two is irrelevant. He could have beat them with a bat, slit their throats, suffocated them or whatever. The fact that he used a gun to execute them does not mean he gets some special leeway from the 2nd Amendment.

There were two separate actions here. First, he defended himself by shooting the two burglars. That's all good and fine. The second action is murdering the two after they were defenseless. Whatever means he chose to do that doesn't change the fact that it was murder.

+1

Yes he could have just went up and slit their throats with a straight razor or something at that point.

 

[blankslate]

His only mistake was not killing the perps in Texas.

Or Florida.


....

 

[PingviN]

Whoah, I just listened to the audio recording. This guy is nuts.

https://soundcloud.com/nydailynews/...-smith-killing-two-teens-who-tried-to-rob-him

That is really, really disturbing stuff. Anyone claiming he acted in self defence should listen to this.

 

[waggy]

I think that the argument made is that prior to the breakin he's decided that he's going to kill them and that he's planned how to do it.
He's not included informing the police or warning the burglars, he's plain out decided to kill them if they break in regardless of anything else.

he can plan how he is going to defend his home (as in knowing the best place to hide, best angle for shots, escape routs if needed), he does not need to inform the police of his plans or does he have to warn the burglars.

He can shoot them defending his house. Even if he thought someone might break in. all of that is legal..and he would be fine IF he stopped right there.

the illegal part was the fact he laid a tarp down, brought a wounded person over to it and then did the 'clean kill" or whatever he said. That took it out of defending your home to murder.

 

[HumblePie]

I think that the argument made is that prior to the breakin he's decided that he's going to kill them and that he's planned how to do it.
He's not included informing the police or warning the burglars, he's plain out decided to kill them if they break in regardless of anything else.

/Reads nonsensical post.

/Looks at name Welsh, see's location UK...

/Understands why post is nonsensical

/Shakes head still at how anyone even from UK can actually post something like this

 

[WelshBloke]

he can plan how he is going to defend his home (as in knowing the best place to hide, best angle for shots, escape routs if needed), he does not need to inform the police of his plans or does he have to warn the burglars.

He can shoot them defending his house. Even if he thought someone might break in. all of that is legal..and he would be fine IF he stopped right there.

I'm not saying that he can't do any of those things. I'm saying that he's said that he left no option for a non lethal outcome. There's no "Stop right there while I call the cops" option. This wasn't "I shot them because I was threatened" this was "I'm going to kill them regardless of how they act, whether they are a threat or not".