DawgTalkers.net
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/04/29/minn-homeowner-convicted-premeditated-murder/
LITTLE FALLS, Minn. – A Minnesota homeowner who shot and killed two teenagers during a break-in was convicted Tuesday of premeditated murder.

Bryon Smith had claimed he was simply defending himself during the break-in at his home in the small city of Little Falls on Thanksgiving Day 2012. Smith's attorney said the 65-year-old was fearful after previous burglaries.


ADVERTISEMENT
But prosecutors argued that Smith waited in his basement and intended to kill the teens. A total of nine shots were fired at 17-year-old Nick Brady and 18-year-old Haile Kifer.

Jurors began deliberating Tuesday morning and within three hours had a verdict: Guilty on two counts each of first-degree and second-degree murder. Mothers of the teens cried as the verdicts were read, while Smith showed no emotion. Defense attorney Steve Meshbesher said he would appeal.

The teens' killings stirred debate around the state and in Little Falls -- a Mississippi River city of 8,000 about 100 miles northwest of Minneapolis -- about how far a homeowner can go in responding to a threat. Minnesota law allows deadly force to prevent a felony from taking place in one's home or dwelling, but one's actions must be considered reasonable under the circumstances.

Prosecutors said Smith's plan was set in motion on the morning of the killings, after Smith saw a neighbor whom he believed responsible for prior burglaries drive by. Prosecutors say Smith moved his truck to make it look like no one was home, and then settled into a chair in his basement with a book, energy bars, a bottle of water and two guns.

Smith also set up a hand-held recorder on a bookshelf, which captured audio of the shootings -- key evidence in the prosecution's case. Smith had also installed a surveillance system that recorded images of Brady trying to enter the house.

The audio, which was played several times in court, captured the sound of glass shattering, then the sounds of Smith shooting Brady three times as he descended the basement stairs. Smith can be heard saying, "You're dead." Prosecutors said Smith put Brady's body on a tarp and dragged him into another room, then sat down, reloaded his weapon and waited.

About 10 minutes later, Kifer came downstairs. More shots are heard on the recording, then Kifer's screams, with Smith saying, "You're dying." It's followed soon after by another shot, which investigators said Smith described as "a good, clean finishing shot."

The teens were unarmed, but Smith's attorneys had said he feared they had a weapon.

The tape continued to run, and Smith was heard referring to the teens as "vermin." Smith waited a full day before asking a neighbor to call police.

Smith did not testify on his own behalf. Meshbesher highlighted previous burglaries on Smith's property, including one on Oct. 27 that included the theft of weapons. A neighbor testified that Smith came to his door after that burglary and appeared very frightened. Meshbesher said Smith wrote a memo to the Morrison County Sheriff's Office on Oct. 29 asking them to investigate.

Meshbesher said in his closing arguments that the teens would still be alive if they hadn't broken into Smith's house. He also said Smith had a legal right to use deadly force to defend himself.

Before retiring from the U.S. State Department, Smith worked on technical security issues for American embassies, such as building layout and alarms.

Kifer was a senior who was active in athletics at Little Falls High School. Brady was a student and a wrestler at that school before transferring to nearby Pillager High School, where he was a junior. They were cousins.

Court documents that were not allowed as evidence showed Brady had broken into Smith's house and garage before. Brady and Kifer were also linked to another burglary the day before they were killed; stolen prescription drugs were found in the car they were driving.

Judge Douglas Anderson excluded evidence about the teens' histories from the trial as irrelevant
No wonder he was convicted of murder...
Clearly went all out to set himself up and wait for them to break in but when you get down to it, the kids still broke in to the guys house and that is the major points. Now he did wait to call the police which kind of bothers me but also states the kids broke in before and he had called the Sheriff.... Just hard for me to get past the kids broke into a house and got killed. You should have the right within your own home to exercise whatever force you want within your own home when someone breaks in.....
Quote:

No wonder he was convicted of murder...


and why is that? He was in his own home. He didn't chase them out the door and shoot them in his driveway. He shot them in his own home.
Because he had this an elaborate scheme to get them to enter his house and then he'd murder them.

And me saying that he murdered them is not the same as me saying that the criminals shouldn't be punished.
But as the defense said. If they hadn't broken in his home they would still be alive
Quote:

Quote:

No wonder he was convicted of murder...


and why is that? He was in his own home. He didn't chase them out the door and shoot them in his driveway. He shot them in his own home.



This isn't all that different from setting trip wires connected to triggers or small explosives to hurt/kill somebody who breaks into your property.. you can't do it. It's illegal.
It took a year and half to come to this verdict so it's not that can and dry!
Do you know what the definition of "murder" is?
He was in his basement. These kids had broken in before. Regardless of that fact he just set and waited. They broke in and got killed. Now if he had left the door unlocked on purpose that might be a different story but they broke glass to get in.

My only issue is he waited a day to call police so that is definitely fishy
It took less than three hours from the time that the jury was able to find a verdict. Saying it took a year and a half is a little misleading. Seemed pretty cut and dry once the jury was able to make a decision.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Minnesota man convicted of murder for home break-in - 04/30/14 01:12 PM

One thing the article did not mention is that the young man had broken into the man's house at least one time before. It is believed both teens were there to steal something they could sell for drugs and or alcohol. (speculation yes, but not mine, just something from another article I had read a bit ago (that I cannot find, yet)).

However, about the recording I had not heard it put quite the way the article did and that clearly shows premeditation. He has every right to protect his home, even with lethal force, but it would appear he had every intent to make sure the thieves would not get out of his place alive.

