• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I haven't been back to central MN in years, but seeing these pictures... they really look like the people I grew up around for the first 18 years of my life :(


What an awful, awful sequence of events. I hope the families, as well as Mr. Smith, are able to somehow find peace.
 
You've got me there. I concede.

But I'm also going to remember this the next time GAF makes "Meth, not even once" jokes about a picture of a person.

Not the same thing, because you didn't just want to make a Meth joke.

You wanted to make a meth joke while implying it wasn't a joke.
 

Javaman

Member
I wonder what he was thinking when he told the cops about the audio tape? In his sick mind he must have thought that it would help his case. Any decent defense attorney would have stopped him from presenting it had they known about it before the cops did.
 

BigDug13

Member
So it turns out being a murderous psychopath isn't ok at ones own premises!

He would have gotten away with it if he hadn't gone out of his way to make it seem premeditated and if he hadn't recorded the series of events.

It's still allowed at your premises as long as you don't incriminate yourself as being a psychopath.
 

zoukka

Member
He would have gotten away with it if he hadn't gone out of his way to make it seem premeditated and if he hadn't recorded the series of events.

So it turns out it's ok to be a murderous psychopath in US, at your own premises if you just don't admit and record it.

Wonderful.
 

antonz

Member
A good lawyer could have still got him based on the girls body. There would be no way for him to be able to explain away the way she was shot up as legitimate self defense.
 
He would have gotten away with it if he hadn't gone out of his way to make it seem premeditated and if he hadn't recorded the series of events.

It's still allowed at your premises as long as you don't incriminate yourself as being a psychopath.

Murder is allowed as long as you don't tell anyone.
 

WinFonda

Member
I listened to Byron's interview with the police investigator after he was arrested, he was actually familiar with Haile. He described her as a well known troublemaker within the community. So yeah, not only did he plan to kill burglars, there's a very good chance he knew precisely who he'd be killing on top of that. Fucked up.
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
I'm just trying to get some perspective on who these teens were. But I've gone about it the wrong way.

Time to chill.

Two children with a drug problem who probably had decades of life ahead of them, which this man took upon himself to take away from them, their families, their friends, and all those who ever have, do, or will know them.
 

TAJ

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
I wonder what he was thinking when he told the cops about the audio tape? In his sick mind he must have thought that it would help his case. Any decent defense attorney would have stopped him from presenting it had they known about it before the cops did.

I'm sure the bolded is true. To me it even seems like a lot of the stuff he said on the recording after the murders was calculated and aimed at authorities and jurors.

I listened to Byron's interview with the police investigator after he was arrested, he was actually familiar with Haile. He described her as a well known troublemaker within the community. So yeah, not only did he plan to kill burglars, there's a very good chance he knew precisely who he'd be killing on top of that. Fucked up.

In his post-murder ravings he says (presumably to her corpse) something along the lines of "I know who you are and I don't give a fuck."

Two children with a drug problem who probably had decades of life ahead of them, which this man took upon himself to take away from them, their families, their friends, and all those who ever have, do, or will know them.

"Trace amounts of THC" doesn't exactly scream drug problem to me.
 

BigDug13

Member
So it turns out it's ok to be a murderous psychopath in US, at your own premises if you just don't admit and record it.

Wonderful.

Well that's how the law works in quite a few places. Someone breaks into your home, you shoot, they die, it's considered justified. I'm not condoning it or saying it's ok. I'm just saying it's possible to get away with being a murderous psychopath who lures burglars into his home in order to kill them if you don't incriminate yourself with evidence that shows premeditation and crossing the line by executing the victims when the first shots aren't lethal.

At no point in my post you quoted did I say it was "ok" to be a murderous psychopath. I'm saying it's considered "allowed" if they think it was self defense or home defense. And without incriminating yourself with video evidence, it's probably not difficult to get away with it.

Murder is allowed as long as you don't tell anyone.

