-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Byron Smith convicted of premeditated murder of two teens during home break-in
- Thread starter Anton Sugar
- Start date
- Status
WhereAreMahDragonz
Banned
Agreed. Glad to see a just conclusion to a terrible case.
Vicetrailia
Member
Good verdict.
LostCaress
Member
His goal was to kill people. He set out to do so. He was happy to kill. He is a murderer. Self defense was only a pretext to quench his thirst for blood, even the first shots are not acceptable, and the calm execution of already disabled intruders simply cannot be defended.
Hero_of_the_Day
Member
I mean how many times he fired on them, not literally how many bullets he fired. He fired on the guy twice, the girl three times.
I still don't think we would have heard about it. It would have been an odd situation, but he claimed he was afraid to come out of hiding. He didn't just go enjoy his Thanksgiving meal.
He claims he thought the father of the girl was in on it and would be coming in too, so he staid in hiding out of fear. Supposedly the parts of the recordings that weren't played are him talking about how afraid he is over the next hours of lying there in wait. I think his defense of fear would have been believable had he not executed them. I believe there was a working phone in the basement with him, though.
cartoon_soldier
Member
Good on the jurors
Every thread involving murder and the armchair lawyers come out of the woodwork...
The legal definition of premeditation doesn't require that the defendant plotted some grand scheme. Premeditation can be formed in the time it takes the defendant to pull the trigger.
Amory
Member
Home invaders are literally human garbage and in my opinion if they're shot dead by an owner they got better than what they deserved.
I grew up a couple towns over from this horrifying event: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders
In this case, however, what he did was well beyond the pale.
InsaneZero
Member
Premeditation is the right call here. The defendant demonstrated that he was prepared to kill any intruders that broke into his house. He was in the mindset to perform murder before the actual situation occurred. The question of whether or not he would have had the opportunity to do so doesn't really apply here.
The other party performing an illegal act does not change the fact that he planned to kill any intruders and took steps to encourage an intrude to enter his home.
jim-jam bongs
Member
Home invasion isn't actually a defined legal term, it's a phrase used to incite people into supporting concepts like The Castle Doctrine by appealing to emotion. Clearly it's worked in your case.
Every action he took that night was to increase the likelihood of him killing someone. That's definitely premeditated murder, regardless of whether he knew someone would break in.
Many states have reformed their criminal code to remove language such as premeditation. Minnesota isn't one of them:
For contrast, here's the murder statute in Alabama, where I practice:
Napoleonthechimp
Member
Hopefully people will now see that the "castle doctrine" is not a justifiable way to act out their blood lust. It makes me wonder if people have gotten away with murder simply because they claimed the "victim" was a home invader.
Epsilon-delta
Banned
We would have heard about it regardless. What he did by failing to call 911 immediately after the shootings is textbook negligent homicide.
Unfortunately usually there is only one witness who isn't going to be as forthcoming with information as the perpetrator in this case.
It's not a burglary, it's war. An invasion by a foreign power!
Seems like the right thing to do. There's such a thing as going too far. He had them incapacitated, and that's all he needed to do. If they bled out from the initial shots, then that's on them for breaking in. Unfortunately, he decided to play the part of executioner too, and got the appropriate conviction as a result.
I think in Minnesota it would have been textbook third degree murder (what we call depraved indifference):
Knightmarre
Member
Damn, that summary was hard to read. Dude deserves to go to jail for life. He should have just called the police and the rest would be out of his hands. At least if they were killed by the police the deaths wouldn't weigh on his conscience but it seems like he has no remorse regardless.
LostCaress
Member
Self defense isn't applicable when you're committing a criminal offence, so bank robbers can't use it to justify killing police officers shooting at them.
Byron Smith was committing a criminal offence (murder). He took the steps that would guarantee he'd kill someone. The audio transcripts are horrible.
I know most people are in the "first shots were ok, execution was not", but I still believe that even the first shots are not defensible. You should not be able to say "self defense" when you WANT to kill someone and just use that as an excuse to reach your goal.
Byron Smith was committing a criminal offence (murder). He took the steps that would guarantee he'd kill someone. The audio transcripts are horrible.
I know most people are in the "first shots were ok, execution was not", but I still believe that even the first shots are not defensible. You should not be able to say "self defense" when you WANT to kill someone and just use that as an excuse to reach your goal.
Exactly, he planned to kill them.
Norwegian Rudo
Member
To me it seems REALLY weird how he did all this on the chance somebody might break in that night, even if there had been previous break ins (something we only have his word for).
It would not surprise me in the least if he set up the break in himself.