A sad story that the kids would do this, sad that they were killed, and sad that this man felt this was the only way to deal with them. I hope this helps the family's of the teens find some semblance of closure.


Quote:

Do you know what the definition of "murder" is?


this isn't that cut and dry. The Law varies from state to state with your rights within your own home. I guarantee in some states you wouldn't have been convicted of this. They were in his home. I wouldn't have baited someone into my home then shot them. But I guarantee you one thing. If Anyone comes in my home, someone will be leaving in a body bag. I won't be waiting around to see if they have a gun
Setting up an ambush mitigates the notion of reasonable fear of imminent harm, don't you think?
Quote:

He was in his basement. These kids had broken in before. Regardless of that fact he just set and waited. They broke in and got killed. Now if he had left the door unlocked on purpose that might be a different story but they broke glass to get in.

My only issue is he waited a day to call police so that is definitely fishy



I give a homeowner a lot of latitude when it comes to their right to defend themselves in their own home because they are not trained law enforcement, they are prone to getting anxious when faced with this situation, and they aren't trained to be able to understand the level of threat they are facing in the heat of a situation.

I don't think a lot of that applies to this guy, he laid in wait for them, armed and ready, not to stop a crime but to kill them. I have little sympathy for the kids because they are the ones who were breaking the law repeatedly, I have a tremendous amount of sympathy for this guy and his family because I'm sure he thought he was doing the right thing... But in the end, you just can't do what he did.

Yes, he seemed relatively certain they were coming and he was in his basement.. not in his foyer where he could have scared them away the second they broke the glass, not where he could apprehend them, he was in his basement, where the shots wouldn't be heard, waiting for them..
Quote:

Setting up an ambush mitigates the notion of reasonable fear of imminent harm, don't you think?


I'm not saying he should have gone about it the way he did he probably been watching to many movies.. I just can't stand the fact they were in his home. I can't stand thieves
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_David_Smith_killings

Quote:

On November 22 (Thanksgiving Day), 2012, Haile Kifer, 18, and her cousin, Nicholas Brady, 17, broke into the home of Byron David Smith in Little Falls, Minnesota. Smith, armed with a Ruger Mini-14,[1] shot the teens separately and minutes apart as they entered the basement where he was, later stating to police he was worried about them being armed. By his account to police, he shot Brady twice at the top of the basement stairs, and once in the face fatally after he fell to the bottom of the stairs. Minutes later when Kifer entered the basement, he shot her at the top of the stairs. Wounded, she fell down the stairs, and after Smith's rifle jammed, he shot her multiple times in the chest with a .22-caliber revolver, dragged her across the floor to set her beside the body of her cousin, and then shot her fatally under the chin.[1] Smith then waited until Friday to have a neighbor call police, saying that he did not want to bother law enforcement on Thanksgiving.[1] Video and audio of the events was recorded by Smith's security system.




Thoughts? To add to the comments about laying a trap, it sounds like the guy finishes them off execution style... which is something that is omitted/very unclear from the original Fox News story.
Well it's a good thing Macaulay Culkin didn't kill one of those burglars with a paint bucket to a skull ... they would of been hauling that kid off to prison.

Joking aside ... I don't think it's the "defending" the home that got the guy in trouble. It's the way he came after them, when they were already down, and assassinated them minutes later. Plus waiting a day to call the cops probably sealed the deal. I think the guy walks had he shot the intruders at first contact and run off to call the police. Planned ambush or not.

Edit: I originally was just clicking your post Mox and didn't read what you posted. That really confirms what I was saying. He didn't get in trouble for home defense ... he got in trouble for executing them. And I agree with the verdict.
Thanks, I'm even more convinced now that this man deserves to be in prison. This wasn't self-defense, this was a premeditated execution.
Quote:

Because he had this an elaborate scheme to get them to enter his house




Not really. Its not like he put a sign up saying free candy inside.
Quote:

Quote:

Setting up an ambush mitigates the notion of reasonable fear of imminent harm, don't you think?


I'm not saying he should have gone about it the way he did he probably been watching to many movies.. I just can't stand the fact they were in his home. I can't stand thieves




Absolutely agree on the thieves man... we just can't have vigilantes dishing out their own brand of justice. This guy stepped over the line of self defense when he set up his house to be a target and laid a trap for the perps
Quote:

Quote:

Because he had this an elaborate scheme to get them to enter his house




Not really. Its not like he put a sign up saying free candy inside.




Moving your vehicle to make your house look empty is a "free candy inside" for burglars...
Quote:

Quote:

Because he had this an elaborate scheme to get them to enter his house




Not really. Its not like he put a sign up saying free candy inside.



From what I understand he moved his car to make them believe he was not home.. it's not an elaborate scheme and in the end they are the criminals that broke in.. but in some small way, he was trying to entice them to enter his home while he was waiting for them.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Minnesota man convicted of murder for home break-in - 04/30/14 02:53 PM
Eh, I get why they had to convict him. However, in the same breath, I can live with what he did. Living in a neighborhood where stealing is the most common occupation(perhaps tied with selling drugs), I can say that when one of the thieves here get shot(and it happens a couple times a year) I certainly don't shed a tear. Is that neighborhood not better off now? Are the residents not safer? Liek I said I get that they HAD to convict him, because it was clearly premeditated, but couldn't they have found a lesser charge?
You want to reward vigilantism?
It's possible for a crime to have two different sets of bad guys.
Quote:

You want to reward vigilantism?



