-
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
Yeah, please do me a favor and listen to the audio:
Audio recording played during the trial of the murders: https://soundcloud.com/pioneerpress/audio-from-byron-smiths-house
LostCaress
Member
First shot was attempted murder if you prefer. The point is that it wasn't self defense.
Thanks for letting us know you're a psycho murderer in waiting.
This is what I dont get unless people are reading something I didnt. Since when is not having a car on your driveway a deathtrap and a lure for thieves? The kids had to break into the house too, he didn't purposefully make entering easier on them.
The repeated shooting was beyond fucked and the old man deserves bars, but the whole incident required a robbery to take place. I dont consider the scenario a bait by any means.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
The Broken Ska Record
Member
He waited downstairs, had a tarp to put the bodies so they wouldn't bleed on the carpet, waited a day to call the police, and taunted the thieves before killing them.
Probably the OP, where more information is presented than just the car being moved.
Since his intent was to make the house more appealing to rob. Because he knew it would make it look like it was an easier mark since no one was home (or looked like anyways). He outright went out of his way to park his car some where else to make his house look more appealing. Are you being purposefully dense to miss that?
This wasn't that he didn't have a spot at his house to park or maybe was too drunk to drive so left his car somewhere. He made sure it wasn't there and it was very obvious to make the house more appealing to thieves (and he made sure to park it far enough away they wouldn't notice that it just wasn't in its usual place). He then set up a death trap so when they entered he could easily kill them. He then proceeded to make sure they were dead even afer they were incapacitated and unable to hurt him at that point. Nothing about what he did says this wasn't a death trap he was making and the car being gone was a lure he knew would get them to go in the house. It's pretty common knowledge most burglars don't want to be in the house with some one in it. Maybe if he hadn't set up the tarp and prepared the house to make a death trap you could give him the benefit of the doubt that the car wasn't there cause of some other reason. But with everything else, it was obvious that was the lure to get them to come in. You don't set up a tarp to hide in and wait if you aren't expecting people to come in...
its basically entrapment. Make them think you're not there. its the same as the bait car thing that was on TV, except those people got to keep their lives.
Case in point. Guns and the obsession with them in the US has become a sickness. How can you claim to be moral and just when you literally own a tool designed and produced to take life
Melkezadek
Member
Some fucking lunatics in this thread, holy shit. Listening to that audio recording made me physically ill.
People have a real fucked up sense of justice.
People have a real fucked up sense of justice.
Spirit of Jazz
Banned
He made his house an easy target, lured them to the basement and waited in a kill trap. Also there's the whole recording aspect where he wants to film himself brutally and mercilessly kills two people. How was this whole thing not about his urge to kill people?
LostCaress
Member
You are just trying to get attention, stop it.
LordKasual
Banned
Yep
Annoying animals in your yard, rummaging through your trash.
Set out a trap so you can catch and shoot them
Just because someone falls for a trap doesn't make it not a trap. The point is he knew what was going to happen and he had no reason to (and normally did not) park away from the home other than to lead them in.
So have you actually read through the entire verdict and case? And/or listened to the recordings of him killing the two and the cleanup?
This isn't a new case or thread, you have lots of info provided.
xDUMPWEEDx
Banned
They're not hapless kittens who happened to stumble into an open doorway. They're thieves who had the option to not break into someone's property and steal his belongings.
Let me get this straight:
If someone breaks into your house attempting to take your stuff then it is, in from your perspective, justified in murdering them? Your statement "they got what deserved" implies murder is acceptable for someone breaking into your house to steal your stuff. Murder is never acceptable of any kind. All of us should be sad that we lost prospective positive contributors to humankind due to these senseless killings.
CaviarMeths
Member
What are you hoping to accomplish here?
Those kids begged for their lives and were executed in a basement by a sadistic killer. Not sure what scale you're using here to declare that the fuckery is evenly distributed.
elrechazado
Banned
None of that addresses what you quoted at all.
This monster is someone that didn't have to set a trap and kill two people.
People have to option to not carry out premeditated murder.
That isn't evidence of a death trap?
No argument there, guy is a total scumbag.
LostCaress
Member
Maybe the snacks were for the intruders and the tarp so he wouldn't get crumbles on the floor?
Do you know that law doesn't take evidence as only seperate thing that don't interactand don't create context?
What is your point? I believe that is pretty much well established.