That's not what I said. What's allowed is defending your home and defending yourself. And if someone breaks into your home and you shoot them, it's probably pretty difficult to be found guilty of murder unless you did something above and beyond a simple killing of a burglar. Which this guy did. He went WAY beyond what would be reasonable self defense or property defense. Therefore a guilty verdict. A murderous individual who keeps it on the DL while not incriminating himself can most likely get away with murder against a burglar in their home. As long as they're white that is. And this guy would have most likely gotten away with it if he wasn't stupid enough to record incriminating evidence himself.
 
I really cannot even fathom or think of a reason why this idiot decided to record himself.

Seriously what was he thinking.

Had he not recorded himself there would have just been two dead burglars and this would have probably only made local news.
 

ponpo

( ≖‿≖)
Two children with a drug problem who probably had decades of life ahead of them, which this man took upon himself to take away from them, their families, their friends, and all those who ever have, do, or will know them.

The kids shouldn't have been killed and this guy is clearly somewhat mentally unstable, but they still broke into the guy's house. I don't know if that counts as "taking it upon himself."

He clearly went overboard and things should have turned out differently but maybe the fact they were kids is making people look over the breaking and entering part more than they normally would.

That audio though ;_; I think the only thing that disturbs me online is hearing people die.
 

WinFonda

Member
I really cannot even fathom or think of a reason why this idiot decided to record himself.

Seriously what was he thinking.

Had he not recorded himself there would have just been two dead burglars and this would have probably only made local news.

I disagree. Two unarmed teens shot up multiple times - clearly execution style, tarp laid out, bodies shuffled around, waited a day to call police, car parked far away from his residence, etc.. just loads of red flags and questions. The recording just made it (thankfully) much easier for the prosecution and the jury in this case.

Also, even in the absence of a recording of the shootings, there was still his police interview. Where he likened shooting Haile to the shooting of small animals he had hunted, "she gave the death twitch" and other statements which painted a picture of his mental state, and were arguably just as damning.
 
So these two that he killed was known by him on a first name basis ? Also they repeatedly went back after already knowing him and that he had guns in his home from previous break ins . Was he like crazy old mr smith to the neighborhood ? Why would they repeatedly break in and not expect something to happen as sad as the outcome is it seems like they were really risking a lot going back to this mans house over and over again. Damn that audio is chilling .
 

Fox Mulder

Member
Two children with a drug problem who probably had decades of life ahead of them, which this man took upon himself to take away from them, their families, their friends, and all those who ever have, do, or will know them.

don't commit crimes and your chances of being shot to death drastically diminish.

the guy was a psycho that should get his punishment, but they still broke into his home regardless of any plotting he did.

So these two that he killed was known by him on a first name basis ? Also they repeatedly went back after already knowing him and that he had guns in his home from previous break ins . Was he like crazy old mr smith to the neighborhood ? Why would they repeatedly break in and not expect something to happen as sad as the outcome is it seems like they were really risking a lot going back to this mans house over and over again. Damn that audio is chilling .

my cousin repeatedly broke into the same home because he knew the old couple that lived there. He still got the shit beat out of him with a baseball bat. You have be a a dipshit to break into homes.
 

TS-08

Member
The kids shouldn't have been killed and this guy is clearly somewhat mentally unstable, but they still broke into the guy's house. I don't know if that counts as "taking it upon himself."

"Taking it upon himself" is exactly what it was. Everything he did as far as staging his home and the actual shootings plainly demonstrate this. His rant about them being worse than spilled food and vomit and so forth shows he felt he was taking care of a problem that he thinks had to be taken care of, like he was the neighborhood's janitor, cleaning up a "mess" that others ignore. It's vile. And I don't see why the fact that it depended on the teens breaking into his home, which obviously is wrong and a crime, changes the fact that he "took it upon himself" to handle that crime in the worst way imaginable.
 

saunderez

Member
Good to hear justice is served. FFS if he truly wanted to defend himself from a couple of teenagers he could've wielded a knife. This was premeditated murder, plain and simple.
 
