Minnesota: Man Charged in Deaths of Intruders

Status
Not open for further replies.
This man is not a responsible gun owner or man who was defending his life (except at the very start). He acted out cold-blooded murder when the threat was already neutralized.

It is in the interest of gun rights and of basic human morality to condemn what he did. If what we know so far is true, he should never leave a cell again.

That said, innocent until proven guilty.
 
This man is not a responsible gun owner or man who was defending his life (except at the very start). He acted out cold-blooded murder when the threat was already neutralized.

It is in the interest of gun rights and of basic human morality to condemn what he did. If what we know so far is true, he should never leave a cell again.

That said, innocent until proven guilty.
Click to expand...
All of the information about what happened came right from the shooter/homeowner. If we are to believe everything he said, then we must believe that, as he stated, he had been burglarized from 8 to 10 times in the past. In that light, it would have been illogical for him to not eliminate the continuing threat of being burglarized an indefinite number of times in the future.
Aside from that, for you folks who have a bible based moral system, I do believe that it says something about if a thief digs under the wall of your house, it is not murder if you strike him dead. It does not say you have to stop shooting (or striking), him if the threat is incapacitated. Law is law, not morality.
 
Trouble is, he's NOT to be believed. All we know for sure is that he executed the girl. Nothing before or after that is really known. Forensics can verify her execution. The rest could very well be the fantasy world of a psychopath.

Law is law, not morality.
Click to expand...

A key part of morality is following laws that do not contradict moral principles. A law to not kill someone under these circumstances most certainly does NOT contradict any moral principles. Therefore, it is a law that morality dictates should be followed.
 
dahermit said:
All of the information about what happened came right from the shooter/homeowner. If we are to believe everything he said, then we must believe that, as he stated, he had been burglarized from 8 to 10 times in the past. In that light, it would have been illogical for him to not eliminate the continuing threat of being burglarized an indefinite number of times in the future.
Aside from that, for you folks who have a bible based moral system, I do believe that it says something about if a thief digs under the wall of your house, it is not murder if you strike him dead. It does not say you have to stop shooting (or striking), him if the threat is incapacitated. Law is law, not morality.
Click to expand...

Eliminating the threat of future property crime by killing a human being is not recognized as legally justifiable in any jurisdiction in the U.S. that I am aware of. Defending your life, yes. Defending your home during an active threat, yes. Executing an unarmed, injured person, no matter how reprehensible their past conduct? No.

I don't base my beliefs on a biblical text in this case but the long, storied, jurisprudentially dense history of self defense and defense of the home law. The principles and laws at work do not support in any way what he did. Wherever even slightly reasonable the law prizes human life over all.
 
Both here and on The High Road, I've seen posts which refer to the shooter's mental state and his culpability. In one (& I don't recall if it was here or THR), someone said that he might "get off" because of mental disease or defect. One of the oft-overlooked aspects of "not guilty by reason of insanity" is that (at least in Arkansas) one who is found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect does not just pack up and head home. He gets packed up and sent over to the State Hospital.
 
Insanity defenses are usually not successful, anyway. Depending on your state:

1. You have to show that you didn't know right from wrong and not be aware of the consequences of your actions - most states.

2. May have an added factor - your action can't be the product of mental
illness. Emotional impulse of the moment doesn't qualify as a mental illness. It might be a mitigating factor for a lesser sentence - maybe.

3. There are jurisdictions where you can be found mentally ill and guilty. Thus, you go to the hospital to get cured and then to prison.

My non-attorney reading of legal texts on self-defense indicates for our legal history and traditions, killing someone after they are not an active threat is legally and morally unacceptable.

PS - Idaho is eliminating the insanity defense and SCOTUS won't touch it.
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com...ity-defense-and-the-constitution/?ref=opinion
 
Last edited:
He over stepped his bounds when "The Threat of Bodily Harm was stopped. Executing them after they were not a threat is something over the line!
 
GEM said:
Given similar incidents like Martin, the new one in Florida with the kids and loud music vs the not found shotgun, guys pulling guns over punches in line on Black Friday and the like - the public will have in their mind the memories of irresponsible gun owners. Even though responsible far outweighs that. Folks remember the emotional vivid incident and overestimate its probability.
Click to expand...

I almost started a thread about the loud music incident, but thought it might become too contentious. Though the point I was going to make in it, fits well in this thread too.

When one of our own fellow firearms owners crosses the line, we have to condemn it. I'm not suggesting not giving someone a fair trail, or rushing to judgment in any way. What I am suggesting, is that we should not circle the wagons around bad behavior, ever.

In the Gravest Extreme, is the title of Massad Ayoob's excellent 1980 book, on the role of firearms in personal protection. I remember ordering it in 1980, after he talked about it in his Guns & Ammo column, or I saw an add in the same publication, I can't exactly remember.

