when self defense/home invasion turns into 1st degree murder

That all sounds good but if you are suddenly startled by a breech of your home and you have split seconds to assess the situation and make a decision. Are they armed? What is their intent? Is there someone outside being the watchdog who can come in, armed, if something goes wrong?

Click to expand...

This Homeowner wasn't surprised. In fact, he set up his own little "Kill Zone".

Yelling to stop sounds noble and even practical but the truth is you have to make a decision now. If you see lawyers, cops hauling you to the station and other consequences or if you are wondering if he is armed or means you harm then you may have lost your chance to survive.

Click to expand...

You over simplify. And...regardless of what you may think, considering the legal ramnificationsof a shooting is a wise thing to do.

Either you shoot or you don't once you recognize the target. My biggest fear of those who do carry is the ones who don't have the resolve to pull the trigger if needed... the ones who hesitate because they don't want to hurt another human being. I believe those are the ones who would lose in a SD situation if the time ever came.

Click to expand...

That's your opinion. I have found that once a person starts carrying a gun, they already have the resolve to kill. It's the resolve to preserve life that's even more precious - and takes a bit of courage.

(On a point raised by others about whose vehicle was not at the house. I would point out that by the accounts I followed two years ago, he parked his truck away from his house to appear no one was home and the teenage burglars parked their vehicle away from the house too and approached on foot. The teenagers' vehicle contained items traced to a previous burglary; Smith could not know that of course, but it does undermine the outrage fanned up for the "poor innocent victims" in some media. Both parties were bad actors that night.)

Click to expand...

I don't care if those kids were on PCP, armed with submachineguns and chanting "We luv Satan". Once this maniac preemptively set up an Ambush and a "Kill Zone" he crossed the line.

Well, I'll agree with the spirit of what you're saying, Bill, but let me go back to post 52:

We often discuss how you should have a strong point to which you can retreat and give yourself positional advantage in cases of a home invasion. Usually a bedroom or maybe a pinch point in your home's layout so that you can be best hidden and shielded by your walls and/or furniture, and yet can see what's approaching. Even using lighting to keep yourself in shadow and the bad guy in a lit space. That's a good thing. And it MIGHT sound a bit like what this guy did, in a way.

But then the point is to keep the bad guy away from you (not to lure them in), and a strong command voice shout to let your intruder know that you're there, armed, and the police are on their way should be used if at all humanly possible, to give them (and you!) the chance to avoid lethal force.

(Not talking about a face-to-face standoff where you're discussing the finer points of etiquette and giving them a chance to get the drop on you. Simply a shouted warning, from a distance, from cover, that they've been discovered and should leave RIGHT NOW.)

You should be doing (and be seen as having done) everything to avoid having to use your firearm, not setting a trap to get the chance to use your firearm. HUGE difference.

Click to expand...

You absolutely SHOULD be building a sound defense. An ambush position and even a "kill zone" if you will. But, how you use it is the key difference. As a trap to ensnare and execute someone dumb and malicious enough to break into your home? Or as a last line of DEFENSE against a lethal encounter you'll try almost anything to avoid?

And...regardless of what you may think, considering the legal ramnificationsof a shooting is a wise thing to do.

Click to expand...

Before it occurs or after it happens, sure, but not in the heat of the moment. Deciding if you need to shoot or not is the wrong time to be worrying about lawyers.

Before it occurs or after it happens, sure, but not in the heat of the moment. Deciding if you need to shoot or not is the wrong time to be worrying about lawyers.

Click to expand...

If your worried about the lawyers...then that's because you're not under a real threat at that time. Sounds like you are just looking for an excuse to shoot.

larryh1108 said:

Before it occurs or after it happens, sure, but not in the heat of the moment. Deciding if you need to shoot or not is the wrong time to be worrying about lawyers.

Click to expand...

