Man Executes Two Teen Intruders

[Chris]

First of all...how am I an internet hard ass? Im not saying Im for executing home invaders, that I am doing any of that? Why be childish and throw that out there? You sound like the internet hardass.

But yes, I do agree that if you are a felon, caught in the act of your actions, you get whatever happens to you. That's not young and dumb. You know damn well that you shouldn't do that. Young and dumb is doing a prank and somebody gets hurt. Jumping railroad tracks like the kids in Brunswick, etc..etc.. Not committing a felony and chalking it up as being young and dumb.

If you....these punks...or anybody on this board is in the situation to where they think they deserve a chance to turn it around instead of staring down the barrel of a gun of a homeowner is being awfully generous. Once you commit the crime, you lose your rights. You don't deserve any leeway. I am a homeowner, I also own guns. Im not some gun enthusiast, NRA member or chest thumper, but if you break into my home, Im pulling the trigger until whatever it is that came in doesn't move anymore. That's a far cry from your SWAT scenario, but I have no idea what the person is capable of doing but pretty sure they are less likely to do anything further if they can't move. I don't care if they are 16 or 45.

You're not for all felons deserving to die. Just...if you get executed during the commission of a felony, it's tough luck and the person shouldn't be charged.

Right?

Yeah, your opinion really adds up. Hardass confirmed.

[Mdog1]

You know he could have executed them still if he had just used the pistol...

He could have easily made the case that he was so scared that they were going to hurt him so he just aimed and shot until they were no longer standing...

Could have shot an entire clip into each ffs, and called the cops. Really not calling the cops was his biggest mistake here. Makes him look incredibly guilty.

[Damage]

What unarmed, 18 year old girl laughs in the face of the man who just shot your cousin and just attempted to fire at you?

I cannot get over how ridiculous this is, I cannot fathom how this is possible, even under the influence of some serious drugs.

Bingo.

It's beyond ridiculous, which is why I don't believe this lunatic's reasoning for one fucking second. In this scenario, self defense shouldn't include an execution style shot, especially after the perp has been maimed.

The guy clearly needs help. Weather that comes in the form of a doctor or a chair remains to be seen.

[Damage]

First of all...how am I an internet hard ass? Im not saying Im for executing home invaders, that I am doing any of that? Why be childish and throw that out there? You sound like the internet hardass.

But yes, I do agree that if you are a felon, caught in the act of your actions, you get whatever happens to you. That's not young and dumb. You know damn well that you shouldn't do that. Young and dumb is doing a prank and somebody gets hurt. Jumping railroad tracks like the kids in Brunswick, etc..etc.. Not committing a felony and chalking it up as being young and dumb.

If you....these punks...or anybody on this board is in the situation to where they think they deserve a chance to turn it around instead of staring down the barrel of a gun of a homeowner is being awfully generous. Once you commit the crime, you lose your rights. You don't deserve any leeway. I am a homeowner, I also own guns. Im not some gun enthusiast, NRA member or chest thumper, but if you break into my home, Im pulling the trigger until whatever it is that came in doesn't move anymore. That's a far cry from your SWAT scenario, but I have no idea what the person is capable of doing but pretty sure they are less likely to do anything further if they can't move. I don't care if they are 16 or 45.

Then you'd be in jail, dude.

Use of deadly force if your life is being threatened, to prevent bodily harm. Was this guys life being threatened after he killed the boy? No. Was this guys life being threatened after he maimed the female? No. Were the perps armed? No. It would have been different if one of the perps had a gun and/or aimed it at the homeowner.

So while he had every right to defend his house, the final gun shot was not justifiable homicide. In some instances, killing an unarmed burglar will get you life in prison. This guy was a gun nut - he should have known the laws.

He deserves the chair.

[Lee]

Then you'd be in jail, dude.

Use of deadly force if your life is being threatened, to prevent bodily harm. Was this guys life being threatened after he killed the boy? No. Was this guys life being threatened after he maimed the female? No. Were the perps armed? No. It would have been different if one of the perps had a gun and/or aimed it at the homeowner.

So while he had every right to defend his house, the final gun shot was not justifiable homicide. In some instances, killing an unarmed burglar will get you life in prison. This guy was a gun nut - he should have known the laws.

