Support NeoGAF

[MogCakes]

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​

I don't know how anyone sane could listen to that and come away with 'yeah I'm on his side'

 

[JeTmAn81]

The punishment should fit the crime. We don't give the death sentence for theft, and we shouldn't allow you to shoot someone just for being in your house unless your life is threatened.

 

[Usobuko]

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'm with you. I understand the need to defend yourself from invaders but the US allows citizens to own guns so you get this extremely high tension of possible killed-or-be-killed scenario played out in victims mind. Trigger happy for everyone.

Had it been two Somalian teens I wonder how the jury would have voted.

Wonder if the defense force will gets quieter too.

 

[Yado]

Even the girl who only entered the house after she heard noises and the guy failed to return?

In that situation it would have been wiser for her to call the cops than to enter the house.

 

[GhaleonEB]

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.

That has nothing to do with his post.

He's saying, don't shoot people who are of no threat to you.

 

[Armaros]

In that situation it would have been wiser for her to call the cops than to enter the house.

So victim blaming?

 

[AkumaNiko]

That has nothing to do with his post.

He's saying, don't shoot people who are of no threat to you.

I think he needs to re-read my og comment then because it seems it does not grasp where i was coming from. I said if the kids had no weapons but felt threatened, he could have shot them in the leg and called the police to handle it.

But again, this is going way beyond what this actually is, flat out murder

 

[King Tubby]

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.

You just have to have a reasonable belief that they may cause harm to yourself or someone around you. In almost all states there's no duty to retreat from your home.

 

[Yado]

So victim blaming?

There's no way they don't bear some responsibility for the way this turned out.

 

[Sunster]

stealing is punishable by death now? what is this, Aladdin? I thought guns were for when you feared for your life, not your stuff.

 

[Dynomutt]

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.

Arguably this is why it's all fucked up.

 

[Machina]

There's no way they don't bear some responsibility for the way this turned out.

If the lunatic had actually locked his house up properly instead of luring them in, they probably don't even get inside at all

 

[xDUMPWEEDx]

You just have to have a reasonable belief that they may cause harm to yourself or someone around you. In almost all states there's no duty to retreat from your home.

You reworded exactly what I said. "Castle Doctrine" states that you don't have to retreat in your own home, nothing else.

As for a "reasonable belief", the burglar's presence alone is not a reasonable belief that your life is in danger. Furthermore, I would highly advise to look up your state's laws on this. You could land in prison someday for acting on what you currently believe.

 

[Makki]

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?

That it was not a trap setup. It required a robbery to happen.

 

[GrandHarrier]

If the lunatic had actually locked his house up properly instead of luring them in, they probably don't even get inside at all

No commenting on the rest of the thread aside, if you listen to the audio, its clear they broke a window to get in. You'd have to have metal bars to protect from this level of dedication to entry.

 

[SecretMoblin]

I think he needs to re-read my og comment then because it seems it does not grasp where i was coming from.

Apparently you're serious, but no: if you pull a gun out to defend yourself, you are shooting to disable the threat. The idea that someone (including police officers) can simply expertly fire a shot into a slender woman's moving leg (or a criminal's arm) in order to disable but not kill her and then wait for the authorities to apprehend her is a television fantasy.

 

[Machina]

No commenting on the rest of the thread aside, if you listen to the audio, its clear they broke a window to get in. You'd have to have metal bars to protect from this level of dedication to entry.

And shooting his gun into the air to scare them off? Was he justified in killing two people because he didn't want to put a hole in his roof?

 

[TS-08]

That it was not a trap setup. It required a robbery to happen.

How does that make it not a trap, or a lure, or whatever word you want to use?

 

[Tigress]

That it was not a trap setup. It required a robbery to happen.

Wow, you have to be being purposely dense (this has been explained to you over and over again and you just keep coming back asking over and over again how without actually giving any real logic on how it isn't). Just admit it, you admire that he killed a bunch of thieves and you don't care how he did it.

 

[GrandHarrier]

And shooting his gun into the air to scare them off? Was he justified in killing two people because he didn't want to put a hole in his roof?