No, he just doesn't want to punish it as harshly as you would punish crime against an innocent victim. From what I can tell, this guy is being punished as if he had walked onto a subway train and shot two people he didn't know.. So while I maintain this guy is wrong and should be punished, the fact remains that two people did break into his house of their own free will..
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Because he had this an elaborate scheme to get them to enter his house




Not really. Its not like he put a sign up saying free candy inside.




Moving your vehicle to make your house look empty is a "free candy inside" for burglars...




Normally I park my truck in my driveway, but if I put it in my garage does that mean Im looking to invite crime into my household?
Quote:

Quote:

You want to reward vigilantism?



No, he just doesn't want to punish it as harshly as you would punish crime against an innocent victim. From what I can tell, this guy is being punished as if he had walked onto a subway train and shot two people he didn't know.. So while I maintain this guy is wrong and should be punished, the fact remains that two people did break into his house of their own free will..




What you are describing here is the exact definition of rewarding him for vigilantism...
I don't think it really matters if he puts billboards on his front lawn that says, "Out of town for the weekend, big screen in the living room" ... once a person makes a conscious decision to break the law and enter a guy's house, the guy has a right to defend his property. Saying, "well he's trying to bait them into robbing the place" is kind of like saying, "well she dressed like a slut, so she deserved to get raped".

When he moved to execute them well after he had subdued them, is when he jumped way over the line of self-defense and into the realm of first degree murder.
I believe what you are describing would be shown at his sentencing and not what actual crime was committed.

I mean what he actually did appears to be premeditated murder. Which from my understanding would be correct. Now if the judge in the case sees the circumstances being such that the sentence should invoke the minimum sentence verses a higher sentence, I believe that's where you would find some difference.
Quote:

I believe what you are describing would be shown at his sentencing and not what actual crime was committed.

I mean what he actually did appears to be premeditated murder. Which from my understanding would be correct. Now if the judge in the case sees the circumstances being such that the sentence should invoke the minimum sentence verses a higher sentence, I believe that's where you would find some difference.




They're referring to charging him with a lesser crime than premeditated murder based on the fact that his victims were engaged in a criminal act at the time that he killed them.
Quote:


When he moved to execute them well after he had subdued them, is when he jumped way over the line of self-defense and into the realm of first degree murder.




I agree. If he had just shot them until they were down, and not "finished them off" and waited a day before he had someone call the police, I'd be on his side, even if it was "pre-meditated." He wanted to kill them more than he wanted justice.
Quote:

Quote:

Because he had this an elaborate scheme to get them to enter his house




Not really. Its not like he put a sign up saying free candy inside.




Not only did he make his house appear like no one was there, he set up a video system, a recording system and had a cache of energy bars to keep him awake. That's an elaborate scheme.
Quote:

I agree. If he had just shot them until they were down, and not "finished them off" and waited a day before he had someone call the police, I'd be on his side, even if it was "pre-meditated." He wanted to kill them more than he wanted justice.




+1
Quote:

They're referring to charging him with a lesser crime than premeditated murder based on the fact that his victims were engaged in a criminal act at the time that he killed them.




I don't see how you can after the way it was done with the execution style ending. That is premeditated no matter how you look at it.

And maybe that's the problem some see, although I don't.....

each law has prerequisites that apply. They are defined. If your crime meets that definition, that is your crime. The sentencing has more leeway.
Quote:



When he moved to execute them well after he had subdued them, is when he jumped way over the line of self-defense and into the realm of first degree murder.




agreed
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Because he had this an elaborate scheme to get them to enter his house




Not really. Its not like he put a sign up saying free candy inside.




Not only did he make his house appear like no one was there, he set up a video system, a recording system and had a cache of energy bars to keep him awake. That's an elaborate scheme.




None of those thing were to entice them into his house like you originally stated.
Clearly they were or he wouldn't be eating energy bars in his basement with a loaded shotgun waiting for someone.
I'm as pro gun as they come, and I feel the punishment was just. This guy played judge, jury and executioner in this situation while giving the antis fodder for a gun grab.
Quote:

Clearly they were or he wouldn't be eating energy bars in his basement with a loaded shotgun waiting for someone.




OK, ill refrain from sitting in my basement so I dont tempt someone to break in.
You're now excluding information to make your case. He was clearly trying to make his house look vacant to invite criminals.
Youre right, he is at fault.
Nobody forced him to pull the trigger.
This is sad
That's all I've been saying, nothing else.
Ill be sure to always leave my truck outside in plain view and not sit in my basement so that people will know not to break in.
Quote:

Nobody forced him to pull the trigger.




Nobody forced them to break in...
Again, that's not what I was saying.
Quote:

Quote:

Nobody forced him to pull the trigger.




Nobody forced them to break in...




No, and they should've been arrested, charged and given a sentence commensurate with breaking and entering, and possibly burglary. Death is not that sentence.
Quote:

Ill be sure to always leave my truck outside in plain view and not sit in my basement so that people will know not to break in.




With two loaded guns, watching your camera monitors, and putting in a kill shot afterwords?

That might be a good idea.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Nobody forced him to pull the trigger.




Nobody forced them to break in...




No, and they should've been arrested, charged and given a sentence commensurate with breaking and entering, and possibly burglary. Death is not that sentence.




I guess if you are going to break in to someones home you have to accept the fact that the home owner may kill you.
Quote:

I guess if you are going to break in to someones home you have to accept the fact that the home owner may kill you.




And depending on the circumstances, that homeowner may or may not spend the rest of his life in prison. It's a two edged sword.
Quote:

Quote:

I guess if you are going to break in to someones home you have to accept the fact that the home owner may kill you.




And depending on the circumstances, that homeowner may or may not spend the rest of his life in prison. It's a two edged sword.




