You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Minnesota: Man Charged in Deaths of Intruders
- Thread starter Chris9472
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
OldMarksman
Staff
Study the subject of fleeing felons, and tell us whether you learn any relevant facts about doors.Posted by steve4102: If the BG is outside the Home, then yes, I agree with you, Still inside heading for the door, Nope.
Uncle Buck
New member
I think either a lot of people are not understanding the entire case (or maybe I am not understanding the case), but the points that really jump out to me are:
1. He waited for them.
-- He parked his vehicle elsewhere and then walked back to the house.
-- He waited patiently in his basement.
-- He heard them outside the house and did not call anyone.
-- He armed himself fully expecting someone to break into the house.
2. He continued to shoot after the threat had ended.
-- He admits he shot the girl to put her out of her misery.
3. He waited more than 24 hours to notify anyone of what had happened.
I think the case would have turned out differently if it had been a simple case of catching someone breaking in to your house and stopping a felony.
For me, my ideal actions in a case where two people have broken into my house is I retreat to my safe room, call the police and let the intruder know I am home and I am armed. I hope I never have to shoot anyone, ever.
1. He waited for them.
-- He parked his vehicle elsewhere and then walked back to the house.
-- He waited patiently in his basement.
-- He heard them outside the house and did not call anyone.
-- He armed himself fully expecting someone to break into the house.
2. He continued to shoot after the threat had ended.
-- He admits he shot the girl to put her out of her misery.
3. He waited more than 24 hours to notify anyone of what had happened.
I think the case would have turned out differently if it had been a simple case of catching someone breaking in to your house and stopping a felony.
For me, my ideal actions in a case where two people have broken into my house is I retreat to my safe room, call the police and let the intruder know I am home and I am armed. I hope I never have to shoot anyone, ever.
I don't know what grounds he might have for appeal. His statements to police are still in evidence, and he does not contest their presentation of the facts.It ain't over till its over. According to the defense attorney Meshbesher he intends to petition the MN State Supreme Court for a Miss Trial. This Morrison County trial Judge pre-trial instructions to the attorneys. Do not to bring up past police history known about the deceased perpetrator's during Smith's trial
Criminal history of the victims isn't particularly relevant, and I don't think that would have helped his case in the face of that.
I hope you never have to test that in front of a jury. That said, the reasonableness standard still applies.I agree with steve- if MN law says "during commisssion of a felony", fleeing with stolen property is that.
Study the subject of fleeing felons, and tell us whether you learn any relevant facts about doors.
You sound as if you know a bit about this field .... tell us .... Do the laws of the state where the incident occurred have any bearing in the matter? Or are yo applying the laws you are familiar with universally?
MN 609.065 has been posted on here several times. It clearly states that Taking of a Life is Justified to stop the commission of a felony.
steve, you seem to want a cut and dry 'yes, you can go ahead and shoot the burglar who is heading out the door with your jewelry' answer as the result of the quoted sentence.
Let me draw up some fictitious scenarios for you.
Let's say a guy has his cousin and his cousin's wife staying with him in his house over the weekend. While there, the cousin and his wife get into an argument and the cousin proceeds to hit and shove his wife. She is hurt and crying and while the cousin is still yelling at her, possibly going to shove her again, he is not threatening her with a weapon and it is obvious that even though he is in the act of committing a heinous crime of domestic violence, his wife is not in a life threatening situation.
Do you think it is reasonable for the owner of the house to pull out a gun and shoot his cousin dead? The cousin is committing a felony in this guy's house. So should he be able to pull out his gun and shoot the cousin dead on the spot?
Or let's say that while staying in the house over the weekend, the cousin has a friend come over and the owner of the house walks in on his cousin's friend selling illicit drugs to his cousin. Also a felony. Should the guy be able to pull out his gun and shoot the cousin and his cousin's friend dead on the spot since they were in the act of committing a felony in this guy's house?
Or let's say that as the cousin is getting ready to head out after the weekend, the guy discovers that $300 is missing from his stash. He confronts the cousin who says 'I took that money because you are a prick' and he starts heading out the door. Can the guy pull out a gun and shoot his cousin dead on the spot? The cousin committed a felony (theft), he is still in progress of committing the crime (since he has not left the scene) and he is still in the home of the guy. Does this mean the guy can pull out a gun and shoot his cousin dead on the spot?
Hopefully these scenarios illustrate the 'reasonableness' aspect that has to, and will be, evaluated for any situation that involves someone using deadly force against someone else.
Observing a felony being committed in your house in MN does not give a cut and dry 'go ahead and use deadly force' authorization.
I hope you never have to test that in front of a jury.
Me too.
If someone breaks into my house, (and I have time), I'll call the police, hide and wait in ambush. I hope they go away. If not, it sucks to be them. I think that's reasonable.
My state law does not require me to retreat from my home (or place of business) .....
jimbob86 said:If someone breaks into my house, (and I have time), I'll call the police, hide and wait in ambush. I hope they go away. If not, it sucks to be them. I think that's reasonable.
Ah, but does it matter what you think is reasonable or is it up the 12 soccer moms and the like to determine whether you were "reasonable" or not?