"Taking it upon himself" is exactly what it was. Everything he did as far as staging his home and the actual shootings plainly demonstrate this. His rant about them being worse than spilled food and vomit and so forth shows he felt he was taking care of a problem that he thinks had to be taken care of, like he was the neighborhood's janitor, cleaning up a "mess" that others ignore. It's vile. And I don't see why the fact that it depended on the teens breaking into his home, which obviously is wrong and a crime, changes the fact that he "took it upon himself" to handle that crime in the worst way imaginable.
I think the thing that gets me the most is that they repeatedly broke in to his house. All it would have taken was one friend to say I don't think that's a good ideas guys you are really walking the line .
 

ElFly

Member
So, do we know if the defense presented the audio themselves, or if the prosecution found it in the house and presented it against the defense's wishes?
 

zma1013

Member
I really cannot even fathom or think of a reason why this idiot decided to record himself.

Seriously what was he thinking.

Had he not recorded himself there would have just been two dead burglars and this would have probably only made local news.

He was delusion and blinded by his own need for revenge that he thought the recordings would be what proved he did it in self defense.

Whether he had the recordings or not he'd still have to explain why the girl had a bunch of point blank shots to her head in various locations and why he waited a day to call police and why he had tarps already out on the floor for their bodies. Going by his statements, he still would have damned himself I think.
 
So, do we know if the defense presented the audio themselves, or if the prosecution found it in the house and presented it against the defense's wishes?

I believe he gave it to police right away. The prosecution used it. The defense it bitching because they didn't play certain parts of the tape that apparently would have helped their case. I don't get why they didn't play those parts themselves if they felt they were relevant.

The defense tried to get a mistrial a few times, but now I can't find articles saying why. I was wondering if one of their reasons was related to the tape. I know they tried at one point 'cause they were pissed the judge wouldn't let them talk about the victims' pasts (deemed irrelevant to the case).

I did find this little nugget searching for info, though:

In the basement of the home, where the shootings happened, Pearlson noted there were several light fixtures that had light bulbs removed.

He also noted six light bulbs next to the chair Smith said he had been reading in on Thanksgiving day when the break ins occurred and the shootings shortly followed.

Seriously, it could not be any more clear he was setting this all up to kill them.

He was delusion and blinded by his own need for revenge that he thought the recordings would be what proved he did it in self defense.

Yep. He wanted to kill them, but he wanted to keep it legal. He thought the recordings would be proof that it was a legal shooting in defense.
 

makeemsayuhjr

Neo Member
The double tapping is what makes this murder.

Just that?

I'm pretty surprised he was actually found guilty. Kind of strange that we have two cases of this (a homeowner seemingly trying to lure in a thief so he can legally kill them). We'll see how the appeals go.

Yeah, in the end it was the double/triple tapping and his actions after he shot them the first time that makes it murder.

I have to disagree, there is no such thing as luring thieves into your home. I park my cars in my garage that had no windows and I turn all lights off to save electricity, does that mean I am luring thieves to my house? That's just BS. I don't think it's unreasonable to want to defend your home. Myself like pretty much everyone I know that owns a gun, doesn't look forward or even want to shoot anyone, but if you break into my home I am not going to ask and make sure you aren't going to harm me first.

I wish we lived in a society where no one felt they had to steal, but we do not and if you make poor choices in life, there can be consequences and I can't feel sorry for them.

All that said, before anyone gets their pantys in a bunch, I do feel this guy crossed the line and deserves to goto jail, I just disagree on the points of "luring" thieves into your home and don't really feel this was premeditated murder no more than me buying a gun to defend myself if a home invasion occurs.
 

ElFly

Member
I believe he gave it to police right away. The prosecution used it. The defense it bitching because they didn't play certain parts of the tape that apparently would have helped their case. I don't get why they didn't play those parts themselves if they felt they were relevant.

The defense tried to get a mistrial a few times, but now I can't find articles saying why. I was wondering if one of their reasons was related to the tape. I know they tried at one point 'cause they were pissed the judge wouldn't let them talk about the victims' pasts (deemed irrelevant to the case).

I did find this little nugget searching for info, though:



Seriously, it could not be any more clear he was setting this all up to kill them.



Yep. He wanted to kill them, but he wanted to keep it legal. He thought the recordings would be proof that it was a legal shooting in defense.

Oh, thanks.

I'm not sure, but why do you ask?