Yup, he deserves it for executing them and not calling the cops. I never argued that point.
j/c

I guess the lessons I take away from this is:

#1. Don't break into someone's home.
#2. Don't record anything when you decide to settle up with the thieves.
#3. Don't make it a point to tell the cops how you enticed them to come in, sat in wait for them, then executed them even after they were totally incapacitated..
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Minnesota man convicted of murder for home break-in - 04/30/14 08:00 PM
Quote:

You want to reward vigilantism?




Rewarding vigilantism to me would be letting him walk, and then giving him money or some type of benefit for doing. By charging him with a lesser crime(perhaps manslaughter) would be still punishing it, but just not as harshly as you'd punish someone who kills and innocent person.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Minnesota man convicted of murder for home break-in - 04/30/14 08:01 PM
Quote:

Quote:

You want to reward vigilantism?



No, he just doesn't want to punish it as harshly as you would punish crime against an innocent victim. From what I can tell, this guy is being punished as if he had walked onto a subway train and shot two people he didn't know.. So while I maintain this guy is wrong and should be punished, the fact remains that two people did break into his house of their own free will..




Thank you.
He crossed the manslaughter line when he didn't call police and killed them execution style.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Minnesota man convicted of murder for home break-in - 04/30/14 08:01 PM
Quote:

I believe what you are describing would be shown at his sentencing and not what actual crime was committed.

I mean what he actually did appears to be premeditated murder. Which from my understanding would be correct. Now if the judge in the case sees the circumstances being such that the sentence should invoke the minimum sentence verses a higher sentence, I believe that's where you would find some difference.




Fair enough
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Minnesota man convicted of murder for home break-in - 04/30/14 08:04 PM
Quote:

He crossed the manslaughter line when he didn't call police and killed them execution style.




Look, I'm agreeing, by the book it's technically premeditated murder. My point was simply that, there is a difference between what I think when I think of a murder one charge(Killing an innocent person for no reason) and what he did(killed people who broke into his house, whom had they not be breaking the law themselves, would've never been killed)

I think considering the circumstances of the situation, there could have and should have been lesser charges brough on him. This would be FAR from unprecedented. It happens all the time in both plea agreements, and when other circumstances arise. Not long ago actually there was a guy who got arrested at the grocery store I worked at(about 3 years ago I believe). The guy had been kicked out of the store before for shoplifting, but we knew his story. His wife had passed not long ago, and he was struggling to support his kids. We still pressed charges on him as a store, but not the usual "theft" charge. We simply pressed a tresspassing charge the only carries a small fine and probation. It can and does happen all the time.
I agree with the general sentiments here. He wanted to kill them, he set it up to kill them and he made sure he killed them. That is not nor should be legal.

As to you thinking he should get a lesser sentence, the trial went on for a year and a half. There are very good odds that the prosecution offered such a lighter sentence to him (cost of trial and such). He may have felt that no jury would convict him.
However, I don't believe that murder 1 has anything in its description about "Killing an innocent person for no reason"...........................................


The Elements of Murder in the First Degree State laws categorizing murders into first, second and possibly third degrees generally require that first degree murders include three basic elements: willfulness, deliberation and premeditation. Some states also require "malice aforethought" as an element, though sates differ as to how malice must be shown and whether this is a separate requirement from willful, deliberate and premeditated taking of human life. Most states also enumerate certain kinds of killings as first degree murders without need to prove intent, deliberation and premeditation. Not all states break murder into degrees. In some places, the top level murder crime is called by another name, such as "capital murder." Intent In terms of willfulness, first degree murderers must have the specific intent to end a human life. This intent does not necessarily have to have been focused on the actual victim. A murder in which the killer intends to kill but kills the wrong person or a random person would still constitute first degree murder. Furthermore, under many state laws, killing through action showing a depraved indifference to human life can qualify as murder in the first degree. Deliberation and Premeditation Whether a killer acted with the deliberation and premeditation required for first degree murder can only be determined on a case by case basis. The need for deliberation and premeditation does not mean that the perpetrator must contemplate at length or plan far ahead of the murder. Time enough to form the conscious intent to kill and then act on it after enough time for a reasonable person to second guess the decision typically suffices. While this can happen very quickly, deliberation and premeditation must occur before, and not at the same time as, the act of killing. "Malice Aforethought" Under many state laws, perpetrators of first degree murder must have acted with malice or "malice aforethought." Malice generally includes an evil disposition or purpose and an indifference to human life. States treat the concept of "malice" differently. Under some laws, malice aforethought essentially means the same thing as acting with a premeditated intent to kill or extreme indifference to human life. Other states require a showing of malice distinct from the willfulness, deliberation and premeditation generally required for first degree murder.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/first-degree-murder-overview.html

There's more at the link provided. But this seems to be the basis of what the charge of premeditated or first degree murder actually means by a great degree of definition.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Minnesota man convicted of murder for home break-in - 04/30/14 08:28 PM
Like I said, I agree, by the word of the law IT IS 1st degree murder. My only point is that the circumstances should be, and many times are, taken into account when charges are being decided. Just becuase you CAN charge someone for something doesn't always mean you should. So by letter of the law yes, but by the circumstances no if that makes sense.
Quote:

He crossed the manslaughter line when he didn't call police and killed them execution style.



I agree and I'm leaning more toward the post above that said the charge is what the charge is and if there is any leniency to be had that it should be in giving him a sentence that takes the other factors into account.
Well we just aren't going to see it the same but I do understand what you're saying. In this case, I think what he was charged with was totally appropriate given the circumstances surrounding this case.