In the Gravest Extreme, catchy and descriptive. Thats when firearms should be used, when there is no other way to save your own, or someone else's life, or prevent the same, from great bodily harm. Not when you are in a fit of rage at some teenagers, no matter what they look like, or who they are.
 
Most seem to be in agreement that it was a execution. The guy should go to jail for the rest of his life.

Incidents like this will be jumped on by anti-gun groups and won't help the pro-gun lobby.
 
He is a nut. Who says stuff like that? Think what you want, but keep your mouth shut. Initially and allegedly a victim, but his actions and statements changed the outcome for sure.

One thing that keeps wearing at me is why did that girl feel she needed to go down those stairs. Didn't hear the gunshots? She was with her accomplis while breaking in or so we are led to believe. How can you not hear a mini14 and a later a revolver going off? Did she think her partner fired the shots? There is no mention they were armed.

I am thinking there is much more to this story that we will never know because dead witnesses don't testify an an irrational person is left to tell the rest.
 
Now charged with 1st degree murder

I was watching for updates on this case scheduled for May 6, 2013. after much searching i see a Grand Jury brought back 1st degree murder charges on April 25th. The next court date is set for July 1, 2013
Here is the Wiki page on Byron David Smith listing some background on him.

This is the criminal complaint;

This is the April 25th action i missed;
Smith is said to have a security background. There is something very strange with this whole situation.
Smith has a very high profile defense attorney representing him so this will be very interesting.
 
The only thing I can think of that may help this guy is the medical examiners report stating the teens were mortally wounded and death was eminent before he took the good clean kill shot . :rolleyes: WoW can't believe he said something like that . He must not have heard them say , you have the right to remain SILENT !!
 
"The only thing I can think of that may help this guy is the medical examiners report stating the teens were mortally wounded and death was eminent before he took the good clean kill shot ."

As I understand it, that wouldn't help in the least. The intent was still to kill the person unlawfully, whether they were mortally wounded or not.

That's like the old law school conundrum.

Guy wants to commit suicide, and jumps off a tall building.

On his way down, his enemy shoots at him, intending to kill him, and in fact does so.

Is the second guy guilty of murder?

As far as I know, the answer is always yes.
 
This is just awful.

I applaud anyone for defending themselves but once the intruder or intruders are incapacitated,on the floor gasping for breath-it's time to call 911 for the police and an ambulance-not shoot them more.

Also,moving a intruder you shot who is now incapacitated is a real no-no.

And the less you say,other then just the facts,the better off you will be.

This looks now like a guy who was finishing off people to hide simply murdering them.

MANY stupid moves on his part.
 
Update

July 1, 2013 court update.
Next appearance August 30, 2013 for a contested omnibus hearing regarding issues of statements and physical evidence.
The initial omnibus hearing was canceled, i presume because of the upping to 1st degree murder.