You miss my point. They broke in to the house by breaking a window which means that locking up the house wasn't enough to stop them from entering. You said they wouldn't have been able to get in. I'm not commenting on the murder itself.

 

[TS-08]

And shooting his gun into the air to scare them off? Was he justified in killing two people because he didn't want to put a hole in his roof?

What in the hell are you talking about?

 

[Machina]

You miss my point. They broke in to the house by breaking a window which means that locking up the house wasn't enough to stop them from entering. You said they wouldn't have been able to get in. I'm not commenting on the murder itself.

Even on that point, he lives in Florida so getting security screens/bars probably would have been a prudent move

 

[SecretMoblin]

And shooting his gun into the air to scare them off? Was he justified in killing two people because he didn't want to put a hole in his roof?

Warning shots are illegal. Introducing firearms into a situation that has not yet necessitated force is a terrible idea.

The only legally justified use of a firearm in self-defense is to prevent immediate harm.

 

[CaviarMeths]

And shooting his gun into the air to scare them off? Was he justified in killing two people because he didn't want to put a hole in his roof?

Again, why are you even in this thread? You obvious didn't read the details or listen to the audio. The guy was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. Of course he wasn't justified. Stop shitposting.

Here's a tip to troll better next time though: nobody fires live ammunition to scare people off. If you want to scare someone off, you shout "I have a gun and I've already called the police!"

 

[CountAntonius]

This was a murder plain and simple. I'm not one to side with home Intruders but the premeditation and the audio was damning. Cold blooded killing.

 

[randome]

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.

I didn't say the fuckery was evenly distributed? The kids shouldn't have broken into his house/stolen from him, and they were assholes for doing that (more than once from what I understand). The guy was a fucked up piece of shit who got what he deserved for sadistically murdering the two kids. Obviously I don't think they should have been murdered.

 

[xDUMPWEEDx]

Warning shots are illegal. Introducing firearms into a situation that has not yet necessitated force is a terrible idea.

The only legally justified use of a firearm in self-defense is to prevent immediate harm.

Yeah, that is a good way to pick up a quick felony, and if you are lucky maybe you can plea bargain it to a misdemeanor.

 

[King Tubby]

You reworded exactly what I said. "Castle Doctrine" states that you don't have to retreat in your own home, nothing else.

As for a "reasonable belief", the burglar's presence alone is not a reasonable belief that your life is in danger. Furthermore, I would highly advise to look up your state's laws on this. You could land in prison someday for acting on what you currently believe.

In New York, according to Penal Section 35.20:

A person in possession or control of, or licensed or privileged to
be in, a dwelling or an occupied building, who reasonably believes that
another person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such
dwelling or building, may use deadly physical force upon such other
person when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to
prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of such
burglary.

 

[Metalgus]

Yeah the audio leaves no doubt. Murder.

 

[xDUMPWEEDx]

In New York, according to Penal Section 35.20:

Fantastic. Great job on looking up your legal rights in your state. That shit is super important. I know there are certain states that allow what you just posted, but they are rare. In the overwhelming majority of states (like 38+ I believe) you will end up in an orange jumpsuit for that.

As for my state (California) if I shoot someone in my house trying to grab my TV then I'll be going to prison.

 

[GrandHarrier]

Fantastic. I know there are certain states that allow what you just posted, but they are rare. In the overwhelming majority of states (like 38+ I believe) you will end up in an orange jumpsuit for that.

Oregon allows it as well:

ORS 161.219

Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209 (Use of physical force in defense of a person), a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is:

(1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or

(2) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or

(3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person. [1971 c.743 §23]

 

[numble]

Fantastic. Great job on looking up your legal rights in your state. That shit is super important. I know there are certain states that allow what you just posted, but they are rare. In the overwhelming majority of states (like 38+ I believe) you will end up in an orange jumpsuit for that.

As for my state (California) if I shoot someone in my house trying to grab my TV then I'll be going to prison.

California--you probably won't go to prison.

"Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred."

Most states actually have lenient standards when you look at the law.