Right, so he had the right to kill both of them? The posed no threat to him, they found no weapons on the teens. A shot to the leg in both kids and calling the cops would have done the trick.
Yes, and it is why I believe he is guilty of murder as opposed to self defense. My argument is only towards the very first part of the event, where he made it look like his house was not occupied at the time. I'm not being dense by ignoring the fact he intended it to look that way, and I am purposefully ignoring what he did inside after the break in because I dont disagree that it was wrong. I am focusing on the part that I disagree with, which is calling a house that is locked up a trap just because it was missing a car on the driveway and the lights were out.
Given the complete lack of progress made to quell gun violence in America, the only fair answer is not much at all.
In what way is it not a trap if the intention was to make it appealing to his prey?
It's called context, everything he did tied together as a trap, including moving his car. He was not convicted of moving his car -> thus he set up a trap.
Moving his car was more evidence along with the rest of his setup that he was preparing a trap.
Not all instances of moving your car is a trap but if you purposely sabotage your lights, lie in wait, prepare cleanup, etc, it is part a trap.
xDUMPWEEDx
Banned
No, they're not. But they are people who are making mistakes that could possibly change and become better people. Sure, they should be apprehended and punished or better yet, rehabiliated (some countries don't have prisons for punishment but for rehabilitation and guess what? They have less crime problems than we do. Seems they are doing something right).
But killing them when they were not threats... and actually luring them in in order to kill them? Highly disproportionate to the crime (not just a little). It's one thing if he was threatened as at that point yeah, I rule in favor of less risk to the person doing no wrong, sucks for the thieves but they shouldn't have been putting the person in that position in the first place. But he not only wasn't defending himself but he set out to encourage them so he could lure them in to kill them. There's a gulf of difference between the two. I mean that's even more egregious than if he shot them in the back when they were no threat (but hadn't tried to lure them in or hadn't mediated on killing them). There's a reason premeditated murder is a degree further than just murder in the passion of the moment.
My point is that it's silly to compare them to baited animals. They knew what they were doing.
Most traps, lures, baits, etc are intentionally walked into by the victim. If you agree he took those actions to entice would be robbers so he could shoot them, what are you disagreeing with?
King Tubby
Member
You have the right to shoot burglars who enter into your home, but this man clearly wanted to set up a situation where he could commit murder and get away with it. There's no justification for executing unarmed people after you've incapacitated them. He's a fucking lunatic.
JFC stop spreading this myth.
what myth exactly? I'm saying had he not laid that trap to murder those kids and actually felt threatened, he did not have to fatally shoot them.
I believe the person you were quoting was being facetious and anyway that still doesn't change anything about what happened.
xDUMPWEEDx
Banned
In most states, this is purely false. The burglars must be posing a direct threat to your life, and simply there presence of being in your home is not considered a direct threat to your life.
The "shoot them in the leg" myth that, after being debunked countless millions of times, is still being spread by uninformed individuals everywhere.
So... say leaving your wallet out in the open is not more likely to get it stolen then keeping it hidden? My point being is that it is well known if you do something that makes something easier to do people are more likely to do it.
Because yeah, if you do something that is going to make some one more likely to do something and you do specifically it to encourage them to do it, yes, it is luring. Sure, they have more capability than an animal to not do it but animals can also sense something is wrong and decide not to take the lure... ask fishermen if they have days that no fish take the bait. So just cause they can say no doesn't mean making it more appealing to them on purpose is not luring.
CaviarMeths
Member
How convenient for you that two kids were brutally murdered so you could have a good opportunity to pull out your soapbox.
Even the girl who only entered the house after she heard noises and the guy failed to return?
When it comes to tens of thousands of people dying every year? I'll take a bigger box than that.
Have you ever been in a situation that called on you to fire a weapon? Worse i have ever been in is a reach for my gun. It sounds like you're saying shoot to kill is the only option.
essentially what i read is that a lot of people have so little empathy for fellow humans that they would rather shoot them dead than allow for the notion that maybe the lives of thieves have something fundamentally flawed which causes them to turn to crime out of desperation. they just dont deserve a chance at all to atone for their crimes via the legal system.
i think assuming that you need to kill somebody as your first reaction to someone imposing on you is rather selfish and unreasonable. but thats just me.
i think assuming that you need to kill somebody as your first reaction to someone imposing on you is rather selfish and unreasonable. but thats just me.
- Status