Here is story,

12388631.jpg

Updated picture;
20130425_byron-david-smith_39.jpg


Events & Orders of the Court


OTHER EVENTS AND HEARINGS
11/26/2012 Complaint-Order for Detention (Judicial Officer: Freeberg,Conrad I. , )
11/26/2012 First Appearance (11:30 AM) (Judicial Officer Anderson, Douglas P.)
11/26/2012 Reset by Court to 11/26/2012
Result: Held
11/26/2012 Bail Study
11/26/2012 Certificate of Representation
11/26/2012 Notice to Remove (Judicial Officer: Freeberg,Conrad I. , )
11/26/2012 Affidavit of Service
11/26/2012 Demand/Request for Discovery
11/26/2012 Acknowledgement of Rights
11/26/2012 Affidavit of Service
11/26/2012 Order to Remove (Judicial Officer: Freeberg,Conrad I. , )
11/26/2012 Acknowledgement of Rights (Judicial Officer: Anderson, Douglas P. )
11/26/2012 Order for Release (Judicial Officer: Anderson, Douglas P. )
11/26/2012 Interim Condition for Smith, Byron David
- Pay bail
$200,000.00
- Post bond
$2,000,000.00
- Conditions, other
- Do not leave Minnesota without written court approval
- Keep court/attorney informed of current address
- No contact with victim or family
- Remain law-abiding
- Make all future court appearances
- Make and maintain contact with attorney
- No use or possession of firearms or dangerous weapons
- Pay bail with conditions
$100,000.00
- Post bond with conditions
$1,000,000.00
11/26/2012 Notice of Filing of Order
11/26/2012 Notice of Hearing
11/30/2012 Search Warrant (Judicial Officer: Freeberg,Conrad I. , )
11/30/2012 Search Warrant (Judicial Officer: Carlson, Jay D. )
11/30/2012 Search Warrant (Judicial Officer: Carlson, Jay D. )
11/30/2012 Search Warrant (Judicial Officer: Carlson, Jay D. )
11/30/2012 Search Warrant (Judicial Officer: Carlson, Jay D. )
11/30/2012 Search Warrant (Judicial Officer: Carlson, Jay D. )
12/04/2012 Certificate of Representation
12/07/2012 Motion
12/07/2012 Memorandum
12/07/2012 Affidavit of Service
12/11/2012 Notice of Evidence and Identification Procedures
12/11/2012 Discovery Disclosure
12/11/2012 Affidavit of Service
12/12/2012 Discovery Disclosure
12/17/2012 Hearing (1:00 PM) (Judicial Officer Anderson, Douglas P.)
Result: Held
12/17/2012 Motion Hearing (1:00 PM) (Judicial Officer Anderson, Douglas P.)
Result: Held
12/17/2012 Discovery Disclosure (Judicial Officer: Anderson, Douglas P. )
12/17/2012 Order for Release (Judicial Officer: Anderson, Douglas P. )
12/17/2012 Interim Condition for Smith, Byron David
- Pay bail
$200,000.00
- Post bond
$2,000,000.00
- Conditions, other
- Do not leave Minnesota without written court approval
- Keep court/attorney informed of current address
- No contact with victim or family
- Remain law-abiding
- Make all future court appearances
- Make and maintain contact with attorney
- Sign Waiver of Extradition
- No use or possession of firearms or dangerous weapons
- Pay bail with conditions
$50,000.00
- Post bond with conditions
$500,000.00
12/17/2012 Other Document (Judicial Officer: Anderson, Douglas P. )
12/17/2012 Discovery Disclosure (Judicial Officer: Anderson, Douglas P. )
12/17/2012 Waiver of Extradition (Judicial Officer: Anderson, Douglas P. )
12/17/2012 Probable Cause Found to Detain (Judicial Officer: Carlson, Jay D. )
12/17/2012 Notice of Hearing
12/18/2012 Other Document
12/31/2012 Substitution of Counsel
12/31/2012 Substitution of Counsel
12/31/2012 Discovery Disclosure
01/07/2013 Notice of Defense and Defense Witnesses
01/07/2013 Affidavit of Service
01/09/2013 Demand/Request for Discovery
01/14/2013 Request for Continuance
01/14/2013 Demand/Request for Discovery
01/15/2013 Notice of Hearing
01/18/2013 Demand/Request for Discovery
01/24/2013 Discovery Disclosure
02/11/2013 Discovery Disclosure
02/11/2013 Motion
02/11/2013 Proposed Document
02/11/2013 Other Document
02/11/2013 Correspondence
02/12/2013 Correspondence
02/13/2013 Demand/Request for Discovery
02/15/2013 Motion
02/15/2013 Affidavit of Service
02/15/2013 Proposed Document
02/15/2013 Correspondence
02/15/2013 Correspondence
02/20/2013 Motion
02/20/2013 Affidavit of Service
02/21/2013 Motion Hearing (1:00 PM) (Judicial Officer Anderson, Douglas P.)
Result: Held
02/21/2013 Notice of Motion and Motion
02/21/2013 Memorandum
02/21/2013 Other Document
02/21/2013 Other Document
02/21/2013 Other Document
02/21/2013 Demand/Request for Discovery
02/21/2013 Taken Under Advisement (Judicial Officer: Anderson, Douglas P. )
02/25/2013 Order-Other (Judicial Officer: Anderson, Douglas P. )
02/26/2013 Notice of Filing of Order
02/27/2013 Order-Other (Judicial Officer: Anderson, Douglas P. )
02/28/2013 Notice of Filing of Order
03/06/2013 Discovery Disclosure
03/06/2013 Affidavit of Service
03/07/2013 Demand/Request for Discovery
03/07/2013 Correspondence
03/12/2013 Correspondence
03/15/2013 Discovery Disclosure
03/15/2013 Affidavit of Service
03/19/2013 Memorandum
03/22/2013 Discovery Disclosure
03/22/2013 Affidavit of Service
03/25/2013 Discovery Disclosure
03/25/2013 Affidavit of Service
03/25/2013 Correspondence
03/26/2013 Taken Under Advisement (Judicial Officer: Anderson, Douglas P. )
04/03/2013 Order-Other (Judicial Officer: Anderson, Douglas P. )
04/03/2013 Notice of Filing of Order
04/10/2013 Discovery Disclosure
04/10/2013 Affidavit of Service
04/11/2013 Discovery Disclosure
04/11/2013 Affidavit of Service
04/24/2013 Indictment - after service or in custody
04/24/2013 Warrant Issued
04/25/2013 Warrant Quashed
04/25/2013 Demand/Request for Discovery
04/25/2013 First Appearance (2:00 PM) (Judicial Officer Anderson, Douglas P.)
Result: Held
04/25/2013 Court Clerk Minutes (Judicial Officer: Anderson, Douglas P. )
04/25/2013 Order for Release (Judicial Officer: Anderson, Douglas P. )
04/25/2013 Order-Other (Judicial Officer: Anderson, Douglas P. )
04/25/2013 Interim Condition for Smith, Byron David
- Pay bail
$200,000.00
- Post bond
$2,000,000.00
- Conditions, other
- Do not leave Minnesota without written court approval
- Keep court/attorney informed of current address
- No contact with victim or family
- Remain law-abiding
- Make all future court appearances
- Make and maintain contact with attorney
- Sign Waiver of Extradition
- No use or possession of firearms or dangerous weapons
- Pay bail with conditions
$50,000.00
- Post bond with conditions
$500,000.00
04/25/2013 Notice of Hearing (Judicial Officer: Anderson, Douglas P. )
04/25/2013 Notice of Filing of Order
04/26/2013 Warrant Returned
05/06/2013 CANCELED Omnibus Hearing (1:00 PM) (Judicial Officer Anderson, Douglas P.)
Other
01/22/2013 Reset by Court to 05/06/2013
05/09/2013 Discovery Disclosure
05/09/2013 Affidavit of Service
05/17/2013 Discovery Disclosure
05/17/2013 Affidavit of Service
06/03/2013 Discovery Disclosure
06/03/2013 Affidavit of Service
06/24/2013 Hearing (2:30 PM) (Judicial Officer Anderson, Douglas P.)
Result: Held
06/24/2013 Notice of Hearing
06/27/2013 Discovery Disclosure
06/27/2013 Affidavit of Service
06/28/2013 Publicly Viewable Note to File
07/01/2013 Initial Appearance - Rule 8 (10:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Anderson, Douglas P.)
Result: Held
07/01/2013 Court Clerk Minutes (Judicial Officer: Anderson, Douglas P. )
07/01/2013 Discovery Disclosure
07/01/2013 Affidavit of Mailing
07/02/2013 Order-Other (Judicial Officer: Anderson, Douglas P. )
07/03/2013 Notice of Filing of Order
08/30/2013 Contested Omnibus (10:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Anderson, Douglas P.)
 