 

[Fuchsdh]

Even on that point, he lives in Florida so getting security screens/bars probably would have been a prudent move

Okay, this doesn't ameliorate the fact that this guy set out to kill people and was pretty rightly convicted of premeditated murder with all the facts presented, but why is victim blaming for robberies acceptable? You can play a game of escalating "why didn't you" on a robbery victim (why not better locks? bars on the doors? security system?) or you can say that the people most responsible are the people doing the damn robbing.

 

[BotoxAgent]

Rot in your cell dude

 

[xDUMPWEEDx]

California--you probably won't go to prison.


Most states actually have lenient standards when you look at the law.

That is awkward as hell to read. Like, the first half agrees with what I think, then the second half disagrees.

Anyways, California basically boils down to:
For purposes of the self-defense legal defense, ”reasonable under the circumstances" means that you need to have:

1. Reasonably believed that you were in imminent danger of being killed, injured, or touched unlawfully,

2. Reasonably believed that you needed to use force to prevent that from happening

3. Used no more force than was necessary to prevent that from happening

I've never heard of anyone here killing someone for stealing their property and not going to prison for it.

 

[NullPointer]

Its also disturbing that the guy looks like Walder Frey.

 

[numble]

That is awkward as hell to read. Like, the first half agrees with what I think, then the second half disagrees.

Anyways, California basically boils down to:

For purposes of the self-defense legal defense, “reasonable under the circumstances” means that you need to have:

1. Reasonably believed that you were in imminent danger of being killed, injured, or touched unlawfully,

2. Reasonably believed that you needed to use force to prevent that from happening

3. Used no more force than was necessary to prevent that from happening

That is the basic self-defense rule, good enough to pass the bar exam, I guess, but the actual rule is different for home intrusion situations. As for a "reasonable belief", the burglar's presence alone creates a presumption of reasonable belief that your life is in danger. Furthermore, I would highly advise to look up your state's laws on this. You could be sued for malpractice someday for acting on what you currently believe.

 

[Night Angel]

This was clearly murder, so it's good that he's going to prison.

I still believe in the right to defend oneself with deadly force, but that obviously didn't happen here.

 

[xDUMPWEEDx]

Furthermore, I would highly advise to look up your state's laws on this. You could be sued for malpractice someday for acting on what you currently believe.

How exactly?

 

[xDUMPWEEDx]

That is the basic self-defense rule, good enough to pass the bar exam, I guess, but the actual rule is different for home intrusion situations. As for a "reasonable belief", the burglar's presence alone creates a presumption of reasonable belief that your life is in danger. Furthermore, I would highly advise to look up your state's laws on this. You could be sued for malpractice someday for acting on what you currently believe.

CALCRIM clearly states a person must prove that they or their family were in immediate danger of death or great harm, not potential or future harm. A defendant must prove they felt a home intruder had the intent to harm in order to not get charged with manslaughter or homicide.

Under confusing or unexpected circumstances, a situation may be difficult to read.

CALCRIM, also states a defendant would need to react in a way a 'reasonable' person would under the circumstances with the belief of immediate danger. A person doesn't necessarily have to be right about their belief, they just have to prove to a jury their belief was genuine.

So yeah, you are wrong. Good luck proving to a jury that you felt your life was in immediate danger when the burglar was trying to carry your TV out of the house.

 

[Tigress]

Okay, this doesn't ameliorate the fact that this guy set out to kill people and was pretty rightly convicted of premeditated murder with all the facts presented, but why is victim blaming for robberies acceptable? You can play a game of escalating "why didn't you" on a robbery victim (why not better locks? bars on the doors? security system?) or you can say that the people most responsible are the people doing the damn robbing.

When the victims' actions were a wrongdoing in itself, then yes, it is fair to ask why he did not do a more appropriate action.

No, what he did did not make the kids any more right for robbing. But what they did is not an excuse for what he did either. They more than paid for what they did wrong. He still needs to pay for what he did wrong. And honestly what he did was worse than what they did (you can't give their lives back, he can get his stuff back or at least replace it). And this is from some one whose only problem with the death penalty is that justice is imperfect and innocent people do get wrongfully found guilty and has no problems with allowing for self defense and thinks it is wrong to make it illegal to kill in self defense (people should be able to defend themselves and I do think there are times where it may just have to result in the thief/perpetrator dieing. But I don't think we should be encouraging people to just go out and play judge, jury, and executioner. It should be on a I need to protect mine or some one else's life basis).