The judge has a lot of leeway in his sentencing and as I stated before, I think that's where a variable may be in play.

JMHO
j/c

so what if you own a gun and you think. to yourself "if someone breaks in to my house, I'm going to shoot them."

Now, let's say someone does and the burglars dies..

would that be per-meditated murder?
Quote:

j/c

so what if you own a gun and you think. to yourself "if someone breaks in to my house, I'm going to shoot them."

Now, let's say someone does and the burglars dies..

would that be per-meditated murder?




I'm not an attorney. I have just read the details in this case and read what premeditated means as in what qualifies it as such.

In this case, under these circumstances it seems to apply. I would say as a matter of opinion, if I felt the way you described in your question, I certainly wouldn't be telling people I felt that way because it's possible it could come back to haunt you.

I believe you would have to prove that it's a premeditated act. So if you "thought it to yourself", I would say that would be much harder to prove than if you told people you felt that way.
Quote:

j/c

so what if you own a gun and you think. to yourself "if someone breaks in to my house, I'm going to shoot them."

Now, let's say someone does and the burglars dies..

would that be per-meditated murder?




I don't see how it could be pre-meditated murder since you only decided you would shoot them, not kill them.
The kids got what they deserved, and this old idiot got what he deserved. Justice all the way around.
I agree the guy probably got what he deserved because he seemed to enjoy the kill and the fact he waited a day to call police seemed to make it look as he was possibly hiding something but I tell you I have 0 sympathy for the kids... As a parent myself of 2 college age kids I tell you now I take my job as a parent seriously and feel the actions of my children are a reflection on the way my wife and I raised them, and can seriously make a claim that my children will not be stealing from someone and getting themselves shot... When I make this claim I always get "you just can't say that. You don't always know what your kids might do". I'm telling you I KNOW!!!
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Minnesota man convicted of murder for home break-in - 05/01/14 12:14 PM
Just curious, does anyone know what the minimum sentence is for Murder 1?
Quote:

The kids got what they deserved, and this old idiot got what he deserved. Justice all the way around.



I'm sorry, being shot a couple times, dragged to another part of the room and executed is not what a person deserves for robbery.
Quote:

Quote:

The kids got what they deserved, and this old idiot got what he deserved. Justice all the way around.



I'm sorry, being shot a couple times, dragged to another part of the room and executed is not what a person deserves for robbery.




I agree DC. If you listen to his audio recordings he had plenty of time to call 911 once the kids broke in the house if he was that concerned for his safety. Furthermore, he shoots the first kid, and from the sound of it, in a calm manner drags the male body to a tarp and sits down for another 8-10 mins waiting for the female to come down. After he shoots her 3-4 times nearly a minute goes by before he fires the final shot.

If you listen to the audio, this guy seems to have taken pleasure in the killings. This was a premeditated double murder plain and simple. I can see why the jury convicted him in only 3 hours.

I'm not sure if it's allowed to post a link with the audio that was played in the courtroom or not so refs feel free to remove the link, but listen for yourselves and come to your own conclusion.

Byron Smith: Article & Audio

National "Stand Your Ground" debate hits home

Does the law give people a license to kill and legalize in-home murder?

By Jacob Wheeler Wednesday, Jan 30 2013

Last Thanksgiving, Byron Smith got more than turkey, cranberry, and mashed potatoes on his plate. The 64-year-old retired State Department employee shot and killed two wayward local teenagers when they allegedly tried to burglarize his home on Elm Street in Little Falls, a town of 8,000 residents approximately 100 miles northwest of Minneapolis.

Nicholas Brady, 17, and his cousin Haile Kifer, 18, had robbed an unoccupied home outside of Little Falls just days before, making off with prescription medication. Likely they were looking for more pills when they broke into Smith's house.

Smith, who told authorities that his home had been broken into eight times in recent years, was in his basement when he heard an upstairs window break. He saw Brady on the stairwell descending toward the basement and shot the unarmed teenager with a Ruger Mini-14 semi-automatic rifle. Then he methodically finished off Brady with a gunshot to the face at point-blank range. An audio surveillance recording at the house captured Smith saying the words, "You're dead."

Within 18 seconds, Smith produced a tarp, rolled up Brady's body, and dragged it into his workshop. Ten minutes later, according to the audio recording, Kifer called out for Brady, then crept down the stairs. Smith shot her once before his gun jammed, about which he sardonically quipped, "Oh, sorry about that."

"Oh my God! Oh my God!" Kifer reportedly moaned in pain.

Smith fired several more shots with a .22-caliber revolver, telling Kifer, "You're dying, you're dying," as she crumpled to the basement floor. He dragged her body next to Brady's, then noticed the teenage girl still gasping for air. That's when he fired what he later called a "good clean finishing shot" up into her cranium.

Upon seeing Kifer's body offer a death twitch, Smith commented, "It works the same in a beaver or a deer."

Byron Smith didn't call the police to tell them about the two dead bodies in his basement, instead phoning his brother in California. The next day he told a neighbor what he had done and, likely at their encouragement, hired a lawyer. Only then were the authorities alerted.

"He didn't want to trouble us on the holiday," Morrison County Sheriff Michel Wetzel says Smith told investigators.

Smith has been charged with murder and was released on bail December 18. Pretrial hearings will resume on May 6 as the court awaits toxicology and DNA results. In the meantime, a firestorm of public opinion has engulfed Little Falls. On one side are those who view Smith as a cold-blooded killer of unarmed kids. On the other are those who believe Smith had a right to defend his home from burglary.

