How not to talk to the police.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I could use this incident to justify "warning shots"...

I have heard all the rationale against warning shots, but in this case, I think they could have been used and justified.

You see an intruder colming down the stairs. You can see his lower body, but he can't see you. You don't know if he has a weapon. Under such conditions, a warning shot could be expected to make the intruder retreat back up the stairs, with no danger to yourself.

On the other hand, once the intruder is upstairs, he has you trapped in the basement. He could set fire to the house and pick you off as you try to escape.

OK, cancel the arguement in favor of the warning shot.

- - - Yoda
 
I do not know enough about the law, nor do I trust media reports on such matters. I know back in Florida, use of lethal force in your dwelling was allowed beyond just 'self defense'.

However, it appears he was charged based upon his words, and less so his actions.

I suspect that in many locations and without his testimony, most everyone would treat this differently if he was an LEO.
 
PTSD would be a flawed defense - I mean this is an old guy. Perhaps Vietnam - but we didn't even know what PTSD is back then (1966 for me). There are a lot of questions here - for example why did he arm himself with multiple weapons? Was he in waiting just hoping for an opportunity? Was he merely cleaning his guns and happened to have loaded magazines nearby? It sounds suspicious, but we just don't know. Certainly he is guilty of running his mouth regardless of truth. I will follow this one to see outcome.
 
<.....? What happened here was cold blooded murder. You can defend yourself from burglars if you want, and in certain states, but executing them is a worse crime than the one they were committing.

As for the rest of it, I think we all know the rules here pretty well. This was not a justified shooting and I doubt that "insanity" would hold up in court on this one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I brought up Texas law to show that there are different levels of charges for a prosecutor to consider, and for a jury to decide. For instance, a jury can agree that he did the killing and that it was not self-defense at all. That might not carry a decision that it was premeditated.

A rational defense would be that he was so upset by the previous burglaries that he lost all self-control and acted in a fit of passion.

The "however", of course, is all his self-justification with silly mouth-music which makes him out to be--in the eyes of most people--a stupid but cold-blooded killer.
 
Art Eatman said:
I brought up Texas law to show that there are different levels of charges for a prosecutor to consider, and for a jury to decide. For instance, a jury can agree that he did the killing and that it was not self-defense at all. That might not carry a decision that it was premeditated....
Click to expand...
Excuse this digression. While different jurisdictions might use slightly different terminology, the following lays things out in general terms.

Homicide is the killing of one person by another. A homicide can be --

  1. Accidental;
  2. Negligent;
  3. The result of reckless (or willful, wanton and reckless) conduct;
  4. Intentional without malice (evil intent);
  5. Intentional with malice; and
  6. Intentional, premeditated and with malice.

An accidental homicide basically would be a death occurring as the unintended result of actions of an actor, even though the actor acted as a reasonable and prudent person in like circumstances. The actor incurs no criminal or civil liability in the case of a truly accidental homicide.

A negligent homicide would be a death occurring as the unintended result of the actions of an actor failing to use the degree of care expected of a reasonable and prudent person in like circumstances. And the actor incurs civil, but not criminal, liability in the case of a negligent homicide.

Homicides [3] - [6] are crimes: involuntary manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter, murder, and first degree murder, respectively.

The various types of homicide are defined in terms of the state of mind/intent/conduct of the actor.

If you point a gun at someone, the gun discharges and the person dies, your conduct gives rise to at least an articulable suspicion that a crime anywhere from involuntary manslaughter (pointing a gun at someone is at least reckless) to murder in the first degree has been committed. If you are claiming that you acted in self defense, you would be at least admitting the elements of voluntary manslaughter, i. e., you intentionally shot the guy.

Self defense, simple negligence or accident is a defense to a criminal charge of involuntary manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter, murder, or first degree murder. Self defense or accident is a defense against a civil claim. It will be up to you to make the case for your defense, e. g., it was an accident, it was mere negligence, it was justified.

In this particular situation, it appears that Mr. Smith would have a hard time justifying his conduct. This would work out to be at least voluntary manslaughter, and possibly even murder. Malice could be inferred from his, statement as reported in the article:
...If you're trying to shoot somebody and they laugh at you, you go again,...
Click to expand...
 
k_dawg said:
I do not know enough about the law,...
Click to expand...
I agree.

k_dawg said:
...I know back in Florida, use of lethal force in your dwelling was allowed beyond just 'self defense'...
Click to expand...
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):
...a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
Click to expand...

