Minnesota: Man Charged in Deaths of Intruders

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not sure they'll get 1st-degree murder, but 2nd-degree seems very likely. Smith game ample ammunition to the prosecution with his statements to police:

“I shoot him in the face. I want him dead.”

“I was far over the edge."

“I was no longer willing to live in fear.”

This isn't like other recent cases, in which the events aren't clear. Smith made an audio recording of the shooting, and he was quite explicit in his statements to police.

If anything, this resembles the Bernhard Goetz case more than anything in recent memory.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
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.
Click to expand...

Premeditation for murder doesn't require detailed prior planning or knowledge of a specific victim and could actually be strongly suggested by the murderer's actions after the fact, by attempts to conceal the crime or elude capture. In this case, his failure to immediately call police and the fact that he moved the second victim after wounding her, then executed her, plus his multiple statements about his own intent to kill both of them and his admission that he shot 'more than I needed to' would make this slam-dunk murder in the first degree to me.

I am surprised the original charge was murder in the second.
 
As I understand it, the Rules are:
1. The shooting stops when the threat is neutralized.
2. You inform the authorities of what has happened in a bare bones "Just the facts, Ma'am!"
3. And you say no more. Except the Five Words-"I have nothing to say." And
"I want to talk to an attorney."
 
There is one weird issue I've never seen satisfactorily explained. It leads me to believe there is more here than has been stated.

A Mini-14 is not a quiet weapon, especially when fired in a basement. It isn't going to be mistaken for, say, a champagne cork.

Let's say you're an 18 year old young woman and you go to break into a neighbor's house with your cousin.

Your cousin goes down into the basement, and you hear what sounds like very loud shots fired. You know your cousin did not have a gun.

Why do you then go down into the basement?
 
Here another part of this story. His house had been broken into before at various times when he was absent from it. It happened on Thanksgiving morning and its been reported that after he shot the teenagers he went to a relatives house for a Thanksgiving celebration. It was the next day that he reported it.
Actions like that make him look pretty cold blooded.
There may well be a possibility that he will be found not guilty,. I have been told Lawyer is Stephen Meshbesher, whom I believe is from the firm of Meshbescher and Spence who are Top Guns as far as defense lawyers go.
 
Last edited:
Smith parked his vehicle in a different location other than his own property that Thanksgiving Day. Taped his own conversation and the event before and after. Admitted to the local authorities both burglars were down and incapacitated and his purposely giving the female perpetrator who at the time was wearing a drawn tight around her face hoodie sweatshirt. Smith admitted that he called her a Bit-- and gave her a coup de grace head shot. (w/ 22 pistol) He told the young man prior to his final head shot "Your Dead" What the judged ruled out in the trial was the past police records these two burglar's had. Female burglar's purse continents included a dope pipe. Which again is stricken by the judge. But Mr. Smith has I think the best defense attorney team representing him in the whole State of MN. (Steven Meshbesher) What is known. Both burglar's being younger than Smith by 46 plus years was indeed a serious threat in Smith's mind. Being no other was there to observe Mr. Smith's actions he alone had to determine whether they were incapacitated enough or not. Reality: Two young drug troubled adults broke into a single aged persons home with intentions of felony burglary and were caught in the act of by its armed homeowner. Having to rely on his own resources Mr. Smith did what he had too do. Stop any further intrusion and his intruders. Local Law and towns people along with a major MPLS newspaper all thinks Mr. Smith went too far or over the line in his reactions. Being a aged person having been burglarized in the recent past many times. Money, guns, drug cabinet prescriptions burgled in the recent past. I think what Mr. Smith did was a bit bizarre but again understandable under those stressful circumstances he found himself confronted with. Young adults breaking the Law in the wrong place at the wrong time and confronting the wrong old timer showing stringent resolve and also applied. IMHO: >Not Guilty.
 
Juries will render verdicts that defy reason at times. We'll see what happens here. I certainly think the man went beyond justifiable self-defense into the realm of murder, but I'm not sitting in the jury box hearing all the evidence.

I was visiting family in the Ozarks some years back, a rural area near some mid-sized towns. One elderly man had been in a series of incidents with some local youths who had vandalized his mailbox time and again, requiring multiple replacements, calls to police, etc., etc., which had accomplished only one thing, a new mailbox was available to the youths on a recurring basis.

One night the man came outside to the sounds of the youths destroying his mailbox, yelling insults down the driveway, and such things. He got a hunting rifle, and fired one shot down the driveway into the dark to scare them off. The bullet struck the car, penetrated to the interior, and one kid was dead in short order.

The jury found him not guilty of any charge. A juror said for the papers, I'm paraphrasing, 'It's too bad someone had to die that night, but they were begging for something to happen and it did. Don't mess around with folks, they don't like it.'

I don't think we'll see that happen in this case, but it's not improbable.
 
IMHO: >Not Guilty
Click to expand...
Yes, but you're not on the jury. They're going to see everything we've seen, and then some. And they're also going to be hearing from a very motivated prosecutor.

