was this shooting justified?

[Munky]

The poll is badly worded. The shooting was justified while the intruders were a possible threat. After they were incapacitated, no shots should have been fired.

 

[sigurros81]

The poll is badly worded. The shooting was justified while the intruders were a possible threat. After they were incapacitated, no shots should have been fired.

Yes, this poll is retarded. There are two separate shootings involved in the story. The initial shooting to defend his home, the second was explicitly second degree murder.

 

[Binky]

1st degree murder. He intentionally executed them.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

The way I see it:
In the complaint, Smith said he was in his basement when he heard a window breaking upstairs, followed by footsteps that eventually approached the basement stairwell. Smith said he fired when Schaeffel came into view from the waist down.
This is justified

After the teen fell down the stairs, Smith said he shot him in the face as he lay on the floor.
This is execution and not justified only depending on whether or not he still posed a threat to the homeowner.

When Kifer began walking down the stairs, he shot her and she fell down the stairs.
He tried to shoot her again with his rifle, but the gun jammed
This is justified

and Kifer laughed at him, the complaint noted.... He then shot her several times in the chest with a .22-caliber revolver, dragged her next to her cousin, and with as she gasped for air, fired a shot under her chin 'up into the cranium'.
This was execution and not justified unless she was reaching for a weapon or posed a continued threat.


This is made worse by the fact that he didn't call the police until the next day.

Completely justified home defense shooting. Completely unjustified murder from the way it sounds.

Yeah, this pretty well sums it up.

This story has drawn extensive reportage locally. Sounds like the kids had a history of similar break-ins (including one earlier the same day), and drug use. I have no doubt they intended to burglarize the old coot's home, and chose the wrong victim. That being said, even his self-serving account of what occurred is incredibly damning and supports a second-degree murder conviction. (I could make a real case for first-degree murder as well - even a moment of premeditation can be sufficient to convict of murder one here in MN.) It's a shame for everyone involved. I would expect he will plead to manslaughter, but at his age I expect he will die in prison regardless of the actual offense he is convicted of.

 

[RampantAndroid]

If they are in the home unlawfully then they are presumed to be a threat and you may shoot. That's the key, the legal presumption of the threat just by them being in the home unlawfully. This mostly applies to if they ENTER illegally or by force or are ATTEMPTING to enter by force. Meaning if they are trying to break in you can shoot before they cross the threshold, once they cross the threshold they are fair game legally.

There have been many cases this has applied to, no charges filed. Trying to break in and they haven't crossed the threshold? You can shoot before they cross the threshold. Once they cross the threshold you can shoot as well. There needs to be no threat to life or person, they are legally presumed to be an automatic threat and you may shoot.

Here you go:

You keep changing your tune...

Then you would not be in my house unlawfully initially. If you did not leave, I could threaten you with a weapon to make you leave as you are now trespassing (this is specifically covered in my state's laws).

Uhh...threaten, perhaps. Fire? Not without being in fear for your life.

Trespassing is specifically covered in my state's laws. I can announce and threaten with a weapon and if you do not leave, I can shoot.

Look, all you've done Spidey is confirm what I've said: trespassing alone, that is to say being on your lawn with no forceful entry (or being in your home lawfully initially then refusing to leave), is not sufficient to draw and/or fire. You must be in fear. Your oh so wonderful state says NOTHING about shooting someone because they happened to wander on to your land.

 

[RampantAndroid]

He can stand his ground all he wants....in Prison.

I bet Spidey condoned the shooting of the Seafood Salesman that had the misfortune of coming to the wrong house and being gunned down in the front yard for ...being in the yard.

Wait, what? That's fucking horrible...

Read the story online, first I've heard of it. What the hell did he think the salesman was going to do, attack him with a lobster tail?

 

[spidey07]

You keep changing your tune...







Look, all you've done Spidey is confirm what I've said: trespassing alone, that is to say being on your lawn with no forceful entry (or being in your home lawfully initially then refusing to leave), is not sufficient to draw and/or fire. You must be in fear. Your oh so wonderful state says NOTHING about shooting someone because they happened to wander on to your land.

You keep moving the goal posts. You've gone from being inside the threshold to on the lawn. I have proven you incorrect on that point. That is a VERY specific point and you are totally wrong on that.

1) Use of force is lawfull for tresspassing - that means I can draw on you and order you to leave. You keep proving my point.
2) If you do not leave, with my weapon drawn and asking you to leave my property (inside the threshold), well then you chose your destiny
3) You keep ducking the fact of the law
4) I live in my state, these cases come up from time to time...no charges filed.