However, Section 776.013 helps by providing, among other things:
(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 forcefully 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.
​
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:...
Click to expand...

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.

Here once the intruders were incapacitated, Mr. Smith's further use of lethal force would not be justifiable, even under [the inapplicable] Florida law (or similar Castle Doctrine laws).

k_dawg said:
I suspect that in many locations and without his testimony, most everyone would treat this differently if he was an LEO...
Click to expand...
Really? You believe that the public is more tolerant of the unjustifiable use of lethal force by LEOs?
 
I'm all for the castle doctrine, but this guy went way too far. what started out as a home defense situation, quickly turned into murder. I mean, they were down, and he put one "under the chin", then not to call the police right away? he's getting fried, if not life.
 
However, it appears he was charged based upon his words, and less so his actions.
Click to expand...

He was definitely charged based on his statements, which were an admission to murder.

I would hesitate to say that is the only reason he was charged. Had he kept his mouth closed, there would have been questions coming out of autopsies and crime scene analysis which would have most likely led to him facing the same charges. A self-defense shooting where you have to use multiple weapons and which wind up with somebody getting a barrel shoved up under their chin and getting shot is going to invite scrutiny.

I suspect that in many locations and without his testimony, most everyone would treat this differently if he was an LEO.
Click to expand...

If evidence indicated that an LEO had executed a helpless suspect at the scene? They probably would treat it differently -- insofar as I haven't seen any mention yet of a civil suit and there are no reports of angry mobs and rioting in relation to this case.
 
Smith (the shooter) is a retired State Department Official. They are not like most of us lesser citizens.

The criminal complaint filed against Byron Smith at:
http://stmedia.startribune.com/documents/Criminal+Complaint+-+BYRON+SMITH.pdf

Quotes from the criminal complaint establishing probable cause for detention (government document, pub domain, no (c) issues).

Smith fired a Mini-14 two shots at the young man (Brady) who then fell down the stairs, then shot him in the face.

...Smith stated that he the put the man's body on a tarp and dragged the body into his basement workshop. Smith stated that he then sat back down in his chair.

Smith stated several minutes later he again heard footsteps on the main floor of his house. Smith stated that another person came down the stairs into the basement where he was sitting. Smith said he waited until he could see her hips then he shot her. After shooting the person she tumbled down the steps. Smith stated that he tried to shoot her again with the Mini 14 but the gun jammed. Smith stated that, after the gun jammed, the woman laughed at him. Smith stated that it was not a very long laugh because she was already hurting. Smith acknowledged that this made him upset. Smith told investigatort Luberts, "If you're trying to shoot somebody and they laugh at you, you go again." Smith then pulled out his .22 caliber 9-shot revolver that he was wearing, and he shot the female several times in the chest. Smith acknowledged he fired "more shots than I needed to." Smith stated that he then dragged the female's body into his office workshop and placed her body next to the man's. Smith stated that the female was still gasping for air. Smth stated at this point he placed the handgun under the woman's chin and shot her"under the chin up into the cranium". Smith described it as "a good clean finishing shot." Smith stated he wanted to end her suffering. ...

. . . .

Smith acknowledged that he left the bodies in the basement of his residence overnight. Smith stated that on Friday morning he then called a neighbor asking if the neighbor knew any lawyers. Smith acknowledges that he never attempted to call law enforcement, but says he asked his neighbor to do so, after the neighbor was unable to assist him in obtaining a lawyer.
Click to expand...
 
Ive read a couple of articles about this guy.
Aparently ex-State Department, now that could be anything from a killer to a clerk.
His home was previously burglarized and weapons, meds and valuables were stolen in the amount of or exceeding 10K.
I would say depending on his State Department job PTSD may well be a defence, especially depending upon what meds were being used and or stolen.
Not that it makes a big difference, but these "Kids" had drug related issues and weren't the angels they may be being presented to us now as.
As I see it;
Potentially Kooky old guy with some issues and some guns meets adolesants with a drug habit and burglary skills. Two trains on the same track comming together at 90mph.
He gets 20 years because they dont have a death sentance.
 