The recordings were obviously highly incriminating, I was wondering if the defendant was crazy enough that he would present them himself during the trial, against the advice of any sane lawyer.

tl;dr any answer either way was interesting.

Yeah, in the end it was the double/triple tapping and his actions after he shot them the first time that makes it murder.

I have to disagree, there is no such thing as luring thieves into your home. I park my cars in my garage that had no windows and I turn all lights off to save electricity, does that mean I am luring thieves to my house? That's just BS. I don't think it's unreasonable to want to defend your home. Myself like pretty much everyone I know that owns a gun, doesn't look forward or even want to shoot anyone, but if you break into my home I am not going to ask and make sure you aren't going to harm me first.

There's still the part about the tarps to cover up the bodies of the victims, though.
 
I have to disagree, there is no such thing as luring thieves into your home.

Well, that's what he did. Yes, they were obviously responsible for themselves, nobody forced them to break into a house. But, it helps prove that he had planned it and wanted to kill them, which is not okay. His actions can't be ignored just because they were doing something illegal. Two wrongs don't make a right and all.

  • Parked his car blocks away from the house
  • Removed all the light bulbs in the basement (where he was waiting)
  • Tarps on floor to keep blood off his nice carpet
  • Talks on the recording about how he "left home at 11:30, they were dead by 1" He obviously didn't really leave, he's talking about making it look that way to the thieves/victims
  • Talks on the recording about how he couldn't rely on the legal system 'cause they'd be released in 6 months to a year and he couldn't have them out there looking for revenge
Probably more I'm forgetting. Again, he clearly planned to kill them, which is illegal (obviously, since he was found guilty).
 
The more I read about it, the less "first shots were ok" makes sense.

This was not a guy defending himself against a threat and going overboard, this was a guy whose goal was to murder people. He would never stop after first shots because he wasn't trying to neutralize a threat, he was trying to kill someone. First shots were attempted murder, an unfinished business in his mind.
 

makeemsayuhjr

Neo Member
Well, that's what he did. Yes, they were obviously responsible for themselves, nobody forced them to break into a house. But, it helps prove that he had planned it and wanted to kill them, which is not okay. His actions can't be ignored just because they were doing something illegal. Two wrongs don't make a right and all.

  • Parked his car blocks away from the house
  • Removed all the light bulbs in the basement (where he was waiting)
  • Tarps on floor to keep blood off his nice carpet
  • Talks on the recording about how he "left home at 11:30, they were dead by 1" He obviously didn't really leave, he's talking about making it look that way to the thieves/victims
  • Talks on the recording about how he couldn't rely on the legal system 'cause they'd be released in 6 months to a year and he couldn't have them out there looking for revenge
Probably more I'm forgetting. Again, he clearly planned to kill them, which is illegal (obviously, since he was found guilty).

So everyone found guilty by a jury is definitely guilty? There are cases reversed all the time. Again, read my post. I'm not saying that in this case atat all and I agree the punishment fit the crime. I just disagree on the points of my car not being visible and lights being out is luring anyone. My house fits that bill every night.

The same with having a gun and saying I will defend against any home invasion; I don't feel that is premeditated.

Its really just semantics since he needs to be in jail, I just disagree with saying someone will shoot to kill any intruder in their home is premeditated murder.
 

makeemsayuhjr

Neo Member
The more I read about it, the less "first shots were ok" makes sense.

This was not a guy defending himself against a threat and going overboard, this was a guy whose goal was to murder people. He would never stop after first shots because he wasn't trying to neutralize a threat, he was trying to kill someone. First shots were attempted murder, an unfinished business in his mind.

So someone breaking into your home is not a threat now? I agree his actions in total were not acceptable, but defending your home against an invasion is not murder. I agree 100% that they were no longer a threat after the first shot, but when someone breaks into your home, they are a threat to your safety.
 
So someone breaking into your home is not a threat now? I agree his actions in total were not acceptable, but defending your home against an invasion is not murder. I agree 100% that they were no longer a threat after the first shot, but when someone breaks into your home, they are a threat to your safety.

Nobody is arguing that self defense against home intruders is wrong. It's the level he escalated it too. He emptied clips into these kids and and gave what he described as "killing shots" to them as they were down.