Last edited:
Trial has started

Today was the opening of the 1st. Degree Murder trial of Byron David Smith.
Story here;

This trial is about Mr. Smith going too far in the use of deadly force.
I find the argument that he was in fear of more intruders for his reasoning to shoot more than what is believed justified.
I am interested in what the defense bring out on Mr. Smiths past employment with the State Department and if any training could have led Mr. Smith into the mindset that played out.
 
I generally agree with the prevailing opinion on this thread: he crossed the line (blatantly) from self defense to murder.

However, as I read about this story I feel there is some piece of info missing. The man shot the intruder (the boy) twice, then spent the time to get a tarp, and move the body to the basement. Where was the girl? She didn't hear the gun shots? At what point did she decide to go into the basement? Was the boy armed and she thought he fired? How did the old man know she was going to come down the stairs (1st degree requires pre-meditation) Was the girl high?
 
I think he crossed a line and that he should be convicted of something, but my understanding of first degree murder is that it requires premeditation. I suppose it can be argued that one can premeditate a murder without pre-selecting the victim, in which case setting up a trap and intentionally killing whoever walked into it might be classified as first degree murder. But I suppose the definition of "first degree murder" varies by state, and I'm not even sure that all states have "first degree" murder.

On the other hand, there is also the concept that the criminal actors who commit a felonious act are automatically guilty of murder if anyone dies as the result of their felonious act. The two decadents met their demise in the course of committing a felony. If that makes them guilty of their own murders ... does that make the homeowner an accomplice, an accessory, or a victim?

I am conflicted on this case. This is one where I am glad I'm NOT on the jury.
 
I don't know whether he'll be convicted of first degree murder, but what he did is comparable to the behavior of Jerome Ersland, the pharmacist who shot an armed robber after he (the robber) was injured and clearly no longer a threat; Mr. Ersland was convicted of first degree murder.

From a CBS report on the case:
Prosecutors say as Brady descended the basement steps, Smith shot him in the chest, then in the back while Brady fell, Wartner said. Smith fired a final shot into Brady's head, the bullet passing through Brady's hand, Wartner said.
<snip>
Smith dragged Kifer's body into the workshop and laid it on top of Brady's, Wartner said. Smith told investigators he thought he heard Kifer gasping, so he placed his revolver under her chin and fired what he told police was a "good clean finishing shot to the head," the assistant prosecutor said.​
Among the similarities in the two cases: Mr. Smith, like Mr. Ersland, used a second gun to dispatch Ms. Kifer. He also considered shot placement before doing so, telling police that he shot her under the chin because .22 "doesn't go through bone very well."

I'd say there's a degree of premeditation there...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top