Last edited:
Doc Intrepid
New member
Quite a few of the answers in this thread appear to presume that if one encounters someone in one's home in the middle of the night you will possess complete knowledge of:
* Whether they are armed or unarmed;
* What they are there for - property, or you;
* Whether they're on their way in, or on their way out; and
* Whether they present a clear and present danger immediately, or
* Whether they may present a clear and present danger very shortly.
Using this case to analyze precedent is a dubious effort, because a great deal about this particular case is unprecedented.
As a general rule, unless you're absolutely certain that someone who breaks into your home at night poses no threat, it's generally prudent to behave as though they do until proven otherwise. If someone who has broken into your home is heading for the door, it may mean they intend to exit -- but it also may be the case that they left their shotgun leaning against the wall beside the door.
I submit that most of us encountering an intruder in the dark might not know whether they're armed or not, or why they're there, nor what they intend. To suggest you cannot engage them because they're heading towards the door is academically convincing, provided you're able to read their mind and ascertain with certainty that they have no intention of whirling about and engaging you as you supervise their withdrawal.
This case has really not changed anything at all vis a vis self defense engagements, because it has become clear that the shooter's behavior in this particular case went beyond self defense.
* Whether they are armed or unarmed;
* What they are there for - property, or you;
* Whether they're on their way in, or on their way out; and
* Whether they present a clear and present danger immediately, or
* Whether they may present a clear and present danger very shortly.
Using this case to analyze precedent is a dubious effort, because a great deal about this particular case is unprecedented.
As a general rule, unless you're absolutely certain that someone who breaks into your home at night poses no threat, it's generally prudent to behave as though they do until proven otherwise. If someone who has broken into your home is heading for the door, it may mean they intend to exit -- but it also may be the case that they left their shotgun leaning against the wall beside the door.
I submit that most of us encountering an intruder in the dark might not know whether they're armed or not, or why they're there, nor what they intend. To suggest you cannot engage them because they're heading towards the door is academically convincing, provided you're able to read their mind and ascertain with certainty that they have no intention of whirling about and engaging you as you supervise their withdrawal.
This case has really not changed anything at all vis a vis self defense engagements, because it has become clear that the shooter's behavior in this particular case went beyond self defense.
Ah, but does it matter what you think is reasonable or is it up the 12 soccer moms and the like to determine whether you we "reasonable" or not?
I think those 12 "soccer moms" would give him a fairer trial than we would.
Madcap_Magician
New member
steve4102 said:Can I shoot and Kill a BG that broke into my home to commit a felony,or do I have self determine what a stranger would consider "reasonable" at the time?
You are still asking the wrong question. The question to ask is not "Can I shoot now?" it is "Do I have to shoot right now?"
Frank_Ettin said:He stopped the commission of the felony, and the two kids were still alive. Then killing them was not necessary to stop the commission of a felony.
Frank puts this very succinctly.
steve4102 said:MN 609.065 has been posted on here several times. It clearly states that Taking of a Life is Justified to stop the commission of a felony. MN appeals court also says that Self Defense and Fear for One's Life is not a criteria for Taking of a Life in one's home to stop the commission of a felony.
Going out the door with my jewelry is still Committing a Felony, Yes. Breaking into my home to get said jewelry is Committing a Felony, yes.
By your words and opinion, the Law is not the law, what you and 11 other people on the jury think is "reasonable" is the Law. yes?
You are taking the law out of context. As has been posted by multiple other members including myself and several staff members, a brief examination of the case law regarding defense of dwelling claims found that reasonableness is still a key part of a successful defense of dwelling claim.
The part of the Boyce decision that will likely be in the jury instruction on a Defense of Dwelling claim is "The defendant's election to kill must have been such as a reasonable man would have made in light of the danger to be apprehended."
Example from Joel Rosenberg:
Your brother is over at your house and is checking his e-mail on your computer. He tells you "Hey, I'm transferring half a million dollars from one of my company's corporate accounts to my own account! Want me to cut you in for some?"
And just before he can click the mouse button to complete the transaction, you whip out your gun and shoot him in the head.
Hey, it was in your house, and you were preventing the commission of a felony! TOTALLY justified, amirite?
So while the law is the law, a jury of twelve people will decide whether your action was reasonable in light of the law. If you DO want a rule of thumb, then here it is:
It is never a good idea to kill someone over property. Ever. If you are wondering whether a jury will find your actions reasonable, then just ask yourself "Am I shooting in fear of a threat to a person or not?"
"Am I shooting in fear of a threat to a person or not?"
...but MN law says that Fear of Threat is not a criteria for "Taking of a Life to Stop the Commission of a Felony in one's home".
I do not have to fear for my life.
I can Take a human life to stop the commission of a felony in my home.
The problem as I see it is, that the Law is not the Law, the law will not be determined by statute, but by 12 average citizens that were not smart enough to get out of Jury duty.
Evan Thomas
Inactive
I actually did mean this. Since we're back to going around in circles, this one is done.Further posts of the "Is too!"/"Is not!" variety will lead to permanent closure of the the thread and deletion of new ones on this subject.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.