Yet lawyers will play a large part in determining your fate, if it was the right time to shoot or not...so you should have a good idea of what the determination might be based on the situation, and the legality of you shooting.....which means making conscious decisions as to whether the perceived danger warrants lethal force.
Your other option is to just use your gut reaction and emotions alone, and shoot people you perceive to be a threat because you are scared and bad things could happen. If that's the case, I highly recommend you strengthen your self defense skill set and find a really good lawyer.

And, the VERY BEST, in fact only, way to do that in a reasonably timely fashion is to limit that questioning to "MUST I SHOOT?"

Not, "hey, am I allowed to shoot yet?"

If your worried about the lawyers...then that's because you're not under a real threat at that time.

Click to expand...

Either you are using the word "you're" generally or you have a knack for twisting words to suit your own agenda.

Your other option is to just use your gut reaction and emotions alone, and shoot people you perceive to be a threat because you are scared and bad things could happen.

Click to expand...

A person that broke into my home isn't a perceived threat, he is a real threat.

If that's the case, I highly recommend you strengthen your self defense skill set and find a really good lawyer.

Click to expand...

Stated another way, your way is the right way because you said so. Sorry, doesn't work that way. Your way is your opinion, nothing more.

Larry,
Its not my opinion that avoiding lethal force where it is not needed even when legally allowable will make your life easier afterwards.
That's a fact that court case records will uphold.
Why do you think the castle doctrine exists? Using lethal force even when legally allowable is a legal nightmare, hence the castle doctrine to protect homeowners from undue legal stress if they are forced to use lethal force in their own homes. It gives the homeowner the benefit of the doubt.
It is a perversion to use it as an excuse to bypass any obligations you have as a gun owner have to avoid lethal force unless necessary. It endangers the intention of the castle doctrine. The castle doctrine is a good thing. I'd rather not see it dismissed because of people hiding behind it.

In my experiences with Felons, you will know when it's time, unless you don't know the basic laws of survival. It becomes very clear at some point during the initial engagement ,when you realize that it's no small thing that you are watching unfold.
No one can enter my home after it is secured for the night, without forcing locks open or breaking windows.
Once they have done so, I have to assume from past experiences that my family's lives are at risk. They didn't just drop in to give us our lotto winnings.
Once I hit them with a Tac light, I will immediately know what their intentions are, the police will have been called already, and the dog, "if still alive, will be going for them".
I see no problem here in distinguishing what one should of could do.
Let me just say, you better have gone through this in your head prior to it actually happening, or that split second could cost you your life.
If they surrender, fine they get arrested, if they run, they get caught by police, if they come towards me, they get stopped, it's really a simple thing, why overcomplicate it.
Also walking around in your home after calling the cops is a good way to get dead fast. You should retreat into a safe room, where your family is, and wait there until police clear the house. Only if you are attacked should you fire, or if they advance on your position after being told what the consequences will be. If there is no time and they are charging you, then you have no other choice, make your shots count, and retreat to the safe area. Tell police where you are and what happened, they will be on the line with you or your wife or kids. I had too fire on one and I believe he is down, or that you are hit, and what you are wearing. This way they have an idea who the good guys are when they come flying in. Don't be a hero, just try to not take a round, if you do get yourself in that room and make sure your wife has the gun or guns.At that point anything other than a cop doesn't get past that door. Make it loud and clear, we are armed and will shoot you, leave now, Police are on the way, then just wait.
PS: they are in your home with a gun, threatening your family, don't worry about Legal problems.

silicosys, the discussion at hand is what constitutes using lethal force in a home break in. How much time does one have to decide. What factors determine if lethal force is needed.

Sure, many here are trained whether by being in LE or military. Many also take training courses. However, when there is someone standing in your house and you have seconds to decide to shoot or not shoot, it is not the time to be thinking about anything but what is at hand. That is my point that seems to get twisted in interpretation.

The average homeowner who is not LE or military trained and who shoots paper and/or deer is not trained for a face-to-face confrontation in his home. He will do what he feels is right, at that moment. He'll have to live with that choice the rest of his life. I don't feel anyone here has the right to tell him he was wrong and he should have found a better way. He did what he did because it was his life he feared for.

