How not to talk to the police.

[xXxplosive]

Well..............I see your point and it's well taken....on the other hand not condoning what the defendant did.....just because the BG's are down doesn't necessarilly mean it's over....down and stiring to get up or retrieve a weapon ?
Although there is nothing here on tape, no visual except his testimony.....he's relying on the Home Invasion premis and being out numbered by the BG's as a defense, which just might be plausable in this case.
Wouldn't be so quick here to send him off to prison untill there is a good clarification of what exactly is justifiable by law in one's own home during an invasion with intent to rob, steal, mame or kill the home owner.
Remember, he WAS in his own home minding his own business............

 

[Jeff White]

Although there is nothing here on tape, no visual except his testimony.....he's relying on the Home Invasion premis and being out numbered by the BG's as a defense, which just might be plausable in this case.

Really? Plausible?

You can read the criminal complaint here:

http://stmedia.startribune.com/documents/Criminal+Complaint+-+BYRON+SMITH.pdf

All that exists is the physical evidence and Smith's own statements which are related in the criminal complaint. Smith told Investigator Luberts after being Mirandized, that the shot the girl to "end her suffering" when she was gasping for air after he had shot her multiple times in the chest with his .22 pistol then dragged her into his workshop and she was gasping for air.

So this 18 year old girl is laying on the floor of his workshop with at least one .223 round in her and multiple .22 rounds in her chest and torso, gasping for air and a reasonable person would believe that Smith was afraid she was going to harm him and he was justified in placing the barrel of his .22 under her chin and firing into her cranium?

I think even if he had just said "they broke into my house and I was afraid for my life so I shot them" and then lawyered up, the physical evidence would reveal what really happened.

Wouldn't be so quick here to send him off to prison untill there is a good clarification of what exactly is justifiable by law in one's own home during an invasion with intent to rob, steal, mame or kill the home owner.

The county sheriff does a pretty good job of explaining it here:

http://www.startribune.com/video/180889941.html

At the point he killed them they were no longer a threat to anyone.

 

[HorseSoldier]

The point isn't that he used deadly force to neutralize a threat, it is that he then subsequently used deadly force to execute persons who were no longer a threat. Their actions prior to the point where they were incapacitated -- while clearly criminal -- aren't relevant.

 

[Cosmoline]

I really don't see a lot of lessons to be learned here, other than don't break into houses of psychos and don't be a psycho. The dude thought the girl was LAUGHING at him after taking a rifle round to the chest! That's some deep psychosis right there. Very deep. Ironically they were probably targeting him for his RX drugs. Not smart, but he needs to be put away for ever.

I mean, he STACKED THE BODIES UP and apparently slept well before making any efforts to report what happened. Absolute, grade A psychotic monster.

He's also way, way beyond any self defense doctrine by his own admission. The coup de grace shots alone are murder.

 

[xXxplosive]

I understand that completely and agree....but it will be up to a sharp attorney to make this look legit.....that's all I'm sayin'. But again, the law states he can use deadly force.....to what extent will be determined in court.

 

[climbnjump]

Not that it justifies how this ended up, of course, but it appears that the two teens were "experienced":

http://www.startribune.com/local/181189391.html

Anyone want to lay odds on the house where they died being only their second job?

Just speculation, but if the gal had consumed some of the items they obtained earlier in the day, it might explain her strange behavior of proceeding down the stairs after hearing the shots and then laughing after initially being shot herself.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

watch the video it shows house explains the stairs/basement thing.

 

[Cosmoline]

I suspect the laughter was in the shooter's mind. It was more likely convulsive breathing/crying after taking a .223 round to the torso. The dude has some major mental problems. Dude shoots the first intruder, finishes him off, organizes the body, moves it, sits down to continue whatever he was doing before, then shoots the next intruder, thinks she's laughting at him which enrages him, shoots her a bunch more times before dragging her over to the growing body pile and finishing her off "cleanly."

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Altering the crime scene by moving the bodies is a defense killer. It screams cover up of something to the average person in the jury pool.

 

[xXxplosive]

Still not sure how a jury would perceive this whole incident.....wouldn't bet the farm on the outcome here...sorry.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...But again, the law states he can use deadly force.....to what extent will be determined in court.