Smith didn't do himself any favors by waiting to report the incident, nor by yapping to investigators.
 
Therein lies the problem with taking a trial to jury (although there was obviously no option here), when a trial goes to jury; it's pretty much a toss of the dice which way it will go.
 
He probably stands a better chance with a jury than he would with a judge. IMHO a judge would be more likely to look strictly at the law, and would be less likely to (possibly) be swayed by arguments about how terrified he was.

In reality, nothing about his actions seems to strongly support the argument that he was in fear, and it seems that with both teenagers (especially the girl) his actions mirrored those of Jerome Ersland (the pharmacist who came back into his store and finished off a wounded robber).
 
Sure Shot Mc Gee said:
Smith parked his vehicle in a different location other than his own property that Thanksgiving Day. Taped his own conversation and the event before and after. Admitted to the local authorities both burglars were down and incapacitated and his purposely giving the female perpetrator who at the time was wearing a drawn tight around her face hoodie sweatshirt. Smith admitted that he called her a Bit-- and gave her a coup de grace head shot. (w/ 22 pistol) He told the young man prior to his final head shot "Your Dead" What the judged ruled out in the trial was the past police records these two burglar's had. Female burglar's purse continents included a dope pipe. Which again is stricken by the judge. But Mr. Smith has I think the best defense attorney team representing him in the whole State of MN. (Steven Meshbesher) What is known. Both burglar's being younger than Smith by 46 plus years was indeed a serious threat in Smith's mind. Being no other was there to observe Mr. Smith's actions he alone had to determine whether they were incapacitated enough or not. Reality: Two young drug troubled adults broke into a single aged persons home with intentions of felony burglary and were caught in the act of by its armed homeowner. Having to rely on his own resources Mr. Smith did what he had too do. Stop any further intrusion and his intruders. Local Law and towns people along with a major MPLS newspaper all thinks Mr. Smith went too far or over the line in his reactions. Being a aged person having been burglarized in the recent past many times. Money, guns, drug cabinet prescriptions burgled in the recent past. I think what Mr. Smith did was a bit bizarre but again understandable under those stressful circumstances he found himself confronted with. Young adults breaking the Law in the wrong place at the wrong time and confronting the wrong old timer showing stringent resolve and also applied. IMHO: >Not Guilty.
Click to expand...

You think it's "a bit bizarre" to shoot a home invader, then walk up to her, shoot her nine times in the chest because she's still breathing, then drag her on a convenient tarp into another room where you're keeping the OTHER burglar you shot, then realize she is still alive, reload your revolver, tuck it under her chin, and fire a SECOND shot that was clearly intended to execute the incapacitated invader, and then tell the police exactly what you did?

I think your definition of "a bit bizarre" must be pretty similar to my definition of "Murder in the first degree" added to my definition of "Almost Terminal Stupidity."

And you think this is "understandable" because he'd had a string of burglaries in the past and wanted to prevent being burglarized in the future?
 
One reason we train and engage in FOF scenarios is that it helps to deal with stressful situations.

Premeditation can take only seconds according to some trials I've read. This guy is a disgrace to humanity if the story is true. Stress is NO excuse.
 
i would like to suspend this idiots FID card or pistol permits and LTC for a couple years.and make him take a gun safety coarse to get his guns back.


but i dont think he should face criminal charges.if someone unarmed breaks into your house,you dont know there unarmed how is one to know they dont have a gun or knife in a pocket or under a shirt or pant leg.

the unarmed part is irelivent,its the victims perception of whether the assailent are armed or not that matters.

but he seems cavalier and arrogant and should loose his guns for a period of time
 
I don't mean to make light of this situation, but I always wondered what kind of person would buy/put up one of those signs that reads: WARNING: Tresspassers will be shot; Survivors will be shot again.
 
the unarmed part is irelivent,its the victims perception of whether the assailent are armed or not that matters.

but he seems cavalier and arrogant and should loose his guns for a period of time
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the "unarmed part" is relevant, at least in the case of the female- once she was down, struggling to breathe, she was obviously unarmed, and obviously not a threat. Shooting her again at that point was NOT self defense.

It was an execution, and we have laws against freelancing in that area.
 
green_MTman said:
i would like to suspend this idiots FID card or pistol permits and LTC for a couple years.and make him take a gun safety coarse to get his guns back.

but i dont think he should face criminal charges.if someone unarmed breaks into your house,you dont know there unarmed how is one to know they dont have a gun or knife in a pocket or under a shirt or pant leg.

the unarmed part is irelivent,its the victims perception of whether the assailent are armed or not that matters.

but he seems cavalier and arrogant and should loose his guns for a period of time
Click to expand...

Go back and read the criminal complaint.

Smith did in fact claim that he thought the burglars might be armed, which is not unreasonable. He was in his basement when the first intruder came down the stairs. He fired one or two shots with his Mini-14 at the male intruder when he saw his hips coming down the stairs.