Of course, there are those who are looking for any reason to shoot somebody. That is an entirely different discussion. The man in the OP's example clearly crossed the line and will pay for his actions.

Larry, I have been in that situation, gun pointed at the intruder in the dark, mind racing and heart thumping. I stand beside my decisions, and am immensely glad I did not shoot a 14 year old boy with no weapon and no threat who had "invaded my castle". His father, a local pastor, apologized profusely to me and thanked me for not shooting his son when I found out who was doing it and brought it to his attention.
It sounds like many people here, who have not been in that situation, might have a pointless death on their conscience if they had been me that night.

You recognized your target and knew there wasn't a threat, like you are supposed to do. That worked out well for all involved. However that doesn't fit every scenario.

Have I been present with a break in? Nope, and I hope I never have to be. I have been face-to-face, nose-to-nose with some of the worst people walking and did not pull my gun. I didn't feel the need although my hand was easing towards it. I have also been in a situation where I knew I was about to be robbed and kept my head and kept a car between me and him even though I could have drawn and fired. He had a visible gun in his jacket but didn't present it yet. I am aware of when to use deadly force and when to not use it. There is that moment when you decide to shoot or not shoot. That brief moment seemed to slow down in my experiences and it allowed the right decision to take place. When you are in your own home and someone breaks in and does not retreat upon seeing you, 9/10ths of the decision has been made for you. The last 1/10th determines the final outcome. Rule #4 (as stated by me above) beware of your target and what is behind it. So yes, I speak from experience but not everyone can.

He will do what he feels is right, at that moment. He'll have to live with that choice the rest of his life. I don't feel anyone here has the right to tell him he was wrong and he should have found a better way. He did what he did because it was his life he feared for.

Click to expand...

By the same logic, we cannot know what was going on in the minds of the two folks he killed. So what. He acknowledged the girl was incapacitated, but breathing, when he delivered a kill shot from under her chin up through her cranium. You bet, I can judge that. So will a jury, and they are going to judge it 1st degree murder. He parked down the street to make his place look empty, and laid down a tarp for Pete's sake. Can't know what was in his mind? Sure I can. He wanted to kill some folks he was hoping would come his way. They did, and he did.

Seems like we have gone off on a tangent.

The shooter shot two people who had entered his home unlawfully. If he had sufficient reason to believe that it was necessary to do so to prevent them from preventing a felony in the house and could present evidence to support the reason for that belief, Minnesota law would cover him--for that.

Click to expand...

Gone off on a tanget? No...don't think so.

This guy did everything he could to set up an ambush and a kill zone. He moved his car down the road. He removed a half-dozen lightbulbs to hide himself. He used a cell-phone jammer to stop outgoing calls.

In other words, this guy prepared to murder those kids and I don't give a one God Damn what the law is or what the jury decides - what he did was wrong.

Tragic all around. Praying for the guy and the parents of those kids.

He should go to prison.

I cannot believe we are seriously discussing this case...

just FYI... when you deliver a headshot to someone laying on the ground - barely, breathing and incapacitated - then that is 1st degree murder. plain and simple. doesn't matter if they broke into your house or not. you cannot go around and execute someone. even worse: the dude bragged about his clean kill shot.

all the other things mentioned above don't help him either. I hope he rots in jail. poster-child for trigger happy maniac...

In that case he should go bye bye.

larryh1108 said:

But to those who try to say that shooting an unarmed burglar is wrong, well, quit putting your life in danger by breaking into houses.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone here thinks Smith was unjustified in shooting the burglars just because they were unarmed. Based on your post, I don't actually see that anyone disagrees with you. It wasn't that he shot the burglars, it was that he 1) Continued to shoot them when it was no longer necessary, 2) Altered a crime scene, and 3) Failed to immediately call police.

I don't think anyone here thinks Smith was unjustified in shooting the burglars just because they were unarmed...

Click to expand...

No. I think Smith was wrong for shooting those kids - period.