Haile Kifer, 18, and Nicholas Brady, 17, were cousins described as sending each other loads of text messages. Probably interesting evidence there.

Yes, some kids have insunuated they were involved in drugs.

To play devil's advocate: if I shot two druggies, delivered coup de graces to assure they were dead, altered the crime scene dragging bodies about, kept the bodies in my basement overnight, had a neighbor notify police the next day, I would suspect myself of killing my drug supplier/buyer and trying to cover it up. The evidence such as it is fits multiple scenarios.
 
Last edited:
It honestly seems more like murder that was then attempted to be covered with a self defense story.

I mean really someone fired a loud deafening rifle (but far enough away that it will certainly have been heard, not auditorily cut off) a guy tumbled down, got shot more with additional loud rifle shots, and then a girl who heard mutiple shots from a rifle indoors decides she is going to walk down as well?
And then they both manage to get shot first in similar places?
It sounds like in the groin because he says he saw thier hips and shot as they descended, that is his story to justify his shots to those areas.

Then he moves them around his place. Notifies police the following day. On top of that has this story to explain how he shot them with multiple weapons from multiple angles.
The story he told or made up sounds like second degree murder alone, but does not ring true. I think his made up story is actually better than what he really did.

Two teens, with initial shots in the groin, and an execution with a .22 put under the head and fired.
This sounds a lot more like an interrogation or torture that included shooting and execution than the story he told to police.
Shot in the groin or stomach, finished off with a .22.
And assuming they even all happened quickly as he says is assuming a lot, there could have been some time between the groin shots, or other shots, and the execution.
It makes a lot more sense that it was something more criminal than his story of an 18 year old unarmed girl deciding to decend into a home after hearing multiple rifle shots shoot the person that went in before her.


Whether he kidnapped them, or forced them into the home, or they were drug dealers, or he was interogating/torturing them for information about his previous theft. Something is definitely missing from the story.
The shot placement, the story to cover it up, the multiple calibers, the variety of angles from into the groin to under the chin, moving the bodies around the place, waiting a day and then having a neighbor call, tumbling down stairs that probably explains bruises or injuries, his story (that would still itself be criminal) sounds so ridiculous it seems like it is meant to cover up some other things.
It was probably something more along the lines of first degree murder, of two people, maybe with elements of torture.
I think the real story is a bit different than the one he gave to police, as bad as the one he may have made up sounds.
 
Last edited:
retired after a career as a security officer with the U.S. State Department.
Click to expand...

And that is troubling in itself !

This story reads like an unbelievable B movie nightmare on Elm street . If the story is accurate, then it would certainly justify the charges placed against this guy.
Amazing that this could happen in real life . What type of thinking process could bring this story to reality !
 
Sounds like he is in trouble alright. And I am in no way agreeing with his actions after the initial shootings of either teen.

I'll play Devil's advocate for this and ask 'how would you have responded'?

Keep in mind that the reports read like the teens DID break into his home.

If I was in my mid 60's and in my basement - trapped - with or without a phone and heard someone break in above me and start down the stairs, I do not think I would yell a warning or fire a warning shot.

I would also feel certain that a second person coming down the stairs after hearing the shots would either be armed or at the least be coming down to see what her partner in crime HAD shot.

I sure as heck wouldn't wait until I saw their hands to make a decision. It is MY home. And I'm not about to get into a fight with an 18 year old for my gun or let them go back up the stairs which would effectively leave me trapped.

The idea of telling a person to 'stop, or I'll shoot' would leave you with the scenario of shooting them in the back as they turned to go back up the stairs. We know the sight of a gun does not necessarily lead to instant compliance with verbal commands.
Again you would then be their prisoner, until you decided to go up to find out whether there was a trap waiting.
I mean, how long would you sit in the basement before deciding they had left?
Or as YODA mentioned, they might set fire to the house above you.

In the real world, an 18 year old can pretty much overpower a man in his mid 60s every time, especially with the element of surprise.

Again, there is no justifying his actions after the initial shootings.
In the senior's defense. Well, he didn't start it.