I'm sorry, but according to your profile here you're an NRA certified firearms instructor, so you really should have a better understanding of this.

The applicable law (see post 49), states that one may be justified in using lethal force:

...when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.

And while it will be finally up to a court, the currently available facts, including Mr. Smith's own statements, seem to show very strongly that he continued to use lethal force even after it was no longer necessary to prevent or resist anything.

 

[Trent]

Under no legal or moral set of guidelines, period, should it be permissible for anyone to coup de grace an unarmed, heavily wounded, teenage girl.

Or shoot someone in the legs with a high powered rifle before properly identifying that they are even a threat.

Or continue to store the bodies in the basement overnight before notifying authorities.

I can't fathom how a conversation against these principles is even feasible here.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

I'm with you Trent. It's mind boggling.

 

[k_dawg]

I agree.

That shows a basic misunderstanding of Florida law (and Castle Doctrine laws in general). I discussed Florida law at length in this post.

Fundamentally, in Florida the standard for justifying the use of lethal force is the same inside one's home as anywhere else (Title XLVI Florida Statutes, Section 776.012):

​

However, Section 776.013 helps by providing, among other things:

​

The presumption allowed in 776.013 relieves someone who needs to establish his use of lethal force was justified of the need to specifically show that he had a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily injury if he can instead show that the person he shot (1) was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and (2) he knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

Presumptions are rebuttable, however. So evidence that the original assailant was incapacitated or had broken off his attack can rebut the presumption that the shooter reasonably feared imminent death or great bodily injury.

Sec 776.012 (1) ends with 'or'. Not 'and'.

It does not couple the requirements of (1) with (2) Sec 776.013

Sec 776.013 has no mention of incapacitation. It includes both "occuring" and "Had occured". You would be correct if the statute did not include 'had occured', or if the word 'and' was used instead of 'or' in (1).

The only avenue would be for the prosecution to demonstrate that they did not forcibly enter the premise.

As I stated, this is specific to Florida law.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...As I stated, this is specific to Florida law....

And as you stated in post 30:

I do not know enough about the law,...

The presumption under 776.013 that one:

...held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm...

would be rebutted by evidence that the original assailant had been clearly incapacitated to the point that a reasonable person could not believe that he presented a lethal threat.

In any case, Florida law is irrelevant here.

 

[Husker_Fan]

Frank is right. Castle doctrine doesn't act like a shield. In a normal self-defense case, it is up to the defense to prove to the finder of fact (usually a jury) that it was more likely than not an act of legitimate self defense.

Castle doctrine shifts the burden to the prosecutor who then has to rebut the presumption of self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, the jury presumes it was an act of self defense until the prosecutor proves otherwise.

 

[Fullboar1]

On another Media Report it said he had shot the Girl 7 times before executing her with what he called "a good finishing shot". When he dragged them into another room he placed them on a tarp, maybe de didn't want blood on his concrete (pretty convenient hey).

No one is arguing that he didn't have the right to shoot them defending himself and his home but it's what he did next is what I have a problem with (and everyone else too). Being a Security Guard for the State Department you would think he has a idea that constitutes "excessive" deadly force.

I hate thieves and IMO these were a couple of dumb kids who broke into the wrong house. I can't believe that some would justify this nut jobs actions but I'm glad most can see this for what it is an Execution Style Murders dressed up as Self Defence.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Like others in this thread, I'm eager for the results of the forensic investigation to come out.

The guy's story stinks to high heaven. The timeline of events makes zero sense, and sounds like a complicated alibi to cover up a drug deal gone south involving illicit prescription meds.

Clearly, no one involved seems a sympathetic character.

 

[xXxplosive]

Sorry Frank, but being a NRA Cert. Instructor this my 21st yr......has no bearing on what I think a jury will or will not do. Especially since each state has it's own interpretation of it's statutes. NJ certainly does and to be honest I nor a good attorney here could explain them to you...that's how clouded they are.

Forget about your or my personal feelings about this matter.....the courts / prosecutors have their own ideas and so do jurys.....which are unpredictable at best.
Guess, we'll just have to wait and see how it plays out.....as I said, we do not condone his actions in any way other than his right to self-defense.

 

[Art Eatman]

We've thrashed around enough for this thread. Let's wait and see how it plays out, a bit further down the timeline, and look into it again.