William Anderson, Smith's neighbor and friend, says that if law enforcement had done its job in October — the last time Smith's home was burglarized — there wouldn't be two dead kids today.

"If they hadn't been breaking into homes, they would be alive today," adds Anderson. "That's what we're going to write in granite at the local school."

Byron Smith's defense in court will undoubtedly rest on his legal right to protect himself against intruders inside his home. Adam Johnson, an associate at Meshbesher & Associates, which will represent Smith, couldn't comment on the specifics of the case, but told City Pages, "We're preparing our defense based on both a person's right to self-defense and to defend their home."

Smith's lawyers will appeal to the "castle doctrine" or "defense of habitation law," which derives from the 17th-century British jurist Sir Edward Coke, who articulated in his The Institutes of the Laws of England that "an Englishman's home is his castle," and he has the right to exclude anyone from his home. The dictum followed colonists to the New World, where over the next 377 years it merged with America's frontier individualism and gun culture to metastasize into today's "Stand Your Ground" laws, versions of which exist in 26 states.

The doctrine designates a person's home — and in some states, car or place of business — as a place where that person has certain protections and immunities and may, under certain circumstances, use deadly force to defend against an intruder without threat of prosecution. Prior to the passage of these shoot-first-ask-questions-later laws, the homeowner had a duty to try to retreat and call authorities for help.

Morrison County Sheriff Wetzel alluded to the "castle doctrine" in a statement after Smith was arrested, but insinuated that the Little Falls man had gone too far.

"A person has every right to defend themselves and their homes, even employing deadly force if necessary," Wetzel began, but added that investigators believe Smith's actions went beyond self-defense. "The law doesn't permit you to execute somebody after the threat is gone."

Pete Orput, the veteran Minneapolis homicide prosecutor who will help Morrison County authorities put Smith on trial, says that this case isn't about gun rights, it's about murder.

"This case is big," Orput says. "This is Minnesota's Trayvon Martin case."

The fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman in Sanford, Florida, last February commanded national headlines and set off angry protests far beyond the Sunshine State.

The story had an explosive racial element, since Martin was an unarmed 17-year-old African-American and his killer was a 28-year-old white Hispanic. Even President Barack Obama commented on the issue, saying, "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon."

The national handwringing over guns in Florida was in some ways fitting. Seven years earlier, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush signed the nation's first "Stand Your Ground" bill into law. Prompted in large part by the Trayvon Martin case, the Tampa Bay Times published a comprehensive study of nearly 200 Florida Stand Your Ground cases and their outcomes: Among them were cases of drug dealers avoiding murder charges, but also exonerated defendants legitimately acting in self-defense, including a woman who stood her ground after being choked and beaten by an irate tenant.

Among the Tampa Bay Times' findings: that 70 percent of those who invoke Stand Your Ground to avoid prosecution have gone free; defendants claiming Stand Your Ground are more likely to prevail if the victim is black; and that the number of cases is increasing as defense attorneys use Stand Your Ground in ways that state legislators never envisioned. Stand Your Ground claims have arisen following incidents outside an ice cream parlor, on a racquetball court, and at a school bus stop. Two-thirds of the defendants used guns, but other weapons have included an ice pick, a shovel, and a chair leg.

In November, another grisly tale emerged in Florida of an older armed man initiating an argument with a black teenager that ended in a fatal gunshot. This time 17-year-old Jordan Davis was shot by gun collector Michael Dunn following an argument over loud music outside a Jacksonville convenience store. The reaction to Davis's death didn't reach the fever pitch of Trayvon Martin's case because local police quickly charged Dunn with murder.

Since it was born in 2005, Stand Your Ground has spread like wildfire. Seven years later, more than half of the states in the union have adopted some version of it — not by organic political means, but after they were pushed as "model legislation" by the National Rifle Association and the Koch brothers-funded American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a corporate-sponsored neo-conservative consortium of lawmakers.

According to Mother Jones magazine, the year after Florida adopted Stand Your Ground, the stepchild of England's castle doctrine spread to 12 other states across the Deep South as well as Kansas, Michigan, and Indiana.

In Miami that year, a man shot 14 bullets at a car full of gang members and avoided prosecution by citing the law. In 2007, justifiable homicides more than tripled in Florida, while four more states adopted "Stand Your Ground."

In 2008, a 15-year-old boy in Tallahassee died after getting caught in a shoot-out between rival gangs — two of the gang members successfully hid behind "Stand Your Ground."

Meanwhile, Ohio and West Virginia joined the list of states to adopt the statute. Four months after the law took effect in Montana in 2009, a Walmart employee in Billings was released from custody after claiming he shot a co-worker in the face in self-defense.

Has the introduction of Stand Your Ground laws by state legislatures emboldened gun owners to shoot and kill without fear of prosecutorial reprisal? Has Stand Your Ground, as Florida state Sen. Steve Geller warned, encouraged people to think that "you ought to be able to kill people that are walking toward you on the street because of this subjective belief that you're worried that they may get in a fight with you?"

It apparently did for Joe Horn.

In the Houston suburb of Pasadena on November 14, 2007 — two months after Texas passed Stand Your Ground — the 61-year-old retiree saw two burglars breaking into the house next door. He called 911, but also grabbed his shotgun.

Horn told the operator, "I've got a shotgun; do you want me to stop them?"

The Pasadena emergency operator responded: "Nope. Don't do that. Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, okay?"

A back-and-forth ensued, and the operator told Horn that officers would arrive soon.

"Okay," Horn countered. "But I have a right to protect myself too, sir," adding, "The laws have been changed in this country since September the first, and you know it."