Bad decisions lead to bad luck. Sounds like the case for all concerned.

JT
 
His story is bizarre.

Do you really believe an unarmed 18 year old female decided to descend into the house after hearing multiple .223 rifle shots?

According to his story he shot the male multiple times, dragged him a ways, then waited. Shooting the female when she then came down.


If there was one bizarre thing you may be able to dismiss it. But there is several.

He moves bodies, waits over a day, and then has a neighbor call instead of himself, and his excuse is to not bother them on the holiday? So does he not have a phone, why did the neighbor call?

Even beyond his execution shots, his story adds in a lot of bizarre things.


As I said in prior post it really sounds more like a story to cover up something even worse.
A good medical examiner may be able to tell the time apart the wounds happened prior to death, and whether bruising from falling down the stairs is consistent with that and an immediate death or allowed for some time prior to death.
Conveniently though he waited over a day to even report the shooting.
He has excuses for moving them around the place, blood and evidence moved around.
They may be able to determine if everything happened as he said, or it was something even worse.

And the report of them really breaking in doesn't necessarily change all that. He could have broken out his own window. Likewise even if they did break in, he could have held them inside, threatened or questioned them, shot them with the less lethal wounds in the groin or lower body, and then killed them with the head shots at some point.
The tumble of each of them down the stairs could also be to explain some beating or bruising done to them.
Since he moved the bodies all around, it is harder to even determine why blood or tissue is even various places.
I wonder how good the detectives or medical examiner of this small Minnesota place with 8,300 people will even be.

And all of those details mattered that day, the longer the amount of time between the shooting and investigation, or exploring different angles, the more difficult those little details would be to determine. So if the 8,300 person town didn't do what was needed initially or didn't have people skilled enough, those details may be lost.


Those details would also be the difference between a death sentence or life in prison, and two 10-20 year sentences (although 20 years for someone over 60 is essentially a remainder of thier life sentence in prison, as it would require living up to or past 80 in the conditions of prison.) Although I think he thought his story wouldn't lead to prison time, even with the finishing shots and all, but I don't buy his story.
 
Last edited:
Could we please have the definition of....Lethal or Deadly Force.
Regardless of how we've all been trained here to think and react....the law states he was able to use Lethal or deadly Force......what does that legally mean ?

Not defending his actions but if those two were home reading and not a pending Home Invasion.....none of this would have happened.
 
westhope said:
609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.

The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except 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.

The above is Minnesota's law for the use of lethal force. Note the part about felony in place of abode. As far as I know, there is no prior case law considering this in Minnesota.

The two people broke a window to enter the home.

I do not agree with what the man did but the above is MN law. What he did was wrong in my opinion.
Click to expand...
He didnt kill them to prevent a felony. He had already prevented the felony before he executed each teenager. Then, once the prevention of a felony was complete, he executed the teens, because he wanted them dead.

He admitted to murder, plain and simple. He should receive the minimum 21 years for each count, and spend the rest of just his life watching tv and pissing correctional officers off, unless he lives past 102 years old.
 
xXxplosive said:
Could we please have the definition of....Lethal or Deadly Force.
Regardless of how we've all been trained here to think and react....the law states he was able to use Lethal or deadly Force......what does that legally mean ?

Not defending his actions but if those two were home reading and not a pending Home Invasion.....none of this would have happened.
Click to expand...
Minnesota law states he could use lethal force to prevent the commission of a felony inside his home. So he was justified in shooting them.

However, at the point that the victims were laying on the ground clinging to life, the possibility of them committing a felony was absolutely gone. He then shot them again. That becomes murder.

Its that simple, no debate necessary. If he walks, the prosecutor failed terribly in voir dire.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
Former Marine killed while defending home from "No-Knockers"
Replies
6
Views
681
Sam1911
S
U
  • Locked
How can they charge this man - MN has the Castle Doctrine?
Replies
24
Views
2K
gamestalker
G
B
  • Locked
Armed attack at disabled people's workplace.
Replies
1
Views
289
cslinger
C
ACP
  • Locked
Road Rage lesson
Replies
14
Views
562
Fred Fuller
F
B
  • Locked
This is going to play out bad..VT.
Replies
5
Views
742
Low-Sci
L
Back
Top