Putting a round or two into an intruder can be defensed. This guy straight up executed these kids in cold blood and left their bodies to rot for a day before even calling the cops.
 
why are you saying 'the criminals' as if Byron Smith isn't the biggest criminal of them all. yes, the two dead teens broke some laws and should have lived to be caught and had some serious and appropriate punishment dolled out to them.

but they didn't murder anyone. when someone commits a crime against you, that doesn't give you the right to commit a bigger crime against them.

Byron wasn't threatened. He didn't use his weapons in self defence. He set a trap, and lay in wait, and then *executed* two teenage criminals. That's murder one, and that's exactly why he was found guilty of it.

The teenagers thought they were breaking into an empty property. They are not comparable to the people who break into a property while the inhabitants are asleep. They were not home invaders. They were not armed. The only reason they broke into someones house while that someone was home, was because Byron purposefully made it look like he was out.

You are allowed to use lethal force to defend yourself. In states with castle law, you are not expected to flee, should you be able to do so. You are absolutely not allowed to bait a trap, and then murder the criminals that walk into it. That they are committing a crime at the time, doesn't matter one jot.

Byron did not use lethal force to defend himself. He murdered two people. He would have murdered more, had more people entered his house to see what happened to them.

I agree with all of this. I feel nothing.
 
I just disagree on the points of my car not being visible and lights being out is luring anyone. My house fits that bill every night.

You are obviously simplifying (and flat out changing) the situation. His car wasn't out of sight because it was parked in a windowless garage, it was because he parked it three blocks away. The lights weren't turned off to save electricity, they were removed so the victims couldn't turn them on and see.

This is factually what happened. Shockingly enough, you turning your lights off at night doesn't change the facts of this case.

He wasn't charged with luring people in. He was charged with premeditated murdered, which the luring helps prove.

The same with having a gun and saying I will defend against any home invasion; I don't feel that is premeditated.

Are you attempting to say that stating you would defend yourself if need be is some how the same as parking your car blocks away, removing the lights from your home, getting a cell phone jammer, laying tarps out on the floor, waiting in the basement with guns and food supplies, executing a couple people, not calling the police until the next day, spending the time in between rambling into your recorder about how you couldn't trust the law to handle the situation?

I just disagree with saying someone will shoot to kill any intruder in their home is premeditated murder.

WHO THE FUCK SAID THIS!?
 

makeemsayuhjr

Neo Member
Nobody is arguing that self defense against home intruders is wrong. It's the level he escalated it too. He emptied clips into these kids and and gave what he described as "killing shots" to them as they were down.

Putting a round or two into an intruder can be defensed. This guy straight up executed these kids in cold blood and left their bodies to rot for a day before even calling the cops.

In pretty sure that's exactly what I said. His actions in total were the problem. I was making the agreement against the post of "they were not a threat to him".
 

bengraven

Member
It's kind of bothering me that people are siding with a sick individual.

Then again, it makes me happy that they're upset he's going to jail.
 

ElFly

Member
So everyone found guilty by a jury is definitely guilty? There are cases reversed all the time. Again, read my post. I'm not saying that in this case atat all and I agree the punishment fit the crime. I just disagree on the points of my car not being visible and lights being out is luring anyone. My house fits that bill every night.

The same with having a gun and saying I will defend against any home invasion; I don't feel that is premeditated.

Its really just semantics since he needs to be in jail, I just disagree with saying someone will shoot to kill any intruder in their home is premeditated murder.

"Premeditated murder" is not a complex plan of revenge that plays out through years and ends with the victim dying completely surprised. Depending on the local laws, you just need seconds of "ok this person is defenseless, I am going to kill him now" to constitute premeditated murder.

That said, if the guy had stopped at the first shots, -and had the kids still died, maybe due to lucky shots, or lost blood-, I doubt he would have been convicted, even though some people may still argue that would have been premeditated murder. Dunno enough about the law specifics to argue whether that would have been right, but it would have been definitely a very limit case.
 
So someone breaking into your home is not a threat now? I agree his actions in total were not acceptable, but defending your home against an invasion is not murder. I agree 100% that they were no longer a threat after the first shot, but when someone breaks into your home, they are a threat to your safety.