"You're going to get yourself shot," countered the operator.

To which Horn replied: "You want to make a bet? I'm going to kill them."

When the authorities arrived, they found Hernando Torres and David Ortiz dead from bullet wounds fired from behind them. Eight months later, a Harris County grand jury declined to indict Horn on any criminal charges.

"Stand Your Ground serves to enable paranoid crazies to commit murder without fear of any consequences," said Elliot Fineman, CEO of the National Gun Victims Action Council. "The most cursory look into basic psychology shows the certain potential of Stand Your Ground for stimulating aggression, and all for the fantasy of self-protection by way of a carried gun in public."

Examples abound of Stand Your Ground promoting vigilantism around the country in 2012. Last March in Wisconsin, Bo Morrison was shot and killed by a homeowner who found the unarmed 20-year-old on his porch early one morning. Morrison had tried to evade police responding to a noise complaint at a neighboring underage drinking party. The homeowner was not charged by the local district attorney.

Wisconsin doesn't officially have Stand Your Ground, but Gov. Scott Walker signed an "intruders bill" in 2011 that presumes somebody who uses deadly force against a trespasser in their home, business, or vehicle acted reasonably, whether or not the intruder was armed.

In April, 22-year-old Cordell Jude shot and killed Daniel Adkins Jr., a mentally disabled pedestrian who walked in front of Jude's car as he was pulling up to the window of a Taco Bell drive-thru in Arizona, which passed Stand Your Ground in 2010. Jude thought he saw Adkins wield a metal pipe in the air, but it was actually a dog leash. No arrest was made.

In June, a judge in Miami dismissed a second-degree murder charge against Greyston Garcia after he chased a suspected burglar and stabbed him to death. The judge decided the stabbing was justified because the burglar had swung a bag of stolen car radios at Garcia. The judge found Garcia was "well within his rights to pursue the victim and demand the return of his property."

In October, citing the state's newly strengthened castle doctrine law, Montana prosecutor Ed Corrigan declined to indict Brice Harper, who had shot and killed Dan Fredenberg, the husband of the woman with whom Harper was having an affair. Harper killed an unarmed Fredenberg when he walked into Harper's garage.

"I told him I had a gun," Harper told the police, "but he just kept coming at me."

And on December 10 in Rochester, Minnesota, a 61-year-old man shot and critically wounded his 16-year-old granddaughter when he mistook her for an intruder entering his house just before 11 p.m. The grandfather, who reportedly had a recent burglary at the nearby Rochester Recreation Center on his mind, responded to a noise outside by arming himself with a handgun and firing two rounds at the figure he saw standing on his patio. The girl was in critical condition but is expected to survive.

Minnesota has a law on the books that stipulates that shooting an intruder is legal if the shooter has a reasonable belief that doing so would prevent a felony from occurring inside the home. Nevertheless, Gov. Mark Dayton early last year vetoed a "Stand Your Ground" bill that the Republican-controlled Legislature had passed with the support of some Democratic lawmakers from rural districts.

Minnesota's Stand Your Ground bill, H.F. 1467, was sponsored by Republican state Rep. Tony Cornish and state Sen. Gretchen Hoffman, and would have been among the "craziest gun laws in America," according to Salon. Had Dayton not vetoed it, the Minnesota version would have exempted homeowners from any duty to retreat if an intruder enters illegally; allowed the use of deadly force if someone is threatened with substantial, albeit temporary, bodily harm (including a punch to the face); granted total immunity from criminal prosecution; and disallowed the arrest of the suspect until police had fully considered any claim of self-defense.

Tom Weyandt, a former assistant city attorney in St. Paul, published a detailed critique of H.F. 1467 last year in which he did a line-by-line reading of Minnesota's vetoed Stand Your Ground bill in comparison to Florida's law, coming to the conclusion that Minnesota's version was far worse.

"The law currently says you can use deadly force if you're subjected to the risk of great bodily harm or death," explains Weyandt. "They [proposed changing] it to lower the standard to substantial bodily harm, which could mean as little as a bruise — a temporary visible injury. If you feared that I was gonna punch you in the eye, under their proposal you could kill me. Every doofus on the street who says 'self-defense' would get a much greater chance of a walk than he has now."

The deluge of Stand Your Ground killings hasn't deterred gun-rights advocates like Representative Cornish — nor did the December school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut. Cornish said in November that, with his party now in the legislative minority, there was "zero" chance he'd propose the "deadly force" bill again this session. But the Sandy Hook tragedy, and a push by the White House for stronger gun laws, apparently changed his mind.

Cornish recently reloaded, insinuating that he'll make another effort to allow teachers and staff to carry concealed weapons even if a school's principal or administrators don't approve. Current law requires permission from administrators before a teacher can bring a weapon to school. Cornish will also try to require public colleges to let students carry handguns on campus if they have the applicable permits.

Had it passed Governor Dayton's desk last year, would Minnesota's shoot-first bill have given Byron Smith a get-out-of-jail-free card? Cornish doesn't think so.

"You could feasibly see [Smith] mounting a defense for the first shot," Cornish says. "But after that initial one shot, then he went completely out of the realm of reality and executed two helpless people."

But if Minnesota had Stand Your Ground, would Little Falls authorities even have had the power to question Smith, listen to the audio recordings, and learn how he killed the two teens?

"They would not have been able to arrest him until they could come up with enough evidence that his claim of self-defense was unreasonable," says Weyandt. "In Florida, everybody gave the chief of police [in the Travyon Martin case] a ton of crap. But [under a Stand Your Ground law] you can't arrest a guy until you can prove his claim of defense was invalid."