Smith moved his car and set a trap and his own little "Kill Zone" for the purpose of enticing those kids into the house, cutting off any escape and murdering them. He introduced guns and death into a situation that he helped create.

Smith is a Murderer - and yeah, people with guns murder and then try to self-righteously hide behind the Castle Doctrine and Self Defense, and it seems to be making a lot of people around here feel uneasy. So uneasy in fact that they are in obvious denial.

I like the so-called "Castle Doctrine", but I am seeing some mighty big abuses of it, not in just this case, but many others. But...I figure this case pretty much is the epitome of the abuse of the Castle Doctrine and I thought people would "Get it"....but I guess not. I guess a lot of people already got their minds made up beforehand don't want to be confused by the facts.

I don't even think he was justified in shooting in the first place. Legally covered in a technical interpretation of the law, maybe...to be determined...but not justified.

The homeowner had knowledge of the impending break in. He had a good idea who would be coming. He knew they had not harmed anyone previously. He had an excellent security system that showed them approaching, entering, and perusing his property. He could have easily taken measures to stop them before they even entered the house.
Long story short...I don't feel that he was in the right in even shooting them. He had plenty of time to exit the area or call police. He had every opportunity to confront them before they had entered the building in the yard. He had every opportunity to call the police and report a trespassing, then a break in. The fact that he was frustrated by prior police response does not excuse him from bypassing them.
He chose to do none of these things. He chose to actively seek a violent confrontation, in which he felt he would be legally justified in shooting them.

He failed in his obligation to seek other plainly available options. He failed at being a member of a civilized society, imo. He was not forced into his actions by circumstance, he had what he saw as an opportunity and chose the course he wanted to take with the situation that would most likely culminate in his desired results....dead burglars. Certainly not his own safety, he did everything wrong if he were truly concerned about his safety first and foremost. Pretty obvious he was much more concerned with revenge.

This guy failed from the first inkling he had of the impending break in, to the final shot. Period. About the only thing he did right was have security in the first place and to establish a safe zone, which he then went on to use completely inappropriately.

Everything he did was to prepare for an execution, and he had many other options that he chose to ignore in favor of escalating the situation straight towards a violent confrontation consisting of an ambush, and two execution style murders. Yes, I feel both were murders. He wouldn't want me serving on his jury. I might be forced to concede the technical legality of the first shooting, if it was indeed a legal shoot, but darned if I wouldn't try and make it up on the second.

He was not surprised by an intruder, or trapped unexpectedly by an intruder and hence forced to protect himself. He did not "fear for his life" as he says, as anyone who fears for his life wishes to exit the situation, not manipulate it into a violent showdown.

Even if this guy had stopped after the first burglar was shot and lying at the foot of the stairs...before he had put the killing shot into his face...I still wouldn't want him anywhere near me or my family given the steps he took to arrive at that particular point in time. Even before the fatal shots, his actions point to a particular kind of maliciousness and social dysfunction that I want far away from me.

Bill_Shelton said:

No. I think Smith was wrong for shooting those kids - period.

Click to expand...

I am going to nitpick here. I agree with you that Smith was wrong in shooting those kids at all when he had at least three clear opportunities to try and avoid violence before he chose to shoot.

1) He could have called the police immediately upon detecting the burglars. They might not have arrived before the burglars were inside, but he should still have called.
2) He could have confronted them while armed as they were breaking into his house, either at gunpoint or by loudly announcing that he was present, that he was armed, and that the police were on their way.
3) He could have announced that he was armed as they were walking down into the basement. He stated he did not know at this point if they were armed. The reverse is also true.

That being said, and I believe the prosecutors agreed with me, I think he was still probably legally justified in shooting them at first, which is not the same thing as being morally right.

I think that first shot he took was evidence of the "When can I shoot someone?" attitude instead of the morally more proper question of "When must I shoot someone in order to preserve my life or that of another?"

I think Silicosys4 has a great explanation of why Smith was morally wrong in his actions regardless of his legal justification.