You need to re-read the laws again. Your state's laws do not apply to my state.

I am right, you are wrong. I will be glad to answer your what ifs with supreme knowledge of my state's laws.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

You do understand that stupid poll is stupid right? This is a troll poll.

The shooting was justified. The execution was not. That's the all but universal consensus in this thread.

How odd, Scott, that so many people seem to have trouble with the factual answer to the question.

 

[eits]

this thread is like election night 2012... for a second, it was dead even. then, the red numbers started pulling ahead and i started to feel sad for humanity. then, the blue numbers pulled way out in front and i felt a lot better about things, but still sad for those red voters.

 

[eits]

look, here's the thing... i completely get that if there's someone in your home, you don't know whether or not they're armed. so, you shoot them. i get that. that's not the issue. the issue is the fact that he hurt them and didn't hold them hostage until the police arrived. the guy was just wanting to fulfill his fantasy of killing a person in his home. unfortunately, there are a lot of people like this, as is evident by lots of the comments in this thread.

in this instance, "the shooting" = the entirety of these kids being shot and killed from beginning to end. that's "the shooting"... the op CLEARLY wasn't referring to the first shots fired at the intruders. connotatively, when people talk about "the shooting," they talk about an event where people are shot and killed at a specific location by a specific person or persons.

the shooting was NOT justified.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

look, here's the thing... i completely get that if there's someone in your home, you don't know whether or not they're armed. so, you shoot them. i get that. that's not the issue. the issue is the fact that he hurt them and didn't hold them hostage until the police arrived. the guy was just wanting to fulfill his fantasy of killing a person in his home. unfortunately, there are a lot of people like this, as is evident by lots of the comments in this thread.

in this instance, "the shooting" = the entirety of these kids being shot and killed from beginning to end. that's "the shooting"... the op CLEARLY wasn't referring to the first shots fired at the intruders. connotatively, when people talk about "the shooting," they talk about an event where people are shot and killed at a specific location by a specific person or persons.

the shooting was NOT justified.

only right answer.

 

[RampantAndroid]

You keep moving the goal posts. You've gone from being inside the threshold to on the lawn. I have proven you incorrect on that point. That is a VERY specific point and you are totally wrong on that.

1) Use of force is lawfull for tresspassing - that means I can draw on you and order you to leave. You keep proving my point.
2) If you do not leave, with my weapon drawn and asking you to leave my property (inside the threshold), well then you chose your destiny
3) You keep ducking the fact of the law
4) I live in my state, these cases come up from time to time...no charges filed.

You need to re-read the laws again. Your state's laws do not apply to my state.

I am right, you are wrong. I will be glad to answer your what ifs with supreme knowledge of my state's laws.

No, you cannot draw on someone because they are there. In your state, that is called "wanton endangerment". I suggest you look it up. It's a felony offense, and would result in your gun rights being revoked (given you're crazy, this is something I support happening to you.)

If you look online, you will find cases in KY of people pointing guns at other people, while not being in fear of their lives and charges being filed for wanton endangerment. A 5 second google search turns up these results. More than that, a quick search returns a result of a man in KY shooting someone in his yard, stealing marijuana from the yard...the shooter (owner of the land) was charged.

So again, you CANNOT draw unless you feel you are danger. Neither can you fire without being in danger. You can use NON DEADLY force to remove people, but you cannot use DEADLY force until you satisfy 503.080(2).

That is all - one day you'll shot a lobster tail salesman because he dared to set foot on your lawn, I'll read about it and think to myself "what type of sick bastard would do this!?" and then think of you.

 

[sigurros81]

Where's the popcorn and lawn chair, another thread where Spidey derails himself with his own form of remedial schoolyard logic.

 

[Powermoloch]

when someone break-in another's home, you're just fair game and asking for it. He could've made a warning shot and called the police. But the past is the past.

 

[eits]

when someone break-in another's home, you're just fair game and asking for it. He could've made a warning shot and called the police. But the past is the past.

the past is the past? the question was if the guy was justified in slaughtering these kids. he was not.

 

[MagickMan]

It's every gun owner's wet dream.

The fuck? Seek help, seriously.

 

[spidey07]

No, you cannot draw on someone because they are there. In your state, that is called "wanton endangerment". I suggest you look it up. It's a felony offense, and would result in your gun rights being revoked (given you're crazy, this is something I support happening to you.)

If you look online, you will find cases in KY of people pointing guns at other people, while not being in fear of their lives and charges being filed for wanton endangerment. A 5 second google search turns up these results. More than that, a quick search returns a result of a man in KY shooting someone in his yard, stealing marijuana from the yard...the shooter (owner of the land) was charged.