Morrison County Sheriff Wetzel, who was part of the team that arrested Smith at his house the day after Thanksgiving, agrees that Cornish's bill would have proved problematic.

"How would you ever again convict someone of homicide in their own home?" asks Wetzel. "One could just say, 'I was afraid and I feared for my life.' But there needs to be an objective standard. Was it reasonable for you to be afraid?"

Law enforcement around the state took a strong stand against the shoot-first bill. The Minnesota County Attorneys Association, the Minnesota Chiefs of Police, the Minnesota Sheriffs Association, and the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association all lobbied lawmakers and Governor Dayton to shoot down Stand Your Ground.

"Our concern was that, had that legislation been signed into law, it would have made a Byron Smith-type situation more difficult to prosecute," says John Kingrey, executive director of the Minnesota County Attorneys Association. "Most people would agree that you have the right to use force with force, but once an intruder is incapacitated, your duty to continue using force ceases."

web page
I read most, not all, of your posting.... I believe all states, (glad Ohio has) should have stand your ground laws.... If someone breaks into my home I should have the right to protect myself without waiting to see if I can subdue the burglar with my hands.. I should have that right..... I would like to retract my previous comments after reading more into this story. This guy was heartless and a murderer. But I still have little sympathy for the teenagers... Don't be a thief and you likely won't get shot!!
To me, once your life is no longer in danger, then protections under the law should end.

If one of the thieves was lying on the ground, in pain and bleeding, unable to do anything, then they are no longer a danger. If they appear to be reaching for a weapon, then that's another thing .... but that does not appear to be the case in this instance. Once someone who broke into your home is no longer a danger to you or your family, (or property, I suppose) then protections of the law would seem to no longer apply. IMHO anyway
100% agree couldnt have expressed any better
Quote:

To me, once your life is no longer in danger, then protections under the law should end.

If one of the thieves was lying on the ground, in pain and bleeding, unable to do anything, then they are no longer a danger. If they appear to be reaching for a weapon, then that's another thing .... but that does not appear to be the case in this instance. Once someone who broke into your home is no longer a danger to you or your family, (or property, I suppose) then protections of the law would seem to no longer apply. IMHO anyway




Agreed. Completely!
I've seen a lot of the hearings on "Stand Your Ground" here in Florida.

Basically, once someone has "forcibly and illegally entered" your home, you may presume them to be a deadly danger until such time as you, the person on the scene, have determined that they are no longer a danger in any way. Use of lethal force is authorized. The determination of whether or not you are safe in your own home, AFTER a "forcible and illegal entry", is yours and yours alone. Basically, once someone breaks in to your house, it's open season.

There is no determination of threat level required in any way, once the "forcible and illegal entry" has occurred.

There is also specific protection from civil lawsuits.

One thing I did hear mentioned was that Ohio is the only state where self-defense is not affirmative, you have to prove it Was rather than the prosecution having to prove it wasn't.
Quote:

Quote:

The kids got what they deserved, and this old idiot got what he deserved. Justice all the way around.



I'm sorry, being shot a couple times, dragged to another part of the room and executed is not what a person deserves for robbery.




Anybody who breaks into somebody's home to rob them deserves to be shot IMO
Quote:

If someone breaks into my home I should have the right to protect myself without waiting to see if I can subdue the burglar with my hands..



Mox I agree 100%. Almost all benefit of the doubt should go the homeowner in that circumstance... Normal civilians are not trained or equipped to assess the threat level and give a measured response. And, most importantly, you should not have to put yourself at greater risk, to protect "the rights" of a person who broke into your home.
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

The kids got what they deserved, and this old idiot got what he deserved. Justice all the way around.



I'm sorry, being shot a couple times, dragged to another part of the room and executed is not what a person deserves for robbery.




Anybody who breaks into somebody's home to rob them deserves to be shot IMO




I think the rub here is the execution piece of this story. It's like the pharmacist in Okc a few years back. Two boys came in to rob him, he pulled his gun and shot one, ran outside and took a few shots at the other and missed. Came back in and shot the one on the ground again. If he'd have stopped when he neutralized the threat he wouldn't be in jail today.
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

The kids got what they deserved, and this old idiot got what he deserved. Justice all the way around.



I'm sorry, being shot a couple times, dragged to another part of the room and executed is not what a person deserves for robbery.




Anybody who breaks into somebody's home to rob them deserves to be shot IMO



From all accounts they had been shot and were incapacitated.. then he moved in and shot them again, which is the part most everybody has a problem with. If he had delivered the kill shot with his first or second shot from across the room, then called 911.. people might still have a problem with the way he moved his truck, sat in wait for them, etc but the legal system would have treated him entirely differently and I believe public opinion would be a lot different..

That said, I have a question... I believe he shot the boy first, incapacitated him, then killed him.. then it was close to 8 minutes before the girl came downstairs? Am I understanding that right... why didn't she run?
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

The kids got what they deserved, and this old idiot got what he deserved. Justice all the way around.



I'm sorry, being shot a couple times, dragged to another part of the room and executed is not what a person deserves for robbery.




Anybody who breaks into somebody's home to rob them deserves to be shot IMO




I think the rub here is the execution piece of this story. It's like the pharmacist in Okc a few years back. Two boys came in to rob him, he pulled his gun and shot one, ran outside and took a few shots at the other and missed. Came back in and shot the one on the ground again. If he'd have stopped when he neutralized the threat he wouldn't be in jail today.




Exactly.

There is a difference between self defense and execution.
© DawgTalkers.net