Still not unreasonable.

Then the first intruder fell down the stairs, and was lying at the bottom of the stairs, posing no articulated threat to Smith, when Smith shot him again in the face.

Unreasonable. You cannot simply shoot someone because they 'might' have a weapon. See: AOJ triangle. A person who 'might' have a weapon 'might' have the ability to inflict death or great bodily harm upon you, which in Minnesota would justify the use of deadly force in self defense if you could articulate why you reasonably believed them to be armed and threatening you with death or great bodily harm.

However, a person you have already shot who is lying on the ground and has neither produced a weapon nor made any motion consistent with reaching for a weapon cannot be shot again simply because he might have a weapon. He is lying on the ground gut-shot. Without any reasonable cause to believe he was still a threat, there is no opportunity or jeopardy, and the presence of ability is a wild guess at best.

You are only halfway correct when you say it's the victim's perception about whether the attackers were armed. It's the victim's reasonable perception that matters, and Smith articulated no actions or behaviors that indicated that it was reasonable to assume either burglar was armed. Given that they were committing burglary at the time they were shot, the first shots were likely justified, but they do not legally or morally excuse the following ones.

So after executing the first burglar, Smith then puts the body in a handy tarp, which he apparently told police was "so he didn't get blood on his carpet," and drags the body into his basement workshop, and then goes back out to sit in his chair.

Unreasonable. What possible justifiable reason would you have for altering a crime scene? If you were being burglarized, why did you not call the police? If you did not have time to call the police after shooting the burglar, why did you not call them immediately after the threat from the burglar had stopped?

At this point, the second burglar starts coming down the stairs in a fit of terminal stupidity. Smith again waits until he can see her hips, and fired. She fell down the stairs.

Not unreasonable on its own merit, probably unreasonable in light of what he had done with the first burglar.

Smith's rifle jams. At this point Smith says she "laughed" at him, which made him upset. He later told police "If you're trying to shoot somebody, and they laugh at you, you go again."

Smith then empties a nine-shot .22 LR revolver into the second burglar as she is lying on the ground, again, like in the first case, posing no reasonable articulated threat to him.

Are you kidding me? I am hoping that people here posting in Smith's defense are simply talking about this case without actually having read anything about it, because it seriously concerns me that someone could have read all this information and still think he was justified.

Totally frickin' unreasonable.

And if that wasn't enough, he then rolls the second burglar's body into a tarp and drags her back to his workshop by the first burglar, again tampering with a crime scene.

And then, if THAT wasn't enough, he notices the second burglar is still breathing, so he reloads his .22, tucks the barrel under her chin, and executes her with what he later told police was "a good clean finishing shot."

That's so far beyond any question of reasonableness that it infuriates me that anyone here would try to justify it.

Ordinarily I would still withhold final judgment on cases like this, knowing that the media usually have it wrong. But everything I said here came from the criminal complaint itself, which was generated by police investigation and from the detailed statements Smith himself told the police.

EDIT: Removed a reference to "burglary in the first degree" after reviewing the relevant statute. It would probably be burglary in the second degree.
 
Last edited:
A man's home is his castle. When a younger and stronger opponent confronts a unarmed senior of either gender there's usually one outcome. The old person doesn't fair well. The two young adults in prime physical condition without question one of the two broke in via a bedroom window while the other acted as his look out. In time both made their way down the stairs to the basement under their own volition without being enticed by Smith for who knows what reason. Both perpetrators soon discovered a armed, aware, and scared home owner full of resolve.

As commented I haven't heard or know just what took place concerning those two kids and Mr. Smith. And again I'm not fully privy to all the police reports and court testimony. Only what information our local news media releases. (But it is what it is gents.) A persons Right of Self Defense to a (point?) in their own home. So from now on "I'm going to hide my guns and get myself a Stick!! Otherwise I might find myself in court facing my peers too."

BTW: The local police were notified of Smith's prior burglary's no arrest's were ever made. I think it was said Smith suffered thru 5-6 break-in's from August thru November with money, prescription drugs, and high dollar items taken each time. Including a couple guns.

Some of what was said in court yesterday can be read in the Minneapolis Star & Tribune paper today. For those who may want too track this court case.
 
Sure Shot Mc Gee said:
A man's home is his castle. When a younger and stronger opponent confronts a unarmed senior of either gender there's usually one outcome. The old person doesn't fair well. The two young adults in prime physical condition without question one of the two broke in via a bedroom window while the other acted as his look out.
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing with you on that, and most of the expert opinion from criminal defense lawyers in the state, other prosecutors, and law enforcement has generally concurred that Smith was justified in shooting at first. But what happened afterward is so unreasonably outrageous that I think Mr. Smith is headed to jail for the rest of his life.

And I certainly don't feel sorry for either burglar. Both would be alive today if they hadn't committed one crime too many. They took their own lives in their own hands breaking into people's houses, and when you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top