It would not surprise me in the least if he set up the break in himself.
I am a supporter of gun ownership and the second amendment. However, in this case justice was served. This homeowner was not acting in self defense, he was deranged and setup a trap to kill any intruder. None of this excuses the victims of their crime as well, they broke into someones house and put themselves at risk. However, planning and premeditating the murder of intruders is not what the second amendment is about whatsoever.
Lock him up and let him be an example to all other idiots who think they can murder someone on their property.
Lock him up and let him be an example to all other idiots who think they can murder someone on their property.
These two home invasions are SO damn similar!
Risible
Member
Legal term or not, it perfectly describes the event. Anyone entering your house with ill intent must be considered dangerous.
That being said, there's a huge difference between incapacitating someone and finishing someone off. I support the right of people to defend their homes, I do not support this guy's actions. Laying traps, preparing a a kill zone, shooting people once they are clearly down, and then notifying the police a day later? Clearly murder.
I think it's almost more believable that he was lying in wait hoping that another person would show up for him to kill
speculawyer
Member
The execution shots at the end and the not informing the police immediately were disgusting.
But it is the premeditation that really got him.
But it is the premeditation that really got him.
Was more a stream of consciousness type post. So of course, them being in his house is wrong and against the law, but he escalated things far past the point of self defense by luring them in, lying in wait, shooting them multiple times/execution shots, etc. So yeah, the fact that they broke into his house seems irrelevant after what he did.
jim-jam bongs
Member
No it doesn't perfectly describe the event, that's why the justice system doesn't consider it a valid terminology. There are already statutes covering the crimes which may occur during a "home invasion", and they vary wildly in terms of sentencing because they are not all violent or dangerous.
ab.aeterno
Member
Indeed. Self defense should be primarily about using force, lethal only if absolutely necessary, to stop an imminent threat to your life or the life of another. Everything about this was premeditated to end one way, regardless of circumstance. The excessive brutality is repugnant, and waiting to inform authorities indefensible. Even if he was defending himself, execution of a subdued threat puts it out of self defence because any imminent danger had been dealt with.
I agree with the general sentiment in this thread that this dude was totally psychotic. But I also wonder if he was driven crazy by the repeated violation of his personal space. It does not feel good to have your home robbed once, never mind repeatedly. I can imagine that for some people, the fear of intruders returning plus the shock and violation of past robberies could push a person over the edge.
Not trying to justify what this dude did. But I'm just saying, I could see how being robbed repeatedly could drive a person to this lunatic state, unfortunately.
Not trying to justify what this dude did. But I'm just saying, I could see how being robbed repeatedly could drive a person to this lunatic state, unfortunately.
I think this guy got what he deserved, but on some level I kind of feel sorry for him. He was trained to kill in Vietnam, comes home is probably senile. People keep stealing his shit and the cops can't do anything. The way he recorded it, practiced calling a lawyer, it seems like he really felt he was totally in the right.
We really need to take better are of our veterans. Really makes me worry how many vets are out there and really in a bad place ready to snap.
We really need to take better are of our veterans. Really makes me worry how many vets are out there and really in a bad place ready to snap.
Dreams-Visions
Member
Are you sure you know what double tapping is, bro? It's just the act of firing 2 shots in rapid succession. No more, no less. That's not what makes this murder at all.
Also, good decision.
Nah fuck this guy. There is a matter of proportionality and necessity. All he needed to do was call the fucking police and shoot once or twice. Maybe they die from the injuries, maybe not. Police and paramedics would have been on the scene in minutes. Executing 2 people is not in his authority, and doing it with satisfaction and glee shows all we need to know about him.
onadesertedisland
Member
He could have also warned off the girl. He waited for her for ten minutes, plenty of time for the police to arrive had he called them.
Anton Sugar
Member
Last I read, he only reported one break-in. Did the defense ever show any other proof of additional break-ins at his house?
I wish I could find the article that I read this in, but at one point Smith claimed that the harassment he faced from intruders was worse than anything he experienced in Vietnam.
Take that for what it's worth.
Epsilon-delta
Banned
This Vietnam angle needs to die and I say that as a veteran myself. The guy enlisted in the Air Force during Vietnam, got out and used the GI Bill to go to school for free, and later landed a job at the State Department and retired.
Just because you're in a service branch during a time of war doesn't mean you are automatically sent to the front lines.
The guy was in the Air Force and I can assume with high confidence, he never sat foot in Vietnam. He was most likely a paper pusher sitting behind a desk.
Veteran ≠ seeing combat
- Status