 

[numble]

How exactly?

California Penal Code 198.5 creates the presumption that you have a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury when you use deadly force against a home intruder.

 

[Machina]

Okay, this doesn't ameliorate the fact that this guy set out to kill people and was pretty rightly convicted of premeditated murder with all the facts presented, but why is victim blaming for robberies acceptable? You can play a game of escalating "why didn't you" on a robbery victim (why not better locks? bars on the doors? security system?) or you can say that the people most responsible are the people doing the damn robbing.

...He orchestrated their murders. It really doesn't matter what their intentions were at that point. They came for items that didn't belong to them, he came for their lives

 

[xDUMPWEEDx]

California Penal Code 198.5 creates the presumption that you have a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury when you use deadly force against a home intruder.

I was arguing for exactly the opposite. Lmfao. I was the one saying you CANNOT use deadly force. Are you mixed up?

 

[Violet_0]

he probably would have walked free without those audio tapes that expose him as a complete monster. Some of the posts here just remind me how appalling the fucking gun culture in the US is

 

[TS-08]

I was arguing for exactly the opposite. Lmfao. I was the one saying you CANNOT use deadly force. Are you mixed up?

Either you're confused, or I am. Isn't he rebutting your argument?

 

[RMI]

woah.... like.... I get not wanting to be robbed and defending yourself with deadly force if necessary, but that's like worlds apart from laying down murder tarps to keep your carpet clean for after you shoot and then execute intruders.

 

[numble]

So yeah, you are wrong.

Why are you using ABC10 as proof? Please don't tell me ABC10 is how you look up your state's laws. ABC10 is wrong and the document it cites even shows it's wrong. Look at instruction 3477.

 

[Justin]

This was also the subject of a great true crime podcast Sword and Scale

swordandscale.com/sword-and-scale-episode-15/

 

[numble]

So yeah, you are wrong. Good luck proving to a jury that you felt your life was in immediate danger when the burglar was trying to carry your TV out of the house.

ABC10 is wrong by saying a defendant must prove those facts. Look at the document ABC10 cites, instruction 3477. The defendant is presumed to believe those facts in the case of a home intruder. The state must prove otherwise.

Here is what ABC10 says

CALCRIM clearly states a person must prove that they or their family were in immediate danger of death or great harm, not potential or future harm. A defendant must prove they felt a home intruder had the intent to harm in order to not get charged with manslaughter or homicide.

Here is what the actual instruction says:

3477. Presumption That Resident Was Reasonably Afraid of Death or Great Bodily Injury (Pen. Code, § 198.5)

The law presumes that the defendant reasonably feared imminent death or great bodily injury to (himself/herself)[, or to a member of (his/her) family or household,] if:

1. An intruder unlawfully and forcibly (entered/ [or] was entering) the defendant's home;

2. The defendant knew [or reasonably believed] that an intruder unlawfully and forcibly (entered/ [or] was entering) the defendant's home;

3. The intruder was not a member of the defendant's household or family;

AND

4. The defendant used force intended to or likely to cause death or great bodily injury to the intruder inside the home.

[Great bodily injury means significant or substantial physical injury. It is an injury that is greater than minor or moderate harm.]

The People have the burden of overcoming this presumption. This means that the People must prove that the defendant did not have a reasonable fear of imminent death or injury to (himself/herself)[, or to a member of his or her family or household,] when (he/she) used force against the intruder. If the People have not met this burden, you must find the defendant reasonably feared death or injury to (himself/ herself)[, or to a member of his or her family or household].

It does not say the defendant must prove he was acting properly. The defendant is presumed to be acting properly.

I was arguing for exactly the opposite. Lmfao. I was the one saying you CANNOT use deadly force. Are you mixed up?

Please read what I posted again. You seem to have it mixed up. It is possible that you misunderstand what the word "presumes" means.