He deserves the chair.

Now I am not sure this is chair worthy. The whole situation was caused by someone else's felony. The killing of the burglar for sure is manslaughter, but is the intent worthy of the chair? That will be tough. If he is found guilty, then it will be a tough decision for the jury. He didnt start out the day intending to kill someone. I am not 100% sure it is what we would call premeditated. For sure he deserves to be locked for life.

Not all the facts are out either. We dont know with 100% certainty if they teens didnt have a weapon, the old man's state of mind, etc. It for sure seems like excessive force, but excessive force doesnt necessarily mean premeditated murder.

[Ignatius]

...but if you break into my home, Im pulling the trigger until whatever it is that came in doesn't move anymore.

Then you'd be in jail, dude.

Definitely not a fact.

You should look into the castle doctrine a little more. Since this took place in a home, the case is a bit different than if it were to happen on an open road (NOT in a car, as the castle doctrine applies here as well).

I was taught in my concealed carry class to yell STOP! I GOT A GUN! - As it was pointed at your face/chest (and we actually did this while we were shooting at the targets). That is no joke. I believe this is more to COVER YOUR ASS so you're absolutely no longer the aggressor (class was taught by police).

Anyway, just reading this information in the article leads me to believe that the man was no longer in the danger at one point - so killing them at that point was not necessary - not life or death situation at that point. Everything this old hag has said (AGAIN DON'T TALK TO THE FREAKING POLICE IT WILL ONLY INCRIMINATE YOU!!) indicates he was no longer under duress (he seems mentally stable, although that's just from a secondary article) and he didn't even call 911 - calling 911 doesn't mean you have to talk to police.

[Damage]

Definitely not a fact.

You should look into the castle doctrine a little more. Since this took place in a home, the case is a bit different than if it were to happen on an open road (NOT in a car, as the castle doctrine applies here as well).

I was taught in my concealed carry class to yell STOP! I GOT A GUN! - As it was pointed at your face/chest (and we actually did this while we were shooting at the targets). That is no joke. I believe this is more to COVER YOUR ASS so you're absolutely no longer the aggressor (class was taught by police).

Anyway, just reading this information in the article leads me to believe that the man was no longer in the danger at one point - so killing them at that point was not necessary - not life or death situation at that point. Everything this old hag has said (AGAIN DON'T TALK TO THE FREAKING POLICE IT WILL ONLY INCRIMINATE YOU!!) indicates he was no longer under duress (he seems mentally stable, although that's just from a secondary article) and he didn't even call 911 - calling 911 doesn't mean you have to talk to police.

The you'd be in jail part was hyperbole, as there are infinite variables to consider, but my point was if you are not in danger, you cannot kill someone, especially after said perp is down. The mere fact that this guy bragged about the finishing shot on an unarmed person is despicable.

EDIT: Castle doctrine is Texas, correct?

[Damage]

Now I am not sure this is chair worthy. The whole situation was caused by someone else's felony. The killing of the burglar for sure is manslaughter, but is the intent worthy of the chair? That will be tough. If he is found guilty, then it will be a tough decision for the jury. He didnt start out the day intending to kill someone. I am not 100% sure it is what we would call premeditated. For sure he deserves to be locked for life.

Not all the facts are out either. We dont know with 100% certainty if they teens didnt have a weapon, the old man's state of mind, etc. It for sure seems like excessive force, but excessive force doesnt necessarily mean premeditated murder.

That's immaterial, as it's more of an opinion. That aside, we pretty much agree on this issue

[Ignatius]

The you'd be in jail part was hyperbole, as there are infinite variables to consider, but my point was if you are not in danger, you cannot kill someone, especially after said perp is down. The mere fact that this guy bragged about the finishing shot on an unarmed person is despicable.

EDIT: Castle doctrine is Texas, correct?

In this case, yes. But here in Ohio or anywhere else castle doctrine can apply.

Here is an exerpt and then some on the issue from the Ohio Attorney General - directly: Ohio's Concealed Carry Laws & License Application PDF

‘Castle Doctrine’
“Castle Doctrine” generally encompasses the idea that a person does not
have a duty to retreat from the residence he lawfully occupies before using
force in self-defense or defense of another. Additionally, there is no duty
to retreat if a person is lawfully in his vehicle or is lawfully an occupant in a
vehicle owned by an immediate family member of that person.