Again, the ONLY REASON it was an 'invasion' was because Byron set the house up to look empty. On purpose. This is not a matter of opinion. All the evidence suggests that the 'invaders' thought they were entering an empty house.

And that was exactly what Byron wanted. He created the situation himself. On purpose. So no, someone falling into his trap is not someone you can say was a 'threat' to him. Unarmed kids thinking they are breaking into an empty house that is actually a baited trap are not the ones posing the threat.

Stop thinking this is the same as you waking up in the middle of the night to find an intruder in your house.
 
Again, the ONLY REASON it was an 'invasion' was because Byron set the house up to look empty. On purpose. This is not a matter of opinion. All the evidence suggests that the 'invaders' thought they were entering an empty house.

And that was exactly what Byron wanted. He created the situation himself. On purpose. So now, someone falling into his trap is not someone you can say was a 'threat' to him. Unarmed kids thinking they are breaking into an empty house that is actually a baited trap are not the ones posing the threat.

Stop thinking this is the same as you waking up in the middle of the night to find an intruder in your house.

And this is where the distinction needs to be made. These kids absolutely believed the house to be empty. I'm sure if they knew the guy was home they likely wouldn't have gone into his house. He set them up for an execution.

It's of course worlds different if two people force their way into your home while they know you are home and their intent is to rob or harm you. These kids were likely just looking for some crap to sell for weed money, a crime not worthy of summary execution, not that any crime IS worthy of summary execution.
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
So someone breaking into your home is not a threat now? I agree his actions in total were not acceptable, but defending your home against an invasion is not murder. I agree 100% that they were no longer a threat after the first shot, but when someone breaks into your home, they are a threat to your safety.

Intent matters.

It is clear that this man's intent was not to defend his home, but to kill intruders. Hence the tarp. Hence making the home more enticing for intruders. Hence the jamming equipment. Hence the not calling the police. Hence the multitude of statements he made to police. Hence the multitude of statements he recorded himself about his thoughts. Hence the taunts he made while he was committing the murders. Hence the calm wait for 10 minutes after he killed the boy for his next vicitm to show up. Hence the manner in which he executed both individuals. Hence the preparation for the entire situation.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4Z_2oU9B2o

This is the sound of a woman who wants to defend herself and family.


https://soundcloud.com/pioneerpress/audio-from-byron-smiths-house

This is the sound of a man who wants to murder his enemies.

Both involve people breaking in. In the former, a woman did not entice a break in, nor did she want, desire, or pursue a situation where she was victimized, endangered, or cornered into killing. In the latter, a man enticed a break in, out of want, desire, and pursuit of a situation where he could be victimized, endangered, and given an excuse, a pretense, to kill.

In the former, a woman used her property as a baricade to shield herself from harm initially. In the latter, a man took precautions to prevent stains upon his property from the human blood he would spill upon it.

In the former, a woman warned an intruder not to enter. In the latter, a man calmly sat in his basement, waiting for the opportunity where he could finally take out some bad guys with a surprise attack.

In the former, a woman was in contact with an emergency dispatcher, asking for asistance along the way. In the latter, a man acted on his own, without any regard for involving, deferring to, or consulting the police.

In the former, a woman was clearly troubled by the act of killing someone, and did so with great reservations, regret, and remorse. In the latter, a man took great joy and pleasure in the act of killing, with great anticipation.

Though both killed individuals who unlawfully enterd their property with malicious intent, one acted in a sound manner in accordance with the law and deserving of its mercy.
One acted in a deranged manner with murderous intent and a blatant disregard for the law, and is deserving of nothing less than prosecution and conviction to the full extent of the law.
 

makeemsayuhjr

Neo Member
QUOTE=Hero_of_the_Day;110352436]You are obviously simplifying (and flat out changing) the situation. His car wasn't out of sight because it was parked in a windowless garage, it was because he parked it three blocks away. The lights weren't turned off to save electricity, they were removed so the victims couldn't turn them on and see.

This is factually what happened. Shockingly enough, you turning your lights off at night doesn't change the facts of this case.