So again, you CANNOT draw unless you feel you are danger. Neither can you fire without being in danger. You can use NON DEADLY force to remove people, but you cannot use DEADLY force until you satisfy 503.080(2).

That is all - one day you'll shot a lobster tail salesman because he dared to set foot on your lawn, I'll read about it and think to myself "what type of sick bastard would do this!?" and then think of you.

You're moving the goal posts and changing the subject again.

I am talking about INSIDE my home. That is a VERY clear distinction that you are avoiding purposefully, because that's where castle doctrine comes into play.

Once you cross the threshold illegally I can shoot without any danger or fear present, the threat is PRESUMED by law. Go read 503.055 again. Here, I'll post it for you AGAIN. You are flat out dead wrong on this.

503.055 Use of defensive force regarding dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle -- Exceptions.
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

 

[RampantAndroid]

You're moving the goal posts and changing the subject again.

I am talking about INSIDE my home. That is a VERY clear distinction that you are avoiding purposefully, because that's where castle doctrine comes into play.

Once you cross the threshold illegally I can shoot without any danger or fear present, the threat is PRESUMED by law. Go read 503.055 again. Here, I'll post it for you AGAIN. You are flat out dead wrong on this.

Then you would not be in my house unlawfully initially. If you did not leave, I could threaten you with a weapon to make you leave as you are now trespassing (this is specifically covered in my state's laws).

Uhh...threaten, perhaps. Fire? Not without being in fear for your life.

Trespassing is specifically covered in my state's laws. I can announce and threaten with a weapon and if you do not leave, I can shoot.

Yes I have. Once I order you to leave and you do not I can draw.

That's use of force and allowed. If you do not leave, you are now unlawfully in my home. This exact scenario is covered in my state. If you so much as flinch or threaten I can shoot.

See, you implied you can shoot without fear of death. I've said this over and over, and I'm the one who had to quote 503.055 for you. You clearly don't know what the hell your own laws are. Goodbye, lunatic (and I'm inclined to believe you're a racist too.)

Ignore++

 

[spidey07]

See, you implied you can shoot without fear of death. I've said this over and over, and I'm the one who had to quote 503.055 for you. You clearly don't know what the hell your own laws are. Goodbye, lunatic (and I'm inclined to believe you're a racist too.)

Ignore++

The threat and fear is PRESUMED by 503.055. You are flat out wrong on this. I posted the law multiple times for you, read it AGAIN.

Trying to enter illegally? I can shoot
Enter the house/cross the threshold illegally? I can shoot
There is ZERO need for any fear of life, that fear is PRESUMED by law.

503.055 Use of defensive force regarding dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle -- Exceptions.
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

 

[AznAnarchy99]

The alarm bells rang when he stashed their bodies waiting for the next day.

 

[irishScott]

look, here's the thing... i completely get that if there's someone in your home, you don't know whether or not they're armed. so, you shoot them. i get that. that's not the issue. the issue is the fact that he hurt them and didn't hold them hostage until the police arrived. the guy was just wanting to fulfill his fantasy of killing a person in his home. unfortunately, there are a lot of people like this, as is evident by lots of the comments in this thread.

in this instance, "the shooting" = the entirety of these kids being shot and killed from beginning to end. that's "the shooting"... the op CLEARLY wasn't referring to the first shots fired at the intruders. connotatively, when people talk about "the shooting," they talk about an event where people are shot and killed at a specific location by a specific person or persons.

the shooting was NOT justified.

And regardless of how you spell out the semantics, that's the all but universal consensus in this thread. The poll is retarded because it doesn't account for potential differences in semantics (it doesn't define "shooting"). It was designed to get skewed results so the OP could make some imagined point. Troll poll.

If you're going to define "the shooting" as the entire event, then the only rational answer is: Parts of "the shooting" were justified, and other parts were not.

To say "the shooting was not justified" is to say the entire event was not justified, which would be false.

 

[MagickMan]

The shooting was justified but the murders weren't.

 

[Agent11]

The poll is pretty vague. He was undeniably justified in shooting them, not in executing them however.

 

[spidey07]

This highlights why if you're going to have a weapon for home defense or self defense make sure you use quality defense ammo in proper calibers.

Dead men tell no tales.

 

[railer]

This highlights why if you're going to have a weapon for home defense or self defense make sure you use quality defense ammo in proper calibers.

Dead men tell no tales.

But stupid people often do tell tales, like this guy did. Lock him up for murder.