However, being a lawful occupant of a residence or vehicle is not a license
to use deadly force against an attacker. The person who is attacked, without
fault of his own, may use deadly force only if he reasonably and honestly
believed that deadly force was necessary to prevent serious bodily harm
or death. If the person does not have this belief, he should not use deadly
force. Again, if it does not put your life or the life of others in danger, you
should withdraw from the confrontation if it is safe for you to do so.

The law presumes you to have acted in self-defense or defense of another
when using deadly force if the victim had unlawfully and without privilege
entered or was in the process of entering the residence or vehicle you
occupy. The presumption does not apply if the defendant was unlawfully in
that residence or vehicle. The presumption does not apply if the victim had
a right to be in, or was a lawful resident of, the residence or vehicle.

The presumption of self-defense is a rebuttable presumption. The term
“rebuttable presumption” means the prosecutor, and not the defendant,
carries the burden of producing evidence contrary to the facts that the
law presumes. However, a rebuttable presumption does not relieve the
defendant of the burden of proof. If the prosecutor provides sufficient
evidence to prove that the defendant created the confrontation or that the 22
use of deadly force was not reasonably necessary to prevent death or great
bodily harm, then the presumption of self-defense no longer exists.

Statutory Reference(s): ORC 2901.05 sets forth the rebuttable presumption.
ORC 2901.09(B) establishes that there is no duty to retreat before using force if a
person is a lawful occupant of his vehicle or a lawful occupant in a vehicle owned by an
immediate family member.

I'm sure someone can find something similar for Texas.

--

So, when I say - DON'T TALK TO POLICE - it's because they are often the first responders and you are liable to say anything and everything that can and WILL be used against you in the court of law - derrr.

Also, I know that IMMEDIATELY if anyone is in my house and I'm using deadly force, it's because my life is in danger..period.

[KI4MVP]

the actions of the guy keeps being defended, but isn't it a bit troubling that he never called the police? He didn't call them thursday, he didn't call them friday. He hid the bodies. He didn't tell the police what happened until

Morrison County deputies visited Byron David Smith's home just north of Little Falls on Friday afternoon on a suspicious activity call, at which point, they say, he immediately confessed to shooting two people the previous day around noon.

[KI4MVP]

Also, I know that IMMEDIATELY if anyone is in my house and I'm using deadly force, it's because my life is in danger..period.

for how long? Nobody is saying he couldn't have shot them and killed them on the spot. People are saying you can't then take a "kill shot" when you realize the person is incapacitated, but still clinging to life. Your obligation then is to call an ambulance.

[Ignatius]

for how long? Nobody is saying he couldn't have shot them and killed them on the spot. People are saying you can't then take a "kill shot" when you realize the person is incapacitated, but still clinging to life. Your obligation then is to call an ambulance.

I'm indicating things on my own personal level, if happening in my own life. I'm not defending this guys actions if he is hiding the bodies for days and not calling police.

[Tornicade]

I'm indicating things on my own personal level, if happening in my own life. I'm not defending this guys actions if he is hiding the bodies for days and not calling police.

all your post are in context of the case being discussed . if it isnt you should say something like. Although this case really doesnt apply but i have a right to shoot people breaking into my home etc.

no youve specifically stated that the guy shooting the girl in the head after she was incapacitated by his own admission was rightful. if your backing off that position good for you theres hope for you yet.

[Ignatius]

all your post are in context of the case being discussed . if it isnt you should say something like. Although this case really doesnt apply but i have a right to shoot people breaking into my home etc.

no youve specifically stated that the guy shooting the girl in the head after she was incapacitated by his own admission was rightful. if your backing off that position good for you theres hope for you yet.

I'm sorry but I don't believe I've indicated that, nor am I indicating that now.

What I HAVE indicated and I will continue to indicate is that I have no remorse, whatsoever, for the dead kids. Period. You break into someone's home, death is a valid result.

[Marcus]

Dude's a sick fuck. I can't even grasp how people are defending this guy for cold-blooded murder. Even killing them in self-defense would have been better than executing a couple of kids.