He wasn't charged with luring people in. He was charged with premeditated murdered, which the luring helps prove.



Are you attempting to say that stating you would defend yourself if need be is some how the same as parking your car blocks away, removing the lights from your home, getting a cell phone jammer, laying tarps out on the floor, waiting in the basement with guns and food supplies, executing a couple people, not calling the police until the next day, spending the time in between rambling into your recorder about how you couldn't trust the law to handle the situation?



WHO THE FUCK SAID THIS!?[/QUOTE]

First off, calm down and learn how to have a civil conversation. We disagree on what led up to the event and not how they played out. I agree what he did was wrong, I just don't agree that someone can lure someone to home invasion.

I was simply echoing my impression of what I read over this and the original posting from last week on this case. There was much back and forth about shooting vs calling the police. Of course this could be my misinterpretation, but no need to get irate about it.
 
Intent matters.

It is clear that this man's intent was not to defend his home, but to kill intruders. Hence the tarp. Hence making the home more enticing for intruders. Hence the jamming equipment. Hence the not calling the police. Hence the multitude of statements he made to police. Hence the multitude of statements he recorded himself about his thoughts. Hence the taunts he made while he was committing the murders. Hence the calm wait for 10 minutes after he killed the boy for his next vicitm to show up. Hence the manner in which he executed both individuals. Hence the preparation for the entire situation.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4Z_2oU9B2o

This is the sound of a woman who wants to defend herself and family.


https://soundcloud.com/pioneerpress/audio-from-byron-smiths-house

This is the sound of a man who wants to murder his enemies.

Both involve people breaking in. In the former, a woman did not entice a break in, nor did she want, desire, or pursue a situation where she was victimized, endangered, or cornered into killing. In the latter, a man enticed a break in, out of want, desire, and pursuit of a situation where he could be victimized, endangered, and given an excuse, a pretense, to kill.

In the former, a woman used her property as a baricade to shield herself from harm initially. In the latter, a man took precautions to prevent stains upon his property from the human blood he would spill upon it.

In the former, a woman warned an intruder not to enter. In the latter, a man calmly sat in his basement, waiting for the opportunity where he could finally take out some bad guys with a surprise attack.

In the former, a woman was in contact with an emergency dispatcher, asking for asistance along the way. In the latter, a man acted on his own, without any regard for involving, deferring to, or consulting the police.

In the former, a woman was clearly troubled by the act of killing someone, and did so with great reservations, regret, and remorse. In the latter, a man took great joy and pleasure in the act of killing, with great anticipation.

Though both killed individuals who unlawfully enterd their property with malicious intent, one acted in a sound manner in accordance with the law and deserving of its mercy.
One acted in a deranged manner with murderous intent and a blatant disregard for the law, and is deserving of nothing less than prosecution and conviction to the full extent of the law.

giphy.gif
 
First off, calm down and learn how to have a civil conversation. We disagree on what led up to the event and not how they played out. I agree what he did was wrong, I just don't agree that someone can lure someone to home invasion.

I was simply echoing my impression of what I read over this and the original posting from last week on this case. There was much back and forth about shooting vs calling the police. Of course this could be my misinterpretation, but no need to get irate about it.

I am completely calm. The all caps was more of an "LOL, NOBODY SAID THIS!" than me yelling at you through the NeoGAFs.

You are arguing against a fact. He did attempt to make his home look desirable to the thieves. Are you actually saying that this is an impossible thing? Like, it literally can't be done?

If I were to try tonight to catch a thief's attention by leaving a stack of cash in front of a window in plain site, my body would shut down like Robocop ignoring directive 4, because I was attempting something that could not be done. He couldn't have been attempting to lure them in, that's literally impossible!

I assume what you're really attempting to argue is that in the end everyone is responsible for their actions. The thieves chose to break in, nobody forced them to. My stack of money in front of the window doesn't make someone steal it, they choose to, and that's all that matters. Which is fine, and correct, to a degree. Again, he wasn't charged with luring them in. The prosecutions argument that it was premeditated murder was just backed up with the evidence of him attempting to lure them in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom